cases for crimpro

7/24/2019 Cases for Crimpro

1/55

1

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 168617 February 19, 2007

BERNAETTE !. AASA,petitioner,vs.CEC"!!E S. ABA!OS,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

C#"CO$NA%AR"O, J.:

This Petition for Revie" under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt, filedb% petitioner &ernadette '. (dasa, see)s to nullif% and set aside the*+ ul% *--# Decision+and +- une *--$ Resolution *of the !ourtof (ppeals in !(/.R. SP No. 01231 "hich nullified theResolutions of the Depart4ent of ustice 5DO6. The Resolutions ofthe DO reversed and set aside the Resolution of the Office of the!it% Prosecutor of Ili7an !it%, "hich found on reinvesti7ationprobable cause a7ainst petitioner, and directed the Office of the!it% Prosecutor of Ili7an !it% to "ithdra" the infor4ation forstafa a7ainst petitioner.

The instant case e4anated fro4 the t"o co4plaintsaffidavits filedb% respondent !ecille S. (balos on +8 anuar% *--+ before theOffice of the !it% Prosecutor of Ili7an !it%, a7ainst petitioner forstafa.

Respondent alle7ed in the co4plaintsaffidavits that petitioner,

throu7h deceit, received and encashed t"o chec)s issued in thena4e of respondent "ithout respondent9s )no"led7e and consentand that despite repeated de4ands b% the latter, petitioner failedand refused to pa% the proceeds of the chec)s.

On *2 March *--+, petitioner filed a counteraffidavit ad4ittin7that she received and encashed the t"o chec)s issued in favor ofrespondent.

In her Supple4ental (ffidavit filed on *3 March *--+, petitioner,ho"ever, recanted and alle7ed instead that it "as a certain &ebie!orrea "ho received the t"o chec)s "hich are the sub:ect 4atter ofthe co4plaints and encashed the sa4e; and that said &ebie !orrealeft the countr% after 4isappropriatin7 the proceeds of the chec)s.

On *$ (pril *--+, a resolution "as issued b% the Office of the !it%Prosecutor of Ili7an !it% findin7 probable cause a7ainst petitionerand orderin7 the filin7 of t"o separate Infor4ations for stafa Thru


2/55

2

Prosecutor of Ili7an !it% issued a resolution dated 2- (u7ust *--+,affir4in7 the findin7 of probable cause a7ainst petitioner.

Mean"hile, durin7 her arrai7n4ent on + October *--+ in !ri4inal!ase No. 808*, petitioner entered an unconditional plea of not

7uilt%.2

Dissatisfied "ith the findin7 of the Office of the !it% Prosecutor ofIli7an !it%, petitioner filed a Petition for Revie" before the DO on+$ October *--+.

In a Resolution dated ++ ul% *--*, the DO reversed and set asidethe 2- (u7ust *--+ resolution of the Office of the !it% Prosecutorof Ili7an !it% and directed the said office to "ithdra" theInfor4ation for stafa a7ainst petitioner.

The said DO resolution pro4pted the Office of the !it% Prosecutorof Ili7an !it% to file a >Motion to ?ithdra" Infor4ation> on *$ul% *--*.

On *1 ul% *--*, respondent filed a 4otion for reconsideration ofsaid resolution of the DO ar7uin7 that the DO should havedis4issed outri7ht the petition for revie" since Section 0 of DO!ircular No. 0- 4andates that "hen an accused has alread% beenarrai7ned and the a77rieved part% files a petition for revie" before

the DO, the Secretar% of ustice cannot, and should not ta)eco7ni@ance of the petition, or even 7ive due course thereto, butinstead den% it outri7ht. Respondent clai4ed Section +* thereof4entions arrai7n4ent as one of the 7rounds for the dis4issal of thepetition for revie" before the DO.

In a resolution dated 2- anuar% *--2, the DO denied the Motionfor Reconsideration opinin7 that under Section +*, in relation toSection 0, of DO !ircular No. 0-, the Secretar% of ustice is notprecluded fro4 entertainin7 an% appeal ta)en to hi4 even "here

the accused has alread% been arrai7ned in court. This is due to theper4issive lan7ua7e >4a%> utili@ed in Section +* "hereb% theSecretar% has the discretion to entertain an appealed resolutionnot"ithstandin7 the fact that the accused has been arrai7ned.

Mean"hile, on *0 Motion to ?ithdra" Infor4ation> anddis4issin7 !ri4inal !ase No. 808*. No action "as ta)en b%respondent or an% part% of the case fro4 the said order of dis4issal.

(77rieved b% the resolution of the DO, respondent filed a Petitionfor !ertiorari before the !ourt of (ppeals. Respondent raised thefollo"in7 issues before the appellate courtA

+. ?hether or not the Depart4ent of ustice 7ravel% abused its

discretion in 7ivin7 due course to petitioner9s petition for revie"despite its havin7 been filed after the latter had alread% beenarrai7ned;

*. ?hether or not there is probable cause that the cri4e of estafahas been co44itted and that petitioner is probabl% 7uilt% thereof;

2. ?hether or not the petition before the !ourt of (ppeals has beenrendered 4oot and acade4ic b% the order of the Re7ional Trial!ourt dis4issin7 !ri4inal !ase No. 808*.

The !ourt of (ppeals in a Decision dated *+ ul% *--# 7rantedrespondent9s petition and reversed the Resolutions of the DO dated++ ul% *--* and 2- anuar% *--2.

In resolvin7 the first issue, the !ourt of (ppeals, rel%in7 heavil% onSection 0 of DO !ircular No. 0- "hich states >BiCf an infor4ationhas been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, thepetition shall not be 7iven due course if the accused had alread%

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt3


3/55

3

been arrai7ned,> ruled that since petitioner "as arrai7ned before shefiled the petition for revie" "ith the DO, it "as i4perative for theDO to dis4iss such petition. It added that "hen petitioner pleadedto the char7e, she "as dee4ed to have "aived her ri7ht toreinvesti7ation and ri7ht to =uestion an% irre7ularit% that surrounds

it.

(nent the second issue, the !ourt of (ppeals declared that theeistence of probable cause or the lac) of it, cannot be dealt "ith b%it since factual issues are not proper sub:ects of a Petition for!ertiorari.

In disposin7 of the last issue, the !ourt of (ppeals held that theorder of the trial court dis4issin7 the sub:ect cri4inal case pursuantto the assailed resolutions of the DO did not render the petition

4oot and acade4ic. It said that since the trial court9s order reliedsolel% on the resolutions of the DO, said order is void as it violatedthe rule "hich en:oins the trial court to assess the evidencepresented before it in a 4otion to dis4iss and not to rel% solel% onthe prosecutor9s aver4ent that the Secretar% of ustice hadreco44ended the dis4issal of the case.

Dissatisfied b% the !ourt of (ppeals9 rulin7, petitioner filed aMotion for Reconsideration settin7 forth the follo"in7 7roundsA

+. that the overall lan7ua7e of Sections 0 and +* of Depart4ent!ircular No. 0- is per4issive and director% such that the Secretar%of ustice 4a% entertain an appeal despite the fact that the accusedhad been arrai7ned;

*. that the conte4poraneous construction b% the Secretar% ofustice should be 7iven 7reat "ei7ht and respect;

2. that Section 0 of the !ircular applies onl% to resolutions renderedpursuant to a preli4inar% investi7ation, not on a reinvesti7ation;

#. that the trial court9s order of dis4issal of the cri4inal case hasrendered the instant petition 4oot and acade4ic;

$. that her arrai7n4ent "as null and void it bein7 conducted despiteher protestations; and

1. that despite her bein7 arrai7ned, the supposed "aiver of her ri7htto preli4inar% investi7ation has been nullified or recalled b% virtueof the trial court9s order of reinvesti7ation.#

The !ourt of (ppeals stood fir4 b% its decision. This ti4e,ho"ever, it tried to construe Section 0 side b% side "ith Section +*of DO !ircular No. 0- and atte4pted to reconcile these t"oprovisions. (ccordin7 to the appellate court, the phrase >shall not>in para7raph t"o, first sentence of Section 0 of sub:ect circular, to

"itA

If an infor4ation has been filed in court pursuant to the appealedresolution, the petition shall not be 7iven due course if the accused

had alread% been arrai7ned

. . 54phasis supplied.6

e4plo%ed in the circular denotes a positive prohibition. (ppl%in7the principle in statutor% construction that "hen a statute orprovision contains "ords of positive prohibition, such as >shallnot,> >cannot,> or >ou7ht not> or "hich is couched in ne7ative

ter4s i4portin7 that the act shall not be done other"ise thandesi7nated, that statute or provision is 4andator%, thus renderin7the provision 4andator% E it opined that the sub:ect provisionsi4pl% 4eans that the Secretar% of ustice has no other course ofaction but to den% or dis4iss a petition before hi4 "henarrai7n4ent of an accused had alread% ta)en place prior to thefilin7 of the petition for revie".

On the other hand, readin7 Section +* of the sa4e circular "hichreadsA

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


4/55

4

The Secretar% 4a% reverse, affir4 or 4odif% the appealedresolution. He 4a%, 4otu proprio or upon 4otion, dis4iss thepetition for revie" on an% of the follo"in7 7roundsA

5e6 That the accused had alread% been arrai7ned "hen the appeal"as ta)en; .

the !ourt of (ppeals opined that the per4issive "ord >4a%> inSection +* "ould see4 to i4pl% that the Secretar% of ustice hasdiscretion to entertain an appeal not"ithstandin7 the fact that theaccused has been arrai7ned. This provision should not be treatedseparatel%, but should be read in relation to Section 0. The t"oprovisions, ta)en to7ether, si4pl% 4eant that "hen an accused "as

alread% arrai7ned "hen the a77rieved part% files a petition forrevie", the Secretar% of ustice cannot, and should not ta)eco7ni@ance of the petition, or even 7ive due course thereto, butinstead dis4iss or den% it outri7ht. The appellate court added thatthe "ord >4a%> in Section +* should be read as >shall> or >4ust>since such construction is absolutel% necessar% to 7ive effect to theapparent intention of the rule as 7athered fro4 the contet.

(s to the conte4poraneous construction of the Secretar% of ustice,the !ourt of (ppeals stated that the sa4e should not be 7iven

"ei7ht since it "as erroneous.

(nent petitioner9s ar7u4ent that Section 0 of the =uestionedcircular applies onl% to ori7inal resolutions that brou7ht about thefilin7 of the correspondin7 infor4ations in court, but not toresolutions rendered pursuant to a 4otion for reinvesti7ation, theappellate court si4pl% brushed aside such contention as havin7 nobasis in the circular =uestioned.

It also re:ected petitioner9s protestation that her arrai7n4ent "as

forced upon her since she failed to present an% evidence tosubstantiate the sa4e.

It is petitioner9s contention that despite her bein7 arrai7ned, thesupposed "aiver of her ri7ht to preli4inar% investi7ation has been

nullified b% virtue of the trial court9s order or reinvesti7ation. Onthis score, the !ourt of (ppeals rebuffed such ar7u4ent statin7 thatthere "as no >supposed "aiver of preli4inar% investi7ation> tospea) of for the reason that petitioner had actuall% under7onepreli4inar% investi7ation.

Petitioner re4ained unconvinced "ith the eplanations of the !ourtof (ppeals.

Hence, the instant petition.

(7ain, petitioner contends that the DO can 7ive due course to anappeal or petition for revie" despite its havin7 been filed after theaccused had alread% been arrai7ned. It asserts that the fact ofarrai7n4ent of an accused before the filin7 of an appeal or petitionfor revie" before the DO >is not at all relevant> as the DO canstill ta)e co7ni@ance of the appeal or Petition for Revie" before it.In support of this contention, petitioner set her si7hts on the rulin7of this !ourt in !respo v. Mo7ul,$to "itA

The rule therefore in this :urisdiction is that once a co4plaint orinfor4ation is filed in !ourt an% disposition of the case as to itsdis4issal or the conviction or ac=uittal of the accused rests in thesound discretion of the !ourt. (lthou7h the fiscal retains thedirection and control of the prosecution of cri4inal cases even"hile the case is alread% in !ourt he cannot i4pose his opinion onthe trial court. The !ourt is the best and sole :ud7e on "hat to do"ith the case before it. The deter4ination of the case is "ithin itseclusive :urisdiction and co4petence. ( 4otion to dis4iss the casefiled b% the fiscal should be addressed to the !ourt "ho has the

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


5/55

5

option to 7rant or den% the sa4e. It does not 4atter if this is donebefore or after the arrai7n4ent of the accused or that the 4otion"as filed after a reinvesti7ation or upon instructions of theSecretar% of ustice "ho revie"ed the records of the investi7ation.54phasis supplied.6

To bolster her position, petitioner cites Roberts v. !ourt of(ppeals,1"hich statedA

There is nothin7 in !respo vs. Mo7ul "hich bars the DO fro4ta)in7 co7ni@ance of an appeal, b% "a% of a petition for revie", b%an accused in a cri4inal case fro4 an unfavorable rulin7 of theinvesti7atin7 prosecutor. It 4erel% advised the DO to, >as far aspracticable, refrain fro4 entertainin7 a petition for revie" or appealfro4 the action of the fiscal, "hen the co4plaint or infor4ation has

alread% been filed in !ourt. . 54phasis supplied.6

Petitioner li)e"ise invo)es Marcelo v. !ourt of (ppeals0"here this!ourt declaredA

Nothin7 in the said rulin7 forecloses the po"er or authorit% of theSecretar% of ustice to revie" resolutions of his subordinates incri4inal cases. The Secretar% of ustice is onl% en:oined to refrainas far as practicable fro4 entertainin7 a petition for revie" orappeal fro4 the action of the prosecutor once a co4plaint or

infor4ation is filed in court. In an% case, the 7rant of a 4otion todis4iss, "hich the prosecution 4a% file after the Secretar% ofustice reverses an appealed resolution, is sub:ect to the discretionof the court.

The !ourt is unconvinced.

( cursor% readin7 of !respo v. Mo7ul reveals that the rulin7 thereindoes not concern the issue of an appeal or petition for revie" beforethe DO after arrai7n4ent. Veril%, the pronounce4ent therein has to

do "ith the filin7 of a 4otion to dis4iss and the court9s discretionto den% or 7rant the sa4e. (s correctl% pointed out b% respondent,the e4phasi@ed portion in the !respo rulin7 is a parcel of the entirepara7raph "hich relates to the dut% and :urisdiction of the trialcourt to deter4ine for itself "hether or not to dis4iss a case before

it, and "hich states that such dut% co4es into pla% re7ardless of"hether such 4otion is filed before or after arrai7n4ent and upon"hose instructions. The allusion to the Secretar% of ustice asrevie"in7 the records of investi7ation and 7ivin7 instructions forthe filin7 of a 4otion to dis4iss in the cited rulin7 does not ta)einto consideration of "hether the appeal or petition before theSecretar% of ustice "as filed after arrai7n4ent. Si7nificantl%, in the!respo case, the accused had not %et been arrai7ned "hen theappeal or petition for revie" "as filed before the DO.Fndoubtedl%, petitioner9s reliance on the said case is 4isplaced.

(lso unavailin7 is petitioner9s invocation of the cases of Roberts v.!ourt of (ppeals and Marcelo v. !ourt of (ppeals. (s in !respo v.Mo7ul, neither Roberts v. !ourt of (ppeals nor Marcelo v. !ourt of(ppeals too) into account of "hether the appeal or petition beforethe Secretar% of ustice "as filed after arrai7n4ent. ust li)e in the!respo case, the accused in both Roberts v. !ourt of (ppeals andMarcelo v. !ourt of (ppeals had not %et been arrai7ned "hen theappeal or petition for revie" "as filed before the DO.

Moreover, petitioner asserts that the !ourt of (ppeals9interpretation of the provisions of DO !ircular No. 0- violatedthree basic rules in statutor% construction. shall> had beenconstrued as a per4issive, and not a 4andator% lan7ua7e.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt8


6/55

6

The all toofa4iliar rule in statutor% construction, in this case, anad4inistrative rule3 of procedure, is that "hen a statute or rule isclear and una4bi7uous, interpretation need not be resorted to.+-

Since Section 0 of the sub:ect circular clearl% and cate7oricall%directs the DO to dis4iss outri7ht an appeal or a petition for

revie" filed after arrai7n4ent, no resort to interpretation isnecessar%.

Petitioner9s reliance to the statutor% principle that >the last in orderof position in the rule or re7ulation 4ust prevail> is not applicable.In addition to the fact that Section 0 of DO !ircular No. 0- needsno construction, the cited principle cannot appl% because, ascorrectl% observed b% the !ourt of (ppeals, there is noirreconcilable conflict bet"een Section 0 and Section +* of DO!ircular No. 0-. Section 0 of the circular providesA

S!TION 0. (ction on the petition. E The Secretar% of ustice 4a%dis4iss the petition outri7ht if he finds the sa4e to be patentl%"ithout 4erit or 4anifestl% intended for dela%, or "hen the issuesraised therein are too unsubstantial to re=uire consideration. If aninfor4ation has been filed in court pursuant to the appealedresolution, the petition shall not be 7iven due course if the accusedhad alread% been arrai7ned. (n% arrai7n4ent 4ade after the filin7of the petition shall not bar the Secretar% of ustice fro4 eercisin7his po"er of revie". 5Italics supplied.6

On the other hand, Section +* of the sa4e circular statesA

S!TION +*. Disposition of the (ppeal. E The Secretar% 4a%reverse, affir4 or 4odif% the appealed resolution. He 4a%, 4otuproprio or upon 4otion, dis4iss the petition for revie" on an% ofthe follo"in7 7roundsA

5a6 That the petition "as filed be%ond the period prescribed inSection 2 hereof;

5b6 That the procedure or an% of the re=uire4ents herein providedhas not been co4plied "ith;

5c6 That there is no sho"in7 of an% reversible error;

5d6 That the appealed resolution is interlocutor% in nature, ecept"hen it suspends the proceedin7s based on the alle7ed eistence ofa pre:udicial =uestion;

5e6 That the accused had alread% been arrai7ned "hen the appeal"as ta)en;

5f6 That the offense has alread% prescribed; and

576 That other le7al or factual 7rounds eist to "arrant a dis4issal.

54phases supplied.6

It is note"orth% that the principle cited b% petitioner reveals that, tofind application, the sa4e presupposes that >one part of the statutecannot be reconciled or har4oni@ed "ith another part "ithoutnullif%in7 one in favor of the other.> In the instant case, ho"ever,Section 0 is neither contradictor% nor irreconcilable "ith Section+*. (s can be seen above, Section 0 pertains to the action on thepetition that the DO 4ust ta)e, "hile Section +* enu4erates theoptions the DO has "ith re7ard to the disposition of a petition for

revie" or of an appeal.

(s aptl% observed b% respondent, Section 0 specificall% applies to asituation on "hat the DO 4ust do "hen confronted "ith an appealor a petition for revie" that is either clearl% "ithout 4erit,4anifestl% intended to dela%, or filed after an accused has alread%been arrai7ned, i.e., he 4a% dis4iss it outri7ht if it is patentl%"ithout 4erit or 4anifestl% intended to dela%, or, if it "as filed afterthe acccused has alread% been arrai7ned, the Secretar% shall not

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt10


7/55

7

7ive it due course.

Section +* applies 7enerall% to the disposition of an appeal. Fndersaid section, the DO 4a% ta)e an% of four actions "hen disposin7an appeal, na4el%A

+. reverse the appealed resolution;

*. 4odif% the appealed resolution;

2. affir4 the appealed resolution;

#. dis4iss the appeal alto7ether, dependin7 on the circu4stancesand incidents attendant thereto.

(s to the dis4issal of a petition for revie" or an appeal, the7rounds are provided for in Section +* and, conse=uentl%, the DO4ust evaluate the pertinent circu4stances and the facts of the casein order to deter4ine "hich 7round or 7rounds shall appl%.

Thus, "hen an accused has alread% been arrai7ned, the DO 4ustnot 7ive the appeal or petition for revie" due course and 4ustdis4iss the sa4e. This is bolstered b% the fact that arrai7n4ent ofthe accused prior to the filin7 of the appeal or petition for revie" isset forth as one of the 7rounds for its dis4issal. Therefore, in suchinstance, the DO, notin7 that the arrai7n4ent of an accused priorto the filin7 of an appeal or petition for revie" is a 7round fordis4issal under Section +*, 4ust 7o bac) to Section 0 and act uponas 4andated therein. In other "ords, the DO 4ust not 7ive duecourse to, and 4ust necessaril% dis4iss, the appeal.

'i)e"ise, petitioner9s reliance on the principle of conte4porar%construction, i.e., the DO is not precluded fro4 entertainin7appeals "here the accused had alread% been arrai7ned, because it

eercises discretionar% po"er, and because it pro4ul7ated itself thecircular in =uestion, is unpersuasive. (s aptl% ratiocinated b% the!ourt of (ppealsA

True indeed is the principle that a conte4poraneous interpretation

or construction b% the officers char7ed "ith the enforce4ent of therules and re7ulations it pro4ul7ated is entitled to 7reat "ei7ht b%the court in the latter9s construction of such rules and re7ulations.That does not, ho"ever, 4a)e such a construction necessaril%controllin7 or bindin7. shall> is 4isplaced. It is petitioner9s vie" that

the lan7ua7e of Section +* is per4issive and therefore the 4andatein Section 0 has been transfor4ed into a 4atter "ithin thediscretion of the DO. To support this stance, petitioner cites aportion of (7palo9s Statutor% !onstruction "hich readsA

ban)s or other financial institutions o"ned orcontrolled b% the /overn4ent shall, sub:ect to availabilit% of funds, accept at a discount at not 4ore than t"o per centu4 for ten%ears such 5bac)pa%6 certificate> i4plies not a 4andator%, but a

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


8/55

8

discretionar%, 4eanin7 because of the phrase >sub:ect to availabilit%of funds.> Si4ilarl%, the "ord >shall> in the provision to the effectthat a corporation violatin7 the corporation la" >shall, upon suchviolation bein7 proved, be dissolved b% =uo "arranto proceedin7s>has been construed as >4a%.>+*

(fter a :udicious scrutin% of the cited passa7e, it beco4es apparentthat the sa4e is not applicable to the provision in =uestion. In thecited passa7e, the "ord >shall> departed fro4 its 4andator% i4portconnotation because it "as connected to certainprovisosGconditionsA >sub:ect to the availabilit% of funds> and >uponsuch violation bein7 proved.> No such provisoGcondition, ho"ever,can be found in Section 0 of the sub:ect circular. Hence, the "ord>shall> retains its 4andator% i4port.

(t this :uncture, the !ourt of (ppeals9 dis=uisition in this 4atter isenli7htenin7A

Indeed, if the intent of Depart4ent !ircular No. 0- "ere to 7ive theSecretar% of ustice a discretionar% po"er to dis4iss or to entertaina petition for revie" despite its bein7 outri7htl% dis4issible, such as"hen the accused has alread% been arrai7ned, or "here the cri4ethe accused is bein7 char7ed "ith has alread% prescribed, or there isno reversible error that has been co44itted, or that there are le7alor factual 7rounds "arrantin7 dis4issal, the result "ould not onl%

be incon7ruous but also irrational and even un:ust. +$finds application in this re7ard.

Petitioner asserts that her arrai7n4ent "as null and void as the

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168617_2007.html#fnt15


9/55

9

sa4e "as i4providentl% conducted. (7ain, this contention is"ithout 4erit. Records reveal that petitioner9s arrai7n4ent "as"ithout an% restriction, condition or reservation.+1In fact she "asassisted b% her counsels (tt%. (rthur (budiente and (tt%. Ma7linao"hen she pleaded to the char7e.+0

Moreover, the settled rule is that "hen an accused pleads to thechar7e, he is dee4ed to have "aived the ri7ht to preli4inar%investi7ation and the ri7ht to =uestion an% irre7ularit% thatsurrounds it.+8 This precept is also applicable in cases ofreinvesti7ation as "ell as in cases of revie" of such reinvesti7ation.In this case, "hen petitioner unconditionall% pleaded to the char7e,she effectivel% "aived the reinvesti7ation of the case b% theprosecutor as "ell as the ri7ht to appeal the result thereof to theDO Secretar%. Thus, "ith the arrai7n4ent of the petitioner, the

DO Secretar% can no lon7er entertain the appeal or petition forrevie" because petitioner had alread% "aived or abandoned thesa4e.

'astl%, "hile there is authorit%+3per4ittin7 the !ourt to 4a)e itso"n deter4ination of probable cause, such, ho"ever, cannot be4ade applicable in the instant case. (s earlier stated, thearrai7n4ent of petitioner constitutes a "aiver of her ri7ht topreli4inar% investi7ation or reinvesti7ation. Such "aiver istanta4ount to a findin7 of probable cause.


10/55

10

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 188706 Mar'( 17, 2010

PEOP!E OF T#E P#"!"PP"NES,(ppellee,vs.OSCAR M. OCUMENTO,(ppellant.

R S O ' F T I O N

NAC#URA, J.:

On appeal is the !ourt of (ppeals 5!(6 Decision+dated (u7ust +2,*--8, affir4in7 the Re7ional Trial !ourt*5RT!6 Decision2 datedune 3, *--2, findin7 appellant Oscar Docu4ento 7uilt% be%ondreasonable doubt of t"o 5*6 counts of Rape.

Docu4ento "as char7ed before the RT! "ith t"o 5*6 counts ofRape, as defined and punished under (rticle 22$ of the RevisedPenal !ode, in separate Infor4ations, "hich readA

!RIMIN(' !(S NO. 1833

That so4eti4e on (pril **, +331 at Ochoa (venue, &utuan !it%,Philippines, and "ithin the :urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, theabovena4ed accused "ith the use of force and inti4idation, did

then and there "illfull%, unla"full% and feloniousl% have carnal)no"led7e "ith his dau7hter (((, a 4inor, +1 %ears of a7e,a7ainst her "ill and consent.

!ONTR(R TO '(?A 5(rt. 22$ of the Revised Penal !ode in

relation to R.(. 01$36.

!RIMIN(' !(S NO. 13--

That so4eti4e on October +$, +33$ at &aran7a% (nton7alon,&utuan !it%, Philippines, and "ithin the :urisdiction of thisHonorable !ourt, the abovena4ed accused "ith the use of forceand inti4idation, did then and there "illfull%, unla"full% andfeloniousl% have carnal )no"led7e "ith his dau7hter (((, a4inor, +1 %ears of a7e, a7ainst her "ill and consent.

!ONTR(R TO '(?A 5(rt. 22$ of the Revised Penal !ode inrelation to R.(. 01$36.#

Fpon arrai7n4ent, Docu4ento pled not 7uilt%. Subse=uentl%,ho"ever, he chan7ed his earlier plea to one of 7uilt. (s such, theRT! ordered a rearrai7n4ent and entered appellant9s plea of 7uiltto the char7es.

Thereafter, the prosecution presented evidence consistin7 of the

testi4onies of private co4plainant herself, (((, her 4other, &&&,and Dr. ohann (. Hu7o. Their testi4onies established thefollo"in7A

+. Docu4ento started seuall% 4olestin7 his dau7hter, (((, in+383 "hen she "as ten 5+-6 %ears old. ventuall%, ((( beca4epre7nant and 7ave birth in +332.

*. Docu4ento raped ((( on a nu4ber of occasions in the houses

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt4


11/55

11

of &arsilisa Morada, Docu4ento9s relative, and (ida Docu4ento,both located in &utuan !it%. Durin7 each incident, Docu4ento hitand hurt ((( ph%sicall%. He li)e"ise threatened to )ill her if shetold an%one of the rape.

2. (((9s 4other, &&&, "ho "as "or)in7 in Manila fro4 +33# to+331, "ent to &arsilisa and as)ed for help in locatin7 Oscar and(((. &&& testified that she had not seen nor heard fro4 the t"osince (pril 0, +33#, "hen Docu4ento brou7ht their dau7hters (((and !!! to Tubod, 'anao del Norte, for a vacation. Thereafter,Docu4ento left !!! in Tubod and brou7ht ((( "ith hi4 toSantia7o, (7usan del Norte.

#. ?hen &&& found out fro4 their relatives that ((( 7ot pre7nantand 7ave birth, she suspected that Docu4ento "as the culprit. Fpon

learnin7 that Docu4ento and ((( "ere in &utuan !it%, she "entto the &utuan Police Station and re=uested assistance in securin7custod% of (((. (s soon as Docu4ento "as arrested, (((infor4ed the police that Docu4ento raped her.

$. Dr. Hu7o testified on the 7enital ea4ination he conducted on(((, and affir4ed the 4edical certificate he issued "ith thefollo"in7 findin7sA

Ph%sical ea4A HNT E "ith in nor4al li4its.

!G' E "ith in nor4al li4its.

!V& E "ith in nor4al li4its.

(&D E Soft; N(&S

/F E 56 PS

/enitalia Parrous

Healed va7inal laceration

Va7inal introitus; ad4its * fin7erBsC

"ith ease

H%4en "ith pe4nants >caruncula

4ultifor4a>

'abs; Va7inal S4ear; Ne7ative for Sper4ato@oa.$

Docu4ento testified as the sole "itness for the defense. He

asseverated that he pled 7uilt% to the cri4e of Rape onl% becauseProsecutor Hector &. Salise convinced hi4 to do so. Docu4entocontended that he did not rape (((, and that, to the contrar%, the%had a consensual, seual relationship. He further alle7ed that theincident did not happen in &utuan !it%, but in !larin, Misa4isOccidental.


12/55

12

*. To inde4nif% the victi4, (((, in the a4ount of P0$,---.-- ascivil inde4nit%, P$-,---.-- as 4oral da4a7es and P*$,---.-- asee4plar% da4a7es, respectivel%, for each count of rape inaccordance "ith recent :urisprudence.

'et a !o44it4ent Order be issued for the transfer of accusedOscar M. Docu4ento fro4 &utuan !it% ail to the &ureau of!orrections, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.

'et the records of these cases be for"arded i44ediatel% to theSupre4e !ourt for 4andator% revie".

SO ORDRD.1

!onsistent "ith our rulin7 in People v. Mateo,0Docu4ento9s appeal

"as re4anded to the !(.

Rulin7 on the appeal, the !( affir4ed the RT!9s conviction, butchan7ed the penalt% i4posed on Docu4ento fro4 death penalt% toreclusion perpetua, and increased the a"ard of 4oral da4a7es fro4P$-,---.-- toP0$,---.-- for each count of Rape. The fallo of theDecision readsA

?HR&utuan !it%> in her testi4on%, the incidents in the presentcases transpired in &aran7a% (nton7alon and on Ochoa (venue,both in &utuan !it%.


13/55

13

the prosecutor9s =uestion in this "iseA

+$. J A Ri7ht after %ou arrived BinC &utuan !it%, did %our father4olest %ou or rape %ouK

( A es, sir.

J A ?hen "as thatK

( A searchin7 in=uir%> into the 4atter of

"hether or not Docu4ento9s plea of 7uilt "as i4providentl% 4ade.Nonetheless, it still found the conviction of appellant proper. Itsdis=uisition on Docu4ento9s plea of 7uilt is in point.

Nothin7 in the records of the case at bench sho"s that the trial courtco4plied "ith the 7uidelines Bset forth b% the Supre4e !ourt in anu4ber of casesC after appellant9s rearrai7n4ent and 7uilt% plea.The =uestions propounded to appellant durin7 the direct and crossea4ination li)e"ise fall short of these re=uire4ents. .

The =uestions propounded "ere clearl% not co4pliant "ith the7uidelines set forth b% the Hi7h !ourt. The appellant "as not full%apprised of the conse=uences of his 7uilt% plea. In fact, as ar7uedb% appellant, >the trial court should have infor4ed hi4 that his pleaof 7uilt "ould not affect or reduce the i4posable penalt%, "hich isdeath as he 4i7ht have erroneousl% believed that under (rticle 12,the death penalt%, bein7 a sin7le indivisible penalt%, shall be appliedb% the court re7ardless of an% 4iti7atin7 circu4stances that 4i7ht

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_188706_2010.html#fnt10


14/55

14

have attended the co44ission of the deed.> Moreover, the trialcourt :ud7e failed to infor4 appellant of his ri7ht to adduceevidence despite the 7uilt% plea.1avvphi1

?ith the trial court9s failure to co4pl% "ith the 7uidelines,

appellant9s 7uilt% plea is dee4ed i4providentl% 4ade and thusrendered inefficacious.

This does not 4ean, ho"ever, that the case should be re4anded tothe trial court. This course of action is appropriate onl% "hen theappellant9s 7uilt% plea "as the sole basis for his conviction. (s heldin People v. Mira,

Not"ithstandin7 the incautiousness that attended appellant9s 7uilt%plea, "e are not inclined to re4and the case to the trial court as

su77ested b% appellant. !onvictions based on an i4provident pleaof 7uilt are set aside onl% if such plea is the sole basis of the:ud74ent. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credibleevidence in findin7 the accused 7uilt%, the :ud74ent 4ust besustained, because then it is predicated not 4erel% on the 7uilt%plea of the accused but also on evidence provin7 his co44ission ofthe offense char7ed.++

On the "hole, "e find that the appellate court co44itted noreversible error in affir4in7 the trial court9s rulin7 convictin7

Docu4ento.

'astl%, on the 4atter of the appellate court9s a"ard of ee4plar%da4a7es, "e increase the a"ard fro4P*$,---.-- to P2-,---.-- inline "ith prevailin7 :urisprudence.

?HR


15/55

15


Manila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 11)**1 May 27, 1997

CESAR E. A. &"RATA,petitioner,vs.T#E #ONORAB!E SAN"GANBA+AN a- T#EREPUB!"C OF T#E P#"!"PP"NES, respondents.

TORRES, R., J.:

In ti4es past, "hen due process "as 4ore of a 4%th L e4pt%

accusations have had its da%. In a 4ore enli7htened a7e, a sa7e "asheard to sa% L >Stri)e 4e if %ou 4ust, but hear 4e first> ?e haveco4e a lon7 "a%, indeed, for in our ti4e one "ho is re=uired toans"er for an alle7ed "ron7 4ust at least )no" "hat is it all about.

This is the case before Fs.

In this case, petitioner !esar . (. Virata 5Virata, for brevit%6 is oneof the defendants in !ivil !ase No. --2$, entitledRepublic of thePhilippines versus Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdezet. al.. The case,

"hich "as filed b% the Presidential !o44ission on /ood/overn4ent in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines 5Republic,for brevit%6 a7ainst fift% three persons 5$26 1 includin7 Virata,involves the recover% of ill7otten "ealth a4assed b% thedefendants durin7 the t"ent% %ear rei7n of for4er President


16/55

16

Defendants


17/55

17

averred "ith sufficient definiteness as to enable hi4 to effectivel%prepare his responsive pleadin7, petitioner Virata filed a 4otion fora bill of particulars on anuar% 2+, +33*.

In a Resolution pro4ul7ated on # (u7ust +33*, the Sandi7anba%anpartiall% 7ranted the said 4otion b% re=uirin7 the Republic tosub4it a bill of particulars concernin7 the char7es a7ainst petitionerVirata stated onl% in para7raph +0 5actin7 as du44%, no4ineeandGor a7ent6 and para7raph +8 57ross abuse of authorit% andviolation of la"s and the !onstitution6 of the epanded Second(4ended !o4plaint. Ho"ever, as to the other char7es, na4el%A +6Viratas alle7ed active collaboration in the reduction of electricfranchise ta and the tariff dut% on fuel oil i4ports, as stated inpara7raph +# b 5ii6, *6 his active collaboration in securin7 theapproval b% Three ear Pro7ra4 for thetension of MR('!Os Services to (reas "ithin the 1-ilo4eter Radius of Manila,> 4entioned in para7raph +# 7, and 26his support, assistance and collaboration in the for4ation ofrectors Holdin7s Incorporated as reflected in para7raph +# 4 ofthe epanded Second (4ended !o4plaint, the Sandi7anba%andeclared that these accusations are clear and specific enou7h toallo" Virata to sub4it an intelli7ent responsive pleadin7, hence, the4otion for a bill of particulars respectin7 the fore7oin7 threechar7es "as denied.

In vie" of the Sandi7anba%ans order of (u7ust #, +33* re=uirin7the Republic to a4plif% the char7es in para7raphs +0 and +8 of theepanded Second (4ended !o4plaint, the Republic throu7h theOffice of the Solicitor /eneral sub4itted the bill of particularsdated October **, +33*, hereafter called as the 'i4ited &ill ofParticulars, "hich "as si7ned b% a certain Ra4on (. private counsel>,the relevant portion of "hich provides thatA

+. Defendant Virata, "hile bein7 one of the 4e4bers of the !entral&an)s Monetar% &oard, approved Resolution No. *2*- datedDece4ber +#, +302, allo"in7 the &enpres !orporation, MeralcoSecurities !orporation 5MS!6 and Manila lectric !o4pan%5MR('!O6 to refinanceGrestructure their outstandin7 loanobli7ations, a >s"eetheart> or >behest> acco44odation "hich

enabled Meralco s"eetheart> dealand favors bein7 7iven b% the 7overn4ent to MR('!O "hich

"as then o"nedGand or controlled b% &en:a4in Ro4ualde@representin7 the MarcosRo4ualde@ 7roup, "hen it provided thatthe >sale is sub:ect to the reservation of ri7hts, leases and ease4entsin favor of Philippine Petroleu4 !orp.,


18/55

18

2. (t the 4eetin7 of the &oard of Directors of the Philippine portand Specific (ver4ents of Defendants Ille7al (cts a 5i6>!para"raph 1# b (ii) of the e$panded %econd &mended 'omplaint

I44ediatel% after defendants o)o%> Ro4ualde@ too) co4plete control of Meralco and itssubsidiaries, defendant


19/55

19

and in fact issued the 7uidelines on its i4ple4entation "hich "ereheavil% relied upon b% the &oard of ner7% in its =uestioned rulin7dated *$ Nove4ber +38* b% allo"in7 Meralco to continue char7in7hi7her electric consu4ption rates despite their savin7s fro4 theaforesaid reduction of franchise ta "ithout an% si7nificant benefitto the consu4ers of electric po"er and resultin7 in the loss of

4illions of pesos in 4uch needed revenues to the 7overn4ent.

*. On the >Specific (ver4ents of Defendants Ille7al (cts a 5ii6>!par.1#" of the e$pended %econd &mended 'omplaint .

Defendant !esar .(. Virata, then Pri4e Minester BsicC, caused theissuance of a confidential 4e4orandu4 dated October +*, +38* tothen President


20/55

20

(fter considerin7 the relevant pleadin7s and 4otions sub4itted b%the parties, the Sandi7anba%an, in a Resolution of


21/55

21

approved the re=uest of rector, Incorporated, for a 7uarantee tocover +-- of its proposed behest loan of FS 22.$ Million underthe !entral &an) !onsolidated


22/55

22

should be definite and specific and not contain 7eneral alle7ationsand conclusions. It should be reasonabl% certain and as specific asthe circu4stances "ill allo". 1)

/uided b% the fore7oin7 rules and principles, "e are convinced thatboth the bill of particulars dated Nove4ber 2, +332 and the 'i4ited&ill of Particulars of October **, +33* are couched in such 7eneraland uncertain ter4s as "ould 4a)e it difficult for petitioner tosub4it an intelli7ent responsive pleadin7 to the co4plaint and toade=uatel% prepare for trial.

'et us ea4ine the bill of particulars dated Nove4ber 2, +332A

+. The first para7raph of the fore7oin7 bill of particulars providesthat >5I644ediatel% after defendants

The above=uoted para7raph of the said bill of particulars issupposed to be the a4plification of the char7e a7ainst Virata statedin para7raph +#5b6 of the epanded Second (4ended !o4plaint

"hich is his alle7ed active collaboration in the reduction of electricfranchise ta and tariff dut% of fuel oil i4ports. et, a carefulperusal of the said para7raph sho"s that nothin7 is said about hisalle7ed active collaboration in reducin7 the taes. (side fro4 thebare assertion that he >supported PD $$+> and >issued the7uidelines on its i4ple4entation,> the bill of particulars is

disturbin7l% silent as to "hat are the particular acts of Virata thatestablish his active collaboration in the reduction of taes. Thealle7ation that he supported PD $$+ and issued its i4ple4entin77uidelines is an insufficient a4plification of the char7e because thesa4e is but a 7eneral state4ent bereft of an% particulars. It 4a% be=ueriedho" did Virata support PD $$+K ?hat "ere the specificacts indicatin7 his supportK ?hat "ere these i4ple4entin77uidelines issued b% hi4 and "hen "ere the% issuedK In supportin7PD $$+ and in issuin7 its i4ple4entin7 7uidelines, "hat la" orri7ht, if there is an%, is violated b% VirataK It is "orth% to note that,

until no", PD $$+ has not been declared unconstitutional. In fact,this !ourt upheld its validit% in the case of Philippine 'onsumer+oundation ,nc. vs.Board of -ner"y and eralco. 1/

*. In the second para7raph of the said bill of particulars, it is alle7edthat >5D6efendant !esar .(. Virata, then Pri4e Minester BsicC,caused the issuance of a confidential 4e4orandu4 dated October+*, +38* to then President


23/55

23

para7raph +# 576 of the epanded Second (4ended !o4plaint, thatisViratas active collaboration in securin7 the approval b%


24/55

24

&an)s Monetar% &oard, approved Resolution No. *2*- datedDece4ber +#, +302, allo"in7 the &enpres !orporation, MeralcoSecurities !orp. 5MS/6 and Manila lectric !o4pan%5MR('!O6 to refinanceGrestructure their outstandin7 loanobli7ations, a s"eetheart or behest acco44odation "hich enabledMeralco that >. . ., the a7ree4ent clearl%sho"ed the s"eetheart deal and favors bein7 7iven b% the

7overn4ent to MR('!O "hich "as then o"ned andGorcontrolled b% &en:a4in Ro4ualde@ representin7 the MarcosRo4ualde@ 7roup, "hen it provided that the sale is sub:ect to thereservation of ri7hts, leases and ease4ents in favor of PhilippinePetroleu4 !orp.,


25/55

25

Directors of the Philippine port and


26/55

26

(s such, in vie" of the Republics failure to obe% this !ourtsdirective of (pril 1, +332 5/.R. No. +-1$*06 and theSandi7anba%ans order of (u7ust #, +33* to file the proper bill ofparticulars "hich "ould co4pletel% a4plif% the char7es a7ainstVirata, this !ourt dee4s it :ust and proper to order the dis4issal ofthe epanded Second (4ended !o4plaint, in so far as the char7es

a7ainst Virata are concerned. This action is :ustified b% Section 2,Rule +0 of the Rules of !ourt, "hich provides thatA

Sec. 2.


27/55

27

586 Deputi@e le7al officers of 7overn4ent depart4ents, bureaus,a7encies and offices to assist the Solicitor /eneral and appear orrepresent the /overn4ent in cases involvin7 their respectiveoffices, brou7ht before the courts and eercise supervision andcontrol over such le7al officers "ith respect to such cases.

536 !all on an% depart4ent, bureau, office, a7enc%, orinstru4entalit% of the /overn4ent for such service assistance andcooperation as 4a% be necessar% in fulfillin7 its functions andresponsibilities and for this purpose enlist the services of an%7overn4ent official or e4plo%ee in the pursuit of his tas). . . . . 17

!ontrar% to Viratas contention, the Solicitor /eneral did notabdicate his function and turn over the handlin7 of the instant caseto the P!//. No"here in the 4anifestation and 4otion filed b% theOS/ on (u7ust *-, +332 is there an iota or indication that the OS/

is "ithdra"in7 fro4 the case and that the P!// is ta)in7 over itsprosecution. ?hat the OS/ did "as 4erel% to call the P!// forassistance and authori@e it to respond to the 4otion for a bill ofparticulars filed b% Virata. The OS/ "as i4pelled to act this "a%because of the eistence of the special circu4stance that the P!//,"hich has the co4plete records of the case and bein7 in char7e ofits investi7ation, "as 4ore )no"led7eable and better infor4ed ofthe facts of the case than the OS/.

The authorit%, therefore, of (ttorne% Re%naldo Ros to si7n andsub4it in behalf of the Republic the bill of particulars datedNove4ber 2, +332 is be%ond dispute because +6 he "as dul%deputi@ed b% the P!// in pursuance to its po"er to prosecutecases of ill7otten "ealth under ecutive Order No. +# of Ma% +#,+381, *6 the OS/ e4po"ered the P!// to file the bill ofparticulars as evidenced b% the OS/s 4anifestation and 4otionfiled on (u7ust *-, +332, and 26 there "as no abdication of OS/sdut% b% 7ivin7 the P!// the authorit% to file the bill of particulars.

On the other hand, the deputation of Ra4on


28/55

28

:urisprudence thereon. 18 Si4ple :ustice de4ands that as statedearlier, petitioner 4ust )no" "hat the co4plaint is all about. Thela" re=uires no less.

(lthou7h this !ourt is a"are of the /overn4ents laudable effortsto recover ill7otten "ealth alle7edl% ta)en b% the defendants, this

!ourt, ho"ever, cannot shrin) fro4 its dut% of upholdin7 thesupre4ac% of the la" under the ae7is of :ustice and fairness. This!ourt in dis4issin7 the action a7ainst the petitioner has ri7htfull%adhered in the un%ieldin7 tenet principia, non hominesL therule of la", not of 4en.

(!!ORDIN/', the instant petition is hereb% /R(NTD and theepanded Second (4ended !o4plaint, in so far as petitioner Viratais concerned, is hereb% ordered DISMISSD.

SO ORDRD.


Manila

N &(N!

G.R. No. 17*/88 Ar 22, 2009

AR"E! M. !OS BA3OS, o be(a4 o4 P5Su. &'or Areao,SPO2 Mar'a Oya, SPO1 Ro'y Mer'ee a- PO1 RauA-a:a, a- (; er;oa 'aa'y,Petitioner,vs.

OE! R. PERO,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

BR"ON, J.:

?e revie" in this petition for revie" on certiorari +the Septe4ber+3, *--$ decision*and the ul% 1, *--1 resolution2of the !ourt of(ppeals 5!(6 in !(/.R. SP No. 8-**2. The petition see)s torevive the case a7ainst respondent oel R. Pedro 5Pedro6 forelection 7un ban violation after the !( declared the caseper4anentl% dis4issed pursuant to Section 8, Rule ++0 of the Rulesof !ourt.

TH (NT!DNTS

Pedro "as char7ed in court for carr%in7 a loaded firear4 "ithoutthe re=uired "ritten authori@ation fro4 the !o44ission onlections 5!o4elec6 a da% before the Ma% +#, *--+ national andlocal elections. The Infor4ation readsA

That on or about the +2th da% of Ma% *--+ at about #A-- o9cloc) inthe afternoon, in BSCitio &antau%an, B&Caran7a% &antad,Municipalit% of &oac, Province of Marindu=ue, Philippines, and"ithin the :urisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the abovena4ed

accused did then and there, "illfull%, unla"full% and feloniousl%carr% a Revolver !al. 2$0, Ma7nu4 Ru7er +-- loaded "ith si 516a44unitions, "ith Serial No. +02$1821 outside his residencedurin7 the election period, "ithout authori@ation in "ritin7 fro4 the!o44ission on lectionBsC.

!ONTR(R TO '(?.#

The accusation "as based on &atas Pa4bansa &ilan7 88+ or the

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt4


29/55

29

O4nibus lection !ode 5!ode6 after the Marindu=ue PhilippineNational Police 5PNP6 cau7ht Pedro ille7all% carr%in7 his firear4 ata chec)point at &oac, Marindu=ue. The &oac chec)point tea4 "asco4posed of Police Senior Inspector Victor V. (revalo, SPO*Marshal Ol%4pia, SPO+ Roc)% Mercene, and PO+ Raul (dla"an.The tea4 stopped a silver7ra% To%ota Hi(ce "ith plate nu4ber

?HT20+ on the national hi7h"a%, co4in7 fro4 the &oac to"nproper. ?hen Pedro 5"ho "as seated at the rear portion6 opened the"indo", (revalo sa" a 7un carr% case beside hi4. Pedro could notsho" an% !OM'! authorit% to carr% a firear4 "hen thechec)point tea4 as)ed for one, but he opened the case "hen as)edto do so. The chec)point tea4 sa" the follo"in7 "hen the case "asopenedA +6 one Revolver 2$0 Ma7nu4 Ru7er /P+--, serial nu4ber+02$1821, loaded "ith si a44unitions; *6 one a44unition bocontainin7 +-- bullets; 26 t"o pieces speed loader "ith sia44unitions each; and #6 one set ear protector. Pedro "as "ith

three other 4en. The chec)point tea4 brou7ht all of the4 to the&oac police station for investi7ation.

The &oac election officer filed a cri4inal co4plaint a7ainst Pedrofor violatin7 the election 7un ban, i.e., for carr%in7 a firear4outside of his residence or place of business "ithout an% authorit%fro4 the !o4elec. (fter an in=uest, the Marindu=ue provincialprosecutor filed the above Infor4ation a7ainst Pedro "ith theMarindu=ue Re7ional Trial !ourt 5RT!6 for violation of the !ode9s(rticle QQII, Section *1+ 5=6,$in relation to Section *1#.1

Pedro filed a Motion for Preli4inar% Investi7ation, "hich the RT!7ranted.0 The preli4inar% investi7ation, ho"ever, did not4ateriali@e. Instead, Pedro filed "ith the RT! a Motion to Juash,ar7uin7 that the Infor4ation >contains aver4ents "hich, if true,"ould constitute a le7al ecuse or :ustification 8andGor that the factschar7ed do not constitute an offense.>3Pedro attached to his 4otiona !o4elec !ertification dated Septe4ber *#, *--+ that he "as>ee4pted> fro4 the 7un ban. The provincial prosecutor opposed

the 4otion.

The RT! =uashed the Infor4ation and ordered the police and theprosecutors to return the sei@ed articles to Pedro.+-

The petitioner, private prosecutor (riel 'os &aos 5'os &aos6,

representin7 the chec)point tea4, 4oved to reopen the case, asPedro9s !o4elec !ertification "as a >falsification,> and theprosecution "as >deprived of due process> "hen the :ud7e =uashedthe infor4ation "ithout a hearin7. (ttached to 'os &aos9 4otion"ere t"o !o4elec certifications statin7 thatA 5+6 Pedro "as notee4pted fro4 the firear4 ban; and 5*6 the si7natures in the!o4elec !ertification of Septe4ber *#, *--+ "ere for7ed.

The RT! reopened the case for further proceedin7s, as Pedro didnot ob:ect to 'os &aos9 4otion.++ Pedro 4oved for thereconsideration of the RT!9s order pri4aril% based on Section 8 ofRule ++0,+*ar7uin7 that the dis4issal had beco4e per4anent. Heli)e"ise cited the public prosecutor9s lac) of epress approval ofthe 4otion to reopen the case.

The public prosecutor, ho"ever, 4anifested his epress confor4it%"ith the 4otion to reopen the case. The trial court, for its part,re:ected the position that Section 8, Rule ++0 applies, and eplainedthat this provision refers to situations "here both the prosecutionand the accused 4utuall% consented to the dis4issal of the case, or"here the prosecution or the offended part% failed to ob:ect to thedis4issal of the case, and not to a situation "here the infor4ation"as =uashed upon 4otion of the accused and over the ob:ection ofthe prosecution. The RT!, thus, set Pedro9s arrai7n4ent date.

Pedro filed "ith the !( a petition for certiorari and prohibition tonullif% the RT!9s 4andated reopenin7.+2 He ar7ued that the RT!co44itted 7rave abuse of discretion a4ountin7 to lac) or ecess of:urisdiction in rulin7 that the dis4issal conte4plated under Section

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt13


30/55

30

8, Rule ++0 refers to situations "here either the prosecution and theaccused 4utuall% consented to, or "here the prosecution alone4oved for, the provisional dis4issal of the case; in re:ectin7 hisar7u4ent that the prescriptive periods under (rticle 3- of theRevised Penal !ode+#or (ct No. 22*1+$find no application to hiscase as the filin7 of the Infor4ation a7ainst hi4 stopped the

runnin7 of the prescriptive periods so that the prescription4andated b% these la"s beca4e irrelevant; and, in settin7 the casefor arrai7n4ent and pretrial conference, despite bein7 barred underSection 8 of Rule ++0.

TH !OFRT O< (PP('S D!ISION

The !( initiall% denied Pedro9s petition. *A2$ p.4., Dece4ber +-, *--+,> and ar7uedthat based on this date, the provisional dis4issal of the case beca4e

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt15


31/55

31

>per4anent> on Dece4ber +-, *--*. &ased on this infor4ation, the!( reversed itself, rulin7 as follo"sA

On 3 Septe4ber *--$, "e ruled that Section 8, Rule ++0 isapplicable to a dis4issal on 4otion of the accused. Ho"ever, "edid not issue the "rits of certiorari and prohibition, because it "as

sho"n that the trial court co44itted 7rave abuse of discretion inorderin7 the reopenin7 of the case. Moreover, "e stated that "ecannot rule on the issue of "hether or not the State is barred fro4reopenin7 the case because it "as not sho"n "hen the publicprosecutor "as served the order of dis4issal.

The ar7u4ents raised in the respondents9 4otion for 4odification"ere dul% passed upon in arrivin7 at the decision dated 3

Septe4ber *--$, and no ne" 4atters "ere raised "hich "ould"arrant a reconsideration thereof.

On the other hand, the petitioner "as able to prove that the 4otionto reopen the case "as filed after the lapse of 4ore than one %earfro4 the ti4e the public prosecutor "as served the notice ofdis4issal. Therefore, the state is barred fro4 reopenin7 the case.

?HRopenended,> and did nothave the effect of provisionall% dis4issin7 the case under Section 8of Rule ++0.

'os &aos also contends that the !( 7ravel% erred "henA 5+6 itruled in effect that the Order dated Nove4ber **, *--+ 7rantin7 the4otion to =uash is considered a provisional dis4issal, "hich

beca4e per4anent one %ear fro4 the prosecutor9s receipt of theorder; the order to =uash the Infor4ation "as based on Section 2 ofRule ++0, not on Section 8 of this Rule; 5*6 it 7ranted Pedro9s4otion for reconsideration and denied 'os &aos9 4otion for4odification of :ud74ent, "hen Section 1 of Rule ++0 clearl%provides that an order 7rantin7 a 4otion to =uash is not a bar toanother prosecution for the sa4e offense.

He notes that the 7rounds Pedro relied upon in his 4otion to =uash

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


32/55

32

are not subsections 576 or 5i6 of Rule ++0, but its subsections 5a6 Ethat the facts char7ed do not constitute an offense, and 5h6 E that itcontains aver4ents "hich if true "ould constitute a le7al:ustification. Pedro9s cited 7rounds are not the eceptions that"ould bar another prosecution for the sa4e offense.+8The dis4issalof a cri4inal case upon the epress application of the accused

5under subsections BaC and BhC6 is not a bar to another prosecutionfor the sa4e offense, because his application is a "aiver of hisconstitutional prero7ative a7ainst double :eopard%.

In response to all these, respondent Pedro insists and full% relies onthe application of Section 8 of Rule ++0 to support his position thatthe RT! should not have 7ranted 'os &anos9 4otion to reopen thecase.

TH ISSFS

The issue is ulti4atel% reduced to "hether Section 8, Rule ++0 isapplicable to the case, as the !( found. If it applies, then the !(rulin7 effectivel% la%s the 4atter to rest. If it does not, then therevised RT! decision reopenin7 the case should prevail.

OFR RF'IN/

?e find the petition 4eritorious and hold that the case should bere4anded to the trial court for arrai7n4ent and trial.

Juashal v. Provisional Dis4issal

a. Motion to Juash

( 4otion to =uash is the 4ode b% "hich an accused assails, beforeenterin7 his plea, the validit% of the cri4inal co4plaint or thecri4inal infor4ation filed a7ainst hi4 for insufficienc% on its face

in point of la", or for defect apparent on the face of theInfor4ation.+3The 4otion, as a rule, h%potheticall% ad4its the truthof the facts spelled out in the co4plaint or infor4ation. The rules7overnin7 a 4otion to =uash are found under Rule ++0 of theRevised Rules of !ourt. Section 2 of this Rule enu4erates the7rounds for the =uashal of a co4plaint or infor4ation, as follo"sA

5a6 That the facts char7ed do not constitute an offense;

5b6 That the court tr%in7 the case has no :urisdiction over theoffense char7ed;

5c6 That the court tr%in7 the case has no :urisdiction over the personof the accused;

5d6 That the officer "ho filed the infor4ation had no authorit% to doso;

5e6 That it does not confor4 substantiall% to the prescribed for4;

5f6 That 4ore than one offense is char7ed ecept "hen a sin7lepunish4ent for various offenses is prescribed b% la";

576 That the cri4inal action or liabilit% has been etin7uished;

5h6 That it contains aver4ents "hich, if true, "ould constitute ale7al ecuse or :ustification; and

5i6 That the accused has been previousl% convicted or ac=uitted ofthe offense char7ed, or the case a7ainst hi4 "as dis4issed orother"ise ter4inated "ithout his epress consent.

b. Provisional Dis4issal

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


33/55

33

On the other hand, Section 8, Rule ++0 that is at the center of thedispute states thatA

S!.8.Provisional dismissal. L ( case shall not be provisionall%dis4issed ecept "ith the epress consent of the accused and "ithnotice to the offended part%.

The provisional dis4issal of offenses punishable b% i4prison4entnot eceedin7 si 516 %ears or a fine of an% a4ount, or both, shallbeco4e per4anent one 5+6 %ear after issuance of the order "ithoutthe case havin7 been revived. ?ith respect to offenses punishableb% i4prison4ent of 4ore than si 516 %ears, their provisionaldis4issal shall beco4e per4anent t"o 5*6 %ears after issuance ofthe order "ithout the case havin7 been revived.

( case is provisionall% dis4issed if the follo"in7 re=uire4ents

concurA

+6 the prosecution "ith the epress confor4it% of the accused, orthe accused, 4oves for a provisional dis4issal 5sin per:uicio6 of hiscase; or both the prosecution and the accused 4ove for itsprovisional dis4issal;

*6 the offended part% is notified of the 4otion for a provisionaldis4issal of the case;

26 the court issues an order 7rantin7 the 4otion and dis4issin7 thecase provisionall%; and

#6 the public prosecutor is served "ith a cop% of the order ofprovisional dis4issal of the case.*-

In People v. 'acson,*+ "e ruled that there are sine 2uanonre=uire4ents in the application of the ti4ebar rule stated in the

second para7raph of Section 8 of Rule ++0. ?e also ruled that theti4ebar under the fore7oin7 provision is a special proceduralli4itation =ualif%in7 the ri7ht of the State to prosecute, 4a)in7 theti4ebar an essence of the 7iven ri7ht or as an inherent part thereof,so that the lapse of the ti4ebar operates to etin7uish the ri7ht ofthe State to prosecute the accused.

c. Their !o4parison

(n ea4ination of the "hole Rule tells us that a dis4issal based ona 4otion to =uash and a provisional dis4issal are far different fro4one another as concepts, in their features, and le7al conse=uences.?hile the provision on provisional dis4issal is found "ithin Rule++0 5entitled Motion to Juash6, it does not follo" that a 4otion to=uash results in a provisional dis4issal to "hich Section 8, Rule++0 applies.

( first notable feature of Section 8, Rule ++0 is that it does noteactl% state "hat a provisional dis4issal is. The 4odifier>provisional> directl% su77ests that the dis4issals "hich Section 8essentiall% refers to are those that are te4porar% in character 5i.e., todis4issals that are "ithout pre:udice to the refilin7 of the case6,and not the dis4issals that are per4anent 5i.e., those that bar the refilin7 of the case6. &ased on the la", rules, and :urisprudence,per4anent dis4issals are those barred b% the principle of double:eopard%,**b% the previous etinction of cri4inal liabilit%,*2b% the

rule on speed% trial,*#and the dis4issals after plea "ithout theepress consent of the accused.*$ Section 8, b% its o"n ter4s,cannot cover these dis4issals because the% are not provisional.

( second feature is that Section 8 does not state the 7rounds thatlead to a provisional dis4issal. This is in 4ar)ed contrast "ith a4otion to =uash "hose 7rounds are specified under Section 2. Thedeli4itation of the 7rounds available in a 4otion to =uash su77eststhat a 4otion to =uash is a class in itself, "ith specific and closel%

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_173588_2009.html#fnt25


34/55

34

defined characteristics under the Rules of !ourt. ( necessar%conse=uence is that "here the 7rounds cited are those listed underSection 2, then the appropriate re4ed% is to file a 4otion to =uash,not an% other re4ed%. !onversel%, "here a 7round does not appearunder Section 2, then a 4otion to =uash is not a proper re4ed%. (4otion for provisional dis4issal 4a% then appl% if the conditions

re=uired b% Section 8 obtain.

( third feature, closel% related to the second, focuses on theconse=uences of a 4eritorious 4otion to =uash. This feature alsoans"ers the =uestion of "hether the =uashal of an infor4ation canbe treated as a provisional dis4issal. Sections #, $, 1, and 0 of Rule++0 un4ista)abl% provide for the conse=uences of a 4eritorious4otion to =uash. Section # spea)s of an a4end4ent of theco4plaint or infor4ation, if the 4otion to =uash relates to a defectcurable b% a4end4ent. Section $ d"ells on the effect of sustainin7

the 4otion to =uash the co4plaint or infor4ation 4a% be refiled,ecept for the instances 4entioned under Section 1. The lattersection, on the other hand, specifies the li4it of the refilin7 thatSection $ allo"s E it cannot be done "here the dis4issal is basedon etinction of cri4inal liabilit% or double :eopard%. Section 0defines double :eopard% and co4ple4ents the 7round providedunder Section 25i6 and the eception stated in Section 1. 1a//phi1

Rather than 7oin7 into specifics, Section 8 si4pl% states "hen aprovisional dis4issal can be 4ade, i.e., "hen the accused epressl%

consents and the offended part% is 7iven notice. The consent of theaccused to a dis4issal relates directl% to "hat Section 25i6 andSection 0 provide, i.e., the conditions for dis4issals that lead todouble :eopard%. This i44ediatel% su77ests that a dis4issal underSection 8 E i.e., one "ith the epress consent of the accused E is notintended to lead to double :eopard% as provided under %ection ,but nevertheless creates a bar to further prosecution under thespecial ter4s of Section 8.

This feature 4ust be read "ith Section 1 "hich provides for theeffects of sustainin7 a 4otion to =uash E the dis4issal is not a barto another prosecution for the sa4e offense E unless the basis forthe dis4issal is the etinction of cri4inal liabilit% and double:eopard%. These uni=ue ter4s, read in relation "ith Sections 25i6and 0 and co4pared "ith the conse=uences of Section 8, carr%

unavoidable i4plications that cannot but lead to distinctionsbet"een a =uashal and a provisional dis4issal under Section 8.The% stress in no uncertain ter4s that, save onl% for "hat has beenprovided under Sections # and $, the 7overnin7 rule "hen a 4otionto =uash is 4eritorious are the ter4s of Section 1. The failure of theRules to state under Section 1 that a Section 8 provisional dis4issalis a bar to further prosecution sho"s that the fra4ers did not intenda dis4issal based on a 4otion to =uash and a provisional dis4issalto be confused "ith one another; Section 8 operates in a "orld of itso"n separate fro4 4otion to =uash, and 4erel% provides a ti4ebar

that uni=uel% applies to dis4issals other than those 7rounded onSection 2. !onversel%, "hen a dis4issal is pursuant to a 4otion to=uash under Section 2, Section 8 and its ti4ebar does not appl%.

Other than the above, "e note also the follo"in7 differencesstressin7 that a 4otion to =uash and its resultin7 dis4issal is auni=ue class that should not be confused "ith other dis4issalsA


35/55

35

Third, a 4otion to =uash assails the validit% of the cri4inalco4plaint or the cri4inal infor4ation for defects or defensesapparent on face of the infor4ation; a provisional dis4issal 4a% be7rounded on reasons other than the defects found in theinfor4ation.


36/55

36

One final observationA the Infor4ation "as not rendered defectiveb% the fact that Pedro "as char7ed of violatin7 Section *1+5=6 ofthe !ode, instead of Section 2* of R.(. No. 0+11, "hich a4endedSection *1+5=6; these t"o sections ai4 to penali@e a4on7 others,the carr%in7 of firear4s 5or other deadl% "eapons6 in public placesdurin7 the election period "ithout the authorit% of the !o4elec.

The established rule is that the character of the cri4e is notdeter4ined b% the caption or prea4ble of the infor4ation or fro4the specification of the provision of la" alle7ed to have beenviolated; the cri4e co44itted is deter4ined b% the recital of theulti4ate facts and circu4stances in the co4plaint or infor4ation2+


37/55

37


Manila

N &(N!

G.R. No. 180122 Mar'( 1*, 2009

FE!"C"S"MO F. !A%ARTE, R.,Petitioner,vs.SAN"GANBA+AN =Fr; ;o> a- PEOP!E OF T#EP#"!"PP"NES,Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

T"NGA, J.:

This is a Petition for !ertiorari+under Rule 1$ of the +330 Rules of!ivil Procedure assailin7 the Resolution*dated * March *--0 of thePeople of the Philippines v. Robert P. &alao, et al.,> "hich

denied petitioner


38/55

38

!ru@ !onstruction. Spotlevations and istin7 /radelines> of the pro:ect site "as found,

but this contrasted si7nificantl% "ith the alle7ed :ointsurve% resultsin support of the VariationGtra ?or) Order No. +;

*. No laborator% tests "ere conducted to ascertain unsuitabilit% of4aterials, even if the sa4e should have been re=uired as essentialbasis thereof;

2. There "ere no records of the ecavation and disposal ofunsuitable 4aterials and of road fillin7 "or)s havin7 been 4ade b%the previous en7ineers, Rodolfo de los Santos and Noel 'obrido at

the ti4e said activities "ere alle7edl% eecuted;

#. The ecavation of unsuitable 4aterials and road fillin7 "or)s"ere overesti4ated to the pre:udice of the 7overn4entA

a. in a +-.-- 4eter ri7htof"a% 5RO?6 road, the entire "idth of+-.-- 4eters "as used in calculatin7 the volu4e of cut ofunsuitable 4aterials "hen the undisturbed natural 7rounds on bothsides of the road "as onl% 1.-- 4eters;

b. the 4athe4atical calculation in deter4inin7 the volu4e of cut ofunsuitable 4aterials are contrar% to the contract9s technicalspecifications "hich provides for cut 4easure4ents, i.e.B,C b% endarea 4ethod;

c. in a +-.-- RO? road, an effective "idth of 8.0- 4eters "as usedin calculatin7 the volu4e of road fill "hen the undisturbed natural7rounds on both sides of the road "as onl% 1.-- 4eters apart;

d. the 4athe4atical calculations in deter4inin7 the volu4e ofroadfill are contrar% to the contract9s technical specifications,specificall% Section 2.++ thereof, i.e., b% endarea 4ethod.

$. No laborator% test "as 4ade to ascertain the =ualit% of i4portedroad fill 4aterials.0

In a Me4orandu4 dated *0 une +33+, the Pro:ect Officereco44ended the ter4ination of the infrastructure contract "ith(.!. !onstruction.8

In its Report dated +* (u7ust +33+, the Inventor% and (cceptance!o44ittee deter4ined the total acco4plish4ent of the contractorat #-.83, representin7 P2,#22,0+2.+- out of the total revisedcontract a4ount of P8,230,**$.-3 inclusive of Variation Order No.+ in the a4ount of P0+-,0+0.$#. Thereafter, said !o44ittee

reco44ended that the te4porar% pro:ect suspension i4posed b%the contractor, "hich incurred dela%s in the pro:ect co4pletion, bereferred to the 'e7al Depart4ent for appropriate action.3

On +3 (u7ust +33+, the Mana7er of the 'e7al Depart4ent issued aMe4orandu4 addressed to the /eneral Mana7er of NH( endorsin7approval of the Re7ional Pro:ects Depart4ent9s 5RPD9s6reco44endation. The NH( /eneral Mana7er throu7h a letter dated*3 (u7ust +33+ infor4ed the contractor of the rescission of hiscontract for the develop4ent of the said pro:ect upon his receipt

thereof "ithout pre:udice to NH(9s enforcin7 its ri7ht under thecontract in vie" of the contractor9s unilateral and unauthori@edsuspension of the contract "or)s a4ountin7 to abandon4ent of thepro:ect. Despite the rescission notice issued b% the NH( per letterdated *3 (u7ust +33+, the contractor continued "or)in7inter4ittentl% "ith ver% 4ini4al "or)force until such ti4e as thea"ard of re4ainin7 infrastructure "or)s is effected b% NH( toanother contractor.+-

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt10


39/55

39

In March +33*, the NH( &oard of Directors, per Resolution No.*#$2, approved the 4utual ter4ination of the (.!. !ru@!onstruction contract and a"arded the re4ainin7 "or) to Triad!onstruction and Develop4ent !orporation 5Triad6. The contracta4ount for the re4ainin7 "or) "as P3,$$#,820.2*.++ Thereafter,representatives fro4 (.!. !ru@ !onstruction, Triad and NH(

&acolod conducted a :oint 4easure4ent at the site to deter4ine thetotal acco4plish4ent of (.!. !ru@ !onstruction inclusive ofacco4plish4ents after NH( inventor%.

The Pro:ect Office "as subse=uentl% infor4ed b% the !entralOffice that the acco4plish4ents 4ade b% (.!. !ru@ !onstructionafter the NH( inventor% "ould be paid directl% to said contractorb% Triad. (s of *0 March +33*, Triad had issued chec)s in favor of(.!. !ru@ !onstruction a4ountin7 to One Million Pesos5P+,---,---.--6 "hich "ere received b% (rceo M. !ru@ per

Official Receipt No. 2--2.+*

In its Me4orandu4 dated ** une +33*, the Re7ional Pro:ectsDepart4ent reco44ended to the /eneral Mana7er that the fundsettle4ent to (.!. !ru@ !onstruction be effected.+2

Thereafter, Triad discovered that certain "or) ite4s that had beenin under the inventor% report as acco4plished and acceptable "erein fact noneistent.


40/55

40

!onstruction "ith address at 0#81 &a7ti)an Street, Ma)ati !it%"ith deliberate intent, "ith 4anifest partialit% and evident bad faith,did then and there "illfull%, unla"full% and feloniousl% cause to bepaid to (.!. !onstruction public funds in the a4ount of T?OHFNDRD THIRT T?O THOFS(ND SIQ HFNDRDT?NT I/HT PSOS and THIRT


41/55

41

The Motion for Reconsideration of accused 'a@arte, r. 4erel%reiterated the 7rounds and ar7u4ents "hich had been dul%considered and passed upon in the assailed Resolution.Nonetheless, after a careful revie" of the sa4e, the !ourt still findsno co7ent reason to disturb the findin7 of probable cause of theOffice of the O4buds4an to indict accused 'a@arte, r., spinosa,

'obrido and !ru@ of the offense char7ed. In its Me4orandu4 datedul% *0, *--# and Ma% 2-, *--1, the prosecution "as able to sho""ith sufficient particularit% the respective participation of theafore4entioned accused in the co44ission of the offense char7ed.The rest of the factual issues b% accused 'a@arte, r. "ould re=uirethe presentation of evidence in the course of the trial of this case.

The !ourt also 4aintains the validit% and sufficienc% of theinfor4ation a7ainst accused 'a@arte, r., spinosa, 'obrido and!ru@. The infor4ation has particularl% alle7ed the ulti4ate facts

constitutin7 the essential ele4ents of the offense char7ed "hich areas follo"sA

+. that accused 'a@arte, r., spinosa, and 'obrido are publicofficers bein7 the Depart4ent Mana7er, Pro:ect Mana7e4entOfficer (, and Supervisin7 n7ineer of the NH( durin7 the ti4e4aterial in the cri4inal infor4ation; and

*. that the said accused, in their respective official capacities and inconspirac% "ith accused !ru@, a private individual and the /eneral

4ana7er of (.!. !ru@ !onstruction, have acted "ith 4anifestpartialit% or evident bad faith and have 7iven un"arranted benefits,preference, and advanta7e to (rceo !. !ru@ and (.!. !ru@!onstruction or have caused da4a7e and pre:udice to the7overn4ent, b% >Bcausin7C to be paid (.!. !ru@ !onstructionpublic funds in the a4ount of T"o Hundred Thirt% T"o ThousandSi Hundred T"ent% i7ht Pesos and Thirt%


42/55

42

petitioner9s participation and :ustification for his acts "hichconstitute the offense char7ed are evidentiar% 4atters "hich are4ore properl% addressed durin7 trial. The O4buds4an reiteratesour rulin7 in In7co v. Sandi7anba%an**that the funda4ental test inreflectin7 on the viabilit% of a 4otion to =uash is the sufficienc% ofthe aver4ents in the infor4ation that is, "hether the facts

asseverated, if h%potheticall% ad4itted, "ould establish theessential ele4ents of the cri4e defined b% la". (nd rel%in7 on thecase of Do4in7o v. Sandi7anba%an,*2the O4buds4an states thatinfor4ations need onl% state the ulti4ate facts; the reasons thereforare to be proved durin7 the trial.*# The O4buds4an 4oreover4aintains that the Sandi7anba%an has :urisdiction over petitioner.The O4buds4an ar7ues that it is of no 4o4ent that petitioner9sposition is classified as

salar% 7rade *1 as he is a 4ana7er "ithin the le7al conte4plation of

para7raph +576, Section #5a6 of Republic (ct No. 8*#3.*$

In his Repl%*1dated 3 October *--8, petitioner stron7l% asseveratesthat, accordin7 to the !onstitution, in a conspirac% indict4ent theparticipation of each accused in the socalled conspirac% theor%should be detailed in order to apprise the accused of the nature ofthe accusation a7ainst the4 in relation to the participation of theother accused. ( 7eneral state4ent that all the accused conspired"ith each other "ithout statin7 the participation of each runs afoulof the !onstitution.*0Petitioner adds that the ulti4ate facts intended

b% la" refer to deter4inate facts and circu4stances "hich shouldbeco4e the basis of the cause of action; state4ent of facts "hich"ould be in co4plete accord "ith the constitutional re=uire4ent of7ivin7 the accused sufficient infor4ation about the nature and thecause of the accusation a7ainst hi4.*8Petitioner also avers that theO4buds4an9s reliance on and citation of the cases of In7co v.Sandi7anba%an*3and Do4in7o v. Sandi7anba%an2-is 4isplaced and4isleadin7.

Petitioner9s 4ain ar7u4ent is that the Infor4ation filed before theSandi7anba%an insufficientl% averred the essential ele4ents of thecri4e char7ed as it failed to specif% the individual participation ofall the accused.

The !ourt is not persuaded. The !ourt affir4s the resolutions of the

Sandi7anba%an.

(t the outset, it should be stressed that the denial of a 4otion to=uash is not correctible b% certiorari. ?ellestablished is the rulethat "hen a 4otion to =uash in a cri4inal case is denied, there4ed% is not a petition for certiorari but for petitioners to 7o totrial "ithout pre:udice to reiteratin7 the special defenses invo)ed intheir 4otion to =uash. Re4edial 4easures as re7ards interlocutor%orders, such as a 4otion to =uash, are fro"ned upon and oftendis4issed. The evident reason for this rule is to avoid 4ultiplicit%

of appeals in a sin7le court.2+

This 7eneral rule, ho"ever, is sub:ect to certain eceptions. If thecourt, in den%in7 the 4otion to dis4iss or 4otion to =uash acts"ithout or in ecess of :urisdiction or "ith 7rave abuse ofdiscretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies.2*(nd in the case atbar, the !ourt does not find the Sandi7anba%an to have co44itted7rave abuse of discretion.

The funda4ental test in reflectin7 on the viabilit% of a 4otion to

=uash on the 7round that the facts char7ed do not constitute anoffense is "hether or not the facts asseverated, if h%potheticall%ad4itted, "ould establish the essential ele4ents of the cri4edefined in la".22Matters aliunde "ill not be considered.2#

!orollaril%, Section 1 of Rule ++- of the Rules of !ourt states thatA

S!. 1. Sufficienc% of co4plaint or infor4ation.L( co4plaint orinfor4ation is sufficient if it states the na4e of the accused, the

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

d i ti f th ff b th t t t th t i i 5 6 ! i d i : t t i l di th
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_180122_2009.html#fnt34


43/55

43

desi7nation of the offense b% the statute, the acts or o4issionsco4plained of as constitutin7 the offense; the na4e of the offendedpart%; the approi4ate ti4e of the co44ission of the offense, andthe place "herein the offense "as co44itted.

?hen an offense is co44itted b% 4ore than one person, all of the4

shall be included in the co4plaint or infor4ation.

The acts or o4issions co4plained of 4ust be alle7ed in such for4as is sufficient to enable a person of co44on understandin7 to)no" "hat offense is intended to be char7ed and enable the court to)no" the proper :ud74ent. The Infor4ation 4ust alle7e clearl% andaccuratel% the ele4ents of the cri4e char7ed. ?hat facts andcircu4stances are necessar% to be included therein 4ust bedeter4ined b% reference to the definition and ele4ents of thespecific cri4es.2$

The test is "hether the cri4e is described in intelli7ible ter4s "ithsuch particularit% as to apprise the accused, "ith reasonablecertaint%, of the offense char7ed. The raison d9etre of the rule is toenable the accused to suitabl% prepare his defense.21 (notherpurpose is to enable accused, if found 7uilt%, to plead his convictionin a subse=uent prosecution for the sa4e offense. The use ofderivatives or s%non%4s or alle7ations of basic facts constitutin7the offense char7ed is sufficient.20

Pertinentl%, Section 25e6 of Republic (ct No. 2-+3, other"ise)no"n as the (nti/raft and !orrupt Practices (ct, readsA

S!. 2. !orrupt practices of public officers.LIn addition to acts oro4issions of public officers alread% penali@ed b% eistin7 la", thefollo"in7 shall constitute corrupt practices of an% public officer andare hereb% declared to be unla"fulA

5e6 !ausin7 an% undue in:ur% to an% part%, includin7 the/overn4ent, or 7ivin7 an% private part% an% un"arranted benefits,advanta7e or preference in the dischar7e of his official,ad4inistrative or :udicial functions throu7h 4anifest partialit%,evident bad faith or 7ross inecusable ne7li7ence. This provisionshall appl% to officers and e4plo%ees of offices or 7overn4ent

corporations char7ed "ith the 7rant of licenses or per4its or otherconcessions.28

The essential ele4ents for violation of Section 25e6 of R.(. No.2-+3 are as follo"sA

+. The accused is a public officer or private person char7ed inconspirac% "ith hi4;

*. Said public officer co44its the prohibited acts durin7 the

perfor4ance of his official duties or in relation to his publicposition;

2. He causes undue in:ur% to an% part%, "hether the 7overn4ent orprivat

cases for crimpro

Documents