Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS
The information charged Antonio Garcia with violation of Article 318 of the Revised
Penal Code, which is punishable by arresto mayor, or imprisonment for a period of
one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. When the information was filed on
September 3, 1990, the law in force was Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 before it was
amended by Republic Act No. 7691. Under Section 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case. ANTONIO M. GARCIA
vs. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC., G.R. No. 172505, October 01, 2014, J. Leonen
CONTROL OF PROSECUTION
Founded on the power of supervision and control over his subordinates, the
Secretary of Justice did not act with grave abuse of discretion when he took
cognizance of BBBs letter and treated it as a petition for review from the provincial
prosecutors resolution. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE vs. TEODULO NANO ALAON
G.R. No. 189596, April 23, 2014, J. Perez
RTC dismissed the criminal cases, ruling that the Go and Dela Rosas right to speedy
trial was violated as they were compelled to wait for five (5) years without the
prosecution completing its presentation of evidence due to its neglect. In their
petition for certiorari before the CA, respondents failed to implead the People of the
Philippines as a party thereto. Because of this, the petition was obviously defective.
As provided in Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all
criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the respondents herein to implead the People of
the Philippines as respondent in the CA case to enable the Solicitor General to
comment on the petition. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE C. GO and
AIDA C. DELA ROSA G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014, J. PerlasBernabe
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
It is true that the gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1,
subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or property
received to the prejudice of the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a
material ingredient of the crime, hence, the exclusion of the period and the wrong
date of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected in the Information, do not make the
latter fatally defective. Therefore, Corpuzs argument that the Information filed
against him is formally defective because the Information does not contain the
period when the pieces of jewelry were supposed to be returned and that the date
when the crime occurred was different from the one testified to by private
complainant Tangcoy is untenable. LITO CORPUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014, J. Peralta

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
The inclusion of the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
information does not violate the constitutional rights of appellants Feliciano. Every
aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure
to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be
appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the
aggravating circumstance of "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible
by the trial court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANILO FELICIANO, JR. et
al G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014, J. Leonen
In crimes where the date of commission is not a material element, like murder, it is
not necessary to allege such date with absolute specificity or certainty in the
information. The Rules of Court merely requires, for the sake of properly informing
an accused, that the date of commission be approximated. As such, the allegation
in an information of a date of commission different from the one eventually
established during the trial would not, as a rule, be considered as an error fatal to
prosecution. In such cases, the erroneous allegation in the information is just
deemed supplanted by the evidence presented during the trial or may even be
corrected by a formal amendment of the information.
However, variance in the date of commission of the offense as alleged in the
information and as established in evidence becomes fatal when such discrepancy is
so great that it induces the perception that the information and the evidence are no
longer pertaining to one and the same offense. In this event, the defective
allegation in the information is not deemed supplanted by the evidence nor can it
be amended but must be struck down for being violative of the right of the accused
to be informed of the specific charge against him. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. RAEL DELFIN G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014, J. Perez
As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense,
otherwise, the same is defective. The rationale behind this rule prohibiting
duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the accused the necessary
knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for his
defense. The State should not heap upon the accused two or more charges which
might confuse him in his defense. Non-compliance with this rule is a ground for
quashing the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure and the accused may raise the same in a motion to quash
before he enters his plea, otherwise, the defect is deemed waived. The accused
herein, however, cannot avail of this defense simply because they did not file a
motion to quash questioning the validity of the Information during their
arraignment. Thus, they are deemed to have waived their right to question the
same. Also, where the allegations of the acts imputed to the accused are merely
different counts specifying the acts of perpetration of the same crime, as in the
instant case, there is no duplicity to speak of. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
AAA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 21ST DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION,
RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL OPORTO, AND MOISES ALQUIZOLA G.R.
No. 183652, February 25, 2015, J. Peralta
DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
Moleta filed a case against Consigna, the Municipal Treasurer of General Luna,
Surigao del Norte, for the violation of AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices and Estafa
before the Sandiganbayan. Cosigna argued that the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction because the crime as charged did not specify the provision of law
allegedly violated, i.e., the specific type of Estafa. In that issue, the Supreme Court
ruled that what is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of
the offense charge or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated but the
description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. SILVERINA
E. CONSIGNA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
(THIRD
DIVISION),
and
EMERLINA
MOLETA
G.R. Nos. 17575051, April 2, 2014, J. Perez
AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
Dr. Joel Mendez was charged with tax evasion. However, the prosecutor filed
amended complaint which changed the date of the commission of the offense. The
court ruled that amendments that do not charge another offense different from that
charged in the original one; or do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so
as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will
assume are considered merely as formal amendments. DR. JOEL C. MENDEZ vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF TAX APPEALS G.R. No. 179962,
June 11, 2014, J. Brion
INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED PARTY
Sec. 16 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly allows an
offended party to intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense for the
recovery of civil liability where the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged is instituted with the criminal action. The civil action shall
be deemed instituted with the criminal action, except when the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action. In this case, the CA found no such waiver
from or reservation made by Chan. The fact that Chan, who was already based
abroad, had secured the services of an attorney in the Philippines reveals her
willingness and interest to participate in the prosecution of the bigamy case and to
recover civil liability from the petitioners. Thus, the RTC should have allowed, and
should not have disqualified, Atty. Atencia from intervening in the bigamy case as
Chan, being the offended party, is afforded by law the right to participate through
counsel in the prosecution of the offense with respect to the civil aspect of the case.
LEONARDO A. VILLALON AND ERLINDA TALDE-VILLALON vs. AMELIA CHAN
G.R. No. 196508, September 24, 2014, J. Brion
RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION WITH CRIMINAL ACTION
Section 16 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly allows
an offended party to intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense for the
recovery of civil liability where the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged is instituted with the criminal action. The civil action shall
be deemed instituted with the criminal action, except when the offended party

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the
civil action prior to the criminal action. The fact that the respondent, who was
already based abroad, had secured the services of an attorney in the Philippines
reveals her willingness and interest to participate in the prosecution of the bigamy
case and to recover civil liability from the petitioners. LEONARDO A. VILLALON
AND ERLINDA TALDE-VILLALON vs. AMELIA CHAN, G.R. No. 196508,
September 24, 2014, J. Brion
WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY
Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability
of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author
of the actor omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability,
for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission
cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. The second instance is
an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case,
even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not
exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
However, even if respondent was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, his guilt was not proven by preponderance of
evidence that would make him liable to civil liability. CRISTINA B. CASTILLO vs.
PHILLIP R. SALVADOR G.R. No. 191240, July 30, 2014, J. Peralta
EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE ACCUSED OR CONVICT ON CIVIL ACTION
It is clear that the death of the accused Dr. Ynzon pending appeal of his conviction
extinguishes his criminal liability. However, the recovery of civil liability subsists as
the same is not based on delict but by contract and the reckless imprudence he was
guilty of under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. For this reason, a separate
civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate
of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is
based, and in accordance with Section 4, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure. Dr. Antonio P. Cabugao and Dr. Clenio Ynzon vs. People of the
Philippines and Spouses Roldolfo M. Palma and Rosario F. Palma G.R. No.
163879, July 30, 2014, J. Peralta
NATURE OF RIGHT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Agdeppas assertion that he had been denied due process is misplaced, bearing in
mind that the rights to be informed of the charges, to file a comment to the
complaint, and to participate in the preliminary investigation, belong to Junia.
Clearly, the right to preliminary investigation is a component of the right of the
respondent/accused to substantive due process. A complainant cannot insist that a
preliminary investigation be held when the complaint was dismissed outright
because of palpable lack of merit. It goes against the very nature and purpose of
preliminary investigation to still drag the respondent/accused through the rigors of
such an investigation so as to aid the complainant in substantiating an
accusation/charge that is evidently baseless from the very beginning. RODOLFO M.

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
AGDEPPA vs. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN et al G.R. No.
146376, April 23, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
PURPOSES OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
The preliminary investigation is not yet a trial on the merits, for its only purpose is
to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable
cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. The scope of the investigation
does not approximate that of a trial before the court; hence, what is required is only
that the evidence be sufficient to establish probable cause that the accused
committed the crime charged, not that all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
accused be removed. As the MTC and RTC rightly held, the presentation of the
medical certificates to prove the duration of the victims need for medical
attendance or of their incapacity should take place only at the trial, not before or
during the preliminary investigation. GODOFREDO ENRILE AND DR. FREDERICK
ENRILE, vs. HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS G.R. No. 166414, October 22,
2014, J. Lucas P. Bersamin
WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
While the determination of probable cause charge a person of a crime is the sole
function of the prosecutor, the trial court may, in the prosecution of ones
fundamental right to liberty, dismiss the case, if upon a personal assessment of the
evidence, it finds that the evidence does not establish probable cause. Hence, while
the information filed by the Prosecutor was valid, Judge Umali still had the discretion
to make her own finding of whether probable cause existed to order the arrest of
the accused and proceed with trial. ALFREDO C. MENDOZA vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND JUNO CARS, INC. G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014, J.
Leonen
Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither
on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely not on
evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. It implies probability of guilt and
requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify
conviction. However, Agdeppas accusations were mere suspicions that do not
support a finding of probable cause to criminally charge Jarlos-Martin, Laurezo, and
Junia under Section 3(a), (e), (f), and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019 RODOLFO M.
AGDEPPA vs. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN et al G.R. No.
146376, April 23, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
A person who induced another to invest his money to a corporation which does not
exist or dissolved shall be liable for estafa. And when the said corporation was made
to solicit from the public, the offense shall be syndicated estafa. MA. GRACIA HAO
and DANNY HAO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 183345,
September 17, 2014, J. Brion
It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor
exercises a wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal case should
be filed in court, and the courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and that no
manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor.
In this case, there is no question that the Information filed against the respondents
was sufficient to hold them liable for the crime of Theft because it was compliant
with Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, a review of the resolutions
of the MCTC, the Provincial Prosecutor, the RTC, and the CA shows that there is
substantial basis to support finding of probable cause against the respondents.
Hence, as the Information was valid on its face and there was no manifest error or
arbitrariness on the part of the MCTC and the Provincial Prosecutor, the RTC and the
CA erred when they overturned the finding of probable cause against the
respondents. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ENGR. RODOLFO YECYEC
ET AL. G.R. No. 183551, November 12, 2014, J. Mendoza
Respondents assailed the Ombudsmans finding of probable cause and the filing of
plunder case against the them. People maintains that the preliminary investigation
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman is an executive, not a judicial function.
As such, it asserts that respondent Sandiganbayan should have given deference to
the finding and determination of probable cause in their preliminary investigation.
People is correct. It is well settled that courts do not interfere with the discretion of
the Ombudsman to determine the presence or absence of probable cause believing
that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof
necessitating the filing of the corresponding information with the appropriate
courts. This rule is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory
powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon
practicality as well. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MAXIMO A. BORJE, JR. et
al. G.R. No. 170046, December 10, 2014, J. Peralta
The OMB, in this case, found probable cause which would warrant the filing of an
information against respondents. For purposes of filing a criminal information,
probable cause has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a wellfounded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondents are probably
guilty thereof. It is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the
Information, or any offense included therein, has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed
by the suspect. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt,
neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not
on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. Thus, unless it is shown that the
OMBs finding of probable cause was done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, the Court will not interfere with the same. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. MAXIMO A. BORJE, JR. ET. AL. G.R. No. 170046, December
10, 2014, J. Peralta
ARREST

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
Any irregularity attending the arrest of an accused should be timely raised in a
motion to quash the Information at any time before arraignment, failing which, he is
deemed to have waived his right to question the regularity of his arrest. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAFAEL CUNANAN Y DAVID ALIAS PAENG PUTOL
G.R. No. 198024, March 16, 2015, J. Del Castillo
ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL
For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto under paragraph
(a) of the afore-quoted Rule, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in
the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. In this case, the arrest of
appellantwas effected under paragraph (a) or what is termed "in flagrante delicto."
For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delictounder paragraph
(a) of the afore-quoted Rule, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in
the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE, vs. REYMAN ENDAYA y LAIG G.R. No. 205741, July 23, 2014, J.
Perez
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been
accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In such an
instance, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers
conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the
violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the
commission of the crime. Hence, a warrant of arrest is not needed to make a valid
buy-bust operation. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDWARD ADRIANO y
SALES G.R. No. 208169, October 8, 2014, J. Perez
The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily signifies a reasonable
ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense
with which he is charged, or an actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion,
based on actual facts. In light of the discussion above on the developments of
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and our
jurisprudence on the matter, we hold that the following must be present for a valid
warrantless arrest: 1) the crime should have been just committed; and 2) the
arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of probable cause
to be determined from the facts and circumstances within his personal knowledge.
The requirement of the existence of probable cause objectifies the reasonableness
of the warrantless arrest for purposes of compliance with the Constitutional
mandate against unreasonable arrests. Hence, for purposes of resolving the issue
on the validity of the warrantless arrest of the present petitioners, the question to
be resolved is whether the requirements for a valid warrantless arrest under Section
5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure were complied with,
namely: 1) has the crime just been committed when they were arrested? 2) did the
arresting officer have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
petitioners committed the crime? and 3) based on these facts and circumstances
that the arresting officer possessed at the time of the petitioners' arrest, would a
reasonably discreet and prudent person believe that the attempted murder of Atty.
Generoso was committed by the petitioners? We rule in the affirmative. JOEY M.
PESTILLOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS, ET AL vs. MORENO GENEROSO AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014, J. Brion
A waiver of an illegal arrest, however, is not a waiver of an illegal search. While the
accused has already waived his right to contest the legality of his arrest, he is not
deemed to have equally waived his right to contest the legality of the search.
DANILO VILLANUEVA y ALCARAZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No.
199042, November 17, 2014, CJ. Sereno
An accused cannot assail any irregularity in the manner of his arrest after
arraignment. Objections to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be manifested prior to
entering his plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. ROMMEL ARAZA y SAGUN, G.R. No. 190623, November 17,
2014, J. Del Castillo
NATURE OF BAIL
Brita asserts that the grant of bail bolsters his claim that the evidence of the
prosecution is not strong enough to prove his guilt. The Court is not convinced. "A
grant of bail does not prevent the trial court, as the trier of facts, from making a
final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits." It is not an
uncommon occurrence that an accused person granted bail is convicted in due
course. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MELCHOR D. BRITA G.R. No.
191260, November 24, 2014, J. Del Castillo
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC denying in due course its
appeal with respect to the criminal aspect of the case which is estafa. The basis of
the ruling is that the dismissal of the RTC is based on failure of the prosecution to
prosecute. Bonsubre contends that the CA erred in renderings such decision
because there was a compromise agreement entered into. The Supreme Court ruled
that at the outset, it must be borne in mind that a dismissal grounded on the denial
of the right of the accused to speedy trial has the effect of acquittal that would bar
the further prosecution of the accused for the same offense. ATTY. SEGUNDO B.
BONSUBRE, JR.vs. ERWIN YERRO, ERICO YERRO AND RITCHIE YERRO, G.R.
No. 205952, February 11, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
Arraignment was suspended pending the resolution of the Motion for
Reconsideration before the DOJ. However, the lapse of almost 1 year and 7 months
warranted the application of the limitation of the period for suspending arraignment.
While the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the deferment of the arraignment to a
period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It
follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to
arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment. FELILIBETH
AGUINALDO and BENJAMIN PEREZ vs. REYNALDO P. VENTUS and JOJO B.
JOSON, G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015, J. Peralta
MOTION TO QUASH
It is clearly provided by the Rules of Criminal Procedure that if the motion to quash
is based on an alleged defect in the information which can be cured by amendment,
the court shall order the amendment to be made. In the present case, the RTC judge
outrightly dismissed the cases without giving the prosecution an opportunity to
amend the defect in the Informations. Thus, the RTC and the CA, by not giving the
State the opportunity to present its evidence in court or to amend the Informations,
have effectively curtailed the State's right to due process. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. AQUILINO ANDRADE, ROMAN LACAP, YONG FUNG YUEN,
RICKY YU, VICENTE SY, ALVIN SO, ROMUALDO MIRANDA, SINDAO MELIBAS,
SATURNINO LIWANAG, ROBERTO MEDINA and RAMON NAVARRO, G.R. No.
187000, November 24, 2014, J. Peralta
SSPEEDY TRIAL
Speedy trial is a relative term and necessarily a flexible concept. In determining
whether the accused's right to speedy trial was violated, the delay should be
considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings. The factors to balance are the
following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or
failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. Surely, mere
mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of
everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which, after all, do not exist
in a vacuum, and that particular regard must be given to the facts and
circumstances peculiar to each case. While the Court recognizes the accused's right
to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice, we
cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.
Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of
time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial. WILLIAM CO a.k.a.
XU QUING HE vs. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS, represented by
ELIZABETH UY G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014, J. Peralta
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Double jeopardy shall not attach when the court that declared the revival of the
case has no jurisdiction to the same. When the court does not have jurisdiction over
the case, all subsequent issuances or decisions of the said court related to the
pending case shall be null and void. CESAR T. QUIAMBAO and ERIC C. PILAPIL
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ADERITO YUJUICO and BONIFACIO C.
SUMBILLA, G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014, J. Brion
EFFECTS OF DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BECOME STATE WITNESS

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
When an accused did not have any direct participation with the killing of the victim,
he may be discharged as a state witness. The basis of the phrase not most guilty
is the participation of the person in the commission of the crime and not the penalty
imposed such that a person with direct participation shall be considered as the most
guilty. MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
209195, September 17, 2014
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Respondents were charged with a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification
of documents. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the respondents filed a
motion for leave to file demurer to evidence alleging that the prosecution failed to
prove by evidence that the crime was committed by the respondents. The
prosecution contends that the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it
granted the motion for demurer to evidence filed by the respondents. The Court
ruled that the power of courts to grant demurrer in criminal cases should be
exercised with great caution, because not only the rights of the accused - but those
of the offended party and the public interest as well - are involved. Once granted,
the accused is acquitted and the offended party may be left with no recourse. Thus,
in the resolution of demurrers, judges must act with utmost circumspection and
must engage in intelligent deliberation and reflection, drawing on their experience,
the law and jurisprudence, and delicately evaluating the evidence on hand. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE C. GO, AIDA C. DELA ROSA, and FELECITAS D.
NECOMEDES, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Accused's Demurrer to Evidence, the ruling is an adjudication on the merits of the
case which is tantamount to an acquittal and may no longer be appealed. The
current scenario, however, is an exception to the general rule. The demurrer to
evidence was premature because it was filed before the prosecution rested its case.
The RTC had not yet ruled on the admissibility of the formal offer of evidence of the
prosecution when Magleo filed her demurrer to evidence. Hence, Judge Quinagoran
had legal basis to overturn the order granting the demurrer to evidence as there
was no proper acquittal. ESTHER P. MAGLEO vs. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA
DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN and BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ATTY. ADONIS
LAURE, BOTH OF BRANCH 166, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, A.M.
No. RTJ-12-2336, November 12, 2014, J. Mendoza
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT
Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court provides that it is incumbent upon the
accused to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation, because it determines
the availability of their possible remedies against the judgment of conviction. When
the accused fail to present themselves at the promulgation of the judgment of
conviction, they lose the remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or
reconsideration (Rule 121) and an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule
122). It is among the rules of procedure which the Supreme Court is competent to
adopt pursuant to its rule-making power under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the
Constitution. As such, said rules do not take away, repeal or alter the right to file a

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
motion for reconsideration as said right still exists. The Supreme Court merely laid
down the rules on promulgation of a judgment of conviction done in absentia in
cases when the accused fails to surrender and explain his absence within 15 days
from promulgation. Clearly, the said provision does not take away substantive
rights; it merely provides the manner through which an existing right may be
implemented. Hence, it does not take away per se the right of the convicted
accused to avail of the remedies under the Rules. It is the failure of the accused to
appear without justifiable cause on the scheduled date of promulgation of the
judgment of conviction that forfeits their right to avail themselves of the remedies
against the judgment. Moreover, it also provides the remedy by which the accused
who were absent during the promulgation may reverse the forfeiture of the
remedies available to them against the judgment of conviction. REYNALDO H.
JAYLO,
WILLIAM
VALENZONA
AND
ANTONIO
G.
HABALO
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
HEIRS OF COL. ROLANDO DE GUZMAN, FRANCO CALANOG AND AVELINO
MANGUERA, G.R. Nos. 183152-54, January 21, 2015, C. J. Sereno
APPEAL
The right to prosecute criminal cases pertains exclusively to the People, which is
therefore the proper party to bring the appeal through the representation of the
OSG. Hence, being mere private complainants, they lacked the legal personality to
appeal the dismissal of such criminal case. It must, however, be clarifiedthat it is
without prejudice to their filing of the appropriate action to preserve their interests
but only with respect to the civil aspect. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and HELEN Y. DEE vs. PHILIP PICCIO
et al G.R. No. 193681, August 6, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question
including one not raised by the parties, and the accused waives the constitutional
safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of
the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and
justice dictate. Thus, when petitioners appealed the trial courts judgment of
conviction for Less Serious Physical Injuries, they are deemed to have abandoned
their right to invoke the prohibition on double jeopardy since it becomes the duty of
the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the assailed judgment.
Petitioners could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA set aside the
ruling of the RTC by finding them guilty of Violation of Domicile as charged in the
Information instead of Less Serious Physical Injuries. EDIGARDO GEROCHE, et al.
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 179080, November 26, 2014, J.
Peralta
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the appeal by the accused on the ground of
his failure to submit his memorandum on appeal. The failure to file the
memorandum on appeal is a ground for the RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil
cases. The same rule does not apply in criminal cases, because Section 9(c), supra,
imposes on the RTC the duty to decide the appeal on the basis of the entire record
of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed" upon the
submission of the appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
period to file the same. JOSE "PEPE" SANICO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 198753, March 25, 2015, J. Bersamin
NATURE OF SEARCH WARRANT
An application for a search warrant is a special criminal process, rather than a
criminal action. Proceedings for applications of search warrants are not criminal in
nature and thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto.
Evidently, the issue of whether the application should have been filed in RTC-Iriga
City or RTC-Naga, is not one involving jurisdiction because, the power to issue a
special criminal process is inherent in all courts. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION AND PETRON CORPORATION vs. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL
GASES CORPORATION, G.R. No. 189669, February 16, 2015, J. Peralta
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT, WHERE FILED
Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC allows the Manila and Quezon City
RTCs to issue warrants to be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction for
as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied with, as in
this case. As in ordinary search warrant applications, they "shall particularly
describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be
seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court." "The Executive Judges of these RTCs
and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in
the station, the Vice-Executive Judges" are authorized to act on such applications
and "shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in places outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the said courts." The Court observes that all the abovestated requirements were complied with in this case. As the records would show,
the search warrant application was filed before the Manila-RTC by the PNP and was
endorsed by its head, PNP Chief Jesus Ame Versosa, particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized in connection with the heinous
crime of Murder. Finding probable cause therefor, Judge Peralta, in his capacity as
2nd Vice-Executive Judge, issued Search Warrant which, as the rules state, may be
served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said RTC. RETIRED SP04
BIENVENIDO LAUD vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES et al, G.R. No. 199032,
November 19, 2014, Per Curiam
SEARCH NCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST
It is important to note that the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed, and the corresponding testimony of the arresting officers on the buybust
transaction, can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence showing
either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2)
that they were inspired by any improper motive. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. DENNIS E. TANCINCO, G.R. No. 200598, June 18. 2014, J. Perez
The accused cannot claim that the evidence obtained from a search conducted
incident to an arrest is inadmissible because it is violative of the plain view doctrine.
The plain view doctrine only applies to cases where the arresting officer is not
searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 March

2015)
across an incriminating object. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MEDARIO
CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014, J. Leonardo-De
Castro