CASES- Crim Jurisdiction

8/9/2019 CASES- Crim Jurisdiction

1/41

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - JURISDICTION

PEOPLE VS LAGON

G.R. No. 45815 May 18, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.LIBERTAD LAGON and HON. JDGE ISIDRO O. BARRIOS, AS PRESIDING JDGE OF THE

!IT" !ORT OF RO#AS !IT", respondents.

FELI!IANO, J.:

On 7 July 1976, a criminal information was filed with the City Court of Roxas City and doceted asCriminal Case !o. 7"6#, char$in$ private respondent %i&ertad %a$on with the crime of estafa underpara$raph #'d( of )rticle "1* of the Revised +enal Code. he information char$ed that the accusedhad alle$edly issued a chec in the amount of +-,#"#./ as payment for $oods or merchandisepurchased, nowin$ that she did not have sufficient funds to cover the chec, which chec thereforesu&se0uently &ounced.

he case proceeded to trial and the prosecution commenced the presentation of its evidence.owever, in an Order dated # 2ecem&er 1976, the City Court dismissed the information upon the$round that the penalty prescri&ed &y law for the offense char$ed was &eyond the court3s authority toimpose. he 4ud$e held that the 4urisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined &y the lawin force at the time of the institution of the action, and not &y the law in force at the time of thecommission of the crime. )t the time of the alle$ed commission of the crime in )pril 197*, 4urisdictionover the offense was vested &y law in the City Court. owever, &y the time the criminal informationwas filed, para$raph #'d( of )rticle "1* of the Revised +enal Code had already &een amended andthe penalty imposa&le upon a person accused thereunder increased, which penalty was &eyond theCity Court3s authority to impose. )ccordin$ly, the court dismissed the information without pre4udice toits &ein$ refiled in the proper court.

ence this +etition for Review &rou$ht &y the +eople, ar$uin$ that the City Court of Roxas City had 4urisdiction over Criminal Case !o. 7"6# and that it had erred in issuin$ its Order dismissin$ thecase. 5ecause the +etition for Review was si$ned &y the City iscal and )ssistant City iscal ofRoxas City as counsel for the +eople, the Court referred the petition to the Office of the olicitor8eneral for comment. Respondin$ to the Court3s resolution, the then actin$ olicitor 8eneral icente:endo;a stated that the Office of the olicitor 8eneral, havin$ &een previously consulted &y the

)ssistant City iscal of Roxas City, a$reed with the position taen &y the latter that the City Courthad 4urisdiction over the criminal case involved, and ased that the petition &e $iven due course.

)fter deli&eration on the instant +etition for Review, the Court considers that petitioner has failed toshow that the City Court had committed reversi&le error in dismissin$ the criminal information inCriminal Case !o. 7"6# without pre4udice to its refilin$ in the proper court.

municipal 4ud$es in the capitals of provinces and su&?provinces and 4ud$es of city courtsshall have lie 4urisdiction as the Court of irst @nstance to try parties char$ed with an offense withintheir respective 4urisdictions, in which the penalty provided &y lawdoes not exceed prisioncorreccional or imprisonment for not more than six (6) years or fine not exceeding P6,000 .00 orboth . . . .= @t appears that at the time of the commission of the offense char$ed on * )pril 197*, thepenalty imposa&le for the offense char$ed under para$raph #'d( in relation to the third su&?


2/41


para$raph of the first para$raph, )rticle "1* of the Revised +enal Code, was arresto mayor in itsmaximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period; at that time therefore, the offenseclearly fell within the 4urisdiction of the City Court of Roxas City.

)t the time of the institution of the criminal prosecution on 7 July 1976, the penalty imposa&le for theoffense char$ed in Criminal Case !o. 7"6# had &een increased &y +.2. !o. 1 'effective ##

Octo&er 197*( to prision mayor in its medium period .

@t is firmly settled doctrine that the su&4ect matter 4urisdiction of a court in criminal law matters isproperly measured &y the law in effect at the time of the commencement of a criminal action, ratherthan &y the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense char$ed. 1 hus, in accordancewith the a&ove rule, 4urisdiction over the instant case pertained to the then Court of irst @nstance ofRoxas City considerin$ that +.2. !o. 1 had increased the imposa&le penalty for the offense char$ed inCriminal Case !o. 7"6# to a level?in excess of the minimum penalty which a city court could impose.

he real 0uestion raised &y the petitioner isA would application of the a&ove?settled doctrine to theinstant case not result in also applyin$ +residential 2ecree !o. 1 to the present case, in disre$ardof the rule a$ainst retroactivity of penal lawsB )rticle ## of the Revised +enal Code permits penal

laws to have retroactive effect only =insofar as they favor the person $uilty of a felony, who is not aha&itual criminal, . . . = e do not &elieve so.

@n the first place, su&4ect?matter 4urisdiction in criminal cases is determined &y the authority of thecourt to impose the penalty imposa&le under the applica&le statute $iven the alle$ations of a criminalinformation. @n People v . Purisima, $the Court stressed thatA

xxx xxx xxx

. . . he issue here is one of 4urisdiction, of a court3s le$al competence to try acase ab origine. In criminal prosecutions, it is settled that the urisdiction of the courtis not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by theresult of the evidence that would be presented at the trial, but by the extent of the

penalty which the law imposes for the misdemeanor, crime or violation charged inthe complaint . @f the facts recited in the complaint and the punishment provided for &ylaw are sufficient to show that the court in which the complaint is presented has

4urisdiction, that court must assume 4urisdiction. % 'Citations omittedD Emphasissupplied.(

he same rule was set forth and amplified in People v . !uissan, 4 in the followin$ termsA

xxx xxx xxx

. . . in criminal prosecutions, urisdiction of the court is not determined by what maybe meted out to the offender after trial '+eople v. Cuello, 1 CR) 1-( or even by the

result of the evidence that would be presented during the trial '+eople v. Co ic 6#+hil. */"( but by the extent of the penalty which the law imposes, to$ether with otherle$al o&li$ations, on the basis of the facts as recited in the complaint orinformation '+eople v. +urisima, 69 CR) "-7( constitutive of the offensechar$ed, for once urisdiction is ac"uired by the court in which the information is filed,it is retained regardless whether the evidence proves a lesser offense than thatcharged in the information '+eople v. :ision, - O.8. 1""/( 5 'Emphasis supplied.(


3/41


hus, it may &e that after trial, a penalty lesser than the maximum imposa&le under the statute isproper under the specific facts and circumstances proven at the trial. @n such a case, that lesserpenalty may &e imposed &y the trial court 'provided it had su&4ect?matter 4urisdiction under the rulea&ove referred to( even if the reduced penalty otherwise falls within the exclusive 4urisdiction of aninferior court.

@n People v . !uissan, & the Court also saidA

xxx xxx xxx

. . . @t is un0uestiona&le that the #ourt of $irst Instance, ta%ing cogni&ance of acriminal case coming under its urisdiction, may, after trial, impose a penalty that is

proper for a crime within the exclusive competence of a municipal or city court as theevidence would warrant . @t may not &e said, therefore, that the Court of irst @nstancewould &e actin$ without 4urisdiction if in a simple seduction case, it would imposepenalty of not more than six months of imprisonment, if said case, for the reasonalready adverted to, &e held to fall under the 4urisdiction of the Court of irst@nstance, not a city or municipal court. ''Emphasis supplied.(

@n the case at &ar, the increased penalty provided for the offense char$ed in Criminal Case !o. 7"6#&y +.2. !o. 1 ' prison mayor in its medium period( is o&viously heavier than the penalty providedfor the same offense ori$inally imposed &y para$raph #'d( of )rticle "1* of the Revised +enal Code'up to prision correccional in its minimum period(.

hould the criminal information &e refiled in the proper court, that is, the proper Re$ional rial Court,that court may not impose that more onerous penalty upon private respondent %i&ertad %a$on'assumin$ the evidence shows that the offense was committed &efore ## Octo&er 197*(. 5ut theRe$ional rial Court would remain vested with su&4ect?matter 4urisdiction to try and decide the'refiled( case even thou$h the penalty properly imposa&le, $iven the date of the commission of theoffense char$ed, should &e the lower penalty ori$inally provided for in para$raph #'d( of )rticle "1*of the Revised +enal Code which is otherwise within the exclusive 4urisdiction of the City Court ofRoxas City. @n other words, the circumstance that +.2. !o. 1 would &e inapplica&le to the refiledcase would not result in the Re$ional rial Court losin$ su&4ect?matter 4urisdiction, nor in the casefallin$ &ac into the City Court3s exclusive 4urisdiction.

EREORE, the Court Resolved to 2E!F the +etition for Review for lac of merit. he Orderdated # 2ecem&er 1976 of the pu&lic respondent +residin$ Jud$e of the City Court of Roxas City ishere&y )@R:E2. !o costs.

$ernan, # .', utierre&, 'r, !idin and #ortes, '', concur


4/41


CRUZ VS. CA

LTGARDA !R(, petitioner, vs. THE !ORT OF APPEALS, PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES and )*+ HEIRS OF ESTANISLAA !.

RE"ES, -+-+/+n)+d y MIGEL !. RE"ES, respondents.

D E ! I S I O N

!ARPIO, J .

T*+ !a/+

his is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule -* of the Rules of Court toreverse the 2ecision of the Court of )ppeals dated :arch "1, 199* >1G and its Resolutiondated 2ecem&er 1, 199*.>#G he Court of )ppeals dismissed for &ein$ insufficient insu&stance the +etition for Certiorari and :andamus, which sou$ht to nullify two ordersof the Re$ional rial Court of :anila, 5ranch *", dated )pril 1, 199- and :ay 6, 199-.

T*+ An)+2+d+n) Fa2)/

he City +rosecutor of :anila char$ed petitioner with the crime of HEstafa thrualsification of +u&lic 2ocumentI &efore the :anila Re$ional rial Court. >"G+etitioner executed &efore a !otary +u&lic in the City of :anila an )ffidavit of elf?)d4udication of

a parcel of land statin$ that she was the sole survivin$ heir of the re$istered owner when in fact she new there were other survivin$ heirs. ince the offended party did notreserve the ri$ht to file a separate civil action arisin$ from the criminal offense, the civilaction was deemed instituted in the criminal case.

)fter trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision dated January 17, 199-ac0uittin$ petitioner on the $round of reasona&le dou&t. @n the same decision, the trialcourt rendered 4ud$ment on the civil aspect of the case, orderin$ the return to thesurvivin$ heirs of the parcel of land located in 5ulacan. >-G

On January #, 199-, petitioner received a copy of the decision.

On e&ruary 1/, 199-, petitioner filed &y re$istered mail a motion for reconsideration dated e&ruary 7, 199-, assailin$ the trial courts rulin$ on the civilaspect of the criminal case. +etitioner furnished the City +rosecutor a copy of themotion &y re$istered mail.

On )pril 1, 199-, the trial court denied petitioners motion for reconsiderationstatin$A

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn1


5/41


“Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 7, 1994, filed by the

accused through counsel and considering that there is nothing to show that the Office

of the City rosecutor was actually furnished or ser!ed with a co"y of the said Motion

for Reconsideration within the regle#entary "eriod of fifteen $1%& days fro# recei"t

by the accused on 'anuary (), 1994 of a co"y of the Court*s decision dated 'anuary

17, 1994, so that the sa#e is already final and e+ecutory, let the Motion forReconsideration be enied for lacof #erit./ >*G

+etitioner moved for a reconsideration of the trial courts order of )pril 1, 199-.he trial court denied the same in an order dated :ay 6, 199-, to witA

“0nder the nteri# Rules, no "arty shall be allowed a second #otion for

reconsideration of a final order or 2udg#ent $3ec. 4&. he #otion of accused dated ((

A"ril 1994 is a !iolation of this rule.

56RFOR, said #otion is 8./ >6G

%eft with no recourse, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with theCourt of )ppeals to nullify the two assailed orders of the trial court. +etitioner also asedthe Court of )ppeals to compel the trial court to resolve her motion for reconsiderationof the decision dated e&ruary 7, 199-.

T*+ R3n6 o7 )*+ !o3-) o7 A+a/

On :arch "1, 199*, the Court of )ppeals denied due course to the petition anddismissed the case for &ein$ insufficient in su&stance.

he Court of )ppeals sustained the trial courts order of )pril 1, 199- denyin$petitioners motion for reconsideration. he Court of )ppeals declared in partA

“3ection 1, Rule 1:, Rules of Court, "ro!ides as follows;

“3C. 1. Proof of Service. – roof of "ersonal ser!ice shall consist of a written

ad#ission of the "arty ser!ed, or the affida!it of the "arty ser!ing, containing a full

state#ent of the date, "lace and #anner of ser!ice. f the ser!ice is by ordinary #ail,

"roof thereof shall consist of an affida!it of the "erson #ailing of facts showingco#"liance with 3ection % of this rule. f ser!ice is #ade by registered #ail, "roof

shall be #ade by such affida!it and the registry recei"t issued by the #ailing office.

he registry return card shall be filed i##ediately u"on recei"t thereof by the sender,

or in lieu thereof the letter unclai#ed together with the certified or sworn co"y of the

notice gi!en by the "ost#aster to the addressee./

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn6


6/41


atent fro# the language of the said section is that in case ser!ice is #ade by

registered #ail, "roof of ser!ice shall be #ade by $a& affida!it of the "erson #ailing

and $b& the registry recei"t issued by the #ailing office. does not hold

water. 11G

@n a resolution dated 2ecem&er 1, 199*, the Court of )ppeals denied petitionersmotion for reconsideration.>1#G

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn12


7/41


ence, this petition.

T*+ I//3+/

@n her :emorandum, petitioner raises the followin$ issuesA

1. HEER E CO


8/41


+etitioner asserts that &oth copies of the motion for reconsideration were sent to thetrial court and the City +rosecutor &y re$istered mail on e&ruary 1/, 199-. +etitioner relies on 4urisprudence that the date of mailin$ is the date of filin$, ar$uin$ that the dateof mailin$ of &oth motions was on e&ruary 1/, 199-. +etitioner maintains that themotion was properly filed within the 1*?day period, citin$ the re$istry return card which

shows actual receipt on e&ruary ##, 199- &y the City +rosecutor of a copy of themotion.

he Court of )ppeals, notin$ that petitioner received a copy of the decision onJanuary #, 199-, stated that petitioner had until e&ruary 1#, 199- to appeal thedecision or file a motion for reconsideration. he Court of )ppeals ruled that petitioner,&y filin$ a motion for reconsideration without any proof of service, merely filed a scrap of paper and not a motion for reconsideration. ence, the re$lementary period of petitioner to appeal continued to run and lapsed after the 1*?day period, main$ the trial courtsdecision final and executory.

e a$ree with the Court of )ppeals that petitioner patently failed to comply with the

mandatory re0uirements on proof of service insofar as the pu&lic prosecutor isconcerned. he Court has stressed time and a$ain that non?compliance with ections-, * and 6 of Rule 1* is a fatal defect. he well?settled rule is that a motion which failsto comply with ections -, *, and 6 of Rule 1* is a useless piece of paper. @f filed, suchmotion is not entitled to 4udicial co$ni;ance and does not stop the runnin$ of there$lementary period for filin$ the re0uisite pleadin$. >1-G

ection 6 of Rule 1* readsA

“3C. =. > Proof of service to be filed with motions. ? 8o #otion shall be acted u"on

by the court, without proof of service of the notice thereof./>1*G $#"hasis su""lied&

rom the lan$ua$e of the rule, proof of service is mandatory. ithout such proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is nothin$ &ut an empty formality deservin$ no

4udicial co$ni;ance.

ection 1" of Rule 1" further re0uires thatA

“3C. 1:. Proof of Service. ? + + +. f ser!ice is #ade by registered #ail, "roof shall

be #ade by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the #ailing office. he

registry return card shall be filed i##ediately u"on its recei"t by the sender, or in lieu

thereof the unclai#ed letter together with the certified or sworn co"y of the notice

gi!en by the "ost#aster to the addressee./ >16G $#"hasis su""lied&

@f service is &y re$istered mail, proof of service consists of the affidavit of the personmailing and the registry receipt , &oth of which must &e appended to the motion.

)&sent one or the other, or worse &oth, there is no proof of service.

@n the instant case, an examination of the record shows that petitioner received acopy of the trial courts decision of January 17, 199- on January #, 199-. ithin there$lementary period to appeal, petitioner filed on e&ruary 1/, 199-, &y re$istered mail,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_edn16


9/41


a motion for reconsideration. owever, petitioner failed to attach both the affidavit andthe re$istry receipt to the motion for reconsideration as re0uired &y the Rules.

he defect of the motion is apparent on its face. +etitioners motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper as it did not contain the re0uired proof of service.

owever, petitioner is contestin$ that part of the decision of the trial court findin$him civilly lia&le even as he is ac0uitted from the criminal char$e on reasona&le dou&t.his raises the issue of whether the pu&lic prosecutor is the only proper party to &eserved with petitioners motion for reconsideration. he present Rules do not re0uirethe accused to serve a copy of his motion for reconsideration on the offended party whomay not &e represented &y a private counsel. he Rules re0uire service only on thepu&lic prosecutor if the offended party is not represented &y a private counsel.

) 4ud$ment of ac0uittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecutioncannot appeal the ac0uittal &ecause of the constitutional prohi&ition a$ainst dou&le

4eopardy. owever, either the offended party or the accused may appeal the civil aspect

of the 4ud$ment despite the ac0uittal of the accused. he pu&lic prosecutor has$enerally no interest in appealin$ the civil aspect of a decision ac0uittin$ the accused.

he ac0uittal ends the wor of the pu&lic prosecutor and the case is terminated asfar as he is concerned.

he real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the offended partyand the accused. hus, any appeal or motion for reconsideration of the civil aspect of adecision in a criminal case must &e served on the other real party in interest. @f theoffended party appeals or moves for reconsideration, the accused is necessarily serveda copy of the pleadin$ throu$h his counsel.

@f the accused appeals or moves for reconsideration, a lacuna arises if the offendedparty is not represented &y a private counsel. @n such a situation, under the presentRules only the pu&lic prosecutor is served the notice of appeal or a copy of the motionfor reconsideration. o fill in this lacuna in the present Rules, we re0uire that henceforthif the accused appeals or moves for reconsideration, he should serve a copy of hispleadin$ on the offended party himself if the latter is not represented &y a privatecounsel. his is in addition to service on the pu&lic prosecutor who is the counsel of record of the tate.

@n the instant case, the Court notes that petitioner did not serve a copy of her motionfor reconsideration on the offended party who was not represented &y a private counselin the trial court. @n the interest of 4ustice, and considerin$ that the present Rules are

silent on the matter, it is only fair to $ive petitioner a period of five days from receipt of this decision within which to serve a copy of her motion for reconsideration on theoffended party.

Trial court’s jurisdiction over the civil aspect.


10/41


+etitioner maintains that the Court of )ppeals erred in findin$ that the trial court had 4urisdiction to render 4ud$ment on the civil aspect of the criminal case. +etitioner asserts that the :anila trial court had no 4urisdiction over the parcel of land in 5ulacanwhich is outside the trial courts territorial 4urisdiction.

@n upholdin$ the trial courts 4urisdiction, the Court of )ppeals heldA

“


11/41


HEREFORE, petitioner is $iven five '*( days from receipt of this decision withinwhich to serve a copy of her motion for reconsideration on the offended party. %et thiscase &e remanded to the trial court for further proceedin$s.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (#hairman), and Panganiban, '', concur.*andoval+utierre&, ', on leave.

>1G +enned &y )ssociate Justice 5uenaventura J. 8uerrero and concurred in &y )ssociate Justices )saali. @snani and )ntonio +. olano, ollo, pp. ?1".

>#G ollo, p. 1-.

>"G 2oceted as Criminal Case !o. 7?*77-" in 5ranch *" of the Re$ional rial Court of :anila.

>-G he trial court declared that petitioner held the parcel of land merely as trustee of the true survivin$

heirs of the re$istered owner. he trial court ordered petitioner not to encum&er or dispose of the saidproperty at the ris of incurrin$ criminal lia&ility. inally, the trial court ordered the cancellation of the titlein the name of petitioner and the issuance of a new title in the name of the heirs, upon reim&ursement topetitioner of the +#,*//.// she paid to redeem the property.

>*G ollo, p. -6.

>6G ollo, p. */.

>7G ollo, p. 11.

>G his should read )pril 1, 199-.

>9G ollo, p. 1#.

>1/G Ibid

>11G Ibid, p. 1".

>1#G *upra, see note #.

>1"G ollo, pp. 1--?1-*.

>1-G 2el Castillo vs. )$uinaldo, #1# CR) 169 '199#(D Cui vs. :adaya$, #-* CR) 1 '199*(D +rado vs.eridiano @@, #/- CR) 6*- '1991(.

>1*G his is ta-en fro# 3ection = of the for#er Rule, which reads;

HEC. 6. ? Proof of service to be filed ith motions K !o motion shall &e acted upon &y the court,without proof of service of the notice thereof, except when the court is satisfied that the ri$hts of the

adverse party or parties are not affected.I>16G his is taen from ection 1/ of the old Rule.

>17G *upra, see note 9.

>1G Oscar :. errera, Remedial %aw, olume @, 199# Edition, p. ".

>19G ection 1, Rule 111 of the #/// Rules of Criminal +rocedure, which was the same rule as the 19*Rules insofar as civil lia&ility ex+delicto was concerned.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref19


12/41


>#/G he last para$raph of ection #, Rule 111 of the #/// Rules of Criminal +rocedure provides as followsAHhe extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. owever, the civilaction &ased on delict may &e deemed extin$uished if there is a findin$ in a final 4ud$ment in the criminalaction that the act or omission from which the civil lia&ility may arise did not exist.I his is su&stantiallythe same rule as in the 19* Rules of Criminal +rocedure.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/123340.htm#_ednref20


13/41


DELA CRUZ VS. MOYA

RODOLFO DELA !R(, petitioner,vs.Hon. FELI# L. MO"A, n */ 2aa2)y a/ P-+/dn6 J3d6+ o7 B-an2* II o7 )*+ !o3-) o7 F-/)In/)an2+ o7 Daao, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

olando # ama for petitioner

-he *olicitor eneral for respondents

!ORTES, J.:

@nvolvin$ as it does a purely le$al 0uestion, the present petition for certiorari and mandamus wascertified to this Court &y the then @ntermediate )ppellate Court in its resolution dated )u$ust "/,19".

On e&ruary #", 1979, Rodolfo 2ela Cru;, a mem&er of the )rmed orces of the +hilippinesassi$ned to the @ntelli$ence and Operations ection of the -"#nd +C Company, to$ether with other+C men, received a mission order to proceed to 5aran$ay +an$i, :aco, to. omas, 2avao for thepurpose of verifyin$ and apprehendin$ persons who were alle$edly en$a$ed in ille$al cocfi$htin$.@n compliance with said mission order, 2ela Cru; and company proceeded to :aco, 2avao del !orteand cau$ht in fla$rante the operators of said ille$al cocfi$htin$, &ut said operators resisted arrest.he soldiers left the place &ut they &rou$ht with them to the +C ead0uarters the evidence of thecrime, such as $affs and fi$htin$ cocs. he operators of the ille$al cocfi$hts, includin$ thedeceased Euse&io Ca&ilto, followed the soldiers on their way &ac to the +C ead0uarters, catchin$up with them on the a$um?:ati !ational i$hway. i$htin$ ensued and in the scuffle, 2ela Cru;shot Ca&ilto.

On )u$ust #, 1979, 2ela Cru; was char$ed with homicide in the Court of irst @nstance of 2avao, inan information filed &y the +rovincial iscal. he case was doceted as Criminal Case !o. -///.

hile the case was pendin$ trial, +residential 2ecree !os. 1## and 1##?) were promul$ated &ythe +resident of the +hilippines on January 16, 191, vestin$ in courts?martial 4urisdiction overcrimes committed &y mem&ers of the )rmed orces or of the +hilippine Consta&ulary inperformance of their duties.

Claimin$ that the crime for which he was char$ed was committed in relation to the performance ofhis duties, 2ela Cru; filed with the Court of irst @nstance of 2avao a motion to transfer the case tothe military authorities so he could &e tried &y court martial. he motion was denied. ence, thepresent petition.

)t issue is whether the civil courts have 4urisdiction over the su&4ect matter of Criminal Case !o.-///.

One of the essential re0uisites of a valid court proceedin$ is that the court hearin$ the case musthave 4urisdiction over the su&4ect matter of the case. @f the court is actin$ without 4urisdiction, thenthe entire proceedin$s are null and void.


14/41


Jurisdiction over the su&4ect matter is determined &y the statute in force at the time of thecommencement of the action. >ilvestre v. :ilitary Commission, %?-"66, :arch , 197, # CR)1/D +eople v. Romualdo, 9/ +hil. 7"9 '19*#(D Rillora;a v. )rcia$a, 1# +hil. 799 '1967(, #1 CR)717.G )nd once 4urisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the end of the liti$ation.>+amintuan v. i$lao, *" +hil. 1, '19#9(D +hil. %and?)ir?ea %a&or


15/41


EREORE, the petition is 8R)!E2. he in Criminal Case !o. -// are declared null and void&ut without pre4udice to the filin$ of another action in the proper forum. %et a copy of this decision &efurnished the Jud$e )dvocate of the +hilippine Consta&ulary, Camp Crame, Mue;on City, forappropriate action.

$ernan, utierre&, 'r, $eliciano and !idin, '', concur


16/41


FUKUZUME VS. PEOPLE

YUSUKE FUKUZUME,* G.R. No. 143647

etitioner,

resent;

08O, Chairman,@@

A03RA>MAR8,

> !ersus > CABB'O, 3R.,

8A, and

C6CO>8AARO,@@@ JJ .

ro#ulgated;

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Res"ondent. 8o!e#ber 11, (%

+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J .


17/41


ri!ate co#"lainant 'a!ier 8g Gu $Gu& is a business#an engaged in buying

and selling alu#inu# scra" wires.D:E 3o#eti#e in 'uly 1991, Gu, acco#"anied by a

friend, Mr. 'o!ate,D4E who was the !ice>"resident of Manila lectric Co#"any, went

to the house of herein accused>a""ellant Gusu-e Fu-uHu#e $Fu-uHu#e& in

araIaJue.D%E 'o!ate introduced Fu-uHu#e to Gu telling the latter that Fu-uHu#e is

fro# Furu-awa lectric Cor"oration $Furu-awa& and that he has at his dis"osal

alu#inu# scra" wires.D=E Fu-uHu#e confir#ed this infor#ation and told Gu that

the scra" wires belong to Furu-awa but they are under the care of 8ational ower

Cor"oration $8AOCOR&.D7E


18/41


dated ece#ber 17, 1991 and ece#ber (7, 1991 clai#ing that these are s"urious

as the "erson who signed these docu#ents is no longer connected with 8AOCOR

as of ece#ber 1991.D(1E 0nable to get the alu#inu# scra" wires fro# the

8AOCOR co#"ound, Gu tal-ed to Fu-uHu#e and as-ed fro# the latter the

refund of the #oney he "aid hi#. D((E Fu-uHu#e "ro#ised to return Gu*s #oney.D(:E

5hen Fu-uHu#e failed to co#"ly with his underta-ing, Gu sent hi# a de#and

letter as-ing for the refund of 4(4,. "lus loss of "rofits.D(4E 3ubseJuently, Gu

filed a co#"laint with the 8ational


19/41


56RFOR, all the foregoing "re#ises considered, the Court hereby

finds the accused 0BG beyond reasonable doubt of the cri#e of estafa and

hereby orders hi# to suffer the #a+i#u# "enalty of i#"rison#ent for twenty$(& years. 5ith res"ect to his ci!il liability, accused is hereby ordered to "ay

co#"lainant the a#ount of 4(4,. "lus legal interest fro# the date of

de#and until fully "aid.

3O ORR.D()E

Aggrie!ed by the trial court*s decision, Fu-uHu#e filed an a""eal with the

CA.

On March 1:, (, the CA "ro#ulgated its decision affir#ing the findings

and conclusions of the trial court but #odifying the "enalty i#"osed, thus;

K although the trial court correctly i#"osed the #a+i#u# "enalty of

i#"rison#ent for twenty $(& years, it failed to deter#ine the #ini#u# "enalty

for the offense co##itted $ prision correccional in its #a+i#u# "eriod to prision

mayor in its #ini#u# "eriod but i#"osed in the #a+i#u# "eriod&, hence, the

"enalty is #odified to si+ $=& years and one $1& day of prision mayor in its

#ini#u# "eriod, as the #ini#u#, to not #ore than twenty $(& years

of reclusion temporal in its #a+i#u# "eriod, as #a+i#u#.D(9E

Accordingly, the dis"ositi!e "ortion of the CA ecision reads;

56RFOR, the 2udg#ent a""ealed fro#, e+ce"t for the

afore#entioned #odification in the "rison ter# of a""ellant, is hereby

AFFRM.

3O ORR.D:E

6ence, herein "etition filed by Fu-uHu#e based on the following grounds;

6 C3O8 OF 6 6O8ORA


20/41


56 BA5 OR 56 6 ABCA


21/41


5ith res"ect to the sworn state#ent of Gu, which was "resented in e!idence

by the "rosecution, it is clear that he alleged therein that on 'uly 1(, 1991, he ga!e

Fu-uHu#e the a#ount of %,. at the ntercontinental 6otel in Ma-ati.

6owe!er, we agree with Fu-uHu#e*s contention that Gu testified during his direct

e+a#ination that on 'uly 1(, 1991 he ga!e the a#ount of %,. to Fu-uHu#ein the latter*s house. t is not dis"uted that Fu-uHu#e*s house is located in

araIaJue. Gu testified thus;

Mr. 5itness, you testified the last ti#e that you -now the accused

in this case, Mr. Gusu-e Fu-uHu#ePA Ges, sir.

8ow, would you enlighten us under what circu#stance you ca#e

to -now the accusedPA -now the accused Mr. Gusu-e Fu-uHu#e through Mr. 6ubati.

And why or how did Mr. 6ubati co#e to -now the accused, if you

-nowP

A Mr. 6ubati ca#e to #y "lace dealing with the alu#inu# scra"wires.

AG. 8. 3R8

Gour 6onor, #ay #o!e to stri-e out the answer. t is not res"onsi!e to

the Juestion. CO0R

lease wait until the answer is co#"leted.

8ow, you #et this Mr. 6ubati. 6owP

A 6e ca#e to #e offering #e alu#inu# scra" wires.

F3CAB . 6RA8

5hen was that, Mr. 5itnessP

A hat was in 1991, sir.

CO0R

5henP


22/41


F3CAB . 6RA8

Gour 6onor "lease, #ay the witness be allowed to consult his#e#orandu#.

A 'uly 1(, 1991, sir.

And what trans"ired during that ti#e you #et Mr. 6ubatiP

A 5e went to the house of Mr. Fu-uHu#e and ga#e $sic& hi# so#e

a#ount of #oney.

8ow, would you tell the Court the reason why you "arted to theaccused in this case the a#ount of #oneyP

A n "ay#ent of the alu#inu# scra" wires and we ha!e docu#ents to

that effect.

8ow, "lease tell us what really was that transaction that too- "laceat the house of Mr. Fu-uHu#e on that "articular dateP

A Our agree#ent with Mr. 6ubati and with Mr. Fu-uHu#e is that, a# going to gi!e #oney in "ay#ent of the alu#inu# scra" wires

co#ing fro# Furu-awa letric Co#"any.

6ow #uch is the a#ount of #oney which you agreed to gi!e to theaccusedP

A Our first agree#ent was for (,.

5here is that alu#inu# scra" locatedP

A he electric alu#inu# scra" wires was or were under the care of

the 8ational ower Cor"oration but according to Mr. Fu-uHu#e it

belongs to Furu-awa lectric Co#"any.

n short, Mr. 5itness, on 'uly 1(, 1991, you only ga!e to the

accused the a#ount of %,P

AG. 8. 3R8

Ob2ection, Gour 6onor.

F3CAB . 6RA8


23/41


he co#"lainant testified he ga!e %,. a# as-ing how #uch the

co#"lainant ga!e to the accused on that "articular date.

A On 'uly 1(, ga!e hi# %, on that date.

8ot (,P

A 8o, sir.D:4E

3ettled is the rule that whene!er there is inconsistency between the affida!it and

the testi#ony of a witness in court, the testi#ony co##ands greater weight

considering that affida!its ta-en ex parte are inferior to testi#ony gi!en in court,

the for#er being al#ost in!ariably inco#"lete and oftenti#es inaccurate.D:%E

More i#"ortantly, we find nothing in the direct or cross>e+a#ination of Gu

to establish that he ga!e any #oney to Fu-uHu#e or transacted business with hi#

with res"ect to the sub2ect alu#inu# scra" wires inside or within the "re#ises of

the ntercontinental 6otel in Ma-ati, or anywhere in

Ma-ati for that #atter. enue in cri#inal cases is an essential ele#ent of

2urisdiction.D:=E Citing Uy vs. Court of Appeals,D:7E we held in the fairly recent case

of Macasaet vs. People [38] that;

t is a funda#ental rule that for 2urisdiction to be acJuired by courts in

cri#inal cases the offense should ha!e been co##itted or any one of its essential

ingredients too- "lace within the territorial 2urisdiction of the court. erritorial 2urisdiction in cri#inal cases is the territory where the court has 2urisdiction to

ta-e cogniHance or to try the offense allegedly co##itted therein by the accused.

hus, it cannot ta-e 2urisdiction o!er a "erson charged with an offense allegedlyco##itted outside of that li#ited territory. Further#ore, the 2urisdiction of a

court o!er the cri#inal case is deter#ined by the allegations in the co#"laint or

infor#ation. And once it is so shown, the court #ay !alidly ta-e cogniHance of the

case. Ho!"#"$, %& '(" "#%)"+" ))+") )$% '(" '$%/ 0(o! '(' '(" o&&"0"!0 +o%''") 0o"!("$" "/0", '(" +o$' 0(o/) )%0%00 '(" +'%o &o$ !'

o& 2$%0)%+'%o.D:9E $#"hasis su""lied&

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn42


24/41


5here life or liberty is affected by its "roceedings, the court #ust -ee" strictly

within the li#its of the law authoriHing it to ta-e 2urisdiction and to try the case and

to render 2udg#ent.D4E

n the "resent case, the cri#inal infor#ation against Fu-uHu#e was filed

with and tried by the RC of Ma-ati. 6e was charged with estafa as defined under

Article :1%, "aragra"h ($a& of the Re!ised enal Code, the ele#ents of which are

as follows;

1. hat there #ust be a false "retense, fraudulent act or fraudulent #eans.

(. hat such false "retense, fraudulent act or fraudulent #eans #ust be#ade or e+ecuted "rior to or si#ultaneously with the co##ission of the fraud.

:. hat the offended "arty #ust ha!e relied on the false "retense,

fraudulent act, or fraudulent #eans, that is, he was induced to "art with his #oney

or "ro"erty because of the false "retense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent #eans.

4. hat as a result thereof, the offended "arty suffered da#age.D41E

he cri#e was alleged in the nfor#ation as ha!ing been co##itted in Ma-ati.

6owe!er, aside fro# the sworn state#ent e+ecuted by Gu on A"ril 19, 1994, the

"rosecution "resented no other e!idence, testi#onial or docu#entary, to

corroborate Gu*s sworn state#ent or to "ro!e that any of the abo!e>enu#erated

ele#ents of the offense charged was co##itted in Ma-ati. ndeed, the "rosecution

failed to establish that any of the subseJuent "ay#ents #ade by Gu in the a#ounts

of %,. on 'uly 1(, 1991,(,. on 'uly ((, 1991, %,. on

October 14, 1991 and17,. on October 1), 1991 was gi!en in Ma-ati.

8either was there "roof to show that the certifications "ur"orting to "ro!e that

8AOCOR has in its custody the sub2ect alu#inu# scra" wires and thatFu-uHu#e is authoriHed by Furu-awa to sell the sa#e were gi!en by Fu-uHu#e to

Gu in Ma-ati. On the contrary, the testi#ony of Gu established that all the

ele#ents of the offense charged had been co##itted in araIaJue, to wit; that on

'uly 1(, 1991, Gu went to the house of Fu-uHu#e in araIaJue that with the

intention of selling the sub2ect alu#inu# scra" wires, the latter "retended that he is

a re"resentati!e of Furu-awa who is authoriHed to sell the said scra" wires that

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn44


25/41


based on the false "retense of Fu-uHu#e, Gu agreed to buy the sub2ect alu#inu#

scra" wires that Gu "aid Fu-uHu#e the initial a#ount of%,. that as a

result, Gu suffered da#age. 3tated differently, the cri#e of estafa, as defined and

"enaliHed under Article :1%, "aragra"h ($a& of the Re!ised enal Code, was

consu##ated when Gu and Fu-uHu#e #et at the latter*s house in araIaJue and, by falsely "retending to sell alu#inu# scra" wires, Fu-uHu#e was able to induce

Gu to "art with his #oney.

he Office of the 3olicitor eneral argues that Fu-uHu#e hi#self alleged in

his affida!it dated 'uly (, 1994 that in an uns"ecified date, he

recei!ed %,. fro# Gu at the ntercontinental 6otel in Ma-ati. 6owe!er, we

cannot rely on this affida!it for the reason that it for#s "art of the records of the

"reli#inary in!estigation and, therefore, #ay not be considered e!idence. t is

settled that the record of the "reli#inary in!estigation, whether conducted by a

2udge or a "rosecutor, shall not for# "art of the record of the case in the RC.D4(E

n People vs. Crispin,D4:E this Court held that the fact that the affida!it for#ed "art

of the record of the "reli#inary in!estigation does not 2ustify its being treated as

e!idence because the record of the "reli#inary in!estigation does not for# "art of

the record of the case in the RC. 3uch record #ust be introduced as e!idence

during trial, and the trial court is not co#"elled to ta-e 2udicial notice of the sa#e.D44E 3ince neither "rosecution nor defense "resented in e!idence Fu-uHu#e*s

affida!it, the sa#e #ay not be considered "art of the records, #uch less e!idence.

Fro# the foregoing, it is e!ident that the "rosecution failed to "ro!e that

Fu-uHu#e co##itted the cri#e of estafa in Ma-ati or that any of the essential

ingredients of the offense too- "lace in the said city. 6ence, the 2udg#ent of the

trial court con!icting Fu-uHu#e of the cri#e of estafa

should be set aside for want of 2urisdiction, without "re2udice, howe!er, to thefiling of a""ro"riate charges with the court of co#"etent 2urisdiction.

t is noted that it was only in his "etition with the CA that Fu-uHu#e raised

the issue of the trial court*s 2urisdiction o!er the offense charged. 8onetheless, the

rule is settled that an ob2ection based on the ground that the court lac-s 2urisdiction

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn47


26/41


o!er the offense charged #ay be raised or consideredmotu propio by the court at

any stage of the "roceedings or on a""eal. D4%E Moreo!er, 2urisdiction o!er the

sub2ect #atter in a cri#inal case cannot be conferred u"on the court by the

accused, by e+"ress wai!er or otherwise, since such 2urisdiction is conferred by the

so!ereign authority which organiHed the court, and is gi!en only by law in the#anner and for# "rescribed by law.D4=E 5hile an e+ce"tion to this rule was

recogniHed by this Court beginning with the land#ar- case of Tijam vs.

Sion!hanoy,D47E wherein the defense of lacof 2urisdiction by the court which

rendered the Juestioned ruling was considered to be barred by laches, we find that

the factual circu#stances in!ol!ed in said case, a ci!il case, which 2ustified the

de"arture fro# the general rule are not "resent in the instant cri#inal case.

hus, ha!ing found that the RC of Ma-ati did not ha!e 2urisdiction to try

the case against Fu-uHu#e, we find it unnecessary to consider the other issues

raised in the "resent "etition.

56RFOR, the instant "etition is GRANTED. he assailed decision

and resolution of the Court of A""eals in CA>.R. CR 8o. (1)))

are SET ASIDE on ground of lacof 2urisdiction on the "art of the Regional rial

Court of Ma-ati, ): isDISMISSED without

"re2udice.

3O ORR.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/143647.htm#_ftn50


27/41


BUAYA VS. POLO

SOLEMNIDAD M. BA"A, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE EN!ESLAO M. POLO, P-+/dn6 J3d6+, B-an2* #I#, R+6ona T-a!o3-) o7 Mana and )*+ !ONTR" BAN:ERS INSRAN!E !ORPORATION, respondents.

/polinario !uaya for petitioner

omeo 1elas"ue& for respondent #ountry !an%ers Insurance #orporation

PARAS, J.:

+etitioner, olemnidad :. 5uaya, in the instant petition for certiorari , sees to annul and set asidethe orders of denial issued &y the respondent Jud$e of the Re$ional rial Court of :anila, 5ranchN@N on her :otion to Muash2ismiss and :otion for Reconsideration in Criminal Case !o. %?"?###*# entitled =People of the Philippines vs *olemnidad !uaya2 he :otion to 2ismiss was

anchored on the followin$ $rounds 'a( the court has no 4urisdiction over the case and '&( the su&4ectmatter is purely civil in nature.

@t appears that petitioner was an insurance a$ent of the private respondent, who was authori;ed totransact and underwrite insurance &usiness and collect the correspondin$ premiums for and in&ehalf of the private respondent.


28/41


ere, petitioner 0uestions the 4urisdiction of the Re$ional rial Court of :anila to tae co$ni;ance ofthis criminal case for estafa.

@t is well?settled that the averments in the complaint or information characteri;e the crime to &eprosecuted and the court &efore which it must &e tried '5alite v. +eople, %?#1-7*, ept. "/,1966cited in +eople v. :asilan$, 1-# CR) 6/(.

@n 1illanueva v .rti&, et al '%?1*"--, :ay "/, 196/, 1/ +hil, -9"( this Court ruled that in order todetermine the 4urisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint must &e examined for thepurpose of ascertainin$ whether or not the facts set out therein and the punishment provided for &ylaw fall within the 4urisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed. he 4urisdiction of courts incriminal cases is determined &y the alle$ations of the complaint or information, and not &y thefindin$s the court may mae after the trial '+eople v. :ission, 7 +hil. 6-1(.

he information in the case at reads as followsA

he undersi$ned accuses olemnidad 5uaya of the crime of estafa, committed as followsA

hat durin$ the period 19/ to June 1*, 19#, inclusive, in the City of:anila, +hilippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully,unlawfully and feloniously defraud the Country 5aners @nsuranceCorporation represented &y Elmer 5ane; duly or$ani;ed and earthunder the laws of the +hilippine with principal address at 9th floor,8.R. )ntonio 5ld$., .:. Palaw, Ermita, in said City, in the followin$manner, to wit. the said havin$ &een authori;ed to act as insurancea$ent of said corporation, amon$ whose duties were to remitcollections due from customers thereat and to account for and turnover the same to the said Country 5aners @nsurance Corporationrepresented &y Elmer 5ane;, as soon as possi&le or immediatelyupon demand, collected and received the amount of +"6,*/.//representin$ payments of insurance premiums from customers, &utherein accused, once in possession of said amount, far fromcomplyin$ with her aforesaid o&li$ation, failed and refused to do soand with intent to defraud, a&sconded with the whole amount there&ymisappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount of+"*,*/.// to her own personal used and &enefit, to the dama$eand pre4udice of said Country 5aners @nsurance Corporation in theamount of +"*,*/.// +hilippine Currency.

CO!R)RF O %). 'p. --, Rollo(

ection 1-'a(, Rule 11/ of the Revised Rules of Court providesA @n all criminal Q prosecutions theaction shall &e instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the offense

was committed or any of the essential elements thereof too place.

he su&4ect information char$es petitioner with estafa committed =durin$ the period 19/ to June 1*,19# inclusive in the #ity of anila, Philippines . . .= 'p. --, Rollo(

Clearly then, from the very alle$ation of the information the Re$ional rial Court of :anila has 4urisdiction.


29/41


5esides, the crime of estafa is a continuin$ or transitory offense which may &e prosecuted at theplace where any of the essential elements of the crime too place. One of the essential elements ofestafa is dama$e or pre4udice to the offended party. he private respondent has its principal place of&usiness and office at :anila. he failure of the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums shecollected alle$edly caused dama$e and pre4udice to private respondent in :anila.

)nent petitioners other contention that the su&4ect matter is purely civil in nature, suffice it to statethat evidentiary facts on this point have still to &e proved.

EREORE, the petition is 2@:@E2 for lac of merit he case is remanded to the Re$ionalrial Court of :anila, 5ranch N@N for further proceedin$s.

O OR2ERE2.

elencio+3errer


30/41


MIRANDA VS TULIAO

JOSE !. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMA!IO, and ROMEO B. O!ON, +etitioners,vs.;IRGILIO M. TLIAO, Respondent.

2 E C @ @ O !

!HI!O


31/41


review where we, on 9 Octo&er #//1, ac0uitted the accused therein on the $round of reasona&ledou&t.

ometime in eptem&er 1999, +O# :aderal was arrested. On #7 )pril #//1, he executed a swornconfession and identified petitioners Jose C. :iranda, +O" Romeo 5. Ocon, and +O" )l&erto +.2almacio, a certain 5oyet dela Cru; and )mado 2oe, as the persons responsi&le for the deaths of

icente 5au;on and Eli;er uliao.

Respondent uliao filed a criminal complaint for murder a$ainst petitioners, 5oyet dela Cru;, and )mado 2oe, and su&mitted the sworn confession of +O# :aderal. On #* June #//1, )ctin$+residin$ Jud$e ilfredo umaliuan issued warrants of arrest a$ainst petitioners and +O#:aderal.

On #9 June #//1, petitioners filed an ur$ent motion to complete preliminary investi$ation, toreinvesti$ate, and to recall andor 0uash the warrants of arrest.

@n the hearin$ of the ur$ent motion on 6 July #//1, Jud$e umaliuan noted the a&sence ofpetitioners and issued a Joint Order denyin$ said ur$ent motion on the $round that, since the court

did not ac0uire 4urisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot &e properly heard &y the court. @nthe meantime, petitioners appealed the resolution of tate +rosecutor %eo . Reyes to the2epartment of Justice.

On 17 )u$ust #//1, the new +residin$ Jud$e )nastacio 2. )n$had too over the case and issued aJoint Order reversin$ the Joint Order of Jud$e umaliuan. Conse0uently, he ordered the cancellationof the warrant of arrest issued a$ainst petitioner :iranda. e liewise applied this Order topetitioners Ocon and 2almacio in an Order dated #1 eptem&er #//1. tate +rosecutor %eo .Reyes and respondent uliao moved for the reconsideration of the said Joint Order and prayed forthe inhi&ition of Jud$e )n$had, &ut the motion for reconsideration was denied in a Joint Order dated16 Octo&er #//1 and the prayer for inhi&ition was denied in a Joint Order dated ## Octo&er #//1.

On #* Octo&er #//1, respondent uliao filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohi&ition withthis Court, with prayer for a emporary Restrainin$ Order, seein$ to en4oin Jud$e )n$had fromfurther proceedin$ with the case, and seein$ to nullify the Orders and Joint Orders of Jud$e

)n$had dated 17 )u$ust #//1, #1 eptem&er #//1, 16 Octo&er #//1, and ## Octo&er #//1.

On 1# !ovem&er #//1, this Court issued a Resolution resolvin$ to $rant the prayer for a temporaryrestrainin$ order a$ainst Jud$e )n$had from further proceedin$ with the criminal cases. hortly after the aforesaid resolution, Jud$e )n$had issued a Joint Order dated 1- !ovem&er #//1 dismissin$the two @nformations for murder a$ainst petitioners. On 19 !ovem&er #//1, this Court too note ofrespondents cash &ond evidenced &y O.R. !o. 1*9#-*"# dated 1* !ovem&er #//1, and issued thetemporary restrainin$ order while referrin$ the petition to the Court of )ppeals for ad4udication on themerits.

Respondent uliao filed with this Court a :otion to Cite +u&lic Respondent in Contempt, alle$in$that Jud$e )n$had =deli&erately and willfully committed contempt of court when he issued on 1*!ovem&er #//1 the Order dated 1- !ovem&er #//1 dismissin$ the informations for murder.= On #1!ovem&er #//1, we referred said motion to the Court of )ppeals in view of the previous referral to itof respondents petition for certiorari, prohi&ition and mandamus.

On 1 2ecem&er #//#, the Court of )ppeals rendered the assailed decision $rantin$ the petitionand orderin$ the reinstatement of the criminal cases in the RC of antia$o City, as well as the


32/41


issuance of warrants of arrest a$ainst petitioners and +O# :aderal. +etitioners moved for areconsideration of this 2ecision, &ut the same was denied in a Resolution dated 1# June #//".

ence, this petition.

he facts of the case &ein$ undisputed, petitioners &rin$ forth to this Court the followin$ assi$nments

of errorA

@R )@8!:E! O ERROR

ith all due respect, the onora&le Court of )ppeals $ravely erred in reversin$ and settin$ aside theJoint Order of Jud$e )nastacio 2. )n$had dated )u$ust 17, #//1, eptem&er #1, #//1, Octo&er 16,#//1 and !ovem&er 1-, #//1 issued in criminal cases num&ered "6?"*#" and "6?"*#-D and, erredin upholdin$, affirmin$ and reinstatin$ the Order dated July 6, #//1 issued &y then )ctin$ +residin$Jud$e ilfredo umaliuan, on the alle$ed rule that an accused cannot see any 4udicial relief if hedoes not su&mit his person to the 4urisdiction of the court.

ECO!2 )@8!:E! O ERROR

ith all due respect, the onora&le Court of )ppeals $ravely erred in directin$ the reinstatement ofCriminal Cases !o. "6?"*#" and "6?"*#- in the docet of )ctive Criminal Cases of 5ranch "6 of theRe$ional rial Court of antia$o City, +hilippines, and in orderin$ the pu&lic respondent to re?issuethe warrants of arrest a$ainst herein petitioners.

@R2 )@8!:E! O ERROR

it all due respect, the onora&le Court of )ppeals committed a reversi&le error in orderin$ thereinstatement of Criminal Cases !o. "6?"*#" and !o. "6?"*#- in the docet of active criminal casesof 5ranch "6 of the re$ional trial court of antia$o City, +hilippines, and in orderin$ the pu&licrespondent to issue warrants of arrest a$ainst herein petitioners, the order of dismissal issued

therein havin$ &ecome final and executory.

)d4udication of a motion to 0uash a warrant of arrest re0uires neither 4urisdiction over the person ofthe accused, nor custody of law over the &ody of the accused.

he first assi$nment of error &rou$ht forth &y the petitioner deals with the Court of )ppeals rulin$thatA

>)Gn accused cannot see any 4udicial relief if he does not su&mit his person to the 4urisdiction of thecourt. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may &e ac0uired either throu$h compulsoryprocess, such as warrant of arrest, or throu$h his voluntary appearance, such as when hesurrenders to the police or to the court. @t is only when the court has already ac0uired 4urisdiction

over his person that an accused may invoe the processes of the court '+ete :. +ico vs. )lfonso .Com&in$, Jr., ).:. !o. RJ?91?76-, !ovem&er 6, 199#(. hus, an accused must first &e placed inthe custody of the law &efore the court may validly act on his petition for 4udicial reliefs."

+roceedin$ from this premise, the Court of )ppeals ruled that petitioners :iranda, Ocon and2almacio cannot see any 4udicial relief since they were not yet arrested or otherwise deprived oftheir li&erty at the time they filed their =


33/41


+etitioners counter the findin$ of the Court of )ppeals &y ar$uin$ that 4urisdiction over the person ofthe accused is re0uired only in applications for &ail. urthermore, petitioners ar$ue, assumin$ thatsuch 4urisdiction over their person is re0uired &efore the court can act on their motion to 0uash thewarrant for their arrest, such 4urisdiction over their person was already ac0uired &y the court &y theirfilin$ of the a&ove


34/41


) person applyin$ for admission to &ail must &e in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of hisli&erty. ) person who has not su&mitted himself to the 4urisdiction of the court has no ri$ht to invoethe processes of that court. Respondent Jud$e should have dili$ently ascertained the wherea&outsof the applicant and that he indeed had 4urisdiction over the &ody of the accused &efore considerin$the application for &ail. 1"

hile we stand &y our a&ove pronouncement in +ico insofar as it concerns &ail, we clarify that, as a$eneral rule, one who sees an affirmative relief is deemed to have su&mitted to the 4urisdiction ofthe court. 1* )s we held in the aforecited case of antia$o, seein$ an affirmative relief in court,whether in civil or criminal proceedin$s, constitutes voluntary appearance.

+ico deals with an application for &ail, where there is the special re0uirement of the applicant &ein$in the custody of the law. @n eliciano v. +asicolan, 16 we held that =>tGhe purpose of &ail is to secureones release and it would &e incon$ruous to $rant &ail to one who is free. hus, S&ail is the securityre0uired and $iven for the release of a person who is in the custody of law.= he rationale &ehindthis special rule on &ail is that it discoura$es and prevents resort to the former pernicious practicewherein the accused could 4ust send another in his stead to post his &ail, without reco$ni;in$ the

4urisdiction of the court &y his personal appearance therein and compliance with the re0uirements

therefor.

17

here is, however, an exception to the rule that filin$ pleadin$s seein$ affirmative relief constitutesvoluntary appearance, and the conse0uent su&mission of ones person to the 4urisdiction of thecourt. his is in the case of pleadin$s whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the 4urisdictionof the court, which only leads to a special appearance. hese pleadin$s areA '1( in civil cases,motions to dismiss on the $round of lac of 4urisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether ornot other $rounds for dismissal are includedD 1 '#( in criminal cases, motions to 0uash a complainton the $round of lac of 4urisdiction over the person of the accusedD and '"( motions to 0uash awarrant of arrest. he first two are conse0uences of the fact that failure to file them would constitutea waiver of the defense of lac of 4urisdiction over the person. he third is a conse0uence of the factthat it is the very le$ality of the court process forcin$ the su&mission of the person of the accusedthat is the very issue in a motion to 0uash a warrant of arrest.

o recapitulate what we have discussed so far, in criminal cases, 4urisdiction over the person of theaccused is deemed waived &y the accused when he files any pleadin$ seein$ an affirmative relief,except in cases when he invoes the special 4urisdiction of the court &y impu$nin$ such 4urisdictionover his person. herefore, in narrow cases involvin$ special appearances, an accused can invoethe processes of the court even thou$h there is neither 4urisdiction over the person nor custody ofthe law. owever, if a person invoin$ the special 4urisdiction of the court applies for &ail, he mustfirst su&mit himself to the custody of the law.

@n cases not involvin$ the so?called special appearance, the $eneral rule applies, i.e., the accused isdeemed to have su&mitted himself to the 4urisdiction of the court upon seein$ affirmative relief.!otwithstandin$ this, there is no re0uirement for him to &e in the custody of the law. he followin$

cases &est illustrate this point, where we $ranted various reliefs to accused who were not in thecustody of the law, &ut were deemed to have placed their persons under the 4urisdiction of the court.!ote that none of these cases involve the application for &ail, nor a motion to 0uash an informationdue to lac of 4urisdiction over the person, nor a motion to 0uash a warrant of arrestA

1. @n )llado v. 2iono, 19 on the prayer of the accused in a petition for certiorari on the $round of lacof pro&a&le cause, we issued a temporary restrainin$ order en4oinin$ +)CC from enforcin$ thewarrant of arrest and the respondent 4ud$e therein from further proceedin$ with the case and,instead, to elevate the records to us.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt19


35/41


#. @n Ro&erts, Jr. v. Court of )ppeals, #/ upon the accuseds :otion to uspend +roceedin$s and toold in )&eyance @ssuance of arrants of )rrest on the $round that they filed a +etition for Reviewwith the 2epartment of Justice, we directed respondent 4ud$e therein to cease and desist fromfurther proceedin$ with the criminal case and to defer the issuance of warrants of arrests a$ainst theaccused.

". @n %acson v. Executive ecretary,#1 on the prayer of the accused in a petition for certiorari on the$round of lac of 4urisdiction on the part of the andi$an&ayan, we directed the andi$an&ayan totransfer the criminal cases to the Re$ional rial Court even &efore the issuance of the warrants ofarrest.

e hold that the circumstances forcin$ us to re0uire custody of the law in applications for &ail arenot present in motions to 0uash the warrant of arrest. @f we allow the $rantin$ of &ail to persons notin the custody of the law, it is foreseea&le that many persons who can afford the &ail will remain atlar$e, and could elude &ein$ held to answer for the commission of the offense if ever he is proven$uilty. On the other hand, if we allow the 0uashal of warrants of arrest to persons not in the custodyof the law, it would &e very rare that a person not $enuinely entitled to li&erty would remain scot?free.his is &ecause it is the same 4ud$e who issued the warrant of arrest who will decide whether or not

he followed the Constitution in his determination of pro&a&le cause, and he can easily deny themotion to 0uash if he really did find pro&a&le cause after personally examinin$ the records of thecase.

:oreover, pursuant to the presumption of re$ularity of official functions, the warrant continues inforce and effect until it is 0uashed and therefore can still &e enforced on any day and at any time ofthe day and ni$ht.## urthermore, the continued a&sence of the accused can &e taen a$ainst him inthe determination of pro&a&le cause, since fli$ht is indicative of $uilt.

@n fine, as much as it is incon$ruous to $rant &ail to one who is free, it is liewise incon$ruous tore0uire one to surrender his freedom &efore assertin$ it. uman ri$hts en4oy a hi$her preference inthe hierarchy of ri$hts than property ri$hts,#" demandin$ that due process in the deprivation of li&ertymust come &efore its tain$ and not after.

Muashin$ a warrant of arrest &ased on a su&se0uently filed petition for review with the ecretary ofJustice and &ased on dou&ts en$endered &y the political climate constitutes $rave a&use ofdiscretion.

e nevertheless find $rave a&use of discretion in the assailed actions of Jud$e )n$had. Jud$e )n$had seemed a little too ea$er of dismissin$ the criminal cases a$ainst the petitioners. irst, he0uashed the standin$ warrant of arrest issued &y his predecessor &ecause of a su&se0uently filedappeal to the ecretary of Justice, and &ecause of his dou&ts on the existence of pro&a&le causedue to the political climate in the city. econd, after the ecretary of Justice affirmed the prosecutorsresolution, he dismissed the criminal cases on the &asis of a decision of this Court in another casewith different accused, doin$ so two days after this Court resolved to issue a temporary restrainin$

order a$ainst further proceedin$ with the case.

)fter Jud$e umaliuan issued warrants for the arrest of petitioners, petitioner :iranda appealed theassistant prosecutors resolution &efore the ecretary of Justice. Jud$e )n$had, shortly afterassumin$ office, 0uashed the warrant of arrest on the &asis of said appeal. )ccordin$ to Jud$e

)n$had, =x x x prudence dictates 'that( and &ecause of comity, a deferment of the proceedin$s is &utproper.=#-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt24


36/41


Muashal on this &asis is $rave a&use of discretion. @t is inconceiva&le to char$e Jud$e umaliuan aslacin$ in prudence and o&livious to comity when he issued the warrants of arrest a$ainst petitioners

4ust &ecause the petitioners mi$ht, in the future, appeal the assistant prosecutors resolution to theecretary of Justice. 5ut even if the petition for review was filed &efore the issuance of the warrantsof arrest, the fact remains that the pendency of a petition for the review of the prosecutors resolutionis not a $round to 0uash the warrants of arrest.

@n e&& v. de %eon,#* we held that the petitioners therein cannot assail as premature the filin$ of theinformation in court a$ainst them on the $round that they still have the ri$ht to appeal the adverseresolution of the 2OJ +anel to the ecretary of Justice. imilarly, the issuance of warrants of arresta$ainst petitioners herein should not have &een 0uashed as premature on the same $round.

he other $round invoed &y Jud$e )n$had for the 0uashal of the warrant of arrest is in order if trueAviolation of the Constitution. ence, Jud$e )n$had ased and resolved the 0uestionA

@n these dou&le murder cases, did this Court comply or adhere to the a&ove?0uoted constitutionalproscription, which is ec. #, )rticle @@@ 5ill of Ri$htsD to ec. 6'a(, Rule 11#, Rules of Criminal+rocedure and to the a&ove?cited decisional casesB o this 0uery or issue, after a deep perusal of

the ar$uments raised, this Court, throu$h >itsG re$ular +residin$ Jud$e, finds merit in the contentionof herein accused?movant, Jose =+empe= :iranda.#6

Jud$e )n$had is referrin$ to the followin$ provision of the Constitution as havin$ &een violated &yJud$e umaliuanA

ec. #. he ri$ht of the people to &e secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects a$ainstunreasona&le searches and sei;ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall &e inviola&le, andno search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon pro&a&le cause to &e determinedpersonally &y the 4ud$e after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and thewitnesses he may produce, and particularly descri&in$ the place to &e searched and the persons orthin$s to &e sei;ed.#7

owever, after a careful scrutiny of the records of the case, includin$ the supportin$ evidence to theresolution of the prosecutor in his determination of pro&a&le cause, we find that Jud$e )n$had$ravely a&used his discretion.

)ccordin$ to petitionersA

@n this case, the nullity of the order of Jud$e umaliuan, for the arrest of the petitioners is apparentfrom the face of the order itself, which clearly stated that the determination of pro&a&le cause was&ased on the certification, under oath, of the fiscal and not on a separate determination personallymade &y the Jud$e. !o presumption of re$ularity could &e drawn from the order since it expresslyand clearly showed that it was &ased only on the fiscals certification.#

+etitioners claim is untrue. Jud$e umaliuans Joint Order contains no such indication that he reliedsolely on the prosecutors certification. he Joint Order even indicated the contraryA

#9G

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt29


37/41


he records of the case show that the prosecutors certification was accompanied &y supportin$documents, followin$ the re0uirement under %im, r. v. elix"/ and +eople v. @ntin$."1 he supportin$documents are the followin$A

1. Resolution dated #1 June #//1 of tate +rosecutor %eo . ReyesD

#. )ffidavit dated ## :ay #//1 of :odesto 8utierre;D

". )ffidavit dated 19 :ay #//1 of Romeo 5. OconD

-. Joint Counter )ffidavit dated #" :ay #//1 of :ayor Jose C. :iranda and Reynaldo de laCru;D

*. )ffidavit dated 19 :ay #//1 of )l&erto 2almacioD

6. 2ecision dated ## )pril 1999 of the Re$ional rial Court of :anila, 5ranch -1 in CriminalCase !o. 97?16/"**D

7. worn statement dated #7 )pril #//1 of Rodel :aderalD

. @nformation dated ## June #//1D

9. )ffidavit?complaint of ir$ilio uliaoD and

1/. :edico?le$al Reports of the cadavers of Ele;er uliao and icente 5ua;on.

ence, procedurally, we can conclude that there was no violation on the part of Jud$e umaliuan of )rticle @@@, ection #, of the Constitution. Jud$e )n$had, however, focused on the su&stantive part ofsaid section, i.e., the existence of pro&a&le cause. @n failin$ to find pro&a&le cause, Jud$e )n$hadruled that the confession of +O# :aderal is incredi&le for the followin$ reasonsA '1( it was $ivenafter almost two years in the custody of the !ational 5ureau of @nvesti$ationD '#( it was $iven &ysomeone who rendered himself untrustworthy for &ein$ a fu$itive for five yearsD '"( it was $iven inexchan$e for an o&vious reward of dischar$e from the informationD and '-( it was $iven durin$ theelection period amidst a =politically char$ed scenario where =antia$o City voters were pitted a$ainsteach other alon$ the lines of the :iranda camp on one side and former City :ayor )melita .!avarro, and alle$edly that of 2E!R ecretary eherson )lvare; on the other.="#

e painstain$ly went throu$h the records of the case and found no reason to distur& the findin$s of pro&a&le cause of Jud$e umaliuan.

@t is important to note that an exhaustive de&ate on the credi&ility of a witness is not within theprovince of the determination of pro&a&le cause. )s we held in e&&""A

) findin$ of pro&a&le cause needs only to rest on evidence showin$ that more liely than not a crimehas &een committed and was committed &y the suspects. +ro&a&le cause need not &e &ased onclear and convincin$ evidence of $uilt, neither on evidence esta&lishin$ $uilt &eyond reasona&ledou&t and definitely, not on evidence esta&lishin$ a&solute certainty of $uilt. )s well put in 5rine$ar v.


38/41


x x x +ro&a&le cause merely implies pro&a&ility of $uilt and should &e determined in a summarymanner. +reliminary investi$ation is not a part of trial x x x.

2ismissin$ a criminal case on the &asis of a decision of this Court in another case with differentaccused constitutes $rave a&use of discretion.

Jud$e )n$had had 0uashed the warrant of arrest on the $round, amon$ other thin$s, that there wasa petition for review of the assistant prosecutors resolution &efore the ecretary of Justice.owever, after the ecretary of Justice affirmed the prosecutors resolution, Jud$e )n$hadsummarily dismissed the two criminal cases a$ainst the petitioners on the &asis of the followin$explanationA

Rodel :aderal was one of the accused in +eople vs. ilfredo %eano, et al., RC, 5ranch -1, :anila,and &ased from his sworn statements, he pinpointed to :r. :iranda K the mastermind and with himand the other police officers as the direct perpetrators, the Octo&er 9, #//1 2ecision of the upremeCourt a&solvin$ the five cops of murder, certainly maes his sworn tatements a =narration offalsehood and lies= and that &ecause of the decision ac0uittin$ said officers =who were liewisefalsely lined &y said Rodel :aderal in his )pril #7, #//1 statements, it is now &eyond dou&t that

Rodel :aderal made untruthful, fa&ricated and per4ured statements and therefore the same iswithout pro&a&le value.= his Court a$rees with the defenses views. @ndeed, of what use is:aderals statements when the upreme Court re4ected the prosecutions evidence presented andadduced in Criminal Case !o. 97?16/"**. Rodel :aderal is supposed to turn state witness in thesetwo '#( cases &ut with the upreme Court decision adverted to, the pro&ative value of his statementsis practically nil.

x x x x

his Court finds merit to the manifestation of the accused :iranda dated Octo&er 1, #//1, prayin$for the summary dismissal of the two '#( murder char$es in view of the latest decision of theupreme Court in +eople of the +hilippines vs. ilfredo %eao, et al., 8.R. !o. 1"6, ac0uittin$ theaccused therein and in effect disre$ardin$ all the evidence presented &y the prosecution in thatcase. )ccordin$ly, the two '#( informations >forG murder filed a$ainst Jose :iranda are ordereddismissed."-

his is a clear case of a&use of discretion. Jud$e )n$had had no ri$ht to twist our decision andinterpret it to the discredit of +O# :aderal, who was still at lar$e when the evidence of theprosecution in the %eao case was presented. ) decision, even of this Court, ac0uittin$ the accusedtherein of a crime cannot &e the &asis of the dismissal of criminal case a$ainst different accused forthe same crime. he &lunder of Jud$e )n$had is even more pronounced &y the fact that ourdecision in %eao was &ased on reasona&le dou&t. e never ruled in %eao that the crime did nothappenD we 4ust found that there was reasona&le dou&t as to the $uilt of the accused therein, sincethe prosecution in that case relied on circumstantial evidence, which interestin$ly is not even thesituation in the criminal cases of the petitioners in the case at &ar as there is here an eyewitnessA

Rodel :aderal. he accused in %eao furthermore had no motive to ill respondent uliaos son,whereas petitioners herein had &een implicated in the testimony of respondent uliao &efore theenate 5lue Ri&&on Committee.

@t is preposterous to conclude that &ecause of our findin$ of reasona&le dou&t in %eao, =it is now&eyond dou&t that Rodel :aderal made untruthful, fa&ricated and per4ured statements and thereforethe same is without pro&a&le value.="* On the contrary, if we are to permit the use of our decision in%eao, an ac0uittal on the $round of reasona&le dou&t actually points to the pro&a&ility of the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_158763_2006.html#fnt35


39/41


prosecutions version of the facts therein. uch pro&a&ility of $uilt certainly meets the criteria ofpro&a&le cause.

e cannot let unnoticed, too, Jud$e )n$hads dismissal of the informations two days after weresolved to issue, upon the filin$ of a &ond, a temporary restrainin$ order prohi&itin$ him from further proceedin$ with the case. he &ond was filed the day after the informations were dismissed. hile

the dismissal of the case was a&le to &eat the effectivity date of the temporary restrainin$ order,such a&rupt dismissal of the informations 'days after this Courts resolve to issue a RO a$ainstJud$e )n$had( creates wild suspicions a&out the motives of Jud$e )n$had.

!ullification of a proceedin$ necessarily carries with it the reinstatement of the orders set aside &ythe nullified proceedin$.

@n their second assi$nment of error, petitioners claim that the Court of )ppeals did not recall orreinstate the warrants of arrest issued &y Jud$e umaliuan, &ut

CASES- Crim Jurisdiction

Documents

Transcript of CASES- Crim Jurisdiction