Verzano vs. Paro, G.R. No.

171643, August 08, 2010

Facts

On March 2002, Verzano former district manager of Wyeth Philippines, Inc. for the
islands of Panay and Negros was dismissed from service upon administrative complaint
filed against him. The complaint was founded on petitioner's alleged violation of
company policy on prohibited sale of drug samples given for free to doctors and for the
unauthorized act of transferring of the stocks within the same area falsely creating an
impression that there was a sale. After conducting its own investigation and giving
petitioner an opportunity to explain his side, wyeth resolved to dismiss petitioner
tendering him a Notice of Termination.

Aggrieved, Verzano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with Regional Labor Arbitration
Board, NLRC, Bacolod City against Wyeth. Attached were the affidavits of respondents
Paro and Florencio alleging that the respondents' testimony are false and incriminatory
machination. The affidavits of the respondents contained falsehood particularly on the
material date of the alleged sale of products which are to be given free to doctors.

Subpoenas were issued by the City Prosecutor against respondents for the submission
of their respective counter-affidavits; however, the return of the subpoenas showed that
respondents could not be located at their given addresses.In a resolution, the city
prosecutors resolved to dismiss Verzano's complaint finding no probable cause and
insufficiency of evidence. Verzano filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied
by the city prosecutor in a resolution. Verzano appealed the resolution oof the city
prosecutor to the office of regional state prosecutor via petition for review, but regional
state prosecutor finding merit in Verzano's petition reversed and directed the
prosecutor's office to file information for perjury against Paro, Florencio. Aggrieved, the
respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Regional State
Prosecutor. On September 2004 respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA
assailing the resolutions of the regional state prosecutor which reversed the earlier
resolution of the city prosecutor and prayed for a TRO from CA.

On October 14, 2004 a TRO was issued by CA enjoining the public respondent chief
prosecutor from acting on the assailed order issued by the regional state prosecutor for
a period of 60 days from receipt. In light of the TRO, respondents filed with MTCC a
manifestation and urgent motion to suspend proceedings which was granted by the
MTCC.

Issue

Whether the petition filed by respondents with CA had been rendered moot and
academic by the filing of the cases in court?

Ruling
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in
Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already
in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole
judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its
exclusive jurisdiction and competence.
Antiquera vs. People, G.R. No. 180661, December 11, 2013

Facts

Police officers were conducting a police visibility patrol in Pasay City when they saw two
unidentified men rush out of a house and boarded a jeep. Believing that there was a
crime, the police officers approached the house. When they peeked through the partially
opened door, they saw Antiquera and Cruz engaged in a pot session. The police
officers entered the house, introduced themselves and arrested Antiquera and Cruz.
While inspecting the vicinity, PO1 Cabutihan saw a jewellery box which contained
shabu and unused paraphernalia. The RTC found them guilty of illegal possession of
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. The court affirmed the decision of RTC.

Issue

Whether or not the arrest was invalid.

Held

Yes, there was unlawful arrest because the circumstances here do not make out a case
of arrest made in flagrante delicto. Admittedly, the police officers did not notice anything
amiss going on in the house from the street where they stood. Indeed, even as they
peeked through its partially opened door, they saw no activity that warranted their
entering it. Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers
that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant under the above-
mentioned rule. Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure that
resulted from it was likewise illegal.
Bernardo vs. Tan, G.R. No. 185491, July 11, 2012

Facts

That on or about the November 22, 2000, in the City of Makati, Philippines the accused,
being then the responsible officers of Megaworld Corporation and Sedeño Manor, Inc.
and in charge of the business of said corporation sold to complainant JULIETA E.
BERNARDO a condominium unit described as 23E Tower, that while complainant was
paying the monthly amortization due on the said condominium, accused conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously failed to register the reservation agreement in the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Makati City.

Ms. Bernardo filed a complaint before the city Prosecutor against the respondents for
violations of P.D. 957 and Estafa. The City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint of Ms.
Bernardo. Consequently, she filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Her
petition was granted by the Secretary of Justice; hence, it ordered the filing of the
corresponding Informations for violations of Sections 5, 17 and 20 of P.D. No. 957. The
respondents moved for the reconsideration of the filing of the Informations against them.
This time, the Secretary of Justice ruled in their favor and granted their motion.

Hence, pursuant to the Resolution, the Secretary of Justice ordered the City Prosecutor
to move for the withdrawal of the Informations filed before the trial court. The RTC
allowed the withdrawal of the Informations filed against respondents.

The CA issued its questioned Decision upholding the Orders of the RTC.

Issue

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed the withdrawal
of information filed against respondents?

Held

Once a complaint or an information is filed in court giving it jurisdiction over the criminal
case, a reinvestigation thereof by the prosecutor requires prior permission from the
court.10 If reinvestigation is allowed, the findings and recommendations of the
prosecutor should be submitted to the court for appropriate action.11 If the prosecutor
moves for the withdrawal of the information or the dismissal of the case, the court may
grant or deny the motion. It may even order the trial to proceed with the proper
determination of the case on the merits, according to its sound discretion. The court “is
the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.”

The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted the motion to
withdraw the first and the third Information against respondents on the basis of a grossly
erroneous interpretation and application of law. The law is unambiguous when it states
that it shall be the National Housing Authority that would fix or extend the date of
completion of the subdivision or condominium projects if justified. The RTC thus
committed grave abuse of discretion when it decreed that the time of completion as
mandated by Section 20 should not be applied “mechanically against respondents”; and
when it relied on the completion time as indicated in the Contract to Buy and Sell.
Moreover, nowhere can it be found that the law requires a contract of sale before an
offense can be committed under Section 20.
Miclat, Jr., vs. People, G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011

FACTS

Police operatives including PDEA conducted a surveillance of drug trafficking in

Palmera Spring II, Bagumbong, Caloocan City. The informant of the police directed
them to the residence of a certain “ABE” PO3 Antonio then positioned himself at the
perimeter of the house, while the rest of the members of the group deployed themselves
nearby. Thru a small opening in the curtain-covered window, PO3 Antonio peeped
inside and there at a distance of 1½ meters, he saw “Abe” arranging several pieces of
small plastic sachets which he believed to be containing shabu. At the same instance
they arrested the petitioner. However, the version of the petitioner is that, together with
her father and sister while watching television the police operatives barrage themselves
into their house and that the shabu was later planted to the petitioner while travelling to
the police station.

The trial court rendered the decision finding the petitioner guilty of Violation of Section
11, Article II of RA No. 9165. The CA subsequently affirmed the trial court decision.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue

Whether or not peeping through a curtain-covered window is within the meaning of

“plain view doctrine” for a warrantless seizure to be lawful.

Held

Yes. Supreme Court ruled that at the time of petitioner’s arraignment, there was no
objection raised as to the irregularity of his arrest. Thereafter, he actively participated in
the proceedings before the trial court. In effect, he is deemed to have waived any
perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court trying his case. At any rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause
for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free
from error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.

While it is true that Sec. 2 of the bill of rights preserves the rights of individuals of illegal
search and seizure. However, a settled exception to the right guaranteed by the above-
stated provision is that of an arrest made during the commission of a crime, which does
not require a previously issued warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered
reasonable and valid under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure

For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following elements
must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object
identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of
the drug.