Carillo, Mark Vincent V.

Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 1

Trenas v. People, 664 SCRA 355

FACTS: Margarita wanted to buy a house-and-lot. Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000 to Hector who

issued a corresponding receipt and prepared a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Hector gave

Elizabeth receipts however, when she consulted with the BIR, she was informed that the receipts were

fake. Hector admitted to her that the receipts were fake and that he used the P120,000.00 for his other

transactions. To settle his accounts, appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a check but the same

was dishonored for the reason that the account was closed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction.

RULING: No. The overarching consideration in this case is the principle that, in criminal cases, venue is

jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed

outside its limited territory. In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the offense was

committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the offense was committed

within the jurisdiction of the court. In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the offense of estafa

under Section 1, paragraph (b) of Article 315 of the RPC was committed within the jurisdiction of the

RTC of Makati City. There is nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution that points

to where the offense, or any of its elements, was committed. Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a

criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise. That

jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority that organized the court and is given only by law in

the manner and form prescribed by law. There being no showing that the offense was committed within

Makati, the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case.
Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 2

Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298

Facts: Eleven (11) persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng, an organized crime

syndicate, were killed by the elements of Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG).

Said group was composed of several police units including the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission

Task Force Habagat (PACC-TFH) headed by herein petitioner. Consequently, a police from the Central

Investigation Command (CIC), another unit belonging to ABRITG, stated that what transpired between

the ABRITG and the gang members was a summary execution. This led to the investigation of the

incident, finding that said encounter was a legitimate police operation. However, the review board

modified the findings and recommended for the indictment for multiple murder against all of the

respondents of the case, including herein petitioner. Information for murder were filed against the same

before the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman then filed an amended information to the

Sandiganbayan, charging herein petitioner only as an accessory. The petitioner then moved to question

the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, contending that since the amended information only charged him

as an accessory, his case would thereby fall within the Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

HELD: Yes. Sandiganbayan has the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide the case. The

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan also covers the felonies committed by public officials and employees

in relation to their office. Since herein petitioner was charged with murder, what determines the

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is the official position or rank of the offender that is, whether he is one

of those officers enumerated in the law.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 3

People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442

Facts: In July 1976, a CRIMINAL INFORMATION was filed with the City Court of Roxas City, charging

private respondent Libertad Lagon with the crime of ESTAFA under paragraph 2 (d) of article 315 of the

RPC which perpetrated in April 1975. The information charged that the accused had allegedly issued a

check in the amount of 4,232.80 pesos as payment for goods or merchandise purchased, knowingly that

she did not have sufficient funds to cover the check, which check therefore subsequently bounced.The

city court dismissed the information upon the ground that the penalty prescribed by law for the offense

charged was beyond the court’s authority to impose. The judge held that the authority of the court to try

a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, and not by

the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime. At the time of the commission of the

cime in April 1975, jurisdiction over the offense was vested by law in the city court. However, by the

time the criminal information was filed, paragraph 2 (d) of art. 315 of the RPC had already been

amended and the penalty imposable upon a person accused thereunder increased, which penalty was

beyond the city court’s authority to impose. Accordingly, the court dismissed the information

without prejudice to it being refiled in the proper court.

Issue: 1.WON the city court of Roxas has jurisdiction over the case.2. WON the application of the above-

settled doctrine to the instant case would result in also applying Presidential Decree No. 818 to the

present case, in disregard of the rules against retroactivity of penal laws.

Ruling: 1.Court jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of the institution of the action.

Therefore, the City Court has no jurisdiction over the case.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 4

Asistio v. People, G.R. No. 200465, (20 April 2015)

Facts: Jocelyn Asistio y Consino was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative

Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. [RA] 6938).

Issue: Whether or not RTC’s dismissal would warrant double jeopardy?

Held: No. The requisites that must be present for double jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint or

information; (b) a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the

accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express

consent of the accused. Definitely, there is no double jeopardy in this case as the dismissal was

with the accused-appellee's consent, that is, by moving for the dismissal of the case through a demurrer

to evidence. As correctly argued by the People, where the dismissal was ordered upon or with

express assent of the accused, he is deemed to have waived his protection against doubly jeopardy. In

this case at bar, the dismissal was granted upon motion of petitioners. Double jeopardy, thus, did not

attach.
Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 5

Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059 (22 January 2008)

Facts: Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-

Cebu. She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year

term. Hannah Serana with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and Exchange

Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). The renovation of Vinzons

Hall Annex failed to materialize.. As a student regent, she was not a public officer since she merely

represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their positions in annex officio

capacity.The OMB opposed the motion. According to the Ombudsman, petitioner, despite her

protestations, I was a public officer. As a member of the BOR, she has the general powers of

administration and exercises the corporate powers of UP.The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion

for lack of merit.

Issues: Whether or not, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Serana as she contended that she was not a

public officer.

Ruling: It is P.D. No.1606, as amended, rather than R.A. No. 3019, as amended that determines the

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which is determined by Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019 (The Anti-

Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended). Section 4 (B) of P.D. No.1606 states that “Other offenses

of felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and
Carillo,
employeesMark Vincent V.
mentioned in subsection of this section in relation to their office.” Saturday (9:00 tois12:00)
The jurisdiction subject

to these requirements: The offense is committed by public officials and employees as stated in P.D. No.

1606. The offense is committed in relation to their office.

Case # 6

Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA

FACTS: Petitioner Jose S. Ramiscal Jr. was a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),

with the rank of Brigadier General when he served as President of the AFP-Retirement and Separation

Benefits System (AFP-RSBS).The AFP-RSBS was established in December 1973 to established in a

separate fund to guarantee continuous financial support to the AFP military retirement system as

provided for in Republic Act No. 340. AFP-RSBS is a government-owned or controlled

corporation (GOCC) and its funds are in the nature of public funds.

ISSUE: Whether or not that the resolution of the Sandiganbayan is inter locutoryin nature and not final.

RULING: The assailed resolution of Sandiganbayan is interlocutory in nature. The word inter locutory

refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some

point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy. The Court distinguished a final order

or resolution from an interlocutory one in Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals as

follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibraryA final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case,

leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 7

Escobal v. Garchitorena, 422 SCRA

FACTS: Petitioner is a graduate of PMA, member of AFP, Philippine Constabulary and Intelligence

Group of PNP. While petitioner is conducting surveillance operations on drug trafficking in a restaurant

located in Naga City he was involved in a shooting incident resulting to the death of one Rodney Rafael

Nueca, an information was filed in Naga City for murder. The PNP Chief wrote Judge David Naval

requesting information whether he will issued an order lifting the suspension. The court did not answer

that prompted petitioner to file motion but the RTC denied. He filed instead Motion to Dismiss citing

the case of Philippines V. Asuncion since he committed the crime in the performance of his duty, the

Sandigan Bayan has the exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE: Whether Sandigan Bayan presiding judge erred in remanding the case to RTC2.Whether the

Sandigan Bayan or the RTC has jurisdiction over petitioner’s case

Carillo,
RULING: Mark
TheVincent V. presiding judge acted in accordance with law and ruling
respondent Saturday (9:00Court
of this to 12:00)
when

he ordered the remand of the case to the RTC, the court of origin.The jurisdiction of the court over

criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the information of the complaint and the statue in

effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless such statues provides for a retroactive

application thereof. The jurisdictional requirements must be alleged in the Information. Such

jurisdiction of the court acquired at the inception of the case continues until the case is terminated.

Case # 8

People v. Henry T. Go (25 March 2014)

Facts:

1. The late Arturo Enrile who was then secretary of DOTC, committed the offense in re: his office and

took advantage of the same when he entered into a contract with the accused, Henry Go (Chairman and

President of the Philippine International Air Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO).

2. Henry’s contention was that he was a private individual and Arturo passed away hence the court has

lack of jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private person who has conspired with a

deceased public official with a salary grade of 27.

Ruling: The Court ruled in the negative.

Ratio: At the outset, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy

with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under
Carillo,
Section 3Mark Vincent
of R.A. V. consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law
3019, in Saturday (9:00certain
to repress to 12:00)
acts

of public officers and private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead

thereto.

The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the

public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the

present case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone.

The death of one of two or more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of the survivor or

survivors

Case # 9

Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA

Facts: Maj. General Garcia was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership, J6, of the Armed Forces of

the Philippines. Petitioner (wife) contends that the Sandiganbayan (SB) is not conferred jurisdiction over

the "civil action" for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under R.A. No. 1379, maintaining that

such jurisdiction actually resides in the Regional Trial Courts. He posits that the Sandiganbayan, under

P.D. No. 1606 or the law creating it, was intended principally as a criminal court, with no jurisdiction

over separate civil actions. Petitioner points to President Corazon C. Aquino’s issuances after the EDSA

Revolution, namely: (1) E.O. No. 1 creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)

for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth amassed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his family and cronies,

(2) E.O. No. 14 which amended P.D. No. 1606 and R.A. No. 1379 by transferring to the Sandiganbayan
Carillo, Mark
jurisdiction Vincent
over V.
civil actions Saturday
filed against President Marcos, his family and cronies (9:00ontoR.A.
based 12:00)
No.

1379, the Civil Code and other existing laws, and (3) E.O. No. 14-A which further amended E.O. No. 14,

P.D. No. 1606 and R.A. No. 1379 by providing that the civil action under R.A. No. 1379 which may be

filed against President Marcos, his family and cronies, may proceed independently of the criminal action.

Issue: Whether the SB has jurisdiction.

Ruling: The Court held in the positive.

In the face of the prevailing jurisprudence and the present state of statutory law on the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan, petitioner’s argument—that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the petition for

forfeiture it being "civil" in nature and the Sandiganbayan allegedly having no jurisdiction over civil

actions—collapses completely.

Case # 10

People v. Benipayo, 586 SCRA

Facts: Respondent Benipayo, then Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), delivered a

speech held at the Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, Quezon City.

Petitioner corporation, believing that it was the one alluded to by the respondent when he stated in

his speech that: “Now, they are at it again, trying to hoodwink us into contract that is so grossly

disadvantageous to the government that it offends common sense to say that it would be worth the 6.5

billion-peso price tag.” filed, through its authorized representative, an Affidavit-Complaint for libel.

Petitioner corporation, through its authorized representative, an Affidavit-Complaint for libel. Arguing
Carillo,
that he Mark Vincent
was an V.
impeachable officer, respondent questioned the jurisdiction Saturday (9:00of
of the Office to the
12:00)
City

Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP-QC).

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling: The court held in the positive.

Ratio: we must, in the same way, declare herein that the law, as it still stands at present, dictates that

criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously or

separately with the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts.

Case # 11

Sanchez v. Demetrio, 227 SCRA

Facts: 1. The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of appropriate charges against

several persons, including the petitioner, in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and

the killing of Allan Gomez.

2. The panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice conducted a preliminary investigation on

August 9, 1993. Petitioner Sanchez was not present but was represented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano

Brion, Jr.
Carillo, Mark Vincentthat
3. At a confrontation V. same day, Sanchez was positively identified by Aurelio
Saturday (9:00and
Centeno, to 12:00)
SPO III

Vivencio Malabanan, who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal in the rape-slay of

Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. The petitioner was then placed on "arrest status" and taken to the

Department of Justice.

Issue: Whether the court had jurisdiction over his person.

Ruling: The Court held in the positive.

Ratio: Even on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial court still lawfully

acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The rule is that if the accused objects to the

jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to quash the information, but only on that ground.

If, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived

that objection and to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of that court.

Case # 12

De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781

FACTS: The Senate and the House of Representative conducted several inquiries on the proliferation of

dangerous drugs syndicate at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits in

support of their testimonies. Three informations were filed against petitioner De Lima and several co-

accused before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. The petitioner filed a petition

challenging the respondent judge of Muntinlupa RTC’s issuance of an arrest warrant against her in the
Carillo,
criminalMark
case ofVincent V. trading filed by the Government following the conclusion
illegal drug Saturdayof (9:00 to 12:00)
the Preliminary

Investigation conducted by the Department of Justice. The petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan (SB)

has the exclusive jurisdiction to try and hear the case against her based on the charges made on the

information, considering that the acts described in the information has an intimate connection to her

position as the Secretary of Justice.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to hear drug related cases even the accused

occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher?

HELD: The Supreme Court (SC) answered in negative. The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations

of RA 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified

as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. In

this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to exclusively try and hear cases

involving violations of RA 9165. This is an exception, couched in the special law on dangerous drugs, to

the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660. The SC further states that the

Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction to hear drugrelated cases. Even Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree

(PD) No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 10660, touted by the petitioner and the dissents as

a catch-all provision, does not operate to strip the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) of its exclusive original

jurisdiction over violations of RA No. 9165.

Case # 13

Duncano v. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)

Facts: 1. Duncano is, at the time material to the case, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal

Revenue (BIR) with Salary Grade 26 as classified under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758.

2. The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Office of the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against him

for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713.

Carillo, Mark
3. Quoting Vincent
Inding, V.
petitioner Saturday
filed a Motion to Dismiss With Prayer to Defer the (9:00
Issuance to 12:00) of
of Warrant

Arrest before respondent Sandiganbayan Second Division. As the OSP alleged, he admitted that he is a

Regional Director with Salary Grade 26

Issue: Whether the SB had jurisdiction.

Ruling: The court ruled in the negative.

Ratio: The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No.

3019, as amended, unless committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of regional

director and higher with Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the Compensation and Position

Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office.

Case # 14

Innocentes v. People, 796 SCRA (2016)

Facts:

1. Inoncentes and his group are all public officers working in the Government Service Insurance System.

2. Allegedly, they transgressed RA 3019, for conferring housing loans to unqualified individuals.
Carillo, Markthat
3. He prayed Vincent V.
the information Saturday
be quashed because it was outside the jurisdiction (9:00
of the SB. to 12:00)

Issue: Whether the SB has jurisdiction over public employees with a salary grade less than 27.

Ruling: The Court held in the positive.

Ratio: On the issue on jurisdiction, it is of no moment that Inocentes does not occupy a position with a

salary grade of 27 since he was the branch manager of the GSIS’ field office in Tarlac City, a government-

owned or –controlled corporation, at the time of the commission of the offense, which position falls

within the coverage of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.

The applicable law provides that violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed by presidents, directors or

trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations, and state universities shall be

within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandganbayan. We have clarified the provision of law

defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by explaining that the Sandiganbayan maintains its

jurisdiction over those officials specifically enumerated in (a) to (g) of Section 4(1) of P.D. No. 1606, as

amended, regardless of their salary grades.

Case # 15

Crisostomo v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 152398 (14 April 2005)

Carillo,
Facts: 1.Mark Vincentallegedly
Crisostomo V. purchased bakery products from respondent Saturday
De Guzman(9:00with
to 12:00)
a total

value of P1,262,121.00, and left an unpaid balance of P277,121.00. De Guzman promised to pay

respondent in June 2003 but failed to do so despite several demands.

2. Petitioner claimed that since the complaint before the second adjustment in jurisdictional amount

allegedly took effect on April 12, 2004, the MTCC should dismiss the same for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Thereafter, the MTCC issued an Order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. The MTCC observed

that petitioner was actually assailing the correctness and validity of OCA Circular Nos. 21-99 and 65-

2004 fixing the effectivity dates of the increase in jurisdictional amount of first, level courts. It held that it

had no authority "to alter, modify or declare as invalid the Circulars issued by the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the MTCC has jurisdiction.

Ruling: The Court held in the affirmative.

Ratio: As correctly observed by the RTC, the MTCC merely followed the effectivity dates fixed by the

OCA for the increase in the jurisdictional amounts and applied the OCA circulars in determining that it

in fact had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by respondent. The MTCC did not evade any positive

duty or refuse to perform an act enjoined by law when it refused to dismiss Civil Case No. 3706. On the

contrary, it acted in accordance with law and in compliance with the OCA directive

Case # 16
Carillo, Mark Vincent V. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146646-49 (11 MarchSaturday
Esteban 2005) (9:00 to 12:00)

Facts: Ana May alleged that she was a casual employee of the City Government of Cabanatuan City.

Sometime in February 1997, she was detailed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch

Cabanatuan City, upon incessant request of Presiding Judge Reogelio Esteban. After her detail with

Branch 1, the item of bookbinder became vacant. Thus, she applied for the position but petitioner did not

take any action on her application. On July 25, 1997, when she approached Esteban in his chambers to

follow up her application, he told her, "Ano naman ang magiging kapalit ng pagpirma ko rito? Mula

ngayon, girlfriend na kita. Araw-araw papasok ka dito sa opisina ko, at araw-araw, isang halik." ("What

can you offer me in exchange for my signature? From now on, you are my girlfriend. You will enter this

office everyday and everyday, I get one kiss.") Ana May refused to accede to his proposal as she

considered him like her own father. Petitioner contends that the alleged acts of lasciviousness were not

committed in relation to his office as a judge; and the fact that he is a public official is not an essential

element of the crimes charged.

Issue: Whether SB has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling: The Court ruled in the affirmative.

Ratio: Offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if the offense is "intimately

connected" with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official

functions. This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be

alleged in the Information. This is in accordance with the rule that the factor that characterizes the charge

is the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information. Hence, where the information is wanting

in specific factual averments to show the intimate relationship/connection between the offense charged

and the discharge of official functions, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the case. The

jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Case # 17 Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

People v. Talaue, 968 SCRA 425, 12 January 2021

FACTS: Talaue and his co-accused, Guiyab and Galasinao, were charged with violating Section 52 (g) in

relation to Section 6 (b) of Republic Act No. 8291 (R.A. No. 8291) by the GSIS. For failing to remit the

total amount of P22,436,546.10, including interests.

ISSUE: Is Talaue guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 52(g) in relation to Sec. 6(b) of R.A.

No. 8291?

RULING: Yes. As Municipal Mayor of Sto. Tomas, Isabela, Talaue is the head of office of the

municipality and responsible for the prompt and timely payment and/or remittance of premium

contributions due to GSIS. Section 52 (g) of the GSIS Act of 1997 penalizes heads of offices who fail,

refuse, or delay the payment, turnover, remittance, or delivery of accounts to GSIS within 30 days from

the time the same became due and demandable.

Congress purposely included heads of offices in the list of those liable to create a sense of urgency and

deter them from passing the blame to their subordinates. Their liability is construed as a waiver of the

State’s immunity from suit. As Municipal Mayor, Talaue’s responsibility under the GSIS Act of 1997 is

imposed upon him by other laws, including Section 444 (a) of the Local Government Code of 1991, which

commands him to ensure that all executive officials and employees of the municipality faithfully

discharge their duties and functions as provided by law.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 18

Bonifacio et al., vs RTC Makati Br. 149, 620 SCRA

Facts: Jessie John Gimenez (Gimenez) filed in behalf of Yuchenco Family of Yuchenco Group of

Companies (YGC) and Malayan Insurance Co., (Malayan), a criminal complain for 13 counts of libel

under Art. 355 in relation to Art. 353 of the RPC against the members of Paents Enabling Parents

Coalition Inc (PEPCI), a group of discontented planholders of Pacific Plans, Inc (PPI), for they previously

purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable to collect thereon or avail of the

benefits of such after PPI, due to liquidity concerns, filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer of

suspension of payments.

Issue: How should an online article be treated in relation to a written defamation/libel with respect to

jurisdiction of the case provided by law specifically Art. 360 of the RPC?

Ruling: Art. 360 of the RPC provides: “Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or

exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. The

criminal action and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations, as provided for in this

chapter shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the RTC of the province or city where the

libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the

time of the commission of the offense.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 19

Disini Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, 716 SCRA (18 February 2014)

Facts: 1. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Cyber Crime Prevention as it infringes the people’s

right to free speech.

Issue: Whether the trial court has jurisdiction.

Ruling: The Court ruled in the affirmative.

Ratio: The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless

of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the

Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country,

or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the

offense was committed, was in the Philippines

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 20

Jimenez v. Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151

Facts:

The petitioner who was then president of Unlad Shipping & Management Corporation, a local manning

agency, filed a case for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment against Tsakos Maritime Services,

Inc. (TMSI) in the Regional Trial Court. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. The

petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal in the RTC which the latter denied on the basis that the petitioner

filed it without the conformity of the Solicitor General, who is mandated to represent the People of the

Philippines in criminal actions.

Issue:

Whether or not the case would prosper without the conformity of the Solicitor General.

Held:

No. According to the Supreme Court, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the

real party in interest, who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party

entitled to the avails of the suit. Procedural law basically mandates that "all criminal actions commenced

by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public

prosecutor. In this case, the petitioner has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case

since the main issue raised by the petitioner involved the criminal aspect of the case. The petitioner did

not appeal to protect his alleged pecuniary interest as an offended party of the crime, but to cause the
Carillo, Mark of
reinstatement Vincent V.
the criminal action against the respondents. This involves theSaturday (9:00 to 12:00)
right to prosecute which

pertains exclusively to the People, as represented by the OSG.

Case # 21

People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272

Facts:

Two accused were tried for three counts of murder: Edwin Valdez and Eduardo Valdez. The RTC

convicted them as charged. The two accused then came to the SC on final appeal, but on May 9, 2007,

Edwin Valdez filed a motion to withdraw appeal, which the Court granted.

On January 18, 2012, the Court promulgated its judgment on the appeal of Eduardo Valdez, finding him

guilty of three counts of homicide, instead of three counts of murder. Edwin Valdez sent to the Court

Administrator a self-explanatory letter, where he pleaded for the application to him of the judgment

promulgated on January 18, 2012 on the ground that the judgment would be beneficial to him as an

accused. The SC granted the request of Edwin Valdez.

Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court rightfully granted the request of Edwin Valdez and thus he is

only guilty of homicide and not murder.

Held: Yes, the grant of the request is valid and Edwin Valdez is only guilty of three counts of homicide.

According to the Supreme Court, it is unavoidable for the Court to pronounce guilty of three homicides,

instead of three murders, on account of the information not sufficiently alleging the attendance of

treachery. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a

person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court

to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and
Carillo, Mark the
clearly allege Vincent V. of the crime charged. Every element of the offense
elements Saturday (9:00
must be to 12:00)
stated in the

information.

Case # 22

Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA 560

Facts: Vice Mayor Lucido and other officials were charged with violation of RA 3019. The Information

filed against them states the following wordings: and as such while in the performance of his official

functions, committing the offense in relation to his office, taking advantage of his official position,

conspiring and confederating with the private [individuals] xxx acting with evident bad faith and

manifest partiality, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits

and advantages. The petitioner contends that the Information is invalid. He alleges that the phrases

"evident bad faith" and "manifest partiality" actually refers not to him, but to his co-accused, rendering

the information fatally defective.

Issue: Whether or not the Information is valid

Held: Yes, the Information is valid. The Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "acting with evident bad

faith and manifest partiality" was merely a continuation of the prior allegation of the acts of the

petitioner, and that he ultimately acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in giving

unwarranted benefits and advantages to his co-accused private individuals. This is what a plain and

non-legalistic reading of the information would yield. The petitioner actually disputes is simply the

clarity of the phrase’s position, in relation with the other averments in the information. Given the

supposed ambiguity of the subject being qualified by the phrase "acting with evident bad faith and
Carillo,
manifestMark Vincent
partiality," theV.remedy of the petitioner, if at all, is merely to move for
Saturday
a bill of (9:00 to 12:00)
particulars and

not for the quashal of an information which sufficiently alleges the elements of the offense charged.

Case # 23

People v. Soria, 685 SCRA 483

Facts: Accused, who is the father of private complainant "AAA", was charged of the crime of rape. The

Information states that the accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with force

and intimidation commit an act of sexual assault upon the person of one "AAA", a minor, 7 years of age,

by then and there inserting his penis into the genital of said complainant, all against her will and

consent, which act debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of said "AAA", as a

human being. However, in the Information filed, there was no proof attached on the age of the private

complainant at the time the crime was committed. Nevertheless, the RTC convicted the accused for the

crime charged and was sentence with the maximum penalty of death.

Issue: WON the RTC rightfully convicted the accused

Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty should only be Reclusion Temporal because

minority in this rape case was only considered as aggravating circumstance and not qualifying because

of the failure to describe minority in the Information. It is settled that when either one of the qualifying

circumstances is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the

evidence, may be considered only as an aggravating circumstance. to suffer the supreme penalty of

DEATH and to indemnify the offended party the amount of P75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the
Carillo,
amount Mark Vincent and
of P50,000.00, V. the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages toSaturday (9:00fathers
deter other to 12:00)
with

perverse proclivities for aberrant sexual behavior for sexually abusing their own daughters. is sentenced

to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prison mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion

temporal, as maximum. He is also ordered to pay "AAA" the amounts of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity,

P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. "AAA" is entitled to an interest on

all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until

fully paid.

Case # 24

Corpus Jr. v. Pamular, 879 SCRA 187, 5 September 2018

Facts: An information for murder was filed against Carlito Lapitan for causing the death of Espinosa.

Upon arraignment, he admitted the killing but pleaded self-defense. Based on Lozano’s affidavit, Mayor

Corpuz was the one who instructed Samonte to kill Angelito. The public prosecutor found probable

cause to indict Corpus for Angelito’s murder. He filed a Motion to Amend the Information before the

Regional Trial Court. Judge Pamular, the trial court judge, granted the motion, and directed the issuance

of warrant of arrest against Corpus. Corpus alleged that the warrant of arrest was made in utter

disregard of the constitutional mandate which directs judges to personally conduct an independent

examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce.

Judge Pamular, in his Comment, said that sufficient copies of supporting documents and evidence were

read and evaluated upon which, independent judgment as to the existence of probable cause was based.

Issue: Whether or not it was erroneous for Judge Pamular to rely on the documents and affidavits

gathered by the prosecutor in determining that there was probable cause sufficient to charge Corpus

with the crime of murder.

Carillo,
Ruling: Mark Vincent
No. The V. Court held that when a judge convinces himself or herself
Supreme Saturdayon(9:00 to 12:00) of
the presence

probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, the issuing judge is not required to personally examine the

complainant and his witnesses. Otherwise, judges would be unduly burdened with the preliminary

examination and investigation of complaints. However, recent developments, such as the Judicial

Affidavit Rule, have already prevented the evil sought to be prevented in the Soliven case. As provided

under Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, judicial affidavits shall take the place of witnesses’ direct

testimonies. The use of judicial affidavits was approved by the Supreme Court in order to minimize the

time required for completing the testimonies of witnesses in litigated cases.

Case # 25

Union Bank v. People

Facts: Desi Tomas was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court-Makati City for perjury under

Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for making a false narration in a Certificate against Forum

Shopping. Tomas filed a Motion to Quash. She argued that the venue was improperly laid since it is

the Pasay City Court (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted and

used) and not the Metropolitan Trial Court-Makati City (where the Certificate against Forum

Shopping was subscribed)that has jurisdiction over the perjury case. MeTC-Makati denied the Motion to

Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since the Certificate against Forum Shopping was

notarized in Makati City. The petitioner’s petition for certiorari before the RTC-Makati was

also denied hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not MeTC Makati has jurisdiction over the case

Ruling: Yes. The Court held that the MeTC-Makati City is the proper venue and proper court to take

cognizance of the perjury case against the petitioners. Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal
Carillo,
ProcedureMark Vincent
provides V. subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted
that Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)
and tried in the

court or municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential

ingredients occurred. Section 10 also provides that the complaint or information is sufficient if it can be

understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients

occurred at someplace within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it was

committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is necessary for its identification.

The venue of criminal cases is not only in the place where the offense was committed, but also where any

of its essential ingredients took place. The petition was denied for lack of merit.

Case # 26

Solidum v. People, 718 SCRA 263

FACTS: Dr. Fernando Solidum (Dr. Solidum) has been pronounced guilty of reckless imprudence

resulting in serious physical injuries by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA).

He had been part of the team of anesthesiologists during the surgical pull-through operation conducted

on a three-year old patient born with an imperforate anus. Gerald Albert Gercayo (Gerald) was born on

June 2, 1992 with an imperforate anus who went into a coma during the operation. He regained

consciousness only after a month. He could no longer see, hear or move. Upon a finding of probable

cause, the City Prosecutor’s Office filed an information solely against Dr. Solidum. The case was initially

filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, but was transferred to the RTC pursuant to Section 5 of

Republic Act No. 8369 (The Family Courts Act of 1997). On July 19, 2004, the RTC rendered its judgment

finding Dr. Solidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical

injuries. On January 20, 2010, the CA affirmed the conviction of Dr. Solidum.
Carillo,
ISSUE(S):Mark Vincent
whether V. Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence? Wether
or not Saturday (9:00
or not to Solidum
Dr. 12:00)

was civilly liable ?

RATIO:

Issue 1: No. Dr. Solidum was criminally charged for "failing to monitor and regulate properly the levels

of anesthesia administered to said Gerald Albert Gercayo.

Issue 2: No. We have to clarify that the acquittal of Dr. Solidum would not immediately exempt him

from civil liability. But we cannot now find and declare him civilly liable because the circumstances that

have been established here do not present the factual and legal bases for validly doing so. His acquittal

did not derive only from reasonable doubt. There was really no firm and competent showing how the

injury to Gerard had been caused.

Case # 27

Castillo v. Salvador, G.R. No. 191240 (30 July 2014)

Facts: Respondent was accused of committing the crime of Estafa filed by the Petitioner. The RTC of Las

Pinas found the respondent guilty of the said crime. Respondent appealed his conviction to the CA. The

CA rendered its Decision reversing the decision of the RTC and acquitting the respondent. Petitioner

files the instant petition on the civil aspect of the case alleging that the trial court was correct in

convicting the respondent so that even if the court of appeals decided to acquit him it should have at

least retained the award of damages to the petitioner.

Issue: Whether the accused is still civilly liable after his acquittal in the criminal action

Held: No, our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the

accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission

complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not
Carillo, Mark Vincent
the perpetrator V. or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such
of any act Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)
act or omission. There

being no delict, civil liability ex delictois out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be

instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation

contemplated in Rule III of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable

doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily

established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence

only. This is the situation contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil action for

damages is “for the same act or omission.

Case # 28

Dy v. People, 800 SCRA 39

Facts: Dy, former general manager of MCCI, was charged with estafa by the company through its

president Mandy. This is due to Dy’s alleged failure to pay for the company’s loan to ICBC, resulting to

the bank’s foreclosure on the company’s mortgaged properties. The RTC held that prosecution failed to

prove the elements of estafa in this case. The lower courts (RTC & CA) further held that a contract of

loan was executed between Mandy and Dy, thus Dy is not liable of estafa. Despite the acquittal, the

lower courts still held Dy to be civilly liable for the total amount of checks (~P21 million) disbursed to

her

by Mandy.
Carillo, Markpetitioner
Issue: WON Vincent V. Saturday
should still be civilly liable for the crime of estafa when (9:00
she has to 12:00)
already been

acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of estafa?

Held: The SC held that when the acquittal is due to the absence of the crime committed, the civil action

deemed instituted with the criminal case cannot prosper because there is no delict from which any civil

obligation may be sourced. In this case, despite the findings of the lower courts, the SC held that there

was no crime of estafa proven. Dy’s liability of around P21 million arises from her contractual obligation

(loan) to Mandy, which should be instituted in a separate civil action as to not violate Dy’s constitutional

right to due process. Petition GRANTED.

Case # 29

Wong v. Benny H. Wong, et al., G.R. No. 237159, September 29, 2021

FACTS: Benny Wong, Estelita Wong, Arsenio Chua, Sonny Chua, and Wong Yan Tak are shareholders

of Morning Star, a travel and tours agency, and members of the board of directors International Air

Transport Association (IATA) isa Canadian corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines IATA

appointed Morning Star as an accredited travel agent. IATA and Morning Star come in into a passenger’s

sales agency agreement in which Morning Star is tasked to report all air transport ticket sales to IATA.

Morning Star accrued over Php 100m and USD 457k of debt from IATA which was paid for by Pioneer
Carillo,
InsuranceMark Vincent
– the surety V. Saturday
company of Morning Star. Pioneer Insurance, filed a case for a(9:00
sumtoof12:00)
money

against Morning Start and its shareholders

ISSUE: respondents are liable while CA absolved the individual respondents and only held Morning

Star liable for the debt.

RULINGS: Pioneer’s argues that they included the individual respondents because they, as shareholders

and members of the board of directors, were grossly negligent and were in bad faith when they handled

Morning Star (massive debt was caused by their gross

negligence and bad faith) Stated in Section 31 of the Corporation Code Individual respondents argued

that: The shareholders are separate and distinct from the corporation, hence they cannot be sued.

As a general rule, a corporation has a separate and distinct personality from those who represent it. Its

officers are solitarily liable only when exceptional circumstances exist, such as cases enumerated in

Section 31 of the Corporation Code. The liability of the officers must be proven by evidence sufficient to

overcome the burden of proof borne by the plaintiff.

Case # 30

Lim v. Kou Co Ping, 679 SCRA 114

Facts: The FR Cement Corporation (FRCC), issued several withdrawal authorities which state the

number of bags paid for which can be withdrawn from the plant. Lim withdrew on a staggered basis.

Sometime, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remaining 37,200 bags covered by the withdrawal

authorities. Lim sought legal recourse after her demands for Co to resolve the problem with the plant or

for the return of her money had failed. An Information for Estafa was filed against Co in Pasig RTC. The
Carillo, Mark
trial court Vincent
acquitted CoV.
both for criminal and civil liability of the case. Lim filedSaturday (9:00
a notice of to 12:00)
appeal on the

civil aspect of the criminal case. During the pendency of the appeal, Lim filed a civil complaint for

specific performance and damages in Manila RTC against Co on the ground of breach of contract. Co

argues that Lim is guilty of forum shopping because she is asserting only one cause of action in the

appeal from the civil aspect of the criminal case of estafa and the civil action on specific performance and

damages.

Issue: Whether or not Lim committed forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific performance

and damages during the pendency of her appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case for estafa

Held: No. The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, it having been instituted together with the

criminal action. On the other hand, the second action is a civil action arising from a contractual

obligation and for tortious conduct (abuse of rights). According to the Supreme Court, a single act or

omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the

part of the offender: (1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal; and (2)

independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal

proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on "an obligation not arising from the act or

omission complained of as a felony as provided in Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of

contract or for tort.

Case # 31

Casupanan v. Laroya, 388 SCRA 28

FACTS: Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Laroya and the other owned by petitioner Capitulo and

driven by petitioner Casupanan, figured in an accident. This prompted the filing of two cases before the
Carillo,
MCTC of Mark Vincent
Capas Tarlac:V.1st – a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting
Saturday (9:00totoproperty
to damage 12:00)

filed by respondent against Casapunan; 2nd – a civil case arising from a quasi-delict filed by the

petitioners against the respondent. The civil case was filed pending preliminary investigation on the

criminal case. Respondent as defendant in the civil case filed a motion to dismiss on ground of forum

shopping due pendency of the criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion for dismissal on basis of

forum shopping. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that a separate civil action

may be instituted separately and independently from the criminal case. MCTC denied the motion.

Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition for Certiorari before Capas RTC to assail MCTC’s Order, however

the RTC dismissed the same for lack of merit. Hence, a petition for Review on Certiorari before the

Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file,

simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the private

complainant in the criminal case.

HELD: YES. The right of the accused to file a separate civil action for quasi-delict is akin to the right of

the offended party to file an independent civil action pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 111. Under the said

rule, the independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is not deemed

instituted with the criminal action but may be filed separately by the offended party even without

reservation.

Case # 32
Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Samson, 808 SCRA 90 Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Facts: On July 26, 2000, upon application of the NBI, the RTC, issued Search Warrants Nos. 00-022 to

00-032, inclusive, all for unfair competition,9 to search the establishments owned, controlled

and operated by Samson. The implementation of the search warrants on July 27, 2000 led to

the seizure of various products bearing Caterpillar's Core Marks. Caterpillar filed against Samson

several criminal complaints for unfair competition in the Department of Justice (DOJ). On July 31, 2000,

Caterpillar commenced a civil action against Samson and his business entities, with the IPO as a

nominal party10 -for Unfair Competition, Damages and Cancellation of Trademark with Application

for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction -docketed as Civil Case

No. Q-00-41446 of the RTC in Quezon City.

Issue: If there is a prejudicial question between the civil action in the IPO for unfair competition

and the criminal cases filed in the RTC.

Ruling: No. Regarding the second issue, petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that there was

a prejudicial question. In his petition, he prayed for the reversal of the March 26, 2003 order

which sustained the denial of his motion to suspend arraignment and other proceedings in Criminal

Case Nos. Q-02-108043-44. For unknown reasons, however, he made no discussion in support of said

prayer in his petition and reply to comment. Neither did he attach a copy of the complaint in Civil Case

No. Q-00-41446 nor quote the pertinent portion thereof to prove the existence of a prejudicial question.At

any rate, there is no prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to

law, proceed independently of each other.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Case # 33 Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

People v. Romero, 306 SCRA 90

Facts: Ernesto A. Ruiz was a radio commentator of Radio DXRB, Butuan City. In August, 1989, he came

to know the business of Surigao San Andres Industrial Development Corporation (SAIDECOR), when he

interviewed Martin Romero, president and general manager, and Ernesto Rodriguez, operations

manager, regarding the corporation’s investment operations in Butuan City and Agusan del Norte.

SAIDECOR started its operation on August 24, 1989 as a marketing business. Later, it engaged in

soliciting funds and investments from the public. The corporation guaranteed an 800% return on

investment within fifteen (15) or twenty one (21) days. Investors were given coupons containing the

capital and the return on the capital collectible on the date agreed upon. It stopped operations in

September 1989. Ruiz made an investment in SAIDECOR, after paying P150,000 to Rodriguez.

Information against the two (2) accused for estafa and another Information for violation of BP Blg 22,

arising from the issuance of the same check. During the pendency of the appeal, on November 12, 1997,

Ernesto died.

Issue: Whether the death of the accused extinguishes his/her civil liability.

Ruling: Yes, the death of the accused, prior to final judgment or pending appeal, extinguishes his/her

civil liability. Pursuant to the doctrine established in People vs. Bayotas , the death of the accused

pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability ex delicto.

The criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused,

the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,

grounded as it is on the criminal case. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding

the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict.

Thus, the outcome of this appeal pertains only to the remaining accused-appellant, Martin L. Romero.
Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 34

Magistrado v. People, 527 SCRA 125

FACTS: Private respondent Elena Librojo filed a criminal complaint of against accused Francisco

Magestrado before the Office of the Prosecutor of Quezon City. Thereafter the prosecutor recommended

the filing of the complaint against accused. An information was filed against the accused for

perjury before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. A verification was again signed

and sworn into by the accused before the notary public. However, the contents of the same affidavit,

already known to the accused, are false. It was later found out that the property subject of the TCT was

mortgaged to respondent Librojo as collateral fora loan. As a result, respondent suffered damages

and prejudice due to the deliberate assertion of falsehoods by the accused. Subsequently,

petitioner-accused Magestrado filed a motion to suspend the proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial

question. Petitioner alleged that the two civil cases (for recovery of sum of money and for cancellation of

mortgage) were pending before the RTC of Quezon City, and that they must be resolved first before the

present criminal case. The RTC of Quezon City denied the motion. Hence this petition.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the two civil cases (for Recovery of Sum of Money and for Cancellation of

Mortgage)constitutes a prejudicial question that would warrant a suspension of the criminal case of

perjury.

RULING: No, a prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a

logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another

tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction

to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a

fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt

or innocence of the accused.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 35

Pimentel v. Pimentel, 630 SCRA 436

Facts: Petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the

ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. Petitioner asserted that since the relationship between

the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide. The RTC Quezon City issued an Order...

holding that the pendency of the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a prejudicial question that warrants

the suspension of the criminal case before it. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. RTC Quezon

City denied the motion. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with application for a writ of preliminary

injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals Court of Appeals dismissed

the petition.

Issues: whether the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question that

warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner.

Ruling: Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the elements of Prejudicial

Question. The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code is

whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The

issue in parricide is whether the accused killed the... victim. In this case, since petitioner was charged

with frustrated parricide, the issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution which would have

killed respondent as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes

independent of petitioner's will.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 36

J.M. Dominguez v. Liclican, G.R. No. 208587 (29 July 2015)

Facts: During the annual stockholders meeting of petitioner JM Dominguez Agronomic Company, Inc.

(JMD) held on December 29, 2007 at the Baguio City Country Club, the election for its new set of

directors was conducted. This event was presided by then company president, and herein respondent,

Cecilia Liclican, and attended by her co-respondents Norma Isip and Purita Rodriguez, and by

petitioners Helen Dagdagan, Patrick Pacis, Kenneth Pacis, and Shirley Dominguez as well. Conflict

ensued when petitioners Patrick and Kenneth Pacis were allegedly not allowed to vote on the ground

that they are not registered stockholders of JMD. As pointed out, it was their mother and grandmother,

both deceased, who are the stockholders in JMD, and that there is still no settlement of their respective

estates to effectively transfer their shares in the company to Patrick and Kenneth Pacis.

Issue: Whether there exists a prejudicial question that could affect the criminal proceedings for qualified

theft against respondents. (i) whether Civil Case No. 6623-R constituted a prejudicial question

warranting the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 29175-R and 29176-R.

Held: The resolution of the prejudicial question did not, in context, cure the grave abuse of discretion

already committed. The fact remains that when the RTC, Branch 7 issued its challenged Orders on March

10, 2009, the Judgment in favor of petitioners was not yet rendered. Consequently, there was still, at that

time, a real dispute as to who the rightful set of officers were. Plainly, Judge Tiongson-Tabora should not

have issued the challenged Orders and should have, instead, suspended the proceedings until Civil Case

No. 6623-R was resolved with finality.

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 37

Alsons Devt & Investment Corp. v. Heirs of Romeo D. Confessor, 19 September 2018

Facts: It was alleged that petitioner's rights in IFPMA No. 21 can be traced from Ordinary Pasture Permit

(OPP) No. 1475 issued to Magno Mateo (Mateo) by the Bureau of Forestry on June 23, 1953 over a

pasture land. On June 28, 1960, Mateo assigned his rights and interests over the covered property to

Tuason Enterprises, Inc., thus, Pasture Lease Agreement (PLA) No. 61 was cancelled and PLANo. 1715

dated December 13, 1960 was issued. On March 24, 1964, Tuason Enterprises Inc. transferred its

leasehold rights to petitioner, thus, PLANo. 1715 was cancelled and PLA No. 2476 was issued. On June

26, 1992, petitioner and the DENR entered into Industrial Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) No. 21

for a period of 25 years.

Issues: whether or not the civil case for annulment of title and reversion before the RTC constitutes a

prejudicial question which would operate as a bar to the action for the cancellation of IFPMA No. 21

Ruling: We find merit in the instant petition. Generally, a prejudicial question comes into play only in a

situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an

issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed because the

resolution of the civil action is determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in

the criminal case. This, however, is not an ironclad rule. It is imperative that We consider the rationale

behind the principle of prejudicial question, i.e., to avoid two conflicting decisions.
Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 38

People v. Camenforte, G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Saturday (9:00 to 12:00)

Case # 39

Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr., 677 SCRA 113

Facts: The MeTC dismissed the criminal case filed by respondent Bernardo Vergara, Jr. for falsification of

public documents against petitioners Rosa H. Fenequito, et. al., upon motion of the petitioners based on

lack of probable cause. With the express conformity of the public prosecutor, the respondents appealed

the dismissal to the RTC. The RTC set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the MeTC

for trial. Petitioners questioned the order of the RTC by Petition for Review before the CA which was

dismissed for being improper because the order of the RTC is interlocutory in nature and therefore not

appealable. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution, hence,

the instant petition.

Issue:

Whether respondent can appeal the dismissal made by the MeTC to the RTC.

Held:

Yes. Petitioners' reliance on Presidential Decree No. 911 is misplaced, as the cited provision refers only to

cases where the assistant fiscal or state prosecutor's power to file information or dismiss a case is

predicated or conditioned upon the prior authority or approval of the Provincial or city fiscal or the

Chief State Prosecutor. There is nothing in the said law, which provides that in cases of appeal, an

Assistant City Prosecutor or a State Prosecutor may file the same only upon prior authority or approval
Carillo, Mark
of the City Vincent V.or the Chief State Prosecutor. In other words, unless
Prosecutor Saturday (9:00ordered,
otherwise to 12:00)an

Assistant City Prosecutor or a State Prosecutor may file an appeal with the RTC, questioning the

dismissal by the MeTC of a case for lack of probable cause, even without prior authority or approval of

the City Prosecutor or the Chief State Prosecutor.

Case # 40

Burgundy Realty Corporation v. Reyes, 687 SCRA 524

FACTS: Reyes offered a service to be the real estate agent. Petitioner agreed and give 23M. Reyes filed a

case again Mateo. Petitioner filed a case against Reyes for Estafa. April 27 After a preliminary

investigation was conducted against Reyes, the Assistant Prosecutor of Makati City issued a Resolution

(indicted of estafa). June 1 petition for review before the DOH was dismissed. July 20 motion for

reconsideration by Reyes was granted. Sept 22 DOJ reversed June 1 decision. Dec 14 petitioner filed a

motion for reconsideration but was denied.

ISSUE: Was the dismissal of the DOJ proper?

RULINGS: No. In reversing the finding of probable cause that the crime of estafa has been committed,

the Secretary of Justice reasoned out that, [the] theory of conversion or misappropriation is difficult to

sustain and that under the crime of estafa with grave abuse of confidence, the presumption is that the

thing has been devoted to a purpose or is different from that for which it was intended but did not take

place in this case. The CA, in sustaining the questioned resolutions of the Secretary of Justice, ruled that

the element of misappropriation or conversion is wanting. It further ratiocinated that the demand for the

return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it, are circumstantial
Carillo,
evidenceMark Vincent V.
of misappropriation, Saturday
however, the said presumption is rebuttable and (9:00 tois12:00)
if the accused able to

satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the thing delivered in trust, he may not be held liable for

estafa.

Case # 41

Abanado v. Bayona, 677 SCRA 595

FACTS: The case sprang from a criminal case entitled People of the Philippines vs. Cresencio Palo, Sr. It

was initially handled by Investigating Prosecutor Dennis Jarder who found no probable cause against

Palo. However, complainant, upon review, found that there was a probable cause against Palo. Thus,

complainant disapproved Jarder’s Resolution and filed the Information in court. In connection with the

issuance of a warrant of arrest against accused Palo, respondent Judge Bayona issued an order directing

complainant Abanado to present (1) a copy of the Memorandum of Preliminary Investigation, (2)

Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor Dennis Jarder, (3) Memorandum of the transfer of case

assignment from designated Investigating Prosecutor to the City Prosecutor, and (4) Exhibit to the Court,

to enable his court to evaluate and determine the existence of probable cause. With respect to item 3,

complainant explained in a letter that there was no memorandum of transfer of the case from

Investigating Prosecutor Jarder to him.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conduct of a preliminary investigation is an executive function

Carillo, MarkThe
HELD: Yes. Vincent V. of a preliminary investigation is primarily an executive
conduct Saturday (9:00 toThus,
function. 12:00)the

courts must consider the rules of procedure of the Department of Justice in conducting preliminary

investigations whenever the actions of a public prosecutor is put in question. The Department of Justice-

National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS)Manual states that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor

should be attached to the information only as far as practicable. Such attachment is not mandatory or

required under the rules.

Case # 42

Heirs of Nestor Tria v. Obias, 635 SCRA 91

Case # 43

Uy v. Javellana, 680 SCRA 13

Case # 44

People v. Valencia, 214 SCRA 89

Case # 45

PCGG v. Navarro-Gutierrez, 773 SCRA

Case # 46

De Lima v. Reyes, 779 SCRA