Crim Pro Full Cases

8/12/2019 Crim Pro Full Cases

1/92

G.R. No. 147703 April 14, 2004PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC.,petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.

DECISIONPANGANIBAN,J.:When the accused-employee absconds or jumps bail, the judment meted out becomes !naland e"ecutory. #he employer cannot de$eat the !nality o$ the judment by !lin a notice o$

appeal on its o%n behal$ in the uise o$ as&in $or a revie% o$ its subsidiary civil liability. 'oththe primary civil liability o$ the accused-employee and the subsidiary civil liability o$ theemployer are carried in one sinle decision that has become !nal and e"ecutory.

T! C"#!'e$ore this Court is a (etition $or )evie%*under )ule + o$ the )ules o$ Court, assailin thearch /, 000and the arch 1, 00*2)esolutions o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35 in C3-6)C7 No. /2/0. (etitioner8s appeal $rom the judment o$ the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ San9ernando, :a ;nion in Criminal Case No. 2 %as dismissed in the !rst )esolution as$ollo%sE)E9O)E, $or all the $oreoin, the motion to dismiss is GRANTE$and the appealis ordered $IS%ISSE$.=+

#he second )esolution denied petitioner8s otion $or )econsideration.

T! F"&'##he $acts o$ the case are summari?ed by the C3 in this %iseavin laid all these basic rules and principles, %e no% address the main issue raised bypetitioner.Ci!il Liability Deemed "nstituted in the Criminal Prosecution3t the outset, %e must e"plain that the 000 )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure has clari!ed %hat

civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution.Section * o$ )ule *** o$ the current )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure providesere are somedirect conseMuences o$ such revision and omissionence, the leal reMuirements must be strictly complied %ith.

It %ould be incorrect to consider the reMuirements o$ the rules on appeal as merely harmlessand trivial technicalities that can be discarded.Indeed, deviations $rom the rules cannot betolerated.1In these times %hen court doc&ets are cloed %ith numerous litiations, such

rules have to be $ollo%ed by parties %ith reater !delity, so as to $acilitate the orderlydisposition o$ those cases.F


7/92

3$ter a judment has become !nal, vested rihts are acMuired by the %innin party. I$ theproper losin party has the riht to !le an appeal %ithin the prescribed period, then the$ormer has the correlative riht to enjoy the !nality o$ the resolution o$ the case./

In $act, petitioner admits that by helpin the accused-employee, it participated in theproceedins be$ore the )#CG thus, it cannot be said that the employer %as deprived o$ dueprocess. It miht have lost its riht to appeal, but it %as not denied its day in court.0In $act,it can be said that by jumpin bail, the accused-employee, not the court, deprived petitionero$ the riht to appeal.

3ll told, %hat is le$t to be done is to e"ecute the )#C Decision aainst the accused. It shouldbe clear that only a$ter proo$ o$ his insolvency may the subsidiary liability o$ petitioner been$orced. It has been suciently proven that there e"ists an employer-employeerelationshipG that the employer is enaed in some &ind o$ industryG and that the employeehas been adjuded uilty o$ the %ron$ul act and $ound to have committed the oense in thedischare o$ his duties. #he proo$ is clear $rom the admissions o$ petitioner that =AoBn 3uust *//0, #$ile on its regular trip from %aoag to Manila a passenger bus o#ned by

petitioner being t$en operated by petitioners driverNapoleon )oman, "gured in anaccident in 'an (uan %a )nion" " ".=*Neither does petitioner dispute that there %asalready a !ndin o$ uilt aainst the accused %hile he %as in the dischare o$ his duties.W>E)E9O)E, the (etition is hereby $ENIE$,and the assailed )esolutions AFFIR%E$. Costs

aainst petitioner.SO O)DE)ED.%"i) I##(!: Whether the petitioner, a la% student, may appear be$ore an in$erior court asan aent or $riend o$ a party litiant.G.R. No. 1-4207 April 27, 2007FER$INAN$ A. CRU, (etitioner,vs.ALBERTO %INA, HON. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO ")/ HON. ENAI$A LAGUILLES,)espondents.

D E C I S I O NAUSTRIA%ARTINE,J.'

'e$ore the Court is a (etition $or Certiorariunder )ule o$ the )ules o$ Court, rounded onpure Muestions o$ la%, %ith (rayer $or (reliminary Injunction assailin the )esolution dateday 2, 00 promulated by the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5, 'ranch **, (asay City, in CivilCase No. 0-0*21, %hich denied the issuance o$ a %rit o$ preliminary injunction aainst theetropolitan #rial Court 4e#C5, 'ranch +, (asay City, in Criminal Case No. 00-*10G*andthe )#C8s Order dated @une , 00 denyin the otion $or )econsideration. No %rit o$preliminary injunction %as issued by this Court.

#he antecedentso%ever, in )esolutiondated @une *0, *//1 in 'ar atter No. 120, the Court En 'anc

clari!ed


10/92

(etitioner $urther arues that the )#C erroneously held that, by its very nature, no civilliability may Ko% $rom the crime o$ 6rave #hreats, and, $or this reason, the intervention o$ aprivate prosecutor is not possible.It is clear $rom the )#C Decision that no such conclusion had been intended by the )#C. Indenyin the issuance o$ the injunctive court, the )#C stated in its Decision that there %as noclaim $or civil liability by the private complainant $or damaes, and that the records o$ thecase do not provide $or a claim $or indemnityG and that there$ore, petitioner8s appearance asprivate prosecutor appears to be leally untenable.

;nder 3rticle *00 o$ the )evised (enal Code, every person criminally liable $or a $elony isalso civilly liable e"cept in instances %hen no actual damae results $rom an oense, such asespionae, violation o$ neutrality, Kiht to an enemy country, and crime aainst popularrepresentation./#he basic rule applies in the instant case, such that %hen a criminal actionis instituted, the civil action $or the recovery o$ civil liability arisin $rom the oense charedshall be deemed instituted %ith criminal action, unless the oended party %aives the civilaction, reserves the riht to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to thecriminal action.*0

#he petitioner is correct in statin that there bein no reservation, %aiver, nor priorinstitution o$ the civil aspect in Criminal Case No. 00-*10, it $ollo%s that the civil aspectarisin $rom 6rave #hreats is deemed instituted %ith the criminal action, and, hence, the

private prosecutor may riht$ully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect.W>E)E9O)E, the (etition is GRANTE$. #he assailed )esolution and Order o$ the )eional#rial Court, 'ranch **, (asay City are REERSE$ and SET ASI$E. #he etropolitan #rialCourt, 'ranch +, (asay City is DI)EC#ED to 3DI# the Entry o$ 3ppearance o$ petitioner inCriminal Case No. 00-*10 as a private prosecutor under the direct control and supervisiono$ the public prosecutor.No pronouncement as to costs.SO O)DE)ED.G.R. No. 1-177 ")("r5 2, 200SPOUSES BENITO LO BUN TIONG ")/ CAROLINE SIO6 CHING TENG, petitioners,vs.ICENTE BALBOA,respondent.

$ E C I S I O NAUSTRIA%ARTINE,J.:

#he spouses 'enito :o 'un #ion and Caroline Sio& Chin #en 4petitioners5 chare 7icente'alboa 4respondent5 %ith $orum shoppin.On 9ebruary +, *//1, respondent !led %ith the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ anila 4'ranch2+5, Civil Case No. /1-F $or Collection o$ Sum o$ oney aainst petitioners. #he amountsouht covers three post-dated chec&s issued by petitioner Caroline Sio& Chin #en4Caroline5, as $ollo%s< 3sia #rust Chec& No. 'NDO1+ dated December 20, *// $or(,000,000.00G 3sia #rust Chec& No. 'NDO1+1 dated @anuary *, *//1 $or (*,00,000.00Gand 3sia #rust Chec& No. 'NDO1+F dated @anuary 2*, *//1 $or (*,/1,0.00 - or a totalo$ (,*1,0.00.*On @uly *, *//1, separate criminal complaints $or violation o$ -atas Pambansa -lg. 4'.(.No. 5 %ere !led aainst Caroline be$ore the unicipal #rial Court 4#C5 o$ anila 4'ranch*05, coverin the said three chec&s. #hese cases %ere doc&eted as Criminal Case Nos.111 to 1F.

On 3uust **, *//F, the )#C rendered its Decision in Civil Case No. /1-F !ndinpetitioners liable, as $ollo%sE)E9O)E, judment is hereby rendered in $avor o$ the plainti and aainst thede$endants orderin the latterO;# @;)ISDIC#ION 3ND WI#>6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION IN 3::OWIN6 ()I73#E )ES(ONDEN# #O )ECO7E)

#WICE 9O) #>E S3E O':I63#ION ON 3CCO;N# O9 #>E S3ID ()I73#E)ES(ONDEN#QS DE:I'E)3#E 93I:;)E 3ND )E9;S3: #O IN9O) #>E )E6ION3: #)I3:

CO;)# #>3# #>E CI7I: O':I63#ION 'EIN6 S;ED ;(ON IS #>E S;'@EC# O9 C)IIN3:CO(:3IN#S WI#> #>E E#)O(O:I#3N #)I3: CO;)#, 3ND 9O) W>IC> #>E CI7I:O':I63#ION W3S S;'SEH;EN#: 3D@;D6ED./

(etitioners contend that the assailed C3 Decision and )esolution should be reconsidered andthe )#C Decision dated 3uust **, *//F dismissed as respondentQs act o$ !lin Civil Case No./1-F and Criminal Cases Nos. 111 to 1F constitutes $orum shoppin.9orum shoppin is the institution o$ t%o or more actions or proceedins rounded on thesame cause, on the supposition that one or the other court %ould render a $avorabledisposition. It is usually resorted to by a party aainst %hom an adverse judment or orderhas been issued in one $orum, in an attempt to see& and possibly to et a $avorable opinionin another $orum, other than by an appeal or a special civil action $or certiorari.*0

#here is $orum shoppin %hen the $ollo%in elements concur< 4*5 identity o$ the parties or, atleast, o$ the parties %ho represent the same interest in both actionsG 45 identity o$ the rihtsasserted and relie$ prayed $or, as the latter is $ounded on the same set o$ $actsG and 425identity o$ the t%o precedin particulars, such that any judment rendered in the otheraction %ill amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or %ill constitute litispendentia.**

In /yatt !ndustrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia 0ynamic *lectrix Corp.,*the Court ruled thatthere is identity o$ parties and causes o$ action bet%een a civil case $or the recovery o$ sumo$ money as a result o$ the issuance o$ bouncin chec&s, and a criminal case $or theprosecution o$ a '.(. No. violation. #hus, it ordered the dismissal o$ the civil action so asto prevent double payment o$ the claim. #he Court statedence, this recourse by the petitioners allein rave abuse o$ discretion in theOmbudsmanQs @oint )esolution and Order.'e$ore anythin else, %e note that on 3pril , */// and @une *2, 000, the respectivecounsel $or respondents #an and 'enedicto, in compliance %ith Section *,**)ule 2 o$ the)ules o$ Court, !led pleadins in$ormin the Court o$ their clientsQ demise. 'enedictoQscounsel !led a Notice o$ Death 4With (rayer $or Dismissal5*movin that 'enedicto bedropped as respondent in the instant case $or the reason =that the pendin criminal casessubject o$ this appeal are actions %hich do not survive the death o$ the party accused.=(etitioners opposed the move to drop 'enedicto as respondent, citin Torri1os v. Court of

Appeals*2%hich held that =civil liability o$ the accused survives his deathG because death isnot a valid cause $or the e"tinuishment o$ civil obliations.=Our rulin on this issue need not be arduous. #he rules on %hether the civil liability o$ anaccused, upon death, is e"tinuished toether %ith his criminal liability, has lon beenclari!ed and settled in the case o$ (eople v. 'ayotas< *+

*. Death o$ an accused pendin appeal o$ his conviction e"tinuishes his criminalliability as %ell as the civil liability based solely thereon. 3s opined by @ustice)ealado, in this reard, =the death o$ the accused prior to !nal judment terminateshis criminal liability and onlythe civil liability directlyarisin $rom and based solely onthe oense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.=. Corollarily, the claim $or civil liability survives not%ithstandin the death o$accused, i$ the same may also be predicated on a source o$ obliation other thandelict. 3rticle **1 o$ the Civil Code enumerates these other sources o$ obliation

$rom %hich the civil liability may arise as a result o$ the same act or omission


19/92

d5 " " "e5 Huasi-delicts

2. Where the civil liability survives, as e"plained in Number above, an action $orrecovery there$or may be pursued but only by %ay o$ !lin a separate civil action andsubject to Section *, )ule *** o$ the */F )ules on Criminal (rocedure *as amended.

#he separate civil action may be en$orced either aainst the e"ecutorJadministrator orthe estate o$ the accused, dependin on the source o$ obliation upon %hich the sameis based as e"plained above.

+. 9inally, the private oended party need not $ear a $or$eiture o$ his riht to !le thisseparate civil action by prescription, in cases %here durin the prosecution o$ thecriminal action and prior to its e"tinction, the private-oended party institutedtoether there%ith the civil action. In such case, the statute o$ limitations on the civilliability is deemed interrupted durin the pendency o$ the criminal case, con$ormably%ith provisions o$ 3rticle ** o$ the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid anyapprehension on a possible AdeBprivation o$ riht by prescription.

3pplyin the $oreoin rules, 3'S-C'NQs insistence that the case at bench survives becausethe civil liability o$ the respondents subsists is stripped o$ merit.

#o bein %ith, there is no criminal case as yet aainst the respondents. #he Ombudsman didnot !nd probable cause to prosecute respondents $or various $elonies in the )(C. 3s such,

the rule that a civil action is deemed instituted alon %ith the criminal action unless theoended party< 4a5 %aives the civil action, 4b5 reserves the riht to institute it separately, or4c5 institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action,*is not applicable.In any event, consistent %ith People v. -ayotas,*1the death o$ the accused necessarily calls$or the dismissal o$ the criminal case aainst him, reardless o$ the institution o$ the civilcase %ith it. #he civil action %hich survives the death o$ the accused must hine on othersources o$ obliation provided in 3rticle **1 o$ the Civil Code. In such a case, a survivincivil action aainst the accused $ounded on other sources o$ obliation must be prosecutedin a separate civil action. In other %ords, civil liability based solely on the criminal action ise"tinuished, and a dierent civil action cannot be continued and prosecuted in the samecriminal action.Sini!cantly, this Court in -enedicto v. Court of Appeals,*Fta&in coni?ance o$ respondent

'enedictoQs death on ay *, 000, has ordered that the latter be dropped as a party, anddeclared e"tinuished any criminal as %ell as civil liability e" delicto that miht beattributable to him in Criminal Cases Nos. /*-*0*F1/ to /*-*0*FF2, /*-*0*FF+ to *0*F/,and /-*0*// to /-*0*// pendin be$ore the )eional #rial Court o$ anila.:astly, %e note that petitioners appear to have already $ollo%ed our rulin in People v.-ayotas*/by !lin a separate civil action to en$orce a claim aainst the estate o$ respondent'enedicto.0#he claim aainst the estate o$ 'enedicto is based on contract-the @une F, */12letter- areement-in consonance %ith Section ,*)ule F o$ the )ules o$ Court. (lainly, thedroppin o$ respondents 'enedicto and #an as parties herein is in order.We no% come to the core issue o$ %hether the Ombudsman committed rave abuse o$discretion in dismissin petitionersQ complaint aainst the respondents. We rule in theneative and, accordinly, dismiss the petition.We cannot overemphasi?e the $act that the Ombudsman is a constitutional ocer dutybound to =investiate on its o%n, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission o$ anypublic ocial, employee, oce or aency, %hen such act or omission appears to be illeal,unjust, improper, or inecient.=#he raison d 2etre$or its creation and endo%ment o$ broadinvestiative authority is to insulate it $rom the lon tentacles o$ ocialdom that are able topenetrate judesQ and !scalsQ oces, and others involved in the prosecution o$ errin publicocials, and throuh the e"ecution o$ ocial pressure and inKuence, Muash, delay, ordismiss investiations into mal$easances and mis$easances committed by public ocers.2In Presidential Commission on Good Government 3PCGG4 v. 0esierto,+%e d%elt on thepo%ers, $unctions and duties o$ the Ombudsman, to %itE)E9O)E, the petition is, in liht o$ the $oreoin discussions, DENIED.

#he case is )E3NDED to the court o$ oriin, etropolitan #rial Court o$ a&ati City, 'ranch %hich is DI)EC#ED to $orth%ith set Criminal Case No. /+/0 $or $urther proceedins only$or the purpose o$ receivin evidence on the civil aspect o$ the case.Costs aainst petitioner.SO O)DE)ED.

G.R. No. 10 A(*(#' 3, 2010ROLITO CALANG ")/ PHILTRANCO SERICE ENTERPRISES, INC.,(etitioners,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,)espondent.

) E S O : ; # I O NBRION,J.'We resolve the motion $or reconsideration !led by the petitioners, (hiltranco ServiceEnterprises, Inc. 4(hiltranco5 and )olito Calan, to challene our )esolution o$ 9ebruary *1,0*0. Our assailed )esolution denied the petition $or revie% on certiorari $or $ailure to sho%any reversible error sucient to %arrant the e"ercise o$ this Court8s discretionary appellate

jurisdiction.3ntecedent 9acts3t around


26/92

correccional, as ma"imum. #he )#C ordered Calan and (hiltranco, jointly and severally, topay (0,000.00 as death indemnity to the heirs o$ 3rmandoG (0,000.00 as death indemnityto the heirs o$ abansaG and (/0,0F2./2 as actual damaes to the private complainants.

#he petitioners appealed the )#C decision to the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35, doc&eted as C3-6.).C) No. . #he C3, in its decision dated November 0, 00/, armed the )#C decision intoto. #he C3 ruled that petitioner Calan $ailed to e"ercise due care and precaution in drivinthe (hiltranco bus. 3ccordin to the C3, various eye%itnesses testi!ed that the bus %astravelin $ast and encroached into the opposite lane %hen it evaded a pushcart that %as on

the side o$ the road. In addition, he $ailed to slac&en his speed, despite admittin that he hadalready seen the jeep comin $rom the opposite direction %hen it %as still hal$ a &ilometera%ay. #he C3 $urther ruled that Calan demonstrated a rec&less attitude %hen he drove thebus, despite &no%in that it %as suerin $rom loose compression, hence, not road%orthy.

#he C3 added that the )#C correctly held (hiltranco jointly and severally liable %ithpetitioner Calan, $or $ailin to prove that it had e"ercised the dilience o$ a ood $ather o$the $amily to prevent the accident.

#he petitioners !led %ith this Court a petition $or revie% on certiorari. In our )esolution dated9ebruary *1, 0*0, %e denied the petition $or $ailure to suciently sho% any reversible errorin the assailed decision to %arrant the e"ercise o$ this Court8s discretionary appellate

jurisdiction.

#he otion $or )econsiderationIn the present motion $or reconsideration, the petitioners claim that there %as no basis tohold (hiltranco jointly and severally liable %ith Calan because the $ormer %as not a party inthe criminal case 4$or multiple homicide %ith multiple serious physical injuries and damaeto property thru rec&less imprudence5 be$ore the )#C.

#he petitioners li&e%ise maintain that the courts belo% overloo&ed several relevant $acts,supported by documentary e"hibits, %hich, i$ considered, %ould have sho%n that Calan %asnot nelient, such as the adavit and testimony o$ %itness Celestina CabriaG thetestimony o$ %itness )odrio 'ocaycayG the trac accident s&etch and reportG and the

jeepney8s reistration receipt. #he petitioners also insist that the jeep8s driver had the lastclear chance to avoid the collision.We partly rant the motion.

:iability o$ CalanWe see no reason to overturn the lo%er courts8 !ndin on Calan8s culpability. #he !ndin o$nelience on his part by the trial court, armed by the C3, is a Muestion o$ $act that %ecannot pass upon %ithout oin into $actual matters touchin on the !ndin o$ nelience.In petitions $or revie% on certiorari under )ule + o$ the )evised )ules o$ Court, this Court islimited to revie%in only errors o$ la%, not o$ $act, unless the $actual !ndins complained o$are devoid o$ support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judment is based on amisapprehension o$ $acts.:iability o$ (hiltrancoWe, ho%ever, hold that the )#C and the C3 both erred in holdin (hiltranco jointly andseverally liable %ith Calan. We emphasi?e that Calan %as chared criminally be$ore the)#C. ;ndisputedly, (hiltranco %as not a direct party in this case. Since the cause o$ actionaainst Calan %as based on delict, both the )#C and the C3 erred in holdin (hiltranco

jointly and severally liable %ith Calan, based on Muasi-delict under 3rticles *1*and *F0

o$ the Civil Code. 3rticles *1 and *F0 o$ the Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability o$an employer $or Muasi-delicts that an employee has committed. Such provision o$ la% doesnot apply to civil liability arisin $rom delict.I$ at all, (hiltranco8s liability may only be subsidiary. 3rticle *0 o$ the )evised (enal Codestates the subsidiary civil liabilities o$ inn&eepers, tavern&eepers and proprietors o$establishments, as $ollo%s. 'ello dismissed respondent

Di?onQs petition $or revie%.*On arch , *//, Secretary o$ @ustice Eduardo 6. ontenerodenied respondent Di?onQs motion $or reconsideration.*On ay *F, *//, respondent Di?on*1!led %ith the Court o$ 3ppeals a petition $or certiorari,prohibition and mandamus*F to annul the resolution*/o$ 3ctin Secretary o$ @ustice Eduardo6. ontenero, and to order the dismissal o$ all the criminal cases aainst him be$ore thea&ati )eional #rial courts.On ay F, *//, (rovincial (rosecutor auro . Castro denied the motion $orreconsideration o$ the petitioners.0On @une */, *//, petitioners appealed to the Secretary o$ @ustice $rom the resolution o$respondent (rovincial (rosecutor Castro.*

On @uly *2, *//, Secretary o$ @ustice 9ran&lin . Drilon dismissed the appeal o$ petitioners.

On 3uust +, *//, ;ndersecretary )amon S. Esuerra denied the motion $orreconsideration.2On September F, *//, petitioners+!led %ith the Court o$ 3ppeals a petition $or certiorari,prohibition and mandamus.#hey alleed thato%ever, she $ailed to attend thene"t hearin hence, the case %as provisionally dismissed.On arch , 002, petitioner !led another 3davit-Complaint%ith a comprehensiveaccount o$ the alleed rape incident. #he case %as assined to nd 3ssistant (rovincial(rosecutor 6eorina >idalo. Durin the preliminary investiation, petitioner appeared $orclari!catory Muestionin. On @une **, 002, the investiatin prosecutor issued a )esolution

!ndin that aprima facie case o$ rape e"ists and recommendin the !lin o$ the in$ormation.3r?adon moved $or reconsideration and reMuested that a panel o$ prosecutors be constitutedto revie% the case. #hus, a panel o$ prosecutors %as created and a$ter the clari!catoryMuestionin, the panel issued on October *2, 002 a )esolution 1!ndin probable cause anddenyin 3r?adon8s motion $or reconsideration.3n In$ormationF$or rape %as !led be$ore the )eional #rial Court, 'ranch 1, San 9ernando,:a ;nion on 9ebruary , 00+, doc&eted as Criminal Case No. +*. #herea$ter, 3r?adon !leda =otion to >old in 3beyance 3ll Court (roceedins Includin the Issuance o$ a Warrant o$3rrest and to Determine (robable Cause $or the (urpose o$ Issuin a Warrant o$ 3rrest.=/Onarch *F, 00+, respondent @ude 3ntonio 3. Carbonell ranted the motion and directedpetitioner and her %itnesses to ta&e the %itness stand $or determination o$ probable cause.3r?adon also appealed the )esolution o$ the panel o$ prosecutors !ndin probable causebe$ore the Department o$ @ustice. On @uly /, 00+, then 3ctin Secretary o$ @usticeerceditas 6utierre? $ound no probable cause and directed the %ithdra%al o$ the In$ormationin Criminal Case No. +*.*0

;pon motion $or reconsideration by petitioner, ho%ever, Secretary o$ @ustice )aul 6on?alesreversed the @uly /, 00+ )esolution and issued another )esolution**!ndin that probablecause e"ists. #hus, a ne% In$ormation*$or rape %as !led aainst 3r?adon doc&eted asCriminal Case No. /F2.ConseMuently, 3r?adon !led an =;rent otion $or @udicial Determination o$ (robable Cause$or the (urpose o$ Issuin a Warrant o$ 3rrest.=*2In an Order dated 3uust **, 00,respondent @ude Carbonell ranted the motion and directed petitioner and her %itnesses tota&e the %itness stand.

Instead o$ ta&in the %itness stand, petitioner !led a motion $or reconsideration claiminthat the documentary evidence suciently established the e"istence o$ probable cause.(endin resolution thereo$, she li&e%ise !led a petition *+%ith this Court $or the trans$er o$venue o$ Criminal Case No. /F2. #he case %as doc&eted as 3dministrative atter No. 0-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt14


31/92

*-1-)#C and entitled +e8 Transfer of 9enue of Criminal Case :o. ; formerly CriminalCase :o. ;?5@ from t$e +egional Trial Court -ranc$ B 'an ernando City %a )nion to anyCourt in Metro Manila.In a )esolution*dated @anuary *F, 00, the Court ranted petitioner8s reMuest $or trans$ero$ venue. #he case %as raYed to the )eional #rial Court o$ anila, 'ranch , and doc&etedas Criminal Case No. 0-+F/. >o%ever, the proceedins have been suspended pendinthe resolution o$ this petition.ean%hile, on December *, 00, respondent @ude Carbonell issued the assailed Order

dismissin Criminal Case No. /F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause. (etitioner8s motion $orreconsideration %as denied hence, this petition.(etitioner raises the $ollo%in issues 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION 3O;N#IN6 #O :3CT O9O) IN ECESS O9 @;)ISDIC#ION W>EN I# 6)3N#ED #>E O#ION 9O) DE#E)IN3#ION O9()O'3':E C3;SE 9I:ED ' #>E ()I73#E )ES(ONDEN# 3ND #>E S;'SEH;EN# DENI3: O9

#>E O#ION 9O) )ECONSIDE)3#IONII)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E COI##ED 9;)#>E) 3C#S CONS#I#;#IN6 6)37E 3';SE O9DISC)E#ION 3O;N#IN6 #O :3CT O) IN ECESS O9 @;)ISDIC#ION W>EN I# O)DE)ED #>E

CO(:3IN3N# 3ND WI#NESSES #O #3TE #>E S#3ND 9O) #>E (;)(OSE O9 DE#E)ININ6()O'3':E C3;SEIII

)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E 3C#ED WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION W>EN >E )E9;SED #OIN>I'I# 9)O 9;)#>E) >3ND:IN6 #>E C3SE DES(I#E W>IS(E)S O9 DO;'# ON >IS 'I3S3ND (3)#I3:I#

I7)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E 3C#ED WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION W>EN I# ISS;ED #>EO)DE) O9 9E');3) 2, 00, DENIN6 #>E O#ION 9O) )ECONSIDE)3#ION, DES(I#E #>ES;()EE CO;)# )ESO:;#ION O9 @3N;3) *F, 00, 6)3N#IN6 #>E #)3NS9E) O9 7EN;E(etitioner contends that the jude is not reMuired to personally e"amine the complainant andher %itnesses in satis$yin himsel$ o$ the e"istence o$ probable cause $or the issuance o$ a

%arrant o$ arrest. She arues that respondent @ude Carbonell should have ta&en intoconsideration the documentary evidence as %ell as the transcript o$ stenoraphic notes%hich suciently established the e"istence o$ probable cause.3r?adon claims that the petition should be dismissed outriht $or bein the %ron mode o$appeal, it appearin that the issues raised by petitioner properly $all under an action $orcertiorari under )ule , and not )ule +, o$ the )ules o$ Court.)espondent @ude Carbonell arues in his Comment*1that the !ndin o$ probable cause bythe investiatin prosecutor is not bindin or obliatory, and that he %as justi!ed inreMuirin petitioner and her %itnesses to ta&e the %itness stand in order to determineprobable cause.

#he issues $or resolution are *5 %hether the petition should be dismissed $or bein the %ronmode o$ appealG and 5 %hether respondent @ude Carbonell acted %ith rave abuse o$discretion in dismissin Criminal Case No. /F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause.

#he petition has merit.3 petition $or revie% on certiorari under )ule + is distinct $rom a petition $or certiorari under)ule in that the $ormer brins up $or revie% errors o$ judment %hile the latter concernserrors o$ jurisdiction or rave abuse o$ discretion amountin to lac& or e"cess o$ jurisdiction.6rave abuse o$ discretion is not an allo%able round under )ule +. >o%ever, a petition $orrevie% on certiorari under )ule + may be considered a petition $or certiorari under )ule %here it is alleed that the respondents abused their discretion in their Muestioned actions,as in the instant case.*FWhile petitioner claims to have brouht the instant action under )ule+, the rounds raised herein involve an alleed rave abuse o$ discretion on the part o$respondent @ude Carbonell. 3ccordinly, the Court shall treat the same as a petition $or

certiorari under )ule .>o%ever, %e must point out the procedural error committed by petitioner in directly !linthe instant petition be$ore this Court instead o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals, thereby violatin theprinciple o$ judicial hierarchy o$ courts. It is %ell-settled that althouh the Supreme Court,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_171465_2007.html#fnt18


32/92

Court o$ 3ppeals and the )eional #rial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue %rits o$certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, uo #arranto, $abeas corpus and injunction, suchconcurrence does not ive the petitioner unrestricted $reedom o$ choice o$ court $orum. */Inthis case, ho%ever, the ravity o$ the oense chared and the lenth o$ time that haspassed since the !lin o$ the complaint $or rape, compel us to resolve the presentcontroversy in order to avoid $urther delay.0

We thus proceed to the issue o$ %hether respondent @ude Carbonell acted %ith rave abuseo$ discretion in dismissin Criminal Case No. /F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause.

We rule in the armative.)espondent @ude Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. /F2 $or lac& o$ probable cause onthe round that petitioner and her %itnesses $ailed to comply %ith his orders to ta&e the%itness stand. #hus PIn )ES;E there$ore, as indubitably borne out by the case record and considerin that the(rivate (rosecutor, despite several admonitions contumaciously nay contemptuously re$usedto complyJobey this Court8s Orders o$ arch *F, 00+, 3uust **, 00 and eiht 4F5 othersimilar Orders issued in open Court that directed the complainantJ%itnesses to ta&e the%itness stand to be as&ed probinJclari!catory Muestions consonant %ith cited

jurisprudential rulins o$ the Supreme Court, this Court in the e"ercise o$ its discretion andsound judment !nds and so holds that NO probable cause %as established to %arrant the

issuance o$ an arrest order and the $urther prosecution o$ the instant case.)ecord also sho%s in no unclear terms that in all the scheduled hearins o$ the case, theaccused had al%ays been present. 3 contrario, the private complainant $ailed to appeardurin the last $our 4+5 consecutive settins despite due notice %ithout ivin anye"planation, %hich to the mind o$ the Court may indicate an apparent lac& o$ interest in the$urther prosecution o$ this case. #hat $ailure may even be construed as a con!rmation o$ theDe$ense8s contention reKected in the case record, that the only party interested in this caseis the (rivate prosecutor, prodded by the accused8s alleed hostile siblins to continue %iththe case.W>E)E9O)E, premises considered, $or utter lac& o$ probable cause, the instant case ishereby ordered DISISSED.*

>e claims that under Section , 3rticle III o$ the */F1 Constitution, no %arrant o$ arrest shall

issue e"cept upon probable cause =to be determined personally by the jude a$tere"amination under oath or armation o$ the complainant and the %itnesses he mayproduce.=>o%ever, in the leadin case o$ 'oliven v. MaDasiar,the Court e"plained that thisconstitutional provision does not mandatorily reMuire the jude to personally e"amine thecomplainant and her %itnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the report andsupportin documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may disreard the prosecutor8sreport and reMuire the submission o$ supportin adavits o$ %itnesses. #husonor, :eodeario :. oul, denied the motion. 23motion $or reconsideration o$ the order %as denied in the order o$ 3uust , */11 but thearrainment %as de$erred to 3uust *F, */11 to aord nine $or petitioner to elevate thematter to the appellate court. 3

3 petition $or certiorari and prohibition %ith prayer $or a preliminary %rit o$ injunction %as!led by the accused in the Court o$ 3ppeals that %as doc&eted as C3-6.). S( No. 0/1F. 4Inan order o$ 3uust *1, */11 the Court o$ 3ppeals restrained @ude oul $rom proceedin%ith the arrainment o$ the accused until $urther orders o$ the Court. -In a comment that%as !led by the Solicitor 6eneral he recommended that the petition be iven due course. On ay *, */1F a decision %as rendered by the Court o$ 3ppeals rantin the %rit andperpetually restrainin the jude $rom en$orcin his threat to compel the arrainment o$ theaccused in the case until the Department o$ @ustice shall have !nally resolved the petition $orrevie%. 7

On arch , */1F then ;ndersecretary o$ @ustice, >on.Catalino acarai, @r., resolvin thepetition $or revie% reversed the resolution o$ the Oce o$ the (rovincial 9iscal and directedthe !scal to move $or immediate dismissal o$ the in$ormation !led aainst the accused. 3motion to dismiss $or insuciency o$ evidence %as !led by the (rovincial 9iscal dated 3pril*0, */1F %ith the trial court, attachin thereto a copy o$ the letter o$ ;ndersecretary

acarai, @r. In an order o$ 3uust , */1F the private prosecutor %as iven time to !le anopposition thereto.10On November +, */1F the @ude denied the motion and set thearrainiment statinability o$the dra%er can only be civil and not criminal.

#he motionQs thrust bein to induce this Court to resolve the innocence o$ theaccused on evidence not be$ore it but on that adduced be$ore the

;ndersecretary o$ @ustice, a matter that not only disreards the reMuirements o$due process but also erodes the CourtQs independence and interity, the motionis considered as %ithout merit and there$ore hereby DENIED.W>E)E9O)E, let the arrainment be, as it is hereby set $or December *F, */1Fat /ence this petition $or revie% o$ said decision %as !led by accused %hereby petitioner praysthat said decision be reversed and set aside, respondent jude be perpetually enjoined $romen$orcin his threat to proceed %ith the arrainment and trial o$ petitioner in said criminalcase, declarin the in$ormation !led not valid and o$ no leal $orce and eect, orderinrespondent @ude to dismiss the said case, and declarin the obliation o$ petitioner aspurely civil. 1In a resolution o$ ay */, */F0, the Second Division o$ this Court %ithout ivin due courseto the petition reMuired the respondents to comment to the petition, not to !le a motiod todismiss, %ithin ten 4*05 days $rom notice. In the comment !led by the Solicitor 6eneral he

recommends that the petition be iven due course, it bein meritorious. (rivate respondentthrouh counsel !led his reply to the comment and a separate conunent to the petitionas&in that the petition be dismissed. In the resolution o$ 9ebruary , */F*, the SecondDivision o$ this Court resolved to trans$er this case to the Court *n -anc. In the resolution o$9ebruary , */F*, the Court *n -ancresolved to ive due course to the petition.(etitioner and private respondent !led their respective brie$s %hile the Solicitor 6eneral !leda ani$estation in lieu o$ brie$ reiteratin that the decision o$ the respondent Court o$3ppeals be reversed and that respondent @ude be ordered to dismiss the in$ormation.It is a cardinal principle that an criminal actions either commenced by complaint or byin$ormation shall be prosecuted under the direction and control o$ the !scal. 17#heinstitution o$ a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion o$ the !scal. >e may ormay not !le the complaint or in$ormation, $ollo% or not $ono% that presented by the oendedparty, accordin to %hether the evidence in his opinion, is sucient or not to establish theuilt o$ the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 1#he reason $or placin the criminalprosecution under the direction and control o$ the !scal is to prevent malicious or un$oundedprosecution by private persons. 1 It cannot be controlled by the complainant. 20(rosecutinocers under the po%er vested in them by la%, not only have the authority but also the dutyo$ prosecutin persons %ho, accordin to the evidence received $rom the complainant, aresho%n to be uilty o$ a crime committed %ithin the jurisdiction o$ their oce. 21#hey haveeMually the leal duty not to prosecute %hen a$ter an investiation they become convincedthat the evidence adduced is not sucient to establish aprima faciecase. 22

It is throuh the conduct o$ a preliminary investiation 23that the !scal determines thee"istence o$ a puma $acie case that %ould %arrant the prosecution o$ a case. #he Courts

cannot inter$ere %ith the !scalQs discretion and control o$ the criminal prosecution. It is notprudent or even permissible $or a Court to compel the !scal to prosecute a proceedinoriinally initiated by him on an in$ormation, i$ he !nds that the evidence relied upon by himis insucient $or conviction. 24Neither has the Court any po%er to order the !scal to


36/92

prosecute or !le an in$ormation %ithin a certain period o$ time, since this %ould inter$ere%ith the !scalQs discretion and control o$ criminal prosecutions. 2-#hus, a !scal %ho as&s $orthe dismissal o$ the case $or insuciency o$ evidence has authority to do so, and Courts thatrant the same commit no error. 2#he !scal may re-investiate a case and subseMuentlymove $or the dismissal should the re-investiation sho% either that the de$endant is innocentor that his uilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt. 27In a clash o$ vie%sbet%een the jude %ho did not investiate and the !scal %ho did, or bet%een the !scal andthe oended party or the de$endant, those o$ the 9iscalQs should normally prevail. 2On theother hand, neither an injunction, preliminary or !nal nor a %rit o$ prohibition may be issuedby the courts to restrain a criminal prosecution 2e"cept in the e"treme case %here it isnecessary $or the Courts to do so $or the orderly administration o$ justice or to prevent theuse o$ the stron arm o$ the la% in an op pressive and vindictive manner. 30

>o%ever, the action o$ the !scal or prosecutor is not %ithout any limitation or control. #hesame is subject to the approval o$ the provincial or city !scal or the chie$ state prosecutor asthe case maybe and it maybe elevated $or revie% to the Secretary o$ @ustice %ho has thepo%er to arm, modi$y or reverse the action or opinion o$ the !scal. ConseMuently theSecretary o$ @ustice may direct that a motion to dismiss the rase be !led in Court orother%ise, that an in$ormation be !led in Court. 31

#he !lin o$ a complaint or in$ormation in Court initiates a criminal action. #he Court thereby

acMuires jurisdiction over the case, %hich is the authority to hear and determine the case.

32

When a$ter the !lin o$ the complaint or in$ormation a %arrant $or the arrest o$ the accusedis issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submited himsel$ to the Courtor %as duly arrested, the Court thereby acMuired jurisdiction over the person o$ the accused.33

#he preliminary investiation conducted by the !scal $or the purpose o$ determinin %hetheraprima faciecase e"ists %arrantin the prosecution o$ the accused is terminated upon the!lin o$ the in$ormation in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the !lin o$ saidin$ormation sets in motion the criminal action aainst the accused in Court. Should the !scal!nd it proper to conduct a reinvestiation o$ the case, at such stae, the permission o$ theCourt must be secured. 3$ter such reinvestiation the !ndin and recommendations o$ the!scal should be submitted to the Court $or appropriate action. 34While it is true that the

!scal has the uasi 1udicial discretion to determine %hether or not a criminal case should be!led in court or not, once the case had already been brouht to Court %hatever dispositionthe !scal may $eel should be proper in the rase therea$ter should be addressed $or theconsideration o$ the Court, 3-#he only Muali!cation is that the action o$ the Court must notimpair the substantial rihts o$ the accused. 3or the riht o$ the (eople to due process o$la%. 3"Whether the accused had been arrained or not and %hether it %as due to a reinvestiationby the !scal or a revie% by the Secretary o$ @ustice %hereby a motion to dismiss %assubmitted to the Court, the Court in the e"ercise o$ its discretion may rant the motion ordeny it and reMuire that the trial on the merits proceed $or the proper determination o$ thecase.>o%ever, one may as&, i$ the trial court re$uses to rant the motion to dismiss !led by the!scal upon the directive o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice %ill there not be a vacuum in theprosecutionZ 3 state prosecutor to handle the case cannot possibly be desinated by theSecretary o$ @ustice %ho does not believe that there is a basis $or prosecution nor can the!scal be e"pected to handle the prosecution o$ the case thereby de$yin the superior ordero$ the Secretary o$ @ustice.

#he ans%er is simple. #he role o$ the !scal or prosecutor as We all &no% is to see that justiceis done and not necessarily to secure the conviction o$ the person accused be$ore theCourts. #hus, in spite o$ his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty o$ the !scal to proceed %iththe presentation o$ evidence o$ the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive atits o%n independent judment as to %hether the accused should be convicted or acMuitted.

#he !scal should not shir& $rom the responsibility o$ appearin $or the (eople o$ the

(hilippines even under such circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution o$the case leavin it to the hands o$ a private prosecutor $or then the entire proceedins %illbe null and void. 37#he least that the !scal should do is to continue to appear $or the


37/92

prosecution althouh he may turn over the presentation o$ the evidence to the privateprosecutor but still under his direction and control. 3

#he rule there$ore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or in$ormation is !led in Courtany disposition o$ the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acMuittal o$ the accused restsin the sound discretion o$ the Court. 3lthouh the !scal retains the direction and control o$the prosecution o$ criminal cases even %hile the case is already in Court he cannot imposehis opinion on the trial court. #he Court is the best and sole jude on %hat to do %ith thecase be$ore it. #he determination o$ the case is %ithin its e"clusive jurisdiction and

competence. 3 motion to dismiss the case !led by the !scal should be addressed to theCourt %ho has the option to rant or deny the same. It does not matter i$ this is done be$oreor a$ter the arrainment o$ the accused or that the motion %as !led a$ter a reinvestiation orupon instructions o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice %ho revie%ed the records o$ the investiation.In order there$or to avoid such a situation %hereby the opinion o$ the Secretary o$ @ustice%ho revie%ed the action o$ the !scal may be disrearded by the trial court, the Secretary o$

@ustice should, as $ar as practicable, re$rain $rom entertainin a petition $or revie% or appeal$rom the action o$ the !scal, %hen the complaint or in$ormation has already been !led inCourt. #he matter should be le$t entirely $or the determination o$ the Court.W>E)E9O)E, the petition is DISISSED $or lac& o$ merit %ithout pronouncement as to costs.SO O)DE)ED.

G.R. No. 1277 A(*(#' 3, 2010OSE ANTONIO C. LEISTE,(etitioner,vs.HON. EL%O %. ALA%E$A, HON. RAUL %. GONALE, HON. E%%ANUEL @. ELASCO,HEIRS OF THE LATE RAFAEL $E LAS ALAS,)espondents.

D E C I S I O NCARPIO %ORALES,J.'

@ose 3ntonio C. :eviste 4petitioner5 assails via the present petition $or revie% !led on ay 20,00F the 3uust 20, 001 Decision*and the 3pril *F, 00F )esolutiono$ the Court o$3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. /11* that armed the trial court8s Orders o$ @anuary +, 2*,9ebruary 1, F, all in 001, and denied the motion $or reconsideration, respectively.(etitioner %as, by In$ormation2o$ @anuary *, 001, chared %ith homicide $or the death o$

)a$ael de las 3las on @anuary *, 001 be$ore the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ a&ati City.'ranch *0 to %hich the case %as raYed, presided by @ude Elmo 3lameda, $orth%ith issueda commitment order+aainst petitioner %ho %as placed under police custody %hile con!nedat the a&ati edical Center.

3$ter petitioner posted a (+0,000 cash bond %hich the trial court approved, he %as released$rom detention, and his arrainment %as set on @anuary +, 001.

#he private complainants-heirs o$ De las 3las !led, %ith the con$ormity o$ the publicprosecutor, an ;rent Omnibus otion1prayin, inter alia, $or the de$erment o$ theproceedins to allo% the public prosecutor to re-e"amine the evidence on record or toconduct a reinvestiation to determine the proper oense.

#he )#C therea$ter issued the 4*5 Order o$ @anuary +, 001Fde$errin petitioner8sarrainment and allo%in the prosecution to conduct a reinvestiation to determine theproper oense and submit a recommendation %ithin 20 days $rom its inception, inter aliaGand 45 Order o$ @anuary 2*, 001/denyin reconsideration o$ the !rst order. (etitionerassailed these orders via certiorari and prohibition be$ore the Court o$ 3ppeals.eantime, petitioner !led an ;rent E"-(arte ani$estation and otion be$ore the trial courtto de$er actin on the public prosecutor8s recommendation on the proper oense until a$terthe appellate court resolves his application $or injunctive relie$s, or alternatively, to ranthim time to comment on the prosecutor8s recommendation and therea$ter set a hearin $orthe judicial determination o$ probable cause.*0(etitioner also separately moved $or theinhibition o$ @ude 3lameda %ith prayer to de$er action on the admission o$ the 3mendedIn$ormation.**

#he trial court nonetheless issued the other assailed orders, vi?< 4*5 Order o$ 9ebruary 1,

001*

that admitted the 3mended In$ormation*2

$or murder and directed the issuance o$ a%arrant o$ arrestG and 45 Order o$ 9ebruary F, 001*+ %hich set the arrainment on 9ebruary*2, 001. (etitioner Muestioned these t%o orders via supplemental petition be$ore theappellate court.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182677_2010.html#fnt14


38/92

#he appellate court dismissed petitioner8s petition, hence, his present petition, aruin that37E #>E )I6># #O C3;SE #>E )EIN7ES#I63#ION O9 #>EC)IIN3: C3SE 'E:OW W>EN #>E C)IIN3: IN9O)3#ION >3D 3:)E3D 'EEN 9I:ED WI#>

#>E :OWE) CO;)#. >ENCE, #>E CO;)# O9 3((E3:S COI##ED 3 6)37E E))O) IN9INDIN6 #>3# )ES(ONDEN# @;D6E DID NO# 3C# WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION IN6)3N#IN6 S;C> )EIN7ES#I63#ION DES(I#E >37IN6 NO '3SIS IN #>E );:ES O9 CO;)#AGB)ES(ONDEN# @;D6E 3C#ED WI#> 6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION IN 3DI##IN6 S#3#E()OSEC;#O) 7E:3SCO8S 3ENDED IN9O)3#ION, ISS;IN6 3 W3))3N# O9 3))ES#, 3ND

SE##IN6 #>E C3SE 'E:OW 9O) 3))3I6NEN#, CONSIDE)IN6 #>3# #>E 73:IDI# 3ND:E63:I# O9 >IS O)DE)S D3#ED + 3ND 2* @3N;3) 001, W>IC> :ED #O #>EH;ES#ION3':E )EIN7ES#I63#ION 3ND I::E63: 3ENDED IN9O)3#IONA,B 3)E E# #O 'E)ESO:7ED ' #>IS >ONO)3':E CO;)# 4sic5G A3NDBCONSIDE)IN6 #>3# ()OSEC;#O) 7E:3SCO8S 9INDIN6S IN >IS )ESO:;#ION D3#ED 9E');3) 001 3)E ':3#3N#: '3SED ON E)E S(EC;:3#IONS 3ND CON@EC#;)ES,WI#>O;# 3N S;'S#3N#I3: O) 3#E)I3: NEW E7IDENCE 'EIN6 3DD;CED D;)IN6 #>E)EIN7ES#I63#ION, )ES(ONDEN# @;D6E S>O;:D >37E 3# :E3S# 3::OWED (E#I#IONE)8SO#ION 9O) 3 >E3)IN6 9O) @;DICI3: DE#E)IN3#ION O9 ()O'3':E C3;SE.*4emphasis inthe oriinal omitted5)ecords sho% that the arrainment scheduled on arch *, 001 pushed throuh durin

%hich petitioner re$used to plead, dra%in the trial court to enter a plea o$ =not uilty= $orhim.(rior thereto or on 9ebruary 2, 001, petitioner !led an ;rent 3pplication $or 3dmission to'ail E" 3bundanti Cautela*%hich the trial court, a$ter hearins thereon, ranted by Order o$ay *, 001,*1it !ndin that the evidence o$ uilt $or the crime o$ murder is not stron. Itaccordinly allo%ed petitioner to post bail in the amount o$ (200,000 $or his provisionalliberty.

#he trial court, absent any %rit o$ preliminary injunction $rom the appellate court, %ent on totry petitioner under the 3mended In$ormation. 'y Decision o$ @anuary *+, 00/, the trialcourt $ound petitioner uilty o$ homicide, sentencin him to suer an indeterminate penaltyo$ si" years and one day o$ prision mayor as minimum to * years and one day o$ reclusiontemporal as ma"imum. 9rom the Decision, petitioner !led an appeal to the appellate court,

doc&eted as C3-6.). C) No. 2*/, durin the pendency o$ %hich he !led an urentapplication $or admission to bail pendin appeal. #he appellate court denied petitioner8sapplication %hich this Court, in 6.). No. *F/*, armed by Decision o$ arch *1, 0*0.

#he Oce o$ the Solicitor 6eneral 4OS65 later arued that the present petition had beenrendered moot since the presentation o$ evidence, %herein petitioner actively participated,had been concluded.*F

Waiver on the part o$ the accused must be distinuished $rom mootness o$ the petition, $orin the present case, petitioner did not, by his active participation in the trial, %aive his statedobjections.Section , )ule **+ o$ the )ules o$ Court providesonorable Court.

A(etitionerB prays $or such $urther relie$ in la%, justice and eMuity.3s to %hether it is proper to suspend Criminal Case No. /01* $or perjury pendin !nal

outcome o$ Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/ and Civil Case No. H-/F-2+20F, %e ta&e intoconsideration Sections and 1, )ule *** o$ the )evised )ules o$ Court, %hich reado%ever, the court in %hich an action is pendin may, in the e"ercise o$ sound discretion,

and upon proper application $or a stay o$ that action, hold the action in abeyance to abide bythe outcome o$ another case pendin in another court, especially %here the parties and theissues are the same, $or there is po%er inherent in every court to control the disposition o$cases on its doc&ets %ith economy o$ time and eort $or itsel$, $or counsel, and $or litiants.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt31


51/92

Where the rihts o$ parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until theMuestions raised in the !rst action are settled, the second action should be stayed.2

#he po%er to stay proceedins is incidental to the po%er inherent in every court to controlthe disposition o$ the cases on its doc&ets, considerin its time and eort, those o$ counseland the litiants. 'ut i$ proceedins must be stayed, it must be done in order to avoidmultiplicity o$ suits and prevent ve"atious litiations, conKictin judments, con$usionbet%een litiants and courts. It bears stressin that %hether or not the trial court %ouldsuspend the proceedins in the criminal case be$ore it is submitted to its sound discretion.22

Indeed, a judicial order issued pursuant to the court8s discretionary authority is not subjectto reversal on revie% unless it constitutes an abuse o$ discretion. 3s the ;nited StatesSupreme Court aptly declared in :andis v. North 3merican Co., =the burden o$ ma&in outthe justice and %isdom $rom the departure $rom the beaten truc& lay heavily on thepetitioner, less an un%illin litiant is compelled to %ait upon the outcome o$ a controversyto %hich he is a straner. It is, thus, stated that only in rare circumstances %ill a litiant inone case is compelled to stand aside, %hile a litiant in another, settlin the rule o$ la% that%ill de!ne the rihts o$ both is, a$ter all, the parties be$ore the court are entitled to a just,speedy and plain determination o$ their case undetermined by the pendency o$ theproceedins in another case. 3$ter all, procedure %as created not to hinder and delay but to$acilitate and promote the administration o$ justice.=2+

3s stated, the determination o$ %hether the proceedins may be suspended on the basis o$a prejudicial Muestion rests on %hether the $acts and issues raised in the pleadins in thecivil cases are so related %ith the issues raised in the criminal case such that the resolutiono$ the issues in the civil cases %ould also determine the judment in the criminal case.3 perusal o$ the alleations in the complaints sho% that Civil Case No. H-/F-2+20F pendinbe$ore )#C-'ranch 11, and Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/, pendin be$ore )#C-'ranch F+, areprincipally $or the determination o$ %hether a loan %as obtained by petitioner $rom privaterespondent and %hether petitioner e"ecuted a real estate mortae involvin the propertycovered by #C# No. N-*12*2. On the other hand, Criminal Case No. /01* be$ore e#C-'ranch +2, involves the determination o$ %hether petitioner committed perjury in e"ecutinan adavit o$ loss to support his reMuest $or issuance o$ a ne% o%ner8s duplicate copy o$ #C#No. N-*12*2.

It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed independently o$ eachother. )eardless o$ the outcome o$ the t%o civil cases, it %ill not establish the innocence oruilt o$ the petitioner in the criminal case $or perjury. #he purchase by petitioner o$ the landor his e"ecution o$ a real estate mortae %ill have no bearin %hatsoever on %hetherpetitioner &no%inly and $raudulently e"ecuted a $alse adavit o$ loss o$ #C# No. N-*12*2.e#C-'ranch +2, there$ore, did not err in rulin that the pendency o$ Civil Case No. H-/F-2+20F $or cancellation o$ mortae be$ore the )#C-'ranch 11G and Civil Case No. H-/F-2+2+/$or collection o$ a sum o$ money be$ore )#C-'ranch F+, do not pose a prejudicial Muestion inthe determination o$ %hether petitioner is uilty o$ perjury in Criminal Case No. /01*. )#C-'ranch F2, li&e%ise, did not err in rulin that e#C-'ranch +2 did not commit rave abuse o$discretion in denyin petitioner8s motion $or suspension o$ proceedins in Criminal Case No./01*.

;HEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed )esolutions dated arch 00* and 2 ay00*o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. 2/2 are hereby 399I)ED and the instantpetition is DISISSED $or lac& o$ merit. 3ccordinly, the etropolitan #rial Court o$ Hue?onCity, 'ranch +2, is hereby directed to proceed %ith the hearin and trial on the merits o$Criminal Case No. /01*, and to e"pedite proceedins therein, %ithout prejudice to the rihto$ the accused to due process. Costs aainst petitioner.SO O)DE)EDG.R. No. 1-422 A(*(#' 3, 2010LAN$ BAN6 OF THE PHILIPPINES,(etitioner,vs.RA%ON P. ACINTO,)espondent.

D E C I S I O NILLARA%A, R.,J.'(etitioner :and 'an& o$ the (hilippines 4:and 'an&5 see&s the reversal o$ the Decision *datedNovember F, 00* and the )esolutiondated 3uust , 00 o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals 4C35 in
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_148072_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt2


52/92

C3-6.). S( No. 112. #he C3 had set aside the )esolutions dated October , 000 2andDecember *F, 000+o$ the Department o$ @ustice 4DO@5 and reinstated the )esolution datedarch 2, */// o$ the City (rosecution Oce o$ a&ati %hich dismissed the petitioner8scomplaint aainst respondent )amon (. @acinto in I.S. Nos. //-3-*2-++ $or violation o$'atas (ambansa 'l. 4'.(.5 or =#he 'ouncin Chec&s :a%.=

#he undisputed $acts, as leaned $rom the records, are as $ollo%sence, on @anuary *2, *///, :and 'an&, throuh its 3ssistant 7ice (resident, ;dela C. Salvo,9inancial Institutions Department, !led be$ore the a&ati City (rosecutor8s Oce aComplaint-3davit1aainst respondent $or violation o$ '.(. . )espondent !led his Counter-3davitFdenyin the chares and averrin that the complaint is baseless and utterly devoido$ merit as the said loan obliation has been e"tinuished by payment and novation byvirtue o$ the e"ecution o$ the )estructurin 3reement. )espondent also invo&ed theproscription in the ay F, *//F Order o$ the )eional #rial Court 4)#C5 o$ a&ati City,'ranch *22 in Special (roceedins No. -+F $or Involuntary Insolvency %hich $orbade9WCC $rom payin any o$ its debts.In a )esolution/dated arch 2, *///, (rosecutor 6eore 7. De @oya dismissed the complaintaainst respondent, !ndin that the letter-areements bet%een :and 'an& and 9WCC

restructured and novated the oriinal loan areement. It %as held that there bein novation,the chec&s issued pursuant to the oriinal loan obliation had lost their ecacy and validityand cannot be a valid basis to sustain the chare o$ violation o$ '.(. .On @une *, *///, petitioner8s motion $or reconsideration %as li&e%ise denied.*03rieved, petitioner elevated the matter to the DO@ $or revie%. On 3pril *0, 000, the DO@issued a )esolution**dismissin the appeal. >o%ever, upon motion $or reconsideration !ledby petitioner, the DO@ reversed its rulin and issued a )esolution dated October , 000holdin that novation is not a mode o$ e"tinuishin criminal liability. #hus, the DO@ heldthatE)E9O)E, there bein probable cause to hold respondent triable $or the oense o$violation o$ '( 4nine 4/5 counts5, the Department )esolution dated 3pril *0, 000 ishereby reconsidered and set aside and the resolution o$ the Oce o$ the City (rosecutor,a&ati City, dismissin the complaint should be, as it is, hereby )E7E)SED. Said oce isdirected to !le the appropriate in$ormations $or violation o$ '( 4nine 4/5 counts5 aainstrespondent. )eport the action ta&en %ithin ten 4*05 days $rom receipt hereo$.SO O)DE)ED.*

)espondent moved $or a reconsideration o$ the above Order but it %as denied in a )esolutiondated December *F, 000. ;ndaunted, respondent !led a petition $or certiorari be$ore theC3.On November F, 00*, the C3, in the assailed Decision, reversed the )esolution o$ the DO@and reinstated the )esolution o$ (rosecutor De @oya dismissin the complaint. While the C3ruled that novation is not a mode o$ e"tinuishin criminal liability, it nevertheless held thatnovation may prevent criminal liability $rom arisin in certain cases i$ novation occurs be$ore

the criminal in$ormation is !led in court because the novation causes doubt as to the truenature o$ the obliation. 3lso, the C3 $ound merit in respondent8s assertion that a prejudicialMuestion e"ists in the instant case because the issue o$ %hether the oriinal obliation o$9WCC subject o$ the dishonored chec&s has been novated by the subseMuent areements
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt12


53/92

entered into by 9WCC %ith :and 'an&, is already the subject o$ the appeal in Civil Case No./F-221 4entitled, =irst Eomens Credit Corporation v. %and -anD of t$e P$ilippines=$orDeclaration o$ Novation5 pendin be$ore the C3. #he C3 also ave consideration torespondent8s assertion that the Order dated ay F, *//F o$ the )#C proscribin 9WCC $rompayin its debts constitutes as a justi$yin circumstance %hich prevents criminal liability$rom attachin.(etitioner8s motion $or reconsideration $rom the said decision havin been denied, petitioner!led the instant petition $or revie% on certiorari, raisin the $ollo%in assinment o$ errorsE CO;)# O9 3((E3:S 6)37E: E))ED W>EN I# );:ED #>3# #>E E:EEN# O9 3()E@;DICI3: H;ES#ION EIS#S IN #>E INS#3N# C3SE 3ND #>3# #>E )ECOEND3#ION9O) #>E 9I:IN6 O9 IN9O)3#IONS IN CO;)# 363INS# #>E )ES(ONDEN# W3S 3DE WI#>6)37E 3';SE O9 DISC)E#ION.

II#>E CO;)# O9 3((E3:S 6)37E: E))ED W>EN I# );:ED #>3# #>E O)DE) D3#ED 3 F,*//F O9 #>E )E6ION3: #)I3: CO;)# O9 3T3#I, ')3NC> *22, CONS#I#;#ES 3S 3

@;S#I9IN6 CI)C;S#3NCE #>3# ()E7EN#S C)IIN3: :I3'I:I# 9)O 3##3C>IN6.III

#>E CO;)# O9 3((E3:S 6)37E: E))ED W>EN I# 93I:ED #O #3TE @;DICI3: NO#ICE O9 #>E

()O7ISIONS O9 #>E :3ND'3NT C>3)#E) )E:3#I7E #O #>E CO::EC#ION O9 I#S 9IN3NCI3:E(OS;)ES.*2

Essentially, the issue to be resolved in this case is %hether the C3 erred in reversin the)esolution o$ the DO@ !ndin probable cause to hold respondent liable $or violation o$ '.(. .(etitioner asserts that the @une 2, *//F )estructurin 3reement did not release 9WCC $romits obliation %ith :and 'an&.*+It merely accommodated 9WCC8s sister company, )@ 7enturesand Development Corporation.*Whether there %as novation or not is also not determinativeo$ respondent8s responsibility $or violation o$ '.(. , as the said special la% punishes the acto$ issuin a %orthless chec& and not the purpose $or %hich the chec& %as issued or theterms and conditions relatin to its issuance. In rulin that the Order dated ay F, *//F o$the )#C in Special (roceedins No. -+F constituted a justi$yin circumstance, the C3$ailed to ta&e judicial notice o$ Section F-' 4+5*o$ )epublic 3ct No. 1/01 %hich e"cludes the

proceeds o$ the chec&s $rom the property o$ the insolvent 9WCC.)espondent counters that there %as novation %hich occurred prior to the institution o$ thecriminal complaint aainst him and that i$ proven, it %ould aect his criminal liability.*1)espondent averred that i$ the C3 %ould judicially con!rm the e"istence o$ novation in theappeal o$ Civil Case No. /F-221 be$ore it, then it %ould $ollo% that the value represented bythe subject chec&s has been e"tinuished. )espondent arues that the consideration orvalue o$ the subject chec&s have been modi!ed or novated %ith the e"ecution o$ the)estructurin 3reement. #he payment o$ the obliation supposedly already depended onthe terms and conditions o$ the )estructurin 3reement and no loner on the respectivematurity dates o$ the subject chec&s as the value or consideration o$ the subject chec&s hadbeen rendered ine"istent by the subseMuent e"ecution o$ the )estructurin 3reement. >emaintains that the subject chec&s can no loner be the basis o$ criminal liability since theobliation $or %hich they %ere issued had already been novated or abroated.We rant the petition.3 prejudicial Muestion enerally e"ists in a situation %here a civil action and a criminal actionare both pendin, and there e"ists in the $ormer an issue that must be preemptively resolvedbe$ore the latter may proceed, because ho%soever the issue raised in the civil action isresolved %ould be determinative juris et de jure o$ the uilt or innocence o$ the accused inthe criminal case.*F#he elements o$ a prejudicial Muestion are provided under Section 1, )ule*** o$ the )evised )ules o$ Criminal (rocedure as amended, as $ollo%s< 4i5 the previouslyinstituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in thesubseMuent criminal action, and 4ii5 the resolution o$ such issue determines %hether or notthe criminal action may proceed.*/

3 prejudicial Muestion is understood in la% as that %hich must precede the criminal actionand %hich reMuires a decision be$ore a !nal judment can be rendered in the criminal action%ith %hich said Muestion is closely connected.0Not every de$ense raised in a civil action %illraise a prejudicial Muestion to justi$y suspension o$ the criminal action. #he de$ense must
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt20


54/92

involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal caseand its resolution should determine %hether or not the latter action may proceed. I$ theresolution o$ the issue in the civil action %ill not determine the criminal responsibility o$ theaccused in the criminal action based on the same $acts, or i$ there is no necessity that thecivil case be determined !rst be$ore ta&in up the criminal case, the civil case does notinvolve a prejudicial Muestion.*Neither is there a prejudicial Muestion i$ the civil and thecriminal action can, accordin to la%, proceed independently o$ each other. 5avvp$i5In the instant case, %e !nd that the Muestion %hether there %as novation o$ the Credit :ine

3reement or not is not determinative o$ %hether respondent should be prosecuted $orviolation o$ the 'ouncin Chec&s :a%.)espondent8s contention that i$ it be proven that the loan o$ 9WCC had been novated andrestructured then his liability under the dishonored chec&s %ould be e"tinuished, $ails topersuade us. #here %as no e"press stipulation in the )estructurin 3reement thatrespondent is released $rom his liability on the issued chec&s and in $act the letter-areements bet%een 9WCC and :and 'an& e"pressly provide that respondent8s @SS 4@ointand Several Sinatures5 continue to secure the loan obliation and the postdated chec&sissued continue to uaranty the obliation. In $act, as aptly pointed out by petitioner, out o$the nine 4/5 chec&s in Muestion, eiht 4F5 chec&s %ere dated @une F to October 20, *//F ora$ter the e"ecution o$ the @une 2, *//F )estructurin 3reement. I$ indeed respondent8s

liability on the chec&s had been e"tinuished upon the e"ecution o$ the )estructurin3reement, then respondent should have demanded the return o$ the chec&s. 2>o%ever,there %as no proo$ that he had been released $rom his obliation. On the contrary, the)estructurin 3reement contains a proviso %hich states that =T$is Agreement s$all notnovate or extinguis$ all previous security mortgage and ot$er collateral agreements

promissory notes solidary undertaDing previously executed by and bet#een t$e parties ands$all continue in full force and eect modi"ed only by t$e provisions of t$is Agreement.=+

oreover, it is %ell settled that the mere act o$ issuin a %orthless chec&, even i$ merely asan accommodation, is covered by '.(. .#hus, this Court has held that the areementsurroundin the issuance o$ dishonored chec&s is irrelevant to the prosecution $or violation o$'.(. .#he ravamen o$ the oense punished by '.(. is the act o$ ma&in and issuin a%orthless chec& or a chec& that is dishonored upon its presentment $or payment. 1Section *

o$ '.(. enumerates the $ollo%in elements< 4*5 the ma&in, dra%in, and issuance o$ anychec& to apply on account or $or valueG 45 the &no%lede o$ the ma&er, dra%er, or issuerthat at the time o$ issue he does not have sucient $unds in or credit %ith the dra%ee ban&$or the payment o$ the chec& in $ull upon its presentmentG and 425 the subseMuent dishonoro$ the chec& by the dra%ee ban& $or insuciency o$ $unds or credit or dishonor $or the samereason had not the dra%er, %ithout any valid cause, ordered the ban& to stop payment.

#hus, even i$ it be subseMuently declared that novation too& place bet%een the 9WCC andpetitioner, respondent is not e"empt $rom prosecution $or violation o$ '.(. $or thedishonored chec&s.3s to the issue o$ %hether the Order dated ay F, *//F o$ the )#C o$ a&ati City in Special(roceedins No. -+F $or Involuntary Insolvency constitutes as a justi$yin circumstancethat prevents criminal liability $rom attachin, %e rule in the neative. 3s stated at theoutset, the said order $orbids 9WCC $rom payin its debts as %ell as $rom deliverin anyproperty belonin to it to any person $or its bene!t. )espondent, ho%ever, cannot invo&ethis Order %hich %as directed only upon 9WCC and is not applicable to him. #here$ore,respondent, as surety o$ the loan is not e"empt $rom complyin %ith his obliation $or theissuance o$ the chec&s.W>E)E9O)E, the petition $or revie% on certiorari is GRANTE$. #he November F, 00*Decision and 3uust , 00 )esolution o$ the Court o$ 3ppeals in C3-6.). S( No. 112 arehereby REERSE$ ")/ SET ASI$E. #he )esolution dated October , 000 o$ theDepartment o$ @ustice directin the !lin o$ appropriate In$ormations $or violation o$ '.(. aainst respondent )amon (. @acinto is hereby REINSTATE$ ")/ UPHEL$.No costs.

SO O)DE)ED.G.R. No. L-4- April 1-, 1OSE B. LE$ES%A, petitioner,vs.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_154622_2010.html#fnt27


55/92

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Spo(#!# PACIFICO $EL%O ")/ SANCHA $EL%O ?"#pri"'! r!#po)/!)'#, respondents.T$e 'olicitor General for petitioner.%uzel 0. 0emasuHay for respondent.GUTIERRE, R.,J.'

#his petition see&s to reverse the decision o$ the respondent Court o$ 3ppeals %hich a!rmedthe decision o$ the Court o$ 9irst Instance o$ Iloilo, adjudin the petitioner, %ho %as then

the (resident o$ the West 7isayas Collee liable $or damaes under 3rticle 1 o$ the CivilCode o$ the (hilippines $or $ailure to raduate a student %ith honors.

#he $acts are not disputed.3n orani?ation named Student :eadership Club %as $ormed by some students o$ the West7isayas Collee. #hey elected the late 7iolets Delmo as the treasurer. In that capacity,Delmo e"tended loans $rom the $unds o$ the club to some o$ the students o$ the school. =thepetitioner claims that the said act o$ e"tendin loans %as aainst school rules andreulations. #hus, the petitioner, as (resident o$ the School, sent a letter to Delmo in$orminher that she %as bein dropped $rom the membership o$ the club and that she %ould not bea candidate $or any a%ard or citation $rom the school.Delmo as&ed $or a reconsideration o$ the decision but the petitioner denied it. Delmo, thus,

appealed to the Oce o$ the Director o$ the 'ureau o$ (ublic Schools.#he Director a$ter due investiation, rendered a decison on 3pril *2, */ %hich providedo%ever, this


56/92

Oce is convinced that 7iolets . Delmo had acted in ood $aith, in hercapacity as Club #reasurer, in e"tendin loans to the ocers and members o$the Student partnership Club. )esolution No. authori?in the Club treasurer todischare !nds to students in need o$ !nancial assistance and otherhumanitarian purposes had been approved by the Club adviser, r. @esseDaoon, %ith the notation that approval %as iven in his capacity as adviser o$the Club and e"tension o$ the SuperintendentQs personality. 3side $rommisleadin the ocers and members o$ the Club, r. Daoon, had

unsatis$actorily e"plained %hy he $ailed to ive the Constitution and 'y-:a%s o$the Club to the Superintendent $or approval despite his assurance to the Clubpresident that he %ould do so. With this !ndin o$ nelience on the part o$ theClub adviser, not to mention la"ity in the per$ormance o$ his duties as such, thisOce considers as too severe and un%arranted that portion o$ the Muestionedorder statin that 7ioleta Delmo =shall not be a candidate $or any a%ard orcitation $rom this school or any orani?ation in this school.= 7ioleta Delmo, it isnoted, has been a consistent $ull scholar o$ the school and she alone hasmaintained her scholarship. #he decision in Muestion %ould, there$ore, set atnauht all her sacri!ce and $rustrate her dreams o$ raduatin %ith honors inthis yearQs commencement e"ercises.

In vie% o$ all the $oreoin, this Oce believes and so holds and hereby directsthat appellant 7ioleta. . Delmo, and $or that matter all other Club members orocers involved in this case, be not deprived o$ any a%ard, citation or honor$rom the school, i$ they are other%ise entitled thereto. 4)ollo, pp. F-205

On 3pril 1, */, the petitioner received by mail the decision o$ the Director and all therecords o$ the case. On the same day, petitioner received a teleram statin the $ollo%in3# O99ICE=#he Director as&ed $or the return only o$ the records but the petitioner alleedly mistoo& theteleram as orderin him to also send the decision bac&. On the same day, he returned bymail all the records plus the decision o$ the Director to the 'ureau o$ (ublic Schools.

#he ne"t day, the petitioner received another teleram $rom the Director order him to$urnish Delmo %ith a copy o$ the decision. #he petitioner, in turn, sent a niht letter to the

Director in$ormin the latter that he had sent the decision bac& and that he had not retaineda copy thereo$..On ay 2, */, the day o$ the raduation, the petitioner received another teleram $romthe Director orderin him not to deprive Delmo o$ any honors due her. 3s it %as impossibleby this time to include DelmoQs name in the proram as one o$ the honor students, thepetitioner let her raduate as a plain student instead o$ bein a%arded the :atin honor o$ana Cum :aude.

#o delay the matter $urther, the petitioner on ay , */, %rote the Director $or areconsideration o$ the latters= decision because he believed that Delmo should not beallo%ed to raduate %ith honors. #he Director denied the petitionerQs reMuest.On @uly *, */, the petitioner !nally instructed the )eistrar o$ the school to enter into thescholastic records o$ Delmo the honor, =ana Cum :aude.=On @uly 20, */, Delmo, then a minor, %as joined by her parents in Ka action $or damaesaainst the petitioner. Durin the pendency o$ the action, ho%ever, Delmo passed a%ay, andthus, an 3mended and Supplemental Complaint %as !led by her parents as her sole and onlyheirs.

#he trial court a$ter hearin rendered judment aainst the petitioner and in $avor o$ thespouses Delmo. #he court saido% did he &no% the last pararaph i$ he did not read the letter.De$endants actuations reardin iss DelmoQs cam had been one o$ bias andprejudice. When his action %ould $avor him, he %as deliberate and aspect tothe utter prejudice and detriment o$ iss Delmo. #hus, althouh, as early as3pril 1, */, he &ne% o$ the e"oneration o$ iss Delino by Director

'ernardino, he %ithheld the in$ormation $rom iss Delmo. #his is eloMuentlydramati?ed by E"h. =**= and E"h. =*2= On 3pril /,*/, Director 'ernardinocabled him to $urnish 7ioleta Delmo copy o$ the Decision, E"h. =:,= but insteado$ in$ormin iss Delmo about the decision, since he said he mailed bac& thedecision on 3pril F,*/, he sent a niht letter on 3pril /,*/, to Director'ernardino, in$ormin the latter that he had returned the decision 4E"h. =l2=5,toether %ith the record. Why a niht letter %hen the matter %as o$ utmosturency to the parties in the case, because raduation day %as only $our daysaheadZ 3n e"amination o$ the telerams sent by the de$endant sho%s that hehad been sendin ordinary teleram and not niht letters. 4E"h. ==, E"hibit=1=5. 3t least, i$ the de$endant could not $urnish a copy o$ the decision, 4E"h.=:=5, to iss Delmo, he should have told her about it or that iss DelmoQs

honors and citation in the commencement be announced or indicated. 'ut r.:edesma is one %ho cannot admit a mista&e. 7ery unentlemanly this is homeout by his o%n testimony despite his &no%lede that his decision to depriveiss Delmo o$ honors due to her %as overturned by Director 'ernardino, he onhis %ron belie$. #o Muote the de$endant,* believed that she did not deservethose honors4#sn 9eb. , */1+, p. +2,Empasi?ed supplied5. Despite the teleramo$ Director 'ernardino %hich the de$endant received hours be$ore thecommencement e"ecutory on ay 2-+,*/, he did not obey Director'ernardino because he said in his testimony that he %ould be embarrassment .

#an 9eb ,*/1+, (. +5. Evidently, he &ne% only his embarrassment and not thato$ r 'ernardino %hose order %as bein Karantly and %antonly disrearded bybim 3nd certainly, not the least o$ iss DelmoQs embarrassment. >is acts spea&eloMuently o$ ho bad $aith and unjust o$ mind%arped by his delicate sensitivity$or havin been challened by iss Delmo, a mere student.""" """ """9inally the de$endantQs behaviour relative to iss s case smac&s o$contemptuous arroance, oppression and abuse o$ po%er. Come to thin& o$ it.>e re$used to obey the directive o$ 'e o and instead, chose to $ein inoranceo$ it.= 4)e%ard on 3ppeal, p. 1-15.

#he trial court a%arded (0,000.00 to the estate o$ 7ioleta Delmo and (*0,000.00 to herparents $or moral damaesG (,000.00 $or nominal damaes to 7ioletaQs estateG e"emplarydamaes o$ (*0,000.00 and (,000.00 attorneyQs $ees.On appeal, the Court o$ 3ppeals armed the decision. >ence, this petition.

#he issues raised in this petition can be reduced to the sole Muestion o$ %hether or not therespondent Court o$ 3ppeals erred in armin the trial courtQs !ndin that petitioner is liable$or damaes under 3rticle 1 o$ the Ne% Civil Code.


58/92

We !nd no reason %hy the !ndins o$ the trial and appellate courts should be reversed. Itcannot be disputed that 7ioleta Delmo %ent throuh a pain$ul ordeal %hich %as brouhtabout by the petitionerQs nelect o$ duty and callousness. #hus, moral damaes are butproper. 3s %e have armed in the case o$ 4(rudenciado v. 3lliance #ransport System, Inc.,*+F SC)3 ++0, ++F5e told him %hat he discovered thena%a&ened the other house-helps./

)espondent 3rchie then phoned police ocer Nelson 3lacre, told him %hat had happened,and reMuested him to come immediately. Ocer 3lacre arrived a$ter a $e% minutes %ithsome other ocers. #hey Muestioned 3rchie and @an-@an and too& urine samples $rom them.

#he tests sho%ed them neative $or illeal dru use.*0

3round +


63/92

shirt hanin in @an-@an8s bathroom to erase all !nerprints at the crime scene, somethinthat $orensic science can justi$y.+oreover, %hile investiators %ere still e"aminin the crime scene, 'obby8s aunt Conchitacalled a loc&smith to $orce open 'obby8s sa$es in the master8s bedroom as %ell as in hisoce on De :eon Street. #his $act came to the sur$ace durin the preliminary investiationo$ a complaint $or robbery that Conchita !led aainst Cindy8s brother, i&e Vayco, hisside&ic& iuel Sola, Natividad Vayco, and police superintendent 6umban o$ the CID6. #hepolice surmised that Conchita brouht this criminal action to divert attention $rom the

murder case and $rom respondents 3rchie and @an-@an.:astly, nine days a$ter the victims8 burial, respondent 3rchie !led a petition $or thesettlement o$ 'obby and Cindy8s estate, nominatin Conchita as administratri" o$ the estate.>e !led an e" parte motion $or her appointment as special administrator $or the meantime%ithout consultin his hal$-siblins. #he estate court ranted the motion. 3rchie reportedlycontinued %ith his nihtly bar hoppin even durin the %a&e o$ his $ather.)espondents 3rchie and @an-@an8s de$ense is alibi. #hey claimed that they %ere a%ay %henthe crimes too& place at the house. 'ased on Dr. :ebaMuin8s $orensic computation, ho%ever,the victims probably died at about midniht, more or less. #he t%o %ere still at home %henthe &illins happened.On October 1, 00 the )#C, then temporarily presided over by @ude Narciso 3uilar,

$ound no probable cause aainst respondents 3rchie and @an-@an. @ude 3uilar thus rantedtheir motion to suspend the issuance o$ %arrants $or their arrest and to de$er theproceedins.#he t%o respondents then !led a motion to dismiss the case. 1On @anuary *,001 the )#C issued an order, directin the City (rosecutor8s Oce to submit additionalevidence in the case but the latter oce as&ed $or more time to comply.Fean%hile, theDO@ issued a resolution dismissin respondents 3rchie and @an-@an8s petition $or revie%./

3$ter a ne% presidin jude, @ude 6lobert @ustalero, too& over the )#C, he issued an orderon arch 20, 001 rantin the prosecution8s reMuest $or additional time %ithin %hich tocomply %ith the court8s order o$ @anuary *, 001.20On 3pril , 001 the prosecutor8s oce!led its compliance and submitted its amended resolution in the case.2*#he petitionersassailed this amended resolution and pointed out that the public prosecutor did not submitany additional evidence.2

On 3pril 2, 001 @ude @ustalero reversed the order o$ the previous presidin jude.

Documents

Crim Pro Full Cases