1|Page

25. Leviste vs. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, 03

August 2010
26. Bug-atan vs. People, G.R. No. 175195, 15
September 2010, 630 SCRA 537
27. Tolentino vs. Paqueo, G.R. No. 150606, 07
June 2007
28. Torres vs. Aguinaldo, 461 SCRA 599
29. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan
30. Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28
September 2007
31. Malaloan vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249
32. People vs. Chiu, 424 SCRA 72
33. Sony Computer Entertainment vs.
Supergreen, 518 SCRA 750
2|Page

JOSE ANTONIO C. LEVISTE v. ELMO M. remedy of preliminary investigation belongs

ALAMEDA, GR No. 182677, 2010-08-03 only to the accused.

FACTS: b. Whether or not the amendment of the

Information from homicide to murder is
1. On January 16, 2007, an Information was considered a substantial amendment, which
filed against Jose Antonio Leviste charging him would make it not just a right but a duty of the
with homicide for the death of Rafael de las prosecution to ask for a preliminary
Alas on January 12, 2007 before the RTC of investigation.
Makati.
c. Whether or not, by filing his bail, the accused
2. The private complainants-heirs of de las Alas waived his right to challenge the regularity of
filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying for the the reinvestigation of the charge against him,
deferment of the proceedings to allow the the validity of the admission of the Amended
public prosecutor to reexamine the evidence on Information, and the legality of his arrest under
record or to conduct a reinvestigation to the Amended Information.
determine the proper offense.
HELD:
3. The RTC thereafter issued the Order granting
the motion by the complainants, thus, allowing 1a. Petition for review is NOT immediately
the prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation. available in cases subject of inquest.

4. Later, the trial court issued the other order Noteworthy is the proviso that the appeal to
that admitted the Amended Information for the DOJ Secretary is by "petition by a proper
murder and directed the issuance of a warrant party under such rules as the Department of
of arrest. Justice may prescribe."[35] The rule referred to
is the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on
5. Petitioner questioned these two orders Appeal,[36] Section 1 of which provides that the
before the appellate court. Upon arraignment, Rule shall "apply to appeals from resolutions x x
the petitioner refused to plead. The trial court x in cases subject of preliminary investigation/
entered the plea of "not guilty" for him. reinvestigation." In cases subject of inquest,
therefore, the private party should first avail of
6. Prior to this, the petitioner filed an Urgent a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, if
Application for Admission to Bail Ex Abundanti any, before elevating the matter to the DOJ
Cautela, which the trial court granted on the Secretary.
ground that the evidence of guilt of the crime of
murder is not strong. In case the inquest proceedings yield no
probable cause, the private complainant may
7. The trial court went on to try the petitioner pursue the case through the regular course of a
under the Amended Information. Then, the trial preliminary investigation.
court found the petitioner guilty of homicide.
From the trial court's decision, the petitioner ONCE A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS FILED
filed an appeal to the CA. The appellate court IN COURT, the rules yet provide the accused
confirmed the decision of the trial court. The with another opportunity to ask for a
petitioner's motion for reconsideration was preliminary investigation within five days from
denied. Hence, this petition to the SC. the time he learns of its filing. The Rules of
Court and the New Rules on Inquest are silent,
however, on whether the private complainant
ISSUES: could invoke, as respondent heirs of the victim
did in the present case, a similar right to ask for
a.1 Whether or not the prosecution has no right a reinvestigation.
under the Rules to seek from the trial court an
investigation or reevaluation of the case except
through a petition for review before the 1.b. The Court holds that the private
Department of Justice (DOJ); and complainant can move for reinvestigation,
subject to and in light of the ensuing
a.2 In cases when an accused is arrested disquisition.
without a warrant, petitioner contends that the
3|Page

All criminal actions commenced by a complaint additional averments of the circumstances of

or information shall be prosecuted under the treachery, evident premeditation, and cruelty,
direction and control of the public prosecutor. which qualify the offense charged from
The private complainant in a criminal case is homicide to murder. It being a new and
merely a witness and not a party to the case material element of the offense, petitioner
and cannot, by himself, ask for the should be given the chance to adduce evidence
reinvestigation of the case after the information on the matter. Not being merely clarificatory,
had been filed in court, the proper party for the amendment essentially varies the
that being the public prosecutor who has the prosecution's original theory of the case and
control of the prosecution of the case. Thus, in certainly affects not just the form but the
cases where the private complainant is allowed weight of defense to be mustered by petitioner.
to intervene by counsel in the criminal action,
and is granted the authority to prosecute, the The Court distinguishes the factual milieus in
private complainant, by counsel and with the Buhat v. CA[58] and Pacoy v. Cajigal,[59]
conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a wherein the amendment of the caption of the
motion for reinvestigation. Information from homicide to murder was not
considered substantial because there was no
In fact, the DOJ instructs that before the real change in the recital of facts constituting
arraignment of the accused, trial prosecutors the offense charged as alleged in the body of
must "examine the Information vis-à-vis the the Information, as the allegations of qualifying
resolution of the investigating prosecutor in circumstances were already clearly embedded
order to make the necessary corrections or in the original Information. Buhat pointed out
revisions and to ensure that the information is that the original Information for homicide
sufficient in form and substance." already alleged the use of superior strength,
while Pacoy states that the averments in the
x x x Since no evidence has been presented at amended Information for murder are exactly
that stage, the error would appear or be the same as those already alleged in the original
discoverable from a review of the records of the Information for homicide. None of these
preliminary investigation. Of course, that fact peculiar circumstances obtains in the present
may be perceived by the trial judge himself but, case.
again, realistically it will be the prosecutor who
can initially determine the same. That is why A substantial amendment consists of the recital
such error need not be manifest or evident, nor of facts constituting the offense charged and
is it required that such nuances as offenses determinative of the jurisdiction of the court.
includible in the offense charged be taken into All other matters are merely of form. An
account. It necessarily follows, therefore, that amendment to an information which does not
the prosecutor can and should institute change the nature of the crime alleged therein
remedial measures[.] (emphasis and does not affect the essence of the offense or
underscoring supplied) cause surprise or deprive the accused of an
opportunity to meet the new averment had
The prosecution of crimes appertains to the each been held to be one of form and not of
executive department of the government substance. There is no substantial distinction
whose principal power and responsibility is to between a preliminary investigation and a
see that our laws are faithfully executed. A reinvestigation since both are conducted in the
necessary component of this power to execute same manner and for the same objective of
our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. determining whether there exists sufficient
The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
a wide range of discretion - the discretion of crime has been committed and the respondent
what and whom to charge, the exercise of is probably guilty thereof and should be held for
which depends on a smorgasbord of factors trial.
which are best appreciated by prosecutors.
c. No the petitioner(accused) did not waive his
b. Yes it is a substantial amendment. right to challenge. By applying for bail,
In one case, it was squarely held that the petitioner did not waive his right to challenge
amendment of the Information from homicide the regularity of the reinvestigation of the
to murder is "one of substance with very charge against him, the validity of the admission
serious consequences." The amendment of the Amended Information, and the legality of
involved in the present case consists of his arrest under the Amended Information, as
4|Page

he vigorously raised them prior to his unequivocally relinquish the particular right that
arraignment. no other explanation of his conduct is possible.

Waiver on the part of the accused must be

distinguished from mootness of the petition, for
in the present case, petitioner did not, by his
active participation in the trial, waive his stated
objections.

Section 26, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court

provides:

SEC. 26. Bail is not a bar to objections on illegal

arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation. - An application for or admission
to bail shall not bar the accused from
challenging the validity of his arrest or the
legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from
assailing the regularity or questioning the
absence of a preliminary investigation of the
charge against him, provided that he raises
them before entering his plea. The court shall
resolve the matter as early as practicable but
not later than the start of the trial of the case.

The principle that the accused is precluded after

arraignment from questioning the illegal arrest
or the lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation applies "only if he voluntarily
enters his plea and participates during trial,
without previously invoking his objections
thereto."[19] There must be clear and
convincing proof that petitioner had an actual
intention to relinquish his right to question the
existence of probable cause. When the only
proof of intention rests on what a party does,
his act should be so manifestly consistent with,
and indicative of, an intent to voluntarily and
unequivocally relinquish the particular right that
no other explanation of his conduct is possible.
[20]

Principle:

The principle that the accused is precluded after

arraignment from questioning the illegal arrest
or the lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation applies "only if he voluntarily
enters his plea and participates during trial,
without previously invoking his... objections
thereto." There must be clear and convincing
proof that petitioner had an actual intention to
relinquish his right to question the existence of
probable cause. When the only proof of
intention rests on what a party does, his act
should be so manifestly consistent with, and
indicative of an intent to voluntarily and VIRGILIO BUG-ATAN V. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES
5|Page

GR No. 175195, Sep 15, 2010

xxx. In denying criminal liability, accused-
FACTS: appellant Manatad interposed the defense of
alibi. He testified that, on April 11 to 15, 1993
On April 14, 1993, at around 12:00 o'clock he was allegedly in Luyag, San Remegio and
noon, accused-appellants Manatad and Bug- Tigbawan, Labuelan, all places located in the
atan arrived at La Paloma, Labangon, Cebu City province of Cebu. The accused-appellant
to meet with Maramara [whom] they instructed Labandero declared that he was an eye-witness
x x x to go to Mandaue City and kill Pastor for the State in the case of "People v. Nicolas
Papauran. Accused-appellants Bug-atan and Yolen and Norman Maramara, Criminal Case
Manatad gave Maramara a .38 caliber revolver No. CBU-24099," and accordingly, after
with three reserve[d] bullets and P500.00 for testifying against Maramara, he immediately
transportation money. The sum of P30,000.00 left for Manila since he had received death
was also offered to Maramara as part of the threats that he would be the next to be killed.
considerations for his killing Pastor Papauran, Thus, accused-appellant Labandero claims that
together with a promise that accused-appellant he was in Manila at the time of the killing of
Bug-atan would move for the dismissal of Pastor Papauran and that the extrajudicial
Criminal Case No. CBU-24099, a case for murder confession and testimony of Maramara is false,
filed against Maramara which was pending fabricated and was concocted by the latter as a
before the sala of then Judge Portia means of revenge. Accused-appellant Bug-atan,
Hormachuelos. on the other hand, simply denied having
participated in the commission of the offense
Sometime in the morning of April 15, 1993, charged.
Maramara met with accused- appellants Bug-
atan and Labandero at Labangon, Cebu City. The RTC issued a judgment against the
Thereafter, Maramara and accused-appellant petitioners.
Labandero boarded a passenger jeepney and
proceeded to Mandaue City to carry out the The CA affirmed the trial court's Decision.
task of killing Pastor Papauran. Accused-
appellant Bug-atan, on the other hand, rode his ISSUES:
motorcycle to Labogon, Mandaue City and
waited in the comer outside Pastor Papauran's a. Whether or not the trial court violated a rule
house to act as back-up. of procedure when it conducted the
arraignment, plea bargaining and conviction
Maramara and accused-appellant Labandero occurred on a single day.
arrived at Labogon and proceeded to the house
of Pastor Papauran. Maramara shot Pastor b. Whether or not Maramara is a credible
Papauran once in the head and then he and witness;
accused-appellant Labandero walked away and
ran towards the highway. c. Whether conspiracy was proven;"and,

They boarded a passenger jeepney towards d. Whether the guilt of petitioners was proven
Consolacion. Three days later, accused- beyond reasonable doubt
appellant Bug-atan and Maramara went to
Labogon on a motorcycle to confirm if Pastor HELD:
Papauran was really dead. When they saw that
Pastor Papauran was already dead, accused- a. No the trial court did not violate any rule of
appellant Bug-atan told Maramara to keep procedure when it conducted the arraignment,
silent about the killing and that he would pay plea bargaining and conviction occurred on a
the latter on April 21, 1999. single day.

However, Maramara was already arrested by At the outset, it is easily discernable that
the police on April 21,1999. petitioners failed to point out any rule of
procedure or provision of law that was
Petitioners denied the accusation against them. transgressed by the trial court. On the contrary,
They respectively interposed the defense of the plea bargain was validly acted upon despite
denial and alibi and ascribed ill-motive on the fact that all the proceedings, i.e.
prosecution principal witness Maramara. Thus: arraignment, plea bargaining and conviction,
6|Page

occurred on a single day. Section 2, Rule 116 of Maramara's previous conviction neither
the Rules of Court, which authorizes plea detracts his competency as a witness nor
bargain for a lesser offense in a criminal case, is necessarily renders his testimony totally
explicit on how and when a plea bargain may be untrustworthy and inadmissible. While
allowed. The rule pertinently provides: Maramara admitted to having been previously
convicted in Criminal Case No. DU-3721, this
Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to lesser offense. - At circumstance does not necessarily make him or
arraignment, the accused, with the consent of his testimony ipso facto incredible. The
the offended party and the prosecutor, may be determination of the character of a witness is
allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a not a prerequisite to belief in his testimony.
lesser offense which is necessarily included in
the offense charged. After arraignment but His alleged bad reputation, even if true, should
before trial, the accused may still be allowed to not sway the court in the evaluation of the
plead guilty to said lesser offense after veracity of his testimony. Other important
withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No factors should be considered in determining the
amendment of the complaint or information is inherent probability of his statements for a
necessary. convicted person is not necessarily a liar. After
all, conviction of a crime, unless otherwise
As clearly worded, there is nothing in the law provided by law, shall not be a ground for
which expressly or impliedly prohibits the trial disqualification of witnesses.
court from allowing an accused to change his
plea, on a plea bargain, immediately after a In fine, we defer to the trial court's finding,
previous plea of not guilty. In approving the sustained by the appellate court, giving full
plea bargaining agreement, the trial court weight and credit to Maramara's testimony.
undoubtedly took into consideration the The trial court's findings regarding the witness's
timeliness of the plea bargaining and its credibility are accorded the highest degree of
compliance with the requirements of the law. respect.

Neither do we see any error in the trial court's All that petitioners had are pure speculation
holding that there were no aggravating or and afterthought. The absence of evidence of
mitigating circumstances to appreciate even improper motive tends to indicate that a
with Maramara's confession of murder for the witness's testimony is worthy of full faith and
obvious reason that introduction of evidence credence.
became no longer necessary after entering a
plea of guilty. We see no reason to deviate from the trial
court's keen observation that the credibility of
Respecting the non-simultaneous filing of Maramara as witness has remained intact
Criminal Case Nos. DU-3721 and DU-3938, notwithstanding the attempts of the defense to
suffice it to say that at the time Maramara demolish it. Hence, his testimony should be
pleaded guilty, the present charge against given full weight and credit. We likewise agree
petitioners was still in the initial stage of with the appellate court in holding that the trial
preliminary investigation. court did not err in appreciating the testimony
of Maramara since it was corroborated by the
b. Yes, Maramara is a credible witness testimonies of other witnesses and was given
considering his straightforward account of the unhesitatingly in a straightforward manner and
killing of the victim and the connivance of the full of details which could not have been the
petitioners. The minor inconsistencies tend to result of deliberate afterthought. His testimony
show that the witnesses were not coached or is too rich in details brought out during his
rehearsed. The testimony of a witness must be examination in court which cannot simply be
considered in its entirety instead of in truncated swept aside as mere fabrication. The
parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony declarations of the other prosecution witnesses,
is not to consider only its isolated parts and individually considered, may have been
anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. circumstantial and lacking in full details. But
At any rate, Maramara had adequately their combined testimonies somehow
explained and properly corrected himself supplement in no small measure the testimonial
regarding these alleged inconsistencies during account of Maramara. As we and the courts
his examination in court. below cautiously determined, they strengthen
the prosecution's evidence not only with
7|Page

respect to the fact of killing but also on the a lesser offense included in the one alleged in
conspiracy angle of the case. the information, such acceptance will benefit
his co-defendants. In arriving at this conclusion,
c. Yes, conspiracy was proven. the trial court was of the impression that
Maramara's plea of guilty to a lesser offense of
Like the courts below, we are equally convinced homicide in Criminal Case No. DU-3721 should
that there is sufficient evidence of conspiracy as benefit the petitioners in this case.
convincing as the evidence of the participation
of each of the petitioners. The records teem The case of Tapalla, invoked by the trial court as
with circumstances correctly outlined by the authority in arriving at such conclusion, is not
trial court clearly indicating the collective and applicable in the present case. The information
individual acts of the petitioners which reveal in Criminal Case No. DU-3721 indicting
their common purpose to assault and liquidate Maramara alone of murder is distinct and
the victim. For emphasis, we need to quote a separate from the information charging
portion of the ratiocination of the appellate petitioners for the same offense in the instant
court in this regard: case. Moreover, Maramara was neither
charged as co-accused of petitioners nor of
In the case at bench, as categorically attested to conspiring to commit a crime in either case. As
by witness Maramara. accused-appellants asked correctly observed by the trial court, Maramara
him to kill Pastor Papauran in exchange for was only a principal witness in this case though
money and dropping an earlier case, Criminal admittedly a conspirator in the commission of
Case No. 24099, filed against him. They also the crime. These circumstances provide a
accompanied him on the day of the shooting to distinction from the Tapalla case where the
see to it that the job was done. The concerted accused Tingzon, who pleaded guilty to the
acts of accused-appellants reveal a consciously lesser offense of homicide, was a co- accused in
adopted plan and clearly demonstrate their the same information charging him along with
joint design to exterminate Pastor Papauran. others of conspiring to commit murder. We
Conspiracy having been established, the act of therefore cannot agree with the trial court's
one is the act of all.[22] conclusion drawn from the principle laid down
in the Tapalla case and neither can we give
Needless to stress, these circumstances are imprimatur on the appellate court's affirmation
clear enough to show that petitioners acted in thereof. The basis thus used is, in our opinion,
concert in the implementation of a common wrong.
objective - to kill the victim. In conspiracy,
proof of the agreement need not rest on direct As the evidence stands, the crime committed by
evidence. Conspiracy may be deduced from the petitioners is murder in view of the attending
acts of the accused before, during and after the circumstances of treachery and evident
commission of the crime which indubitably premeditation.
point to and are indicative of a joint purpose,
concert of action and community of interest.
[23] To be a conspirator, one need not
participate in every detail of the execution nor
talce part in every act and may not even know
the exact part to be performed by the others in
the execution of the conspiracy.[24] But once
conspiracy is shown, as in this case, the act of
one is the act of all.
d. Yes, the guilt of the peitioners was proven
beyond reasonable doubt. While the Decision of
the trial court recognized the guilt of the
petitioners for the offense as charged to have
been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the trial
court went on to hold them guilty to a lesser
offense of homicide citing the Court's ruling in
People v. Tapalla. In said case, this Court TOLENTINO VS. PAQUEO, G.R. No. 150606, 07
declared that if the prosecution accepts from June 2007
any of the defendants charged with conspiracy
in the commission of a crime, a plea of guilty to FACTS:
8|Page

included among the law officers authorized to

Petitioner, State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. approve the filing or dismissal of the
Tolentino filed an information charging private Information in compliance with Sec 4, Rule 112.
respondent, Benedict Tecklo for violation of Sec
22 (a) in relation to Sec 28 (e) of R.A. No. 8282, In the case at bar, Petitioner, did not comply
for failing to remit SSS premiums due to his with such requirement. Consequently, the non-
employee despite demand. compliance was a ground to quash the
Accused, private respondent through his information under Sec 3 (2) of Rule 117.
counsel filed a motion to quash the information
of the ground that Petitioner, Prosecutor Therefore, the Court finds that Respondent,
Tolentino has no legal personality and authority Judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in
to commence such prosecution without the dismissing the information for failure to the
approval of the City Prosecutor of Naga City, the petitioner, State prosecutor to comply with Sec
situs of the crime. 4 (3) of Rule 112, as such failure is tantamount
Petitioner contends that he was given authority to an invalid information filed for the officer
and designated as Special Prosecutor for SSS who filed it had no authority to do so.
cases by the Regional State Prosecutor to
comply with the request for SSS which authority
was confirmed by the Chief Sate prosecutor. He
claims, approval of the City Prosecutor in filing
the information is no longer necessary by virtue
of the Regional order which designated him as
Special Prosecutor.
Respondent, Judge Paque granted the motion
to quash based on the lack of legal personality
of State Prosecutor Tolentino, not legally
clothed with the authority to commence
prosecution in violation of Sec 4 (3) of Rule 112
which requires the approval of the City
Prosecutor prior to filing an information and Sec
3 (c) of Rule 117 which provides the grounds for
granting a motion to quash. He then denied the
objection and motion of the petitioner.
A petition for certiorari and mandamus was
then filed by the petitioner alleging that
respondent Jugde Paqueo acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in issuing orders granting the
motion to quash of private respondent in the
case People vs Tecklo.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner State Prosecutor

Tolentino is duly authorized to file the subject
Information without the approval of the City
Prosecutor.

HELD:

No, he was not duly authorized to file the

subject information. Hence, the judge acted
accordingly when he granted the motion to
quash.
Petitioner alleged that he was designated as a ARTEMIO T. TORRES v. SPS. DRS. EDGARDO
Special Prosecutor by the Regional State AGUINALDO AND NELIA T. TORRES-
Prosecutor in relation with the regional order, AGUINALDO
however Regional State Prosecutor is not
GR NO. 164268, 2005-06-28
9|Page

FACTS: a. No, the law on provisional dismissal does not

apply in the present case. Section 8, Rule 117
Respondent-spouses Edgardo and Nelia contemplates the filing of a motion to dismiss,
Aguinaldo filed before the Office of the City
and not a motion to withdraw information.
Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila,[4] a complaint
against petitioner Artemio T. Torres, Jr. (Torres) A motion to withdraw information differs from
for falsification of public document. a motion to dismiss.  While both put an end to
an action filed in court, their legal effect varies. 
They alleged that titles to their... properties
The order granting the withdrawal of the
covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T- information attains finality after... fifteen (15)
93596, T-87764, and T-87765, were transferred
days from receipt thereof, without prejudice to
without their knowledge and consent in the the re-filing of the information upon
name of Torres through a forged Deed of Sale
reinvestigation.
Torres denied the allegations of forgery and On the other hand, the order granting a motion
claimed that Aguinaldo sold the subject
to dismiss becomes final fifteen (15) days after
properties to him. receipt thereof, with prejudice to the re-filing of
Finding probable cause, the OCP recommended the same case once such order achieves finality.
the filing of an information for falsification of In Bañares II v. Balising, a motion to dismiss was
public document against Torres moved for
filed thus... putting into place the time-bar rule
reconsideration but was denied. on provisional dismissal
On appeal, the Secretary of Justice reversed the
In the case at bar, a motion to withdraw
findings of the investigating prosecutor and information was filed and not a motion to
ordered the withdrawal of the information.
dismiss.  Hence, Bañares II v. Balising would not
The motion for reconsideration filed by apply.
Aguinaldo was denied.
Unlike a motion to dismiss, a motion to
A Motion to Withdraw Information was filed withdraw information is not time-barred and
which the MTC granted on June 11, 2003.  It does not fall within the ambit of
should be noted that petitioner has not been Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
arraigned.
Criminal Procedure which provides that the law
Aguinaldo filed before the Court of Appeals a on provisional dismissal becomes operative
petition for certiorari which was granted once the judge dismisses, with the express
because it found that there is probable cause consent of the accused and with notice to the
against private respondent Artemio Torres, Jr. offended party: (a) a case involving a penalty of
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a
Torres' motion for reconsideration was denied fine of any amount, or both, where such
CA. Hence, the instant petition for review on provisional dismissal shall become permanent
certiorari. one (1) year after issuance of the order without
ISSUES: the case having been revived; or (b) a case
involving a penalty of imprisonment of more
a. Whether the order of the MTC-Manila dated than six(6) years, where such provisional
June 11, 2003 granting the motion to withdraw dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years
the information rendered moot by the petition after issuance of the order without the case
for certiorari filed by Aguinaldo for the purpose having been revived.
of reinstating the April 30, 2001 resolution of
the OCP of Manila; and in the... alternative, There is provisional dismissal when a motion
whether the rule on provisional dismissal under filed expressly for that purpose complies with
Section 8, Rule 117 applies. the following requisites, viz.: (1) It must be with
the express consent of the accused; and (2)
b. Whether Aguinaldo committed forum There must be notice to the offended party. 
shopping.
The Motion to Withdraw Information was filed
c. Whether the Secretary of Justice gravely by the Assistant City Prosecutor and approved
abused his discretion in reversing the by the City Prosecutor without the conformity
investigating prosecutor's findings on the of the accused, herein petitioner Torres.  Thus,
existence of probable cause. it cannot be said that the motion was filed with
his express consent as required under Section 8,
HELD:
Rule 117.
10 | P a g e

allowed to submit their opposition and the

petitioner to comment thereon, which were
b. The respondent-spouses are NOT guilty of both considered.
forum shopping. The cases they filed against
petitioner are based on distinct causes of The trial judge also considered the basis of the
action. Besides, a certificate of non-forum Justice Secretary's resolution before finding that
shopping is required only in civil complaints no probable cause exists, thus:
under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of
This finding was based on the argument that it
Civil Procedure.
would be highly irregular for the accused to
effect the transfer of the property through a
falsified deed when accused had in his
c. No, the Justice Secretary did not abuse his possession a valid and genuine Deed of Sale
discretion in examining both the evidence dated March 10, 1991 executed by the spouses-
presented by the complainant and the accused complainants transferring ownership of the
in determining the existence or the lack of aforesaid property to him. The petition was
probable cause. GRANTED
Principles:
There is basis in his finding that no probable
cause exists. The complaint and the 1979 Deed Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
of Sale do not connect petitioner with the crime Criminal Procedure defines preliminary
of falsification. While the NBI report showed investigation as an inquiry or proceeding to
that the 1979 Deed of Sale was falsified, there is determine whether there is sufficient ground to
no showing that petitioner was the author engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
thereof. We cannot discern direct and personal been committed and that the respondent is
participation by the petitioner in the alleged probably... guilty thereof, and should be held
forged deed. for trial.  The officers authorized to conduct a
preliminary investigation are the: (a) Provincial
The Secretary of Justice did not whimsically and
or city fiscals and their assistants; (b) Municipal
capriciously exercise his discretion. His findings
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
was grounded on sound statutory and factual
Judges; (c) National and Regional state...
basis.
prosecutors; and (d) Such other officers as may
In determining the existence or absence of be authorized by law.
probable cause, the investigating officer shall
Preliminary investigation is executive in
examine the complaint and documents in
character. It does not contemplate a judicial
support thereof as well as the controverting
function. It is essentially an inquisitorial
evidence presented by the defense. While the
proceeding, and often, the only means of
validity and merits of a party's defense or
ascertaining who may be reasonably charged
accusation and the admissibility of the
with a crime.
testimonies and evidence are best ventilated in
a full blown trial, still, in a preliminary Prosecutors control and direct the prosecution
investigation, a proper consideration of the of criminal offenses, including the conduct of
complaint and supporting evidence as well as preliminary investigation, subject to review by
the controverting evidence, is warranted to the Secretary of Justice.  While his resolution is
determine the... persons who may be persuasive, it is not binding on the courts. The
reasonably charged with the crime.  The trial court must at all... times make its own
determination must be based on the totality of independent assessment of the merits of each
evidence presented by both parties. case.
The determination of probable cause to warrant Thus, it is only where the decision of the Justice
the prosecution in court should be consigned Secretary, or the trial court, as the case may be,
and entrusted to the Department of Justice, as is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
reviewer of the findings of the public amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that
prosecutors. To do otherwise is to usurp a duty the Court of Appeals may take cognizance of
that exclusively... pertains to an executive the case in a petition for certiorari under Rule
official. 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
whose decision may then be appealed to this
The trial court independently assessed the
Court by way of a petition for review on
merits of the motion to withdraw information. 
certiorari
Before it was granted, respondents were
11 | P a g e

G.R. Nos. 163972-77. March 28, 2008JOSELITO

RANIERO J. DAAN vs. THE HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Fourth Division)

Principle: Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of

Court presents the basic requisites upon which
plea bargaining may be made, i.e., that it should
12 | P a g e

be with the consent of the offended party and the main ground that no cogent reason was
the prosecutor, and that the plea of guilt should presented to justify its approval. Likewise, it
be to a lesser offense which is necessarily denied Daan’s Motion for Reconsideration.
included in the offense charged. As regards plea
ISSUE: Whether or not the plea of guilty to a
bargaining during the pre-trial stage, as
lesser offense is proper in this case
in the present case, the trial court's
exercise of its discretion should neither be HELD: Yes the plea of guilty to a lesser offense
arbitrary nor should it amount to a capricious is proper in this case because the lesser
and whimsical exercise of discretion. offenses of Falsification by Private Individuals
and Failure to Render Account by an
FACTS: Accountable Officer are necessarily included
in the crimes of Falsification of Public
Joselito Daan and Benedicto Kuizon were Documents and Malversation of Public
charged before Sandiganbayan for three Funds, respectively, with which petitioner was
counts of malversation of public funds which originally charged. Given, therefore, that some
they purportedly tried to conceal by falsifying of the essential elements of offenses
the time book and payrolls for given period charged in this case likewise constitute the
making it appear that some laborers worked on lesser offenses, then petitioner may plead guilty
the construction of the new municipal hall and to such lesser offenses.
collected their respective salaries when they did
not. In addition, they were also charged for In the present case, the Sandiganbayan
three counts of falsification of public document rejected petitioner's plea offer on the ground
by a public officer or employee. In the that petitioner and the prosecution failed to
falsification cases, the accused offered to demonstrate that the proposal would redound
withdraw their plea of not guilty and to the benefit of the public. Apparently, the
substitute the same with a plea of Sandiganbayan has proffered valid reasons
guilty, provided, the mitigating in rejecting petitioner's plea offer.
circumstances of confession or plea of
guilt and voluntary surrender will be However, subsequent events and higher
appreciated in their favor. In the alternative, if interests of justice and fair play dictate that
such proposal is not acceptable, said accused petitioner's plea offer should be accepted. The
proposed instead to substitute their plea of not present case calls for the judicious exercise of
guilty to the crime of falsification of public this Court's equity jurisdiction and of its power
document by a public officer or employee with of control and supervision over the proceedings
a plea of guilty, but to the lesser crime of of lower courts, in order to afford equal justice
falsification of a public document by a private to petitioner.
individual. On the other hand, in the
malversation cases, the accused offered to
substitute their plea of not guilty thereto with a
plea of guilty, but to the lesser crime of failure
of an accountable officer to render accounts.
Insofar as the falsification cases are
concerned, the prosecution found as
acceptable the proposal of the accused to plead
guilty to the lesser crime of falsification of
public document by a private individual for it
will strengthen the cases against the principal
accused, Municipal Mayor Kuizon who appears
to be the mastermind of these criminal
acts. As to the malversation cases, the
prosecution was likewise amenable to the offer
of Daan to plead guilty to the lesser crime of PACOY v. CAJIGAL GR 157472, September 28,
failure of an accountable officer to render 2007 Austria-Martinez, J.
accounts because he has already restituted the
amount involved. However, the FACTS:
Sandiganbayan denied Daan’s Motion to An Information for Homicide was filed before
Plea Bargain, despite favorable the RTC against petitioner SSGT. Jose M. Pacoy
recommendation by the prosecution, on committed by wilfully, unlawfully and
13 | P a g e

feloniously shooting his commanding officer homicide without his express consent, which is
which caused the latter’s instantaneous death. tantamount to an acquittal, is misplaced. For
the dismissal to be a bar under the jeopardy
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of clause, it must have the effect of acquittal.
rank was alleged in said Information. Petitioner
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. The respondent judge's Order was for the trial
prosecutor to correct and amend the
After the arraignment, respondent Judge Cajigal Information but not to dismiss the same upon
issued an order directing the trial prosecutor to the filing of a new Information charging the
correct and amend the Information to Murder proper offense as contemplated under the last
in view of the aggravating circumstance alleged paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules
therein. of Court. Petitioner confuses the effects of
amendment and substitution under Section 14,
Consequently, the prosecutor entered his Rule 110 with Section 19, Rule 119 of the Rules
amendment by writing the word Murder of Court.
instead of Homicide in the caption and in the
opening paragraph. The accusatory portion, In determining whether there should be an
however, remained the same as that of the amendment or a substitution of information,
original Information. At the scheduled date for the rule is that where the second information
pre-trial conference and trial, counsel for involves the same offense, or an offense which
petitioner objected to be re-arraigned for the necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
crime of Murder on the ground that the the first information, an amendment of the
petitioner would be placed in double jeopardy, information is sufficient. Otherwise, where the
considering that his Homicide case had been new information charges an offense which is
terminated without his express consent. distinct and different from that initially charged,
a substitution is in order.
Petitioner filed a motion to quash on the
ground of double jeopardy but was denied by In the present case, the change of the offense
the respondent judge. charged from Homicide to Murder is merely a
formal amendment and not a substantial
Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion to amendment or a substitution. A reading of the
inhibit with attached motion for Information shows that the only change made
reconsideration. was in the caption of the case and in the
opening paragraph, with the crossing out of
Respondent judge denied the motion to inhibit word Homicide and its replacement by the
but granted the motion for reconsideration. As word Murder. There was no change in the
a result of such grant, the original information recital of facts constituting the offense charged
for homicide was reinstated. or in the determination of the jurisdiction of the
court. The averments in the amended
Hence, the present petition, seeking to annul Information for Murder are exactly the same as
and set aside the orders issued by the judge those already alleged in the original Information
denying the motion to quash and reinstating for Homicide. Thus, we find that the
the original information for murder. amendment made in the caption and preamble
from Homicide to Murder as purely formal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the amendment of
information was tantamount to acquittal and Evidently, the last paragraph of Section 14, Rule
placed the petitioner in double jeopardy. 110, applies only when the offense charged is
wholly different from the offense proved, i.e.,
HELD: No because the requisite of double the accused cannot be convicted of a crime with
jeopardy that the first jeopardy must have which he was not charged in the information
attached prior to the second is not present, even if it be proven, in which case, there must
considering that petitioner was neither be a dismissal of the charge and a substitution
convicted nor acquitted; nor was the case of a new information charging the proper
against him dismissed or otherwise terminated offense.
without his express consent.
Section 14 does not apply to a second
Petitioner's insistence that the respondent information, which involves the same offense or
judge dismissed or terminated his case for an offense which necessarily includes or is
14 | P a g e

necessarily included in the first information.

Homicide is necessarily included in the crime of
murder. Thus, the respondent judge merely
ordered the amendment of the Information and
not the dismissal of the original Information.

Finally, a reading of the Order granting

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the
respondent judge granted said motion not on
the ground that double jeopardy exists but on
his realization that disregard of rank is a generic
aggravating circumstance which does not
qualify the killing of the victim to murder. Thus,
he rightly corrected himself by reinstating the
original Information for Homicide.

ELIZALDE MALALOAN v. CA, GR No. 104879,

1994-05-06

FACTS:

1. On March 22, 1990, 1st Lt. Absalon V. Salboro

of the CAPCOM Northern Sector (now Central
15 | P a g e

Sector) filed with the Regional Trial Court of 8. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
Kalookan City an application for search warrant. trial court’s Order by denying due course to the
petition for certiorari and lifting the temporary
The search warrant was sought for in restraining order it had issued on November 29,
connection with an alleged violation of P.D. 1990 in connection therewith. Hence, this case.
1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunitions) perpetrated at No. 25 Newport ISSUES:
St., corner Marlboro St., Fairview, Quezon City.
Whether or not a court may take cognizance of
2. Thereafter, the respondent RTC Judge of an application for a search warrant in
Kalookan City issued Search Warrant No. 95-90. connection with an offense committed outside
its territorial boundary and, thereafter, issue
3. On the same day, at around 2:30 p.m., the warrant to conduct a search on a place
members of the CAPCOM, armed with subject likewise outside the its territorial jurisdiction.
search warrant, proceeded to the situs of the
offense alluded to, where a labor seminar of the HELD:
Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and
Research(EILER) was then taking place. Yes a court may take cognizance of an
application for a search warrant in connection
4.According to CAPCOM's 'Inventory of Property with an offense committed outside its territorial
Seized,' firearms, explosive materials and boundary and, thereafter, issue the warrant to
subversive documents, among others, were conduct a search on a place likewise outside the
seized and taken during the search. And all the its territorial jurisdiction.
sixty-one (61) persons found within the
premises searched were brought to Camp No law or rule imposes such a limitation on
Karingal, Quezon City but most of them were search warrants, in the same manner that no
later released, with the exception of the herein such restriction is provided for warrants of
petitioners, EILER Instructors, who were arrest. Parenthetically, in certain states within
indicted for violation of P.D. 1866 in Criminal the American jurisdiction, there were
Case No. Q-90-11757 before Branch 88 of the limitations of the time wherein a warrant of
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, presided arrest could be enforced. In our jurisdiction, no
over by respondent Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco. period is provided for the enforceability of
warrants of arrest, and although within ten days
5. Petitioners presented a 'Motion for from the delivery of the warrant of arrest for
Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and execution a return thereon must be made to
For the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired the issuing judge, said warrant does not
Evidence' before the Quezon City court; and a become functus officio but is enforceable
'Supplemental Motion to the Motion for indefinitely until the same is enforced or
Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and recalled. On the other hand, the lifetime of a
Exclusion of Evidence Illegally Obtained. search warrant has been expressly set in our
Rules at ten days but there is no provision as to
6. Afterwhich, the respondent Quezon City the extent of the territory wherein it may be
Judge issued the challenged order, enforced, provided it is implemented on and
consolidating subject cases but denying the within the premises specifically described
prayer for the quashal of the search warrant therein which may or may not be within the
under attack, the validity of which warrant was territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court.
upheld; opining that the same falls under the
category of Writs and Processes, within the We make the foregoing comparative
contemplation of paragraph 3(b) of the Interim advertence to emphasize the fact that when the
Rules and Guidelines, and can be served not law or rules would provide conditions,
only within the territorial jurisdiction of the qualifications or restrictions, they so state.
issuing court but anywhere in the judicial region Absent specific mention thereof, and the same
of the issuing court not being inferable by necessary implication
from the statutory provisions which are
7. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration presumed to be complete and expressive of the
but was denied; intendment of the framers, a contrary
interpretation on whatever pretext should not
be countenanced.
16 | P a g e

region, not only because of the distance but

Under the Interim or Transitional Rules and also the contingencies of travel and the danger
Guidelines, certain specified writs issued by a involved, unless there are really compelling
regional trial court are now enforceable only reasons for the authorities to do so.
within its judicial region. In the interest of
clarity and contrast, it is necessary that said Concern is expressed over possible conflicts of
provision be set out in full: jurisdiction (or, more accurately, in the exercise
of jurisdiction) where the criminal case is
"3. Writs and processes. - pending in one court and the search warrant is
issued by another court for the seizure of
(a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition mandamus, personal property intended to be used as
quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction evidence in said criminal case the following
issued by a regional trial court may be enforced policy guidelines:
in any part of the region.
1. The court wherein the criminal case is
(b) All other processes, whether issued by a pending shall have primary jurisdiction to issue
regional trial court or a metropolitan trial court, search warrants necessitated by and for
municipal trial court or municipal circuit trial purposes of said case. An application for a
court may be served anywhere in the search warrant may be filed with another court
Philippines, and, in the last three cases,. only under extreme and compelling...
without a certification by the judge of the circumstances that the applicant must prove to
regional trial court." the satisfaction of the latter court which may or
may not give due course to the application
The rule enumerates the writs and processes depending on the validity of the justification
which, even if issued by a regional trial court, offered for not filing the same in the court with
are enforceable only within its judicial region. In primary jurisdiction there over.
contrast, it unqualifiedly provides that all other
writs and processes, regardless of which court 2. When the latter court issues the search
issued the same, shall be enforceable anywhere warrant, a motion to quash the same may be
in the Philippines filed in and shall be resolved by said court,
without prejudice to any proper recourse to the
On the contrary, the above-quoted provision of appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved
the interim Rules expressly authorizes its by the resolution of the issuing court. All
enforcement anywhere in the country, since it grounds and objections then available, existent
is not among the processes specified in or known shall be raised in the original or
paragraph (a) and there is no distinction or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the
exception made regarding the processes warrant, otherwise they shall be deemed
contemplated in paragraph (b). waived.

Petitioners, dubiously invoking the 3. Where no motion to quash the search

constitutional proscription against illegal warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing
searches and seizures. court, the interested party may move in the
court where the criminal case is pending for the
We do not believe that the enforcement of a suppression as evidence of the personal
search warrant issued by a court outside the property seized under the warrant if the same is
territorial jurisdiction wherein the place to be offered therein for said purpose.
searched is located would create a
constitutional question the constitutional Since two separate courts with different
mandate is translated into specifically participations are involved in this situation, a
enumerated safeguards in Rule 126 of the 1985 motion to quash a search warrant and a motion
Rules on to suppress evidence are alternative and not
Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a search cumulative remedies. In order to prevent forum
warrant, and all these have to be observed shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently
regardless of whatever court in whichever be governed by the omnibus motion rule,
region is importuned for or actually issues a provided, however, that objections not
search warrant. Said requirements, together available, existent or known during the
with the ten-day lifetime of the warrant would proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may
discourage resort to a court in another judicial be raised in the hearing of the motion to
17 | P a g e

suppress. The resolution... of the court on the

motion to suppress shall likewise be subject to
any proper remedy in the appropriate higher
court.

4. Where the court which issued the search

warrant denies the motion to quash the same
and is not otherwise prevented from further
proceeding thereon, all personal property
seized under the warrant shall forthwith be
transmitted by it to the court wherein the
criminal case is pending, with the necessary
safeguards and documentation therefor.

5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed

where the same criminal offense is charged in
different informations or complaints and filed in
two or more courts with concurrent original
jurisdiction over the criminal action. Where the
issue of which court will try the case shall have
been resolved, such court shall be considered as
vested with primary jurisdiction to act on
applications for search warrants incident to the
criminal case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

v. ROBERT CHIU y WAN and MARK ANTHONY
MOLINA y DELA PEA, Accused.

ROBERT CHIU y WAN, Appellant.

18 | P a g e

G.R. NOS. 142915-16. February 27, 2004 Cubao, Quezon City, entitled and docketed
as People v. Robert Chiu, Search Warrant No.
FACTS: 98-0059.11 Attached to the application were the
following: (a) Fernandez affidavit showing that
Sometime in September 1998, the Central the house subject of the search was occupied
Police District Criminal Investigation Unit, by the appellant; (b) the deposition of
Special Operations Group, headed by SPO1 Salazar;12 (c) the request for the examination of
Edgardo G. Fernandez and PO1 Jose R. Salazar, 2.19 grams of shabu earlier purchased from the
conducted surveillance operations on a appellant; (d) the results of the forensic
suspected shabu dealer, Daniel Henares. In a examination;13 and, (e) a sketch of the house,
test-buy operation held on October 5, 1998, prepared by Salazar.14 ςrνll
Salazar, with the assistance of a civilian
informant, bought a sachet of shabu On October 26, 1998, Executive Judge Lilia C.
worth P2,000.00 from Henares at his residence Lopez of the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 109,
in San Juan, Metro Manila. A few days later, on conducted an inquiry into the application.
October 11, 1998,6 Henares was apprehended Fernandez testified that although the subject of
for the said sale.7 ςrνll the search and the objects to be seized were
located in Quezon City, the application for the
During the tactical interrogation conducted by search warrant was filed in Pasay City because
the policemen, Henares admitted that he of the possibility that the regulated drug would
acquired the illegal drugs from appellant Robert be removed therefrom by the
Chiu, a resident of No. 29 North Road, Barangay appellant.15 Moreover, there was a need for
Bagong Lipunan, Cubao, Q.C.8 Fernandez and confidentiality; if the policemen filed their
other police officers of the Special Operations application in the RTC of Quezon City, there was
Group conducted surveillance operations at the a possibility that the information would reach
appellants residence. They learned that Molinas Molina and the appellant. Salazar gave the
father owned the house that the appellant was same response when questioned by the
renting.9 The police officers then decided to court.16 The court then issued an Order granting
conduct a test-buy operation against the the application and issued Search Warrant No.
appellant. Fernandez and Salazar were 98-005917 which commanded the search any
designated as the poseur-buyers. A female time of the day or night of the house at No. 29
informant, who also happened to be a close North Road, Barangay Bagong Lipunan (Crame),
friend of the appellant, would then introduce Cubao, Quezon City, and to seize the
them to the latter. substances, articles and objects therein
described.18 ςrνll
At about 8:00 p.m. of October 19, 1998,
Fernandez and Salazar, together with the To make certain that the appellant was in the
female informant, proceeded to the house at house to be searched when the search warrant
No. 29 North Road, Barangay Bagong Lipunan, was to be implemented, police operatives led
Cubao, Quezon City. When the guard on duty by Fernandez and Salazar decided to conduct
saw the female informant, he opened the gate another buy-bust operation against the
and led her, Salazar and Fernandez to the appellant. Fernandez prepared a P1,000.00
house, which was approximately fifteen meters peso bill for the purchase of shabu and placed
from the road. The informant introduced his initials thereon.19 ςrνll
Fernandez and Salazar to the appellant as
buyers of shabu. Salazar was able to On November 1, 1998, Fernandez, Salazar, two
purchase P3,000.00 worth of the prohibited other officers and the female informant,
drug from the appellant. PNP Forensic Chemist stationed themselves at the Petron gasoline
Edwin Zata examined the drugs and submitted station located two blocks from the subject
Physical Sciences Report No. D-3418-98, which premises. At about 9:00 a.m., Salazar and the
stated that the drug gave positive results for lady informant proceeded to the house at No.
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated 29 North Road, Barangay Bagong Lipunan,
drug.10 ςrνll Cubao, Quezon City. The security guard opened
the gate and led the two inside. Salazar
On October 26, 1998, Fernandez filed with the informed the appellant that he wanted to buy
RTC of Pasay City an application for a search shabu worth P1,000.00 because he had a
warrant for the search of the house at No. 29 prospective buyer. The appellant asked Molina
North Road, Barangay Bagong Lipunan (Crame), to get the shabu from the room upstairs.The
19 | P a g e

latter did as he was told and when he returned, In this case, Fernandez filed the application for
handed over to the appellant a plastic sachet a search warrant with the Pasay City RTC
containing approximately 1.13 grams of the instead of the Quezon City RTC because of the
white crystalline substance which, in turn, was possibility that the shabu would be removed by
handed over to Salazar.20 Salazar later reported the appellant from No. 29 North Road,
to Fernandez that the appellant was in the Barangay Bagong Lipunan, Cubao, Quezon City.
house. Armed with the search warrant,
Fernandez, Salazar, PO1 Gerardo Granado, PO1 Indeed, as shown by the evidence, the appellant
Corpuz and other police operatives forthwith had a residence other than No. 29 North Road
proceeded to the house. The appellant was just where he sold shabu. There was also the
about to leave. Fernandez and the members of pervading concern of the police officers that if
the team identified themselves as police officers they filed the application in Quezon City where
and told the appellant that they were in the the appellant plied his illicit activities, it may
house to execute the search warrant issued by somehow come to the knowledge of Molina
Judge Lopez. They showed the warrant to the and the appellant, thus, rendering the
appellant. After the appellant read the same, enforcement of any search warrant issued by
Fernandez suggested that the appellant the court to be a useless effort.
voluntarily surrender the articles and
substances listed therein. The appellant Judge Lopez did not err in taking cognizance of
accompanied Salazar and Fernandez to the and granting the questioned application for a
second floor and pointed to his room where the search warrant.
shabu was kept.21 ςrνll
Section 1, SC Circular No. 19 dated August 4,
On January 27, 2000, the trial court 1987, which was in force when the application
promulgated a decision finding the appellants for a search warrant was filed, provides viz:
guilty as charged.
1.All applications for search warrants relating to
The appellant filed a motion for the violations of the Anti-subversion Act, crimes
reconsideration of the decision. against public order as defined in the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, illegal possession of
The trial court issued an order denying the firearms and/or ammunitions and violations of
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended,
appellants motion. He then appealed the
shall no longer be raffled and shall immediately
decision. The accused Mark Anthony Molina did
be taken cognizance of and acted upon by the
not appeal the decision. Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, and Municipal Trial
ISSUES: Court under whose jurisdiction the place to be
searched is located.
a.1 Whether or not there was a compelling
reason for Fernandez and Salazar to apply for In Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, we held that a
and secure a search warrant from the Executive search warrant is merely a judicial process
Judge of the Pasay City RTC. designed by the Rules to respond only to an
incident in the main case, if one has already
a.2 Whether or not the application for a search been instituted, or in anticipation thereof. In
warrant should have been filed in the RTC of the latter contingency, such application for a
Quezon City which had primary jurisdiction over search warrant may be filed in territorial
the matter. Consequently, the search warrant jurisdiction other than where the illegal articles
issued by Judge Lopez was defective and the sought to be seized are located. We also held
articles/objects seized on the basis thereof that Circular No. 1939 was never intended to
were inadmissible in evidence. confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Executive
Judge mentioned therein; it is not a mandate
for the exclusion of all other courts and that a
HELD: court whose territory does not embrace the
a.1 and a.2. Yes, there is a compelling reason place to be searched may issue a search
for Fernandez and Salazar to apply for and warrant where the application is necessitated
secure a search warrant from the Executive and justified by compelling consideration of
Judge of the Pasay City RTC. urgency, subject, time and place, thus:
20 | P a g e

Evidently, that particular provision of Circular

No. 19 was never intended to confer exclusive
jurisdiction on said executive judges. In view of
the fact, however, that they were themselves
directed to personally act on the applications,
instead of farming out the same among the
other judges as was the previous practice, it
was but necessary and practical to require them
to so act only on applications involving search
of places located within their respective
territorial jurisdictions. The phrase above-
quoted was, therefore, in the nature of an
allocation in the assignment of applications
among them, in recognition of human
capabilities and limitations, and not a mandate
for the exclusion of all other courts.

Urgent means pressing; calling for immediate

attention. The court must take into account and
consider not only the subject but the time and
place of the enforcement of the search warrant
as well. The determination of the existence of
compelling considerations of urgency, and the
subject, time and place necessitating and
justifying the filing of an application for a search
warrant with a court other than the court
having territorial jurisdiction over the place to
be searched and things to be seized or where
the materials are found is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court where the
application is filed, subject to review by the
appellate court in case of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction.

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

petitioner, vs. SUPERGREEN, INCORPORATED,
respondent. QUISUMBING, J. G.R. No. 161823
March 22, 2007

FACTS:
21 | P a g e

the RTC of Manila, in the National Capital

Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. filed a Region. Thus, the RTC of Manila does not have
complaint with the National Bureau of the authority to issue a search warrant for
Investigation (NBI) against respondent offenses committed in Cavite.
Supergreen, Incorporated for the reproduction
and distribution of counterfeit Playstation b. Yes the correctness of the venue in an
products. Search Warrants were issued by the application for search warrant is deemed
RTC of Manila for premises in Cavite and waived if not raised by the respondent in its
Paranaque where said counterfeit products motion to quash. When the latter court issues
were seized. Respondent filed 2 motions to the search warrant, a motion to quash the same
quash the search warrants: the first one was may be filed in and shall be resolved by said
denied which contends that the search court, without prejudice to any proper recourse
warrants failed to particularly describe the to the appropriate higher court by the party
properties to be seized; the second one aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court.
declared the search warrants in Cavite quashed All grounds and objections then available,
for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s petition for existent or known shall be raised in the original
certiorari and motion for reconsideration were or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of
dismissed and denied. Hence the petition for the warrant, otherwise they shall be deemed
review on certiorari to the Court. The court held waived.
that Cavite is beyond the territorial jurisdiction (Found in the case of Malaloan, not in the
of the RTC of Manila, therefore they cannot decision itself)
issue a search warrant covering premises
located in it. However, the crime committed is a c. Nonetheless, we agree with petitioner that
continuing crime, therefore petitioner may this case involves a transitory or continuing
apply for a search warrant in any court where offense of unfair competition under Section 168
any element of the alleged offense was of Republic Act No. 8293, competition under
committed. Hence, the Court declared the Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293, o
search warrants covering the Cavite premises Pertinent too is Article 189 (1) of the Revised
valid. Penal Code that enumerates the elements of
unfair competition o Respondent’s imitation of
ISSUE: the general appearance of petitioner’s goods
was done allegedly in Cavite. It sold the goods
a. WHETHER OR NOT VENUE IN SEARCH allegedly in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila.
WARRANT APPLICATIONS INVOLVES The alleged acts would constitute a transitory or
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. continuing offense. Thus, clearly, under Section
2 (b) of Rule 126, Section 168 of Rep. Act No.
b. WHETHER OR NOT THE CORRECTNESS OF 8293 and Article 189 (1) of the Revised Penal
VENUE IN AN APPLICATION FOR SEARCH Code, petitioner may apply for a search warrant
WARRANT IS DEEMED WAIVED IF NOT RAISED in any court where any element of the alleged
BY THE RESPONDENT IN ITS MOTION TO offense was committed, including any of the
QUASH. courts within the National Capital Region
(Metro Manila). Decision:
c. WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFENSES INVOLVED
IN THE SUBJECT SEARCH WARRANTS ARE WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
“CONTINUING CRIMES” WHICH MAY BE
VALIDLY TRIED IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION
WHERE THE OFFENSE WAS PARTLY
COMMITTED.

HELD:

a. Yes territorial jurisdiction is involve in Search

Warrant Applications so respondent’s premises
in Cavite, within the Fourth Judicial Region, is
definitely beyond the territorial jurisdiction of