Rule 116 to 127 plea; date of the commission of the crime

1. KUMMER vs. PEOPLE from JULY 19, 1988 TO JUNE 19, 1988.)

Facts: Petitioner and her son were Issue: WON change in the date of the
charged with homicide for the killing of commission of the crime, where the
certain Mallo. Malana, witness for the disparity is not great, requires a second
prosecution testified that on the night of plea?
the incident he was with the victim. They
went to the house of the petitioner. Mallo Ruling: NO. A mere change in the date of
knocked at the front door with a stone and the commission of the crime, if the
identified himself by saying, "Auntie, ako disparity of time is not great, is
si Boy Mallo."||| The petitioner opened the more formal than substantial. Such an
door and at this point, her son and co- amendment would not prejudice the rights
accused, Johan, using his left hand, shot of the accused since the proposed
Mallo twice. Malana, immediately ran amendment would not alter the nature of
towards the west, followed by victim. the offense.
When he turned his back, he saw the
petitioner leveling and firing her long gun It is not even necessary to state in the
at Mallo, hitting the latter's back and complaint or information the precise time
causing him to fall flat on the ground. at which the offense was committed
except when time is a material ingredient
Both accused were arraigned and pleaded of the offense. The act may be alleged to
not guilty to the crime charged. They have been committed at any time as near
waived the pre-trial, and the trial on the as to the actual date at which date the
merits accordingly followed. In their offense was committed, as the information
defense, the petitioner claimed that she will permit. Under the circumstances, the
and her children were awakened by the precise time is not an essential ingredient
sound of stones being thrown at their of the crime of homicide.
house, a gun report, and a banging at
their door. Believing that the noise was Arraignment is indispensable in bringing
caused by the members of the NPA the accused to court and in notifying him
prevalent in their area, her son got a .38 of the nature and cause of the accusations
gun and fired it twice outside. However, against him. The importance of
the noise continued and a stone hit their arraignment is based on the constitutional
window breaking the glass, and another right of the accused to be
hit one of her sick daughter, which informed. Procedural due process
prompted her son to get the shotgun and requires that the accused be arraigned so
fire it. That’s when the noise stopped and that he may be informed of the reason for
they all went back to sleep. his indictment, the specific charges he is
bound to face, and the corresponding
RTC found the petitioner and her son penalty that could be possibly meted
guilty based on the testimonies of against him. It is at this stage that the
prosecution eyewitnesses, coupled by the accused, for the first time, is given the
positive findings of gunpowder nitrates on opportunity to know the precise charge
the left hand of Johan and on the that confronts him. It is only imperative
petitioner's right hand, as well as the that he is thus made fully aware of the
corroborative testimony of the other possible loss of freedom, even of his life,
prosecution witnesses. depending on the nature of the imputed
crime.
CA affirmed the RTC. The need for arraignment is equally
imperative in an amended information or
(Not in the facts, but the information was complaint. This however, we hastily
amended after the accused entered their clarify, pertains only to substantial

1
amendments and not to formal 2. BANDOY V. JACINTO
amendments that, by their very nature,
do not charge an offense different from
that charged in the original complaint or
information; do not alter the theory of the
prosecution; do not cause any surprise
and affect the line of defense; and do not
adversely affect the substantial rights of
the accused, such as an amendment in
the date of the commission of the offense.

We further stress that an amendment

done after the plea and during trial, in
accordance with the rules, does not call
for a second plea since the amendment is
only as to form. The purpose of an
arraignment, that is, to inform the
accused of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, has already been
attained when the accused was arraigned
the first time. The subsequent amendment
could not have conceivably come as a
surprise to the accused simply because
the amendment did not charge a new
offense nor alter the theory of the
prosecution.

Applying these rules and principles to the

prevailing case, the records of the case
evidently show that the amendment in the
complaint was from July 19, 1988 to June
19, 1988, or a difference of only one
month. It is clear that consistent with the
rule on amendments and the
jurisprudence cited above, the change in
the date of the commission of the crime of
homicide is a formal amendment — it
does not change the nature of the crime,
does not affect the essence of the offense
nor deprive the accused of an opportunity
to meet the new averment, and is not
prejudicial to the accused. Further, the
defense under the complaint is still
available after the amendment, as this
was, in fact, the same line of defenses
used by the petitioner. This is also true
with respect to the pieces of evidence
presented by the petitioner. The effected
amendment was of this nature and did not
need a second plea.

2
 On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion
to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea
Bargaining Agreement, praying to
withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead,
to enter a plea of guilty for violation of
Section 12 of the same law, with a penalty
of rehabilitation in view of his being a
first-time offender and the minimal
quantity of the dangerous drug seized in
his possession.

Petitioner argues that Section 23 of RA

9165 which prohibits plea bargaining in all
violations of said law violates:
1. The intent of the law expressed
in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof;
2. The rule-making authority of the
Supreme Court under Section 5(5),
Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution; and
3. The principle of separation of
powers among the three equal
branches of the government

The accused implies that Section 23 of RA

9165 is unconstitutional because it , in
effect, suspends the operation of RUle 118
of the Rules of Court insofar as it allows
plea bargaining as part of the mandatory
pre-trial conference in criminal cases.
In its Comment or opposition , the
3. Salvador Estipona , Jr. y Asuela vs. prosecution moved for the denial of the
Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, Presiding motion for being contrary to Section 23 of
Judge of RTC Legazpi City RA 9165 , which is said to be justified by
G.R. 226679 , August 15, 2017 the Congress’ prerogative to choose which
offense it would allow plea bargaining.
Topic: Plea Bargaining ; Rule Making
Power of Supreme Court On July 12, 2016, Judge Frank E. Lobrigo
of the Regional Trial COurt , Legazpi City ,
Super Summary: Estipona was charged Albay, issued an order denying Estipona’s
with an offense under RA 9165. He wants motion. It was opined:
to enter into a plea bargaining agreement
but Judge Lobrigo did not allow him to do ..but it is not for this lower court to
so because Section 23 specifically declare SEction 23 of RA No. 9165 as
prohibits plea bargaining in drugs cases. unconstitutional given the potential
Estipona argues that Section 23 is ramifications that such declaration might
unconstitutional. have on the prosecution of illegal drug
cases pending before this judicial station.
Facts: Petitioner Estipona, Jr. was
charged with violation of Section 11 of RA Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration
9165. , but it was denied in an Order dated July
26. 2016.

3
Issues: In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has
1. WON section 23 of the RA 9165 , been defined as “a process whereby the
which prohibits plea bargaining in accused and the prosecution work out a
all violations of the said law, is mutually satisfactory disposition of the
unconstitutional for being violative case subject to court approval.” There is
of the constitutional right to equal give-and-take negotiation common in plea
protection of law. bargaining. The essence of the
2. WON section 23 of RA 9165 is agreement is that both the prosecution
unconstitutional as it encroached and the defense make concessions to
upon the power of the Supreme avoid potential losses. Properly
Court to promulgate rules of administered, plea bargaining is to be
procedure. encouraged because the chief virtues of
the system – speed, economy, and finality
– can benefit the accused, the offended
Ruling: party, the prosecution, and the court.

DISCUSSIONS ABOUT PLEA Considering the presence of mutuality of

BARGAINING: advantage, the rules on plea bargaining
neither create a right nor take away a
Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure vested right. Instead, it operates as a
means to implement an existing right by
The Supreme Court's sole prerogative to regulating the judicial process for
issue, amend, or repeal procedural rules is enforcing rights and duties recognized by
limited to the preservation of substantive substantive law and for justly
rights, i.e., the former should not administering remedy and redress for a
diminish, increase or modify the latter. disregard or infraction of them.

Fabian v. Hon. Desierto laid down the test No constitutional right to plea bargain
for determining whether a rule is
substantive or procedural in nature. Yet a defendant has no constitutional right
to plea bargain. No basic rights are
In determining whether a infringed by trying him rather than
rule prescribed by the Supreme accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor
Court, for the practice and need not do so if he prefers to go to trial.
procedure of the lower courts, Under the present Rules, the acceptance
abridges, enlarges, or modifies any of an offer to plead guilty is not a
substantive right, the test is demandable right but depends on the
whether the rule really regulates consent of the offended party and the
procedure, that is, the judicial prosecutor, which is a condition precedent
process for enforcing rights and to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense
duties recognized by substantive that is necessarily included in the offense
law and for justly administering charged. The reason for this is that the
remedy and redress for a disregard prosecutor has full control of the
or infraction of them. If the rule prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is
takes away a vested right, it is not to always prosecute the proper offense,
procedural. If the rule creates a not any lesser or graver one, based on
right such as the right to appeal, it what the evidence on hand can sustain.
may be classified as a substantive
matter; but if it operates as a Plea bargaining, when allowed
means of implementing an existing
right then the rule deals merely Plea bargaining is allowed during the
with procedure. arraignment, the pre-trial, or even up to

4
the point when the prosecution already reiterate, the Court’s authority to
rested its case. promulgate rules on pleading, practice,
and procedure is exclusive and one of the
As regards plea bargaining during the pre- safeguards of Our institutional
trial stage, the trial court’s exercise of independence.
discretion should not amount to a grave
abuse thereof. SECOND ISSUE: UNRESOLVED

If the accused moved to plead guilty to a The Supreme Court did not resolve the
lesser offense subsequent to a bail issue of whether Section 23 of R.A. No.
hearing or after the prosecution rested its 9165 is contrary to the constitutional right
case, the rules allow such a plea only to equal protection of the law in order not
when the prosecution does not have to preempt any future discussion by the
sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of Court on the policy considerations behind
the crime charged. The only basis on Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165.
which the prosecutor and the court could
rightfully act in allowing change in the Pending deliberation on whether or not to
former plea of not guilty could be nothing adopt the statutory provision in toto or a
more and nothing less than the evidence qualified version thereof, the Court
on record. The ruling on the motion must deemed it proper to declare as invalid the
disclose the strength or weakness of the prohibition against plea bargaining on
prosecution’s evidence. Absent any finding drug cases until and unless it is made part
on the weight of the evidence on hand, of the rules of procedure through an
the judge’s acceptance of the defendant’s administrative circular duly issued for the
change of plea is improper and irregular. purpose.

Procedural matters 4. Daan v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008
Matters of procedure and technicalities
normally take a backseat when issues of
substantial and transcendental importance Facts: Petitioner Daan, together with
are present. accused Kuizon, were charged before the
Sandiganbayan. He now questions the
denial by the Sandiganbayan of his plea
Rule- Making power of the Supreme bargaining proposal. In summary, below is
Court under the 1987 Constitution his proposal along with the prosecution’s
acceptance:
While the power to define, prescribe , and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various CRIME PROPOSAL OF PROSECUTION’S
courts is, by constitutional design, vested CHARGED ACCUSED ACCEPTANCE
The Supreme Court held that the power to three counts From plea of "GUILTY" to the
of NOT GUILTY to: lesser crime of
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and falsification falsification of
procedure is now Their exclusive domain of public a. plea of public document
and no longer shared with the Executive document by "GUILTY", by a private
and Legislative departments. a public provided, individual
officer or the
employee mitigating
Considering that the aforesaid laws circumstan
effectively modified the Rules, this Court ces of
asserted its discretion to amend, repeal or confession
or plea of
even establish new rules of procedure, to guilt and
the exclusion of the legislative and voluntary
executive branches of government. To surrender

5
 will be Authorized under Section 2, Rule 116,
appreciate plea bargaining in criminal cases is a
d in their
favor; or process whereby the accused and the
b. plea of prosecution work out a mutually
"GUILTY", satisfactory disposition of the case subject
but to the to court approval. It usually involves the
lesser
crime of defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser
falsification offense or to only one or some of the
of a public counts of a multi-count indictment in
document return for a lighter sentence than that for
by a
private the graver charge.
individual
three counts From plea of "GUILTY" to the Under Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of
of NOT GUILTY to: lesser crime of Court, plea bargaining may be made:
malversation failure of an
of public plea of accountable 1. with the consent of the offended
funds "GUILTY", but to officer to render party and the prosecutor
the lesser crime accounts 2. that the plea of guilt should be to a
of failure of an lesser offense which is necessarily
accountable
officer to render included in the offense charged.
accounts
“May” denotes an exercise of discretion
Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Motion upon the trial court on whether to allow
to Plea Bargain, despite favorable the accused to make such plea. It is not
recommendation by the prosecution, on demandable by the accused as a matter of
the main ground that no cogent reason right but is a matter that is addressed
was presented to justify its approval. entirely to the sound discretion of the trial
Sandiganbayan likewise denied court.
petitioner’s MR.
When made?
Petitioner now files the present case of a. Ordinarily, during the pre-trial
certiorari and prohibition with prayer for stage of the proceedings
the issuance of a temporary restraining  Sections 1 and 2, Rule 118
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction of the Rules of Court require
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. plea bargaining to be
Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan considered by the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion in at the pre-trial conference
denying his plea bargaining offer on the b. During the trial proper and even
following grounds: (1) he is not an after the prosecution has finished
accountable officer and he merely affixed presenting its evidence and rested
his signature on the payrolls on a its case
"routinary basis," negating any criminal
intent; and (2) that the amount involved As regards plea bargaining during the pre-
is only P18,860.00, which he already trial stage, as in the present case, the trial
restituted. court's exercise of its discretion should
neither be arbitrary nor should it amount
Issue: Did the Sandiganbayan commit to a capricious and whimsical exercise of
grave abuse of discretion in denying discretion. Here, petitioner's plea offer
petitioner’s plea bargaining offer? should be accepted. The present case calls
for the judicious exercise of this Court's
Held: YES. Sandiganbayan committed equity jurisdiction. Petitioner restituted
grave abuse of discretion. It should grant the total amount of P18,860.00; hence,
petitioner's Motion to Plea Bargain. the damage caused to the government
has already been restituted by the

6
accused. Moreover, petitioner voluntarily Subsequently, Nava was charged with
surrendered and is willing to plea guilty to Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
a lesser offense. Homicide. Before his arraignment, he
entered into a plea of guilty to a lesser
Moreover, the lesser offenses of offense of Reckless Imprudence resulting
Falsification by Private Individuals and in Damage to Property, which was
Failure to Render Account by an assented to by the wife and children of the
Accountable Officer are necessarily late Gevero.
included in the crimes of Falsification of
Public Documents and Malversation of The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a
Public Funds, respectively, with which decision finding accused Nava guilty of
petitioner was originally charged. the lesser offense. In a separate hearing
of the civil aspect of the case, the RTC
Under Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of ruled in favor of the complainant which
Court, an offense may be said to includes indemnification of medical,
necessarily include another when some of hospitalization and burial expenses,
the essential elements or ingredients of loss of earnings, moral damages and
the former as alleged in the complaint or attorney’s fees.
information constitute the latter. In this
case, the allegations in the Informations Eventually, the writ of execution was
filed against petitioner are sufficient to issued. This was however returned
hold petitioner liable for the lesser unsatisfied since accused Nava was
offenses. insolvent. Upon motion of the heirs of
Gevero, the RTC issued a writ of execution
against GADECO, employer of Nava. As a
5. Heirs of Gevero v. Guihing consequence, GADECO’s bank deposit
Agricultural & worth P157,044.75 was garnished and
Development Corporation (GADECO) turned over to the heirs of Gevero.
G.R. No. 122619. August 18, 2006
GADECO, filed motions to hold in
PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER abeyance the execution of the orders of
OFFENSE the trial court. After denial by the RTC,
GADECO filed an appeal with the Court of
*Caveat: This case was decided according Appeals (CA).
to the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure
and not the 2000 Revised Rules of The CA rendered its Decision setting aside
Criminal Procedure. The 1985 Rules of the challenged Orders and ordering the
Criminal Procedure allows a plea of guilty heirs of Gevero to return to GADECO the
to a lesser offense, whether it is included amount of P157,044.75. The CA, in
or not in the crime charged. Whereas, in applying Article 100 of the Revised Penal
the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Code (RPC) ruled that the civil liability of
Procedure, the lesser offense pleaded accused Nava should be for the offense for
must be necessarily included in the which he was convicted and sentenced,
offense charged. i.e., reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property. That, pursuant to
Facts: At around 5:30 p.m. of April 1, Article 365 of RPC on criminal negligence,
1990, Juanito M. Nava (Nava), while the appellate court imposed upon the
driving the motorcycle issued to him by accused only a fine of P200.00, the
his employer GADECO, bumped into the damage caused to the victim's
bicycle Mario Gevero (Gevero) was riding bicycle.
on. As a result, the latter died.

7
Issues: Whether or not the CA erred in reckless imprudence resulting in damage
ruling the civil liability of respondent to property does not.
GADECO
Significantly, Section 2, Rule 116 is
Held: Yes, the CA erred in ruling that the silent on the effect of the plea to a
civil liability of GADECO is only for the lesser offense on the civil liability of
damage caused to the bicycle of the late the accused. On this point, this Court's
Gevero, obliterating the fact of his death. ruling in Amaton v. Aujero is relevant,
thus:
Section 2, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, xxx In instances where a
provides: literal application of a
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a provision of law would lead
lesser offense. - The to injustice or to a result so
accused, with the consent of directly in opposition which
the offended party and the the dictates of logic and
fiscal, may be allowed by everyday common sense as
the trial court to plead guilty to be unconscionable, the
to a lesser offense, Civil Code admonishes
regardless of whether or not judges to take principles of
it is necessarily included in right and justice at heart.
the crime charged, or is xxx. Stated differently,
cognizable by a court of when a provision of law is
lesser jurisdiction than the silent or ambiguous, judges
trial court. No amendment ought to invoke a solution
of the complaint of responsive to the vehement
information is necessary. urge of conscience.

A conviction under this plea In the case at bench, the

shall be equivalent to a fact of the victim's death, a
conviction of the offense clear negation of frustrated
charged for purposes of or attempted homicide,
double jeopardy. ought to have alerted the
judge not only to a possibly
It is clear from the Rule that an accused in inconsistent result but to an
a criminal case may be allowed to plead injustice. The failure to
guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of recognize such principles so
whether it is included or not in the cardinal to our body of laws
crime charged. Thus, Nava, who was amounts to ignorance of the
charged with reckless imprudence law and reflects respondent
resulting in homicide, was allowed by the judge's lack of prudence, if
trial court to plead guilty to the lesser not competence, in the
offense of reckless imprudence resulting in performance of his duties.
damage to property. While it is true, as
respondent judge contends,
The Court of Appeals, however, in that he merely applied the
limiting Nava's civil liability to the rule to the letter, the
cost of the damage to the bicycle, palpably incongruous result
clearly ignored the fact of death of ought to have been a "red
the victim. The offense of reckless ag" alerting him of the
imprudence resulting in homicide possibility of injustice. xxx
necessarily produces death; the offense of

8
Indeed, the Court of Appeals should have with his counsel. When trial resumed, the
realized outright that a grave injustice will appellant reiterated his earlier
be committed against the heirs of the manifestation. When told by the court that
victim if the accused will only be fined he could be sentenced to death for the
P200.00 corresponding to the cost of rape charges, the appellant stood pat on
damage to the victim's bicycle, without his decision. The appellant was re-
awarding his heirs civil liabilities arraigned for the rape cases and entered
corresponding to the fact of his death. his plea of guilty to the charges.
Common sense dictates that the civil
liability arising from the death of a person Trial court convicted appellant of all the
cannot be pegged to the cost of damage crimes charged. Appellant did not appeal
to a bicycle. from the decision in the acts of
lasciviousness cases but in view of the
In fine, the Court hold that the civil trial court’s imposition of the death
liability of the accused for the death of penalty for rape, the said cases were
Mario Gevero awarded by the trial court to brought to the Court on automatic appeal.
his heirs is in order.
Issues:

6. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 1. WON the appellant’s plea of guilty to

vs. FELICIANO ULIT y TAMPOY the rape in Criminal Case No. 97-385 was
imprudently/improvidently made?
TOPIC: Improvident Plea
2. WON the Sinumpaang Salaysay
Facts: Upon sworn complaint of, Lucelle executed by the appellant before the
Serrano, 11 years of age, 4 Informations Barangay Chairman is admissible in
were filed against her uncle Feliciano Ulit evidence?
(appellant), older brother of her mother,
for 2 counts of rape and 2 counts of acts Ruling:
of lasciviousness.
1. Yes, appellant’s plea of guilty to Crim
The appellant, pleaded “not guilty” during Case No. 97-385 for rape was
the arraignment. imprudently/improvidently made.

However, after the prosecution rested its Here, appellant was charged with a capital
case and when it was his time to adduce offense. When the appellant informed the
evidence, his counsel manifested to the trial court of his decision to change his
court that the appellant was changing his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty," it behooved
plea in one count of rape (Crim Case No. the trial court to conduct a searching
97-385) and in one count of acts of inquiry into the voluntariness and full
lasciviousness (Crim Case No. 97-387) comprehension of the consequences of his
from "not guilty" to "guilty," and also plea as mandated by Section 6, Rule 116
manifested that he would no longer of the Revised Rules of Criminal
adduce any evidence in his defense for the Procedure.
rest of the cases (Crim Case No. 97-386
for rape and 97-388 for acts of In People vs. Camay, this Court
lasciviousness) because the prosecution enumerated the following duties of the
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable trial court under the rule:
doubt for the crimes charged.
1. The court must conduct a searching
The trial court suspended the proceedings inquiry into the voluntariness and full
and gave appellant 45 mins. to confer

9
comprehension by the accused of the (4) Inform the accused the exact length of
consequences of his plea; imprisonment or nature of the penalty
under the law and the certainty that he
2. The court must require the prosecution will serve such sentence. Not infrequently
to present evidence to prove the guilt of indeed an accused pleads guilty in the
the accused and precise degree of his hope of a lenient treatment or upon bad
culpability; and advice or because of promises of the
authorities or parties of a lighter penalty
3. The court must require the prosecution should he admit guilt or express remorse.
to present evidence in his behalf and allow It is the duty of the judge to see to it that
him to do so if he desires. the accused does not labor under these
mistaken impressions.
The raison d’etre for the rule is that the
courts must proceed with extreme care (5) Require the accused to fully narrate
where the imposable penalty is death, the incident that spawned the charges
considering that the execution of such against him or make him reenact the
sentence is irrevocable. Experience has manner in which he perpetrated the
shown that even innocent persons have at crime, or cause him to supply missing
times pleaded guilty. details or significance.

People vs. Aranzado provides the following In People vs. Ostia, the trial court is also
guidelines as to how the trial court may required to probe thoroughly into the
conduct its searching inquiry: reasons or motivations, as well as the
facts and circumstances for a change of
plea of the accused and his
(1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a)
comprehension of his plea; explain to him
how he was brought into the custody of
the elements of the crime for which he is
the law; (b) whether he had the
charged as well as the nature and effect of
assistance of a competent counsel during
any modifying circumstances attendant to
the custodial and preliminary
the commission of the offense, inclusive of
investigations; and (c) under what
mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
conditions he was detained and
as well as the qualifying and special
interrogated during the investigations, in
qualifying circumstances, and inform him
order to rule out the possibility that the
of the imposable penalty and his civil
accused has been coerced or placed under
liabilities for the crime for which he would
a state of duress either by actual threats
plead guilty to.
of physical harm coming from malevolent
or avenging quarters.
In this case, the trial court failed to make
a searching inquiry into the appellant’s
(2) Ask the defense counsel a series of
voluntariness and full comprehension of
questions as to whether he had conferred
his plea of guilty.
with, and completely explained to, the
accused the meaning and consequences of
a plea of guilty. 1. The trial court did not ask the appellant
his reasons for changing his plea and the
cogent circumstances that led him to
(3) Elicit information about the personality
decide to do so.
profile of the accused, such as his age,
socio-economic status, and educational
background, which may serve as a 2. It appears in the Informations filed by
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a the Public Prosecutor that the appellant
free and informed plea of guilty. opted not to avail himself of his right to a
regular preliminary investigation and
refused to execute a waiver under Article

10
125 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial amount of ₱50,000 as moral damages and
court did not ask the appellant whether he ₱75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.
was assisted by counsel when he was
brought to the Office of the Public 7. Neither did the trial court inquire from
Prosecutor for inquest investigation. the appellant’s counsel whether the
Neither did the court a quo inquire about meaning and the consequences of a guilty
the circumstances and the appellant’s plea were explained to the appellant in a
reasons for refusing to execute the said language or dialect known to and
waiver. understood by him.

3. The trial court also failed to ascertain 8.. The trial court failed to delve into and
whether appellant was assisted by ascertain from the appellant his age,
counsel when he executed his educational attainment and socio-
Sinumpaang Salaysay confessing to the economic status.
rape on February 1997 and March 2,
1997, while detained at the barangay hall; 9. The trial court failed to ask the
and, if he was not so assisted by counsel, appellant to narrate the facts and
whether he had waived his right thereto, circumstances surrounding the incident of
before and when he signed his qualified rape as charged .
Sinumpaang Salaysay. And whether he
was coerced in signing the same.
10. The appellant was not asked if he
desired to adduce evidence in Criminal
4. The trial court failed to ask the Case No. 97-385 in spite of his plea of
appellant why he was pleading guilty to a guilty.
rape committed in November 1996, when
in his Sinumpaang Salaysay, he confessed
TN: As a rule, this Court has set aside
to having raped the victim only in
convictions based on pleas of guilty in
February 1997 and March 2, 1997. The
capital offenses because of the
appellant did not admit having raped her
improvidence thereof, and when such
in November 1996 as alleged in the
plea is the sole basis of the
Information in Criminal Case No. 97-385.
condemnatory judgment. However,
The trial court did not even inquire from
where the trial court receives,
the appellant who prepared and typed his
independently of his plea of guilty,
Sinumpaang Salaysay and if the contents
evidence to determine whether the
of his statement were explained to him
accused committed the crimes
before he signed the same.
charged and the precise degree of his
criminal culpability therefor, he may
5. The trial court did not explain the still be convicted if there is ample
following to the appellant, in plain and proof on record, not contingent on the
simple terms so as to be understood by plea of guilty, on which to predicate
him: (a) the elements of the crime of conviction.
qualified rape; (b) the circumstances of
relationship and the minority of the
In this case, the prosecution had
victim; and (c) that his plea of guilty to
already rested its case when the
qualified rape would not mitigate the
appellant decided to change his plea.
penalty for the crime in light of Article 63
Accordingly, SC ruled based on
of the Revised Penal Code.
records that the prosecution adduced
proof beyond reasonable doubt that
6.. It was not explained to the appellant the appellant raped the victim in
that if convicted of qualified rape, he November 1996 (Crim Case No. 97-
would be civilly liable to the victim in the 385). The victim declared in her
sworn statement, on direct

11
examination and her testimony on RTC Makati is AFFIRMED with
clarificatory questions made by the MODIFICATION. Appellant is found GUILTY
trial court, that indeed, the appellant beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of
raped her in November 1996. SC also rape and in each case, is hereby
agrees to convicting the appellant of sentenced to suffer the penalty of
rape in Criminal Case No. 97-386 on reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the
the basis of Lucelle’s sworn victim, Lucelle Serrano, ₱50,000 as moral
statement, the testimony of her damages; ₱50,000 as civil indemnity; and
mother, Lourdes Serrano, the ₱25,000 as exemplary damages. Costs de
appellant’s statement executed in the oficio.
Barangay Chairman’s Office, and the
testimony of Dr. Armie Soreta-Umi (Prosecution failed to prove the age of the
NBI Medico-legal Officer who victim by any means set forth in PP vs.
conducted the physical examination Pruna, and considering that the
of Lucelle. relationship of uncle and niece is not
covered by any of the relationships
2. Yes.(CAVEAT: This may have already mentioned in Article 15 of the RPC, as
been changed by recent jurisprudence) amended, the appellant can only be
convicted of rape in its aggravated form,
The appellant admitted to the barangay the imposable penalty for which is
chairman on March 5, 1997, that he raped reclusion perpetua to death. No other
Lucelle in February 1997. Although the modifying circumstances attended thereto
appellant was not assisted by counsel at so just RP.
the time he gave his statement to the
barangay chairman and when he signed ***Transcript of stenographic notes
the same, it is still admissible in evidence showing how the RTC Judge made his
against him because he was not under inquiry after Ulit changed his plea
arrest nor under custodial investigation (not sufficient):
when he gave his statement.
ATTY. MANALO: Your Honor, at today’s
The exclusionary rule is premised on the reception of defense’ evidence, accused
presumption that the defendant is thrust informed this representation that he will
into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs no longer present evidence and instead
through menacing police interrogation willing to change his plea from not guilty
procedures where the potentiality for to that of guilty. This accused’s
compulsion, physical and psychological, is representation is therefore praying that he
forcefully apparent. As intended by the be allowed to change his plea from that of
1971 Constitutional Convention, this not guilty to guilty.
covers "investigation conducted by police
authorities which will include COURT; You better confer with your client
investigations conducted by the municipal and explain to him the consequences of
police, the PC and the NBI and such other his intended change of plea from not
police agencies in our government." The guilty to that of guilty.
barangay chairman is not deemed a law
enforcement officer for purposes of ATTY. MANALO: Yes, Your Honor.
applying Section 12(1) and (3) of Article
III of the Constitution. Under these
COURT (to the accused): Is your counsel’s
circumstances, it cannot be successfully
manifestation true, that you would like to
claimed that the appellant’s statement
change your plea from not guilty to that of
before the barangay chairman is
guilty and that you are no longer
inadmissible.
presenting evidence in Criminal Cases
Nos. 97-386 and 97-388?

12
ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honor. your niece and that you used a deadly
weapon in the commission of the rape?
COURT (to the accused): You talk with
your lawyer and think twice before asking ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honor. I am willing
the court to change your plea of not guilty to plead guilty.
to that of guilty. The Court will call your
case again. COURT: Alright, arraign the accused.30
…
7. People vs. Magat. EN BANC
COURT (to the accused): Mr. Ulit, earlier
your counsel informed the court that you
would like to change your plea from not FACTS: Accused Magat here was charged
guilty to that of guilty, in Criminal Case with two counts of rape against his own
No. 97-385, for rape and Criminal Case daughter. Upon arraignment he pleaded
No. 97-387, for Acts of Lasciviousness, do guilty to both but bargained for a lesser
you affirm the manifestation of your penalty for each case. The trial court
counsel? granted the plea bargain after agreement
of the victim’s mother and the prosecutor.
ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honor. Three months later though, the case was
reinstated on the ground that the lesser
COURT (to accused): Do you know that penalty imposed was too light. Thus,
you are accused here for the crime of Magat was rearraigned and this time he
rape, a capital offense which carries with pleads not guilty. Subsequently, trial of
it a capital punishment? the merits followed and the prosecution
presented the testimonies of the medico-
ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honor. legal and the mother as evidence while on
the otherhand the defense did not present
COURT (to accused): Despite your anything. Finally, the trial court rendered
knowledge that you are charged with a judgment sentencing now the accused to
capital offense which carries with it a the death penalty and so such decision
capital penalty you still insists that you was then automatically raised to the SC
are pleading guilty? for review.

ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honor. ISSUE: 1) Has double jeopardy attached

already since accused was already
convicted under the first ruling of
COURT (to accused): Was there anyone
the trial court?
who forced you to change your plea of not
guilty to that of guilty?
2) Had the trial court committed an
error in not complying with sec. 3
ACCUSED: None, Your Honor. rule 116 of the
Rules of Court seeing that this
COURT(to accused): Do you know that by is a case of an improvident plea?
pleading guilty you will be sentenced in
accordance with [what] the law provides? RULING:

ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honor. 1) No in order for double jeopardy to lie

all the following requisites must be
COURT (to accused): Do you know that present:
the penalty provided for by law is death a) a valid information b) a valid
penalty because the Information states arraignment c) a valid plea d) acquittal,
that the victim is eleven years old and conviction or dismissed without the
express consent of the accused e) the

13
court that rendered the first judgment entire evidence of the prosecution before
must have jurisdiction. passing the death sentence on him.

In this case, the SC noted that there was Additionally, his second plea of guilty
no plea bargain because a plea bargain it validated his first plea and thus removes
necessarily implies that the accused be any reasonable doubt of his guilt.
imposed of the actual sentence. Here, the
accused pleaded guilty but bargained for a
lesser penalty thus this is more akin to a
8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs
conditional plea. Being a conditional plea,
GAMAL B. BAHARAN. G.R. No. 188314.
the trial court should have entered a plea
of not guilty for the accused in accordance January 10, 2011.
with sec. 1(c) of rule 116 and so there
should have been a full-blown trial on the FACTS:
merits. Thus the first judgment of On 14 February 2005, an RRCG bus was
conviction was void and so no double plying its usual southbound route via
jeopardy. EDSA. According to Elmer Andales, bus
conductor, two (2) men insisted on getting
2) No. The SC ruled that indeed under the on the bus, both acting suspiciously. As
Rules in case of a plea of guilty to a soon as the bus reached the stoplight at
capital offense, the trial court has the duty the corner of Ayala Avenue, the two
to: a) conduct a searching inquiry to the immediately got off the bus and ran.
voluntariness of the plea b) require the Moments after, they felt an explosion and
prosecution to present evidence to prove then saw fire quickly engulfing the bus.
the guilt of the accused and the precise
level of his culpability and c) ask the The prosecution presented documents
accused if he wants to present evidence in furnished by the Department of Justice,
his defense and to allow him such. confirming that shortly before the
explosion, the spokesperson of the Abu
Here the SC ruled that the trial court was Sayyaf Group announced over radio
able to comply with all of this. In regards station that the group had a Valentine’s
to the first, this was established by the Day “gift” for former President Gloria
minutes of the proceedings, which was Macapagal-Arroyo.
deemed sufficient despite the
unavailability of the TSN during the Trinidad gave ABS-CBN News Network an
arraingment. As to second, the SC noted exclusive interview, confessing his
the fact that the prosecution was asked to participation in the bombing incident. In
present evidence and such was sufficient another exclusive interview on the
enough to establish the commission of the network, accused Baharan likewise
crime and the culpability of the accused. admitted his role in the bombing incident
Lastly, the SC was surprised that accused
did not presented any evidence in his Members of the Abu Sayyaf Group were
defense or to exculpate himself. then charged with multiple murder and
multiple frustrated murder. Only Baharan,
2.a) As to the improvidence of the plea Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were
the Court declared that it only set asides arrested, while the other accused remain
convictions of pleas in capital offenses at-large. Upon arraignment, Trinidad and
only when such plea is the sole basis of Baharan pleaded guilty on the charge of
the judgment. In this case, the RTC’s multiple murder; and pleaded not guilty to
receiving of evidence to establish the charge of multiple frustrated murder.
accused’s guilt had the effect of fully
informing accused of the nature of the The Trial Court noted an apparent
offense charged against him and the inconsistency in their pleas – their plea of

14
not guilty to the charge of multiple defense counsel who explained the
frustrated murder vis-à-vis their plea of consequences of a “guilty” plea to the
guilty to the heavier charge of multiple accused, as it appears in this case.
murder. Defense counsel conferred with
accused Baharan and Trinidad and Nevertheless, the Court is not unmindful
explained to them the consequences of of the context under which the re-
the pleas. The two accused acknowledged arraignment was conducted or the factual
the inconsistencies and manifested their milieu surrounding the finding of guilt
readiness for re-arraignment. After the against the accused. The Court observes
Information was read to them, Baharan that accused Baharan and Trinidad
and Trinidad then likewise pled guilty to previously pled guilty to another charge –
the charge of multiple frustrated murder. multiple murder – based on the same act
relied upon in the multiple frustrated
ISSUE: murder charge. The Court further notes
1. Whether or not the Trial Court that prior to the change of plea to one of
gravely erred in accepting Accused guilt, accused Baharan and Trinidad made
Trinidad and Baharan’s plea of guilt two other confessions of guilt – one
despite insufficiency of searching inquiry through an extrajudicial confession
into the voluntariness and full (exclusive television interviews), and the
comprehension of the consequences of the other via judicial admission (pre-trial
said plea. (No). stipulation). Considering the foregoing
circumstances, the Court deems it
2. Whether or not the Trial Court unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of
gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the “searching inquiry” in this instance.
the accused for the crimes charged had Remanding the case for re-arraignment is
been proven beyond reasonable doubt. not warranted, as the accused’s plea of
(No). guilt was not the sole basis of the
condemnatory judgment under
HELD: consideration.
1. For while justice demands a speedy
administration, judges are duty bound to 2. Convictions based on an
be extra solicitous in seeing to it that improvident plea of guilt are set aside only
when an accused pleads guilty, he if such plea is the sole basis of the
understands fully the meaning of his plea judgment. If the trial court relied on
and import of an inevitable conviction. sufficient and credible evidence to convict
Thus, trial court judges are required to the accused, the conviction must be
observe the procedure laid down by sustained, because then it is predicted not
Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. merely on the guilty plea of the accused
but on evidence proving his commission of
The Court has reiterated in a long line of the offense charged (People vs Nadera
cases that the conduct of a searching 324 SCRA 490).
inquiry remains the duty of judges, as
they are mandated by the rules to satisfy Insofar as accused-appellants Baharan
themselves that the accused had not been and Trinidad are concerned, the evidence
under coercion or duress; mistaken for the prosecution primarily consisted of
impressions; or a misunderstanding of the the testimonies of the bus conductor, who
significance, effects, and consequences of positively identified the accused as the
their guilty plea. This requirement is two men who acted suspiciously while
stringent and mandatory. inside the bus and scampered away
moments before the bomb exploded; and
Likewise, the requirement to conduct a accused-turned-state-witness Asali, who
searching inquiry should not be deemed testified to have supplied the TNT used in
satisfied in cases in which it was the the said bombing incident. The guilt of the

15
accused-appellants were sufficiently
established by these corroborating Issue: Whether or not the plea of guilty
testimonies, coupled with their respective was improvidently made.
judicial admissions (pre-trial stipulations)
and extrajudicial confessions (exclusive Ruling: Yes. The plea of guilt was
television interviews) that they were improvidently made. There are critical
indeed the perpetrators of the bombing omissions made in the re-arraignment of
incident. Accordingly, the Court upholds the accused.
the finding so guilt made by the trial
court. For one, Sec. 1, par. (a), of Rule 116 of
the Rules of Court, which requires that
9. People v. Molina the accused-appellant must be furnished a
G.R. Nos. 141129-33; December 14, copy of the complaint or information with
2001 the list of witnesses to be read to him in
the language or dialect known to him, was
not followed by the trial court. Record of
Facts: Roland J. Molina was charged with the re-arraignment merely noted that "the
attempted rape and four counts of accused was re-arraigned and he entered
incestuous rape against his 16 year old a plea of guilty separately in the five-
daughter, Brenda Molina. He pleaded not entitled cases after the consequences of
guilty to the crimes charged. the change of plea have been duly
explained to him . . ." but it does not state
On September 2 1999, during trial, that copies of the five Informations and
accused-apellant changed his plea to the list of witnesses were given to him and
guilty as regards all the five crimes since the Informations read in a language that
he "was being bothered by his conscience he knows.
and by way of contrition would like to
make amends." Thus he was immediately Second, the trial court did not conduct a
re-arraigned and entered a plea of guilty searching inquiry to establish that the plea
"after," as the trial court noted, "the of guilty was done voluntarily with full
consequences of the change of plea had awareness of its consequences. The fact
been duly explained to him by his counsel that the consequences of the plea were
and by 1st Asst. Provincial Prosecutor explained to appellant did not mean that
Eugenio Manaois, the public prosecutor there was compliance with the strict
handling the case for the prosecution." parameters of a searching inquiry since a
Despite this observation of the trial court, mere warning that the accused faces the
there is nothing on record to determine supreme penalty of death is insufficient.
what this explanation consisted of.
The trial court should have explained to
On November 10, 1999, the trial court appellant the essential elements of the
rendered judgment finding accused- five crimes he was charged with and their
appellant guilty of the five crimes charged respective penalties and civil liabilities,
on the basis of "the change of plea by the and also should have directed a series of
accused from not guilty to guilty, and the questions to defense counsel to determine
testimony of the offended party Brenda whether he has conferred with his client
Molina and the corroborating evidence and has completely explained to him the
presented by the prosecution, both oral meaning of a plea of guilty. The said
and written.'' formula is mandatory and absent any
showing that it was followed, a searching
The Public Attorney’s Office in its brief for inquiry cannot be said to have been
the appellant asserts that the accused’s undertaken.
plea of guilty was improvidently made.

16
 10. Spouses Alexander Trinidad and suspended in the following
Cecilia Trinidad v. Victor Ang cases:
G.R. No. 192898, January 31, 2011 xxx
(c) A petition for review of
Grounds for suspension of arraignment; the resolution of the
60-day period deferment period prosecutor is pending at
pending petition for review in SOJ either the Department of
Justice, or the Office of the
FACTS: Spouses Trinidad filed with the President; Provided, that
DOJ a petition for review the Resolution of the period of suspension
the OCP recommending the filing of an shall not exceed sixty
Information for violation of BP22 against (60) days counted from
the former. Meanwhile, the OCP filed the filling of the petition
before the MTCC an Information for with the reviewing office.”
violation of BP22. The spouses filed a
Manifestation and Motion to Defer While the pendency of a petition for
Arraignment and Proceedings and Hold in review is a ground for suspension of the
Abeyance the Issuance of Warrants of arraignment, the aforecited provision
Arrest on which was granted by the MTCC limits the deferment of the
"subject . . . to paragraph [c] Section 11, arraignment to a period of 60 days
Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal reckoned from the filing of the petition
Procedure." with the reviewing office. It follows,
therefore, that after the expiration of
Later, the MTCC reconsidered this order, said period, the trial court is bound to
and set the spouses arraignment. The arraign the accused or to deny the
Spouses filed a petition for certiorari motion to defer arraignment.
before the RTC which denied the petition.
They then filed with the SC a petition for In the present case, the petitioners filed
review on certiorari essentially claiming their petition for review with the DOJ on
that the 60-day limit on suspension of October 10, 2007. When the RTC set the
arraignment is only a general rule and arraignment of the petitioners on August
that the arraignment of an accused should 10, 2009, 1 year and 10 months had
be deferred until the petition for review already lapsed. This period was way
with the DOJ is resolved. beyond the 60-day limit provided for by
the Rules.
ISSUE: Whether the 60-day limit on
suspension of arraignment is only a As to the cases cited by the Spouses, they
general rule and arraignment of an were all decided prior to the amendment
accused should be deferred until the of Sec. 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
petition for review with the DOJ is Procedure.
resolved.

RULING: NO. 11. FELILIBETH AGUINALDO and

BENJAMIN PEREZ vs. REYNALDO P.
Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules VENTUS and JOJO B. JOSON
of Court provides for the grounds [G.R. No. 176033. March 11, 2015.]
for suspension of arraignment, as
follows:
“SEC. 11. Suspension of Facts: On December 2, 2002, private
Arraignment. — Upon respondents Reynaldo P. Ventus and Jojo
motion by the proper party, B. Joson filed a Complaint-Affidavit for
the arraignment shall be estafa against petitioners Aguinaldo and
Perez before the Office of the City

17
Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila. Private On May 30, 2005, petitioners filed a
respondents alleged that sometime in Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to
March and April 2002, petitioners Quash Warrant of Arrest. 27 On August
connived in convincing them to part with 23, 2005, the public respondent issued an
their Two Hundred Sixty Thousand Order denying petitioners' Motion for
(P260,000.00) Pesos in consideration of a Reconsideration with Motion to Quash
pledge of two motor vehicles which the Warrant of Arrest, and setting petitioners'
latter had misrepresented to be owned by arraignment, as the Revised Rules on
Aguinaldo, but turned out to be owned by Criminal Procedure (or Rules of Court)
one Levita De Castro, manager/operator allows only a 60-day period of suspension
of LEDC Rent-A-Car. of arraignment.

On February 25, 2003, Assistant City Issues: Whether or not the 60 days
Prosecutor issued a Resolution 7 suspension allowed for arraignment is
recommending both petitioners to be merely directory.
indicted in court for estafa under Article
315, paragraph (2) of the Revised Penal Ruling: The Court disagrees with
Code. On July 16, 2003, an Information 8 petitioners' contention that the provision
(I.S. No. 02L-51569) charging petitioners of Section 11 (c), 33 Rule 116 is merely
with the crime of estafa under Article 315, directory; thus, the estafa case against
paragraph 2 (a) of the RPC was filed with them cannot proceed until the DOJ
the Regional Trial Court of Manila. resolves their petition for review with
finality.
On February 27, 2004, petitioners filed
with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a While the Court holds that public
petition for review in I.S. No. 02L-51569 respondent erred in granting the Motion to
for estafa, entitled "Benjamin Perez and Reinstate Case and to Issue Warrant of
Felilibeth Aguinaldo v. Reynaldo P. Ventus Arrest, as it was filed by one who is not a
and Jojo B. Joson." The public respondent party to the case, and it was based on the
issued an Order dated March 15, 2004 DOJ's dismissal of a petition for review in
directing the issuance of a warrant of a different case.
arrest against Aguinaldo and the setting of
the case for arraignment. However, with the Information for estafa
against petitioners having been filed on
On March 26, 2004, petitioners filed an July 16, 2003, the public respondent
Urgent Motion to Cancel Arraignment and cannot be faulted with grave abuse of
Suspend Further Proceedings, until their discretion in issuing the August 23, 2005
petition for review before the DOJ is Order denying their motion to quash
resolved with finality. On April 16, 2004, warrant of arrest, and setting their
the public respondent granted petitioners' arraignment, pending the final resolution
urgent motion to cancel arraignment and of their petition for review by the DOJ.
suspend proceedings, and motion for The Court believes that the period of
reconsideration. almost one (1) year and seven (7) months
from the time petitioners filed their
On June 23, 2004, Levita De Castro filed a petition for review with the DOJ on
Motion to Reinstate Case and to Issue February 27, 2004 to September 14, 2005
Warrant of Arrest. De Castro alleged that when the trial court finally set their
she was the private complainant in the arraignment, was more than ample time
estafa case that had been ordered to give petitioners the opportunity to
archived. On May 16, 2005, the public obtain a resolution of their petition. In
respondent issued an Order granting the fact, the public respondent had been very
Motion to Reinstate Case and to Issue liberal with petitioners in applying Section
Warrant of Arrest. 11 (c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Court

18
which limits the suspension of 12. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, vs.
arraignment to a 60-day period from the EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN
filing of such petition. G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013

Furthermore, petitioners cannot invoke FACTS: On July 2, 1980, respondent

violation of their right to speedy trial married Jasmin Modina (Modina). On
because Section 9 (3) of Circular No. 38- October 28, 1993, respondent married
98 excludes in computing the time within Eleanor A. Alagon (Alagon). Sometime in
which trial must commence the delay August 1994, he filed a petition for
resulting from extraordinary remedies annulment of his marriage with Modina.
against interlocutory orders, such as their On February 23, 1999, the RTC granted
petitions before the CA and the Court. respondent’s petition and declared his
marriage with Modina void ab initio for
Moreover, judges should take note of the lack of a valid marriage license. Alagon
following: died. In the meantime, private
1. If there is a pending motion for complainant Evelyn Abesamis Alagon
reconsideration or motion for learned of respondent’s previous marriage
reinvestigation of the resolution of with Modina. She thus filed a Complaint-
the public prosecutor, the court Affidavit charging respondent with
may suspend the proceedings upon Bigamy.
motion by the parties. However,
the court should set the Respondent moved for the quashal of the
arraignment of the accused and information on two grounds, to wit: (1)
direct the public prosecutor to that the facts do not charge the offense of
submit the resolution disposing of bigamy; and (2) that the criminal action
the motion on or before the period or liability has been extinguished.
fixed by the court, which in no
instance could be more than the His motion was dismissed by the RTC on
period fixed by the court counted the ground that the information cannot be
from the granting of the motion to quashed on the ground that criminal
suspend arraignment, otherwise liability has been extinguished, because
the court will proceed with the the declaration of nullity of the first
arraignment as scheduled and marriage is not one of the modes of
without further delay. extinguishing criminal liability. Respondent
instituted a special civil action on certiorari
2. If there is a pending petition for under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to the
review before the DOJ, the court CA and was subsequently granted by the
may suspend the proceedings upon said court. The CA applied the conclusion
motion by the parties. However, made by the Court in Morigo v. People,
the court should set the and held that there is cogent basis in
arraignment of the accused and looking into the motion to quash filed by
direct the DOJ to submit the respondent, for if the evidence would
resolution disposing of the petition establish that his first marriage was
on or before the period fixed by the indeed void ab initio, one essential
Rules which, in no instance, could element of the crime of bigamy would be
be more than sixty (60) days from lacking. Petitioner filed a petition before
the filing of the Petition for Review the Court in this petition for review on
before the DOJ, otherwise, the certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
court will proceed with the Court.
arraignment as scheduled and
without further delay. ISSUES:

19
 1. Whether or not the information because of the absence of a marriage
charging respondent of bigamy license is only an evidence that seeks to
sufficiently alleges all the elements establish a fact contrary to that alleged in
constituting said offense. the information that a first valid marriage
2. Whether or not the subsequent was subsisting at the time he contracted
court judgment declaring the second marriage. This should not be
respondent’s first marriage void ab considered at all, because matters of
initio did not extinguish defense cannot be raised in a motion to
respondent’s criminal liability which quash. No facts have been brought out
already attached prior to said which destroyed the prima facie truth
judgment. accorded to the allegations of the
information on the hypothetical admission
RULING: thereof.
A motion to quash information is the
1. YES. An examination of the information mode by which an accused assails the
filed against respondent, however, shows validity of a criminal complaint or
the sufficiency of the allegations therein to information filed against him for
constitute the crime of bigamy as it insufficiency on its face in point of law, or
contained all the elements of the crime as for defects which are apparent in the face
provided for in Article 349 of the Revised of the information." It is a hypothetical
Penal Code, to wit: admission of the facts alleged in the
information.
(1) That the offender has been
legally married; The fundamental test in determining the
sufficiency of the material averments in an
Information is whether or not the facts
(2) That the first marriage has not
alleged therein, which are hypothetically
been legally dissolved or, in case
admitted, would establish the essential
his or her spouse is absent, the
elements of the crime defined by law.
absent spouse could not yet be
Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of
presumed dead according to the
the information are not to be considered.
Civil Code;
To be sure, a motion to quash should be
(3) That he contracts a second or based on a defect in the information which
subsequent marriage; and is evident on its fact. Thus, if the defect
can be cured by amendment or if it is
(4) That the second or subsequent based on the ground that the facts
marriage has all the essential charged do not constitute an offense, the
requisites for validity. prosecution is given by the court the
opportunity to correct the defect by
Here, the information contained the amendment. If the motion to quash is
following allegations: (1) that respondent sustained, the court may order that
is legally married to Modina; (2) that another complaint or information be filed
without such marriage having been legally except when the information is quashed
dissolved; (3) that respondent willfully, on the ground of extinction of criminal
unlawfully, and feloniously contracted a liability or double jeopardy.
second marriage with Alagon; and (4) that
the second marriage has all the essential 2. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a
requisites for validity. marriage is explicitly required either as a
cause of action or a ground for defense. It
Respondent’s evidence showing the has been held in a number of cases that a
court’s declaration that his marriage to judicial declaration of nullity is required
Modina is null and void from the beginning before a valid subsequent marriage can be

20
contracted; or else, what transpires is a (Criminal Case No. 82366) for
bigamous marriage, reprehensible and the death of Ponce's husband
immoral. Nestor Ponce and damage to the
spouses Ponce's vehicle.
What makes a person criminally liable for
bigamy is when he contracts a second or Ivler posted bail for his temporary release
subsequent marriage during the in both cases. Thereafter, he pleaded
subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to guilty to the charge in Criminal Case No.
the marriage should not be permitted to 82367 and was meted out the penalty of
judge for themselves its nullity, for the public censure. Invoking this conviction,
same must be submitted to the judgment he moved to quash the Information in
of competent courts and only when the Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing him
nullity of the marriage is so declared can it in jeopardy of second punishment for the
be held as void, and so long as there is no same offense of reckless imprudence.
such declaration, the presumption is that
the marriage exists. Therefore, he who The MeTC refused quashal, finding no
contracts a second marriage before the identity of offenses in the two cases. After
judicial declaration of nullity of the first unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration,
marriage assumes the risk of being Ivler elevated the matter to the RTC in a
prosecuted for bigamy. Petition for Certiorari. Meanwhile, he
sought from the MeTC the suspension of
Respondent, likewise, claims that there proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366,
are more reasons to quash the including the arraignment invoking the
information against him, because he Petition for Certiorari as a prejudicial
obtained the declaration of nullity of question. Without acting on Ivler's motion
marriage before the filing of the complaint to suspend, the MeTC proceeded with the
for bigamy against him. Again, we cannot arraignment and, because of Ivler's
sustain such contention. Settled is the rule absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his
that criminal culpability attaches to the arrest. Seven days later, the MeTC issued
offender upon the commission of the a resolution denying Ivler's motion to
offense and from that instant, liability suspend proceedings and postponing his
appends to him until extinguished as arraignment until after his arrest. Ivler
provided by law and that the time of filing sought reconsideration but the motion
of the criminal complaint or information is remained unresolved.
material only for determining prescription.
Relying on the arrest order against Ivler,
Ponce sought in the RTC dismissal of the
13. IVLER vs . MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Petition for Certiorari. She contends that
[G.R. No. 172716. November 17, Ivler lost his standing to maintain the suit.
2010.] Thereafter, RTC dismissed the case. Ivler
sought reconsideration but this proved
unavailing.
Facts: Following a vehicular collision in
August 2004, Jason Ivler was charged
In his petition under Rule 45, Ivler argues
before the MeTC with two separate
that his constitutional right not to be
offenses:
placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for
1. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
the same offense bars his prosecution in
Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal
Criminal Case No. 82366, having been
Case No. 82367) for injuries
previously convicted in Criminal Case No.
sustained by Evangeline Ponce;
82367 for the same offense of reckless
and
imprudence charged in Criminal Case No.
2. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
82366. He further submits that the
Homicide and Damage to Property

21
multiple consequences of such crime are
material only to determine his penalty. Reason and precedent both coincide in
that once convicted or acquitted of a
Issues: specific act of reckless imprudence, the
1. Whether Ivler forfeited his standing accused may not be prosecuted again for
to seek relief in the petition for that same act. For the essence of the
review case when the MeTC quasi offense of criminal negligence under
ordered his arrest following his Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies
non-appearance at the arraignment in the execution of an imprudent or
in Criminal Case No. 82366. (NO) negligent act that, if intentionally done,
2. If in the negative, whether Ivler's would be punishable as a felony. The law
constitutional right under the penalizes thus the negligent or careless
Double Jeopardy Clause bars act, not the result thereof. The gravity of
further proceedings in Criminal the consequence is only taken into
Case No. 82366. (YES) account to determine the penalty, it does
not qualify the substance of the offense.
Ruling: And, as the careless act is single, whether
1. Ivler’s non-appearance at the the injurious result should affect one
arraignment in Criminal Case No. person or several persons, the offense
82366 did not divest him of standing (criminal negligence) remains one and the
to maintain the special civil action for same, and cannot be split into different
certiorari. crimes and prosecutions.

Under Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised Add-ons: Article 48 of the RPC does not
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the apply to acts penalized under Article 365
defendant's absence merely renders his of the RPC. It is conceptually impossible
bondsman potentially liable on its bond for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a
(subject to cancellation should the single act constituting two or more grave
bondsman fail to produce the accused or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense
within 30 days); the defendant retains his which is a necessary means for
standing and, should he fail to surrender, committing another. The issue of double
will be tried in absentia and could be jeopardy arises if one of the resulting acts
convicted or acquitted. is penalized as a light offense and the
other acts are penalized as grave or less
Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the grave offenses, in which case Article 48 is
bondsman to produce the accused not deemed to apply and the act penalized
underscores the fact that mere non- as a light offense is tried separately from
appearance does not ipso facto convert the resulting acts penalized as grave or
the accused's status to that of a fugitive less grave offenses.
without standing.
In one case the Solicitor General stresses
2. Ivler’s Conviction in Criminal Case No. in his brief that the charge for slight
82367 bars his prosecution in Criminal physical injuries through reckless
Case No. 82366. imprudence could not be joined with the
accusation for serious physical injuries
The two charges against Ivler, arising through reckless imprudence, because
from the same facts, were prosecuted Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
under the same provision of the Revised allows only the complexing of grave or
Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article less grave felonies. The court held that
365 defining and penalizing quasi- such contention might be true, however,
offenses. Quasi-crimes under Article 365 neither was the prosecution obliged to
are distinct species of crimes and not first prosecute the accused for slight
merely methods of committing crimes. physical injuries through reckless

22
imprudence before pressing the more for violation of the Code’s Article XXII,
serious charge. Having first prosecuted Section 261 (q) in relation to Section 264.
the defendant for the lesser offense of
which he was acquitted, such acquittal Pedro filed a Motion for Preliminary
prevents his prosecution for serious Investigation, which RTC granted.
physical injuries through reckless However, the same did not materialize as
imprudence. The second accusation places Pedro filed a Motion to Quash, arguing
the defendant in second jeopardy for the that the information contains averments
same offense. which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or justification and/or the facts
The prosecution under Article 365 should charged do not constitute an offense. He
proceed from a single charge regardless of attached to his motion a Comelec
the number or severity of the Certification that he was “exempted” from
consequences. In imposing penalties, the the gun ban. The motion was opposed by
judge will do no more than apply the the provincial prosecutor. RTC quashed
penalties under Article 365 for each the information.
consequence alleged and proven. In short,
there shall be no splitting of charges Ariel Los Baños (Los Baños), a private
under Article 365, and only onE prosecutor representing the checkpoint
information shall be filed in the same first team moved to reopen the case as the
level court. Certification attached by Pedro was a
falsification. In support thereof, he
attached two Comelec certifications which
14. Ariel M. Los Baños vs. Joel R. in essence provides that Pedro is not
Pedro exempted frm the firearm ban and that
G.R. No. 173588. April 22, 2009 the signatures in the Comelec Certification
provided by Pedro were forged. The public
prosecutor manifested his express
Key points— conformity with the motion to reopen the
case.
1. Features of Section 8 of Rule 117
2. Quashal vs. Provisional Dismissal RTC reopened the case, Pedro moved for
3. The crime committed is determined the reconsideration of the RTC’s order
by the recital of the ultimate facts primarily based on Section 8 of Rule
and circumstances in the complaint 117, arguing that the dismissal had
or information become permanent. RTC ruled that
Section 8 of Rule 117 does not apply
Facts: Joel Pedro (Pedro) was caught by because the same refers to situations
the Marinduque PNP illegally carrying his where (1) both the prosecution and the
firearm at a checkpoint at Boac, accused mutually consented to the
Marinduque. He could not show any dismissal of the case, or (2) where the
COMELEC authority to carry a firearm prosecution or the offended party failed to
when the checkpoint team asked for one. object to the dismissal of the case, and
not to a situation where the information
The Boac election officer filed a criminal was quashed upon motion of the accused
complaint against Pedro for violating the and over the objection of the prosecution.
election gun ban (carrying a firearm The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC.
outside of his residence or place of
business without any authority from the Issue: Whether Section 8, Rule 117 is
COMELEC). After the inquest, the applicable.
Marinduque provincial prosecutor filed an
information with the Regional Trial Court Ruling: Section 8, Rule 117 is
inapplicable. The Supreme Court granted

23
the Petition of Los Baños and remanded Section 4 – amendment of
the case back to the RTC. the complaint or
information, if the motion
Features of Section 8, Rule 117 to quash relates to a defect
curable by amendment.
While the provision on provisional
dismissal is found within Rule 117 Section 5 – dwells on the
(entitled Motion to Quash), it does not effect of sustaining the
follow that a motion to quash results in a motion to quash — the
provisional dismissal to which Section 8, complaint or information
Rule 117 applies. may be re-filed, except for
the instances mentioned
Section 8, Rule 117— under Section 6 .

1. Does not exactly state what a Section 6 – The latter

provisional dismissal is. The section, on the other hand,
modifier "provisional" directly specifies the limit of the re-
suggests that the dismissals filing that Section 5 allows
which Section 8 essentially — it cannot be done where
refers to are those that are the dismissal is based on
temporary in character. extinction of criminal
liability or double jeopardy.
Permanent dismissals are
those barred by the principle Section 7 – defines double
of double jeopardy, previous jeopardy and complements
extinction of criminal liability, the ground provided under
by the rule on speedy trial, Section 3 (i) and the
and the dismissals after plea exception stated in Section
without the express consent of 6.
the accused. Section 8 by its
own terms, cannot cover these Section 8 simply states when a provisional
dismissals because they are dismissal can be made. The consent of the
not provisional accused to a dismissal relates directly to
what Section 3 (i) and Section 7 provide,
2. Does not state the grounds i.e., the conditions for dismissals that lead
that lead to a provisional to double jeopardy. This immediately
dismissal, in contrast with suggests that a dismissal under Section 8
motion to quash whose — i.e., one with the express consent of
grounds are specified under the accused — is not intended to lead to
Section 3. The delimitation of double jeopardy as provided under
the grounds available in a Section 7, but nevertheless creates a bar
motion to quash suggests that to further prosecution under the special
a motion to quash is a class in terms of Section 8. It operates in a world
itself, with specific and closely- of its own separate from motion to quash,
defined characteristics under and merely provides a time-bar that
the Rules of Court. uniquely applies to dismissals other than
those grounded on Section 3. Conversely,
3. Section 4, 5, 6, 7 of Rule 117 when a dismissal is pursuant to a motion
unmistakably provide for the to quash under Section 3, Section 8 and
consequences of a meritorious its time-bar does not apply.
motion to quash.
Quashal vs. Provisional Dismissal

24
 Provisional
Motion to Quash
Dismissal To recapitulate, quashal and provisional
A case may be dismissal are different concepts whose
Invariable filed by provisionally respective rules refer to different
the accused to dismissed at the situations that should not be confused
question the efficacy instance of either with one another. If the problem relates to
of the complaint or the prosecution or an intrinsic or extrinsic deficiency of the
information filed the accused, or complaint or information, as shown on its
against him or her both, subject to the face, the remedy is a motion to quash
(Section 1 and 2, conditions under the terms of Section 3, Rule 117. All
Rule 117) enumerated under other reasons for seeking the dismissal of
Section 8, Rule 117 the complaint or information, before
Requirements arraignment and under the circumstances
Form and content outlined in Section 8, fall under provisional
under Section 2,
are stated under dismissal.
Rule 117 does not
Section 2, Rule 117
apply
Assails the validity One final observation from the Supreme
of the criminal May be grounded Court – the Information was not rendered
complaint or on reasons other defective by the fact that Pedro was
information for than the defects charged of violating Section 261 (q) of the
defects or defenses found in the Code, instead of Section 32 of R.A. No.
apparent on face of information 7166, which amended Section 261 (q);
the information these two sections aim to penalize among
There may be others, the carrying of firearms (or other
provisional deadly weapons) in public places during
dismissal of the the election period without the authority
Allowed before the case even when of the Comelec. The established rule is
arraignment the trial proper of that the character of the crime is not
(Section 1, Rule the case is already determined by the caption or preamble of
117) underway provided the information or from the specification
that the required of the provision of law alleged to have
consents are been violated; the crime committed is
present determined by the recital of the ultimate
An information that facts and circumstances in the complaint
is quashed stays or information
quashed until
By its own terms,
revived; grant does
impermanent until OPTIONAL READ ONLY (In case
not per se carry any
the time-bar grounds/requirements are asked)
connotation of
applies, at which
impermanence, and
time it becomes a Motion to Quash
becomes so only as
permanent
provided by law or
dismissal. A mode by which an accused assails,
by the Rules.
before entering his plea, the validity of the
In a provisional criminal complaint or the criminal
In re-filing the case,
dismissal, there information filed against him for
what is important is
can be no re-filing insufficiency on its face in point of law, or
the question of
after the time-bar, for defect apparent on the face of the
whether the action
and prescription is Information. The motion, as a rule,
can still be brought,
not an immediate hypothetically admits the truth of the facts
i.e., whether the
consideration. spelled out in the complaint or
prescription of
action or of the information. Section 3 of this Rule
offense has set in.

25
enumerates the grounds for the quashal of 1) the prosecution with the
a complaint or information— express conformity of the
accused, or the accused, moves
(a) That the facts charged do not for a provisional dismissal (sin
constitute an offense; perjuicio) of his case; or both
the prosecution and the accused
(b) That the court trying the case has no move for its provisional
jurisdiction over the offense charged; dismissal;

(c) That the court trying the case has no 2) the offended party is notified
jurisdiction over the person of the of the motion for a provisional
accused; dismissal of the case;

(d) That the officer who filed the 3) the court issues an order
information had no authority to do so; granting the motion and
dismissing the case
(e) That it does not conform substantially provisionally; and
to the prescribed form;
4) the public prosecutor is
(f) That more than one offense is charged served with a copy of the order
except when a single punishment for of provisional dismissal of the
various offenses is prescribed by law; case.

(g) That the criminal action or liability has 15. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO vs. PEOPLE
been extinguished; G.R. No. 220598 & 220953
19 JULY 2016
(h) That it contains averments which, if
true, would constitute a legal excuse or FACTS:
justification; and
This is a case about the consolidated
(i) That the accused has been previously petitions for certiorari separately filed by
convicted or acquitted of the offense
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
charged, or the case against him was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without and PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager
his express consent. Benigno B. Aguas.

Provisional Dismissal (the center of On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman

dispute) charged in the Sandiganbayan former
President GMA and PCSO Budget and
A case shall not be provisionally dismissed Accounts Manager Aguas (and some other
except with the express consent of the officials of PCSO and COA whose charges
accused and with notice to the offended
were later dismissed by the
party.
Sandiganbayan after their respective
Time-bar demurrers to evidence were granted,
a. Imprisonment ≤ six (6) except for Uriarte and Valdes who were at
years or a fine of any large) for conspiracy to commit plunder.
amount or both – 1 year
b. Imprisonment > six (6) Accused:
years – 2 years
 PCSO General Manager and Vice
Requirements— Chairman Rosario C. Uriarte;

26
  PCSO Chairman of the Board of Reports of the PCSO for 2006, 2007, 2008
Directors Sergio O. Valencia; and 2009, and the annual FS contained
 Members of the PCSO Board of therein for the years 2005 to 2009.
Directors, namely: Manuel L.
Morato, Jose R. Taruc V, After the Prosecution rested its case,
Raymundo T. Roquero, and Ma.
accused GMA and Aguas then separately
Fatima A.S. Valdes;
filed their demurrers to evidence
 Commission on Audit (COA)
Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar; and asserting that the Prosecution did not
 COA Head of establish a case for plunder against them.
Intelligence/Confidential Fund The same were denied by the
Fraud Audit Unit Nilda B. Plaras. Sandiganbayan, holding that there was
Information: sufficient evidence to show that they had
conspired to commit plunder. After the
That during the period from January 2008
respective motions for reconsideration
to June 2010 or sometime prior or
filed by GMA and Aguas were likewise
subsequent thereto xxx accused Gloria
denied by the Sandiganbayan, they filed
Macapagal-Arroyo, the then President of
their respective petitions for certiorari.
the Philippines xxx Benigno Aguas, then
PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager, all Sandiganbayan in denying the
public officers committing the offense in demurrer to evidence:
relation to their respective offices and
taking undue advantage of their  to require proof that monies went to a
respective official positions, authority, plunderer's bank account or was used
relationships, connections or influence, to acquire real or personal properties or
used for any other purpose to
conniving, conspiring and confederating
personally benefit the plunderer, is
with one another, did then and there absurd.
willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass,  Although Arroyo did not actually
accumulate and/or acquire, directly or commit any "overt act" of illegally
indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the amassing CIF funds, her act of
aggregate amount or total value of approving not only the additional CIF
PHP365,997,915.00, more or less, [by funds but also their releases, aided and
abetted accused Uriarte's successful
raiding the public treasury].
raids on the public treasury. She is
therefore rightly charged as a co-
conspirator of Uriarte who accumulated
the CIF funds.
Sandiganbayan granted the petitions for
 The performance of an overt act is not
bail of Valencia, Morato, Roquero, Taruc indispensable when a conspirator is the
and Villar. However, the petitions for mastermind.
bail of accused GMA and Aguas were
denied by the Sandiganbayan on the
ground that the evidence of guilt against Arroyo:
them was strong.
o There was no proof of the fact of
The case proceeded to trial, at which the amassing the ill-gotten wealth, and
that the "overt act" of approving the
State presented Atty. Aleta Tolentino as
disbursement is not the "overt act"
its main witness against all the accused, contemplated by law.
who was the Chairman of an Audit o There was no proof of conspiracy
Committee. She reviewed the COA Annual between accused Arroyo and her co-

27
 accused and that the Prosecution was Prosecution
unable to prove their case against
accused Arroyo. o Certiorari is not the proper remedy
o While the gravamen, indeed corpus from an order or resolution denying
delicti of the offense of plunder is that demurrer to evidence.
the public officer amasses, accumulates o Arroyo failed to show that there was
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a grave abuse of discretion on the part of
combination or series of overt or the Sandiganbayan in denying her
criminal acts, in the aggregate amount demurrer to evidence. The
or total value of at least P50M, the Sandiganbayan only interpreted what
Sandiganbayan Resolutions extirpate constituted plunder under the law and
this vital element of the offense of jurisprudence in light of the established
plunder. In point of fact, not a single facts, and did not legislate a new
exhibit was offered by the prosecution offense, by extensively discussing how
nor a single testimony of the she had connived with her co-accused
prosecution’s witnesses was offered by to commit plunder.
the prosecution to prove that she o Actual personal gain, benefit or
amassed, accumulated or acquired enrichment is not an element of
even a single peso of the alleged ill- plunder
gotten wealth amounting to o Evidence shows that Arroyo, by
P365,997,915.00 or any part of that indispensable cooperation, conspired
amount. with her co-accused and participated in
o On the basis solely of Arroyo's the complex, illegal scheme which
authorization of the release of the defrauded PCSO in hundreds of millions
Confidential/Intelligence Fund from of pesos, which constitutes plunder.
PCSO's accounts, the Sandiganbayan o Arroyo’s belated, collateral attack on
ruled that she has committed the the information charging her and co-
offense of plunder for the reason that accused for plunder is highly improper,
her release of CIF funds to the PCSO especially at this late stage of the
amount to a violation of Sec. 1(d) [1] proceeding:
of R.A. No. 7080 which reads, as - The facts constituting the offense are
follows: 1) Through misappropriation, clearly alleged in the information
conversion, misuse, or malversation of - Arroyo’s active participation in the
public funds or raids on the public proceedings proves that she has always
treasury. When the SB ruled that such known and understood the nature and
"did not associate or require the scope of the accusations against her
concept of personal gain/benefit or
unjust enrichment with respect to raids
on the public treasury", it disregarded ISSUE:
the gravamen or the corpus delicti of
the offense of plunder. WON the special civil action for certiorari
o There was absolutely no justification in is proper to assail the denial of the
law or in the evidence that Arroyo was demurrers to evidence? YES
the "mastermind" of the conspiracy to
commit the series of withdrawals as RULING:
cash advances of the CIF funds from
the PCSO coffers by Uriarte. Uriarte The Court should take cognizance of the
even appears to have not been able to petitions for certiorari because the
account for it. Uriarte has not been
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its
arrested, was not arraigned and did not
participate in the trial of the case. discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

28
The special civil action for certiorari is enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation
generally not proper to assail such an of law, as to be equivalent to having acted
interlocutory order issued by the trial without jurisdiction.
court because of the availability of another
remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the Sandiganbayan acted
Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the capriciously, thus gravely abusing its
Rules of Court expressly provides that discretion amounting to lack or excess of
"the order denying the motion for leave of jurisdiction. It completely ignored the
court to file demurrer to evidence or the failure of the information to sufficiently
demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by charge conspiracy to commit plunder
appeal or by certiorari before judgment." against the petitioners; and ignored the
The proper recourse of the demurring lack of evidence establishing the corpus
accused would be to go to trial, and that delicti of amassing, accumulation and
in case of their conviction, would then acquisition of ill-gotten wealth in the total
appeal the conviction, and assign the amount of at least P50M through any or
denial as among the errors to be all of the predicate crimes.
reviewed.
Substantive Issues: (in case lang mu
However, Section 1 of Article VIII of the ask si sir nganu ka-ingon si SC na
1987 Constitution itself has imposed upon grave abuse of discretion si SB)
the Court and the other courts of justice
Issue: WON the State sufficiently
the duty to correct errors of jurisdiction as
established the existence of conspiracy
a result of capricious, arbitrary, whimsical
among GMA, Aguas, and Uriarte? NO
and despotic exercise of discretion. The
exercise of this power to correct grave Arroyo’s contention:
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any All that the State showed was her having
branch or instrumentality of the affixed her unqualified "OK" on the
Government cannot be thwarted by rules requests for the additional CIFs by Uriarte.
of procedure to the contrary or for the Such act was not even an overt act of
sake of the convenience of one side. This plunder because it had no immediate and
is because the Court has the bounden necessary relation to plunder by virtue of
constitutional duty to strike down grave her approval not being per se illegal or
abuse of discretion whenever and irregular.
wherever it is committed. Grave abuse of
Sandiganbayan:
discretion means such capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment which is In denying the MR of GMA and Aguas vis-
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. To justify -vis the denial of the demurrers,
the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the observed that accused Arroyo insists that
abuse of discretion must be grave, as there was no proof of the fact of amassing
when the power is exercised in an the ill-gotten wealth, and that the "overt
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of act" of approving the disbursement is not
passion or personal hostility, and the the "overt act" contemplated by law. What
abuse must be so patent and gross as to accused Arroyo forgets is that although
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or she did not actually commit any "overt
to a virtual refusal to perform the duty act" of illegally amassing CIF funds, her

29
act of approving not only the additional in the aggregate amount or total value of
CIF funds but also their releases, aided at least P50M through a combination or
and abetted accused Uriarte's successful series of overt criminal acts as described
raids on the public treasury. Accused in Section 1 (d) hereof. Surely, the law
Arroyo is therefore rightly charged as a requires that there must be a main
co-conspirator of Uriarte who accumulated plunderer and her co-conspirators. Here,
the CIF funds. Moreover, the performance considering that 10 persons have been
of an overt act is not indispensable when accused of amassing, accumulating and/or
a conspirator is the mastermind. acquiring ill-gotten wealth aggregating
P365,997,915.00, it would be improbable
SC: that the crime charged was plunder if
none of them was alleged to be the main
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its
plunderer. As such, each of the 10
discretion amounting to lack or
accused would account for the aliquot
excess of its jurisdiction. Its conclusion
amount of only P36,599,791.50, or
that GMA had been the mastermind of
exactly 1/10 of the alleged aggregate ill-
plunder was plainly conjectural and
gotten wealth, which is far below the
outrightly unfounded considering that the
threshold value of ill-gotten wealth
information did not aver at all that she
required for plunder. Such identification of
had been the mastermind; hence, the
the main plunderer was also essential in
Sandiganbayan thereby acted capriciously
safeguarding the rights of all of the
and arbitrarily. In the second place, the
accused to be properly informed of the
treatment by the Sandiganbayan of her
charges they were being made answerable
handwritten unqualified "OK" as an overt
for. For sure, even the Sandiganbayan
act of plunder was absolutely unwarranted
was at a loss in this respect. Despite the
considering that such act was a common
silence of the information on who the
legal and valid practice of signifying
main plunderer or the mastermind was,
approval of a fund release by the
the Sandiganbayan readily condemned
President. An act or conduct becomes an
GMA as the mastermind despite the
overt act of a crime only when it evinces a
absence of the specific allegation in the
causal relation to the intended crime
information to that effect. Even worse,
because the act or conduct will not be an
there was no evidence that substantiated
overt act of the crime if it does not have
such sweeping generalization.
an immediate and necessary relation to
the offense. Nevertheless, the Prosecution insists that
GMA, Uriarte and Aguas committed acts
The law on plunder requires that a
showing the existence of an implied
particular public officer must be
conspiracy among themselves, thereby
identified as the one who amassed,
making all of them the main plunderers.
acquired or accumulated ill-gotten wealth
However, GMA’s sole overt act of approval
because it plainly states that plunder is
of Uriarte's requests for additional CIFs
committed by any public officer who, by
did not make her part of any design to
himself or in connivance with members of
raid the public treasury as the means to
his family, relatives by affinity or
amass, accumulate and acquire ill-gotten
consanguinity, business associates,
wealth. Such approval, even if unqualified,
subordinates or other persons, amasses,
could not make her part of any criminal
accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth

30
conspiracy to commit plunder or any other Sandiganbayan
crime considering that such was not by
any means irregular or illegal. An It sustained the sufficiency of the evidence
examination of Uriarte's several requests to convict the petitioners for plunder on
indicates their compliance with LOI No. the basis that the Prosecution established
1282. The requests furnished: (a) the full all the elements of plunder.
details of the specific purposes for which
SC:
the funds would be spent; (b) the
explanations of the circumstances giving Here the evidence of the prosecution
rise to the necessity of the expenditure; failed to show the existence of the crime
and (c) the particular aims to be of plunder as no evidence was presented
accomplished. that any of the accused, accumulated
and/or acquired ill-gotten wealth. In fact,
Moreover, as to the contention of the
the principal witness of the prosecution,
Prosecution that there was no longer any
Atty. Tolentino, when asked, said that she
budget when GMA approved Uriarte's
does not know the existence or
requests, as per required by COA Circular
whereabouts of the alleged ill-gotten
No. 92-385, such is not acceptable, since
wealth. After she conceded lack of any
there was available budget from which to
knowledge of the amassing, accumulating
draw the additional requests for CIFs from
or acquiring of ill-gotten wealth of at least
the co-mingled funds of the. And although
P50M, nothing more remained of the
frowning upon PCSO's co-mingling of
criminal prosecution for plunder. Hence,
funds, COA did not rule such as illegal.
the failure to establish the corpus delicti
Lastly, the Prosecution seems to be should lead to the granting of the
relying on the doctrine of command demmurers of GMA and Aguas and
responsibility to impute the actions of dismissal of the criminal prosecution.
subordinate officers to GMA as the
superior officer. However, this doctrine
pertains to the responsibility of
commanders for crimes committed by
subordinate members of the armed forces Issue: WON the Prosecution failed to
or other persons subject to their control in prove the predicate act of raiding the
international wars or domestic conflict. public treasury? YES
The doctrine has also found application in
Sandiganbayan
civil actions for human rights abuses. But
this case involves neither a probe of In order to prove the predicate act of raids
GMA's actions as the Commander-in-Chief of the public treasury, the Prosecution
of the AFP, nor of a human rights issue. need not establish that the public officer
As such, it is legally improper to impute had benefited from such act; and that
the actions of Uriarte to GMA in the what was necessary was proving that the
absence of any conspiracy between them. public officer had raided the public coffers.
Issue: WON there are proof of amassing, SC:
or accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten
wealth of at least P50M adduced against To discern the proper import of the phrase
GMA and Aguas? NONE raids on the public treasury, the key is to

31
look at the accompanying words: Disini moved for the reconsideration but
misappropriation, conversion, misuse or the Sandiganbayan denied his motion
malversation of public funds. The common through the second assailed resolution.
thread that binds all the four terms
together is that the public officer used the ISSUES:
property taken. Applying the maxim of
1. W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
statutory construction noscitur a sociis:
considering that raids on the public 2. W/N the crimes have already
treasury is in the company of the four prescribed.
other terms that require the use of the
property taken, the phrase raids on the RULING:
public treasury similarly requires such use
1. Yes.
of the property taken. Accordingly, the
Sandiganbayan gravely erred in In this case, Disini contends that: the
contending that the mere informations did not allege that the
accumulation and gathering charges were being filed pursuant to and
constituted the forbidden act of raids in connection with Executive Order (E.O.)
on the public treasury. Nos.1, 2, 14 and 14-A; the cases were
filed by the Ombudsman instead of by the
PCGG; and being a private individual not
16. DISINI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 220598 & 220953 charged as a co-principal, accomplice or
11 SEPTEMBER 2013 accessory of a public officer, he should be
prosecuted in the regular courts instead of
FACTS: Two informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan.
charging Disini with corruption of public
officials under the RPC and the Anti-Graft P.D. No. 1606 was the law that
and Corrupt Practices Act conspiring with established the Sandiganbayan and
former Pres. Marcos (Criminal Case No. defined its jurisdiction. It says that in case
28001and Criminal Case No. 28002). private individuals are charged as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories with
Disini filed a motion to quash alleging that the public officers or employees, including
the criminal actions had been extinguished those employed in government-owned or
by prescription, and that the informations controlled corporations, they shall be tried
did not conform to the prescribed form. jointly with said public officers and
The Prosecution opposed the motion to employees in the proper courts which shall
quash. exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

Disini then voluntarily submitted himself That Disini was a private individual did not
for arraignment to obtain the remove the offenses charged from the
Sandiganbayan’s favorable action on his jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Section
motion for permission to travel abroad. He 2 of E.O. No.1, which tasked the PCGG
then entered a plea of not guilty to both with assisting the President in "the
informations. recovery of all ill-gotten wealth
accumulated by former President
On January 17, 2005, the Sandiganbayan Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate
promulgated its first assailed resolution family, relatives, subordinates and close
denying the motion to quash.

32
associates, whether located in the incorporated in Section 2 of Act No. 3326.
Philippines or abroad, including the Under this doctrine, "the statute of
takeover or sequestration of all business limitations runs only upon discovery of the
enterprises and entities owned or fact of the invasion of a right which will
controlled by them, during his support a cause of action. In other words,
administration, directly or through the courts would decline to apply the
nominees, by taking undue advantage of statute of limitations where the plaintiff
their public office and/or using their does not know or has no reasonable
powers, authority, influence, connections means of knowing the existence of a
or relationship," expressly granted the cause of action." Thus, we held in a
authority of the PCGG to recover ill-gotten catena of cases, that if the violation of the
wealth covered President Marcos’ special law was not known at the time of
immediate family, relatives, subordinates its commission, the prescription begins to
and close associates, without distinction run only from the discovery thereof, i.e.,
as to their private or public status. discovery of the unlawful nature of the
constitutive act or acts.
2. The crimes have not yet prescribed.
Corollary, it is safe to conclude that the
In resolving the issue of prescription, the prescriptive period for the crime which is
following must be considered, namely: (1) the subject herein, commenced from the
the period of prescription for the offense date of its discovery in 1992 after the
charged;(2) the time when the period of Committee made an exhaustive
prescription starts to run; and (3) the investigation. When the complaint was
time when the prescriptive period is filed in 1997, only five years have
interrupted. elapsed, and, hence, prescription has not
yet set in. The Court also held in one case
The crime of corruption of public officials
that during the Marcos regime, no person
charged in Criminal Case No. 28001 is
would have dared to question the legality
punished by Article 212 of the RPCwith the
of these transactions.
“same penalties imposed upon the officer
corrupted." Conformably with Article 90 of Accordingly, we are not persuaded to hold
the RPC, the period of prescription for this here that the prescriptive period began to
specie of corruption of public officials run from 1974, the time when the
charged against Disini is 15 years. contracts for the PNPP Project were
awarded to Burns & Roe and
As for Criminal Case No. 28002, Disini was
Westinghouse. Although the criminal
charged with a violation of Section 4(a) of
cases were the offshoot of the
R.A. No. 3019. By express provision of
sequestration case to recover ill-gotten
Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended
wealth, the connivance and conspiracy
by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, the offenses
among the public officials involved and the
committed under R.A. No. 3019 shall
beneficiaries of the favors illegally
prescribe in 15 years.
extended rendered it similarly well-nigh
Generally, the prescriptive period shall impossible for the State, as the aggrieved
commence to run on the day the crime is party, to have known of the commission of
committed. An exception to this rule is the the crimes charged prior to the EDSA
"blameless ignorance" doctrine, Revolution in 1986. Before the discovery,
the PNPPP contracts, which partook of a

33
public character, enjoyed the presumption The allegations in the information for
of their execution having been regularly corruption of public officials, if
done in the course of official functions. hypothetically admitted, would establish
the essential elements of the crime. The
We note, too, that the criminal complaints information stated that: (1) Disini made
were filed and their records transmitted by an offer and promise, and gave gifts to
the PCGG to the Office of the Ombudsman President Marcos, a public officer; and (2)
on April 8, 1991 for the conduct the in consideration of the offers, promises
preliminary investigation. In accordance and gifts, President Marcos, in causing the
with Article 91 of the RPC and the ruling in award of the contracts to Burns & Roe and
Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, Westinghouse by taking advantage of his
the filing of the criminal complaints in the position and in committing said act in
Ombudsman effectively interrupted the relation to his office, was placed under
running of the period of prescription. circumstances that would make him liable
for direct bribery.
The prevailing rule is, therefore, that
irrespective of whether the offense The second element of corruption of public
charged is punishable by the RPC or by a officers simply required the public officer
special law, it is the filing of the complaint to be placed under circumstances, not
or information in the office of the public absolute certainty, that would make him
prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary liable for direct or indirect bribery. Thus,
investigation that interrupts the period of even without alleging that President
prescription. Consequently, prescription Marcos received or accepted Disini’s
did not yet set in because only five years offers, promises and gifts – an essential
elapsed from 1986, the time of the element in direct bribery – the allegation
discovery of the offenses charged, up to that President Marcos caused the award of
April 1991, the time of the filing of the the contracts to Burns & Roe and
criminal complaints in the Office of the Westinghouse sufficed to place him under
Ombudsman. circumstances of being liable for direct
bribery.
OPTIONAL:
The sufficiency of the allegations in the
Moreover, the informations were sufficient
information charging the violation of
in form and substance.
Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 is similarly
The elements of corruption of public upheld. The elements of the offense under
officials under Article 212 of the Revised Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 are:
Penal Code are:
1. That the offender has family or close
1. That the offender makes offers or personal relation with a public official;
promises, or gives gifts or presents to a
2. That he capitalizes or exploits or takes
public officer; and
advantage of such family or close personal
2. That the offers or promises are made or relation by directly or indirectly requesting
the gifts or presents are given to a public or receiving any present, gift, material or
officer under circumstances that will make pecuniary advantage from any person
the public officer liable for direct bribery or having some business, transaction,
indirect bribery.

34
application, request or contract with the
government; FACTS:

3. That the public official with whom the On November 8, 2011, the Office of the
offender has family or close personal City Prosecutor of Q.C. filed 2 informations
relation has to intervene in the business against petitioner Saldariega for violations
transaction, application, request, or of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
contract with the government. Act. The cases were raffled to Branch 227
of the Q.C. RTC presided by herein Judge
The allegations in the information Panganiban.
charging the violation of Section 4(a) of
R.A. No. 3019, if hypothetically admitted, Court hearings were set, however,
would establish the elements of the the prosecution’s principal witness, PO2
offense, considering that: (1) Disini, being Villas, the arresting officer, failed to
the husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini, appear on October 22 and 25 2012. Thus,
the first cousin of First Lady Imelda during the May 16, 2013 hearing,
Romualdez-Marcos, and at the same time respondent judge issued an order
the family physician of the Marcoses, had provisionally dismissing the cases with the
close personal relations and intimacy with express consent of the accused
and free access to President Marcos, a Saldariega, who invoked her right to
public official; (2) Disini, taking advantage speedy trial.
of such family and close personal
On June 5, 2013, PO2 Villas filed a
relations, requested and received
motion to re-open the case. He explained
$1,000,000.00 from Burns & Roe and
that his failure to appear was due to the
$17,000,000.00 from Westinghouse, the
untimely death of his father-in-law. He
entities then having business, transaction,
further averred that one of his co-
and application with the Government in
arresting officers, PO3 Sabulaan, who was
connection with the PNPPP; (3) President
also a supposed witness, was no longer
Marcos, the public officer with whom Disini
assigned in the same station as him, thus
had family or close personal relations,
could not have received his subpoena
intervened to secure and obtain for Burns
which was sent to his former station.
& Roe the engineering and architectural
contract, and for Westinghouse the Respondent judge granted the
construction of the PNPPP. motion and re-opened the case. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration, arguing that
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the
the provisional dismissal of the criminal
petition for certiorari; AFFIRMS the
cases is considered an acquittal and that
resolutions promulgated on January 17,
PO2 Villas had no personality to file the
2005 and August 10, 2005 by the
motion to re-open. This motion was
Sandiganbayan (First Division) in Criminal
however denied by the court.
Case No. 28001 and Criminal Case No.
28002; and DIRECTS petitioner to pay the ISSUE/S: Whether or not the trial court
costs of suit. committed GAD resulting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in re-opening the case
17. SALDARIEGA vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Actually there were five supposed issues
11 SEPTEMBER 2013
here, but the SC said that this being a

35
Rule 65 petition, the issues should be The provisional dismissal of the
confined to questions of jurisdiction. case does not operate as acquittal since
Furthermore SC said that the petition its dismissal was made with the express
violated the hierarchy of courts because consent of the accused, thus, no double
they went direct to SC) jeopardy.

RULING: NO. The trial court did not As a general rule, for double
commit GAD. jeopardy to attach, the following requisites
must be present: 1) a valid indictment; 2)
When a criminal case is before a court of competent jurisdiction;
provisionally dismissed with the express 3) the arraignment of the accused; 4) a
consent of the accused, the case may be valid plea entered by him; and 5) acquittal
revived by the State within the periods or conviction, or the case was dismissed
provided under Section 8 of Rule 117. or terminated without the express consent
of the accused. However, there are 2
A case shall not be provisionally
exceptions when even if the dismissal was
dismissed without the express consent of
with the consent of the accused, double
the accused and with notice to the
jeopardy may attach, namely: 1) when
offended party. In this case, the dismissal
there is insufficiency of evidence to
was provisional, and stressed that the
support the charge; and 2) violation of the
case could be revived at some future time.
accused’s right to speedy trial.
If petitioner believed that the case against
her should be dismissed with prejudice, In this case, the last element for
she should not have agreed to the double jeopardy to attach is not present,
provisional dismissal. There is nothing in considering that the dismissal was merely
the record that shows the accused’s provisional and was done with the express
opposition to such. She cannot now claim consent of the accused. The requirement
that the dismissal was with prejudice. that the dismissal of the case must be
without the consent of the accused is not
Generally, the prosecutor should
present in this case. Neither does it fall
have been the one to file the motion to
under any of the 2 exceptions.
revive because control of the trial is
vested in them, however, in this case, the The Court emphasized in this case
defect was cured when the public that “speedy trial” is a relative term, and
prosecutor later actively participated in the factors to consider are: 1) duration of
the denial of the accused’s motion for the delay; 2) reason therefor; 3) assertion
reconsideration. Moreover, it must be of the right or failure to assert it; and 4)
noted that in this case, the accused is prejudice caused by such delay. In this
charged with a public crime. Unlike in case, petitioner failed to show that the
private crimes, there is no particular delay was attended with malice or without
private offended party who can actually good cause or justifiable motives. When
file the motion to revive. Hence, in some the cause of the delay is valid, as in this
instances, it is the arresting officer who case, it is not the kind of delay
filed the motion to revive out of his sense contemplated by the law. Lastly, the order
of duty as a police officer compelled by his of dismissal stated that the dismissal was
sense of obligation. provisional and with the express consent
of the accused. It did not state that the

36
dismissal was based on the accused’s right In Amelia’s petition before the CA, she
to speedy trial. alleged grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the RTC when it proceeded with
the bigamy case without permitting the
participation of Atty. Atencia as private
18. VILLALON vs. CHAN, prosecutor.
24 SEPTEMBER 2014
Despite the TRO issued by the CA, trial of
FACTS: Amelia Chan married Leon Basilio the bigamy case proceeded, to which
Chua. Amelia claimed that her husband Leonardo filed a demurrer to evidence.The
and the present petitioner, Leonardo A. RTC dismissed the bigamy case for failure
Villalon, are one and the same person. of the prosecution to prove the petitioners’
guilt.
During the subsistence of their marriage,
Chua, this time under the name of The CA granted Amelia’s petition and
Leonardo A. Villalon, allegedly contracted annulled the RTC’s resolution disqualifying
a second marriage with Erlinda Talde. Atty. Atencia from participation in the
case, as well as the RTC’s order that
dismissed the bigamy case against the
Amelia, who was then living in the US and
petitioners. It ruled that the crime of
could not personally file a case for bigamy
bigamy, being public in nature, can be
in the Philippines, requested Chua and Go
denounced by anyone, not only by the
to commence the criminal proceedings
offended party, before the prosecuting
against Leonardo and Erlinda. By virtue of
authorities without the offended party
their complaint-affidavit, an information
losing her right to recover damages.
was then filed in court.

The CA then remanded the case to the

Atty. Apollo V. Atencia appeared in behalf
RTC for re-raffle to another branch and for
of Amelia and formally filed his entry of
further proceedings, and ordered the
appearance as private prosecutor, with
public prosecutor and the trial court to
the conformity and under the control and
allow the private prosecutor to intervene
supervision of Assistant City Prosecutor.
in the proceedings.

However, Leonardo filed an omnibus

The petitioners now argue, among others,
motion seeking to disqualify Atty. Atencia
before the Supreme Court that the RTC’s
arguing that Amelia could not be
order dismissing the bigamy case against
represented in the bigamy case because
them had already become final because it
she was not a party to the case, as she
was not assailed by the respondent in her
did not file the complaint-affidavit. He also
petition for certiorari before the CA. They
argued that Amelia had already waived
point out that the Amelia only particularly
her right to file a civil and criminal case
assailed the RTC’s resolution and failed to
against him and Erlinda. The public
file a separate or amended petition for
prosecutor joined the petitioners in
certiorari to include the order (for
disqualifying Atty. Atencia from appearing
dismissal of the case) as one of the
in the case. RTC granted the omnibus
assailed orders of the RTC. Based on this
motion.
assertion, the petitioners contend that the
CA, in ordering the remand and re-raffle
Amelia then filed a petition or certiorari of the bigamy case to another RTC
and prohibition, with prayer for the branch, violates their right against double
issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of jeopardy.
Preliminary Injunction, with the CA. The
CA then issued a TRO enjoining further
ISSUE:
proceedings on the case.

37
1. W/N the decision of the CA to remand should have prohibited the RTC from
the case for further proceedings is further proceeding on the case. But the
violative of the legal proscription against RTC, instead, continued with the
presentation of the prosecution’s evidence
double jeopardy? -NO
and issued the assailed order.
2. [OPTIONAL] W/N the private prosecutor
should be allowed to intervene? YES Under this circumstance, the RTC’s order
3. [OPTIONAL] W/N the petition to the CA was actually without force and effect and
is fatally defective since it failed to would not serve as basis for the
implead the People of the Philippines as a petitioners to claim that their right against
party-respondent in that case? -NO. double jeopardy had been violated. The
RTC, clearly, acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing its order in view ofthe
RULING:
earlier TRO issued by the CA.

NOTE:
2. Yes. Section 16 of Rule 110 of the
RTC Resolution = the one that
DISQUALIFIED Atty. Atencia (private Revised Rules of Criminal
prosecutor) Procedure expressly allows an offended
RTC Order = the one that DISMISSED party to intervene by counsel in the
the bigamy case prosecution of the offense for the recovery
of civil liability where the civil action for
1. No. The review by the CA on whether the recovery of civil liability arising from
the RTC committed grave abuse of the offense charged is instituted with the
discretion encompassed, not only the criminal action. The civil action shall be
issuance of the resolution, but all deemed instituted with the criminal action,
proceedings in the bigamy case except when the offended party waives
thereafter. This is apparent from the the civil action, reserves the right to
words used by the respondent in her institute it separately or institutes the civil
certiorari petition before the CA where she action prior to the criminal action.
raised not only the trial court’s GAD in the
issuing the resolution that disqualified her In this case, the CA found no such waiver
counsel from participating in the case, but from or reservation made by the
also the actual hearings of the bigamy respondenthi1 The fact that the
case. respondent, who was already based
abroad, had secured the services of an
attorney in the Philippines reveals her
Evidently, the CA’s review is not limited to
willingness and interest to participate in
the RTC’s resolution but also included the
the prosecution of the bigamy case and to
order that was issued by the RTC in the
recover civil liability from the petitioners.
course of the proceedings on the bigamy
Thus, the RTC should have allowed, and
case. Thus, the RTC’s order, which is still
should not have disqualified, Atty. Atencia
the subject of review by this Court, has
from intervening in the bigamy case as
not attained finality and the CA’s assailed
the respondent, being the offended party,
order of remanding and re-raffling the
is afforded by law the right to participate
bigamy case to another trial court would
through counsel in the prosecution of the
not violate the petitioners’ right against
offense with respect to the civil aspect of
double jeopardy.
the case.

Also, the RTC’s order is in defiance of the

3. No. The respondent’s failure to implead
TRO issued by the CA. The records show
that the CA had issued a TRO, which the "People of the Philippines" as a party-

38
respondent is not a fatal defect warranting Issue:
the outright dismissal of her petition for
certiorari and prohibition before the CA Whether or not CA’s ruling violated the
because: (1) a petition for certiorari and appellant’s right against double jeopardy
prohibition under Rule 65 is directed after the trial court acquited them of the
against any tribunal, board or officer crime of robbery.
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
Ruling:
functions alleged to have acted without or
in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with An appeal in a criminal case opens the
grave abuse of discretion amounting to entire case for review on any question
lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) the including one not raised by the parties.
petition for certiorari and prohibition filed When an accused appeals from the
by the respondent is a special civil action sentence of the trial court, he waives the
separate and independent from the constitutional safeguard against double
bigamy case filed against the petitioners. jeopardy and throws the whole case open
For these reasons, the "People of the to review of the appellate court, which is
Philippines" need not be impleaded as a called upon to render such judgement as
party in a petition for certiorari and law and justice dictates, whether
prohibition. favorable or unfavorable to the appleant.

19. PEOPLE vs. TORRES, In the present case, when the appleant
22 SEPTEMBER 2014 appealed the RTC’s judgement of
conviction of murder, he is deemed to
FACTS: have abandoned his right to invoke the
prohibition on double jeoprady since it
Siblings Reynaldo, Jay, Ronnie, Bobby, became the duty of the appelate coutr to
and Roberto were charged with the special correct errors as may be found in the
complex crime of robbery and homicide appealed judgement. Thus, the appleant
but only appellant, Bobby and Roberto, could not have been placed twice in
were arrested. However, the Regional Trial jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling
Court held that the appellant could not of the RTC by finding him guilty of robbery
have committed robbery and concluded with homicide.
that they are only guilty of murder with
the qualifying circumstance of abuse of Appellant is guilty of the crime of robbery
superior strength. The accused appealed with homicide. The prosecution was able
to the CA. The CA then modified the ruling to adduce evidence that the primary
and found them guilty of robbery with intention is to rob.
homicide instead of murder. CA found that
the primary intention was to rob and the 20. CO vs. NEW PROSPERITY
killing was only incidental. 30 JUNE 2014

Appellant contends the appeal to CA was FACTS: Respondent New Prosperity

limited only to the conviction for murder Plastic Products, represented by Elizabeth
and excluded the acquittal of robbery. By Uy, is the private complainant in Criminal
appealing his convciton in murder, he did Cases for Violation of Batas Pambansa
not waive his constitutional right against (B.P.) Bilang 22 filed against petitioner
double jeoprady. William Co. In the absence of Uy and the

39
private counsel, the cases were 3. Assuming por gratia argumenti
provisionally dismissed on June 9, 2003 in the cases were only provisionally
open court pursuant to Section 8, Rule dismissed:
117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
a. Whether the one-year
Procedure (Rules). Uy received a copy of time bar of their revival is
the June 9, 2003 Order on July 2, 2003, computed from issuance of
while her counsel-of-record received a the order of provisional
copy a day after. (July 3, 2003) dismissal;

On July 2, 2004, Uy filed a Motion to b. Whether the actual

Revive the Criminal Cases which was number of days in a year is
eventually granted. the basis for computing the
one-year time bar;
Co filed a petition for certiorari challenging
c. Whether the provisionally
the revival of the criminal cases. It was,
dismissed cases against
however, dismissed for lack of merit. Co petitioner are revived ipso
then filed a petition for review on facto by the filing of motion
certiorari under Rule 45 before the to revive these cases.
Supreme Court but was dismissed which
then became final as no MR was filed. Ruling: The petition is unmeritorious.

Co filed a "Motion for Permanent At the outset, it must be noted that the
Dismissal" on July 13, 2006 which was issues raised in this petition were also the
meat of the controversy in Co’s previous
granted by the MeTC. Uy filed a petition
petition in G.R. No. 171096, which We
for certiorari before the RTC. RTC acted dismissed. Such dismissal became final
favorably on the petition, annulling and and executory. Hence, upon the finality,
setting aside the Orders and directing the the same already constitutes as res
MeTC to proceed with the trial of the judicata between the parties. On this
criminal cases. Co then filed a petition for ground alone, this petition should have
certiorari before the CA, which, as been dismissed outright.
aforesaid, dismissed the petition and
Even if We are to squarely resolve the
denied his motion for reconsideration. issues repeatedly raised in the present
Hence, this present petition with prayer petition, Co’s arguments are nonetheless
for TRO/WPI. untenable on the grounds as follows:

Issues: First, Co’s charge that his right to a

1. WON the dismissal of the speedy trial was violated is baseless.
criminal cases against the Obviously, he failed to show any evidence
petitioner on the ground of denial that the alleged "vexatious, capricious and
of his right to speedy trial oppressive" delay in the trial was attended
constitutes final dismissal of the with malice or that the same was made
these cases; without good cause or justifiable motive
on the part of the prosecution. Surely,
2. WON the MeTC acted with mere mathematical reckoning of the time
jurisdiction in reviving the criminal involved would not suffice as the realities
cases against petitioner which were of everyday life must be regarded in
dismissed on the ground of denial judicial proceedings which, after all, do
of his right to speedy trial; and not exist in a vacuum, and that particular

40
regard must be given to the facts and court order reviving it must be made prior
circumstances peculiar to each case. to the expiration of the one-year period is
unsustainable. Such interpretation is not
Second, Co is burdened to establish the found in the Rules. Moreover, to permit
essential requisites of the first paragraph otherwise would definitely put the
of Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules, which offended party at the mercy of the trial
are conditions sine qua non to the court, which may wittingly or unwittingly
application of the time-bar in the second not comply.
paragraph thereof, to wit: (1) the
prosecution with the express conformity of Fifth, the fact that year 2004 was a leap
the accused or the accused moves for a year is inconsequential to determine the
provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the timeliness of Uy’s motion to revive the
case; or both the prosecution and the criminal cases.
accused move for a provisional dismissal
of the case; (2) the offended party is And Sixth, granting for the sake of
notified of the motion for a provisional argument that this Court should take into
dismissal of the case; (3) the court issues account 2004 as a leap year, We still hold
an order granting the motion and that the motion to revive the criminal
dismissing the case provisionally; and (4) cases against Co was timely filed. A year
the public prosecutor is served with a copy is equivalent to 365 days regardless of
of the order of provisional dismissal of the whether it is a regular year or a leap
case. In this case, it is apparent from the year. Equally so, under the Administrative
records that there is no notice of any Code of 1987, a year is composed of 12
motion for the provisional dismissal of calendar months. The number of days is
Criminal Cases Nos. 206655-59, 206661- irrelevant.
77 and 209634 or of the hearing thereon
which was served on the private In the end, We find it hard to disregard
complainant at least three days before the thought that the instant petition was
said hearing as mandated by Section 4, filed as a dilatory tactic. As correctly
Rule 15 of the Rules. pointed out by Uy since the time when the
"Motion for Permanent Dismissal" was
Third, Although the second paragraph of filed, the issues raised herein were
the new rule states that the order of already resolved with finality by this Court
dismissal shall become permanent one in G.R. No. 171096.
year after the issuance thereof without the
case having been revived, the provision 21. TOLENTINO vs. HEIRS OF LAUREL-
should be construed to mean that the ASCALON,
order of dismissal shall become 22 FEBRUARY 2012
permanent one year after service of the
order of dismissal on the public prosecutor FACTS:
who has control of the prosecution without
the criminal case having been revived. Respondents alleged that they are the
registered owners of a Parcel of land in
We hasten to add though that if the
Quezon, covered by a TCT. For several
offended party is represented by a private
counsel, the better rule is that the years, petitioners have been in actual
reckoning period should commence to run possession of the western portion of the
from the time such private counsel was said property which they tried to develop
actually notified of the order of provisional into fishponds. In the years 1993 and
dismissal. 1994, respondents informed petitioners,
through Gustavo, who was then
Fourth, the contention that both the filing
representing them, that the area they are
of the motion to revive the case and the

41
occupying was inside the respondents' 1998, May 18, 1999, and March 21, 2000,
property and, therefore, they should prompting the trial court to allow the
vacate and leave the same. Gustavo, respondents to present their evidence ex
parte. Thereafter, judgment was
however, asked for time to verify
rendered. DISHEA
respondents' claim. Respondents have
waited for almost a year, but they waited Sections 4 and 5, Rule
in vain until Gustavo died. Petitioners 18 of the Rules of Court provides:
continued to develop the area they were Section
occupying into fishponds, thereby 4. Appearance of parties.
manifesting their unwillingness to vacate — It shall be the
the premises and restore the possession duty of the parties and
their counsel to appear at
thereof in favor of respondents. Hence,
the pre-trial. The non-
respondents filed a suit against petitioners
appearance of a party
to recover the property and demand may be excused only if a
payment of unearned income, attorney's valid cause is shown
fees and costs of suit. therefor, or if a
representative shall
Petitioners were declared in appear in his behalf fully
default, for failure to appear at the pre- authorized in writing to
trial conference. However, the trial court enter into an amicable
set aside the default order and reset the settlement, to submit to
pre-trial conference. Despite several alternative
resetting of the pre-trial modes of dispute
conference of which petitioners were resolution, and to enter
notified, petitioners failed to appear. into stipulations or
Hence, the trial court issued an Order admissions of facts
allowing respondents to present their and of documents.
evidence ex parte, instead of declaring
petitioners in default. Section
5. Effect of failure to
After the ex parte hearing for the appear. — The
reception of evidence, the RTC ruled in failure of the plaintiff to
favor of respondents. appear when so required
pursuant to the next
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners preceding section shall be
were denied their day in court. cause for dismissal of the
RULING: NO action. The dismissal shall
be with prejudice, unless
We perused the records of the case otherwise ordered by the
and failed to see the lack of due process court. A similar failure on
claimed by petitioners. On the contrary, the part of the defendant
petitioners were given more than ample shall be cause to allow the
opportunity to be heard through counsel. plaintiff to present his
Lest it be forgotten, petitioners were first evidence ex parte and the
declared in default on August 27, 1996, court to render judgment
for their failure to appear at the pre-trial on the basis thereof.
conference. However, the trial court set
aside the default order and the pre-trial From the foregoing, the failure of a
conference was set and reset for several party to appear at the pre-trial has
times. Nonetheless, petitioners failed to adverse consequences. If the absent party
appear on January 9, 1998, March 2, is the plaintiff, then his case shall be

42
dismissed. If it is the defendant who fails thereafter Edward gave them money from
to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to the cashier’s box. Edward was then forced
present his evidence ex parte and the to go with the men whereby on the way
court shall render judgment on the basis he was seen by his wife Jocelyn in the
thereof. Thus, the plaintiff is given the hallway of the store. Pepino and the
privilege to present his evidence without others brought Edward inside a car where
objection from the defendant, the three other men were waiting, and one
likelihood being that the court will decide woman (Gomez) was in the passenger
in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant seat.
having forfeited the opportunity to rebut
or present its own evidence. Edward was then held captive for several
days and was made to call his father for
Plainly, petitioners cannot complain the ransom money. Eventually, the
that they were denied due process. What ransom money was settled with Jocelyn.
the fundamental law prohibits is total After four days, the ransom was brought
absence of opportunity to be heard. When to the kidnappers and Edward was freed.
a party has been afforded opportunity to He went home and reported to the
present his side, he cannot feign authorities his kidnapping.
denial of due process.
In substance, the After five months, the NBI informed
appeal of petitioners hinges on their Edward that they had invited several
possession over the subject lot by persons to participate in a police lineup
virtue of an alleged Fishpond Lease consisting of five men and two women.
Agreement with the Edward positively identified Pepino,
Department of Agriculture. They Gomez and one Mario Galgo. Jocelyn
questioned the validity of the respondents' likewise identified Pepino. The prosecution
title by claiming that since the property is charged the perpetrators including Gomez
owned by the government, it is part of the and Pepino for kidnapping for ransom and
public domain and, therefore, cannot be serious illegal detention before the RTC of
privately owned by the respondents. The Paranaque City.
petitioners' submission is not meritorious.
It is a rule that a certificate of title cannot RTC convicted Pepino and Gomez holding
be the subject of collateral attack. that Edward positively identified both of
them and considered the testimony of
Petitioners' attack on the Jocelyn to corroborate with her husband’s
legality of TCT issued in the testimony on all material points. The RTC
name of respondents, is incidental to their ruled that the accused were already
quest to defend their possession of the estopped from questioning the validity of
property in an accion publiciana, not in a their arrest because they have already
direct action whose main objective is to entered their pleas.
impugn the validity of the judgment
granting the title. CA affirmed the conviction of the RTC.
Pepino and Gomez appealed the
conviction to the SC but Pepino thereafter
withdrew his appeal and so only Gomez’s
22. PEOPLE vs. PEPINO,
appeal was pending with the SC.
G.R. No. 174471, 12 JANUARY 2016
Issues:
FACTS: At 1:00 pm of June 28, 1997, two
men and a woman entered the office of I. Whether or not the accused waived her
Edward Tan at Kilton Motors Co. and right to question to validity of her arrest
pretended to be customers. One of them
(Pepino) eventually pulled out a gun and

43
II. Whether or not the evidence of the
prosecution was sufficient to support the There was no merit in Gomez’s claim that
conviction of the accused. Edward’s identification of her might be
preconditioned by the “suggestive
• Whether or not the identification” made during the police line-
identification during the police up.
line-up was admissible.
Out-of-court identification is conducted by
the police in various ways. It is done thru
• Whether or not the right of
show-ups where the suspect alone is
counsel applies during a police
brought face to face with the witness for
line-up.
identification. It is done thru mug shots
where photographs are shown to the
witness to identify the suspect. It is also
Ruling:
done thru lineups where a witness
identifies the suspect from a group of
Ultimately, the SC affirmed the conviction
persons lined up for the purpose x x x In
of Gomez who appealed.
resolving the admissibility of and relying
on out-of-court identification of suspects,
I.
courts have adopted the totality of
circumstances test where they consider
Gomez did not question the validity of her
the following factors, viz: (1) the witness'
arrest prior to her arraignment. Thus her
opportunity to view the criminal at the
right to question it is deemed waived.
time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree
of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy
It is settled that any objection to the
of any prior description given by the
procedure followed in the matter of the
witness; (4) the level of certainty
acquisition by a court of jurisdiction over
demonstrated by the witness at the
the person of the accused must be
identification; (5) the length of time
opportunely raised before he enters his
between the crime and the identification;
pleas; otherwise the objection is deemed
and (6) the suggestiveness of the
waived.
identification procedure.
Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused
Applying the totality-of-circumstances
is not sufficient cause for setting aside a
test, we find Edward's out-of-court
valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient
identification to be reliable and thus
complainf after a trial free from error.
admissible. To recall, when the three
Simply put, the illegality of the
individuals entered Edward's office
warrantless arrest cannot deprive the
pretending to buy thus there was ample
State of its right to prosecute the guilty
opportunity for Edward to view the faces
when all other facts on record point to his
of the three persons who entered his
or her culpability.
office. Edward also saw Gomez seated at
the front seat of the getaway metallic
green Toyota Corolla vehicle. On the part
II.
of Jocelyn, she was firm and unyielding in
her identification of Pepino as the person
Yes, the elements of kidnapping were
who pointed a gun at her husband while
proved. (forgoing this discussion of the
going down the stairs, and who brought
court for other topics relevant to crimpro,
him outside the premises of Kilton Motors.
this is more Criminal Law)
Contrary to what Gomez claimed, the
As to the identification during the police
police lineup conducted at the NBI was not
line-up:
suggestive. We note that there were

44
seven people in the lineup; Edward was At any rate, the appellants' respective
not compelled to focus his attention on convictions in this case were based on an
any specific person or persons. independent in-court identification made
by Edward and Jocelyn, and not on the
out-of-court identification during the
As to right of counsel during a police line- police lineup. We reiterate that the RTC
up and the CA found the court testimonies of
these witnesses to be positive and
The right to counsel is a fundamental right credible, and that there was no showing
and is intended to preclude the slightest that their factual findings had been arrived
coercion that would lead the accused to at .arbitrarily. The in-court identification
admit something false. The right to thus cured whatever irregularity might
counsel attaches upon the start of the have attended the police lineup.
investigation, i.e., when the investigating
officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information and/or confessions or 23. IBANEZ vs. PEOPLE,
admissions from the accused. G.R. No. 190798, 27 JANUARY 2016

Custodial investigation commences when Note: I included a narration of what

a person is taken into custody and is happened in the crime scene just in case
singled out as a suspect in the commission Atty. asks. However, the focus of this
of the crime under investigation. As a rule, petition is the right to counsel.
a police lineup is not part of the custodial
investigation; hence, the right to counsel FACTS:
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet Petitioners were charged with
be invoked at this stage. The right to be frustrated homicide for stoning, hitting
assisted by counsel attaches only during and stabbing Rodolfo (victim).
custodial investigation and cannot be
claimed by the accused during Version of the Prosecution:
identification in a police lineup. Ronald’s Testimony: He and Ronald
with the latter’s sons, Emilio, Daniel and
Defense witness Reynaldo, however, Boyet, were neighbors. On the day of the
maintained that Pepino and Gomez were incident, Rodolfo had guests. At about 1
among those already presented to the am, he accompanied them outside his
media as kidnapping suspects by the DOJ house when they left. He noticed a pile of
a day before the police lineup was made. garbage in the front of his house. He then
In this sense, the appellants were already uttered “bakit dito tinambak ang basura
the focus of the police and were thus sa harap ng aking bahay na malawak
deemed to be already under custodial naman ang pagtatapunan ng basura”.
investigation when the out-of-court Upon hearing this, Emilio and Boyet threw
identification was conducted. stones at Rodolfo, thus blood oozed from
his face. He went inside his house. Upon
Nonetheless, the defense did not object to returning outside, Ronald hit his head with
the in-court identification for having been a shovel, leaving him unconscious. He
tainted by an irregular out-of-court woke up at the Las Pinas Hospital, but was
identification in a police lineup. They transferred to Phil. Gen. Hospital.
focused, instead, on the legality of the
appellants' arrests. PO2 Sulit (investigating officer):
Rodolfo’s daughter Ruth and wife
At no time did Jocelyn or Edward ever Salvacion went to the police station to
mention that they saw the appellants from report the incident.
the news reports in print or on television.

45
 Ruth and Salvacion: Since they continued appearing for petitioners
were at the house during the incident, until his withdrawal.
they witnessed how petitioners ganged
upon Rodolfo. c) On Feb. 10, 2004, Atty. Sindingan
replaced Atty. Caneda as counsel
Version of the Defense: de officio. He represented
Ronald’s Testimony: He denied the petitioners until the filing of this
allegations and alleged that it was Rodolfo petition.
who stabbed his forehand when he
approached him during 2 am since he was In a nutshell, the petitioners are claiming
shouting outside. Daniel came to his a violation of their right to counsel when
rescue but was prevented because Rodolfo Atty. Manzano failed to attend the June
stabbed him 18, 2003 hearing, thus, waiving the right
to cross-examine Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit.
Daniel: he rushed outside his
house when he heard Ronald ask for help Counter-argument of OSG:
after being stabbed. He and Rodolfo Petitioners were properly
struggled for the knife’s possession, represented in the proceedings from the
during which, the latter was accidentally trial court until the filing of this petition
stabbed. since three counsels de officio were
appointed and represented them.
Emilio: He was doing overtime
work as a laborer at a place 1 kilometer ISSUE:
away from the crime scene. W/N the right of the petitioners to
counsel has been violated – NO!
Decision of RTC as upheld by CA:
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. RULING:
Basis of the right:
CONTENTIONS REGARDING RIGHT TO Art. 3 Sec. 14 1987 Constitution
COUNSEL: which is incorporated in Rule 115, Sec. 1
ROC. Moreover, Rule 116 Secs. 6 and 7
Petitioners’ claim a denial of ROC mandates the duty of the court to
the right to counsel because: inform the accused of his right to counsel
and to appoint a counsel de officio if he
a) During arraignment, Atty. Manzano cannot procure one of his own choosing.
was appointed counsel de officio
for the petitioners. He was notified
of the prosecution’s presentation of Nature of the right:
evidence on June 18, 2003. Both It is an indispensable component of
Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit testified but due process in criminal prosecution. Thus,
Atty. Manzano and Ronald did an accused without counsel is essentially
not attend the hearing. Thus, deprived of a fair hearing which is
the RTC declared that Atty. tantamount to a grave denial of due
Manzano waived his right to process.
cross-examine the witnesses.
REASON WHY THERE WAS NO
b) On Sept. 3, 2003, Atty. Caneda DENIAL:
was appointed as the new counsel Except for the June 18, 2003
de officio after Atty. Manzano has presentation of the prosecution’s evidence
withdrawn. He cross-examined where the RTC declared a waiver of the
Ruth. He attended another hearing right to cross-examine Rodolfo and PO2
where Daniel and Emilio did not Sulit, the petitioners were aptly
show up. Nevertheless, he

46
represented from arraignment and during accused Leonides Landicho (Leonides),
the trial proceedings. Domingo Landicho (Domingo), and
Leonardo Genil (Leonardo), who were at-
“Mere opportunity and not
large.
actual cross-examination is the
essence of the right to cross-
Joven, Armando and Estanislao
examine.”
pleaded “not guilty”; while the others
The right of a party to confront and remained at large. Thereafter,
cross-examine an opposing witness is a respondents filed a motion for bail
fundamental right which is part of due contending that the prosecution's
process. However, this right is a personal evidence was not strong. After finding that
one which may be expressly or impliedly the prosecution's evidence to prove
waived. Thus, when a party had the
treachery and evident premeditation was
opportunity to cross examine but failed to
availed of it, he forfeits such right and the not strong, the RTC granted respondents'
direct testimony will be allowed to remain motion for bail. A motion for
in record. reconsideration was filed, but it was
denied.
IN THIS CASE:
On June 18, 2003, petitioners were The prosecution then filed a
not deprived of the opportunity to cross petition for certiorari with the CA which
examine. While Atty. Manzano in fact did was denied. However, the Supreme Court,
not attend, it must be noted that Ronald
in G.R. no. 129604, ruled to set aside the
himself was also absent. Ironically
then, he asserts the very right which he decision of the CA together with the Order
abandoned during such hearing. of the RTC granting bail to the
respondents. As a result, Estanislao was
Moreover, no where can it be found re-arrested, but Joven and Armando were
that their counsel de officio subsequently not. The case was also remanded to the
sought reconsideration of the June 18, RTC for further proceedings.
2003 order. In addition, no evidence was
proffered that the RTC, in issuing such The RTC, thereafter, rendered a
order, exercised his discretion arbitrarily.
decision finding Joven, Armando,
Lastly, as maintained in the Estanislao and Domingo guilty beyond
records, except for that one hearing, the reasonable doubt of murder. However,
counsel de officio religiously attended the only Estanislao was present at the
subsequent proceedings despite the promulgation despite due notice to the
petitioners’ unjustified absences. other respondents.

Respondents (including Joven,

Armando and Domingo who were still at-
24. PEOPLE vs. DE GRANO,
large), thru counsel, then filed a Joint
G.R. No. 167710, 5 JUNE 2009
Motion for Reconsideration. Thereafter,
FACTS: the RTC issued the assailed Order
acquitting Joven and Armando, and
An Information for was against Joven de downgrading the conviction of Domingo
Grano (Joven), Armando de Grano and Estanislao from murder to homicide.
(Armando), and Estanislao Lacaba
(Estanislao), together with their co-

47
 The prosecution sought Double jeopardy has the following
reconsideration of the said order but such essential elements: (1) the accused is
was denied by the RTC. The prosecution charged under a complaint or an
then filed a Petition for Certiorari under information sufficient in form and
Rule 65 to the CA. However, the petition substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the
was dismissed outright by the CA on the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has
grounds that it was not filed by the OSG been arraigned and he has pleaded; and
and that the assailed Orders were only (4) he is convicted or acquitted, or the
photocopies and not certified true copies. case is dismissed without his express
A motion for reconsideration was filed but consent.
such was also denied. The CA opined that
the rule on double jeopardy prohibits the Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised
state from appealing or filing a petition for Rules of Criminal Procedure states that “If
review of a judgment of acquittal that was the judgment is for conviction and the
based on the merits of the case. failure of the accused to appear was
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the
Issue: Whether or not the filing of a remedies available in these Rules against
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to the the judgment and the court shall order his
CA violated the rule on double jeopardy. arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of judgment however, the
Ruling: accused may surrender and file a motion
for leave of court to avail of these
NO. By way of exception, a
remedies. He shall state the reasons for
judgment of acquittal in a criminal case
his absence at the scheduled promulgation
may be assailed in a petition for certiorari
and if he proves that his absence was for
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but
a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to
only upon a clear showing by the
avail of said remedies within fifteen (15)
petitioner that the lower court, in
days from notice.”
acquitting the accused, committed not
merely reversible errors of judgment but When the Decision dated April 25,
also grave abuse of discretion amounting 2002 was promulgated, only Estanislao
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or to a Lacaba was present. Subsequently
denial of due process, thus rendering the thereafter, without surrendering and
assailed judgment void. In which event, explaining the reasons for their absence,
the accused cannot be considered at risk Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined
of double jeopardy. Estanislao in their Joint Motion for
Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of
A writ of certiorari is warranted
the Rules, the RTC not only failed to cause
when (1) any tribunal, board or officer has
the arrest of the respondents who were at
acted without or in excess of its or his
large, it also took cognizance of the joint
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
motion.
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; and (2) there is no appeal, The RTC clearly exceeded its
nor any plain, speedy and adequate jurisdiction when it entertained the joint
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Motion for Reconsideration with respect to
the respondents who were at large. Being

48
at large, Joven and Domingo have not lowered to P40,000, in exchange for the
regained their standing in court. release of Ariel. The special investigators
at the NBI-CEVRO verified the text
Thus, Joven, Armando, and messages received by the complainants. A
Domingo, were not placed in double team was immediately formed to
jeopardy because, from the very implement an entrapment operation,
beginning, the lower tribunal had acted which took place inside a Jollibee branch
without jurisdiction. Verily, any ruling at the corner of Gen. Maxilom and
issued without jurisdiction is, in legal Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. Petitioner was
contemplation, necessarily null and void then required to submit his urine for drug
and does not exist. In criminal cases, it testing, which yielded a positive result for
cannot be the source of an acquittal. presence of dangerous drugs.

However, with respect to However, the version of the defense

Estanislao, the RTC committed no stated otherwise, petitioner claims that
reversible error when it entertained the when he was in the NBI Office, he was
Motion for Reconsideration. He was in required to extract urine for drug
custody and was present at the examination, but he refused as he wanted
promulgation of the judgment. Hence, the it to be done by the PNP Crime Laboratory
RTC never lost jurisdiction over his and not by the NBI. His request was,
person. Consequently, the RTC's ruling however, denied. He also requested to be
downgrading his conviction from murder allowed to call his lawyer prior to the
to homicide stands. taking of his urine sample, to no avail.

25. DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE The RTC Cebu City found the accused
G.R. No. 200748, 23 JULY 2014 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 15, Art 2 of R.A. 9165
Applicable Rule: Rule 115 - Rights of
and a penalty of compulsory rehabilitation
Accused
was imposed. Case was then appealed to
FACTS: Petitioner PO2 Jaime D. dela Cruz the CA, which found the appeal devoid of
was charged with violation of Section 15, merit and affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
Art 2 of RA 9165 by the Graft
Issue: WON the drug test conducted upon
Investigation and Prosecution Officer of
the petitioner is illegal and violates the
the Office of the Ombudsman - Visayas.
petitioner right against self-incrimination
The NBI received a complaint from
Ruling: Yes. The ruling of the RTC, which
Corazon Absin and Charito Escobido that
was affirmed by the erroneous. The drug
Ariel Escobido, live-in partner of Corazon
test in Section 15 does not cover persons
and son of Charito Charito was picked up
apprehended or arrested for any unlawful
by unknown male persons believed to be
act, but only for unlawful acts listed under
police officers for allegedly selling drugs.
Art 2 of R.A. 9165. To make the provision
An errand boy gave a number to the
applicable to all persons arrested or
complainants, and when the latter called
apprehended for any crime not listed
the number, they were instructed to
under Art 2 is tantamount to unduly
proceed to the Gorordo Police Office. In
expanding its meaning. (Note that PO2
the said police office, they met "James"
who demanded from them P100,000, later

49
Dela Cruz here was arrested in the alleged Ping is frail old businessman from Laos,
act of extortion.) Cambodia. He was able to attend the
initial hearing. For the subsequent trial
The drug test is not covered by allowable dates, they were postponed due to his
non-testimonial compulsion. The unavailability.
constitutional right of an accused against
Private prosecutor filed a Motion to Take
self-incrimination proscribes the use of
Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping in
physical or moral compulsion to extort Cambodia as he could no longer travel to
communications from the accused and not the Philippines due to his ill health.
the inclusion of his body in evidence when
it may be material. Purely mechanical acts The MeTC granted the motion of the
are not included in the prohibition as the prosecution. Petitioners (accused) filed a
MR and then filed a Petition for Certiorari
accused does not thereby speak his guilt,
before the RTC.
hence the assistance and guiding hand of
counsel is not required. The essence of RTC declared the MeTC orders NULL AND
the right against self-incrimination is VOID. It held that the Civil Procedure on
testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving the taking of depositions of witnesses
of evidence against himself through a cannot apply suppletorily since there is
testimonial act. specific provision in the ROC with respect
to the taking of depositions of prosecution
In the instant case, it cannot be seen how witnesses in criminal cases which is
primarily intended to safeguard the
a urine sample could be material to the
constitutional right of the accused to meet
charge of extortion. The RTC and the CA, the witness face to face.
therefore, both erred when they held that
the extraction of petitioner’s urine for The CA REVERSED the decision of the RTC
purposes of drug testing was "merely a as there is no grave abuse of discretion on
mechanical act, hence, falling outside the the part of the MeTC.
concept of a custodial investigation." ISSUE:
1. WON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
The drug test was a violation of RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED ARE
INFRINGED IN ALLOWING THE
petitioner’s right to privacy and right
TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION
against self-incrimination. Petitioner in the OF THE COMPLAINING
case refused to have his urine extracted WITNESS IN CAMBODIA
and tested for drugs. He also asked for a 2. WON THE ACCUSED WOULD
lawyer prior to his urine test. He was STILL BE ACCORDED THE
adamant in exercising his rights, but all of RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE
DEPONENT AND RAISE THEIR
his efforts proved futile, because he was
OBJECTIONS DURING THE
still compelled to submit his urine for drug
DEPOSITION TAKING LIKE IN A
testing. REGULAR TRIAL

26. GO vs. PEOPLE, RULING:

G.R. No. 185527, 18 JULY 2012 1. Yes. The examination of witnesses
must be done orally before a judge
FACTS: in open court especially in criminal
Petitioners (Go,Go,Ngo,Ngo) were charged cases where the Constitution
before the MeTC of Manila for Other secures to the accused his right to
Deceits (Article 318 RPC). The a public trial and to meet the
prosecution’s complaining witness, Li Luen witnesses against him face to face.

50
 examination, and (2) to allow the
However, there is an exception judge to observe the deportment of
which allows the conditional witnesses. The constitutional
examination of witnesses and the requirement "insures that the
use of their depositions as witness will give his testimony
testimonial evidence in lieu of under oath, thus deterring lying by
direct testimony (see S15, R119). the threat of perjury charge; it
For purposes of taking the forces the witness to submit to
deposition in criminal cases of a cross-examination, a valuable
prosecution witness who would instrument in exposing falsehood
foreseeably be unavailable for trial, and bringing out the truth; and it
the testimonial examination should enables the court to observe the
be made before the court, or at demeanor of the witness and
least before the judge, where the assess his credibility.
case is pending. Certainly, to take
the deposition of the prosecution WEBB RULING NOT ON ALL FOURS
witness elsewhere and not before WITH THIS CASE
the very same court where the Webb Ruling:
case is pending would not only
deprive a detained accused of his The SC allowed the oral deposition of five
right to attend the proceedings but defense witnesses, who were residents of
also deprive the trial judge of the the US, before a Philippine consular agent
opportunity to observe the because there was no necessity for the
prosecution witness' deportment procedure as the matter sought to be
and properly assess his credibility, proved was mere merely corroborative.
which is especially intolerable when
The present case:
the witness' testimony is crucial to
the prosecution's case against the It is the prosecution who seeks for the
accused deposition of the complaining witness,
thus, the stringent procedure of Sec. 15,
In this case, the RTC properly Rule 119 cannot be ignored without
nullified the orders of the MeTC violating the constitutional rights of the
since the conditional examination accused.
must take place at no other place Also, the Li Luen Ping was able to attend
than the court where the case is the initial proceeding. Considering the age
pending. and fragile state of the witness, the
prosecution failed to act with foresight in
2. No. There is a great deal of having his deposition taken before the
difference between the face-to-face MeTC pursuant to Sec. 15, Rule 119.
confrontation in a public criminal
trial in the presence of the
presiding judge and the cross- 27. PEOPLE vs. SERGIO
examination of a witness in a G.R. No. 240053, 9 OCTOBER 2019
foreign place outside the courtroom
in the absence of a trial judge.
FACTS:
The right of confrontation is held to Mary Jane Veloso was offered a job by
apply specifically to criminal Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao to be
proceedings and to have a 2-fold a domestic helper in Malaysia. Upon
purpose: (1) to afford the accused
arrival in Malaysia, Mary Jane was
an opportunity to test the
informed by Cristina that the job intended
testimony of witnesses by cross-
for her was no longer available. Cristina

51
sent Mary Jane to Indonesia for a 7-day The PH Government requested the
holiday, giving her a plane ticket and a Indonesian Government to suspend the
luggage to bring on her trip. Upon Mary scheduled execution of Mary Jane as her
Jane's arrival at the Adisucipto testimony is vital in the prosecution of
International Airport in Yogyakarta, Cristina and Julius. The President of
Indonesia, she was apprehended by the Indonesia granted her an indefinite
police officers for allegedly carrying 2.6 reprieve pursuant to its obligations under
kilograms of heroin inside her luggage. the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in
She was charged with drug trafficking Criminal Matters entered into by
before the District Court of Sleman, Southeast Asian Nations. Indonesian
Yogyakarta, Indonesia. authorities however imposed the following
conditions relative to the taking of Mary
In October 2010, Mary Jane was convicted Jane’s testimony: (a) Mary Jane shall
of drug trafficking and was sentenced to remain in detention in Yogyakarta,
death by firing squad. Mary Jane was Indonesia; (b) No cameras shall be
brought to a prison facility in the island of allowed; (c) The lawyers of the parties
Nusakambangan, off Central Java, shall not be present; and (d) The
Indonesia, to await her execution. questions to be propounded to Mary Jane
Presently, she is detained at the shall be in writing.
Wirogunan Penitentiary in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. Thereafter, the State filed a Motion for
Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of
Meanwhile, in the Philippines, Cristina and Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by
Julius were arrested by the operatives of Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories.
the Anti-Human Trafficking Division of the It averred that written interrogatories are
National Bureau of Investigation and were allowed under Rule 23 of the ROC, which
charged with qualified trafficking in applies suppletorily in criminal
person, crime of illegal recruitment, and proceedings. However, Cristina and Julius
estafa. Cristina and Julius entered a plea objected to the motion asserting that the
of not guilty on all charges. deposition should be made before and not
during trial and that it will violate their
Representatives from PDEA, PNP Crime right to confront the witness.
Lab, and DFA went to Indonesia to
interview Mary Jane. She executed a The RTC granted the prosecution’s motion
Sinumpaang Salaysay where she subject to certain conditions. The CA
maintained her innocence and narrated reversed the order of the trial court.
how she was recruited by Cristina and
Julius. She alleged that she and Cristina Issue: Whether Mary Jane’s testimony
met Ike who handed the luggage to may be validly acquired through
Cristina. The luggage was unusually heavy deposition by written interrogatories
despite being empty. It was the same
luggage Mary Jane brought to her trip to Ruling: YES.
Indonesia. It was only after she was
apprehended at the airport when she a. Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of
realized that it contained prohibited drugs. Court is inapplicable in the instant
case

52
 authorities of the state parties in the
Under the foregoing provision, in order for prevention, investigation and prosecution
the testimony of the prosecution witness of offenses through cooperation and
be taken before the court where the case mutual legal assistance in criminal
is being heard, it must be shown that the matters. Article 1, paragraph 2 (a) of the
said prosecution witness is either: (a) too Treaty states that mutual legal assistance
sick or infirm to appear at the trial as can be rendered by the state parties in
directed by the order of the court, or; (b) case of taking evidence or obtaining
has to leave the Philippines with no voluntary statements from persons,
definite date of returning. among others.

The case of Mary Jane does not fall under Interestingly, nowhere in the present
either category. Mary Jane’s predicament Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state
was deprivation of liberty through how a deposition, of a prosecution witness
detention in a foreign country, not akin to who is at the same time convicted of a
a person whose limitation of mobility is by grave offense by final judgment and
reason of ill-health or feeble age. imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction, may
be taken to perpetuate the testimony of
There are two kinds of depositions: (a) such witness. Depositions, however, are
Depositions de bene esse – those taken recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on
for purposes of a pending action, Civil Procedure. The Court holds that it
regulated by Rule 23; and (b) Depositions may be applied suppletorily in criminal
in perpetuam rei memoriam- those taken proceedings so long as there is compelling
to perpetuate evidence for purposes of an reason.
anticipated action or proceedings in a case
on appeal and are now regulated by Rule The conditions with respect to the taking
24. The court may determine whether the of the testimony of Mary Jane that were
deposition should be taken upon oral laid down by the Indonesian Government
examination or written interrogatories. support the allowance of written
interrogatories under Rule 23 of the Rules
b. The extraordinary factual of Court.
circumstances surrounding the case
of Mary Jane warrant the resort to A strict application of the procedural rules
Rule 23 of ROC will defeat the very purpose for the grant
of reprieve by the Indonesian authorities
Rules shall be liberally construed in order to Mary Jane. Besides, the disallowance of
to promote their objective of securing a the written interrogatories is not in
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition congruence with the aim of ASEAN MLAT –
of every action and proceeding. that is to render mutual legal assistance in
criminal matters among signatory states
The 2004 Treaty on Mutual Legal including the Philippines.
Assistance in Criminal Matters, also known
as the ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance c. The deposition by written
Treaty, was entered into by the Southeast interrogatories is pursuant to Mary
Asian countries to improve the Jane’s right to due process
effectiveness of the law enforcement

53
Just as an accused is accorded this interrogatories submitted by the
constitutional protection, so is the State prosecution. Only the final questions
entitled to due process in criminal would be asked by the Consul of the
prosecutions. To do justice to accused and Philippines in Indonesia. Answers of Mary
injustice to the State is no justice at all. Jane to the propounded questions must be
written verbatim, and a transcribed copy
The grant of the written interrogatories by of the same would be given to the counsel
the Indonesian Government perceives the of the accused who would, in turn, submit
State's opportunity to present all its their proposed cross interrogatory
desired witnesses in the prosecution of its questions to the prosecution. The
cases against Cristina and Julius. prosecution can raise objections thereto.
The final cross interrogatory questions for
Further, the right of the State to prove the the deposition of Mary Jane will then be
criminal liability of Cristina and Julius conducted.
should not be derailed and prevented by
the stringent application of the procedural The second purpose of the constitutional
rules. Otherwise, it will constitute a right to confrontation has likewise been
violation of the basic constitutional rights upheld. As aptly stated in the terms and
of the State and of Mary Jane to due conditions for the taking of deposition, the
process. trial court judge will be present during the
conduct of written interrogatories on Mary
d. No violation of the constitutional Jane. This will give her ample opportunity
right to confrontation of a witness to observe and to examine the demeanor
of the witness closely.
The right to confrontation has a two-fold
purpose: (a) to afford the accused an Finally, it must be mentioned that a "dying
opportunity to test the testimony of the declaration" is one of the recognized
witness by cross-examination; and (2) to exceptions to the right to confrontation.
allow the judge to observe the deportment Mary Jane's deposition through written
of the witness. interrogatories is akin to her dying
declaration. There is no doubt that Mary
True, Cristina and Julius have no Jane will be answering the written
opportunity to confront Mary Jane face to interrogatories under the consciousness of
face in light of the prevailing an impending death. The only purpose for
circumstance. However, the terms and the grant of the reprieve was for Mary
conditions laid down by the trial court Jane to assist the prosecution in erecting
ensure that they are given ample its case against her recruiters and
opportunity to cross-examine Mary Jane traffickers.
by way of written interrogatories so as not
to defeat the first purpose of their 28. PEOPLE vs. MARCIAL,
constitutional right. 27 SEPTEMBER 2006

To recall, the trial court requires Cristina FACTS:

and Julius, through their counsel, to file Two informations, one for homicide and
their comment and may raise objections one for frustrated homicide, were filed
to the proposed questions in the written with the RTC against respondents SPO1

54
Mario Marcial, SPO1 Monico Bolotano, such defense by clear and convincing
SPO1 Anastacio Maglinte, SPO1 Alfredo evidence.
Nuñez, SPO1 Rudy Bunalos and PO3
So also Circular No. 38-98, Section
Tomas Duhaylunsod, all members of the
3, reads as follows:
Philippine National Police, in connection
with a shooting incident that occurred on xxx xxx xxx
December 18, 1999. As a result of the
If the accused has pleaded not guilty to
incident, one Junnyver Dagle died while
the crime charged, he may state
one Wendell Sales was seriously injured.||
whether he interposes a negative or
On arraignment, respondents pleaded not affirmative defense. A negative defense
guilty to the charges filed against them. shall require the prosecution to prove
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to the guilt of the accused beyong
reverse the order of the trial on the reasonable doubt, while an affirmative
ground that respondents admitted the defense may modify the order of
acts charged and subsequently interposed trial and require the accused to prove
lawful justifying circumstance to which the such defense by clear and convincing
RTC denied such request. evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)

Accordingly, the RTC correctly

Issue: Whether or not the order of the
exercised its discretion in denying
trial should be reversed?
petitioner's request for a reverse
Ruling: No. The order of the trial may not order of trial.
be reversed.

Rules of Court, Rule 119, Section

29. JIMENEZ vs. PEOPLE,
3(e):
17 SEPTEMBER 2014
xxx xxx xxx
FACTS:
(e) When the accused admits the act or Montero (a former employee of the
omission charged in the complaint or Jimenezes), executed sworn statements
information but interposes a lawful confessing his participation in the killing of
defense, the order of trial may be Ruby Rose, and naming Manuel Jimenez,
modified. Lope Jimenez, Lennard, Robert, and Eric
Republic Act No. 8493, Section 7, as co-conspirators.
likewise states:
The statements of Montero which provided
If the accused pleads not guilty to the the details on where the alleged steel
crime charged, he/she shall state casing containing the body of Ruby Rose
whether he/she interposes a negative or was dumped, led to the recovery of a
affirmative defense. A negative defense cadaver, encased in a drum and steel
shall require the prosecution to prove casing, near or practically at the place
the guilt of the accused beyond that Montero pointed to.
reasonable doubt while an affirmative
An Information was filed before the RTC,
defense may modify the order of
trial and require the accused to prove charging Jimenez, Lope, Lennard, Robert,
Eric and Montero of murder.

55
Montero thereafter filed a motion for his discretion as prosecution complied with
discharge entitled "Motion for the Sec. 17, Rule 119.
Discharge of the Witness as Accused
Pursuant to the Witness Protection First, Judge Docena acted in accordance
Program" pursuant to RA 6981. Prosecutor with settled jurisprudence when he ruled
also filed a motion to discharge Montero that there was absolute necessity for the
as a state witness for the prosecution. testimony of Montero as no other direct
Jimenez opposed both motions. evidence other than his testimony was
available. Additionally, since the
RTC determination of the requirements under
Section 17, Rule 119 is highly factual in
Acting Judge Almeyda denied motion to nature, Judge Docena did not commit
discharge Montero as state witness, ruling grave abuse of discretion in largely relying
that prosecution failed to comply with the on the recommendation of the prosecution
requirements of Sec. 17, Rule 119 for the to discharge Montero as a state witness.
discharge of accused as state witness.
After motion for reconsideration though, Furthermore, the CA agreed with Judge
newly appointed Judge Docena Docena that Montero is not the most
reconsidered and reversed Judge guilty among the accused because the
Almeyda’s order and ruled that Sec. 17, principals by inducement are more guilty
Rule 119 was complied, as the crime than the principals by direct participation.
would have remained undiscovered and
unsolved had it not been for Montero’s Issue
extrajudicial confession. As the crime was
Whether or not Judge Docena did not
committed in secret, only one of the co-
commit grave abuse of discretion when
conspirators, such as Montero, could give
granting the motion to discharge Montero
direct evidence identifying the other
as state witness.
coconspirators.
Ruling
Judge Docena further ruled that Montero
is qualified to be discharged as a state Judge Docena did not gravely abuse his
witness as he does not appear to be the discretion when he granted the motion to
most guilty although he is a principal by discharge Montero as state witness.
direct participation. The principals by Prosecution has complied with the
inducement are more guilty because, requisites of Sec. 17, Rule 119.
without their orders, the crime would not
have been committed. Finally, Montero (For accessibility, Sec. 17 provides the
has not been convicted of any crime conditions for discharge of accused to be a
involving moral turpitude State witness:

Jimenez then filed a petition for certiorari (1) Two or more accused are jointly
under Rule 65 in CA. charged with the commission of an
offense;
CA
(2) The motion for discharge is filed by
It initially granted Jimenez’ motion, but in the prosecution before it rests its case;
an amended motion, reversed, saying that
Judge Docena did not gravely abuse his

56
(3) The prosecution is required to present jurisprudence in ruling that there was
evidence and the sworn statement of each absolute necessity for the testimony of
proposed state witness at a hearing in Montero. He alone is available to provide
support of the discharge; direct evidence of the crime.

(4) The accused gives his consent to be a b. Montero’s Testimony can be

state witness; and Substantially Corroborated (5(c))

(5) The trial court is satisfied that: As the trial court properly found, the
evidence consisting of the steel casing
a) There is absolute necessity for where the cadaver was found; the drum
the testimony of the accused containing the cadaver which the
whose discharge is requested; b) prosecution successfully identified (and
There is no other direct evidence which even the acting Judge Almeyda
available for the proper prosecution believed) to be Ruby Rose; the spot in the
of the offense committed, except sea that Montero pointed to (where the
the testimony of said accused; cadaver was retrieved); the apparel worn
by the victim when she was killed as well
c) The testimony of said accused
as her burned personal effects, all partly
can be substantially corroborated in its
corroborate some of the material points in
material points;
the sworn statements of Montero.
d) Said accused does not appear to
Furthermore, the alleged discrepancies in
be the most guilty; and,
Montero’s statements and physical
e) Said accused has not at any evidences, such as the absence of “busal”
time been convicted of any offense in the mouth of the cadaver, failure to
involving moral turpitude. mention of the packaging tape wrapped
around the head and neck, does less
The parties dispute the compliance of (3) material than the corroborated statements
and 5(a) to (d) of Sec. 17. Each issue is for Montero.
discussed below:
c. Montero is not the most guilty
a. Absolute Necessity of the testimony (5(d))
of Montero (5(a and b))
By jurisprudence, "most guilty" refers to
The requirement of absolute necessity for the highest degree of culpability in terms
the testimony of a state witness depends of participation in the commission of the
on the circumstances of each case offense and does not necessarily mean the
regardless of the number of the severity of the penalty imposed. While all
participating conspirators. the accused may be given the same
penalty by reason of conspiracy, yet one
In the present case, not one of the
may be considered to have lesser or the
accused-conspirators, except Montero,
least guilt taking into account his degree
was willing to testify on the alleged
of participation in the commission of the
murder of Ruby Rose and their
offense.
participation in her killing. Hence, the CA
was correct in ruling that Judge Docena What the rule avoids is the possibility that
acted properly and in accordance with the most guilty would be set free while his

57
co-accused who are less guilty in terms of participation is a guaranty that he will
participation would be penalized. testify truthfully.

Contrary to the CA’s findings, a principal We draw attention to the requirement that
by inducement is not automatically the a state witness does not need to be found
most guilty in a conspiracy. The decision to be the least guilty; he or she should not
of the Court in People v. Baharan did not only "appear to be the most guilty."
involve the resolution of a motion to
discharge an accused to become a state From the evidence submitted by the
witness. Instead, the pronouncement of prosecution in support of its motion to
the Court related to the culpability of a discharge Montero, it appears that while
principal by inducement whose co- Montero was part of the planning,
inducement act was the determining preparation, and execution stage as most
cause for the commission of the crime. of his co-accused had been, he had no
direct participation in the actual killing of
Thus viewed, Baharan cannot be the basis Ruby Rose. While Lope allegedly assigned
of a peremptory pronouncement that a to him the execution of the killing, the
principal by inducement is more guilty records do not indicate that he had active
than the principal by direct participation. participation in hatching the plan to kill
Ruby Rose, which allegedly came from
Thus, as a rule, for purposes of resolving accused Lope and Jimenez, and in the
a motion to discharge an accused as a actual killing of Ruby Rose which was
state witness, what are controlling are the executed by accused Lennard.55
specific acts of the accused in relation to Montero’s participation was limited to
the crime committed. providing the steel box where the drum
containing the victim’s body was placed,
We cannot also agree with Jimenez’
welding the steel box to seal the cadaver
argument that a principal by direct
inside, operating the skip or tug boat,
participation is more guilty than the
and, together with his co-accused,
principal by inducement as the Revised
dropping the steel box containing the
Penal Code penalizes the principal by
cadaver into the sea.
inducement only when the principal by
direct participation has executed the d. The discharge of Montero as a state
crime. witness was procedurally sound (3)

We note that the severity of the penalty Jimenez is estopped from raising the issue
imposed is part of the substantive criminal of lack of hearing prior to the discharge of
law which should not be equated with the Montero as a state witness. Jimenez did
procedural rule on the discharge of the not raise this issue when Acting Judge
particeps criminis. The procedural remedy Almeyda denied the motion to discharge.
of the discharge of an accused is based on This denial, of course, was favorable to
other considerations, such as the need for Jimenez.
giving immunity to one of several accused
in order that not all shall escape, and the The People even supported its argument
judicial experience that the candid that Jimenez actively participated in the
admission of an accused regarding his proceedings of the motion to discharge
such as his filing of a 20-page opposition

58
to the motion; filing a reply to the (2) the offender takes advantage of his
People’s comment; submitting his official position; and
memorandum of authorities on the
qualification of Montero as state witness; (3) the offender falsifies a document by
and filing a consolidated opposition on the making untruthful statements in a
People’s and Montero’s motion for narration of facts.
reconsideration of Judge Almeyda’s order.
The Sandiganbayan found that the
With Jimenez’ active participation in the prosecution failed to prove the second and
proceeding for the motion to discharge, he third elements. It thus dismissed the case.
is then estopped. The prosecution filed a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65.
30. PEOPLE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN,
SALUDAGA, ADRIATICO, DE LUNA ISSUE
G.R. No. 197953, 5 AUGUST 2015
W/N the Sandiganbayan acted with grave
FACTS: abuse of discretion
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
RULING
Visayas charged Mayor Saludaga and
NO. In criminal cases, the grant of a
Revenue Collection Clerk Adriatico of the
demurrer amounts to an acquittal. The
Municipality of Lavezares, Northern
dismissal order may not be appealed as
Samar, together with private contractor
this would place the accused in double
De Luna, for falsification of public
jeopardy, although it may be reviewed
documents penalized under Article 171 of
through certiorari under Rule 65. The
the Revised Penal Code. This is in
burden is on the petitioner to clearly
connection with the a contract for the
demonstrate that the trial court blatantly
construction of shallow well hand pumps
abused its authority to a point so grave as
in December 9 and 17, 1997, which was
to deprive it of its very power to dispense
granted to De Luna. The prosecution
justice.
witnesses testified that, in January
1999, Adriatico issued an official receipt In the crime of falsification of documents
antedated 17 August 1997, representing by a public officer, the offender is
De Luna’s payment for a mayor’s permit. considered to have taken advantage of his
By virtue of the antedated receipt, Mayor official position when:
Saludaga issued a mayor’s permit
authorizing De Luna to engage in business (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or
as a pakyaw contractor for August 27, otherwise to intervene in the preparation
1997 to December 30, 1997. of a document; or

Respondents filed a demurrer to evidence, (2) he has the official custody of the
arguing that the prosecution failed to document which he falsifies.
prove conspiracy, as well as the elements
(3) Moreover, intent to gain or even intent
of falsification of documents under Article
to injure a third person is not necessary,
171 (4) of the RPC are, namely:
because what is punished is the violation
(1) the offender is a public officer, of the public faith and the destruction of
employee, or notary public; the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.

59
Here, the prosecution was unable to prove
that Mayor Saludaga was involved in the FACTS:
issuance of the antedated receipt. The fact A confidential informant (CI) appeared
of antedating is not necessarily before the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF) of the
falsification on the part of Adriatico, since
Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp
the payment was received for a past Crame, Quezon City and relayed to the
transaction. Furthermore, the prosecution Police Senior Inspector that an individual
did not prove that De Luna was not a bona using the alias "Brian" was engaged in the
fide pakyaw contractor when the contract illegal sale of the prohibited drug
was entered into. "ecstasy" in Parañaque City. The Police
Inspector assembled and briefed the team
Even if the Sandiganbayan erred in that would conduct the buy-bust
weighing the sufficiency of the operation.
prosecution's evidence, such error does
The CI then called respondent Castel
not necessarily amount to grave abuse of Estacio aka “Brian” (accused), informing
discretion. Rather, it is a mere error of him that a prospective buyer wished to
judgment. An error of judgment may no purchase ecstasy. That afternoon,
longer be appealed because it would place respondent Estacio instructed them to
the respondents in double jeopardy. proceed to Tandang Sora Avenue, Quezon
City, where the transaction was to take
place.

Furthermore, conspiracy exists when two The buy-bust operation ensued.

or more persons come to an agreement Respondents Estacio, and his two
companions, Carlo Castro and Jonathan
concerning the commission of a felony and
Dy were arrested after Respondent Castro
decide to commit it. It can be inferred handed to the poseur-buyer one sealed
from the acts of the accused which plastic sachet containing several pink pills.
clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a The latter gave the "boodle" money to
common intent or design to commit a respondent Dy and immediately removed
crime. As a basis for conviction, his baseball cap. The removal of the cap
conspiracy must rest on nothing less than was the prearranged signal to the rest of
the buy-bust team that the transaction
moral certainty. In this case, no credible
was complete.
proof that links or gives unifying purpose
to the respondents' individual acts. An Information was filed against
respondents for the sale of dangerous
31. PEOPLE vs. LAGOS, drugs, in violation of Section 5, Article II
G.R. No. 184658, 6 MARCH 2013 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165. Trial
ensued and after the prosecution
KEYWORDS: Buy-bust, ecstasy, submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence,
Dangerous drugs, demurrer to evidence, respondents filed a Motion for leave of
exception to double jeopardy court to file their demurrer, as well as a
Motion to resolve their Petition for Bail.
ONE LINER/S: The rule that the grant of
a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal, Judge Lagos issued the first assailed Order
is not without exception. The rule on (April 2008 order) granting respondents'
double jeopardy is subject to the exercise Petition for Bail and allowing them to file
of judicial review by way of the their demurrer. He issued the second
extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule order (June 2008 order) acquitting all the
65 of the Rules of Court. accused. On Motion for Reconsideration

60
filed by the People, he issued the third despotic manner by reason of passion and
assailed Order denying the above motion hostility; or a blatant abuse of authority to
and granting the Motion to Withdraw Cash a point so grave and so severe as to
Bonds filed by the accused. deprive the court of its very power to
dispense justice. In such an event, the
The prosecution filed this petition via Rule accused cannot be considered to be at risk
65 to question the orders of the court. of double jeopardy.

Private respondents counter that the The trial court declared that the
Petition is dismissible on the ground of testimonies of the police officers were
double jeopardy and is violative of the insufficient to prove the culmination of the
principle of hierarchy of courts. illegal sale, or to show their personal
knowledge of the offer to sell and the
ISSUE: acceptance thereof. In granting the
W/N the petition filed by the People demurrer filed by the accused, respondent
questioning the grant of demurrer to judge surmised that it was the CI who had
evidence, is a violation of the right of the initiated the negotiation of the sale and
accused against double jeopardy? should have thus been presented at trial.

HELD: The trial court's assessment that the

NO. Petition is proper since it falls under witnesses had no personal knowledge of
the exception to the rule that an order the illegal sale starkly contrasts with the
granting a demurrer amounts to an facts borne out by the records. The police
acquittal. The judge acted with grave officer was present during the negotiation
abuse of discretion. and the actual buy-bust operation. The
other police officers acted as poseur-buyer
It has long been settled that the grant of a and testified in open court. The pills of
demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal. ecstasy were duly marked, identified, and
An acquitted defendant is entitled to the presented in court. The validity of buy-
right of repose as a direct consequence of bust transactions as an effective way of
the finality of his acquittal. apprehending drug dealers in the act of
committing an offense is well-settled.
This rule, however, is not without
exception. The rule on double jeopardy is Respondent judge harps on the fact that it
subject to the exercise of judicial review was the CI who had personal knowledge
by way of the extraordinary writ of of the identity of the seller, the initial offer
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of to purchase the ecstasy pills, and the
Court. The Supreme Court is endowed subsequent acceptance of the offer.
with the power to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of It is clear from the testimonies of police
discretion amounting to lack or excess of officers that they conducted the buy-bust
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or operation based on the information from
instrumentality of the government. the CI. However, the arrest was made,
not on the basis of that information, but of
Here, the party asking for the review must the actual buy-bust operation, in which
show the presence of a whimsical or respondents were caught in flagrante
capricious exercise of judgment equivalent delicto engaged in the illegal sale of
to lack of jurisdiction; a patent and gross dangerous drugs.
abuse of discretion amounting to an
evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual Due to the investigative work of the
refusal to perform a duty imposed by law AIDSOTF members, the illegal sale was
or to act in contemplation of law; an consummated in their presence, and the
exercise of power in an arbitrary and elements of the sale the identity of the

61
sellers, the delivery of the drugs, and the
payment therefor were confirmed. That FACTS:
the CI initially provided this information or
"tip" does not negate the subsequent Accused-appellant is charged with two
consummation of the illegal sale. counts of rape — one under paragraph 1
(a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
The assailed Orders of the Regional Trial
Code and the other under par. 2 of Art.
Court are annulled and set aside and the
266-A.|||.
RTC is ordered to reinstate the criminal
case.
The Prosecution's Version of Facts
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION (may or
AAA (6months pregnant) and her son,
may not be asked):
The testimony of CI in the sale of illegal BBB, returned to their sayote plantation to
drugs is harvest sayote. Later that night, she and
not indispensable. (Since in the case, her son stayed at their rented shack and
Judge Lagos justified his decision saying retired early to bed.||AAA was awakened
that the CI should have been presented in by a beam of light coming from the gaps
court)
in the walls of the shack directly
illuminating her face. She then inquired
Requiring the CI to testify is an added
imposition that runs contrary to who the person was, but nobody
jurisprudential doctrine, since the Court answered. Instead, the light was switched
has long established that the presentation off. After a few minutes, the light was
of an informant is not a requisite for the switched on again. Thereafter, she heard
prosecution of drug cases. The testimony shouting from the outside. Just then, the
of the CI is not indispensable, since it
male voice said, "Pabitaken kayo iti
would be merely corroborative of and
cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer bala." AAA cried out of fear. Anxious that
who was presented in court, and who the person outside would kill her and her
testified on the facts and circumstances of son, AA lit the gas lamp placed on top of
the sale and delivery of the prohibited the table, and opened the door while her
drug. son stood beside it. As the door opened,
she saw accused-appellant directly in front
Informants are usually not presented in
of her holding a flashlight. As the door
court because of the need to hide their
identities and preserve their invaluable opened, she saw accused-appellant
services to the police. Except when the directly in front of her holding a flashlight.
accused vehemently denies selling AAA did not immediately recognize
prohibited drugs and there are material accused-appellant. She invited him to
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the come inside the shack, but the latter
arresting officers, or there are reasons to
immediately held her hair and ordered her
believe that the officers had motives to
to walk uphill.
falsely testify against the accused, or that
it was the informant who acted as the
Upon reaching a sloping ground, accused-
poseur-buyer, the informant's testimony
may be dispensed with, as it will merely appellant ordered AAA to stop. Thereafter,
be corroborative of the apprehending accused-appellant placed the lit flashlight
officers' eyewitness accounts. in his pocket and ordered AAA to remove
her clothes. When she refused, accused-
appellant boxed her left eye and removed
32. PEOPLE vs. ALFREDO, her clothes. Completely naked, AAA was
G.R. No. 188560, 15 DECEMBER 2010

62
again ordered to walk uphill.|||Upon abrasion on the left and medial aspects of
reaching a grassy portion and a stump her labia minora about five centimeters
about one foot high, accused-appellant long and a confluent circular abrasion
ordered AAA to stop and lie on top of the caused by a blunt,rough object that has
stump, after accused-appellant boxed her been forcibly introduced into the
thighs. Accused-appellant then bent down genitalia.|||
and spread open AAA's legs. After
directing the beam of the flashlight on Version of the Defense
AAA's naked body, accused-appellant
He went to the place where AAA and her
removed his pants, lowered his brief to his
son were staying to get the two sacks of
knees, went on top of her, and inserted
sayote which were allegedly stolen by AAA
his penis into her vagina. Accused-
and her son from his mother’s harvest.
appellant threatened to box her if she
When he arrived at the place where AAA
moves.|||
and her son were staying, accused-
Ten minutes later, accused-appellant went appellant allegedly saw them
on top of AAA again and inserted his penis packing sayote, and he also supposedly
into her vagina and moved his buttocks up saw a sack of sayote with the name of his
and down. father printed on it. For this reason,
accused-appellant got mad and told AAA
Afterwards, accused-appellant went on top to go away and leave the place because
of AAA again and tried to insert his penis what they were doing was wrong.He
in the latter's vagina. His penis, however, supposedly left after five o'clock in the
has already softened. Frustrated, accused- afternoon and arrived at their house at
appellant knelt and inserted his fingers in around seven o'clock in the evening.
her vagina. After removing his fingers, During this time, all his family members
accused-appellant held a twig about 10 were watching television on Channel 3.
inches long and the size of a small finger Accused-appellant joined them in
in diameter which he used to pierce her watching a Tagalog movie. He then
vagina. Dissatisfied, accused-appellant allegedly went to bed at 10 o'clock in the
removed the twig and inserted the evening, while his parents continued to
flashlight in her vagina. After accused- watch television until 11 o'clock in the
appellant removed the flashlight from evening.
AAA's vagina, he went on top of her again,
pressing his elbows on her upper breasts Between the two conflicting versions of
and boxing her shoulders and thighs. the incident, the trial court gave credence
Subsequently, accused-appellant stood up to the version of the prosecution and
and warned her not to report the incident rendered its Decision dated February 17,
to the authorities. Immediately after, he 2006, finding accused-appellant guilty of
left her at the scene. two counts of rape. CA affirmed the
judgment of conviction. Accused-appellant
The following day, AAA went to report the filed his Notice of Appeal from the CA
incident to the police authorities. Decision.

Dr. Ged-ang conducted an internal Issues:

examination of the genitalia of AAA. Dr.
Ged-ang found that there was confluent

63
1. WoN the defense of alibi should be shack, AAA was "not then sure" but
considered if there are material already suspected that her rapist was
inconsistensies in the claims of the accused-appellant "because of his hair." In
prosecution other words, AAA was not yet sure
whether accused-appellant was the culprit
2. WoN the decision convicting accused is while they were still in the shack, as she
valid when the ponente of the decision did only became positively certain that it was
not have any opportunity to hear the him when the flashlight illuminated his
witness- YES face while they were on the mountain.

2. Yes. The validity of conviction is not

adversely affected by the fact that the
Ruling: sustained accused’s conviction
judge who rendered judgment was not the
1. No. A review of the records in the one who heard the witnesses.
instant case would reveal that accused-
Accused-appellant contends further that
appellant failed to present convincing
the judge who penned the appealed
evidence that he did not leave his house,
decision is different from the judge who
which is only about 150 meters away from
heard the testimonies of the witnesses
the shack of AAA, in the evening of April
and was, thus, in no position to render a
28, 2001. Significantly, it was also not
judgment, as he did not observe firsthand
physically impossible for accused-
their demeanor during trial.
appellant to be present on the mountain
where he allegedly raped AAA at the time
it was said to have been committed.||| In
addition, even if the alibi of accused- We do not agree. The fact that the trial
appellant appears to have been judge who rendered judgment was not the
corroborated by his mother, Remina, and one who had the occasion to observe the
his sister, Margaret, said defense is demeanor of the witnesses during trial,
unworthy of belief not only because but merely relied on the records of the
accused-appellant was positively identified case, does not render the judgment
by AAA, but also because it has been held erroneous, especially where the evidence
that alibi becomes more unworthy of merit on record is sufficient to support its
where it is established mainly by the conclusion.
accused himself and his or her relatives,
friends, and comrades-in-arms, and not As this Court held in People v.
Competente:
by credible persons.
The circumstance that the Judge
As between the statement made in an who rendered the judgment was not
affidavit and that given in open court, the the one who heard the witnesses,
latter is superior. There is likewise no does not detract from the validity of
the verdict of conviction. Even a
incompatibility between AAA's affidavit
cursory perusal of the Decision would
stating that she came to know of accused-
show that it was based on the evidence
appellant as the culprit when they were on presented during trial and that it was
the mountain and his flashlight illuminated carefully studied, with testimonies on
his face as he lay on top of her, and her direct and cross examination as well as
testimony that while they were still in the questions from the Court carefully
passed upon. (Emphasis supplied.)

64
 Further, the transcripts of stenographic Petitioner Romeo Nazareno and his
notes taken during the trial were extant wife, Eliza Nazreno, were charged with
and complete. Hence, there was no Serious Physical Injuries in the MTC of
impediment for the judge to decide the Naic, Cavite. After trial on the merits, the
case. said court set the promulgation of
judgment, but the same was postponed
After a careful examination of the records due to petitioner’s filing of a motion to re-
of this case, this Court is satisfied that the open the case on the ground of non-
prosecution's evidence established the presentation of a vital witness. However,
guilt of accused-appellant beyond the said motion was denied. Petitioner
reasonable doubt.| brought this matter to the CA through
certiorari with a prayer for TRO/WPI.
Notably, the prosecution has sufficiently
established the existence of the elements. Meanwhile, after MTC Judge
When AAA was called to the witness Diosomito was suspended, Acting Judge
stand, she gave a detailed narration of the Icasiano, Jr. promulgated the contentious
incident that transpired in the evening of Decision dated November 8, 1985 of
April 28, 2001 and early morning of April Judge Diosomito, acquitting Eliza
29, 2001. AAA categorically asserted that Nazareno but convicting her husband
accused-appellant had carnal knowledge Romeo Nazareno as charged. However, CA
of her and even sexually assaulted her also issued a TRO enjoining Acting Judge
against her will with the use of force, Icasiano, Jr. from proceeding with the
threat, or intimidation. AAA testified promulgation of judgement.
further that after accused-appellant
satisfied his lust, he sexually assaulted The petitioner filed a supplemental
her. He inserted his fingers into her petition to the CA where he alleged mainly
vagina and then he tried to pierce the that the decision is void, since at the time
same with a twig. Subsequently, he of promulgation of the decision, Judge
inserted his flashlight into her vagina. AAA Diosomito who signed the subject
was too weak to stop him. She had decision, had already retired from office.
struggled to free herself from accused- CA denied the petition and subsequent
appellant from the moment she was MR. Then petitioner brought this issue to
dragged from the shack until they reached the SC and it was also denied.
the mountains. However, accused-
appellant still prevailed over her. Notably, Then, petitioner filed his notice of
AAA was six months pregnant at that appeal to MTC Naic, appealing its decision
time. She was frightened and to the RTC. However, On October RTC
hopeless.|||Also, it should be noted that Judge Almario dismissed the appeal for
the findings in the medical examination of being filed out of time. MR also denied.
Dr. Ged-ang corroborated the testimony Undaunted, petitioner filed petitions for
of AAA. certiorari and mandamus with the CA
against RTC Judge Almario. CA denied the
33. PEOPLE vs. NAZARENO, petition. Thus, petitioner filed certiorari
27 FEBRUARY 2002 with the SC.

FACTS: ISSUE:

65
 a) Whether Judge Icasiano Jr. Trial Court of Naic, Cavite is a void
erred in promulgating the decision of judgment.
Judge Diosomito, who ceased to be a
member of the judiciary at the time of Thus, the petition is GRANTED. The
promulgation decision of retired Judge Diosimito as
promulgated by Judge Icasiano, Jr. is
b) Whether the RTC correctly declared NULL and VOID. Case is
dismissed his appeal for being filed out of remanded to the trial court for
time adjudication and judgment.

RULING:

a) YES. Judge Icasiano, Jr. was

incorrect. A judgment promulgated after
the judge who signed the decision has
ceased to hold office is not valid and
binding. Such a doctrine was held that for
a judgment to be valid, it must be duly
signed and promulgated during the
incumbency of the judge who signed it.
Thus, a decision penned by a judge after
his retirement cannot be validly
promulgated; it cannot acquire a binding
effect as it is null and void. Quod ab initio
non valet, in tractu temporis non
convalescit.

b) NO. A void judgment never

acquires finality. Hence, while admittedly,
the petitioner in the case at bar failed to
appeal timely the aforementioned decision
of the Municipal Trial Court of Naic,
Cavite, it cannot be deemed to have
become final and executory. In
contemplation of law, that void decision is
deemed non-existent.

Application:

In the instant case, therefore,

Judge Icasiano, Jr. could not validly
promulgate the decision of another judge,
Judge Diosomito, who has long "retired"
from the service. The decision dated
November 8, 1985 of Judge Diosomito, as
promulgated by Judge Icasiano, Jr., in
Criminal Case No. 2335 of the Municipal

66