Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Cases Crim Proc (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tiny WOnder
    The document discusses three court cases: 1) People v. Yabut which held that a person can be convicted of illegal recruitment even if acquitted of estafa. 2) Manuel Lim v. CA which affirmed conviction for bouncing checks as a continuing crime with jurisdiction in multiple courts. 3) Miranda vs. Tuliao which dismissed a petition because the accused had not submitted to the court's jurisdiction to seek relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cases Crim Proc (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tiny WOnder
    80 views2 pages
    The document discusses three court cases: 1) People v. Yabut which held that a person can be convicted of illegal recruitment even if acquitted of estafa. 2) Manuel Lim v. CA which affirmed conviction for bouncing checks as a continuing crime with jurisdiction in multiple courts. 3) Miranda vs. Tuliao which dismissed a petition because the accused had not submitted to the court's jurisdiction to seek relief.

    Original Description:

    A collection of digested cases for criminal procedure.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses three court cases: 1) People v. Yabut which held that a person can be convicted of illegal recruitment even if acquitted of estafa. 2) Manuel Lim v. CA which affirmed conviction for bouncing checks as a continuing crime with jurisdiction in multiple courts. 3) Miranda vs. Tuliao which dismissed a petition because the accused had not submitted to the court's jurisdiction to seek relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    Cases Crim Proc (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tiny WOnder
    The document discusses three court cases: 1) People v. Yabut which held that a person can be convicted of illegal recruitment even if acquitted of estafa. 2) Manuel Lim v. CA which affirmed conviction for bouncing checks as a continuing crime with jurisdiction in multiple courts. 3) Miranda vs. Tuliao which dismissed a petition because the accused had not submitted to the court's jurisdiction to seek relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE V.

    YABUT (#1)
    October 5, 1999
    Spouses Yabut on several occasions received money from complainants promising them they will be able to
    work in Japan. After several cancellation of their scheduled departure, complainants discovered that said
    spouses were not licensed to engage in recruitment and placement activities. Wife eluded arrest and remains
    at-large. Husband contends that he was not engaged in recruitment for overseas employment and but only in
    processing visas. He was acquitted of the crime of estafa.
    Issue: W/N accused could be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the crime of
    estafa?
    HELD: Yes.
    It is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
    recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa Art. 315 of the RPC. The former is mala prohibitum where the
    criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is mala in se where the criminal
    intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.
    http://jamesmamba.blogspot.com/2012/05/criminal-law-digests-1.html
    Manuel Lim v CA (#2)
    Facts:
    Manuel Lim and Rosita Lim are the officers of the Rigi Bilt Industries, Inc. (RIGI). RIGI had been transacting
    business with Linton Commercial Company, Inc. The Lims ordered 100 pieces of mild steel plates from Linton
    and were delivered to the Lims place of business which was in Caloocan. To pay Linton, the Lims issued a
    postdated check for P51,800.00. On a different date, the Lims also ordered another 65 pcs of mild steel plates
    and were delivered in the place of business. They again issued another postdated check. On that same day,
    they also ordered purlins worth P241,800 which were delivered to them on various dates. The Lims issued 7
    checks for this.
    When the 7 checks were presented to the drawee bank (Solidbank), it was dishonored because payment for
    the checks had been stopped and/or insufficiency of funds. So the Lims were charged with 7 counts of violation
    of Bouncing Checks Law.
    The Malabon trial court held that the Lims were guilty of estafa and violation of BP 22. They went to CA on
    appeal.
    The CA acquitted the Lims of estafa, on the ground that the checks were not made in payment of an obligation
    contracted at the time of their issuance. However, the CA affirmed the finding that they were guilty of violation
    for BP 22. Motion for Reconsideration to SC.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the issue was within the jurisdiction of the Malabon Trial Court
    Held:
    Yes. The venue of jurisdiction lies either in the RTC Caloocan or Malabon Trial Court.
    BP 22 is a continuing crime. A person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or
    territory where the offense was partly committed. In determining the proper venue, the ff. must be considered.
    1) 7 checks were issued to Linton in its place of business in Navotas. 2) The checks were delivered Linton in
    the same place. 3) The checks were dishonored in Caloocan 4) The Lims had knowledge of their insufficiency
    of funds.
    Under sec 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:
    ISSUE = 1ST delivery of the instrument complete in form to a person who takes it as a holder
    HOLDER = payee or indorsee of a bill/note who is in possession of it or the bearer
    The place where the bills were written, signed or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place where
    they were executed. It is the delivery that is important. It is the final act essential to its consummation of an
    obligation. An undelivered bill is unoperative. The issuance and delivery of the check must be to a person who
    takes it as a holder.

    Although Linton sent a collector who received the checks fr. The Lims at their place of business, the checks
    were actually issued and delivered to Linton in Navotas. The collector is not a holder or an agent, he was just
    an employee.
    *SC affirms conviction of the Lims for violation of BP 22 and the decision of CA
    http://digmydigests.blogspot.com/2011/06/manuel-lim-v-ca.html

    Miranda vs. Tuliao (#5)


    G.R. # 158763, March 31, 2006
    Facts:
    On Mar. 1996, 2 burnt cadavers were discovered in Ramon, Isabela which were later identified as
    the bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private respondent Virgilio Tuliao who is now under
    the witness protection program.
    2 informations for murder were filed against the 5 police officer including SPO2 Maderal in RTC
    of Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to Manila. RTC Manila convicted all the accused and
    sentenced them 2 counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that
    time, being at large. Upon automatic review, the SC acquitted the four accused on the ground of reasonable
    doubt.
    In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn confession and identified the herein
    petitioner Miranda and 4 others responsible for the death of the victims. Respondent Tuliao then filed a criminal
    complaint for murder against the petitioners. Acting Presiding Judge Tumalian issued warrant of arrest against
    the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
    Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to
    recall or quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion, Judge Tumalian noted the absence of
    petitioners and issued a Joint order denying the said urgent motion on the ground that since the court did not
    acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the court. The
    petitioners appealed the resolution of the Public prosecutor to the DOJ.
    The new Presiding Judge named Judge Anghad took over the case and issued a Joint Order reversing
    the Joint Order of Judge Tumalian. He also ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest. Respondent Tulia
    filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with a prayer for TRO seeking to enjoin Judge Anghad
    from further proceeding of the case and seeking to nullify the Joint Orders of the said Judge. The SC issued a
    resolution granting the prayer. Notwithstanding the said resolution, Judge Anghad issued a Joint Order
    dismissing the information against the petition.
    Respondent Tuliao filed a motion to cite Judge Anghad in contempt. The SC referred the said motion to
    the CA. The CA rendered the assailed decision granting the petition and ordering the reinstatement of the
    criminal cases in the RTC of Santiago City as well as the issuance of warrant of arrest. Hence, this petition.

    Issue: Whether or not an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the
    jurisdiction of the court
    Held: Petition is dismissed and cost against the petitioners. It has been held that an accused cannot seek
    judicial relief is he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over the accused can
    be acquired either through compulsory process, such as warrant of arrest or through his voluntary appearance,
    such as when he surrender to the police or to the court. It is only when the court has already acquired
    jurisdiction over his person that an accused may invoke the processes of the court. Since, petitioner were not
    arrested or otherwise deprived of their liberty, they cannot seek judicial relief.

    You might also like