Source: https://fr.scribd.com/doc/82198366/Rem-Digest-Crimpro-rule111-Rights-of-the-Accused
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:31:33+00:00

Document:
reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. x x x” Since Balboa instituted the civil case prior to the criminal case, the civil case may proceed independently of the criminal case and there is no forum shopping. Even under the amended rules, a separate proceeding for recovery of civil liability in cases of violation of BP 22 is allowed when the civil case is filed of the criminal case. Even then the Rules encourage consolidation.
(1) a civil case for Collection of Sum of Money on Feb 24, ’97 based on the post dated checks issued by Caroline with RTC. The RTC ruled in favor of Balboa affirmed by the CA. (2) criminal cases for violation of B.P. 22 on July 21, ’97. The MTC acquitted Tend but held her civilly liable. The RTC on appeal deleted the award of civil damages. The Sps Ching Teng now comes to court charging Balboa with forum shopping. Issue: W/N it constitutes forum shopping Held: NO Forum shopping is the institution of 2 or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the supposition that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition. The elements are: (1) identity of parties; (2) identity of rights and relief prayed for; (3) identity of 2 preceding particulars such that any judgment in the other action would constitute res judicata or litis pendentia. In the Hyatt case it was pronounced that there is identity of parties and causes of action between a civil case for recovery of sum of money and criminal case for BP 22. In the said case the SC applied SC Circ. No. 57‐97 effective Sept 16, 1997, which provides that “the criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action and no reservation to file such action separately shall be allowed or recognized.” This was later adopted in Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Crim Procedure – “(b) The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. x x x”. The foregoing however is not applicable as the civil and the criminal actions were filed on Feb 24 and July 21 1997, respectively, prior to the adoption of the SC Circular. The applicable rule was still Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Court – “Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, FACTS: Sps. Suarez (Respondents) had availed of petitioner Carolina Jose’s offer to lend money at daily interest of 1% to 2% which the latter increased to 5% and respondents were forced to accept due to their financial distress. They sought to nullify the 5% interest per day fixing claiming that the same were contrary to morals and done under vitiated consent. Thereafter, the petitioners filed cases of violation of BP 22 against respondents where the latter filed motions to suspend hearings based on the existence of a prejudicial question. Respondents claimed that if the 5% interest rates are nullified and loans are computed at 1% per month, it would mean that the checks which are objects of BP 22 cases are not only fully paid but in fact overpaid. ISSUE: W/N a prejudicial questions exists such that the outcome of the validity of the interest is determinative of the guilt or innocence of the respondents in the criminal case? No RULING: No. Prejudicial questions have two elements: a) The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; b) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The validity or invalidity of the interest rate is not determinative of the guilt of the respondents in the criminal case. The cause or reason for issuance of a check is immaterial in determining criminal culpability under BP 22. The law punishes the issuance of the bouncing check, which is malum prohibitum, and not the purpose it was issued for.
FACTS: Community Rural Bank (Bank for short) filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of Cabanatuan charging several persons (the accused) with Estafa. After preliminary investigation, 6 informations for estafa were filed, 2 of which were raffled to the branch where respondent, Judge Talavera, presided. The accused appealed the finding of the Fiscal to the DOJ, which the latter denied, so Judge Talavera issued a warrant of arrest with no bail against the accused. Later, the accused filed with Judge Talavera a motion for reinvestigation and to lift the warrant of arrest. Bank was not notified of this motion. Judge granted the motion without any hearing thereon. When the reinvestigation was conducted, the Bank was still not notified. The assistant provincial prosecutor who conducted the reinvestigation reversed the earlier findings of the fiscal. On the same day, a motion to dismiss was filed with Judge, which he granted, and he also ordered the release of the accused. The Bank was never notified of any of these proceedings. Bank then filed an MR arguing it was deprived of due process. It also asked that the criminal information be reinstated. Judge denied this. Now, Bank filed the present case charging Judge Talavera with serious misconduct and gross inefficiency. Issue: Did Judge commit gross ignorance? ‐ Yes Motion for Reinvestigation. Judge should not have entertained the motion for reinvestigation, since DOJ Secretary Serafin Cuevas already denied with finality the appeal of the accused, finding that there was prima facie evidence against the accused. Under Dept Order No. 223 (Rules Governing Appeals from Resolutions in Preliminary Investigations or Reinvestigations), a motion for reinvestigation may be filed on the ground of newly discovered evidence and this must be filed before the DOJ Secretary rules on an appeal from the resolution in a preliminary investigation. Here, the motion for reinvestigation was filed 3 months after the DOJ Secretary already denied their appeal with finality. Clearly, therefore, Judge Talavera was wrong in granting the motion. Also, there was no newly discovered evidence. Moreover, considering that a prima facie case was found to exist against the accused during the preliminary investigation, Judge Talavera should have exercised great restraint in granting a reinvestigation. The court stressed that a preliminary investigation is essentially prefatory and inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except to determine whether a crime has been committed, and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of that crime. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for a full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence, which needs to be presented only to engender a well‐ grounded belief that an offense has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. Motion to Dismiss. It was also error for the Judge to grant the Motion to Dismiss by relying merely on the resolution of the prosecutor who conducted the reinvestigation. In his Order, he merely stated that the motion to dismiss is meritorious, and nothing more. The Order failed to demonstrate an independent evaluation or assessment of the evidence against the accused. The Judge acted with undue haste when he granted the Motion only a day after the reinvestigation was concluded. This leads to the conclusion that the judge did not personally evaluate the parties’ evidence before acting on the Motion. The discretion to grant a Motion to Dismiss rests solely with the court. However, mere approval of the position taken by the prosecution is not equivalent to the discretion required. Once a complaint or an information is filed in court, the judge ‐‐ not the prosecutor ‐‐ assumes full control of the controversy. A grant of the motion to dismiss is equivalent to a disposition of the case itself, which is a subject clearly within the court’s exclusive jurisdiction and competence. When Judge issued the warrants of arrest without bail against all the accused, it is presumed that he had studied the Information and the Resolution of the prosecutor and agreed with the latter’s findings of probable cause. Thus, the grant of the Motion for Reinvestigation and of the Motion to Dismiss for alleged insufficiency of evidence posed a serious contradiction of the earlier finding of probable cause. Finally, Judge granted both of the Motions despite the obvious lack of notice to the Bank and lack of hearing. This lapse effectively deprived it of its day in court.
Facts: Atty. Jesus Sibya, Jr. a mayoralty candidate in Iloilo was shot. His driver Norberto Salamat was also wounded. Hence, a criminal complaint for murder and attempted murder was filed against Napao who was an incumbent mayor at that time and Sebastian Serag. The prosecutor filed two informations: (1) for Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearms, and (2) Attempted Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearms against Serag and Napao and 7 others. The wounded driver Salamat and wife of the victim Ma. Daisy Sibya filed before the provincial prosecutor a supplemental complaint for murder, frustrated murder and violation of PD 1866 (Illegal possession of firearms) against Napag, Serag and 16 others. Provincial Prosecutor issued an order finding probable cause for murder and attempted murder with the use of unlicensed firearms. Hence, an amended information was filed (to include the use of unlicensed firearms). Napao and the other accused filed a petition for review to appeal the said resolution before the DOJ.
Private prosecutors opposed the motion and moved for deferment because they said that Daisy had earlier filed an MR questioning the resolution downgrading the charges. including the consideration of the motion of the Provincial Prosecutor for the admission of the Second Amended Information for homicide. 2002 Resolution. It also issued an order nullifying the arraignment. They argued that. 2002 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. the court arraigned the accused for homicide. 2002 and July 26. filed an MR to appeal the said resolution. 2002 are well‐founded. 258 of the Secretary of Justice downgrading the charges from murder and attempted murder to homicide and attempted homicide. No second or further motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. in view of the temporary restraining order issued by the CA. Dialino. Raso. They insist that the CA should have dismissed the petition of Daisy for being moot and academic because they were already arraigned. It was. who pleaded not guilty. In fine. Accordingly. and praying for the reinstatement of Resolution No. The wife of the victim. A day before the said arraignment. and the arraignment of the petitioners for homicide. Taking into account the finding of the DOJ. But the RTC still granted the motion of the provincial prosecutor and admitted the second amended information for homicide. Venzuela The trial court found probable cause for murder and attempted murder.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Of course. Hence. Provincial prosecutor was likewise ordered to amend the Amended Informations accordingly. They said that it would be premature to file a motion for the admission of the second amended information and for the court to admit the same. In compliance with the order of the DOJ. She insisted that the admission by the RTC of the Second Amended Information downgrading the crime charged therein to Homicide and the arraignment of the accused therein on June 6. Likewise. The accused‐petitioners filed an MR of the said resolution. Section 13 of DOJ Circular No. Antonio. Mendoza. Dizon. Martinez. 926. we rule that the trial court in a criminal case which takes cognizance of an accused’s motion for review of the resolution of the investigating prosecutor or for reinvestigation and defers the arraignment until resolution of the said motion must act on the resolution reversing the investigating prosecutor’s finding or on a motion to dismiss based thereon only upon proof that such resolution is already final in that no appeal was taken therefrom to the Department of Justice. 258. effectively reversing his previous ruling and thus reverting to the original charges of murder and attempted murder. he may still reconsider Resolution No. Arriola. petition is denied. Motion for reconsideration. She had the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid resolution on or before June 6. Pending the resolution by the Secretary of Justice of the said petition for review. with their arraignment in the RTC and the MTC. In the meantime. Secretary also said that he cannot be stopped from taking cognizance of the case and resolving the MR despite the arraignment of the accused. ordered the withdrawal of Criminal Case No. the pendency of Daisy’s MR of the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice was not a valid reason for the deferment of the arraignment of the accused for homicide. DOJ issued a resolution granting the MR of private complainant Daisy and set aside the resolution downgraded the offense to homicide. 2002. The Secretary of Justice opined that the killing of the deceased was. ISSUE: W/N the CA committed GADLEJ? No. The Provincial Prosecutor filed a Motion with the trial court for the withdrawal of the Second Amended Information for homicide and for the reinstatement of the Amended Information for murder. 926 for attempted 3 . However. provincial prosecutor filed before the RTC a motion for leave to file a second amended information for homicide and attempted homicide. Juan Napao and the other petitioners in the Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the November 18. Warrants of arrest were issued against the accused who were still at large. instead separate Informations for Murder and Attempted Murder. the dismissal of Criminal Case No. Cajucom. after all. The attempted homicide case however was dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the said case. the RTC acted with inordinate and precipitate haste when it granted the Provincial Prosecutor’s motion for the admission of the Second Amended Information for homicide. CA issued a TRO enjoining the RTC from proceeding with the case. The private complainant (Daisy) forthwith assailed the orders of the trial court and the arraignment of the accused via a petition for certiorari in the CA. premature for the Provincial Prosecutor to file such motion for the admission of the Second Amended Information since the Secretary of Justice had not yet resolved the said motion. the Secretary of Justice should have denied the private complainant’s motion for reconsideration. Daisy. The private respondent (Daisy) received a copy of Resolution No.— The aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration within a non‐ extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution on appeal. Claudio. 2002 were premature since the Secretary of Justice had not yet resolved her motion for reconsideration of the May 20. HELD: The appellate court’s nullification of the June 6. DOJ denied said motion. 2002 Orders of the RTC and the arraignment of the petitioners on June 6. However. after all. which he did. RTC said they had not received a copy of Daisy’s MR. the trial court suspended the proceedings. in fact. Rosales. 258 (wherein the charges against them were downgraded). Imperial. Escueta. the court held that the finding of probable cause for murder against the accused did not bar it from admitting the Second Amended Information for Homicide. it behooved the RTC to suspend the proceedings until after the Secretary of Justice had resolved such motion with finality. Sia. furnishing the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned with copies thereof and submitting proof of such service. He directed the Provincial Prosecutor to withdraw the Second Amended Information for Homicide and Attempted Homicide and to file. the accused‐petitioners questioned this saying CA acted with GADLEJ when it issued the order nullifying their arraignment. qualified by treachery. CA eventually issued an order nullifying the order downgrading the offense. the accused were still set to be arraigned. Bernardo. Martin. 70 reads: SECTION 13. the Secretary of Justice affirmed with modification the resolution and downgraded the charges from murder to Homicide. the proceedings were suspended.
Rosales. The RTC denied it. Martin. then there was substantial compliance with Section 3(a). and arraigned the accused therein for homicide. sent a letter to the Chief State Prosecutor of the DOJ. These five affidavits stated that a certain couple. and merely contained a summary of the affidavits which were attached to it. These complaint‐affidavits complied with the mandatory requirements set out in the Rules of Court – they were subscribed and sworn to before a notary public and subsequently certified by State Prosecutor Fonacier.” It does not pronounce strict adherence to only one approach. Claudio. who had ordered. the same may be filed. which were attached to the OSI letter. The Rules do not in fact preclude the attachment of a referral or transmittal letter. sec. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. there appears to be an undue haste on the part of the public respondent in admitting the second amended informations for homicide and attempted homicide and ordering the arraignment of the private respondents to the said informations. under Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. The letter attached five affidavits. Escueta. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Martinez. The witnesses who executed the affidavits based on their personal knowledge of the acts committed by the 3. appeared to have an outstanding loan of P8 million with the Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan). The letter of the OSI. or when the issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution. and that the P8 million loan had never been authorized by RBSM's Board and no report thereof had ever been 4 . On certiorari the CA agreed. Dialino. unless the offense subject thereof is one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio. Department Circular No. They ruled that the assailed OSI letter was not the complaint‐affidavit itself. It did not contain any averment of personal knowledge of the events and transactions that constitute the elements of the offenses charged. initiated the preliminary investigation. it need not comply with the requirements under the Rules of Court. 2002. We rule that these affidavits. Dizon.” It should be considered that the motion to defer was even with the conformity of the public prosecutor and the appearance of the private prosecutors is pursuant to Section 16. in which case the peace officer or law enforcer has to rely chiefly on affidavits of witnesses. the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense. the proceedings in court are held in abeyance. who was then president of RBSM. As earlier stated. Issue: Which was the complaint. for preliminary investigation purposes. All these facts taken together. As a result of the assailed Orders issued by public respondent. Antonio. Since these affidavits were subscribed under oath by the witnesses who executed them before a notary public. Mendoza. ended with a request that a preliminary investigation be conducted and the corresponding criminal charges be filed against petitioner at his last known address. Moreover. but had never applied for nor received such loan and that it was petitioner. however. the petition shall not be given due course if the accused had already been arraigned. The private offended party or relative of the deceased may not even have witnessed the fatality. Indeed. for there are cases where the extent of one’s personal knowledge may not cover the entire gamut of details material to the alleged offense. comprised the complaint‐affidavit in the case. Action on the petition. They did not contain averments of personal knowledge of the events and transactions constitutive of any offense. the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). who personally examined the affiants and was convinced that the affiants fully understood their sworn statements. The RTC held that the affidavits. Bernardo. the Secretary of Justice may resolve the said motion despite the arraignment of the petitioners: SECTION 7. submitted to the BSP. and the other reasons given. 70. thus. Imperial. there was adequate compliance with the Rules. (RBSM).” were not authorized by the BSP Governor. by any competent person. and received the proceeds of the loan. The letters merely transmitted for preliminary investigation the affidavits of people who had personal knowledge of the acts of petitioner. The letter was not intended to be the complaint. such as the statement of address of petitioner and oath and subscription. petitioner argued that the officers of OSI. Sia. Cajucom. which would serve as bases for filing charges for Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents and violation of the DOSRI law against Hilario Soriano. to wit: Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. not compelling for the court to defer its action on the motion to admit. Arriola. Quoting the CA: “Public respondent also erroneously found that the pendency of the motion for reconsideration. not the letters transmitting them. 258 of the DOJ Secretary. the private respondents were arraigned for homicide and attempted homicide. which was not subscribed under oath. Venzuela homicide based on Resolution No. 70 places the duty upon the appellant and the trial prosecutor to see to it that.— Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111. Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. SORIANO v PEOPLE Facts: Sometime in 2000. The rule has been that. The Court is not unaware of the practice of incorporating all allegations in one document denominated as “complaint‐affidavit. Any arraignment made after the filing of the petition shall not bar the Secretary of Justice from exercising his power of review. as envisioned under the Rules. It was but a cover letter. the spouses Carlos. much less by the Monetary Board. Petitioner’s filed a Motion to Quash and argued that the letter transmitted by the BSP constituted the complaint and hence was defective for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 3(a). pending resolution of the appeal. – The Secretary of Justice may dismiss the petition outright if he finds the same to be patently without merit or manifestly intended for delay. facilitated. Inc. the letter or the affidavits? Was there compliance with Rule 112. The DOJ cannot be stripped of his authority to act on and resolve the aforesaid motion of the private complainant on the Prosecutor’s insistence that the accused be arraigned on June 6. to file the complaint. 3[a] of the Rules of Court? Held: 1. Since these affidavits were duly subscribed and sworn to before a notary public. Raso. who were the signatories to the “letter‐complaint.
for while reports and even raw information may justify the initiation of an investigation.V. a company based in Germany. in ordering the withdrawal of the informations against Lee and Lim. Samuel U.500. what is required is to reduce the evidence into affidavits. for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) challenging the state prosecutor’s resolution. The Court said that whether the facsimile message is admissible in evidence and whether the element of deceit in the crime of estafa is present are matters best ventilated in a full‐blown trial. YES 4. Judge issued warrants of arrest against Lee and Lim. In Andres v. Thereafter. Ruling 1. Maybelle L. but of Otto Versand. WC‐128 to KBC Bank. KBC Bank sent a letter to Otto Versand verifying the validity of Confirmed Purchase Order Nos. KBC Bank filed a complaint for estafa against Lee and Lim. from KBC Bank. which was granted by the RTC (through an order). After finding probable cause. and (3) it would not pay MDEC any amount. After all. (2) it did not order or receive the items covered by the purchase orders. City Prosecutor Sibucao. Antonio. A preliminary investigation can thus validly proceed on the basis of an affidavit of any competent person. without the referral document having been sworn to by the law enforcer as the nominal complainant. Martin. this petition. the witnesses who executed the affidavits clearly fell within the purview of “any competent person” who may institute the complaint for a public crime. Thus. Confirmed Purchase Order No. Motion to Quash remains denied. Hence. Justice Secretary Cuevas. In his Resolution. KBC Bank is a Belgian corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines. executed a promissory note in favor of KBC Bank and a deed of assignment transferring all of MDEC’s rights over Confirmed Purchase Order No. Martinez. assistant treasurer and director of MDEC. which did not present a sworn statement during the trial. Lim (Lim).000. SAMUEL LEE v KBC BANK 2. purchase orders. Anent the contention that there was no authority from the BSP Governor or the Monetary Board to file a case against Soriano. Venzuela petitioner fall within the purview of “any competent person” who may institute the complaint for a public crime. filed a motion to withdraw the informations against Lee and Lim. Arriola.863.000 loan from KBC Bank N. two informations for estafa against Lee and Lim were filed with the RTC. not in the preliminary investigation. MTC‐548 to KBC Bank. Raso.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Appeal denied. Lee and Lim filed a petition. Confirmed Purchase Order No. executed a promissory note in favor of KBC Bank and a deed of assignment transferring all of MDEC’s rights over Confirmed Purchase Order No. MTC‐548 was allegedly issued by Otto Versand. Sia. MTC‐548 and WC‐128. Accordingly. Otto Versand sent a facsimile message to KBC Bank stating that (1) it did not issue the Whether or not the issue of admissibility of the facsimile message may be properly ventilated during the full‐blown trial and not during the preliminary investigation. 5 . Dialino. MDEC defaulted in the payment of these 2 loans. Cajucom. the preliminary investigation stage can be held only after sufficient evidence has been gathered and evaluated which may warrant the eventual prosecution of the case in court. We further held that since the offenses for which Soriano was charged were public crimes. For this second loan. Lee (Lee). Escueta. The issue of admissibility of the facsimile message should be ventilated during the full‐blown trial and not during the preliminary investigation. and covered shipments amounting to $1. on appeal. Dizon. However. For this loan. and covered shipments amounting to $841. Imperial. Issues Facts 1.Yes. Mendoza. 2. YES Whether or not Judge Dumayas of the RTC. MDEC obtained another loan.050. DOJ Secretary Perez directed the withdrawal of the informations filed against Lee and Lim holding that the facsimile message constituted hearsay evidence because contents of the said message was not of personal knowledge of KBC Bank. Midas Diversified Export Corporation (MDEC) obtained a $1. amounting to $65. State Prosecutor Subia found the existence of probable cause and recommended that two counts of estafa be filed against Lee and Lim. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full‐blown trial on the merits. authority holds that it can be initiated by “any competent person” with personal knowledge of the acts committed by the offender. 3.400. WC‐128 was also allegedly issued by Otto Versand. Thus. However. Bernardo. treasurer and assistant secretary of MDEC. To require otherwise is a needless exercise. (KBC Bank). the CA set aside this order for the withdrawal of informations. Rosales. Claudio. we hold that the NCBA does not apply because the BSP did not institute the complaint but merely sent the affidavits of the complainants [the officers] to the DOJ. ailed to make his own evaluation and merely relied on Secretary Perez’s recommendation. the Court held that: [A preliminary investigation] is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of [the prosecution’s] evidence.
who was engaged in the business of door to door delivery. Bernardo. She contends that it behooved the investigating prosecutor to submit the following to the trial court to enable it to determine the presence or absence of probable cause: (a) copies of the affidavits of the witnesses of the complainant. Martin. During the preliminary investigation. Claudio. Raso. These documents were forwarded to the city prosecutor for approval. after an in‐depth scrutiny of the arguments raised by the prosecution and private complainant. (4) look at the basis of Secretary Perez’s recommendation. failed to make his own evaluation and merely relied on Secretary Perez’s recommendation. documents. Okabe filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause. IN OTHER WORDS. the records of the public prosecutor. Arriola. (2) include a discussion of the merits of the case. Dizon. such as that found in Co vs. Yes. The Court reiterated its rulings on several cases. Martinez. X X X X [T]HE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT POSITIVELY STATE THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR A PRIMA FACIE CASE. THE TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY RELINQUISHED THE DISCRETION THAT HE WAS BOUND TO EXERCISE. Upon the instance of the prosecution. OKABE v GUTIERREZ (borrowed) FACTS: Maruyama sued Okabe for estafa. Appended thereto was the Maruyama’s complaint affidavit. Mendoza. Judge Dumayas. in ordering the withdrawal of the informations against Lee and Lim. both Okabe and Marumaya were given the chance to adduce evidences/affidavits on their behalf. nd The complaint for estafa was filed with the 2 assistant city prosecutor for preliminary investigation. the validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation. The trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter‐affidavits. to remit to the Philippines. Venzuela In fine.000 thereby allowing her to freely leave the Philippines for Japan. She claims that the documents attached to the resolution of the investigating prosecutor were insufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause. and (6) state his reasons for granting the motion to withdraw the informations. (c) the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation. finds the contentions of the prosecution to be sufficient and meritorious. (5) embody his assessment in the order. Rosales. The 2nd assistant city prosecutor found probable cause and issued a resolution and the corresponding information. or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. A warrant of arrest was issued but Okabe was able to post bail in the amount of 40. did not (1) positively state that the evidence against Lee and Lim is insufficient. Dialino. Judge Dumayas of the RTC. a hold‐ departure order was issued by the court. 6 . 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code are hereby withdrawn from the docket of this court. 5. (b) the counter‐affidavit of Okabe and those of her witnesses. It was alleged in the complaint that Maruyama entrusted to Okabe a sum of money for the latter. NOR DID THE AFOREQUOTED ORDER INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE BASED ON AN EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. Judge Dumayas’ failure to make his own evaluation of the merits of the case violates KBC bank’s right to due process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion. the Motion to Withdraw Information filed by the Prosecution is hereby granted and the two (2) informations for the crime of Estafa penalized under par. Judge Dumayas’ order granting the motion to withdraw the informations is void. Escueta. The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice. Okabe failed to remit such amount. since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case. 2. are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level. in his order. In the present case. THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE WAS BASED UPON CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN THE JUDGE’S OWN PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL CONVICTION THAT THERE WAS NO CASE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS. (d) other documents presented during the said investigation. Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an abdication of its duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. Then the information was filed with the RTC of Pasay. Antonio. which the court may order the latter to produce before the court. as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence. Thus. (3) assess whether Secretary Perez’s conclusion is supported by evidence. THUS. and. any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. Accordingly. Sia. AND THE ORDERS DATED 11 FEBRUARY 2004 AND 29 JUNE 2004 ARE INVALID FOR HAVING BEEN ISSUED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. Imperial. Lim: Once a case is filed with the court. Cajucom. or evidence appended to the Information. Judge Dumayas’ order reads as follows: This Court.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Martin. Martinez. Bernardo. provided that he raises them before entering his plea. Rosales. It must favor Okabe. Escueta. or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him. the counter‐affidavit of the accused and his witnesses. Sia. Imperial. Venzuela ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court judge should have required the production of the affidavits of Maruyama’s witnesses. Claudio. Being curative and procedural in nature. Arriola. Antonio. In this case. Section 26 of the Rule 114 says that an application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor. This is a curative rule because modified the previous rulings of the SC saying that posting of bail is a bar to challenging the validity of the arrest. In fact. Raso. stenographic notes of the preliminary investigation and Okabe’s counter‐affidavit for the purposes of determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest – YES Whether or not posting of bail bars the accused from questioning the legality of the arrest or the conduct of preliminary investigation ‐ NO HELD: The case of Webb v De Leon and Ho v People say that for the purposes of determining the existence or non‐existence of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation. every waiver of a right to question the validity of an arrest must be unequivocally established by the conduct of the accused. Mendoza. the series of acts by Okabe point to the conclusion that she was insistent about the fact that the arrest was ordered with insufficient finding of probable cause. if any. the judge should not rely solely on the said report. The judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit/affidavits and the documentary evidence of the parties. she immediately filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause. it applies retroactively. Dialino. The reason for this rule is because the law aims not only to acquit the innocent but to like insulate the clearly innocent from false charges and from the strong arm of the law. Cajucom. 7 . This rule is now embodied section 8(a) of Rule 112 (but which is section 7 (a) in our codal) which mandates that an information filed in court shall be supported by affidavits and counter‐affidavits of the parties and their witnesses. Dizon. their documentary evidences. other supporting documents and the resolution of the case. submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. Besides.
contrary to the assertions of appellant. Bernardo. and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. PEOPLE v DE LEON FACTS Rodante De Leon was convicted for violation of Secs. Cajucom. et al. Such positive identification prevails over appellant's defenses of denial and alibi. De Leon was then brought to the police station for investigation. Claudio. ARREST 1. further. for they can easily be concocted but difficult to prove. Antonio. Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. Novaliches where the informant introduced Magcalayo to De Leon as buyer of shabu. Martinez. 21 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Collado found another plastic satchet. Monica. A confidential informant went to the office of the Anti‐Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force of the Novaliches Police in QC reporting the illegal activities of De Leon. to assist him. RULING (1) YES. A close examination of the law reveals that it admits of certain exceptions. that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. Magcalayo. in case of warrantless seizures. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). (2) NO. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. Rosales. De Leon questioned the legality of the buy‐bust operation conducted. no motive for the police officers to frame up appellant. Raso. The buy‐bust money was recovered. 21 of the foregoing law need not be followed as an exact science. was valid and legal. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items . and they are common and standard defense ploys in most prosecutions arising from violations of the CDDA of 2002. ISSUEs (1) Whether the buy‐bust operation was valid. as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated. Thus. Venzuela D. The IRR of the CDDA of 2002 provide: SECTION 21. Magcalayo gave the money and. Collado placed his initials on the sachet found. The identity of appellant as the person who sold the dangerous drugs to PO2 Magcalayo and the one in possession of the shabu cannot be doubted anymore. Upon frisking. De Leon gave him 1 plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. He also claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the confiscated items. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated. or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. for proper disposition in the following manner: (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall. Sia. Escueta. In this jurisdiction. Later at night. Thereafter. or his/her representative or counsel. the team went to Sta. Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse appellant of such a grave offense. Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs. Mendoza. the evidence clearly shows that the buy‐bust operation conducted by the police officers. Even appellant himself declared that it was the first time he met the police officers during his cross‐ examination. Provided. Here. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over appellant's bare allegation. Dialino. There was. physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized. A buy‐bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Provided. PO1 Estrelles. De Leon was arrested. controlled precursors and essential chemicals. that non‐compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. 2 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts (CDDA) of 2002. The evidence was then turned over to another police.. seized and/or surrendered..REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Imperial. Non‐ compliance with Sec. in return. Martin. The defense has failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs. and 2 other police then brought the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Mandaluyong. Collado. plant sources of dangerous drugs. Art. Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs. therefore. who made use of entrapment to capture appellant in the act of selling a dangerous drug. A buy‐bust team was then created with PO2 Magcalayo as poseur‐buyer and PO2 Collado. as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. to which he said yes and asked how much he would buy. who prepared a request for laboratory examination. Arriola. which was the signal for the others that the transaction has already been consummated. Dizon. immediately after seizure and confiscation. (2) Whether the chain of custody was violated. as the same would be utilized in the 8 . 5 (sale) & 11 (possession). Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. Sec. whichever is practicable. the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. The policeman asked whether De Leon had shabu. De Leon was handcuffed. Magcalayo then scratched his head. provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. These defenses have been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor.
Martin. and (d) an unlicensed Daewoo 9mm Pistol with magazine. Antonio. Escueta. Wang filed his undated Demurrer to Evidence. The pertinent provisions of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless arrest provide: Sec. Wang resisted the warrantless arrest and search." Immediately thereafter. b) When an offense has just been committed. respectively. was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug. a Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory. based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.S. Jabonillo. without a warrant. a regulated drug locally known as shabu. Arrest without warrant. Redentor Teck. Laguio. Dialino. Police officers approached Wang. Arriola. praying for his acquittal and the dismissal of the three (3) cases against him for lack of a valid arrest and search warrants and the inadmissibility of the prosecution’s evidence against him. Questioned. came out of an apartment and walked towards a parked BMW car.00. (c) one electronic and one mechanical scales. upon hearing that he was Lawrence Wang. for unlawful possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The police operatives decided to look for Wang to shed light on the illegal drug activities of Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio. a regulated drug popularly known as shabu. Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio were arrested while they were about to hand over another bag of shabu to SPO2 De Dios and company. the confiscated substance. Police operatives of the Public Assistance and Reaction Against Crime of the Department of Interior and Local Government arrested SPO2 Vergel de Dios. Due to the demurrer. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. The factual milieu of the case reveals that after PO2 Magcalayo seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs. who was described to the operatives by Teck. (c) arrest of a 2. the person to be arrested has committed. appellant was immediately arrested and brought to the police station for investigation. there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. Issue: Whether or not Wang’s warrantless arrest was valid? Ruling: No. above.. Wang. Cajucom. where the sachet of suspected shabu was marked with "NM. whose stipulated testimony clearly established the chain of custody of the specimens he received. The examination was conducted by one Engr. Then and there. Sia. (b) arrest of a suspect where. the other members of the operatives searched the BMW car and found inside it were the following items: (a) 32 transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline substance with a total weight of 29. immediately frisked him and asked him to open the back 9 . provides three (3) instances when warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. 2003. asked his name and. Venzuela determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. compartment of the BMW car.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. (b) cash in the amount of P650. introduced themselves to him as police officers. Manila. as well as the marked money. issued the assailed Resolution granting Wang’s Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of all charges for lack of evidence. PEOPLE v LAGUIO Facts: Lawrence Wang was charged on three separate informations for 1) violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Raso. 380 9mm automatic Back‐up Pistol loaded with ammunitions. Rosales. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. alias Frank. of Glamour Modeling Agency owned by Lawrence Wang. it is without a doubt that there was an unbroken chain of custody of the illicit drug purchased from appellant.000. the specimen submitted contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Thus. When frisked. In a separate operation that same date. a dangerous drug. and Joseph Junio were identified as the source of the drug. Mendoza. Dizon. Section 5. is actually committing. when lawful. . D‐1240‐2003 dated November 9. and c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending. or is attempting to commit an offense. 2) Illegal Possession of Firearms and 3) Violation of the Comelec Gun Ban. They also disclosed that they knew of a scheduled delivery of shabu and that their employer (Wang) could be found at the Maria Orosa Apartment in Malate. ‐ A peace officer or a private person may. Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio informed the police operatives that they were working as talent manager and gymnast instructor. Bernardo. there is probable cause that said suspect was the author of a crime which had just been committed. there was found inside the front right pocket of Wang and confiscated from him an unlicensed AMT Cal." Here. At the same time. arrest a person: a) When. in his presence. Martinez. 5. Rogelio Anoble and a certain Arellano. Judge Perfecto A. Per Chemistry Report No.2941 kilograms. Jr. Claudio. Imperial. which substance was later analyzed as positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio did not disclose their source of shabu but admitted that they were working for Wang. with a letter of request for examination.
in his presence. On arraignment. or is attempting to commit a crime. Dialino. 1 10 . Valdez was not committing an offense at the time he alighted from the bus. Raso. absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers. Here. however. arrest a person: (a) When. David Lee. By their own admission. Ordoño then purportedly requested to see the contents of his bag and Valdez acceded.1 It is obvious that based on the testimonies of the arresting barangay tanod. and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. Mercado. which is only a few hours thereafter. Claudio. Ordoño testified that it was he who was ordered by Mercado to open Valdez’ bag and that it was then that they saw its contents.—A peace officer or a private person may. Upon the duo’s declaration that there will be a delivery of shabu on the early morning of the following day. Martinez. Martin. Aratas admitted that he himself brought out the contents of Valdez’ bag before the latter was taken to Mercado’s house. Valdez denied ownership of the marijuana. Valdez’ act of looking around after getting off the bus was but natural as he was finding his way to 3. For the exception in Section 5(a). Neither may the warrantless arrest be justified under paragraph (b) of Section 5. On cross‐examination. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. It is settled that "reliable information" alone. For his part. or is attempting to commit an offense. not one of these circumstances was present at the time Valdez was arrested. is actually committing. is actually committing. Rosales. For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to be valid. two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. the arresting officers conducted "surveillance" operation in front of said apartment. The tanods did not have probable cause either to justify Valdez’ warrantless arrest. it was Valdez’ himself who brought out the contents of his bag upon orders from Mercado. Valdez testified that he was restrained by the tanod and taken to the house of Mercado. Thus. The RTC found Valdez guilty. They then Section 5. alight from a mini‐bus. After inspecting all the contents of his bag. Capt. but to determine the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence. his bag was opened by the tanod and Mercado himself. Mendoza.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Aratas and Ordoño corroborated Bautista’s testimony on most material points. there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. During trial. which later turned out to be marijuana leaves. the employer of Teck and Junio. Dizon. or is attempting to commit a crime. Venzuela prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. At Mercado’s house. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. lugging a bag. they approached Valdez but he purportedly attempted to run away. He was then charged with violation of Sec. ISSUE: W/N the drugs were seized pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest that would make the drugs admissible as evidence? (NOTE: Valdez never raised the irregularity of his arrest before arraignment. Bautista testified that it was Mercado who instructed him to open Valdez’ bag. who appeared suspicious to them. May 17. which was later on found to be owned by his friend. he claimed that at Mercado’s house. It was Aratas who carried the bag until they reached their destination. they noticed Valdez. witness Ordoño allegedly approached him and asked where he was going. It was at this point that Bautista and Aratas joined them. While the three were conducting the routine patrol during the night of the incident. He was merely walking from the Maria Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car when the police operatives arrested him. Rule 113 to operate. the prosecution presented the testimony of the 3 barangay tanods (Bautista. observed that Valdez. Valdez pleaded not guilty. Teck and Junio did not even categorically identify Wang to be their source of the shabu they were caught with in flagrante delicto. Arriola. arrested and brought him to the house of Brgy. He was not committing any visible offense then. Valdez denied the charges. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. What is clearly established from the testimonies of the arresting officers is that Wang was arrested mainly on the information that he was the employer of Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio who were previously arrested and charged for illegal transport of shabu. Imperial. seemed to be looking for something. Bernardo. Cajucom. Section 5. without first securing the necessary permit or prescription from the proper gov’t agency. hoping to find a person which will match the description of one Lawrence Wang. the person to be arrested has committed. and that Wang may be found in Maria Orosa Apartment along Maria Orosa Street. nor did he appear to be then committing an offense. Therefore. where the mariajuana leaves were found. These circumstances do not sufficiently establish the existence of probable cause based on personal knowledge as required in paragraph (b) of Section 5. Arrest without warrant. this SC ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. Antonio. Aratas and Ordoño) who arrested Valdez. Escueta. They took out an item wrapped in newspaper. Sia. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the only occasions on which a person may be arrested without a warrant. The tanods chased Valdez. is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. frisked and searched his person and commanded him to open the compartment of the car. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. He basically alleged that while he was walking after alighting from the bus. 11 of RA 9165. the seized marijuana is inadmissible as evidence. (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.) HELD/RATIO: NO. Thus. Valdez had in his possession and custody dried marijuana leaves wrapped in cellophane and newspaper page. without a warrant. Nonetheless. VALDEZ v PEOPLE (borrowed) FACTS: In 2003. The facts and circumstances surrounding the present case did not manifest any suspicious behavior on the part of private respondent Lawrence Wang that would reasonably invite the attention of the police. it is indispensable to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful. when lawful. is actually committing.
the marijuana leaves allegedly taken during the search cannot be admitted in evidence against him as they were seized during a warrantless search which was not lawful. Antonio. was validly arrested six (6) days later at the San Juan Police Station. in the presence of his lawyers. Claudio. the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests. is considered no consent at all within the contemplation of the constitutional guarantee. More importantly. must precede a warrantless arrest. while as a rule. Raso. cannot be viewed as sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity enough to validate his warrantless arrest. That same day. the SC ruled “A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. If at all. In Umil v. Go argues that he was not lawfully arrested without warrant because he went to the police station 6 days after the shooting. Valdez’ flight lends itself just as easily to an innocent explanation as it does to a nefarious one. 1991. The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest. Martin. Sia. Bernardo. Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to one’s consciousness of guilt. Go . Eldon Maguan and Rolito Go had a near‐ collision incident in San Juan. after being closely observed and then later tailed by three unknown persons. Dialino. the search most permissible for the tanod to conduct under the prevailing backdrop of the case was a stop‐and‐frisk to allay any suspicion they have been harboring based on Valdez’ behavior. Section 7. Go alighted from his car. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which establishes the only exception to the right to preliminary investigation. (3) arrests of escaped prisoners. et al. in the circumstances of this case. Even granting that Valdez admitted to opening his bag when Ordoño asked to see its contents. Valdez’ waiver of his right to question his arrest notwithstanding. He was detained. and under the circumstances of this case. he was released on bail but CA issued an Order wherein the bail grant was recalled so Go had to surrender himself. he was neither caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime nor was the arrest effected in hot pursuit. Venzuela his destination. Since there had been no lawful warrantless arrest. Martinez. walked over and shot Maguan inside his car. Valdez’ lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure. Thus the crime had not been "just committed" at the time that he was arrested. his implied acquiescence. be limited to the person’s outer clothing. Ramos there was a valid warrantless arrest because the offense (subversion) constituted "continuing crimes. He was detained again. where the SC upheld a warrantless arrest as valid although made 14 days after the killing. Imperial. he was positively identified by an eyewitness. in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions. could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and hence. is not applicable. Go then left the scene but a security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to get his license plate. presented himself before San Juan Police Station to very news reports that he was being hunted by the police. Escueta. the warrantless "arrest" does not fall within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. 1991. Initially. the offense was murder." Here. it cannot therefore be reasonably argued that the warrantless search conducted on Valdez was incidental to a lawful arrest.. However. CA said that Go's warrantless arrest was valid because the offense for which he was arrested and charged had been "freshly committed. Go refused to sign the waiver. It is not unreasonable to expect that Valdez. when Valdez was arrested without a warrant. etc. and should be grounded upon a genuine reason. for. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. following Terry v. Secondly. Accordingly. with 2 lawyers." When he showed up at the police station. ISSUE: WON there was a lawful warrantless arrest—NO First.” Thus. not a continuing crime. (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit. an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest. Ramos. would attempt to flee at their approach. On July 8. Dizon. v. The Solicitor General relies In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Roberto Umil. was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity. a stop‐and‐frisk situation. Rosales. Cajucom. Solicitor General argues Go was validly arrested without warrant because his identity as the gunman had been sufficiently established. Valdez testified that he did not run away but in fact spoke with the barangay tanod when they approached him. Even taking the prosecution’s version generally as the truth. As in People vs. even assuming that they appeared dubious. that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC. walking the street at night.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Alone. As a result. Bacla‐an. 4. was already an existing manhunt for him. to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto. An eyewitness to the shooting was able to positively identify him as the gunman. misplaced. the conclusion will not be any different. The following searches and seizures are deemed permissible by jurisprudence: (1) search of moving vehicles (2) seizure in plain view (3) customs searches (4) waiver or consent searches (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry Search) and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The "arresting" officers obviously were not present at the time petitioner allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected 6 days after be 11 . The supposed acts of Valdez. Ramos is. Go's "arrest" took place 6 days after the shooting. Mendoza. He was informed. Ohio. and. ROLITO GO v CA (borrowed) FACTS: On July 2. the reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor General upon Umil v. The allegation that he attempted to run away as the tanod approached him is irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed as adequate to charge the tanod with personal knowledge that Valdez had just engaged in. Verily. a complaint for frustrated homicide was filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. Arriola. if at all. After that.
Dizon. Sia. It wasn’t waived when he incorrectly filed an omnibus motion for release and preliminary investigation with the Prosecutor (should be filed with the RTC). none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts indicating that Go was the gunman. Antonio. the Prosecutor himself filed the same with the RTC days after filing the information for murder. Raso. **On Preliminary Investagion: WON Go had effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation. Venzuela reasonably regarded as effected "when the shooting had in fact just been committed". Martinez. Imperial. Escueta. Claudio. Bernardo. The police merely relied on the statements of an alleged eyewitness. Martin. Rosales. Plus. Arriola. Mendoza.‐‐ NO From the very start Go demanded that a preliminary investigation be conducted. 12 . Dialino. Plus.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Cajucom.
Antonio. Dialino. No. Respondent judge issued an order granting motion for bail without hearing. Claudio. They all involve selling of less than 5 grams of shabu. shabu is not a dangerous drug but merely a controlled precursor. the judge formulates his own conclusion on whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. Dizon. a hearing on an application for bail is mandatory. serious misconduct in office and gross ignorance of the law. Rule 114. possession of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is punishable by life imprisonment to death. custody and control of 57. Admin. respondent Judge complied with the foregoing duties.00 to P10M. the prosecution was given the opportunity to present its evidence. No. Matter No. In all cases. Based on the summary of evidence. is punishable with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500. City Prosecutor Francisco filed MR. In this regard. Where bail is a matter of discretion. Respondent Judge need not “exhaustively” study R. No. 3. Matter No. hence. a capital offense. Respondent Judge denied the motion. Under the present rules. Martin. 2. Imperial. Matter No. A plain reading of the law would immediately show that methamphetamine hydrochloride is a dangerous drug and not a controlled precursor. MABUTAS v PERELLO FACTS Subject matters of the present administrative cases are two complaints against respondent Judge Perello. if the quantity thereof is 50 grams or more. The matter of determining whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion that remains with the judge. bail is not allowed as a matter of right. A hearing was held on the petition. conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion. the petition for bail was granted. As such. RTJ‐04‐1820 (2 case)‐YES. Mendoza. or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. or at least his recommendation on the matter must be sought. judge not liable. the court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. respondent Judge insists that she did so because of her belief that methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is merely a precursor and therefore the sale thereof is not a capital offense. judge liable. Otherwise the bail should be denied. after the hearing. discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond. the prosecutor should be given reasonable notice of hearing. 9165 to determine the nature of methamphetamine hydrochloride. bail becomes a matter of discretion. RTJ‐04‐1820 (2 administrative case) Prosecutor Togononon charged respondent Judge of partiality. with no bail recommended. respondent Judge maintains that bail is a matter of right and a hearing is not required. No. Methamphetamine hydrochloride is listed in the 1971 UN Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances.000. and since it was her conclusion that the evidence of accused Omadan’s guilt is not strong. Raso. Sec. notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation. the judge is entrusted to observe the following duties: 1.78 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). In this case. Escueta. shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong. Based on the above‐cited procedure and requirements.A. This is further strongly manifest in Section 11 of R. nd Admin.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Furthermore. Admin. Respondent Judge explains that she did not conduct any hearings on the motions/petitions for bail because the crimes charged are not capital offenses as the quantity of shabu involved therein was minimal. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution. Bernardo. This opinion is blatantly erroneous. Respondent Judge believes that under R. arguing that since the crime charged is a capital offense. Admin. Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion. Omadan was charged with Violation of RA 9165.A. Martinez. If the guilt of the accused is not strong. 9165 pending before her.A. whether bail is a matter of right or discretion. concerning the latter’s grant of bail in four criminal cases for Violations of R. she would have 13 . Asst. in which the selling of less than 5 grams is punishable only with imprisonment of 12 years to 20 years. 9165. BAIL 1. Rosales. Cajucom. RTJ‐03‐1817 (1st administrative case) Mabutas of PDEA complained of certain irregularities committed by respondent Judge in the grant of bail to accused Omadan. respondent Judge based her findings on the prosecution’s evidence.A. To justify her granting bail in the three criminal cases. In case an application for bail is filed. 9165. ISSUE: w/n respondent Judge may be administratively held liable for the grant of bail. Venzuela E. and a hearing is indispensable. respondent Judge’s Order granting the accused’s petition for bail contained a summary of the prosecution’s evidence. wherein it is specifically provided that the possession of dangerous drugs. nd 2. for the possession. 7 of the Rules of Court states: No person charged with the capital offense. RTJ‐03‐1817 (1st case)‐ NO. Such being the case. Sia. regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. Under RA 9165. Respondent judge explained that the bail was granted because the prosecution’s evidence of Omadan’s guilt was not strong. which are considered dangerous drugs. HELD: 1. such as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Matter No. or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. had respondent judge kept herself abreast of jurisprudence and decisions of the Court. Arriola. and 4.
It indicates a faithful adherence to the bedrock principle. It ruled that bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or a prisoner needing medical care outside the prison facility. that is. In other words. this will establish whether or not the appellate court will exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the application for bail pending appeal and (2) the exercise of discretion stage where. Mendoza. Rosales. the sale. in the second situation. where the appellate court must determine whether any of the circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5. constitute abuse of discretion. grave abuse of discretion will thereby be committed. To grant an application for bail and fix the amount thereof without a hearing duly called for the purpose of determining whether the evidence of guilt is strong constitutes gross ignorance or incompetence whose grossness cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or excusable negligence. bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. the constitutional right to bail ends. Martinez. an application for bail by an appellant sentenced by the Regional Trial Court to a penalty of more than six years’ imprisonment should automatically be granted. Given these two distinct scenarios. Thus. if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. if the appellate court grants bail pending appeal. Arriola. a finding that none of the circumstances in Section 5. LEVISTE v CA FACTS: Leviste was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Escueta. it is incumbent upon respondent Judge to hold a hearing on the petitions/motions for bail filed by the accused therein to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Considering that the accused was in fact convicted by the 2. Leviste claims that in the absence of any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court? 14 . other than those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. except [that] when any of the enumerated circumstances under paragraph 3 of Section 5. including the demands of equity and justice. Bernardo. trade. it cannot be said that the Court of Appeals issued the assailed resolution without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Sia. He then appealed to the CA. Petitioner then filed a MR and now questions as grave abuse of discretion (Rule 65) the denial of his application for bail. Cajucom. Antonio. the discretion to extend bail during the course of appeal should be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. therefore. citing his advanced age and health condition. Given that methamphetamine hydrochloride is a dangerous drug. HELD: No. Claudio. Venzuela been apprised that in all the hundreds and hundreds of cases decided by the Court. After conviction by the trial court. Similarly. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is not punishable by death. by and of itself. On the other hand. bail becomes a matter of discretion. Rule 114. dispensation. regardless of quantity. administration. delivery. This means that. that is. on the basis thereof. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was present. The CA denied his application for bail. the presumption of innocence terminates and. considering that none of the conditions justifying denial of bail under the third paragraph of Section 5. the development over time of the Rules On Criminal Procedure reveals an orientation towards a more restrictive approach to bail pending appeal. Martin. If it so determines. Leviste failed to show that he suffers from ailment of such gravity that his continued confinement during trial will permanently impair his health or put his life in danger. Dizon. At the risk of being repetitious. Moreover. it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. An application for bail pending appeal may be denied even if the bail‐negating circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5. and claiming the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part. Bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. Dialino. Rule 114 is present then bail shall be denied. Imperial. bail pending appeal should be allowed not with leniency but with grave caution and only for strong reasons. Conversely. methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu had always been considered as a dangerous drug. historically. the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion. Being a capital offense. Rule 114 is present. Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent sound discretion approach. Thus. the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion. It said that in the matter of bail pending appeal. if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years then bail is a matter of discretion. Rule 114 is present will not automatically result in the grant of bail. Basically. such discretion must be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. ISSUE: In a bail application pending appeal of a conviction with a sentence of more than six years. distribution and transportation of shabu is punishable by life imprisonment to death. the appellate court’s denial of bail pending appeal where none of the said circumstances exists does not. it may either allow or disallow bail. the appellate court may consider all relevant circumstances. In the first situation. On the other hand.46 From then on. accordingly. Raso. Pending appeal. to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists. he filed an urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal. does the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. It made a preliminary evaluation of petitioner’s case and made a prima facie determination that there was no reason substantial enough to overturn the evidence of petitioner’s guilt. According to it. The CA also considered the fact of petitioner’s conviction. upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable death. Rule 114 are absent. assuming the appellant’s case falls within the first scenario allowing the exercise of sound discretion. any application for bail pending appeal should be viewed from the perspective of two stages: (1) the determination of discretion stage. Rule 114 is present. the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail.
S. Dialino. This judicial disposition finds strong support in the history and evolution of the rules on bail and the language of Section 5. San Jose. Occidental Mindoro. A hearing is necessary for the court to take into consideration the guidelines in fixing the amount of bail set forth in Section 9. but also by the respondent’s bad faith in deceiving them into surrendering the custody of an undesirable alien federal fugitive to the Provincial Jail at Magbay. A hearing is indispensable for the court to ask searching questions from which it 4. Respondent judge should have ascertained personally whether the evidence of guilt is strong and endeavored to determine the propriety of the amount of bail recommended. or the lack of it. However. Dizon. The SDO became final and executor. After hearing. the order granting or denying the application for bail may be invalidated because the summary of evidence for the prosecution which contains the judge’s evaluation of the evidence may be considered as an aspect of procedural due process for both the prosecution and the defense. Sia. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. is never a basis for the outright grant of bail without a preliminary hearing on the matter. Antonio. may infer the strength of the evidence of guilt. On the scheduled hearing. respondent’s lack of knowledge of the deportation order will only free him from administrative liability for gross misconduct but not for gross ignorance of the law for disregarding the rules on bail. Peñaflorida. DOMINGO v PAGAYATAN (borrowed) FACTS: The Bureau of Immigration (BOI) Board of Commissioners (BOC) issued Summary Deportation Order (SDO) No. a U. To do away with the requisite bail hearing “is to dispense with this time‐ tested safeguard against arbitrariness. and that at the time he issued the order fixing the bail bond.S. The manifestation of the prosecutor that he is not ready to present any witness to prove that the prosecution’s evidence against the accused is strong. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.” Although the Domingo failed to prove that Judge Pagayatan had prior knowledge of the existence of the deportation order or was informed by the BOI of such order. In its Evaluation Report.000. allowance of bail pending appeal should be guided by a stringent‐standards approach. a non‐bailable offense. Respondent Judge Pagayatan issued a Notice of Arraignment requiring the production of Peñaflorida. Arriola. against the accused. Commissioner Domingo was appalled not only by the respondent’s employment of legal subterfuges in ordering the release of Peñaflorida whose Summary Deportation Order had already become final and executory. A few days later Complainant was flabbergasted to learn that she was released from confinement. Martin. As a result.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Cajucom. Claudio. Mendoza. 3. the judge should then formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong enough as to indicate the guilt of the accused. 15 . in violation of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. Raso. Judge Pagayatan ordered the commitment of Peñaflorida to the Provincial Jail in Magbay.000 for Gross Ignorance of the Law. Complainant inquired from the police station if an Order of Release was issued by the court.000 does not justify the granting of bail without a hearing in a case involving a non‐bailable offense.376. the OCA recommends to the Court that respondent be fined P5.00 losses to the U. he was not aware that a deportation order has already been issued by the BOI. later on that same day. Federal Government. after finding that he was an overstaying and undocumented alien. Absent evidence of malice. Rosales. A hearing is required even when the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail. No appeal was filed with the Office of the President. The herein respondent granted bail to the accused Peñaflorida without conducting a hearing despite his earlier pronouncement in the Order denying bail as he considered the crime the accused Peñaflorida was charged with to be a non‐bailable offense. Occidental Mindoro. Peñaflorida was also a fugitive from justice since he stood indicted in the United States for health care fraud which resulted in more than $1. Judge Pagayatan denied the P40. The joint manifestation of the prosecution and the defense that it would be fair and just if the court would fix the bail bond for the provisional release of the accused at P250. Judge Pagayatan explained that the prosecution and the defense jointly manifested that it would be fair and just if the court would fix the bail bond for the provisional release of the accused Peñaflorida at P250.00 and that he granted the motion to fix bail. in cases where the offense is punishable by death.000 bail recommended by the Provincial Prosecutor for the provisional release of the accused on the ground that the crime Peñaflorida was charged with involved large scale estafa. Commissioner Domingo filed a letter‐complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Pagayatan with gross ignorance of the law. In his Comment. San Jose. Martinez. ADD‐2001‐057 against Ernesto M. Venzuela trial court. the BOI received information that respondent judge had allowed the release from detention of Peñaflorida without the interdepartmental courtesy of affording prior notice to the BOI of such action. ISSUE: Whether Judge Pagayatan was guilty of gross ignorance of the law in granting the bail of the accused without conducting a hearing – YES HELD: Under the rules on bail. Imperial. Bernardo. citizen. Escueta. respondent judge cannot escape administrative liability by invoking unawareness of the deportation order. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. a hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion. Otherwise. LACHICA v TORMIS FACTS Defendant Domugho was apprehended and was brought to the police station for booking and custody. Complainant learned that accused was released because the respondent judge called the police station and told the desk officer that the accused had posted a cash bail bond and may already be released. the court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution and based thereon.000.
Thus. Sia. As the judge is the visible representation of the law. The respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct for having abused her judicial authority when she personally accepted the cash bail bond of the accused and for deliberately making untruthful statements in her comment and during the investigation of the instant administrative case with intent to mislead this Court. She maintained that she issued the Order of Release after the accused posted a cash bond. corruption or incompetency. Antonio. Remanded to the Office of the Executive Judge of the RTC of Cebu City for further proceedings RATIO: Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must be examined with a discriminating eye for its consequential effects are by nature penal in character. the general rules as to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply and the culpability of the respondent should be established beyond reasonable doubt. She claimed that the accused was released by virtue of the Order of Release and not on the basis of her alleged telephone call to the police station. Bernardo. Section 14. the police blotter showed no entry that an order of release was received by the police. namely: the collector of internal revenue or the provincial. respondent is already administratively liable. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies the persons with whom a cash bail bond may be deposited. Judge Tormis requested for a certified true copy of the judgment but she received a copy of the Resolution requiring the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. such that the respondent judge stands to face the sanction of dismissal. Claudio. Martinez. HELD:Yes. she filed a Manifestation on the same date praying for a reinvestigation and to be allowed to present additional evidence. This led her to conclude that the case had not yet been resolved and the judgment promulgated. Respondent judge personally received the cash bail bond for the accused. She claimed that respondent judge committed an act of impropriety when she called the police station to verbally order the release of the accused. After investigation. Complainant also asserted that it was improper for the respondent judge to receive the cash bail bond as the function belongs exclusively to the Office of the Clerk of Court. as in criminal cases where the dictates of due process is observed with utmost stringence. ISSUE: W/N the request for reinvestigation and to be allowed to present additional evidence should be granted? RULING: YES. the respondent judge in this administrative complaint should likewise be given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to defend herself and to adduce evidence in support thereof for the Court will not allow itself to be an instrument that would destroy the reputation of any member of the bench by pronouncing guilt on the basis of incomplete evidence or mere speculation. 16 . Only a notation that the accused had put up a cash bail bond was entered therein. she also betrayed a character flaw which speaks ill of her person. the same had been downloaded from the web site of the Court and disseminated to the local media. Rosales. Venzuela Upon investigation by complainant. and more importantly justice. the judge undermined and adversely reflect on the honesty and integrity of the system as an officer of the court. Raso. he must therefore. Making false representations is a vice which no judge should imbibe. She was apprised by her staff that her 6‐month suspension was published in 2 local newspapers and called for her ouster from the judiciary. Dizon.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. thus. For this act alone. Arriola. A judge is not authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail nor should such cash be kept in his office. Even the arresting officer denied receiving a court order for release ISSUE: W/n the judge is administratively liable. Cajucom. be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the others to follow 5. By corruption. However. It is vexing further that no copy of the release order was found on the day of release. city or municipal treasurer. Executive Judge Dumdum of the RTC of Cebu City recommended that she be fined P20K or suspended for 3 months. Escueta.. SERAPIO v SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: An administrative case was filed against MTCC Judge Tormis. suspended him from office for 6 months without salary and other benefits and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent judge denied the charges of complainant. or suspension. Dialino. In cases where the charges involved are misconduct in office. Thus. Imperial. before Judge Tormis received a copy of the judgment. The SC found Judge Tormis guilty of gross misconduct. Martin. Mendoza. willful neglect. The Office of the Court administrator fined and suspended the judge after finding several inconsistencies in her alibi. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred but recommended that Judge Tormis be suspended for three months. disbarment.
Sia. Crisostomo’s absence did not even justify the forfeiture of his bail bond. The “deafening silence” of all of the accused does not necessarily point to a conspiracy. Crisostomo’s guilt was actually not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Crisostomo and 1 co‐accused were found guilty by the Sandiganbayan. Dizon. such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right. A bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the accused is specifically required by the court or the Rules of Court and. YES. Escueta.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Martin. Rosales. A judgment of conviction must be predicated on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Arriola. with more reason that flight could not be logically inferred from Crisostomo’s absence at that hearing. According to the Sandiganbayan. Martinez. 2. Crisostomo’s absence on the 22 June 1995 hearing should not have been deemed as a waiver of his right to present evidence. CRISOSTOMO v SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Crisostomo. jurisdiction was properly exercised by the Sandiganbayan. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. W/N the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when they found him guilty despite their own admission that there was no direct evidence showing his participation in Renato’s death? HELD: 1. not all of the accused remained silent. the Sandiganbayan believed that Crisostomo took part in the conspiracy to kill Renato because of these three circumstances: 1) Crisostomo as the jail guard on duty at the time of Renato’s killing had in his possession the keys to the main door and the cells. Thus. W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the person of Crisostomo? 2. The Sandiganbayan imposed the waiver due to the agreement of the prosecution. Trial ensued. an accused has the constitutional right to remain silent and to be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. a member of the Philippine National Police. In sum. and others were charged with the murder of Renato. ISSUES: 1. Cajucom. 1861 (“PD 1861”). Calingayan further claimed that the Solano police investigated him and his handwritten statements were taken the morning following Renato’s death. despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the court on a given date. Venzuela F. and Calingayan’s counsel. Since the the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Calingayan. Antonio. No direct evidence linked Crisostomo to the killing of Renato. Clearly. Since the crime was committed on 14 February 1989. (2) Crisostomo was in such a position that he could have seen or heard the killing of Renato. Crisostomo’s non‐appearance during the 22 June 1995 trial was merely a waiver of his right to be present for trial on such date only and not for the succeeding trial dates. Dialino. the applicable provision of law is Section 4 of PD 1606. The presentation of evidence for Crisostomo’s defense was deemed waived for his failure to appear at the scheduled hearings despite notice. as amended by Presidential Decree No. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove that there was a conspiracy to kill Renato and Crisostomo participated in carrying out the conspiracy. Bernardo. If no waiver of the right to present evidence could be presumed from Crisostomo’s failure to attend the 22 June 1995 hearing. there was no basis for the 17 . The supposed waiver of presentation of evidence did not work against Crisostomo because the prosecution failed to prove Crisostomo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence in this case is not sufficient to create a prima facie case to shift the burden of evidence to Crisostomo. In the first place. there is a prima facie case against Crisostomo. Claudio. Crisostomo was not specifically required by the Sandiganbayan or the Rules of Court to appear on the 22 June 1995 hearing. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Crisostomo did not voluntarily waive in person or even through his counsel the right to present evidence. Imperial. Calingayan put himself on the witness stand. Crisostomo pleaded not guilty. Raso. The amended provision provides that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office where the penalty is higher than prision correccional. Sandiganbayan committed GADALEJ. the Sandiganbayan had no basis to convict Crisostomo because the prosecution failed to produce the evidence necessary to overturn the presumption of innocence. a detention prisoner at the Solano Municipal Jail. While constitutional rights may be waived. YES. and (3) there are discrepancies between the list of detainees/prisoners and the police blotter. Secondly. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 1. while the others were still at large. which took effect on 23 March 1983. Mendoza. the accused fails to appear in person as so required.
Imperial. Venzuela Sandiganbayan to order the confiscation of Crisostomo’s surety bond and assume that Crisostomo had jumped bail. a 16‐year old high school student employed by the former in making sampaguita garlands during weekends. evidence for the prosecution showed that a group of policemen dropped by a restaurant for a snack. the approximate date of the commission of the offense. Escueta. Antonio. The fact that he did not choose to present other witnesses did not affect any of Andrada’s substantial rights. 3) Did not notify him to attend the hearing when one of the policemen was cross‐examined. When Adrada left. two of them approached him. 2) Failed to present the medical certificate showing the injuries inflicted upon him by the victim. Issue: Whether Olivares can be charged with violation of RA 7610 considering the alleged violation of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him? Held: Yes. Bernardo. Ratio: In criminal cases. Martin. unless they prejudice the client and prevent him from properly resting his case. Dizon. the negligence or incompetence of counsel to be deemed gross must have prejudiced the constitutional right of an accused to be heard. the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. the designation of the offense given by the statute. The SC found that the counsel was not so inept or motivated by bad faith or so careless and negligence of his duties so as to seriously prejudice the substantial rights of Andrada. the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Andrada was advised to go home because he was drunk. Issue: Whether Andrada was denied due process due to his counsel’s gross negligence/incompetence – NO 3. Martinez. The trial court found him guilty. to summon witnesses.” Fearing that he might be killed while being dragged outside. Having decided to retain the services of his counsel during the entire proceedings.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. relevancy or irrelevancy of certain evidence. A complaint is sufficient if it states the name of the accused. Rosales. The long‐standing rule in this jurisdiction is that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. Counsel might have valid reasons for choosing not to. If he believed that his counsel de parte was not competent. slapped his face several times and pointed their guns to his head because he was “so boastful. Mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a witness. While one of the policemen was talking to a woman who passed by their table. In this case. ANDRADO v PEOPLE (borrowed) Facts: An Information was filed with the City Prosecutor of Baguio City charging Andrada with frustrated murder. They brought him back to the restaurant where they recovered the bolo. The RTC found him guilty. Petitioner now alleges that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated for failure to allege in the information the age of the private offended party and the essential elements of the offense for which he is being charged. was affirmed by the CA. Andrada claimed that his right to due process was violated because of the gross negligence/incompetence of his counsel who: 1) Failed to present all the witnesses who could have testified that he is innocent. 18 . then he should not blame either the trial court or the CA. 2. OLIVARES v CA Facts: Isidro Olivares was charged with violation of RA 7610 (Anti‐Child Abuse) for touching the breast and kissing the lips of Cristina Elitiong. the sufficiency. records show that counsel actively participated in the cross‐examination of the witnesses to test their credibility. Mendoza. Witnesses were interviewed and they pointed to Andrada as the culprit. On a petition for review on certiorari before the SC. three military men occupied the table next to them. Raso. he must be deemed bound by any mistake committed by him. The CA found him to be entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Andrada was present during the hearing. Cajucom. as he was only 17 years old at the time of the incident. one of the policemen heard his companion (the one who spoke to the woman) moaning in pain and found him sprawled on the floor while Andrada was hacking him on the head with a bolo. In all criminal prosecutions. Without any warning or provocation. Dialino. the proper defense or the burden of proof. failure to introduce evidence. Andrada pulled out his bolo (wrapped in newspaper) and swung it at the two men and ran away. During the hearing. however. Andrada approached him and scolded him. Claudio. Arriola. His version was that while they were drinking beer with a hospitality girl inside the restaurant. The OSG counters that there was no violation of his right to due process since he was represented by counsel of his own choosing. and to argue the case. do not constituted gross incompetence or negligence. and the place where the offense was committed. Sia. and 4) Failed to submit a memorandum. If the counsel’s performance and competence fell short of Andrada’s expectation. he could have secured the services of a new counsel. Andrada ran away but was arrested in a waiting shed. the name of the offended party. Andrada interposed self‐defense and invoked the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
hindi ko alam kung ano yung related sa Rights of the Accused sa case na ‘to. Martinez. it was alleged that accused Joel Libuit. and the defendant appeared by himself alone. for promulgation. It ordered 5. True. In fact. Atty. Lagua filed a Very Urgent Petition for Bail. Arriola. LIBUIT v PEOPLE (borrowed) FACTS: Accused Libuit is charged with Estafa with with abuse of confidence. 19 . On motion of the prosecution. Dimayuga failed to appear despite notices. The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio for the accused who has no counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one is mandatory only at the time of arraignment. Cajucom.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. which the CA granted upon posting the required bond. Mendoza. and the accused cannot successfully invoke the defense that his right to be informed is violated. withdrew from the case after his initial cross‐examination. but it is all to evident that the body of the information contains an averment of the acts alleged to have been performed by petitioner which unmistakably refers to acts punishable under Section 5 of R. 7610 is being violated by petitioner is inconsequential. giving him sufficient time to engage the services of another counsel. Dimayuga.) FACTS: In a criminal case. Rosales. Dizon.A. Madarang. with intent to defraud and with abuse of confidence. 4. Raso. In the CA. However. Salud went to the former’s office and assisted in arranging and stapling of the papers for release. The petitioner eventually secured the services of Atty. Atty. Sia. accused claims that he had been deprived his right to counsel. Around that time. which car was received by Jose Bautista. The failure of Atty. respondent Salud’s unusual interest on the case became noticeable and he started making inquiries about the case. Escueta. the CA held that the RTC never deprived the petitioner of his right to counsel as he was represented by a counsel de parte. Complainant Domingo del Mundo delivered and brought his car to the motor shop and owned and/or operated by Joel Libuit and Julius Libuit for repair of its damaged parts. It was he who ultimately serve the resolution and order of release in the Lagua case to the National Penitentiary. which discretion will not be interfered with in the absence of grave abuse. the repeated failure to appear of defendant’s counsel at the trial may even be taken as a deliberate attempt to delay the court’s proceedings. Lagua’s bond was approved in a Resolution which was brought to the Office of the Division Clerk of Court. On appeal. 7610. Atty. the continuation of his cross‐examination was reset to give him time to engage the services of another counsel. Imperial. the information herein may not refer to specific section/s of R. the trial court issued an Order striking from the records the petitioner’s direct testimony and declaring the case submitted for decision on the basis of the evidence already on record. his defense counsel. Lagua was found guilty by the RTC of homicide. the defect in the latter is effectively cured. while it is necessary to allege the essential elements of the crime in the information. On motion of the accused. when the time for the presentation of evidence for the defense arrived. As to the contention that the minority of Cristina was not properly alleged in the information. In the present case. When Atty. We think that such liberality removes any doubt that its order was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. No such duty exists where the accused has proceeded to arraignment and then trial with a counsel of his own choice. When the complaint or the resolution by the public prosecutor which contain the missing averments is attached to the information and form part of the records. the SC ruled that: Petitioner was furnished a copy of the Complaint which was mentioned in the information. once in possession of the said car. Dimayuga. unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated instead of complying with his obligation or duty to return or deliver the repaired car to Domingo del Mundo. wilfully. Antonio. MAGTOLIS v SALUD (borrowed) (Actually. Atty. to appear at the subsequent hearings without reason was sufficient legal basis for the trial court to order the striking from the records of his direct testimony. the failure to do so is not an irremediable vice.A. the RTC allowed the resetting of the petitioner’s cross‐examination to give him time to engage the services of another counsel. More on Evidence siya. the absence of his counsel was inexcusable. the trial court granted the petitioner’s motion to postpone. As to which section of R. However. his newly hired lawyer. Indeed. Madarang finally directed the typing of the Order of Release Upon Bond. Accused (Libuit) testified on direct examination. When said counsel withdrew. This Court is convinced that the trial court had been liberal in granting postponements asked by the petitioner himself. hence he was adequately informed of the age of the complainant. 7610 alleged to have been violated by the petitioner. since the petitioner was represented by counsel de parte at the arraignment and trial. Bernardo. What is determinative of the offense is the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information. However. Worth noting. At the subsequent hearings. ISSUE: Was petitioner deprived of his right to counsel? (NO) HELD: Petitioner contends that the trial court should have appointed a counsel de oficio when his counsel consistently failed to appear for his cross‐examination. and thereafter render judgment upon the evidence already presented. At the most. the trial court could not be deemed duty‐bound to appoint a counsel de oficio for the continuation of his cross‐examination. Mendoza. the striking of his testimony from the records only after his new counsel failed to appear at the subsequent hearings. Venzuela Thus. the appointment of a counsel de oficio in a situation like the present case would be discretionary with the trial court. Claudio. then mechanic in the said motor shop. Mendoza. Dialino. after his initial cross‐ examination.A. Martin.
Thus. Madarang’s cellphone. Any question as to the admissibility of such messages is now moot and academic. Atty. Text messages have been classified as ephemeral electronic communication under Section 1(k). RTC granted the motion to conduct the DNA paternity test on petitioner Alba’s mother. irrelevant and the coercive process to obtain the requisite specimen unconstitutional. she represented herself as a relative of Lagua. Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainant's cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self‐ incrimination. Rosales. In this case. Martinez. Madarang called the RTC. The case reached the SC via Petition for Review. Madarang accompanied him to Justice Magtolis. She was informed that Valdez was not there at the time and reminded her about the her outstanding balance. As ratiocinated in Nuez v. After making the call. 6. it was discovered that Salud did not properly serve the copies of the Resolution and Order of Release upon Lagua and his counsel. Cajucom. who introduced herself as Lagua’s relative. Arriola. The findings of investigating magistrates on the credibility of witnesses are given great weight by reason of their unmatched opportunity to see the manner of the witnesses as they testified. as such. Then. such testimony must be considered in its entirety and not in truncated parts. as well as his counsel. Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Martin.” MR denied. and asked for Valdez. the DNA test would be inconclusive. the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit. The caller also informed her that they had sought the help of a certain Valdez of the RTC where the criminal case originated. she coordinated with the Acting Chief of the Mailing Section. To determine which contradicting statements of a witness is to prevail as to the truth. Armi Alba. Claudio. She got Salud’s number from Secarro and started texting him about the same time Sacarro did. Petitioner filed an MR asserting that “under the present circumstances. Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Cruz‐Apao. The respondent's claim that the admission of the text messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of his right to privacy is unavailing. represented by his mother. already admitted that he was the sender of the first three messages on Atty. Madarang's cell phone. support and damages against petitioner. If a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense. Mendoza. Secarro. any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and complainant. Most of Salud’s text messages were stored in Atty. Dialino. charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. However. but were told that they still had a balance to be paid to Justice Magtolis and Atty. asking her how much more would they have to give to facilitate Lagua’s release. Atty. The latter denied that he is the biological father and that he had any physical contact with respondent’s mother. Madarang received a telephone call from a certain Melchor. in administrative proceedings. An administrative complaint for inefficiency and gross misconduct was thus filed by Justice Magtolis against Salud.” Petitioner asserts that obtaining samples from him for DNA testing violates his right against self‐incrimination. where out of the confrontation. the other evidence received must be considered such as the actuations of the respondent contrary to a normal person’s reactions. Venzuela In the meantime.e. Escueta. Madarang through Salud. ISSUE: W/N Salud should be guilty of inefficiency and gross misconduct. as the respondent himself. is required.. Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof ' . the evidence against him must be competent and derived from direct knowledge. To determine the credibility and probative weight of the testimony of a witness. Bernardo. – YES. Sia. HERRERA v ALBA Facts: Alba.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. HELD/RATIO: The complainant in administrative proceedings has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence. Alba filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. During the hearings. complainant who was the recipient of the said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import. After discovering the corrupt acts of Salud. Moreover. Antonio. Issue/Ruling: W/N DNA Paternity testing is violative of the rights of an accused against self‐incrimination ‐ NO Ratio: Section 17. Raso. the quantum of proof required to establish malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence. Imperial. Ms. if the complainant fails to substantiate a claim of corruption and bribery. filed before the RTC a petition for compulsory recognition. witnesses narrated their experiences with the respondent wherein the latter also tried to “help” them with their cases after paying a certain amount. Dizon. pretending to be Lagua’s relative. who turned out to be the Process Server of the RTC. Again. i. Atty. Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. relying on mere conjectures and suppositions. that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Petitioner ignores our earlier pronouncements that the privilege is applicable only to 20 . and 'shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof.
YULO v PEOPLE FACTS: Sometime in August 1992. Martin. Imperial.200. The right to a speedy disposition of a case. (b) EB Check No. In this case. Rasul) retired during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration filed on March 4.” Since Private Complainant did not know the address of Petitioner Yulo. they were dishonored. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured.00. and oppressive delays. As held by the RTC’s Order with Approval. 237941 for P16. or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. 2000. ordered the bank to stop payment. or administrative bodies. without any valid cause. However. since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on “testimonial compulsion.000. a defendant can be required to submit to a test to extract virus from his body.00. 2 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. Bernardo. rule that there has been no violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. 2000 and brought to her attention on March 2. Josefina delivered the checks to her friend who showed them to a jeweler as "show money. Such inaction violates her right to a speedy disposition of her case. 1992. (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused. Claudio.00. We. Clearly. like the right to speedy trial. the case was assigned to the Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo‐Dadole only on February 28. and that she was aware that the checks would be dishonored if presented for payment. Private Complainant Roque enashed the following checks: (a) Equitable Bank (EB) Check No. Petitioner contends that the CA resolved her motion for reconsideration only after three (3) years from its filing. (2) the knowledge of the maker. In turn. postdated November 18. is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious. Petitioner Yulo and Josefina Dimalanta went to the house of Private Complainant Roque in Caloocan City. Petitioner Yulo admitted having issued the checks in question but claimed that she merely lent them to Josefina. To determine whether the right has been violated. Their visit was for Josefina to endorse Petitioner Yulo as a good payor so that the latter’s checks can be encashed. therefore. postdated September 30. 16 of the 1987 Constitution. 130 for violation of BP 22. In view of this endorsement. The elements of the offense penalized by Batas Pambansa Blg. Sia. As such. she did not incur any delay. Dizon. three (3) Informations were filed by the Caloocan City Prosecutor with the RTC Br. Raso. capricious. When arraigned. Rosales. During trial. 656602 for P40. quasi‐judicial. In applying the Constitutional guarantee. Petitioner Yulo pleaded not guilty to the charge. The RTC found Petitioner Yulo guilty. 1993. she immediately informed Josefina about the dishonored checks. 1997. 2. Martinez. the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. ISSUE: On appeal to the SC. the delay was sufficiently explained by the CA: The orginal ponente of the decision of Petitioner Yulo’s case (Associate Justice Jainal D. Furthermore. she knew she had no funds in the banks. 2. Petitioner Yulo raised the following issues: HELD: 1.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. Whether or not the CA violated her right to speedy trial (RELEVANT ISSUE)  NO Whether or not her guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt  YES 7. Cajucom. The EB checks were "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds. the following factors may be considered: (1) the length of the delay. 2 Under Art. drawing. 21 . Escueta. III Sec. 237936 for P40. to submit for pregnancy test. 1. Petitioner Yulo vehemently denied having any transaction with Private Complainant Roque. to put on clothes for size. not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material. 22 are: (1) the making. The right against self‐incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant. and (c) Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No. This privilege applies only to evidence that is “communicative” in essence taken under duress. obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case will not violate the right against self‐incrimination. to submit substance emitting from the body. On appeal. The latter repeatedly assured Private Complainant Roque that that she will relay the fact of dishonor to Petitioner Yulo.000. particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances of each case. 1992. Mendoza. and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficient funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer." It was understood that the checks were not to be deposited. Dialino. Venzuela testimonial evidence. When there was still no payment. When Private Complainant Roque presented the checks for payment to the drawee banks. and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. Petitioner Yulo claimed that when she issued the checks. any party to a case has the right to demand on all officials tasked with the administration of justice to expedite its disposition. We note that it took Justice Gozo‐Dadole only two (2) weeks from notice to resolve the motion. However. and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value. the concept of speedy disposition is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. Antonio. or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment. Private Complainant Roque lodged a complaint against Petitioner Yulo and on August 23." while the BPI check was stamped "Account Closed. drawer. Arriola. (2) the reasons for such delay.
tape recorders) be permitted inside the courtroom to assist the working journalists. and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting. It bears noting at this juncture that the prosecution and the defense have listed more than 200 witnesses each. whether private complainants or accused. it provided a glimmer of hope when it ordered the audio‐visual recording of the trial for documentary purposes subject to the conditions set by the SC.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. but the act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. Mendoza. what BP 22 penalizes is the issuance of a bouncing check. Antonio. She also admitted that at the time she issued the checks. and the fundamental rights of the accused. ISSUE: WON the absolute ban on live television and radio coverage of court proceedings should be lifted? YES. Martin. The purpose for which the check was issued and the terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial. in resolving the MR. beyond mere curiosity. Her purpose was to encash them. It is not the non‐payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The cases are being tried by Presiding Judge Jocelyn Solis‐Reyes of RTC Quezon City. and members of the academe filed a petition before the SC praying that live television and radio coverage of the trial in these criminal cases be allowed. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. The petition was denied. as in this case. Rosales. Escueta. and prejudicial means. What more if the 8. recording devices (still cameras. Petitioner Yulo admitted having issued the three dishonored checks for value. Inc. the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP). Dizon. Raso. Dialino. What is primordial is that the issued checks were worthless and the fact of worthlessness was known to the petitioner at the time of their issuance. the National Press Club of the Philippines (NPC) and Alyansa ng Filipinong Mamamahayag (AFIMA) filed a petition praying that the SC constitute RTC Quezon City as a special court (to focus only on the Maguindanao Massacre Trial). In the Estrada case. and reasonable guidelines be formulated to govern the broadcast coverage and the use of devices. Note: The indication of “serious risks” posed by live media coverage to the accused’s right to due process was left unexplained and unexplored in Aquino and Estrada. In a related move. spawned charges for 57 counts of murder and an additional charge of rebellion against 197 accused. relatives of the victims. It held that the propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involves the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information. Arriola. PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR AMPATUAN (borrowed) FACTS: On November 23. 57 people. provides a workable solution to such concern while maintaining the underlying principles held in Aquino and Estrada. the SC held that a courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings. the peculiarity of the subject criminal cases is that the proceedings already necessarily entail the presence of hundreds of families. on the other hand. and not too large as to distract the trial participants from their proper functions.000. degrading. One apparent circumstance that sets the Maguindanao Massacre cases apart from these earlier cases is the impossibility of accommodating even the parties to the cases (private complainants/families of the victims and other witnesses) inside the courtroom. The impossibility of holding such judicial proceedings in a courtroom that will accommodate all the interested parties. Imperial.. This tragic incident. the mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum. Sia. Significantly. 2009. However. 22. This is because under Batas Pambansa Blg. Cajucom. The SC had another unique opportunity in the case of Re: Request Radio‐TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against the Former President Joseph Estrada to revisit the question of live radio and television coverage of court proceedings in a a criminal case. ABS‐CBN Broadcasting Corporation.00 in her account with the Equitable Bank and that her BPI account was already closed. and allow the installation inside the courtroom of a sufficient number of video cameras that shall beam the audio and video signals to the television monitors outside the court. but subject to the guidelines to be issued by the SC. were killed while on their way to Shariff Aguak in Maguindanao. including 32 journalists and media practitioners. On November 19. she was aware that she had only P1. Even before considering what is a “reasonable number of the public” who may observe the proceedings. 2010. not too small as to render the openness negligible. on the one hand. Bernardo. individual journalists from various entities. Venzuela The prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the case. In the case of Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon Aquino’s Libel Case. not curtailment of a right. is unfortunate enough. which came to be known as “Maguindanao Massacre”. So the SC thought that compliance with regulations. RULING: 22 . Note that there was a transfer of venue. to attend or monitor the proceedings as those of the impleaded parties or trial participants. GMA Network. the SC concluded that live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant’s right to due process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice. Martinez. Claudio. It cannot be gainsaid that the families of the 57 victims and of the 197 accused have as much interest.
Sia. the dovetailing of corroborative testimonies is material. except during the period of recess called by the trial court and during portions of the proceedings wherein the public is ordered excluded. Martin. (ii) minimize the unnecessary ingress or egress of technicians. if not wireless technology. Raso. upon motion. open and public trial. prospective witnesses from the courtroom. there are unresolved identification issues or there are issues which involve the security of the witnesses and the integrity of their testimony (e.inter alia. Mendoza. and where the trial court excludes. Signal lights or signs showing the equipment is operating should not be visible. (g) To avoid overriding or superimposing the audio output from the on‐going proceedings. No media entity shall be allowed to broadcast the proceedings without an application duly approved by the trial court. Venzuela right itself commands that a reasonable number of the general public be allowed to witness the proceeding as it takes place inside the courtroom. Claudio. The camera equipment should not produce or beam any distracting sound or light rays. The Public Information Office and the Office of the Court Administrator shall coordinate and assist the trial court on the physical set‐up of the camera and equipment. (c) A single fixed compact camera shall be installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom to provide a single wide‐angle full‐view of the sala of the trial court. (f) To provide a faithful and complete broadcast of the proceedings. minority of the witness). must be unobtrusively located in places indicated by the trial court. Antonio. Arriola. (b) Media entities must file with the trial court a letter of application. exclusive access by the media entities to the real‐time audio‐visual recording should be protected or encrypted.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. the media entities shall access the audio‐visual recording either via wireless technology accessible even from outside the court premises or from one common web broadcasting platform from which streaming can be accessed or derived to feed the images and sounds. No selective or partial coverage shall be allowed. (d) The transmittal of the audio‐visual recording from inside the courtroom to the media entities shall be conducted in such a way that the least physical disturbance shall be ensured in keeping with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings and the exclusivity of the access to the media entities. and (iii) preclude undue commotion in case of technical glitches. to satisfy the imperative of a transparent. Martinez. Rosales. Technology tends to provide the only solution to break the inherent limitations of the courtroom. The camera and the necessary equipment shall be operated and controlled only by a duly designated official or employee of the Supreme Court. The hardware for establishing an interconnection or link with the camera equipment monitoring the proceedings shall be for the account of the media entities. No panning and zooming shall be allowed to avoid unduly highlighting or downplaying incidents in the proceedings. 23 . with the consent of the parties. with an undertaking that they will faithfully comply with the guidelines and regulations and cover the entire remaining proceedings until promulgation of judgment. the SC lays down the following guidelines toward addressing the concerns mentioned in Aquino and Estrada: (a) An audio‐visual recording of the Maguindanao massacre cases may be made both for documentary purposes and for transmittal to live radio and television broadcasting. Escueta. 21 of Rule 119 of the Rules of  Court applies. except brief annotations of scenes depicted therein as may be necessary to explain them at the start or at the end of the scene.g. (e) The broadcasting of the proceedings for a particular day must be continuous and in its entirety. or both. Dizon. no commercial break or any other gap shall be allowed until the day’s proceedings are adjourned. The trial court may. Dialino. Imperial. order only the pixelization of the image of the witness or mute the audio output. If the premises outside the courtroom lack space for the set‐up of the media entities’ facilities. which should employ technology that can (i) avoid the cumbersome snaking cables inside the courtroom.. manifesting that they intend to broadcast the audio‐visual recording of the proceedings and that they have the necessary technological equipment and technical plan to carry out the same. the proceedings shall be broadcast without any voice‐ overs. In so allowing pro hac vice the live broadcasting by radio and television of the Maguindanao Massacre cases. Any commentary shall observe the sub judice rule and be subject to the contempt power of the court. At all times. excepting such portions thereof where Sec. Bernardo. A limited number of microphones and the least installation of wiring. in instances where. Cajucom.
Indeed. Rosales. prohibition on recording devices such as still cameras.REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III Alcisso. except brief footages and still images derived from or cartographic sketches of scenes based on the recording. which shall likewise observe the sub judice rule and be subject to the contempt power of the court. and allowable number of media practitioners inside the courtroom) shall be observed in addition to these guidelines. Dizon. Martin. Raso. Arriola.e.. and administrative matters referred to it by the Court concerning the live broadcast of the proceedings pro hac vice. availability and affordability of the latest technology that would meet the herein requirements. Venzuela (h) No repeat airing of the audio‐visual recording shall be allowed until after the finality of judgment. Escueta. only for news purposes. tape recorders. (k) The Court shall create a special committee which shall forthwith study. 24 . (j) The audio‐visual recording of the proceedings shall be made under the supervision and control of the trial court which may issue supplementary directives. Imperial. including the suspension or revocation of the grant of application by the media entities. Bernardo. It is the use and regulation thereof that need fine‐tuning. Mendoza. the SC cannot gloss over what advances technology has to offer in distilling the abstract discussion of key constitutional precepts into the workable context. Cajucom. Sia. Martinez. Law and technology can work to the advantage and furtherance of the various rights herein involved. Technology per se has always been neutral. design and recommend appropriate arrangements. Antonio. implementing regulations. Dialino. as the exigency requires. within the contours of defined guidelines. (l) All other present directives in the conduct of the proceedings of the trial court (i. Claudio. (i) The original audio‐recording shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for preservation and exhibition in accordance with law. It may conduct consultations with resource persons and experts in the field of information and communication technology. in accordance with the above‐outlined guidelines. The Special Committee shall also report and recommend on the feasibility.

References: In fine
 v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.