Friday 26 October 2012

CRESPO vs MOGUL


CRESPO vs MOGUL
GR No. L-53373  June 30, 1987

FACTS:
Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. Gala with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estaga against Mario Crespo in the Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City. When the case was set for arraignment the accused filed a motion to deter arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the office of provincial Fiscal.

CARDINAL PRINCIPLE:
Criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the Fiscal. He may or he may not file the complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the discretion and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons.

It is through the conduct of preliminary investigation, that the fiscal determines the existence of a Prima Facie case that would warrant the prosecution of a case. The Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal’s discretion and control of the criminal prosecution. It is not prudent or even permissible for a Court of compel the fiscal to prosecute a proceeding originally initiated by him on an information.

In a clash of views between the Judge who did not investigate and the Fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal’s should normally prevail.

The action of fiscal or prosecutor is not without any limitation or control. The same is subject to the approval to the Provincial or City Fiscal or the Chief of State Prosecutor as the case maybe and it maybe elevated for review to the Secretary of Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the action or opinion of the Fiscal.

People vs Mariacos


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs BELEN MARIACOS
GR NO. 188611  June 16 2010

FACTS:
October 27, 2005 in Brgy Balbalayang, PO2 Pallayoc met with secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network who informed him that a baggage of marijuana had been loaded in a passenger jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. The agent mentioned 3 bags and 1 plastic bag. Further, the agent described a backpack bag with O.K. marking. PO2 Pallayoc boarded the said jeepney and positioned himself on top thereof. He found bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspapers. He them asked the other passengers about the owner of the bag, but no one know.

When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together with other passengers. Unfortunately, he did not noticed who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only realized a few moments later that the said bag and 3 other bags were already being carried away by two (2) women. He caught up with the women and introduced himself as a policeman. He told them that they were under arrest, but on the women got away.

DOCTRINES:

ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES: The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Purpose: MOVING VEHICLE (WARRANTLESS SEARCH)
A.      This has been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
B.      This is no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause when a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extension search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.

MALUM PROHIBITUM
When an accused is charged with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited drugs, the ownership thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of ownership of the confiscated marijuana is not necessary.

Appellant’s alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defence. Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charge is malum prohibitum   


MIRANDA vs TULIAO


MIRANDA vs TULIAO

FACTS:
March 08, 1996, 2 burnt cadavers were discovered I Purok Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela. September 1999, SP02 Mardeal was arrested. April 27, 2001, he executed a sworn confession and identified petitioners Jose Miranda, SP03 Ocon, SP03 Dalmacio , a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible for the death of Vicente Buazon and Elizar Tualiao. Judge 6, 2001, Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint order denying said urgent motion on the ground that, since the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the Court. In the meantime, petitioners appealed the resolution of the State Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Justice.

DOCTRINES:
Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest neither jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.

CA Justice Oscar Herrerra:
Except in application for bail, it is not necessary for the Court of First Instance to first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to dismiss the case or grant the relief. The outright dismissal of the case even before the Court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused is authorized under Section 6 (a), Rule 112 Rule of Court, Criminal Procedure.

SANTIAGO vs VASQUEZ
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail.
Santiago shows discretion but custody of law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the Court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other relief sought by the dependant where by mere application, thereof, constitutes a waiver of the defence of lack of jurisdiction over the person accused.

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE that filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the Court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the Court, lead to special appearance. Failure to file them is WAIVER OF DEFENCE
1.       Civil cases, motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included.
2.       Criminal cases, motion to quash a complaint on the ground of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
3.       Motion to Quash a warrant of arrest – Legality of Court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused.

GENERAL RULE: One who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Court.


TIJAM vs SIBONGHANOY


TIJAM vs SIBONGHANOY

January 08, 1963 – 5 days after the surely received notice of the decision, it filed a motion asking for extension of time within which to file a motion for reconsideration. Appellees action was filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, July 19, 1948 for the recovery of 1,908.00 Pesos.

RA 296, Judiary Act 1948 – Section 88 of which placed within the jurisdiction of inferior court all civil actions where the value of the subject matter or the amount of demand does not go beyond 2,000 Pesos, exclusive of interest and costs that the Court of First Instance of Cebu has no Jurisdiction.

The Court is in Opinion that Surety is now barred by laches from invoking the plea at this late hour for the purpose of annulling everything done heretofore in the case with its active participation.

Definition of Laches:
Failure of neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been earlier, it is negligence or commission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitle to assert it has abandoned it or declines to assert it.


LACSON vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


LACSON vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

RA 7975 which amended PD 1606 as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been declared by the Court as not a penal law, but a clear procedural statute.

Elementary Rule:
Jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the allegations in the complaint and information and not by the evidence presented by the parties at trial. The mode or right to appeal in not included in the prohibition of ex post facto considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law.

MULTIPLE MURDER CHARGED  
Section 4 of RA 8249, requires that the offense charged must be committed by the offender IN RELATION TO HIS OFFICE in order for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over it.
People vs Montejo (INTIMINATELU CONNECTED)
Intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official function.

*Actual recital of FACTS

US vs KARELSEN (the object of this written accusation)
1.       Furnish the accused with discretion of charge
2.       Avail himself of his conviction of acquittal
3.       Inform the Court of the facts alleged so that it may decide

What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accused’s official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.