1. ALLEN A. MACASAET, et. al., vs. THE PEOPLE OF G.R. No. 156747.

February 23,
2005

Facts:

A crime of libel was filed before the RTC of Quezon City against Alfie Lorenzo, Allen
Macasaet, Nicolas Quijano Jr., and Roger Pajares, columnist, publisher, managing
director and editor of the newspaper “Abante”. Presiding Judge of RTC issued an order
setting the arraignment of the petitioners, to which the former filed an urgent motion to
suspend or defer the proceedings. They elevate the resolution to the DOJ for review, but
despite the action the arraignment pushed through. During the proceeding the accused
in the case did not enter a plea, so the trial court ordered a plea of not guilty.
Subsequently, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the court did not
have jurisdiction over the offense charged because the residence of the respondent was
in Marikina therefore the RTC of Quezon did not have jurisdiction over the case.
Opposing the motion, the public prosecutor contended that the RTC of Quezon city has
jurisdiction because during the time material to the case, respondent was a resident of
Quezon City as shown in his reply-affidavit. Respondents on the other hand countered
the allegations stating that jurisdiction is determined solely by the allegations in the
information or complaint. Since both the complaint-affidavit executed by the respondent
and information filed state that the respondent’s residence is in Marikina City and was
supported by the barangay certificate issued by the barangay captain. Hence, dismissal
of the case is warranted. However, a supplemental affidavit was submitted by the
respondent indicating that his residence at the time of the commission of the offense
was in Quezon City.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC of Quezon City has territorial jurisdiction over the crime
charged.

Ruling:

No. “In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. Thus, the
place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is
an essential element of jurisdiction. It is jurisprudentially settled that jurisdiction of a court
over a criminal case is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information; In
resolving a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, the general rule is that the
facts contained in the complaint or information should be taken as they are, exception is
where the Rules of Court allow the investigation of facts alleged in a motion to quash
such as when the ground invoked is the extinction of criminal liability, prescriptions,
double jeopardy or insanity of the accused. In these instances, it is incumbent upon the
trial court to conduct a preliminary trial to determine the merit of the motion to dismiss.
 As the present case obviously does not fall within any of the recognized exceptions, the
trial court correctly dismissed this action.”

Furthermore, the court finds no merit on the supplemental affidavit submitted during the
Preliminary investigation of the crime and in effect did not cure the defect in the
information.

2. ANDRES ET. AL. VS. JUSTICE SECRETARY CUEVAS G.R. NO. 150869, JUNE 9, 2005
Facts:

Andres et.al, petitioners were the major stockholders of the Rural Bank of Pandi, Bulacan who
filed petition a petition for Injunction, Mandamus, Nullification of Transfer of Shares, Call for
election and incidental petitions before the Securities of Exchange Commission against the
respondents who were allegedly minority stockholders of the same bank. In their petition, they
alleged that the respondents committed acts of mismanagement, fraud and conflict of interests
as directors and officers of the bank which resulted in the unlawful deprivation of income of the
petitioners of their respective shares from their investments. Opposing on such allegations,
respondents charged the petitioners with perjury for making malicious assertions of falsehood
on material matters before the MTC. Thereafter, City prosecutor issued a resolution finding
probable cause against the petitioners for perjury. A petition for review before the DOJ’s
Assistant Chief of State Prosecutor was dismissed. They appealed before the office of the
Secretary of Justice which favors them by issuing a resolution for the withdrawal of the
information for perjury. However, Justice Secretary Cuevas directed the refilling of the
Information for perjury against Andres et. al. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA, but the verification and certification against non forum shopping was signed only
by Andres, which an amended petition signed by all of them was subsequently filed. CA denied
the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners by lack of merit. Hence, a petition for
review on certiorari was filed.

Issue:

Whether or not CA erred in affirming the resolutions issued by Secretary Cuevas ordering the
refilling of the information for perjury against the petitioners.

Ruling:

No. “Court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the appellate court that no grave abuse of
discretion attended then Justice Cuevas’ resolution finding probable cause for perjury against
petitioners to hale them into court. As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition
or injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. In extreme cases
though, the following exceptions to the rule have been recognized:

(1) When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of
the accused;
(2) When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
(3) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
(4) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
(5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law; ordinance or regulation;
(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
(10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on
that ground has been denied.

Petitioners have not shown, however, that the case at bar falls within any of the recognized
exceptions above set forth. Consistent with its policy of non-interference in the conduct of
preliminary investigations, and to leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of
discretion in the exercise of determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will
establish probable cause for filing of information against a supposed offender.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. EDGARDO DIMAANO, appellant. G.R. No. 168168.
September 14, 2005

Facts:

In the Municipality of Paranaque, Metro Manila, the accused Edgardo Dimaano father of the
complainant Maricar Dimaano, a minor was charged with 2 counts of rape and 1 count of
attempted rape. The complaint for attempted rape stated that the above-named accused try and
attempt to rape one Maricar Dimaano, commencing the commission of the rape, directly by
overt acts, but nevertheless did not perform all the acts of execution which would produce it, as
a consequence by reason of cause other than his spontaneous desistance that is due to the
timely arrival of the complainant’s mother. However, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the
charges, therefore trial on the merits ensued. RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications. Since death penalty is the
imposable punishment is incumbent upon the SC to review it automatically.

Issue:

Whether or not the complaint or information for attempted rape sufficiently alleged the specific
acts constituting the offense.

Ruling:

No. “Complaint upon which the appellant was arraigned does not allege specific acts or
omission constituting the elements of the crime of rape. Neither does it constitute sufficient
allegation of elements for crimes other than rape, i.e., Acts of Lasciviousness. The allegation
therein that the appellant 'tr[ied] and attempt[ed] to rape the complainant does not satisfy the
test of sufficiency of a complaint or information, but is merely a conclusion of law by the one
who drafted the complaint. This insufficiency therefore prevents this Court from rendering a
judgment of conviction; otherwise we would be violating the right of the appellant to be informed
of the nature of the accusation against him. 

 For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the
commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.

What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or
the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made
by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein
recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and
enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it
does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the
offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be
included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the
specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to
inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably
prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the
facts that constitute the offense.”

4. MARY ANN RODRIGUEZ vs. Hon. THELMA A. PONFERRADA G.R. Nos. 155531-34.
July 29, 2005.

Facts:

Separate informations for Estafa and violation of BP 22 were filed against Rodriguez. BP 22
case was filed with the MTC of Quezon City while the Estafa case was filed with the RTC of
Quezon City wherein and raffled to Judge Ponferrada. A certain Atty. Solomon filed a formal
entry of appearance as a private prosecutor in the Estafa case. Respondent opposed the entry.
However, Judge Ponferrada ruled in favor of the complainant allowing the appearance of the
private prosecutor upon payment of legal fees. Aggrieved, Rodriguez filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied. Hence, she appealed contending that civil action arising from
the criminal case for violation of BP 22 before the MTC precludes the institution of civil action in
the case for Estafa before the RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not a private prosecutor be allowed to intervene in the proceedings of the Estafa
case for the purpose of prosecuting the civil liability arising from the single act of issuing checks
involved which is likewise a subject matter of the BP 22 case.
Ruling:

Yes. Although each of the overt acts in these instances may give rise to two criminal liabilities
one for Estafa and another for violation of BP 22, but every such act of issuing a bouncing
check involves only one civil liability for the offended party, who has sustained only a single
injury.

“The institution of the civil actions with the estafa cases and the inclusion of another set of civil
actions with the BP 22 cases are not exactly repugnant or inconsistent with each other. Nothing
in the Rules signifies that the necessary inclusion of a civil action in a criminal case for violation
of the Bouncing Checks Law precludes the institution in an estafa case of the corresponding
civil action, even if both offenses relate to the issuance of the same check. An offended party
may intervene in the prosecution of a crime, except in the following instances: (1) when, from
the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of a
private offended party; and (2) when, from the nature of the offense, the offended parties are
entitled to civil indemnity, but (a) they waive the right to institute a civil action, (b) expressly
reserve the right to do so or (c) the suit has already been instituted. In any of these instances,
the private complainants’ interest in the case disappears and criminal prosecution becomes the
sole function of the public prosecutor. None of these exceptions apply to the instant case. The
trial court was, therefore, correct in holding that the private prosecutor may intervene before the
RTC in the proceedings for Estafa, despite the necessary inclusion of the corresponding civil
action in the proceedings for violation of BP 22 pending before the MTC. A recovery by the
offended party under one remedy, however, necessarily bars that under the other. Obviously
stemming from the fundamental rule against unjust enrichment.”