michelledulcemarianocandelaria

michelledulcemarianocandelariaAusl15

Criminalproceduremidtermexam |Judge Vibandor|Arellano University School of Law| SY 2015

PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION1. Co vs Munoz

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE CIVIL ACTION IS INSTITUTED WITH THE CRIMINAL ACTION OR WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION, ALSO EXTINGUISHES CIVIL LIABLITY

Legal Basis: Sec 2 para 4 Rule 111, ROC

The Extinction of the penal or criminal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on DELICT shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the Criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise DID NOT EXIST.

HELD:

In the case at bar, the SC held that Munoz is not CIVILLY LIABLE because there was no crime (LIBEL) committed. As a general rule, WITHOUT A CRIME, NO CIVIL LIABILITY EX DELICTO may be claimed. There is NO act from which civil liability may arise that exists.

As held in the instant case, Munoz libelous remarks against Co are privileged communications Since Co is a public figure, the subject matter of the libelous remarks was of public interest, and the context of Munozs statements were FAIR COMMENTS. Malice (in LIBEL case) is NOT PRESUMED when Imputation were made against a PUBLIC FIGURE, SUBJECT OF IMPUTATIONS WERE MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND FAIR COMMENTS. The CA found that Munoz acted without MALICE. Thus, there was NO LIBEL COMMITTED.

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION2. Coscolluela vs SandigabayanIssue: WHETHER OR NOT THE OMBUDSMAN FAILURE TO RESOLVE CASES UNDER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION FOR 8 YEARS HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIABLE AND VIOLATED RIGHT OF PETITIONERS TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THEIR CASES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.Legal Basis:Section 2, Rule 111 ROCSection 16, Article 3 of the 1987 PC

ALL PERSONS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THEIR CASES BEFORE ALL JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

Section 3, Rule 112 ROCHELD:

The Constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.

As a general rule under the rules of procedure of the office of the Ombudsman that NO INFORMATION MAY BE FILED AND NO COMPLAINT MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORITY OR APPROVAL OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN CASES FALLING UNDER THE SB.

The above cited provision readily reveals that there is no complete resolution of a case under PI until the ombudsman approves the investigating officers recommendation to either FILE AN INFORMATION with the SB or DISMISS the complaint. Therefore, in the case at bar, the PI proceedings against the petitioners were NOT TERMINATED upon CANARES preparation of the MARCH 27, 2003 Resolution and Information but rather, ONLY at the time CASIMIRO finally approved the same for filing with the SB. The proceedings were terminated only on MAY 21, 2009 for almost 8 years after the filing of the complaint

*The province/respondent is not PRECLUDED from instituting a subsequent CIVIL ACTION based on the DELICT if only to RECOVER the amount of 2M in public funds attributable to petitioners alleged malfeasance. This case is dismissed based on the violation of petitioners right to speedy disposition of cases, even before the prosecution or the defense has been given the chance to present any evidence.

3. People vs DesmondIssue: WHETHER OR NOT THE CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it dismissed the subject information for lack of probable causeLegal Basis: Section 5 (a) Rule 112 ROC, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a Judge may immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable causeHELD:In the instant case, the court finds that the RTCs immediate dismissal, as affirmed by the CA, was improper as the standard of clear lack of probable cause was not observed. Once the information is filed with the court and the Judge proceeds with his primordial task of evaluating the evidence on record, he may either ISSUE A WARRANT OF ARREST, IF HE FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE OR IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED THE CASE, IF THE EVIDENCE IN RECORD FAILS TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE OR ORDER THE PROSECUTOR TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IN CASE HE DOUBTS THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.In the instant case, there is no clearly showing that the evidence presented upon the filing of information does not established probable cause. Certain essential facts as to the elements of the crime of Estafa under article 315 (2)(a) and 315 (1)(b) of the RPC had already been established, thereby, rendering the RTCs immediate dismissal of the case highly IMPROPER.PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION4. DALURAYA VS OLIVAR

FACTS: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision finding petitioner Antonio L. Daluraya (Daluraya) civilly liable for the death of Marina Arabit Oliva (Marina Oliva) despite having been acquitted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION EXTINGUISHES CIVIL LIABILITY

Legal Basis:

Held:

WARRANTLESS ARREST

5. ANTIQUERA VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE PEEKING INSIDE PARTIALLY OPENED DOOR NOT VALID GROUND FOR WARANTLESS ARREST AND SEARCH.

Legal Basis:

Section 5 (a) Rule 113 of the Rules of Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. This is an arrest in flagrante delicto. The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

Held:

In the case at bar, the present circumstances as held is not a case of arrest made in flagrante delicto. One of the circumstances given is when the police officers peeked through the houses partially opened door; they saw no activity that warranted their entering it. Clearly NO CRIME was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant under Sec 5 (a) of Rule 113 of the ROC. Considering that his arrest is ILLEGAL, the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal. Evidence seized is inadmissible having been proceeded from an invalid searched and seizure. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION6. CAPILI VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE DECLARATION OF VOIDNESS OF THE SECOND MARRIAGE NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF BIGAMY?

Legal Basis:

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime of Bigamy.Sec 5 Rule 111, ROC provides that Judgment in CIVIL ACTION NOT A BAR to a CRIMINAL ACTION against the Defendant for the same act or omission subject of the civil action

Held:

In the case at bar, the SC held that the subsequent judicial declaration of the VOIDNESS of the Second Marriage for being bigamous in nature DOES NOT BAR the prosecution of the petitioner for the crime of bigamy. The SC ruled that what makes the person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage assumes risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

It is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished by law. It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second marriage with private respondent. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of petitioners second marriage DOES NOT IMPEDE the filing of a CRIMINAL CHARGE for BIGAMY against him.

7. LEE PUE LIONG VS CHUA

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT A PRIVATE PROSECUTOR MAY PARTICIPATE IN CRIMINAL CASE EVEN IF NO CIVIL LIABILITY EXISTS IN THE CRIME

Legal Basis:

Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section1. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTION. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

Sec 16 Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that for the recovery of CIVIL LIABILITY in the criminal action, the appearance of a private prosecutor is ALLOWED

Held:

In the instant case, there was NEITHER a waiver nor a reservation made; nor did the OP institute a separate CIVIL ACTION. It follows that evidence should be allowed in criminal proceedings to establish civil liability arising from the offense committed, and the private offended party has the right to INTERVENE through the PRIVATE PROSECUTORS as provided for by the law.

ARRAIGNMENT

8. PEOPLE VS GALVEZ

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTS CONDUCTED SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO VOLUNTARINESS AND FULL COMPREHENSION OF PLEA OF GUILT BY THE ACCUSED.

Legal Basis:

Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, set the following guidelines for receiving a plea of guilt in a case involving a capital offense: (applied in the case of People vs Aranzado, this section is also known as the Aranzado Doctrine)

(1) The court MUST CONDUCT a searching inquiry into the VOLUNTARINESS and FULL comprehension of the consequences of the plea;(2) The court MUST REQUIRE the prosecution to present eveidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability;(3) The court MUST ASK the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.

Held:

In the instant case, it is clear that the trial judge did not conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness of appellants plea of guilt and full comprehension thereof. Moreover, there is no showing that the accuseds counsel explained to appellant the consequence of his plea.

SC noted that that lower court should have been exerted careful effort to inquire into why the accused changed his plea from not guilty to guilty, and the accused refusal to present evidence in his defense.

A plea of guilt is IMPROVIDENTLY accepted where there is NO EFFORT made to explain to the accused that such plea, in case involving capital offense may result in the imposition of the death penalty.

The SC held that when the punishment to be inflicted is DEATH, it is not enough that the information be read to the ACCUSED or even translated into the dialect they speak. This is because the implementation of such penalty is irrevocable and experience shown that innocent persons have at all times pleaded guilty.

The TC must AVOID IMPROVIDENT pleas of guilt, since the accused might be admitting their guilt and thus forfeiting their lives and liberties without having fully understood the meaning, significance, or consequences of their pleas.

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED9. PEOPLE VS CRISTOBAL

Issue: (1) WHETHER OR NOT RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS MANDATORY IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION (2) WHETHER OR NOT HER EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHOUT A COUNSEL

Legal Basis:

Section 26, Rule 130 ROC

Section 30, Rule 120, ROC provides that A CONFESSION is a declaration of an accused acknowledging the guilt for the offense charged, or for any offense necessarily included therein.

Section 12, Article III 1987 PC provides that ANY PERSON under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the service of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Held:

(1) In the case at bar, there was no need for a counsel to have assisted the accused when she wrote the letter because she spontaneously made it while NOT UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION. Her insistence on the assistance of a counsel might be valid and better appreciated had she made the letter while under arrest, or during custodial investigation, or under coercion by the investigating authorities of the government.

The situation of the accused was NOT SIMILAR from that of a person arrested or detained or under CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION for the commission of an offense. Thus, the rights of the accused contemplated under Sec 12 Article III are not available to her.

(2) The letter was NOT an extrajudicial confession whose validity depended on its being executed with the assistance of counsel and its being under oath, but a VOLUNTARY PARTY ADMISSION under Section 26, Rule 130 ROC that was admissible against her. An admission, if voluntary, is admissible against the admitter for the reason that it is fair to presume that the admission corresponds with the truth. And by virtue of being made by himself, AN ADMISSION is competent primary evidence against the admitter.

Also, the letter was NOT a CONFESSION due to its NOT expressly acknowledging the guilt of the accused for qualified theft. Because under Section 30, Rule 120, ROC provides that A CONFESSION is a declaration of an accused acknowledging the guilt for the offense charged, or for any offense necessarily included therein.

WHEN BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT OR A MATTER OF DISCRETION?

10. LEVISTE VS CA

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT BAIL SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE GRANTED ABSENT ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN SEC 5 PARA 3, RULE 114 OF THE ROC

Legal Basis:

Section 5 Rule 115 ROC provides that: BAIL, when discretionary . Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by DEATH, RP, OR LI, admission to bail is DISCRETIONARY.

Section 13, Article II of the PC provides that: ALL PERSONS except those charged with offenses punishable by RP when evidence of guilt is STRONG, shall, before conviction, be BAILABLE BY SUFFICIENT SURETIES, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.

Held:

NO. The accused is not entitled or not granted bail. ABSENT any circumstances mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of Section 5 of Rule 114 means that a less stringent approach in granting BAIL ONLY SUBJECT to the DISCRETION of the court to grant bail.

The third paragraph of Sec 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where the penalty imposed on the appellant applying for BAIL is imprisonment exceeding 6 years. The first scenario deals with the circumstances enumerated in the said paragraph, and the 2nd scenario contemplates the existence of at least one of the said circumstances.

BAIL IS EITHER A MATTER OF RIGHTS OR DISCRETION. It is a matter of RIGHT when the OFFENSE charged is not punishable by death, RP or LI. On the other hand, upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT PUNISHABLE by DEATH, RP OR LI bail becomes a matter of DISCRETION. Justice Herrera

The SC held that a finding that none of the said circumstances is present WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY result in the grant of bail. Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent approach sound discretion approach.

The appellates court denial of bail pending appeal where none of the said circumstances exists does not by itself constitute ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

PLEA BARGAINING11. DAAN VS SB

Issue: WHETHER THE ACUSSED SHALL BE GRANTED A LESSER OFFENSE

Legal Basis:

Held:

In this case, the allegations in the Informations filed against petitioner are sufficient to hold petitioner liable for the lesser offenses. Thus, in the charge for Falsification of Public Documents, petitioner may plead guilty to the lesser offense of Falsification by Private Individuals inasmuch as it does not appear that petitioner took advantage of his official position in allegedly falsifying the timebook and payroll of the Municipality of Bato, Leyte.

In the same vein, with regard to the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, while the Informations contain allegations which make out a case for Malversation against petitioner, nevertheless, absent the element of conversion, theoretically, petitioner may still be held liable for Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer if it is shown that the failure to render account was in violation of a law or regulation that requires him to render such an accounting within the prescribed period.