Ombudsman may investigate.

It does not require that the

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise
CASE PRINCIPLES from the performance of official duty. Since the law does
not distinguish, neither should we.
2005-2007 CASES 3. G.R. No. 166888, January 31, 2007
FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORPORATION and SHIG
1. A.M. No. RTJ-05-1946, January 26, 2007 KATAYAMA vs. HON. ROMMEL O. BAYBAY, in his
LIGAYA V. SANTOS, EDNA CORTEZ, GIRLIE CASTILLO capacity as the ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH
and CHRISTOPHER CASTILLO vs. JUDGE ROLANDO G. 65, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY
HOW, Regional Trial Court, Branch 257, Parañaque [SIC]*, RAMON P. JACINTO, JAIME C. COLAYCO,
City ANTONIO P. TAYAO and GLICERIO PEREZ,
Respondents.
Jurisprudence is replete with decisions on the right of
petitioner in bail proceedings to introduce his own It is settled that the determination of whether probable
evidence in rebuttal. Respondent failed to observe and cause exists to warrant the prosecution in court of an
consider for his proper determination and evaluation the accused should be consigned and entrusted to the
weight of evidence presented by the prosecution. This, to Department of Justice, as reviewer of the findings of public
our mind, is a clear denial of complainants’ right to due prosecutors. The court’s duty in an appropriate case is
process and equal protection of the law as embodied in our confined to a determination of whether the assailed
Constitution. executive or judicial determination of probable cause was
done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
Respondent, in effect, deprived the accused with their right abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. This
to present rebuttal evidence which to our mind is a clear is consistent with the general rule that criminal
violation of their right to due process and equal protection prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by
of the law. As aptly observed by the OCA, dictates of fair injunction, preliminary or final, albeit in extreme cases,
play should have at least reminded respondent to inquire exceptional circumstances have been recognized. The rule
first of the nature of the evidence proposed to be is also consistent with this Court’s policy of non-
presented, determine whether or not it will be essential for interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations,
the purpose of ascertaining entitlement to bail, before and of leaving to the investigating prosecutor sufficient
discarding any evidence outright. This is in keeping with latitude of discretion in the exercise of determination of
procedural due process, given established rules and what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish
jurisprudence on bail. probable cause for the filing of an information against a
supposed offender.
It is clear from the foregoing that respondent judge is
remiss in his responsibility to endeavor at all times to While prosecutors are given sufficient latitude of
avoid such actions as would impress upon litigants the discretion in the determination of probable cause, their
disregard of due process. findings are subject to review by the Secretary of Justice.
2. G.R. No. 155749, February 8, 2007 Once a complaint or information is filed in court, however,
ERLINDA F. SANTOS vs. MA. CAREST A. RASALAN any disposition of the case, e.g., its dismissal or the
conviction or acquittal of the accused rests on the sound
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the discretion of the Court.
following powers, functions, and duties:
In thus resolving a motion to dismiss the case or to
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any withdraw the Information filed by the public prosecutor
person, any act or omission of any public official, on his own initiative or pursuant to the directive of the
employee, office or agency, when such act or Secretary of Justice, either for insufficiency of evidence or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or for lack of probable cause, the trial court should not rely
inefficient. x x x solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor
or the Secretary of Justice that no crime was committed or
Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 6770, the jurisdiction of that the evidence in the possession of the public
the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment of
misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public conviction of the accused. It is its bounden duty to
officer or employee during his/her tenure of office. independently assess the merits of the motion. For while
the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not
The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or binding on courts.
omission of the public official or employee that the

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 1

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
The trial judge need not state with specificity or make a (two-notice rule), may break open any outer or inner door
lengthy exposition of the factual and legal foundation or window of a house or any part of a house or anything
relied upon by him to arrive at his decision. It suffices that therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any
upon his own personal evaluation of the evidence and the person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
law involved in the case, he is convinced that there is no therein.
probable cause to indict the accused.
6. G.R. No. 156320, February 14, 2007
4. G.R. No. 149991, February 14, 2007 RODOLFO ABENES y GACUTAN vs. THE HON. COURT OF
SEVILLA DECIN vs. SPO1 MELZASAR TAYCO, SPO1 APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
JEFFREY CONTRIVIDA, SPO1 SUNNY BECARO, SPO1
GLORIA GONZALES and PO3 ARLO DEONESA It is a well-entrenched rule "that in crimes involving illegal
possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of
The Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of proving the elements thereof, viz: the existence of the
1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as subject firearm, and the fact that the accused who owned
amended, do not give to the Ombudsman exclusive or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding
jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by public license or permit to possess the same."
officers or employees. The authority of the Ombudsman to
investigate offenses involving public officers or employees Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of
is concurrent with other government investigating innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution. The
agencies such as provincial, city and state prosecutors. absence of such license and legal authority constitutes an
However, the Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, firearm, and every ingredient or essential element of an
may take over, at any stage, from any investigating agency offense must be shown by the prosecution by proof
of the government, the investigation of such cases. beyond reasonable doubt.

The power to investigate or conduct preliminary In view of the foregoing provisions, while it is well-settled
investigation on charges against any public officers or that under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, the burden to prove
employees may be exercised by an investigator or by any the negative allegation that the accused has no license or
provincial or city prosecutor or their assistants, either in permit to carry a firearm lies with the prosecution; under
their regular capacities or as deputized Ombudsman the Omnibus Election Code, however, the burden to
prosecutors. The fact that all prosecutors are in effect adduce evidence that accused is exempt from the
deputized Ombudsman prosecutors under the OMB-DOJ COMELEC Gun Ban, lies with the accused.
Circular is a mere superfluity. Thus, there is not even a
need to delegate the conduct of the preliminary 7. G.R. No. 159261, February 21, 2007
investigation to an agency which has the jurisdiction to do PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE HONORABLE
so in the first place. However, the Ombudsman may assert COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTEENTH DIVISION) AND
its primary jurisdiction at any stage of the investigation. RAMON GALICIA y MANRESA

5. G.R. No. 169156, February 15, 2007 A verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC. vs. RIGHT reexamination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the
FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the
same offense. The finality-of-acquittal doctrine has
A private individual or a private corporation complaining several avowed purposes. Primarily, it prevents the State
to the NBI or to a government agency charged with the from using its criminal processes as an instrument of
enforcement of special penal laws, such as the BFAD, may harassment to wear out the accused by a multitude of
appear, participate and file pleadings in the search warrant cases with accumulated trials. It also serves the additional
proceedings to maintain, inter alia, the validity of the purpose of precluding the State, following an acquittal,
search warrant issued by the court and the admissibility of from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of
the properties seized in anticipation of a criminal case to securing a conviction. And finally, it prevents the State,
be filed; such private party may do so in collaboration with following conviction, from retrying the defendant again in
the NBI or such government agency. The party may file an the hope of securing a greater penalty.
opposition to a motion to quash the search warrant issued
by the court, or a motion for the reconsideration of the An acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as
court order granting such motion to quash. a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal. Hence,
it cannot be disputed that the verdict of the Court of
The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed Appeals acquitting Ramon Galicia is now final and
search after giving notice of his purpose and authority irreviewable.

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 2

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
This is not to say that the constitutional guarantee against 9. G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007
double jeopardy is without exceptions. For there are two PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. PERFECTO A.S.
recognized exceptions: LAGUIO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch
(1) Where there has been deprivation of due process 18, RTC, Manila, and LAWRENCE WANG Y CHEN
and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or
(2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion An order granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence is a
under exceptional circumstances. resolution of the case on the merits, and it amounts to an
acquittal. Generally, any further prosecution of the accused
However, in this case, we find that the exceptions do not after an acquittal would violate the constitutional
exist. proscription on double jeopardy.

Judge Paredes: If appeal has a greater penalty, the rule To this general rule, however, the Court has previously
against jeopardy applies. made some exceptions:
(1) When the prosecution is denied due process of
8. G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007 law;
RENE CABARLES vs. HON. JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ (2) When the trial court commits grave abuse of
MACEDA AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES discretion in dismissing a criminal case by
granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence
A motion to reopen a case to receive further proofs was
not in the old rules but it was nonetheless a recognized For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in
procedural recourse, deriving validity and acceptance from flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to
long, established usage. This lack of a specific provision be valid, two requisites must concur:
covering motions to reopen was remedied by the Revised (1) The person to be arrested must execute an overt
Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on act indicating that he has just committed, is
December 1, 2000. actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and
The April 1, 2003 Order was issued under the Revised (2) Such overt act is done in the presence or within
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 24, Rule 119 and the view of the arresting officer.
existing jurisprudence stress the following requirements
for reopening a case: 10. G.R. No. 171020, March 14, 2007
(1) The reopening must be before the finality of a PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO
judgment of conviction; PANGILINAN y TRINIDAD
(2) The order is issued by the judge on his own
initiative or upon motion; Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the person of the
(3) The order is issued only after a hearing is accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
conducted; appearance. In the case at bar, the trial court acquired
(4) The order intends to prevent a miscarriage of jurisdiction over the person of the appellant when he was
justice; and arrested on 19 March 1997. His arrest, not his
(5) The presentation of additional and/or further arraignment, conferred on the trial court jurisdiction over
evidence should be terminated within thirty days his person.
from the issuance of the order.
Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of
Generally, after the parties have produced their respective implementing the constitutional right of an accused to be
direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
only. However, the court, for good reasons, in the him. The purpose of arraignment is, thus, to apprise the
furtherance of justice, may allow new evidence upon their accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life,
original case, and its ruling will not be disturbed in the depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him, or at
appellate court where no abuse of discretion appears. A the very least to inform him of why the prosecuting arm of
motion to reopen may thus properly be presented only the State is mobilized against him.
after either or both parties had formally offered and closed
their evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even Admittedly, appellant was arraigned after the case was
after promulgation but before finality of judgment and the submitted for decision. The question is: Were appellant’s
only controlling guideline governing a motion to reopen is rights and interests prejudiced by the fact that he was
the paramount interest of justice. This remedy of arraigned only at this stage of the proceedings?
reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage of
justice. We do not think so. Appellant’s belated arraignment did
not prejudice him. This procedural defect was cured when

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 3

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
his counsel participated in the trial without raising any Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly
objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. In fact, his administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A
counsel even cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a
His counsel’s active participation in the hearings is a clear prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the
indication that he was fully aware of the charges against demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary
him; otherwise, his counsel would have objected and detention" may be a necessary step in the process of
informed the court of this blunder. Moreover, no protest extradition, but the length of time of the detention should
was made when appellant was subsequently arraigned. be reasonable.
The parties did not question the procedure undertaken by
the trial court. It is only now, after being convicted and An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard
sentenced to two death sentences, that appellant cries that of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be
his constitutional right has been violated. It is already too the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor
late to raise this procedural defect. This Court will not the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil
allow it. cases. While administrative in character, the standard of
substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot
11. G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007 likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the jurisdiction.
Philippine Department of Justice vs. HON. FELIXBERTO
T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and
convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will
Bail is extended not only in criminal cases but also in abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition
extradition proceedings (deportation already included). court.

If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no 12. A.M. No. RTJ-03-1749, April 4, 2007
justification why it should not also be allowed in EDUARDO SAN MIGUEL vs. JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ
extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the Universal MACEDA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases, Branch 275, Las Piñas City
there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition
cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where Where bail is a matter of right and prior absconding and
the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in forfeiture is not excepted from such right, bail must be
issue. allowed irrespective of such circumstance. The existence
of a high degree of probability that the defendant will
Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a abscond confers upon the court no greater discretion than
foreign power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender to increase the bond to such an amount as would
of one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial reasonably tend to assure the presence of the defendant
jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the other state to when it is wanted, such amount to be subject, of course, to
surrender him to the demanding state. It is not a criminal the other provision that excessive bail shall not be
proceeding. Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal, required.
an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for
it is not punishment for a crime, even though such 13. G.R. No. 163797, April 24, 2007
punishment may follow extradition. It is sui generis, WILSON CHUA, RENITA CHUA, THE SECRETARY OF
tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between JUSTICE and THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF LUCENA CITY
different nations. It is not a trial to determine the guilt or vs. RODRIGO PADILLO and MARIETTA PADILLO
innocence of the potential extradite. Nor is it a full-blown
civil action, but one that is merely administrative in Having been vested by law with the control of the
character. Its object is to prevent the escape of a person prosecution of criminal cases, the public prosecutor, in
accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the exercise of his functions, has the power and
the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or discretion to:
punishment. (a) Determine whether a prima facie case exists;
(b) Decide which of the conflicting testimonies should
But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is be believed free from the interference or control
characterized by the following: of the offended party; and
(a) It entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the (c) Subject only to the right against self-incrimination,
potential extraditee; and determine which witnesses to present in court.
(b) The means employed to attain the purpose of
extradition is also "the machinery of criminal law."

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 4

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
Given his discretionary powers, a public prosecutor cannot 16. G.R. No. 159298, July 6, 2007
be compelled to file an Information where he is not ARMANDO F. CHAN vs. HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, in
convinced that the evidence before him would warrant the his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ANTONIO A. ODEJERTE,
filing of an action in court. For while he is bound by his Borongan, Eastern Samar, DAVID P. ADONGAY, JR., and
oath of office to prosecute persons who, according to VIRGILIO G. ALERIA – All from Department of Public
complainant’s evidence, are shown to be guilty of a crime, Works and Highways (DPWH) Engineering District,
he is likewise duty-bound to protect innocent persons Catarman, Northern Samar
from groundless, false, or malicious prosecution.
Being final and unappealable, a judgment of exoneration is
We must stress, however, that the public prosecutor’s not correctible by motion for reconsideration under
exercise of his discretionary powers is not absolute: Section 8 of the Procedure in Administrative Cases in the
 First, the resolution of the investigating Ombudsman.
prosecutor is subject to appeal to the Secretary of
Justice who, under the Administrative Code of With more reason, exoneration cannot be appealed by a
1987, as amended, exercises control and petition for review under Rule 43 with the CA.
supervision over the investigating prosecutor.
Thus, the Secretary of Justice may affirm, nullify, Nonetheless, it is a settled jurisprudence that a judgment
reverse, or modify the ruling of said prosecutor. In exonerating the respondent in an administrative case may
special cases, the public prosecutor’s decision may be questioned for arbitrariness or oppressiveness by way
even be reversed or modified by the Office of the of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Thus, the remedy
President. taken by herein petitioner in filing a Petition for Certiorari
 Second, the Court of Appeals may review the with the CA assailing the March 1, 2001 Ombudsman
resolution of the Secretary of Justice on a petition Decision dismissing the administrative case against
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of respondents was proper. It was also seasonably filed,
Civil Procedure, as amended, on the ground that notwithstanding the lack of a motion for reconsideration
he committed grave abuse of discretion for no such prior recourse is allowed under the rule
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. aforequoted.

14. G.R. No. 166797, July 10, 2007 17. G.R. No. 150606, June 7, 2007
JOSE M. GALARIO vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN STATE PROSECUTOR AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ON
(Mindanao) and RUTH P. PIANO SSS CASES IN REGION V, ROMULO SJ. TOLENTINO, AND
REGIONAL STATE PROSECUTOR SANTIAGO M.
Only where there is a clear case of grave abuse of this TURINGAN, as alter ego of the Secretary of Justice in
discretion will this Court interfere in the Ombudsman's Region V, in their official capacities, and, for and in
findings of probable cause. As a general rule, the Court representation of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
does not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of and MARITES C. DE LA TORRE, in her official capacity
the existence or absence of probable cause. as counsel for the Complainant, SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM (SSS) Bicol Cluster vs. HON. PABLO M.
As the Court is not a trier of facts, it reposes immense PAQUEO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC,
respect to the factual determination and appreciation Branch 23, of the City of Naga, and Accused BENEDICT
made by the Ombudsman. DY TECKLO

Absent any grave abuse of discretion tainting it, the courts Third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s supervision and Criminal Procedure:
control over the preliminary investigation conducted by
him. Rule 112. Sec 4. Resolution of investigating
prosecutor and its review.— x x x
15. G.R. No. 167652, July 10, 2007
LIMCOMA MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE vs. No complaint or information may be filed or
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without
the prior written authority or approval of the
Amendment – formal or substantial provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
Substitution – always substantial prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.

(Note: The full text of this case is about land titles but this is The accused may move to quash the complaint or
the exact case citation given by Judge Paredes.) information on the ground that the officer who filed the
information had no authority to do so.

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 5

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
An examination of the functions of the Regional State However, in the leading case of Soliven vs. Makasiar, the
Prosecutor under Sec. 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1275 Court explained that this constitutional provision does not
showed that they do not include that of approving the mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the
Information filed or dismissed by the investigating complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may opt to
prosecutor. personally evaluate the report and supporting documents
submitted by the prosecutor or he may disregard the
Since the Regional State Prosecutor is not included among prosecutor’s report and require the submission of
the law officers authorized to approve the filing or supporting affidavits of witnesses.
dismissal of the Information of the investigating
prosecutor, the Information filed by petitioner State What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and
Prosecutor Tolentino did not comply with the requirement personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy
of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying
Procedure. Consequently, the non-compliance was a himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance
ground to quash the Information under Sec. 3 (d), Rule 117 of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

18. G.R. No. 135687, July 24, 2007 Following established doctrine and procedure, he
PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON shall:
BEHEST LOANS, represented by: PRESIDENTIAL (1) Personally evaluate the report and the supporting
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT(PCGG) vs. HON. documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, WENCESLAO existence of probable cause and, on the basis
PASCUAL, GAUDENCIO VIDUYA, JULIA M. MACUJA, thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
PLACIDO MAPA, JR., JOSE TEVES, ALEJANDRO (2) If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause,
MELCHOR, RECIO M. GARCIA, DBP BOARD OF he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require
DIRECTORS LORENZA N. SALCEDO, JOSEPHINE S. the submission of supporting affidavits of
GARCIA, STOCKHOLDERS OF P.R. GARCIA & SONS witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as
DEVELOPMENT and INVESTMENT CORPORATION to the existence of probable cause.

Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides: It is well to remember that there is a distinction between
the preliminary inquiry which determines probable
The right of the State to recover properties cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the
unlawfully acquired by public officials or preliminary investigation proper which ascertains
employees, from them or from their nominees or whether the offender should be held for trial or be
transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, released. The determination of probable cause for
laches, or estoppel. purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the
judge. The preliminary investigation proper – whether
The Court held that the imprescriptibility of the right of or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the
the State to recover ill-gotten wealth applies only to civil accused is guilty of the offense charged – is the function of
actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and not to the investigating prosecutor.
criminal cases. In other words, the prosecution of offenses
arising from, relating or incident to, or involving ill-gotten True, there are cases where the circumstances may call for
wealth contemplated in the above-mentioned provision of the judge’s personal examination of the complainant and
the Constitution may be barred by prescription. his witnesses. But it must be emphasized that such
personal examination is not mandatory and indispensable
19. G.R. No. 171465, June 8, 2007 in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of
AAA vs. HON. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL, in his capacity a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises only when there is
as Presiding Judge, Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence of
San Fernando City, La Union and ENGR. JAIME O. probable cause. Otherwise, the judge may rely on the
ARZADON report of the investigating prosecutor, provided that he
likewise evaluates the documentary evidence in support
He (Judge Carbonell) claims that under Section 2, Article III thereof.
of the 1987 Constitution, no warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause "to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce."

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 6

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
20. G.R. No. 173797, August 31, 2007 3. Where the amendment is only as to form, there is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EMMANUEL ROCHA no need for another preliminary investigation and
alias "Nopoy" and RUEL RAMOS alias "Aweng" the retaking of the plea of the accused; in
substitution of information, another preliminary
In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial investigation is entailed and the accused has to
court, the records shall be forwarded to the Court of plead anew to the new information; and
Appeals for automatic review and judgment within twenty 4. An amended information refers to the same
days but not earlier than fifteen days from the offense charged in the original information or to
promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of a an offense which necessarily includes or is
motion for new trial or reconsideration. necessarily included in the original charge, hence
substantial amendments to the information after
Neither does the Constitution require a mandatory review the plea has been taken cannot be made over the
by this Court of cases where the penalty imposed is objection of the accused, for if the original
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. information would be withdrawn, the accused
could invoke double jeopardy. On the other hand,
Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment cases were substitution requires or presupposes that the
brought before this Court via a notice of appeal, while new information involves a different offense
death penalty cases were reviewed by this Court on which does not include or is not necessarily
automatic review. included in the original charge, hence the accused
cannot claim double jeopardy.
In sum, the mandatory review by this Court is only
required for cases where the penalty imposed is death. In determining, therefore, whether there should be an
Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life amendment under the first paragraph of Section 14, Rule
imprisonment, a review of the trial court decision is 110, or a substitution of information under the second
conducted only when the accused files a notice of appeal. paragraph thereof, the rule is that where the second
information involves the same offense, or an offense which
21. G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007 necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first
SSGT. JOSE M. PACOY vs. HON. AFABLE E. CAJIGAL, information, an amendment of the information is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and OLYMPIO L. sufficient; otherwise, where the new information charges
ESCUETA an offense which is distinct and different from that initially
charged, a substitution is in order.
A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in
substance, without leave of court, at any time before the While the amended Information was for Murder, a reading
accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, of the Information shows that the only change made was in
a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court the caption of the case; and in the opening paragraph or
and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the preamble of the Information, with the crossing out of word
rights of the accused. "Homicide" and its replacement by the word "Murder."
There was no change in the recital of facts constituting the
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake offense charged or in the determination of the jurisdiction
has been made in charging the proper offense, the court of the court. The averments in the amended Information
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon for Murder are exactly the same as those already alleged in
the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in the original Information for Homicide, as there was not at
accordance with Rule 119, Section 11, provided the all any change in the act imputed to petitioner, i.e., the
accused would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, killing of 2Lt. Escueta without any qualifying circumstance.
and may also require the witnesses to give bail for their Thus, we find that the amendment made in the caption and
appearance at the trial. preamble from "Homicide" to "Murder" as purely formal.

Amendment and substitution differ in the following 22. G.R. No. 140240, October 18, 2007
respects: RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, JULIAN Q. TAJOLOSA, HERMILO
1. Amendment may involve either formal or S. BALUCAN and AVELINO C. CASTILLO vs. OFFICE OF
substantial changes, while substitution THE OMBUDSMAN and CARLOS E. INFANTE
necessarily involves a substantial change from the
original charge; In Fabian vs. Desierto, we ruled that appeals from the
2. Amendment before plea has been entered can be decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
effected without leave of court, but substitution disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals
of information must be with leave of court as the by way of a petition for review under the provisions of
original information has to be dismissed; Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Pursuant to this ruling, the

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 7

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
Court promulgated its February 9, 1999 resolution in A.M. No. 6758 and the implementing guidelines issued
No. 99-2-02-SC: pursuant thereto.

In light of the decision in Fabian vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. Clearly then, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive and original
129742, 16 September 1998), any appeal by way of petition jurisdiction over the herein petitioners.
for review from a decision or final resolution or order of
the Ombudsman in administrative cases, or special civil 24. G.R. No. 174874, October 4, 2007
action relative to such decision, resolution or order filed GILBERT G. GUY vs. ASIA UNITED BANK
with the Court after 15 March 1999 shall no longer be
referred to the Court of Appeals, but must be forthwith First off, it should be stressed that the determination of
DENIED or DISMISSED, respectively. probable cause to warrant prosecution in court is, under
our criminal justice system, entrusted at the first instance
Moreover, Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. to public prosecutors and finally to the Secretary of Justice
07 also known as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of as reviewer of the findings and resolutions of the
the Ombudsman provides: prosecutors in preliminary investigation cases. In this
regard, the authority of the Secretary of Justice to review
Sec. 7. Finality of Decision. – Where the respondent and order the withdrawal of an information in instances
is absolved of the charge and in case of conviction where he finds the absence of a prima facie case is not
where the penalty imposed is public censure or time-barred, albeit subject to the approval of the court if
reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, its jurisdiction over the accused has meanwhile attached.
or a fine not equivalent to one month salary, the And it is not prudent or even permissible for a court to
decision shall be final and unappealable. compel the Secretary of Justice or the fiscal, as the case
may be, to prosecute a proceeding originally initiated by
Indeed, whereas here, there is a strong showing that grave him on an information, if he finds that the evidence relied
miscarriage of justice would result from the strict upon by him is insufficient for conviction.
application of the rules, we will not hesitate to relax the
same in the interest of substantial justice. In contrast, motion to dismiss is time-barred.

23. G.R. Nos. 137355-58, September 25, 2007 25. G.R. No. 165122, November 23, 2007
EUGENIO U. CABALLERO, NERITA CUENTO and MA. ROWLAND KIM SANTOS vs. PRYCE GASES, INC.,
THERESA G. CABALLERO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third VELASCO, JR.
Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Well-settled is the rule that the legality of a seizure can be
The Court held that violations of RA No. 3019 by a contested only by the party whose rights have been
municipal mayor come within the exclusive original impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because under RA No. and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by
6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position third parties.
Classification Act of 1989, municipal mayors are local
officials classified as Grade "27." They thus fall under the Petitioner is the real party-in-interest to seek the quashal
catch-all provision of Section 4a(5) of PD 1606 which of the search warrant for the obvious reason that the
speaks of "national and local officials classified as Grade search warrant, in which petitioner was solely named as
‘27’ under the Compensation and Position Classification respondent, was directed against the premises and articles
Act of 1989." More accurately, municipal mayors fall under over which petitioner had control and supervision.
Section 4a(1) of PD 1606 as they are "officials of the Petitioner was directly prejudiced or injured by the
executive branch occupying the positions of regional seizure of the gas tanks because petitioner was directly
director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and accountable as manager to the purported owner of the
higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act seized items. It is noteworthy that at the time of the
of 1989." application for search warrant, respondent recognized the
authority of petitioner as manager of Sun Gas, Inc. when
Moreover, Section 444(d) of the Local Government Code the application averred that petitioner had in his
settles any doubt as to whether municipal mayors are possession and control the items subject of the alleged
under the category of Salary Grade "27." The provision criminal offense. Respondent should not be allowed
reads: thereafter to question petitioner’s authority to assail the
search warrant. Moreover, the search warrant was
The municipal mayor shall receive a minimum directed against petitioner for allegedly using Pryce LPG
monthly compensation corresponding to Salary cylinders without the authority of respondent.
Grade twenty-seven ("27") as prescribed under R.A.

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 8

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
The Court of Appeals misapplied the ruling in Stonehill, et preliminary investigation was not mandatory, and the
al. vs. Diokno, et al. that only a corporation has the submission of counter-affidavit was not necessary.
exclusive right to question the seizure of items belonging
to the corporation on the ground that the latter has a However, notwithstanding the proper observance of the
personality distinct from the officers and shareholders of procedure laid down by the Rules, a closer scrutiny of the
the corporation. Assuming arguendo that Sun Gas, Inc. was records reveals that the Informations should not have
the owner of the seized items, petitioner, as the manager of been filed and the warrants of arrest should not have been
Sun Gas, Inc., had the authority to question the seizure of issued, because of lack of probable cause.
the items belonging to Sun Gas, Inc. Unlike natural persons,
corporations may perform physical actions only through 28. G.R. No. 168811, November 28, 2007
properly delegated individuals; namely, their officers MARILYN H. CO and WILSON C. CO vs. REPUBLIC OF
and/or agents. As stated above, respondent cannot THE PHILIPPINES, HON. EUFRONIO K. MARISTELA,
belatedly question petitioner’s authority to act on behalf of Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, San Jose,
Sun Gas, Inc. when it had already acknowledged Camarines Sur, Branch 30, and JOCELYN FRANCIA
petitioner’s authority at the time of the application of the
search warrant. In this case, what was brought before the trial court was
the preliminary examination. The trial court’s
26. G.R. No. 164904, October 19, 2007 jurisdiction is limited to the determination of whether
JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ vs. HONGKONG & there is probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION arrest against the accused. Instead, the trial court assumed
the function of the prosecutor by determining whether
Time and again, this Court has stated that probable cause there was probable cause for the filing of the information
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of for Murder (preliminary investigation).
guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and, definitely, not on evidence Judges of Regional Trial Courts (formerly Court of First
establishing absolute certainty of guilt; but it certainly Instance) no longer have authority to conduct preliminary
demands more than bare suspicion and can never be left to investigations.
presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing logic. In the
present case, there being sufficient evidence to support the This is not to say, however, that somewhere along the line
finding of probable cause by the City Prosecutor of Makati, RTC Judges also lost the power to make a preliminary
the same cannot be said to have resulted from bare examination for the purpose of determining whether
suspicion, presupposition, conjecture or logical deduction. probable cause exists to justify the issuance of a warrant of
arrest (or search warrant). Such a power – indeed, it is as
27. G.R. No. 143591, November 23, 2007 much a duty as it is a power – has been and remains vested
TEODORO C. BORLONGAN, JR., CORAZON M. BEJASA, in every judge by the provision in the Bill of Rights in the
ARTURO E. MANUEL, JR., ERIC L. LEE, P. SIERVO H. 1935, the 1973 and the present (1987) Constitutions
DIZON, BENJAMIN DE LEON, DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., securing the people against unreasonable searches and
and BEN YU LIM, JR. vs. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA and seizures, thereby placing it beyond the competence of
HON. MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., as Judge Designate of mere Court rule or statute to revoke. The distinction must,
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bago City therefore, be made clear while an RTC Judge may no longer
conduct preliminary investigations to ascertain whether
In determining probable cause for the issuance of the there is sufficient ground for the filing of a criminal
warrant of arrest in the case at bench, we find nothing complaint or information, he retains the authority, when
wrong with the procedure adopted by the trial judge --- he such a pleading is filed with his court, to determine
relied on the resolution of the prosecutor, as well as the whether there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a
supporting documents submitted by the respondent. There warrant of arrest.
is no provision of law or procedural rule which makes the
submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the 29. G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007
judge can determine whether or not there exists probable WILFREDO M. TRINIDAD vs. OFFICE OF THE
cause to issue the warrant. OMBUDSMAN THRU THE OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V.
MARCELO AND DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN VICTOR C.
In light of the foregoing, it appears that the proper FERNANDEZ, ASIA’S EMERGING DRAGON
procedure was followed by the prosecutor in determining CORPORATION, AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN PEOPLE
probable cause for the filing of the informations, and by OF THE PHILIPPINES
the trial court judge in determining probable cause for the
issuance of the warrants of arrest. To reiterate, Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no
bearing on criminal proceedings.

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 9

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
But even if petitioner’s argument were to be expanded to of probable cause in criminal cases was to file a petition
contemplate "res judicata in prison grey" or the criminal for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court.
law concept of double jeopardy, this Court still finds it
inapplicable to bar the reinvestigation conducted by the Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
Office of the Ombudsman. For the dismissal of a case administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the
during preliminary investigation does not constitute Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
double jeopardy, preliminary investigation not being part Procedure.
of the trial.
The remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions of the
Judge Paredes: Double jeopardy in criminal proceedings Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in
is the equivalent rule of res judicata. This applies when criminal cases or non-administrative cases, when
there is a valid judgment only. tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to file an original
action for certiorari with this Court and not with the Court
30. G.R. No. 154629, October 5, 2005 of Appeals. In cases when the aggrieved party is
SPO4 MARINO SOBERANO, SPO3 MAURO TORRES and questioning the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding of lack
SPO3 JOSE ESCALANTE vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE of probable cause, as in this case, there is likewise the
PHILIPPINES remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to be filed with this
Court and not with the Court of Appeals
An amendment of the information made before plea which
excludes some or one of the accused must be made only 2008 CASES
upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended
party and with leave of court in compliance with Section 1. G.R. No. 180299, January 31, 2008
14, Rule 110. Section 14, Rule 110 (amendment without LYNDON D. BOISER vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
leave before plea) does not qualify the grounds for the
exclusion of the accused. Thus, said provision applies in A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper
equal force when the exclusion is sought on the usual remedy against an order denying a motion to quash. The
ground of lack of probable cause, or when it is for accused should instead go to trial, without prejudice on his
utilization of the accused as state witness, as in this case, part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his
or on some other ground. motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision
is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized
It must be stressed that Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 6981 by law. Based on the findings of the investigating
enumerates the requirements before a person may be prosecutor and of the trial judge, probable cause exists to
admitted to the WPP (Witness Protection Program). It indict petitioner for the 3 offenses. Absent any showing of
does not state that if an accused cannot be admitted to the arbitrariness on the part of the investigating prosecutor or
WPP, he cannot be discharged as a witness for the state. any other officer authorized by law to conduct preliminary
Admission to the WPP and being discharged as an accused investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer's
are two different things. Dumlao’s being a law enforcement finding and determination of probable cause, since the
officer and, thus, disqualified to be under the WPP, do not determination of the existence of probable cause is the
in any way prohibit him to be discharged from the function of the prosecutor.
information.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to
31. G.R. No. 169098, October 12, 2006 determine whether a crime has been committed and
MANUEL BAVIERA vs. ROLANDO B. ZOLETA, in his whether there is probable cause to believe that the person
capacity as Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer accused of the crime is probably guilty thereof and should
II; MARY SUSAN S. GUILLERMO, in her capacity as be held for trial. A finding of probable cause needs only to
Director, Preliminary Investigation and rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime
Administrative Adjudication Bureau-B; PELAGIO S. has been committed and was committed by the suspect.
APOSTOL, in his capacity as Assistant Ombudsman, Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing
PAMO; ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, in his capacity as evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt
Assistant Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely, not on evidence
Enforcement Offices; and MA. MERCEDITAS N. establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
GUTIERREZ (Then) Undersecretary, Department of
Justice

The remedy of the aggrieved party from a resolution of the

Office of the Ombudsman finding the presence or absence

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 10

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
2. G.R. No. 175057, January 29, 2008 does not comply with a set of constitutive averments, it is
MA. ROSARIO SANTOS-CONCIO, MA. SOCORRO V. vulnerable to a motion to quash. The filing of a motion to
VIDANES, MARILOU ALMADEN, CIPRIANO LUSPO, dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit is proscribed by the
MORLY STEWART NUEVA, HAROLD JAMES NUEVA, rule on preliminary investigation, however. The
NORBERT VIDANES, FRANCISCO RIVERA, MEL investigating officer is allowed to dismiss outright the
FELICIANO, and JEAN OWEN ERCIA vs. DEPARTMENT complaint only if it is not sufficient in form and substance
OF JUSTICE, HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, as Secretary of or "no ground to continue with the investigation" is
the Department of Justice, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION appreciated.
- NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PANEL OF
INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS created under 3. G.R. No. 167179, January 28, 2008
Department of Justice Department Order No. 165 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELMER CEREDON y
dated 08 March 2006 PAGARAN

The measures taken by the Evaluating Panel (of the DOJ) The rule is where the accused desires to plead guilty to
do not partake of a criminal investigation, they having a capital offense, the court is enjoined to observe the
been done in aid of evaluation in order to relate the following:
incidents to their proper context. Petitioners’ own video 1. It must conduct a searching inquiry into the
footage of the ocular inspection discloses this purpose. voluntariness and full comprehension of the
Evaluation for purposes of determining whether there is consequences of his plea;
sufficient basis to proceed with the conduct of a 2. The court must require the prosecution to present
preliminary investigation entails not only reading the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the
report or documents in isolation, but also deems to include precise degree of his culpability; and
resorting to reasonably necessary means such as ocular 3. The court must ask the accused if he desires to
inspection and physical evidence examination. For, present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do
ultimately, any conclusion on such sufficiency or so if he desires.
insufficiency needs to rest on some basis or justification.
There is no definite and concrete rule on how a trial judge
A complaint for purposes of conducting a preliminary may go about the matter of a proper "searching inquiry" as
investigation differs from a complaint for purposes of required by the aforecited rule. It is incumbent upon a trial
instituting a criminal prosecution. There should be no judge to ascertain and be fully convinced that the plea of
confusion about the objectives, however, since, as guilty was voluntarily made and its consequences fully
intimated during the hearing before the appellate court, comprehended by the accused.
preliminary investigation is conducted precisely to elicit
further facts or evidence. Being generally inquisitorial, the There can only be an improvident plea of guilt under
preliminary investigation stage is often the only means Section 3, Rule 116 where there is a possibility of an
of discovering the persons who may be reasonably accused being meted out the supreme penalty of death. In
charged with a crime, to enable the preparation of a the words of said section, "When accused pleads guilty to a
complaint or information. capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry x
x x, etc." The obvious rationale for this is to ascertain that
The complaint is not entirely the affidavit of the accused truly understands the dire consequences of his
complainant, for the affidavit is treated as a component of plea. Considering that R.A. No. 9346 has prohibited the
the complaint. imposition of the death penalty, the raison d'etre behind
said rule is absent in the case at bar.
A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by
the fiscal need not be filed by the offended party. The rule 4. G.R. No. 158177, January 28, 2008
has been that, unless the offense subject thereof is one that SPOUSES BENITO LO BUN TIONG and CAROLINE SIOK
cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the same may be filed, for CHING TENG vs. VICENTE BALBOA
preliminary investigation purposes, by any competent
person. There is identity of parties and causes of action between a
civil case for the recovery of sum of money as a result of
A complaint for purposes of conducting preliminary the issuance of bouncing checks, and a criminal case for
investigation is not required to exhibit the attending the prosecution of a B.P. No. 22 violation.
structure of a "complaint or information" laid down in Rule
110 (Prosecution of Offenses) which already speaks of the The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the
"People of the Philippines" as a party, an "accused" rather offender to deter him and others from committing the
than a respondent, and a "court" that shall pronounce same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform
judgment. If a "complaint or information" filed in court or rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order.

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 11

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
The purpose, meanwhile, of the civil action is for the prepared against the accused. Indeed, a preliminary
restitution, reparation or indemnification of the private investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the
offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by merits of the case. In order to satisfy the due process
reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused. clause, it is not enough that the preliminary investigation
is conducted in the sense of making sure that a
5. G.R. Nos. 156851-55, February 18, 2008 transgressor shall not escape with impunity. A preliminary
HEIDE M. ESTANDARTE vs. PEOPLE OF THE investigation serves not only the purposes of the State.
PHILIPPINES More important, it is a part of the guarantee of freedom
and fair play which are birthrights of all who live in our
The Court has treated a petition for review on certiorari country.
under Rule 45 as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court in cases where the subject of the 6. G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008
recourse was one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of ZENON R. PEREZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
was perpetrated by a court with grave abuse of discretion SANDIGANBAYAN
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
There is no law, jurisprudence or rule which mandates
Moreover, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the that an employee should be assisted by counsel in an
Court may disregard procedural lapses so that a case may administrative case. On the contrary, jurisprudence is in
be resolved on its merits based on records and evidence of unison in saying that assistance of counsel is not
the parties. Proceeding from the time-honored principle indispensable in administrative proceedings.
that rules of procedure should promote, not defeat
substantial justice, the Court may opt to apply the Rules There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party
liberally to resolve the substantial issues raised by the in a non-litigation proceeding is entitled to be represented
parties. by counsel and that, without such representation, he shall
not be bound by such proceedings. The assistance of
Accordingly, the Court shall treat the instant petition as a lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable. The legal
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court profession was not engrafted in the due process clause
since the primordial issue to be resolved is whether the such that without the participation of its members, the
trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. The ordinary
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all
Motion for Reinvestigation. except only with a lawyer at his side.

While there is no rule that the initial complaint filed The first approach is the "fixed-time period" which holds
against an accused with the prosecutor’s office should the view that "the Constitution requires a criminal
specifically state the particular law under which he is defendant to be offered a trial within a specified time
being charged, it is a basic elementary rule that the period."
complaint should specifically allege the criminal acts
complained of, so as to enable the accused to prepare his The second approach is the "demand-waiver rule" which
answer or counter-affidavit accurately and intelligently. provides that "a defendant waives any consideration of his
right to speedy trial for any period prior to which he has
The determination of the issue whether the criminal not demanded trial. Under this rigid approach, a prior
charges were indeed alleged or specified in the subpoenas demand is a necessary condition to the consideration of
and in the documents attached thereto, is a factual issue the speedy trial right."
and therefore outside the province of this Court. It is a
well-settled rule that the Supreme Court is not the proper The Court went on to adopt a middle ground: the
venue in which to consider a factual issue, as it is not a "balancing test," in which "the conduct of both the
trier of facts. prosecution and defendant are weighed."

A preliminary investigation is a judicial proceeding A balancing test necessarily compels courts to approach
wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer, by the speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis. It is used to
nature of his functions, acts as a quasi-judicial officer. determine whether a defendant has been denied his right
Although a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that
not intended to usurp the function of the trial court, it is matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and
not a casual affair. The officer conducting the same the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length of
investigates or inquires into the facts concerning the the delay, reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion or
commission of the crime, with the end in view of non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant
determining whether or not an information may be resulting from the delay, are considered.

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 12

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
7. G.R. No. 161067, March 14, 2008 the offense; and the place where the offense was
DOMINADOR C. FERRER, JR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, HON. committed.
EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, HON. FRANCISCO H.
VILLARUZ, JR., and HON. RODOLFO G. PALATTAO, as With particular reference to the designation of the offense,
Members of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
ANNA MARIA L. HARPER, ESPERANZA G. GATBONTON, Procedure merely directs that the information must state
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the
acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
An investigation by the Ombudsman of the criminal case qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
for falsification and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and an inquiry into the administrative The fact that the information does not specifically mention
charges by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) are Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code as the law which
entirely independent proceedings, neither of which results defines and penalizes homicide, does not make it defective.
in or concludes the other. The established rule is that an There is nothing in the afore-quoted Rules which
absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an specifically requires that the information must state the
administrative prosecution, or vice versa. The dismissal of particular law under which the accused is charged in order
an administrative case does not necessarily bar the filing for it to be considered sufficient and valid. What the Rules
of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts merely require, among other things, is that the information
which were the subject of the administrative complaint. must designate the offense charged and aver the acts
constituting it, which in this case, were obviously done.
8. G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008 People vs. Gatchalian categorically stated that there is no
JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN vs. THE HON. law which requires that in order that an accused may be
SANDIGANBAYAN convicted, the specific provision which penalizes the act
charged be mentioned in the information.
Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby
the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually Besides, it should be stressed that the character of the
satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court crime is determined neither by the caption or preamble of
approval. It usually involves the defendant's pleading the information nor by the specification of the provision of
guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions
counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter of law, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and
sentence than that for the graver charge. circumstances in the information. The sufficiency of an
information is not negated by an incomplete or defective
Plea bargaining is authorized under Section 2, Rule 116 of designation of the crime in the caption or other parts of the
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. information but by the narration of facts and
circumstances which adequately depicts a crime and
Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial sufficiently apprises the accused of the nature and cause of
stage of the proceedings. Sections 1 and 2, Rule 118 of the the accusation against him.
Rules of Court, require plea bargaining to be considered by
the trial court at the pre-trial conference. Although the information herein does not specifically
mention Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code as the law
But it may also be made during the trial proper and even which defines and penalizes homicide, it, nonetheless,
after the prosecution has finished presenting its evidence narrates that petitioner stabbed Rufino with a bladed
and rested its case. Thus, the Court has held that it is weapon during the incident which caused the latter’s
immaterial that plea bargaining was not made during the death. The foregoing allegation unmistakably refers to
pre-trial stage or that it was made only after the homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code
prosecution already presented several witnesses. which is the unlawful killing of any person without any
attendant circumstance that will qualify it as murder,
9. G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008 parricide or infanticide.
ROBERTO LICYAYO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
10. G.R. No. 168163, March 26, 2008
Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal LOLITA Y. EUGENIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Procedure provides that an information is sufficient if it
states the name of the accused; the designation of the Any irregularity attending the arrest of an accused,
offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions depriving the trial court of jurisdiction over her person,
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the should be raised in a motion to quash at any time before
offended party; the approximate date of the commission of entering her plea. Petitioner’s failure to timely raise this
objection amounted to a waiver of such irregularity and

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 13

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
resulted in her concomitant submission to the trial court’s 12. G.R. No. 176084, April 30, 2008
jurisdiction over her person. Indeed, not only did CARMENCITA G. CARIÑO vs. MERLIN DE CASTRO
petitioner submit to such jurisdiction, she actively invoked
it through her participation during the trial. Petitioner In criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals
cannot now be heard to claim the contrary. or in the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the
People is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Under
As for the failure of the NBI agents to inform petitioner of Presidential Decree No. 478, among the specific powers
her right to counsel during custodial investigation, this and functions of the OSG was to "represent the
right attains significance only if the person under government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
investigation makes a confession in writing without aid of Appeals in all criminal proceedings." This provision has
counsel counsel which is then sought to be admitted been carried over to the Revised Administrative Code
against the accused during the trial. In such case, the particularly in Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12 thereof.
tainted confession obtained in violation of Section 12(1), Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the
Article III of the Constitution is inadmissible in evidence People of the Philippines in all criminal cases.
against the accused.
Although the petition for review before the Court of
11. G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008 Appeals was filed with the conformity of the Assistant City
JOHN HILARIO y SIBAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE Prosecutor, such conformity is insufficient, as the rules and
PHILIPPINES jurisprudence mandate that the same should be filed by
the Solicitor General.
The right to counsel in civil cases exists just as forcefully as
in criminal cases, specially so when as a consequence, life, While a private prosecutor may be allowed to intervene in
liberty, or property is subjected to restraint or in danger of criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or
loss. the Supreme Court, his participation is subordinate to the
interest of the People, hence, he cannot be permitted to
In criminal cases, the right of an accused person to be adopt a position contrary to that of the Solicitor General.
assisted by a member of the bar is immutable. Otherwise, To do so would be tantamount to giving the private
there would be a grave denial of due process. Thus, even if prosecutor the direction and control of the criminal
the judgment had become final and executory, it may still proceeding, contrary to the provisions of law.
be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be
heard by himself and counsel. 13. G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008
JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE
The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all PHILIPPINES
times. More so, in the case of an on-going litigation, it is a
right that must be exercised at every step of the way, with As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
the lawyer faithfully keeping his client company. custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
The filing of the petition for certiorari by petitioner the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to
without counsel should have alerted the CA and should be. It would include testimony about every link in the
have required petitioner to cause the entry of appearance chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time
of his counsel. Although the petition filed before the CA it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person
was a petition for certiorari assailing the RTC Order who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
dismissing the petition for relief, the ultimate relief being whom it was received, where it was and what happened to
sought by petitioner was to be given the chance to file an it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which
appeal from his conviction, thus the need for a counsel is it was received and the condition in which it was delivered
more pronounced. to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
While as a general rule, negligence of counsel may not be been no change in the condition of the item and no
condoned and should bind the client, the exception is opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and possession of the same.
inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
While this right (to counsel) is statutory, once it is granted standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain,
by law, however, its suppression would be a violation of an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and
due process, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive
and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the
time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 14

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard 15. G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008
likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV vs. HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL,
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of TRIAL COURT- BRANCH 148, MAKATI CITY; GEN.
susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering— HERMOGENES ESPERON, VICE ADM. ROGELIO I.
without regard to whether the same is advertent or CALUNSAG, MGEN. BENJAMIN DOLORFINO, AND LT.
otherwise not—dictates the level of strictness in the COL. LUCIARDO OBEÑA
application of the chain of custody rule.
The Rules also state that no person charged with a capital
Hence, in authenticating the same (unique characteristic of offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or
narcotic substances), a standard more stringent than that life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence
applied to cases involving objects which are readily of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal
identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that action.
entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient
completeness if only to render it improbable that the In the present case, it is uncontroverted that petitioner’s
original item has either been exchanged with another or application for bail and for release on recognizance was
been contaminated or tampered with. denied. The determination that the evidence of guilt is
strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an application
14. G.R. No. 159395, May 7, 2008 for bail or imported from a trial court’s judgment of
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS conviction, justifies the detention of an accused as a valid
and DR. MERCEDITA J. MACABULOS curtailment of his right to provisional liberty. This
accentuates the proviso that the denial of the right to bail
The use of the word "may" is ordinarily construed as in such cases is "regardless of the stage of the criminal
permissive or directory, indicating that a matter of action." Such justification for confinement with its
discretion is involved. Thus, the word "may," when used in underlying rationale of public self-defense applies equally
a statute, does not generally suggest compulsion. The use to detention prisoners like petitioner.
of the word "may" in Section 20(5) of RA 6770 indicates
that it is within the discretion of the Ombudsman whether Circumstances indicating probability of flight find
to conduct an investigation when a complaint is filed after relevance as a factor in ascertaining the reasonable
one year from the occurrence of the complained act or amount of bail and in canceling a discretionary grant of
omission. bail. In cases involving non-bailable offenses, what is
controlling is the determination of whether the evidence of
Thus, in this case, even if the complaint was filed more guilt is strong. Once it is established that it is so, bail shall
than one year after the alleged occurrence of the act be denied as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion.
complained of, it was within the discretion of the
Ombudsman whether to pursue the investigation or The Court categorically held that the doctrine of
dismiss the complaint. condonation does not apply to criminal cases. Election, or
more precisely, re-election to office, does not obliterate a
Under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770, findings of fact by the criminal charge. Petitioner’s electoral victory only signifies
Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are pertinently that when the voters elected him to the Senate,
conclusive. "they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his
freedom of action [and] x x x with the knowledge that he
An appeal shall not stop the decision (of dismissal) from could achieve only such legislative results which he could
being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or accomplish within the confines of prison."
removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be
considered as having been under preventive suspension Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from
and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the
that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or discretion of the authorities or upon court orders.
removal.
16. G.R. No. 176795, June 30, 2008
SPS. CAROLINA and REYNALDO JOSE vs. SPS.
LAUREANO and PURITA SUAREZ

A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a

situation where a civil action and a criminal action are
both pending and there exists in the former an issue which
must be preemptively resolved before the latter may

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 15

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect,
action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out
the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. a process of interrogations that lend itself to eliciting
The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question incriminating statements, that the rule begins to operate
is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential Republic Act No. 7438 has extended this constitutional
elements: (i) the civil action involves an issue similar or guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; formally arrested but has merely been "invited" for
and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or questioning. Specifically, Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 7438 provides
not the criminal action may proceed. that "custodial investigation shall include the practice of
issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in
The prejudicial question theory advanced by respondents connection with an offense he is suspected to have
must fail. committed x x x."

In the first place, the validity or invalidity of the interest When petitioner engaged Atty. Uy as her lawyer, she
rate is not determinative of the guilt of respondents in the undoubtedly executed the amicable settlement. Verily, she
criminal cases. The Court has consistently declared that was provided with an independent counsel and such "right
the cause or reason for the issuance of a check is to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as
inconsequential in determining criminal culpability under would lead the accused to admit something false. The
B.P. Blg. 22. In several instances, we have held that what lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from
the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and freely and voluntarily telling the truth." An amicable
not the purpose for which it was issued or the terms and settlement is not and does not partake of the nature of an
conditions relating to its issuance; and that the mere act of extrajudicial confession or admission but is a contract
issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum provided between the parties within the parameters of their
the other elements of the offense are properly proved. mutually recognized and admitted rights and obligations.
Thus, the presence of Atty. Uy safeguarded petitioner’s
17. G.R. Nos. 156399-400, June 27, 2008 rights even if the custodial investigation did not push
VICTOR JOSE TAN UY vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, through and precluded any threat of violence, coercion, or
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SANDIGANBAYAN intimidation.
(SPECIAL DIVISION), CARLOS S. CAACBAY OF THE
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROMEO T. A confession is not rendered involuntary merely because
CAPULONG, LEONARD DE VERA, AND DENNIS B. FUNA defendant was told that he should tell the truth or that it
would be better for him to tell the truth. Stated elsewise,
Although such a preliminary investigation is not a trial and telling the accused that it would be better for him to speak
is not intended to usurp the function of the trial court, it is or tell the truth does not furnish any inducement, or a
not a casual affair. The officer conducting the same sufficient inducement, to render objectionable a confession
investigates or inquires into the facts concerning the thereby obtained, unless threats or promises are applied.
commission of the crime with the end in view of These threats or promises which the accused must
determining whether or not an information may be successfully prove in order to make his confession
prepared against the accused. Indeed, a preliminary inadmissible, must take the form of violence, intimidation,
investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the a promise of reward or leniency.
merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the
accused must be adduced so that when the case is tried, 19. G.R. No. 178266, July 21, 2008
the trial court may not be bound as a matter of law to PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SAMUEL and LORETA
order an acquittal. A preliminary investigation has then VANZUELA
been called a judicial inquiry. It is a judicial proceeding. An
act becomes judicial when there is opportunity to be heard The three important requisites in order that a court
and for the production and weighing of evidence, and a may acquire criminal jurisdiction are:
decision is rendered thereon. (1) The court must have jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
18. G.R. No. 147782, June 25, 2008 (2) The court must have jurisdiction over the
JUANITA A. AQUINO vs. TERESITA B. PAISTE territory where the offense was committed; and
(3) The court must have jurisdiction over the person
Custodial investigation involves any questioning of the accused.
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his In the instant case, the RTC failed to consider that what is
freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after the lodged before it is a criminal case for estafa involving an
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an alleged misappropriated amount of P80,000.00 -- a subject

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 16

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW
matter over which the RTC clearly has jurisdiction.
Notably, while the RTC has criminal jurisdiction conferred
on it by law, the DARAB, on the other hand, has no
authority to try criminal cases at all.

For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more specifically,
in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB).

Executive Order No. 229 vested the DAR with:

(1) Quasi-judicial powers to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and
(2) Jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except those
falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the department of agriculture and the department
of environment and natural resources.

This law divested the regional trial courts of their general

jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters.

Under Republic Act No. 6657, the DAR retains jurisdiction

over all agrarian reform matters.

Clearly, the law and the DARAB Rules are deafeningly

silent on the conferment of any criminal jurisdiction in
favor of the DARAB. It is worth stressing that even the
jurisdiction over the prosecution of criminal offenses in
violation of R.A. No. 6657 per se is lodged with the Special
Agrarian Courts (SACs) and not with the DARAB.

While indeed, the parties admit that there is an

agricultural tenancy relationship in this case, and that
under the circumstances, Veneranda as landowner could
have simply filed a case before the DARAB for collection of
lease rentals and/or dispossession of respondents as
tenants due to their failure to pay said lease rentals, there
is no law which prohibits landowners from instituting a
criminal case for estafa, as defined and penalized under
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, against their
tenants. Succinctly put, though the matter before us
apparently presents an agrarian dispute, the RTC cannot
shirk from its duty to adjudicate on the merits a criminal
case initially filed before it, based on the law and evidence
presented, in order to determine whether an accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

APRIL LYNN L. URSAL LLB-4 Page 17

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II (S.Y. 2015-2016)
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU – COLLEGE OF LAW