9th batch digests

8/17/2019 9th Batch Digests

1/26


2/26

+n res&ondent Cojuangco:s case, records s*o) t*at t*e last pleading filed prior to t*eOmbudsmans Resolution dated June ", 1@ !as respondents +otion to Suspend Filing ofCounter&(ffidavit, )*ic* )as filed in 11. ,et!een 11 and 1@* respondent did nothingto assert his right to a speedy disposition of his case . C)#(R)'* 3S S)#%C# DR%SC3 4#ROD (+O%7S 7O ( ;($#R OF SC3 R37.

Moreo/er, respondents right to a speedy disposition of his case should not !or8 against andpreclude the peoples eAually important right to public 2ustice considering t*at t*e fundsused to acAuire the 16 mot*4balled oil mills came from t*e coconut levy funds, )*ic* are notonly affected !ith public interest, but are, in act, prima facie public funds.

HERE;ORE, t*e irst and second Motions or Reconsideration iled b &ri/ate res&ondent

Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., and t*e motion or reconsideration o &etitioner Re&ublic o t*e9*ili&&ines are *ereb .

". 4#O4)# v. AN-ON+O O7(DOR(, E- A=., deendants. H+=AR+A CARREON, a&&ellant.G.R. No. =4"1$2 A&ril "!, 1$#Section 1@ Right against self&incrimination ? Scope

Facts: +n August 12? in t*e C;+ o =ete, (ntonio Otadora and 3ilaria Carreon )erecharged !ith t*e murder of t*e spouses )eon Castro and (polonia Carreon. Otadora &leaded guilt and confessed in an e"tra&2udicial statement !herein he implicated 3ilariaCarreon asserting that* !ith offers of pecuniary gain* the latter had induced him to committhe crime. Moti/e or t*e instigation )as t*e grudge she bore against t*e deceased spouse onaccount of DS47#S O$#R %3#R7#D 4RO4#R7'.

Earl in t*e morning o June 1!, 12?, =eon Castro and *is )ie A&olonia Carreon )ere shotdead in their house in t*e Cit o Ormoc, =ete. +n t*e aternoon o June "1, Otadora )asarrested in Ormoc Cit )*ile &re&aring to esca&e.

A complaint for double murder )as iled against bot* deendants. -*e e/idence &resented on be*al o t*e 9eo&le &ro/ed t*at%

'1( (4O)O%( )as t*e sister of 3ilaria. Due to a family Auarrel* (polonia filed in 1B6* aCR+%() CO+4)(%7 FOR S#ROS 73R#(7S ((%S7 3)(R( and herhusband ;rancisco Galos. -*ese )ere arrested and had to file a bond. -*e case )as later!ithdra!n by (polonia u&on t*e ad/ice o riendl mediators.

+n


3/26

*ouse. -*e &ro&osal )as rene)ed6 better conditions being oered. '1 of 41-*--- pluscarabaos* plus 4--.( He must *a/e demurred alleging that he had no adeAuate !eapon ,3ilaria is re&orted to *a/e engaged to supply it.

'3( Around t*e irst )ee8 o June 12?, Hilaria ga/e Otadera t*e re/ol/er6 but t*e re/ol/er

turned out to be deecti/e so *e *anded it bac8 to Hilaria. -*e latter ordered it re&aired anddeli/ered to Otadora, advising him at the same time to carry out soon their plan so that )eonCastro may not attend the hearing of the civil case . A&&ellant also gave Otadora t*e bolo, apair of trousers of her husband Francisco alos, a hat and a flashlight.

'2( Otadora set out to do *is &art in t*e morning o June 1!6 but A&olonia )as not in *er

residence. He re&orted to a&&ellant t*e net da and t*e latter urged *im to eecute it t*at da,

gi/ing *im 9!.$# or trans&ortation. -*at nig*t, at about one o@cloc8, Antonio climbed u& t*e*ouse o t*e Castros, &assing t*roug* t*e )indo). He sa) t*em slee&ing side b side. He o&ened

t*e door to t*e 8itc*en to &re&are *is eit. Returning to t*e &lace )*ere t*e cou&le la, *e

stumbled on =eon Castro, )*o eclaimed, B)*o are ouB. Otadora re&lied, B+ amB B+ don@t *a/e

an &ur&ose ece&t ou, get u& and ig*t.B As Castro )as about to stand u&, Otadora ired.A&olonia )as a)a8ened, and embraced *er *usband )*o meantime *ad allen. Otadora s*ot *er

too. -*e cou&le died immediatel o s*oc8 and *emorr*age.

'$( Ater committing t*e murders, Otadora returned to barrio Matica4a intending to go to

Hilaria:s *ome6 but as *e )as nearing t*e 8itc*en, ;rancisco Galos signalled *im to go a)a.Otadora )ent to *is *ome. On June "#, *e received !ord from 3ilaria that he !as !anted bythe police* and that he should decamp. -*e net morning, *e &assed b t*e residence oHilaria, and t*e latter gave him 4E, plus t!o pac8ages of cigarettes, adding t*at *e s*ould notattem&t to /isit *er urt*er, because s*e )as being )atc*ed. -*e net da, s*e again sent him4BE t*roug* Amando Garbo, )*o deli/ered t*e mone at t*e bac8 o t*e *ouse o Menes -a*urin Canangca4an. Ater recei/ing t*e mone, Otadora &re&ared to esca&e to Camotes +slands. 0ut

*e )as caug*t beore *e could run a)a.(

'Hilaria denied connection )it* t*e assassination. -*e deense submitted t*e ollo)ing t*eor%

(ntonio Otadora planned a revenge upon Castro because the latter as a spy caused thedeath of his father ergio Otadora at the hands of the apanese. He, *o)e/er, ound *imselin t*e necessit o eliminating A&olonia Carreon because t*e latter )as a )itness to *is deed. On

t*e ot*er *and, (ntonio Otadora also desire to ta8e revenge upon 3ilaria because the latter*during the apanese occupation* saved )eon Castro from death at the hands of theguerrillas.

-*e assertions o Otadora are decisi/el ratiied b 0enigno 0altonado )*o s)ore t*at it )as

Hilaria )*o *ad &urc*ased t*e murderous gun rom *im or 9$$, and )*o ordered *im to i it6

t*at on t*e t*ird da *e returned t*e gun to *er in *er *ome )it* rounds o ammunition6 and t*atOtadora )as t*ere on t*at occasion.(

;urt*er corroboration o Hilaria:s criminal connection )it* t*e blood aair is t*e undis&utedpossession by Otadora of the pants of Francisco alos and his hat. +t a&&ears t*at !hen

9re&ared b% ara* Rose -. Ganto 3


4/26

Francisco alos denied o!nership of the pants he !as ordered to put it on 6 and t*e judgeound t*at it itted *im &erectl. -*is incident ga/e t*e deense o&&ortunit or argument t*at t*econstitutional protection against self&incrimination had been erroneously disregarded .

ssue: *et*er or not t*e right against self&incrimination had been violated

3eld: %o. +t is to be doubted )*et*er t*e accused could beneit rom t*e error, i an.;urt*ermore, and t*is is conclusive, +#(SR% OR 43O7OR(43% 73# 4(R7'S %O7 ;73% 73# 4R$)## ((%S7 S#)F&%CR+%(7O%. %or is theremoval or replacement of his garments or shoes. %or is the reAuirement that the partymove his body to enable the foregoing things to be done .

+n conclusion, )e are ull satisied rom a reading o t*e )*ole e&ediente t*at t*e a&&ellantinduced Antonio Otadora to commit t*e double murder, and urnis*ed *im )it* t*e deadl

irearm. *e is just as guilt as i s*e *ersel *ad &er&etrated t*e murderous assaults.

. 4ascual* r. v. ,oard of +edical #"aminersG.R. No. =4"$#1D Ma "!, 1!Section 1@ Right against self&incrimination ? 4roceedings !here available

Facts: Arsenio 9ascual, Jr. iled on ;ebruar 1, 1!$ )it* t*e C;+ o Manila an action forprohibition !ith prayer for preliminary in2unction against t*e res&ondent 0oard o MedicalEaminers. +t )as alleged t*erein t*at at the initial hearing of an administrative case foralleged immorality* counsel for complainants announced that he !ould present as his first!itness herein petitioner* !ho !as the respondent in such malpractice charge . 9etitioner,t*roug* counsel, made *is ob2ection* relying on the constitutional right to be e"empt frombeing a !itness against himself . -*e ,oard of #"aminers* too8 note of such plea , at t*e sametime stating that at the ne"t scheduled hearing* petitioner !ould be called upon to testify assuc* )itness, unless in the meantime he could secure a restraining order rom a com&etentaut*orit.

9etitioner t*en alleged t*at in t*us ruling to com&el *im to ta8e t*e )itness stand, t*e ,oard of#"aminers !as guilty* at the very least* of grave abuse of discretion for failure to respectthe constitutional right against self&incrimination, t*e (D+%S7R(7$# 4ROC##D%((%S7 3+, )*ic* could result in forfeiture or loss of a privilege, ,#% G(S&CR+%() % C3(R(C7#R .

it* *is assertion t*at *e )as entitled to t*e relie demanded consisting o &er&etuallrestraining t*e res&ondent 0oard rom com&elling *im to testi as )itness or *is ad/ersar and

*is readiness or *is )illingness to &ut a bond, *e prayed for a !rit of preliminary in2unction and after a hearing or trial, or a !rit of prohibition.

-*e lo!er court ordered that a !rit of preliminary in2unction issue against t*e res&ondent0oard commanding it to rerain rom *earing or urt*er &roceeding )it* suc* an administrati/e

case, to a)ait t*e judicial dis&osition o t*e matter u&on &etitioner.

9re&ared b% ara* Rose -. Ganto 2


5/26

-*e respondent ,oard stressed t*at it could call &etitioner to t*e )itness stand and interrogate*im, t*e right against self&incrimination being ($()(,)# O%)' ;3#% ( G#S7O%C())% FOR (% %CR+%(7% (%S;#R S (SH#D OF ( ;7%#SS . +t urt*erstated t*at 4#77O%#RS R#+#D' S 7O O,#C7 O%C# 3# S % 73# ;7%#SS

S7(%D.

-*ere )as a motion or inter/ention b al/ador Gatbonton and Enriueta Gatbonton, t*e

com&lainants in t*e administrati/e case or mal&ractice against &etitioner. uc* a motion )asgranted and an ans)er in inter/ention )as dul iled b t*em sustaining the po!er ofrespondent ,oard* !hich for them is limited to compelling the !itness to ta8e the stand , tobe distinguished from the po!er to compel a !itness to incriminate himself . -*e li8e)isealleged t*at t*e right against self&incrimination cannot be availed of in an administrativehearing.

A decision )as rendered b t*e lo!er court finding t*e claim of petitioner to be !ell&founded

and prohibiting respondent ,oard Ifrom compelling t*e petitioner to act and testify as a!itness for the complainant in said in/estigation !ithout his consent and against himself .BHence t*is a&&eal.

ssue: *et*er or not a medical practitioner charged !ith malpractice in an administrativecase can avail of the constitutional guarantee not to be a !itness against himself

3eld: 'es. e reiterate t*e &rinci&le announced in C(,() $. H(4%(% )*ere it )as *eldt*at a respondent in an administrative proceeding under the (nti&raft )a! cannot bereAuired to ta8e the !itness stand at the instance of the complainant. F&on &etitioner:sreusal to be s)orn as suc* )itness, a c*arge or contem&t )as iled against *im in t*e sala o

res&ondent Judge. e ound or t*e &etitioner in accordance )it* t*e )ell4settled &rinci&le t*at

t*e (CCS#D % ( CR+%() C(S# +(' R#FS#* %O7 O%)' 7O (%S;#R%CR+%(7OR' G#S7O%S* ,7* ()SO* 7O 7(H# 73# ;7%#SS S7(%D.

+t )as noted t*at !hile the matter referred to an administrative charge of une"plained!ealth, )it* t*e (nti&raft (ct authoriJing t*e forfeiture o !hatever property a publicofficer or employee may acAuire* manifestly out proportion to his salary and *is ot*er la)ulincome, there is clearly the imposition of a penalty. 7he 4ROC##D% FORFORF#7R# ;3)# (D+%S7R(7$# % C3(R(C7#R 73S 4OSS#SS#S (CR+%() OR 4#%() (S4#C7. -*e case beore us is similar6 petitioner !ould besimilarly disadvantaged. He could suffer t*e R#$OC(7O% OF 3S )C#%S# (S (+#DC() 4R(C77O%#R .

-*e a&&eal a&&arentl &roceeds on t*e mista8en assumption that the constitutional guaranteeagainst sel4incrimination s*ould be limited to allo!ing a !itness to ob2ect to Auestions theans!ers to !hich could lead to a penal liability being subseuentl incurred. +t is true t*at oneas&ect o suc* a rig*t is t*e &rotection against 5an disclosures )*ic* t*e )itness ma

reasonabl a&&re*end could be used in a criminal &rosecution or )*ic* could lead to ot*er

e/idence t*at mig*t be so used.7

9re&ared b% ara* Rose -. Ganto $


6/26

-*e constitutional guarantee protects as !ell the R37 7O S)#%C# . -*e accused *as a &erect rig*t to remain silent and *is silence cannot be used as a &resum&tion o *is guilt. inC*a/e /. CA, )e reairmed t*e doctrine t*at it is the right of a defendant to FOR#O7#S7+O%', to R#+(% S)#%7, unless he chooses to ta8e the !itness stand !ith

undiluted* unfettered e"ercise of his o!n free genuine !ill.

'-*e constitutional guarantee, along )it* ot*er rig*ts granted an accused, stands or a belie t*at

)*ile crime s*ould not go un&unis*ed and t*at t*e trut* must be re/ealed, such desirableob2ectives should not be accomplished according to means or methods offensive to the highsense of respect accorded the human personality.

+t is li8e)ise o interest to note t*at )*ile earlier decisions stressed t*e &rinci&le o *umanit on)*ic* t*is rig*t is &redicated, current 2udicial opinion places eAual emphasis on itsidentification !ith the right to privacy. -*us according to ustice Douglas% 5-*e Fifth(mendment in its Self&ncrimination clause enables the citiJen to create a Jone of privacy

!hich government may not force to surrender to his detriment.7(

-*e broad* all&embracing s!eep of the self&incrimination clause* !henever appropriatelyinvo8ed* has been accorded due recognition by this Court e/er since t*e ado&tion o t*eConstitution. ,#R+D#K $. C(S7))O )as uite categorical. As )e t*ere stated% Bn orderthat the constitutional provision under consideration may prove to be a real protection andnot a dead letter, it must be given a ),#R() and ,RO(D %7#R4R#7(7O%F($OR(,)# 7O 73# 4#RSO% %$OH% 7.B As &*rased b Justice =aurel in *isconcurring o&inion% B7he provision, as doubtless it )as designed, !ould be construed !ith t*eutmost liberality in favor of the right of the individual intended to be served .B

e *old t*at in an administrati/e *earing against a medical &ractitioner or alleged mal&ractice,

res&ondent 0oard o Medical Eaminers cannot, consistentl )it* t*e sel4incrimination clause,com&el t*e &erson &roceeded against to ta8e t*e )itness stand )it*out *is consent.

HERE;ORE, t*e decision o t*e lo)er court o August ", 1!$ is airmed.

B. ChaveJ v. C(G.R. No. =4"1! August 1, 1!Dection 1? Rig*t against sel4incrimination I #ffect of denial of privilege by Court

Facts: -*e t*rust o &etitioner@s case &resented in *is original and su&&lementar &etitionsin/o8ing jurisdiction o t*is Court is t*at he is entitled, on *abeas cor&us, to be freed fromimprisonment upon the ground that in the trial !hich resulted in his conviction he !asdenied his constitutional right not to be compelled to testify against himself .

-*e indictment in t*e court belo) u&on )*ic* t*e judgment o con/iction *erein c*allenged )as

rendered, )as or Aualified theft of a motor vehicle, one 7hunderbird car, toget*er )it* itsaccessories )ort* 9"","##.

9re&ared b% ara* Rose -. Ganto !


7/26

A/erred in t*e aoresaid inormation )as t*at on or about t*e 12t* da o No/ember, 1!", in

ueon Cit, t*e accused cons&ired, )it* intent o gain, abuse o conidence and )it*out t*e

consent o t*e o)ner t*ereo,


8/26

A e) das beore No/ember 1", 1!", Roger C*a/e sa) Jo*nson =ee, a C*inese, dri/ing a

-*underbird car. it* Ricardo umilang 'mo/ie actor Romeo asue( in mind, )*om *e 8ne))as in t*e mar8et or suc* a car, C*a/e as8ed =ee )*et*er *is car )as or sale. =ee ans)ered

airmati/el and let *is address )it* C*a/e. -*en, C*a/e met umilang at a barbers*o& and

inormed *im about t*e -*underbird. 0ut umilang said t*at *e *ad c*anged *is mind about buing a ne) car. +nstead, *e told C*a/e t*at *e )anted to mortgage *is 0uic8 car or 91#,###

to co/er an indebtedness in 9asa Cit. F&on t*e suggestion o C*a/e, t*e )ent to see =uis

Asistio, )*o *e 8ne) )as lending mone on car mortgages and )*o, on one occasion, alreadlent Romeo asue 93,### on t*e same 0uic8 car. (sistio *o)e/er told t*e t)o t*at *e *ad a better idea on *o) to raise t*e mone. His plan )as to capitaliJe on Romeo $asAueJreputation as a !ealthy movie star, introduce him as a buyer to someone !ho !as selling acar and, after the deed of sale is signed* by tric8ery run a!ay !ith the car. Asistio )ouldt*en register it, sell it to a t*ird &erson or a &roit. ChaveJ 8no!n to be a car agent !asincluded in the plan. He furnished the name of ohnson )ee !ho !as selling his7hunderbird.

+n t*e morning o No/ember 12, ChaveJ telephoned ohnson )ee and arranged for anappointment. C*a/e and umilang met =ee in *is -*underbird on Hig*)a $2. Sumilang !asintroduced as the interested buyer. umilang:s dri/er ins&ected t*e car, too8 t*e )*eel or a)*ile. (fter Sumilang and )ee agreed on the purchase price


9/26

3eld: 'es. 7he court may not e"tract from a defendants o!n lips and against his !ill anadmission of his guilt. %or may a court resort to compulsory disclosure, directl orindirectl, of facts usable against him as a confession of the crime or t*e tendenc o )*ic* isto &ro/e t*e commission o a crime. 0ecause, 7 S 3S R37 7O FOR#O7#S7+O%'* 7O R#+(% S)#%7* %)#SS 3# C3OOS#S 7O 7(H# 73#

;7%#SS S7(%D !ith undiluted* unfettered e"ercise of his o!n free* genuine !ill.


10/26

E. JOENC+O )+ and -ERE+-A =+M v. 4#O4)#G.R. No. 12"?! e&tember "?, "##"Section 1 Cruel* degrading or inhuman punishment

-*e constitutionality of 4.D. 010, a decree !hich amended (rticle 1E of the R4C by

increasing t*e penalties for estafa committed by means of bouncing chec8s , is beingc*allenged in t*is &etition or certiorari, or being violative of t*e due &rocess clause, t*e rig*t to bail and t*e provision against cruel* degrading or inhuman punishment ens*rined under t*eConstitution.

+n


11/26

severity in respect of its duration or amount, and (44)#S 7O 4%S3+#%7S ;3C3%#$#R #S7#D % (+#RC( or ;3C3 4,)C S#%7+#%7 R#(RDS (SCR#) OR O,SO)#7#. -*is reers, or instance, to those inflicted at the !hipping post orin the pillory, to burning at the sta8e, brea8ing on the !heel, disembo!eling and t*e li8e.73# F(C7 73(7 73# 4#%()7' S S#$#R# 4RO$D#S %SFFC#%7 ,(SS 7O

D#C)(R# ( )(; %CO%S777O%() (%D DO#S %O7* ,' 73(7CRC+S7(%C# ()O%#* +(H# 7 CR#) (%D %3+(%.

9etitioners also argue t*at )*ile 4.D. 010 increased t*e im&osable penalties for estafacommitted under (rticle 1E* par. / o t*e R9C, it did not increase the amountscorresponding to the said ne! penalties. -*us, t*e original amounts &ro/ided or in t*eRe/ised 9enal Code *a/e remained t*e same not)it*standing t*at t*e *a/e become negligible

and insigniicant com&ared to t*e &resent /alue o t*e &eso.

-*is argument is )it*out merit. Clearl, t*e increase in the penalty* far from being cruel anddegrading* !as motivated by a laudable purpose, namel, to eectuate t*e repression of an

evil that undermines the countrys commercial and economic gro!th, and to serve as anecessary precaution to deter people from issuing bouncing chec8s. -a8ing into account t*esalutar &ur&ose or )*ic* said la) )as decreed, 9.


12/26

-*e Cit 9rosecutor o Na/otas c*arged Ofelia (rceta )it* /iolating 0.9. 0lg. "" in an+normation, or issuing to Oscar Castro a c*ec8 in t*e amount o 4@B-*---, said accused )ell48no)ing t*at at t*e time o issue s*e did not *a/e suicient unds or credit )it* t*e dra)ee ban8or t*e &ament, )*ic* c*ec8 )*en &resented or &ament )as subseuentl dis*onored b t*e

dra)ee ban8 or reason Bdra!n against insufficient funds,B and des&ite recei&t o notice o

suc* dis*onor, t*e accused ailed to &a said &aee )it* t*e ace amount o said c*ec8 or toma8e arrangement or ull &ament t*ereo.

Arceta )as arraigned and &leaded Bnot guilt.B *e t*en iled t*e instant &etition.

". G.R. No. 1$31$1

-*e Oice o t*e Cit 9rosecutor o Caloocan iled a c*arge against Gloria .


13/26

of unconstitutionality of the act in Auestion should have been immediately raised in theproceedings % 73# COR7 ,#)O;. -*us, t*e petitioners should have moved to Auashthe separate indictments or to dismiss the cases in the trial courts on the ground ofunconstitutionality of ,.4. ,lg. //. 7a8ing into account the early stage of the trialproceedings belo!* the instant petitions are patently premature.

%or do !e find the constitutional Auestion raised to be the $#R' )S +O7( &resented int*e contro/ers belo). #very la! has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality , and to 2ustify its nullification* there must be a clear and uneAuivocal breach of the Constitution,and not one that is doubtful* speculative or argumentative .

4etitioners failed to persuade the Court that ,.4. ,lg. // transgressed a provision of theConstitution. E/en t*e t*esis o &etitioner


14/26

presentment or &ament. 9ri/ate com&lainants again demanded t*e return of their money butpetitioner could no longer be contacted.

)iJah Cimafranca filed a complaint for estafa against &etitioner )it* t*e Oice o t*e Cit9rosecutor o 4(S(' C7'. +t )as, *o)e/er, DS+SS#D on the ground that petitioners

obligation !as purely civil in nature and for complainants failure to attend the hearings.ubseuentl, )iJah Cimafranca* 2oined by Rolando Flores* R#&F)#D 73# CO+4)(%7C3(R% 73# S(+# OFF#%S# against &etitioner )it* t*e Oice o t*e Cit 9rosecutoro 4(S C7' )*ic* iled t*e corres&onding inormation in court, )*ic* is t*e root o t*e &resent &etition. '9asa t*en 9asig(

-*e trial court ound &etitioner guilty beond reasonable doubt o estaa. -*e CA airmed.

ssue: *et*er or not there is double 2eopardy

3eld: No. -*e dismissal of a similar complaint for estafa iled b =ia* Cimaranca before

the City 4rosecutors Office of 4(S(' City !ill not e"culpate t*e petitioner. -*e casecannot bar petitioners prosecution.

+t is settled t*at the DS+SS() OF ( C(S# DR% 7S 4R#)+%(R'%$#S7(7O% DO#S %O7 CO%S777# DO,)# #O4(RD' since a preliminaryinvestigation is not part of the trial and is not the occasion for the full and e"haustivedisplay of the parties evidence but only such as may engender a !ell&grounded belief thatan offense has been committed and accused is probably guilty thereof . ;or t*is reason, 7C(%%O7 ,# CO%SD#R#D #G$()#%7 7O ( DC() 4RO%O%C#+#%7 OF(CG77().

Hence, petitioner !as properly charged before t*e Oice o t*e Cit 9rosecutor o 4asig City !hich is not bound by the determination made by the 4asay City 4rosecutor )*o ma *a/e*ad beore *im a dierent or incom&lete set o e/idence t*an t*at subseuentl &resented beore

t*e 9asig Cit 9rosecutor.

+N +E HEREO;, t*e &etition is


15/26

+4RD#%C# or t*e resulting deat* o t*e /ictim !ould place the accused in double 2eopardy.

ssue: *et*er or not a person !ho has been prosecuted for S#ROS 43'SC()%R#S 73R R#CH)#SS +4RD#%C# and convicted thereof may be prosecuted

subseAuently for 3O+CD# 73R R#CH)#SS +4RD#%C# if the offended partydies as a result of the same in2uries he had suffered

3eld: 'es. +n +elo v. 4eople, t*e Court *eld t*at 5!here after the first prosecution a %#;F(C7 S4#R$#%#S FOR ;3C3 73# D#F#%D(%7 S R#S4O%S,)#* ;3C3C3(%#S 73# C3(R(C7#R OF 73# OFF#%S# and* together !ith the facts e"istingat a time* CO%S777#S ( %#; (%D DS7%C7 OFF#%S#* the (CCS#D C(%%O7,# S(D 7O ,# % S#CO%D #O4(RD' F %DC7#D FOR 73# S#CO%DOFF#%S#.M

Ho)e/er, t*e trial court *eld t*at t*e doctrine of +elo v. 4eople does %O7 apply in the case at

bar in vie! of the Courts ruling in 4#O4)# $. ,(%, that (rticle 6E of the 4enal Codepunishes t*e %#)#%7 S7(7# OF +%D and %O7 73# R#S)7% %R'. -*etrial court concluded t*at O%C# 4ROS#C7#D FOR (%D CO%$C7#D OF%#)#%C#* 73# (CCS#D C(%%O7 ((% ,# 4ROS#C7#D FOR 73#S(+# %#)#%C# ()73O3 FOR ( DFF#R#%7 R#S)7% %R'.

'ell4settled is t*e rule t*at one !ho has been charged !ith an offense cannot be chargedagain !ith the same or identical offense though the latter be lesser or greater than theformer.(

-*e victim


16/26

(rcelie said she hesitated because of the late hour . Ne/ert*eless, s*e finally consented, toaccommodate *er ailing sister4in4la). *e even donned a s8irt because t*e accused *ad as8edher not to !ear pants. (fter !al8ing for some three 8ilometers, she and the accusedstopped at a spot near the seashore !here there !ere many trees. -*ere she started to pic8

some herbs as indicated b -agle.

*ile s*e )as doing so, 7agle suddenly grabbed her arm and !arned her not to cry out .ensing *is intentions, s*e said, BDo not do this to me* +anong.B He pointed a 8nife at hernec8 to sto& *er resistance. Not satisied )it* t*e t*reat, *e bo"ed her in the abdomen andrendered her unconscious.

;hen she recovered* she found she had been deflo!ered. 3er e"posed vagina !as painfuland a !arm fluid !as ooJing from it. -agle !as standing before her* also na8ed from the!aist do!n. He *anded *er &ant )*ic* s*e &ut on. -*e t*en started to )al8 bac8 to *is *ouse.*e )as cring all t*e )a but sto&&ed )*en t*e reac*ed *is residence because *e *ad

threatened to 8ill her if she said anything about *er ra&e.

-*e com&lainant declared t*at s*e let earl t*e ollo)ing morning, and in t*e aternoon o t*esame da, told her brother about her rape. *e under)ent t)o medical eaminations. -*ere&ort t*ereon, issued on No/ember 1 $, 1D", reads as ollo)s%

7agles defense !as that he and (rcelie !ere in fact lovers. -agle testiied t*at *e met Arceliesometime in 1? and courted *er or t)o ears until s*e acce&ted *is lo/e on


17/26

A +t is healed laceration, our Honor.

;res*l *ealed

A %e!ly healed.

+n our o&inion, !hen !ere those lacerations inflicted

A +t can be one or t!o !ee8s before. + can@t sa, our Honor, one or t)o )ee8s beore.

>ou said,


18/26

1-. 4eople v. Honorable 0enjamin Relova, in *is ca&acit as 9residing Judge o t*e C;+ o0atangas, and Manuel O&ulencia

G.R. No. =42$1" Marc* !, 1D?

ection "1


19/26

Ordinance% '1( t*at there !as such an installation6 and '"( no authority t*ereor *ad beenobtained rom t*e u&erintendent o t*e 0atangas Cit Electrical stem or t*e


20/26

acts *a/e been +O$#D ,' O%# (%D 73# S(+#, OR ( CO%7%%* %7#%7 or/oluntar design or %#)#%C#, SC3 (C7S +(' ,# (44RO4R(7#)'C3(R(C7#RK#D (S (% %7#R() ;3O)# C(4(,)# OF $% RS# 7O4#%() )(,)7' S+)7(%#OS)' %D#R DFF#R#%7 )#()#%(C7+#%7S.

n the instant case* the relevant acts too8 place !ithin the same time frame: from%ovember 1@B to February 1@E.


21/26

ssue: *et*er or not 2eopardy has attached

3eld: %o. -*e allegation o double jeo&ard is )it*out merit. Double 2eopardy !ill attach if'a( a valid complaint or information 'b( is filed before a competent court or tribunal, and

'c( after the accused s*all have been arraigned and entered a plea, 'd( he is acAuitted orconvicted or t*e case is dismissed ;73O7 3S #4R#SS CO%S#%7.

-*e first three reAuisites are present in t*e case at bar but t*e fourth is not. t !as thepetitioner herself !ho moved to Auash the charges against her on the ground that the trialcourt had no 2urisdiction. -*e dismissal !as made not only !ith her e"press consent but4O% 3#R O;% +O7O%.

-*ere are onl t!o occasions !hen double 2eopardy !ill attach even if the motion to dismiss is made by the accused himself . -*e irst is !hen the ground is insufficiency of t*e evidenceo t*e &rosecution, and t*e second is )*en t*e proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged

in violation of the right to a speedy trial. None o t*ese ece&tions is &resent *ere.

'Conormabl to t*e &rocedural rules t*en in orce, t*e complaints and the records of thepreliminary investigation !ere transmitted to the trial court upon the filing of thecorresponding informations. Hence, although the charges !ere not initiated throughcomplaint of the offended party and t*e inormations did not state t*at t*e )ere based on *ercom&laint, such circumstances did not deprive the respondent court of 2urisdiction .'9ROCE


22/26

,efore the presentation of evidence, t*e private prosecutor filed an rgent +otion to(mend the Complaint to charge t*e oense o FRS7R(7#D +RD#R , contending thata perusal of the affidavits of the !itnesses or t*e &rosecution patently sho!s that in t*ecommission o t*e act com&lained o, t*e accused had the manifest intention to 8ill t*eoended &art. -*e +O7O% ;(S D#%#D.

-*e case &roceeded to trial. No decision on t*e merits )as rendered, *o)e/er, or in an Order t*e

Munici&al Court ruled as ollo)s%

*ile considering t*e e/idence o t*is case t*e court realiJed that the evidence on the in2uriessustained and the circumstances surrounding the infliction thereof over!helmingly point tothe conclusion that the intention of the assailant !as to inflict more than 2ust in2uries .

-*e &erson )*o inlicted t*e stab )ounds on Ernesto ando/al *ad e/identl not b accident but

b design, !al8ed !ith the victim from a certain point on Real treet up to some B-- meters t*ererom )*ic* is anot*er s&ot on a Auite unfreAuented side street6 t*at it )as in t*at s&ot

)*ere t*e victim !as stabbed four times, t)o o )*ic* *it t*e /ictim one on the abdominalregion and another B&enetrating and &erorating t*e &osterior abdominal )all cutting theterminal portion of the 1-th ribB6 t*at t*is )as at about @ in the evening* at !hich time itmust have been dar8 already6 t*at t*e /ictim )as alone, and t*at t*e attac8 )as sudden andtreac*erous.

+t *as also been s*o)n t*at t*e 8nife used measures about 6 inches in length6 t*at t*e /ictim)as not able to )al8 b *imsel ater *a/ing been stabbed but t*at *e *ad to be carried to t*e

*os&ital.

-*e lo!er court believes that the foregoing evidence !ould support &rima acie a complaintfor the crime of FRS7R(7#D +RD#R and &re/ents it rom rendering judgment in t*iscase. 73# C(S# S 73S DS+SS#D 7O $# ;(' 7O 73# F)% OF (CO+4)(%7 FOR FRS7R(7#D +RD#R .

+n com&liance, t*e 4rovincial Fiscal filed an nformation for Frustrated +urder against thesame accused.

-*e (CCS#D +O$#D 7O G(S3 73# %FOR+(7O% O% 73# RO%D OFDO,)# #O4(RD'. -*e +otion !as granted by respondent Court ruling t*at t*eaccused *ad been &laced in ull jeo&ard or t*e crime o erious 9*sical +njuries )*ic* )as

dismissed and other!ise terminated b t*e 9residing Judge after the accused had actuallybeen arraigned and after the evidence have all been submitted to the Court and at a time!hen the parties have submitted the case for decision . uc* being t*e case a ne!prosecution o t*e accused for Frustrated +urder !hich %#C#SS(R)' %C)D#S 73#CR+# OF S#ROS 43'SC() %R#S !ould inevitably place the accused insecond 2eopardy.

9re&ared b% ara* Rose -. Ganto ""


23/26

ssue: *et*er or not t*e dismissal of the complaint for Serious 4hysical n2uries bars thefiling of the nformation for Frustrated +urder against the same accused on the ground ofdouble 2eopardy

3eld: %o. -*e constitutional mandate on double jeo&ard is restated in Rule 11? o t*e Re/ised

Rules o Court.

Chief ustice #nriAue Fernando, in *is boo8 5-*e 0ill o Rig*ts,7 ma8es t*e ollo)ingsigniicant commentar% 57he Rules of Court adopted an e"pensive vie! of the double 2eopardy protection !ith the mention of the 7#R+%(7O% or DS+SS() OF 73#4ROS#C7O% !ithout the e"press consent of the defendant . f the literal language of theconstitutional provision !ere follo!ed* either a previous acAuittal or conviction is necessarybefore such a plea !ould lie.

+n aca v. ,lanco, t*e Court *eld t*at% 5the dismissal contemplated is a D#F%7# or%CO%D7O%() DS+SS() !hich terminates the case* and %O7 ( DS+SS()

;73O7 4R#DC#.7

+n t*e case at bar, t*e Order of dismissal issued by the +unicipal Court did not actuallyterminate or put an end to the prosecution against private respondent or t*e elonious act*e )as alleged to *a/e committed. On the contrary* the dispositive portion of said Ordere"pressly directed that the records of the case be for!arded to the CF to initiate acomplaint for Frustrated +urder.

+n a number o cases, t*e Court has held a dismissal eAuivalent to an acAuittal on the merits ,and conseuentl, a bar to a subseuent &rosecution or t*e same oense or an oense )*ic*necessaril includes or is necessaril included in t*e oense c*arged in t*e ormer com&laint,

but in said cases, t*e dismissal had been predicated either on t*e failure of the prosecutionto prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt , or on t*e right of the accused to aspeedy trial. Neit*er o t*e circumstances is &resent in t*is case. -*ere is, t*ereore, no reason)* t*e dismissal Order o t*e Munici&al Court s*ould be deemed as a judgment o acuittal o

t*e c*arge or erious 9*sical +njuries.

Moreo/er, respondent udge #RR#D in dismissing the case for Serious 4hysical n2uries togive !ay to the filing of a complaint for Frustrated +urder . +t is t*e duty of t*e respondentudge to render the decision as the evidence presented !arrant under the information filed.

Since the order of dismissal !as !ithout authority and* therefore* null and void , t*eproceedings before the +unicipal Court have not been la!fully terminated.(CCORD%)'* 73#R# S %O S#CO%D 4ROC##D% 7O S4#(H OF (%D %ODO,)# #O4(RD'. A continuation o t*e &roceedings against t*e accused or erious9*sical +njuries is in order.

HERE;ORE, t*e &etition is *ereb


24/26

t*e Munici&al -rial Court o =o&e, ueon or t*e &ro&er and orderl decision on t*e c*arge or

erious 9*sical +njuries.

1. Kapatos v. 4eople

G.R. Nos. 12?D1241$ e&tember 1!, "##3ection "1


25/26

Anot*er )itness recounted t*at on t*e nig*t o t*e incident, *e and Maor Corte )ere *a/ing a

drin8ing session at t*e *ouse o *is com&adre. Maor Corte, toget*er )it* *is t*ree &olicemen,

let t*e *ouse at ? in t*e e/ening.

,efore petitioner could be arraigned, t*e private prosecutor filed !ith the R7C a +O7O%

7O R#F#R 73# C(S#S 7O 73# S(%D(%,('(% but it )as denied.

-*e &ri/ate &rosecutor filed !ith the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari Auestioning theorder of the R7C, but t*e same )as dismissed. -*is time, t*e 4,)C prosecutor filed !ith t*e R7C an Omnibus +otion to Dismiss on the ground of lac8 of 2urisdiction. -*e R7Cgranted t*e motion and dismissed the Criminal Cases. -*is prompted the filing !ith theSandiganbayan of the t!o nformations.

+n t*is &etition, &etitioner contends t*at t*e S(%D(%,('(% R($#)' #RR#D % %O7F%D% 73(7 DO,)# #O4(RD' 3(S ()R#(D' (77(C3#D (%D 73(7 73(D %O RSDC7O% O$#R 73# C(S#S.

ssue: *et*er or not 2eopardy has attached

3eld: %o. ;hile petitioner had already pleaded not guilty before the R7C* 2eopardy didnot attach as it did not acAuire 2urisdiction. 73#R# C(% ,# %O DO,)# #O4(RD';3#R# 73# (CCS#D #%7#R#D ( 4)#( % ( COR7 73(7 3(D %ORSDC7O%.

'Ho)e/er, t*e Court inds t*at t*e &rosecution ailed to &ro/e b e/idence beond reasonable

doubt t*e guilt o &etitioner or murder and rustrated murder. *at is a&&arent is t*at MaorCorte and *is men )ere t*e aggressors. 9etitioner, )*o )as just a)a8ened b t*e gunire, )as

justiied in iring bac8 at t*em.(

HERE;ORE, t*e


26/26

do!npayment of 4B-*---. n settlement of the balance* petitioner issued postdatedchec8s, dra)n against *er account at 9rudential 0an8.

;hen 'olanda deposited D o t*e chec8s* O%)' ;#R# C)#(R#D. -*e R#+(%%E ;#R# DS3O%OR#D D# 7O 73# C)OSR# OF 4#77O%#RS (CCO%7.

'olanda !ent to petitioners dental clinic and advised her to change the dishonored chec8sto cash. 9etitioner promised but to no avail.

A demand letter !as sent to petitioner to settle her obligation but s*e failed to *eed t*e same,*ence, t*e filing of E informations against her for violation of ,.4. // at t*e +a8ati +e7C.

Ater trial, t*e Ma8ati Me-C convicted petitioner of all E counts. -*e R-C and CA airmed.

9etitioner contends t*at ,.4. // is a ,)) OF (77(%D#R as it DO#S %O7 )#($# +C3ROO+ FOR DC() D#7#R+%(7O%* the )7 OF 73# (CCS#D 3($%

()R#(D' ,##% D#CD#D ,' 73# )#S)(7R#.

ssue: *et*er or not ,.4. // is a bill of attainder

3eld: %o. -*e contention t*at 0.9. "" is a bill o attainder, one !hich inflicts punishment!ithout trial and t*e essence of !hich is the substitution of a legislative for a 2udicialdetermination of guilt, ails. ;or under ,.4. //, #$#R' #)#+#%7 OF 73# CR+# SS7)) 7O ,# 4RO$#% ,#FOR# 73# 7R() COR7 7O ;(RR(%7 (CO%$C7O% FOR $O)(7O% 73#R#OF.

HERE;ORE, t*e assailed decision o t*e Court o A&&eals inding &etitioner JO> =EE

RECFER

9th batch digests

Documents