Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure

Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half

obligation to return the said car to Trans Eagle present time still fail and refuse to do so, to the
People vs. Odilao Corporation if they are not interested, the said damage and prejudice of Trans Eagle Corporation
accused, once in possession of the said luxury car, in the amount aforestated.
Facts: Herein respondent David S. Odilao, Jr. far from complying with their obligation, with
together with Enrique Samonte and Mario Yares, deliberate intent, with intent to gain, with Issue: W/N the court of appeals committed
was charged with Estafa in an Information[2] filed unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence, did reversible error in granting the injunction sought
by the Asst. City Prosecutor Feliciano with the then and there misappropriate, misapply and by the respondent which enjoined the trial court
RTC of Cebu City. convert into their own personal use and benefit from implementing the warrant of arrest and
the said accused, conniving, confederating and the same or the amount of P1,199,520.00 which from further conducting proceedings in the case
mutually helping with one another, having is the equivalent value thereof, and inspite of until the petition for review of the reinvestigation
received in trust from Trans Eagle Corporation a repeated demands made upon them to let them report of the city prosecutor is resolved by the
luxury car known as Jeep Cherokee Sport 4wd comply with their obligation to return the luxury department of justice?
valued at P1,199,520.00 with the agreement that car, they have failed and refused and instead
they would sign the document of sale if they are denied to have received the luxury car known as Held:
interested to buy the same and with the Jeep Cherokee Sport 4WD and up to the
the Court enunciated the following ruling in substantial rights of the accused or the right of Yes. The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a
Crespo vs. Mogul,[23] to wit: the People to due process of law. complaint or information is filed in Court any
The preliminary investigation conducted by the Whether the accused had been arraigned or not disposition of the case as its dismissal or the
fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
prima facie case exists warranting the the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal
prosecution of the accused is terminated upon whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to retains the direction and control of the
the filing of the information in the proper court. the Court, the Court in the exercise of its prosecution of criminal cases even while the case
In turn, as above stated, the filing of said discretion may grant the motion or deny it and is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion
information sets in motion the criminal action require that the trial on the merits proceed for on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole
against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal the proper determination of the case. judge on what to do with the case before it. The
find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the However, one may ask, if the trial court refuses determination of the case is within its exclusive
case, at such stage, the permission of the Court to grant the motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss
must be secured. After such reinvestigation the upon the directive of the Secretary of Justice will the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed
finding and recommendations of the fiscal should there not be a vacuum in the prosecution? . . . to the Court who has the option to grant or deny
be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. The answer is simple. The role of the fiscal or the same. It does not matter if this is done
While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial prosecutor as We all know is to see that justice is before or after the arraignment of the accused
discretion to determine whether or not a criminal done and not necessarily to secure the conviction or that the motion was filed after a
case should be filed in court or not, once the case of the person accused before the Courts. Thus, in reinvestigation or upon instructions of the
had already been brought to Court whatever spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of
disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of the investigation.
the case thereafter should be addressed for the evidence of the prosecution to the Court to Thus, in Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc.,[24]
consideration of the Court. The only qualification enable the Court to arrive at its own independent the Court held that the trial court judges
is that the action of the Court must not impair the reliance on the prosecutors averment that the
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
Secretary of Justice had recommended the arrest, was more than ample time to give private everytime accused would get angry, he would
dismissal of the case against the petitioner was, complainant the opportunity to obtain a beat all of them.
to say the least, an abdication of the trial courts resolution of her petition for review from the "Nonetheless, Ate Mercy reported to a neighbor,
duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie DOJ. Indeed, with more than three years having Nanay Ludy, Anna Lizas harrowing experience on
case, in blatant violation of this Courts elapsed, it is now high time for the continuation 08 January 2001. In turn, Nanay Ludy talked to
pronouncement in Crespo vs. Mogul . of the trial on the merits in the criminal case Anna Liza and directed her to report the incident
IT BEARS STRESSING THAT THE COURT IS below as the sixty-day period counted from the to the barangay. Anna Liza heeded Nanay Ludys
HOWEVER NOT BOUND TO ADOPT THE filing of the petition for review with the DOJ, directive. She proceeded to the barangay -
RESOLUTION OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE provided for in Section 11, Rule 116 of the together with her Ate Mercy and Ate Marilou
SINCE THE COURT IS MANDATED TO Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure now (wives of Anna Lizas older brothers) - and
INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE OR ASSESS THE applicable to the case at bar, had long lapsed. reported her fathers outrageous wrongdoings.
MERITS OF THE CASE, AND MAY EITHER AGREE On 28 January 2001, based on Anna Lizas sworn
OR DISAGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF People vs. Oden statement, the barangay officials, together with
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE ALONE ON the police, arrested accused-appellant."2
THE RESOLUTION OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE Facts: The Court is confronted with yet another After the prosecution had rested its case with the
WOULD BE AN ABDICATION OF THE TRIAL case where a home ceases being an abode of testimony of its lone witness (the private
COURTS DUTY AND JURISDICTION TO safety and protection, this time to a motherless complainant), Atty. Harley Padolina (PAO)
DETERMINE PRIMA FACIE CASE. daughter who has accused her own father, herein manifested that the defense would not present
appellant, of having repeatedly had carnal any evidence.
Verily, the proceedings in the criminal case knowledge of her "by means of force and
pending in the trial court had been held in intimidation." Appellant Mario Oden was charged Issue: W/N the accused plea has been
abeyance long enough. Under Section 11, Rule with twelve (12) counts of "rape,". improvidently made? YES
116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, "Due to fear, Anna Liza did not report to anyone
the suspension of arraignment of an accused in all the twelve (12) incidents of sexual Held: In the review of his various cases by this
cases where a petition for review of the molestation. Court, appellant asserts that his plea of guilty has
resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either "However, unknown to Anna Liza, her Ate Mercy been improvidently made on the mistaken belief
the Department of Justice or the Office of the (wife of the complainants brother Arnold Oden) that he would be given a lighter penalty with his
President shall not exceed sixty days counted witnessed the rape that took place on 08 January plea of guilt.4 On this particular score, the
from the filing of the petition with the reviewing 2001. Ate Mercy saw through a small hole on the Solicitor General agrees.
office. Although in this case, at the time that the wall inside the house - separating her bedroom THERE IS MERIT IN THE OBSERVATION.
trial court deferred the arraignment in its Order from that of Anna Lizas what accused had done Section 3, Rule 116, of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
dated October 30, 2000, the Revised Rules of to her (Anna Liza). And it was not only Ate Mercy Procedure is explicit on the procedure to be taken
Criminal Procedure had not yet taken effect and who witnessed the rape. Arnold Oden (brother of when an accused pleads guilty to a capital
there was as yet no prescribed period of time for Anna Liza) also saw what the accused had done to offense, viz:
the suspension of arraignment, we believe that Anna Liza. Arnold was mad at accused; however "SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception
the period of one and a half years from October he was not able to do anything because he, of evidence. - When the accused pleads guilty to a
30, 2000 to June 13, 2002, when the trial court together with the rest of the siblings, were afraid capital offense, the court shall conduct a
ordered the implementation of the warrant of of their father (accused) - the reason being that searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
comprehension of the consequences of his plea plea. In capital offenses7 particularly, life being at as President of the Rural Bank of San Miguel
and shall require the prosecution to prove his stake, one cannot just lean on the presumption (Bulacan), Inc. and Branch Manager of the Rural
guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The that the accused has understood his plea.8 Bank of San Miguel-San Miguel Branch [sic], a
accused may present evidence in his behalf." While the records of the case are indeed bereft of duly organized banking institution under
The trial court is mandated (1) to conduct a any indication that the rule has sufficiently been Philippine Laws, conspiring confederating and
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full complied with, the evidence for the prosecution mutually helping one another, did then and there,
comprehension of the consequences of the plea outside of the plea of guilt, nevertheless, would willfully and feloniously by making it appear that
of guilt, (2) to require the prosecution to still adequately establish the guilt of appellant beyond one Enrico Carlos filled up the
prove the guilt of the accused and the precise reasonable doubt.9 THE MANNER BY WHICH THE application/information sheet and filed the
degree of his culpability, and (3) to inquire PLEA OF GUILT IS MADE, WHETHER aforementioned loan documents when in truth
whether or not the accused wishes to present IMPROVIDENTLY OR NOT, LOSES MUCH OF GREAT and in fact Enrico Carlos did not participate in the
evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if SIGNIFICANCE WHERE THE CONVICTION CAN BE execution of said loan documents and that by
he desires. The records must show the events BASED ON INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE PROVING virtue of said falsification and with deceit and
that have actually taken place during the inquiry, THE COMMISSION BY THE PERSON ACCUSED OF intent to cause damage, the accused succeeded in
the words spoken and the warnings given, with THE OFFENSE CHARGED.10 securing a loan in the amount of eight million
special attention to the age of the accused, his THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED AT THE WITNESS pesos (PhP8,000,000.00) from the Rural Bank of
educational attainment and socio-economic STAND ANNA LIZA. SHE RECOUNTED San Miguel-San Ildefonso branch in the name of
status, the manner of his arrest and detention, STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND IN SUFFICIENT Enrico Carlos which amount of PhP8 million
the attendance of counsel in his behalf during the DETAIL THE TWELVE HARROWING AND representing the loan proceeds the accused
custodial and preliminary investigations, and the HUMILIATING INCIDENTS OF RAPE SHE HAD thereafter converted the same amount to their
opportunity of his defense counsel to confer with SUFFERED IN THE HANDS OF HER OWN FATHER. own personal gain and benefit, to the damage
him. All these matters should be able to provide and prejudice of the Rural Bank of San Miguel-San
trustworthy indices of his competence to give a Ildefonso branch, its creditors, the Bangko Sentral
free and informed plea of guilt. The trial court ng Pilipinas, and the Philippine Deposit Insurance
must describe the essential elements of the Soriano vs. People, BSP and PDIC Corporation.
crimes the accused is charged with and their The other Information 17 dated November 10,
respective penalties and civil liabilities. It should Facts: A bank officer violates the DOSRI 2 law 2000 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 238-M-
also direct a series of questions to defense when he acquires bank funds for his personal 2001, was for violation of Section 83 of RA 337, as
counsel to determine whether or not he has benefit, even if such acquisition was facilitated by amended by PD 1795. The said provision refers to
conferred with the accused and has completely a fraudulent loan application. Directors, officers, the prohibition against the so-called DOSRI loans.
explained to him the legal implications of a plea stockholders, and their related interests cannot NOTE: 2 INFORMATION WAS FILED ESTAFA and
of guilt.5 be allowed to interpose the fraudulent nature of VIOLATION OF DOSRI LAWS
The process is mandatory and absent any the loan as a defense to escape culpability for RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
showing that it has been duly observed, a their circumvention of Section 83 of Republic Act The CA denied the petition on both issues
searching inquiry cannot be said to have been (RA) No. 337. HILARIO P. SORIANO and presented by petitioner. On the first issue, the CA
aptly undertaken.6 The trial court must be extra ROSALINDA ILAGAN, as principals by direct determined that the BSP letter, which petitioner
solicitous to see to it that the accused fully participation, with unfaithfulness or abuse of characterized to be a fatally infirm complaint, was
understands the meaning and importance of his confidence and taking advantage of their position not actually a complaint, but a transmittal or
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
cover letter only. This transmittal letter merely Falsification of Commercial Documents and We have examined the two informations against
contained a summary of the affidavits which were Violation of DOSRI law. 32 petitioner and we find that they contain
attached to it. It did not contain any averment of On June 8, 2001, petitioner moved to quash 21 allegations which, if hypothetically admitted,
personal knowledge of the events and these informations on two grounds: that the would establish the essential elements of the
transactions that constitute the elements of the court had no jurisdiction over the offense crime of DOSRI violation and estafa thru
offenses charged. Being a mere transmittal letter, charged, and that the facts charged do not falsification of commercial documents.
it need not comply with the requirements of constitute an offense. In Criminal Case No. 238-M-2001 for violation of
Section 3 (a) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. 30 DOSRI rules, the information alleged that
The CA further determined that the five affidavits Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was petitioner Soriano was the president of RBSM;
attached to the transmittal letter should be denied for lack of merit. that he was able to indirectly obtain a loan from
considered as the complaint-affidavits that RBSM by putting the loan in the name of
charged petitioner with violation of Section 83 of Issues: depositor Enrico Carlos; and that he did this
RA 337 and for Estafa thru Falsification of 1. Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without complying with the requisite board
Commercial Documents. These complaint- the proper remedy against an Order approval, reportorial, and ceiling requirements.
affidavits complied with the mandatory denying a Motion to Quash? In Criminal Case No. 237-M-2001 for estafa thru
requirements set out in the Rules of Court they 2. Is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari the falsification of commercial documents, the
were subscribed and sworn to before a notary proper remedy against an Order denying information alleged that petitioner, by taking
public and subsequently certified by State a Motion to Quash? advantage of his position as president of RBSM,
Prosecutor Fonacier, who personally examined falsified various loan documents to make it
the affiants and was convinced that the affiants 1st Issued Held: appear that an Enrico Carlos secured a loan of P8
fully understood their sworn statements. 31 The second issue was raised by petitioner in the million from RBSM; that petitioner succeeded in
AEScHa context of his Motion to Quash Information on obtaining the loan proceeds; that he later
the ground that the facts charged do not converted the loan proceeds to his own personal
ANENT THE SECOND GROUND, THE CA FOUND constitute an offense. 43 It is settled that in gain and benefit; and that his action caused
NO MERIT IN PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT THE considering a motion to quash on such ground, damage and prejudice to RBSM, its creditors, the
VIOLATION OF THE DOSRI LAW AND THE the test is "whether the facts alleged, if BSP, and the PDIC. TEHIaD
COMMISSION OF ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF hypothetically admitted, would establish the Significantly, this is not the first occasion that we
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS ARE INHERENTLY essential elements of the offense charged as adjudge the sufficiency of similarly worded
INCONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER. It explained defined by law. The trial court may not consider a informations. In Soriano v. People, 45 involving
that the test in considering a motion to quash on situation contrary to that set forth in the criminal the same petitioner in this case (but different
the ground that the facts charged do not complaint or information. Facts that constitute transactions), we also reviewed the sufficiency of
constitute an offense, is whether the facts the defense of the petitioner[s] against the informations for DOSRI violation and estafa thru
alleged, when hypothetically admitted, constitute charge under the information must be proved by falsification of commercial documents, which
the elements of the offense charged. The [him] during trial. Such facts or circumstances do were almost identical, mutatis mutandis, with the
appellate court held that this test was sufficiently not constitute proper grounds for a motion to subject informations herein. We held in Soriano v.
met because the allegations in the assailed quash the information on the ground that the People
informations, when hypothetically admitted, material averments do not constitute the that there is no basis for the quashal of the
clearly constitute the elements of Estafa thru offense". 44 SaITHC informations as "they contain material allegations
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
charging Soriano with violation of DOSRI rules and circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner Facts: Jorge, Segundina, Jose and Rosemarie, all
estafa thru falsification of commercial became the legal owner of the P8 million. Thus, surnamed dela Cruz, heard some persons calling
documents". petitioner remained the bank's fiduciary with out to them from outside their house, which is
Petitioner raises the theory that he could not respect to that money, which makes it capable of located Negros Occidental. Since the voices of
possibly be held liable for estafa in concurrence misappropriation or conversion in his hands. these persons were not familiar to them, they did
with the charge for DOSRI violation. According to The next question is whether there can also be, at not open their door immediately, and instead,
him, the DOSRI charge presupposes that he the same time, a charge for DOSRI violation in they waited for a few minutes in order to observe
acquired a loan, which would make the loan such a situation wherein the accused bank officer and recognize these persons first. It was only
proceeds his own money and which he could did not secure a loan in his own name, but was when one of them identified himself as Mitsuel L.
neither possibly misappropriate nor convert to alleged to have used the name of another person Elarcosa (Elarcosa), an acquaintance of the family,
the prejudice of another, as required by the in order to indirectly secure a loan from the bank. that Segundina lighted the lamps, while Jose
statutory definition of estafa. 46 On the other We answer this in the affirmative. In sum, the opened the door. 1 Elarcosa and his companion,
hand, if petitioner did not acquire any loan, there informations filed against petitioner do not accused-appellant Orias, then entered the house
can be no DOSRI violation to speak of. Thus, negate each other. and requested that supper be prepared for them
petitioner posits that the two offenses cannot co- as they were roving. Both Elarcosa and accused-
exist. This theory does not persuade us. 2nd Issue Held: appellant Orias were Citizen Armed Forces
Petitioner's theory is based on the false premises In fine, the Court has consistently held that a Geographical Unit (CAFGU) members. 2
that the loan was extended to him by the bank in special civil action for certiorari is not the proper Segundina and Rosemarie immediately went to
his own name, and that he became the owner of remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash the kitchen to prepare food, while Jose and Jorge
the loan proceeds. Both premises are wrong. an information. The proper procedure in such a stayed in the living room with Elarcosa and
ACTISE case is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial accused-appellant Orias. 3
The bank money (amounting to P8 million) which without prejudice on his part to present the Since the rice was not cooked yet, Rosemarie first
came to the possession of petitioner was money special defenses he had invoked in his motion to served a plate of suman to Elarcosa and accused-
held in trust or administration by him for the quash and if after trial on the merits, an adverse appellant Orias, who were then engaged in a
bank, in his fiduciary capacity as the President of decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the conversation with her father, Jorge, and her
said bank. 47 It is not accurate to say that manner authorized by law. Thus, petitioners brother, Jose. She heard accused-appellant Orias
petitioner became the owner of the P8 million should not have forthwith filed a special civil asked her brother why the latter did not attend
because it was the proceeds of a loan. That would action for certiorari with the CA and instead, they the dance at Sitio Nalibog. Her brother replied
have been correct if the bank knowingly extended should have gone to trial and reiterated the that he was tired. Suddenly thereafter, Elarcosa
the loan to petitioner himself. But that is not the special defenses contained in their motion to and accused-appellant Orias stood up and fired
case here. According to the information for quash. There are no special or exceptional their guns at Jose and Jorge.
estafa, the loan was supposed to be for another circumstances in the present case that would
person, a certain "Enrico Carlos"; petitioner, justify immediate resort to a filing of a petition for Segundina, who was busy preparing supper in the
through falsification, made it appear that said certiorari. Clearly, the CA did not commit any kitchen, ran towards the living room and
"Enrico Carlos" applied for the loan when in fact reversible error, much less, grave abuse of embraced her son, Jose, who was already lying on
he ("Enrico Carlos") did not. Through such discretion in dismissing the petition. the floor. Elarcosa and accused-appellant Orias
fraudulent device, petitioner obtained the loan People vs. Elarcosa and Orias then immediately searched the wooden chest
proceeds and converted the same. Under these containing clothes, money in the amount of forty
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
thousand pesos (PhP40,000) intended for the appellant Orias was positively identified by conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only
forthcoming wedding of Jose in October, and a Rosemarie, but also because it has been held that one penalty imposed for the commission of a
registration certificate of large cattle. During this alibi becomes more unworthy of merit where it is complex crime. Complex crime has two (2) kinds.
time, Rosemarie escaped through the kitchen and established mainly by the accused himself, his The first is known as compound crime, or when a
hid in the shrubs, which was about six (6) relatives, friends, and comrades-in-arms, 37 and single act constitutes two or more grave or less
extended arms length from their house. She not by credible persons. grave felonies. The second is known as complex
heard her mother crying loudly, and after a series crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary
of gunshots, silence ensued. 5 2nd Issue: means for committing the other.
Shortly thereafter, Rosemarie proceeded to the In the instant case, conspiracy is manifested by CONSIDERING OUR HOLDING ABOVE, WE RULE
house of her cousin, Gualberto Mechabe, who the fact that the acts of accused-appellant Orias THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT ORIAS IS GUILTY, NOT
advised her to stay in the house until the morning and Elarcosa were coordinated. They were OF A COMPLEX CRIME OF MULTIPLE MURDER,
since it was already dark and he had no other synchronized in their approach to shoot Jose and BUT OF THREE (3) COUNTS OF MURDER FOR THE
companion who could help them. The following Jorge, and they were motivated by a single DEATH OF THE THREE (3) VICTIMS.
morning, Rosemarie returned to their house criminal impulse, that is, to kill the victims. Verily,
where she found the dead bodies of her parents conspiracy is implied when the accused persons Since there was only one information filed
and her brother. 6 The money in the amount of had a common purpose and were united in its against accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa,
PhP40,000, as well as the certificate of execution. Spontaneous agreement or active the Court observes that there is duplicity of the
registration of large cattle, were also gone. 7 cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of offenses charged in the said information. This is
Eventually, Elarcosa and accused-appellant Orias, the commission of the crime is sufficient to create a ground for a motion to quash as three (3)
as well as a certain Antonio David, Jr., were joint criminal responsibility. 49 separate acts of murder were charged in the
charged with robbery with multiple homicide. ACCUSED-APPELLANT ORIAS SHOULD BE information. Nonetheless, the failure of accused-
CONVICTED OF THREE (3) COUNTS OF MURDER appellant Orias to interpose an objection on this
Issues: AND NOT OF THE COMPLEX CRIME OF MURDER ground constitutes waiver. 55
We, however, disagree with the findings of the CA
1. W/N alibi of accused-appellant Orias that accused-appellant Orias committed the
should be given wheight. NO complex crime of multiple murder. Article 48 of
2. W/N there is duplicity of offense? the Revised Penal Code, which defines the
(ground for a MTQ) YES concept of complex crime, states:
ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a
Held: single act constitutes two or more grave or less
Albert vs. Sandiganbayan and People
grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary
1st Issue:
means for committing the other, the penalty for Facts: That in (sic) or about May 1990 and
Although the alibi of accused-appellant Orias the most serious crime shall be imposed, the sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City
appears to have been corroborated by a CAFGU same to be applied in its maximum period. (As of Davao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
member by the name of Robert Arellano and by a amended by Act No. 4000.) of this Honorable Court, accused RAMON A.
vendor present during the dance, said defense is In a complex crime, although two or more crimes ALBERT, a public officer, being then THE
unworthy of belief not only because of its are actually committed, they constitute only one PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE
inherent weakness and the fact that accused- crime in the eyes of the law, as well as in the AND FINANCE CORPORATION (NHMFC),
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
occupying the said position with a salary grade Sandiganbayan granted petitioner's Urgent THE RULING OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
above 27, while in the performance of his official Motion to Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure In its Resolution of 10 February 2004, 9 the
function, committing the offense in relation to his Order and to be Allowed to Travel. On 26 Sandiganbayan granted the prosecution's Motion
office, taking advantage of his official position, November 2001, the Sandiganbayan denied to Admit Amended Information. At the outset,
conspiring and confederating with accused FAVIO petitioner's Motion to Dismiss and ordered the the Sandiganbayan explained that "gross neglect
D. SAYSON, then the Project Director of CODE prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation of the of duty" which falls under Section 3 (f) of RA 3019
Foundation Inc. and accused ARTURO S. case with respect to petitioner. In a is different from "gross inexcusable negligence"
ASUMBRADO, then the President of the Buhangin Memorandum dated 6 January 2003, the SPO under Section 3 (e), and held thus:
Residents and Employees Association for who conducted the reinvestigation recommended In an information alleging gross neglect of duty, it
Development, Inc., acting with evident bad faith to the Ombudsman that the indictment against is not a requirement that such neglect or refusal
and manifest partiality and or gross neglect of petitioner be reversed for lack of probable cause. causes undue injury compared to an information
duty, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and However, the Ombudsman, in an Order dated 10 alleging gross inexcusable negligence where
criminally cause undue injury to the government March 2003, disapproved the Memorandum and undue effect constitutes substantial amendment
and public interest, enter and make it appear in directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to considering that the possible defense of the
Tax Declarations that two parcels of real proceed with the prosecution of the criminal accused may divert from the one originally
property particularly described in the Certificate case. Petitioner filed a Motion for intended. ATDHSC
of Titles are residential lands which Tax Reconsideration of the Order of the It may be considered however, that there are
Declarations accused submitted to the NHMFC Ombudsman. three modes by which the offense for Violation of
when in truth and in fact, as accused well knew, In a Resolution promulgated on 16 May 2003, the Section 3(e) may be committed in any of the
the two pieces of real property covered by Sandiganbayan scheduled the arraignment of following:
Certificate of Titles are agricultural land, and by petitioner on 24 July 2003. However, in view of 1. Through evident bad faith;
reason of accused's misrepresentation, the the pending motion for reconsideration of the 2. Through manifest partiality;
NHMFC released the amount of P4,535,400.00 order of the Ombudsman, the arraignment was 3. Through gross inexcusable negligence.
which is higher than the loanable amount the reset to 2 October 2003. HAICTD Proof of the existence of any of these modes in
land could command being agricultural, thus In a Manifestation dated 24 September 2003, the connection with the prohibited acts under said
causing undue injury to the government. On 18 SPO informed the Sandiganbayan of the section of the law should suffice to warrant
December 2000, pending the resolution of the Ombudsman's denial of petitioner's motion for conviction. 10
Motion to Dismiss, petitioner filed a Motion to reconsideration. On even date, the prosecution However, the Sandiganbayan also held that even
Lift Hold Departure Order and to be Allowed to filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended granting that the amendment of the information
Travel. The prosecution did not object to the Information. During the 2 October 2003 hearing, be formal or substantial, the prosecution could
latter motion on the condition that petitioner this ex-parte motion was withdrawn by the still effect the same in the event that the accused
would be "provisionally" arraigned. 6 On 12 prosecution with the intention of filing a Motion had not yet undergone a permanent arraignment.
March 2001, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to for Leave to Admit Amended Information. The And since the arraignment of petitioner on 13
Amend Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order and scheduled arraignment of petitioner was reset to March 2001 was merely "provisional", then the
to be Allowed to Travel. The following day, or on 1 December 2003. 7 prosecution may still amend the information
13 March 2001, the Sandiganbayan arraigned On 7 October 2003, the prosecution filed a either in form or in substance.
petitioner who entered a plea of "not guilty". In Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information.
the Resolution dated 16 April 2001, the
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
Issues: and when any evidence the accused might have, believe that the right of petitioner to a speedy
would be inapplicable to the complaint or trial was not infringed upon. The issue on the
1. WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN information as amended. 26 On the other hand, inordinate delay in the resolution of the
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION an amendment which merely states with complaint-affidavit filed against petitioner and his
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF additional precision something which is already co-accused and the filing of the original
JURISDICTION IN ADMITTING THE contained in the original information and which, Information against petitioner was raised in
AMENDED INFORMATION. therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, and was duly
for the crime charged is an amendment to form addressed by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution
2. WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN that can be made at anytime. 27 In this case, the denying the said motion. It appears that the said
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION amendment entails the deletion of the phrase delays were caused by the numerous motions for
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF "gross neglect of duty" from the Information. extension of time to file various pleadings and to
JURISDICTION IN FURTHER PROCEEDING ALTHOUGH THIS MAY BE CONSIDERED A reproduce documents filed by petitioner's co-
WITH THE CASE DESPITE THE VIOLATION SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, THE SAME IS accused, and that no actual preliminary
OF THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO A ALLOWABLE EVEN AFTER ARRAIGNMENT AND investigation was conducted on petitioner.
SPEEDY TRIAL. PLEA BEING BENEFICIAL TO THE ACCUSED. 28 As
a replacement, "gross inexcusable negligence"
Held: would be included in the Information as a Dino vs. OIlivarez
1st ISSUE: The original information filed against modality in the commission of the offense. This
petitioner alleged that he acted with "evident bad Court believes that the same constitutes an Petitioners instituted a complaint for vote buying
faith and manifest partiality and or (sic) gross amendment only in form. The Court held that a against respondent Pablo Olivarez. Based on the
neglect of duty". The amended information, on conviction for a criminal negligent act can be had finding of probable cause in the Joint Resolution
the other hand, alleges that petitioner acted with under an information exclusively charging the issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Antonietta
"evident bad faith and manifest partiality and/or commission of a willful offense upon the theory Pablo-Medina, with the approval of the city
gross inexcusable negligence". Simply, the that the greater includes the lesser offense. prosecutor of Paraaque, two Informations were
amendment seeks to replace "gross neglect of filed before the RTC on 29 September 2004
duty" with "gross inexcusable negligence". Given 2nd Issue: Petitioner's contentions are futile. This charging respondent Pablo Olivarez with Violation
that these two phrases fall under different right, however, is deemed violated only when the of Section 261, paragraphs a, b and k of Article
paragraphs of RA 3019 specifically, "gross proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, XXII of the Omnibus Election Code .
neglect of duty" is under Section 3 (f) while "gross and oppressive delays; or when unjustified
inexcusable negligence" is under Section 3 (e) of On 11 October 2004, respondent filed a Motion
postponements of the trial are asked for and
the statute the question remains whether or to Quash the two criminal informations on the
secured; or when without cause or justifiable
not the amendment is substantial and prejudicial ground that more than one offense was charged
motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse
to the rights of petitioner. The test as to when the therein, in violation of Section 3(f), Rule 117 of
without the party having his case tried. 32 A
rights of an accused are prejudiced by the the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 13, Rule
simple mathematical computation of the period
amendment of a complaint or information is 110 of the Rules of Court. This caused the
involved is not sufficient. We concede that
when a defense under the complaint or resetting of the scheduled arraignment on 18
judicial proceedings do not exist in a vacuum and
information, as it originally stood, would no October 2004 to 13 December 2004.
must contend with the realities of everyday life.
longer be available after the amendment is made, After reviewing the records of the case, we
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
Before Judge Madrona could act on the motion to the arraignment would proceed without any As it stands, since there are no amended
quash, Assistant Prosecutor Pablo-Medina, with more delay, unless the Supreme Court would informations to speak of, the trial court has no
the approval of the city prosecutor, filed on 28 issue an injunctive writ. aCIHAD basis for denying respondent's motion to quash.
October 2004 its "Opposition to the Motion to On 9 March 2005, respondent failed to appear Consequently, there can be no arraignment on
Quash and Motion to Admit Amended before the RTC. Thereupon, Judge Madrona, in the amended informations. In view of this, there
Informations." The Amended Informations sought open court, denied the Motion for can be no basis for ordering the arrest of
to be admitted charged respondent with violation Reconsideration of the Order denying the Motion respondent and the confiscation of his cash bond.
of only paragraph a, in relation to paragraph b, of to Quash and admitting the Amended For having been issued with grave abuse of
Section 261, Article XXII of the Omnibus Election Informations, and ordered the arrest of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
Code. CEaDAc respondent and the confiscation of the cash jurisdiction, the trial court's orders dated 12
On 1 December 2004, Judge Madrona issued an bond. January 2005 denying the Motion to Quash and
Order resetting the hearing scheduled on 13 On 11 March 2005, respondent filed an "Urgent admitting the amended information; 9 March
December 2004 to 1 February 2005 on account of Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Lift the 2005 denying the Motion for Reconsideration of
the pending Motion to Quash of the respondent Order of Arrest of Accused Dr. Pablo Olivarez," the Order denying the Motion to Quash,
and the Amended Informations of the public which was denied in an Order dated 31 March admitting the amended informations, and
prosecutor. 2005. The Order directed that a bench warrant be ordering the arrest of the respondent and the
issued for the arrest of respondent to ensure his confiscation of his cash bond; and 31 March 2005
On 14 December 2004, respondent filed an presence at his arraignment. denying respondent's Urgent Motion for
"Opposition to the Admission of the Amended On 5 April 2005, the Law Department of the Reconsideration and/or to lift the Order of Arrest
Informations," arguing that no resolution was COMELEC filed before the RTC a Manifestation are declared void and of no effect. Motion for
issued to explain the changes therein, particularly and Motion wherein it alleged that pursuant to Reconsideration is Granted/
the deletion of paragraph k, Section 261, Article the COMELEC's powers to investigate and
XXII of the Omnibus Election Code. Moreover, he prosecute election offense cases, it had the 2. Held:
averred that the city prosecutor was no longer power to revoke the delegation of its authority to It cannot also be disputed that the COMELEC Law
empowered to amend the informations, since the the city prosecutor. Department has the authority to direct, nay,
COMELEC had already directed it to transmit the order the public prosecutor to suspend further
entire records of the case and suspend the Issue: implementation of the questioned resolution
hearing of the cases before the RTC until the until final resolution of said appeal, for it is
resolution of the appeal before the COMELEC en 1. W/N court erred in ruling the admission speaking on behalf of the COMELEC. The
banc. of the two amended informations and in COMELEC Law Department, without any doubt, is
On 12 January 2005, Judge Madrona issued an dismissing his motion to quash. (YES the authorized to do this as shown by the pleadings it
order denying respondent's Motion to Quash court erred) has filed before the trial court. If the COMELEC
dated 11 October 2004, and admitted the 2. W/N the city prosecutor defied the order Law Department is not authorized to issue any
Amended Informations dated 25 October 2004. or directive of the COMELEC when it filed directive/order or to file the pleadings on behalf
Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for the amended informations. (YES CP of the COMELEC, the COMELEC En Banc itself
Reconsideration dated 20 January 2005 thereon. acted in excess of his authority) would have said so. This, the COMELEC En Banc
On 1 February 2005, Judge Madrona reset the did not do.
arraignment to 9 March 2005, with a warning that 1. Held:
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
The records are likewise bereft of any evidence documents, such as: (1) copy of approved Committee (IAC), which undertook the inventory
showing that the City Prosecutor of Paraaque concrete pouring; (2) survey results of original and final quantification of the accomplishment of
doubted such authority. It knew that the ground and finished leaks; (3) volume calculation A.C. Cruz Construction. The allegations of Lazarte
COMELEC Law Department could make such an of earth fill actually rendered on site; (4) test that the IAC, due to certain constraints, allegedly
order, but the public prosecutor opted to results as to the quality of materials and had to rely on the reports of the field engineers
disregard the same and still filed the Amended compaction; and (5) copy of work instructions and/or the Project Office as to which materials
Informations contrary to the order to hold the attesting to the demolished concrete structures. were actually installed; and that he supposedly
proceedings in abeyance until a final resolution of affixed his signature to the IAC Physical Inventory
said appeal was made by the COMELEC En Banc. Report and Memoranda dated August 12, 1991
The contractor failed to comply with the work despite his not being able to attend the actual
Lazarte vs. Sandiganbayan instruction. Upon Fajutag, Jr.'s further inspection because he allegedly saw that all the
verification, it was established that there was no members of the Committee had already signed
Facts: actual excavation and road filling works are matters of defense which he can address in
undertaken by A.C. Cruz Construction. the course of the trial. Hence, the quashal of the
In June 1990, the National Housing Authority information with respect to accused Lazarte is
(NHA) awarded the original contract for the On 2 October 2006, petitioner filed a motion to denied for lack of merit.
infrastructure works on the Pahanocoy Sites and quash the Information raising the following
Services Project, Phase 1 in Bacolod City to A.C. grounds: (1) the facts charged in the information WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court
Cruz Construction. The project, with a contract do not constitute an offense; (2) the information hereby resolves as follows:
cost of P7,666,507.55, was funded by the World does not conform substantially to the prescribed (1) Accused Robert Balao, Josephine Angsico and
Bank under the Project Loan Agreement forged form; (3) the constitutional rights of the accused Virgilio Dacalos' Motion to Admit Motion to
on 10 June 1983 between the Philippine to be informed of the nature and cause of the Quash dated October 4, 2006 is GRANTED; the
Government and the IBRD-World Bank. accusations against them have been violated by Motion to Quash dated October 4, 2006 attached
the inadequacy of the information; and (4) the thereto, is GRANTED. Accordingly, the case is
A.C. Cruz Construction commenced the prosecution failed to determine the individual hereby DISMISSED insofar as the said accused-
infrastructure works on 1 August 1990. 5 In April participation of all the accused in the information movants are concerned.
1991, the complainant Candido M. Fajutag, Jr. in disobedience with the Resolution dated 27 (2) The Motion to Quash dated October 2, 2006
(Fajutag, Jr.) was designated Project Engineer of March 2005. 18 of accused Engr. Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr. is hereby
the project. On 2 March 2007, the Sandiganbayan issued the DENIED for lack of merit. Let the arraignment of
first assailed resolution denying petitioner's the accused proceed as scheduled on March 13,
A Variation/Extra Work Order No. 1 was approved motion to quash. We quote the said resolution in 2007.
for the excavation of unsuitable materials and part:
road filling works. As a consequence, Arceo Cruz Issues:
of A.C. Cruz Construction submitted the fourth Among the accused-movants, the public officer
billing and Report of Physical Accomplishments whose participation in the alleged offense is 1. W/N the Information filed before the
on 6 May 1991. Fajutag, Jr., however, discovered specifically mentioned in the May 30, 2006 Sandiganbayan insufficiently averred the
certain deficiencies. As a result, he issued Work Memorandum is accused Felicisimo Lazarte, Jr., essential elements of the crime charged
Instruction No. 1 requiring some supporting the Chairman of the Inventory and Acceptance
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
as it failed to specify the individual Finally, the Court sustains the Sandiganbayan's P10,000,000 and two vehicles were demanded
participation of all the accused. NO jurisdiction to hear the case. As correctly pointed from them in exchange for their freedom; that,
2. W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction out by the Sandiganbayan, it is of no moment that after haggling, the amount was reduced to
over the case. YES petitioner does not occupy a position with Salary P700,000 plus the two vehicles; that the money
Grade 27 as he was a department manager of the and vehicles were delivered in the late evening of
NHA, a government-owned or controlled 11 September 2001; that they were released in
corporation, at the time of the commission of the the early morning of 12 September 2001 in
Held: The Court is not persuaded. The Court offense, which position falls within the ambit of Quiapo after they handed the Deed of Sale and
affirms the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. its jurisdiction. registration papers of the two vehicles.
At the outset, it should be stressed that the denial The instant petition is DISMISSED. The On 24 January 2002, State Prosecutor Velasco
of a motion to quash is not correctible by Resolutions dated 2 March 2007 and 18 October filed with the RTC of Manila an Information for
certiorari. Well-established is the rule that when a 2007 of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan Kidnapping for Ransom against the accused with
motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, the are AFFIRMED. no bail recommended.
remedy is not a petition for certiorari but for
petitioners to go to trial without prejudice to ALAWIYA y ABDUL vs. CA On 28 January 2002, the trial court, upon motion
reiterating the special defenses invoked in their by the prosecution, issued a Hold Departure
motion to quash. Remedial measures as regards Facts: On 18 September 2001, petitioners Order against the accused.9 On even date, the
interlocutory orders, such as a motion to quash, executed sworn statements4 before the General trial court issued a Warrant of Arrest against all
are frowned upon and often dismissed. The Assignment Section of the Western Police District the accused.10
evident reason for this rule is to avoid multiplicity in United Nations Avenue, Manila, charging
of appeals in a single court. 31 accused P/C Insp. Michael Angelo Bernardo Meanwhile, on 8 February 2002, the accused filed
Martin, P/Insp. Allanjing Estrada Medina, PO3 a petition for review of the Resolution of State
This general rule, however, is subject to certain Arnold Ramos Asis, PO2 Pedro Santos Gutierrez, Prosecutor Velasco with the Office of the
exceptions. If the court, in denying the motion to PO2 Ignacio De Paz and PO2 Antonio Sebastian Secretary of Justice.
dismiss or motion to quash acts without or in Berida, Jr., who were all policemen assigned at
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of that time at the Northern Police District, with On 18 February 2002, the accused moved for the
discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies. 32 kidnapping for ransom. The sworn-statements of quashal of the Information on the ground that
And in the case at bar, the Court does not find the petitioners commonly alleged that at about 10:00 "the officer who filed the Information has no
Sandiganbayan to have committed grave abuse of in the morning of 11 September 2001, while authority do so."11
discretion. petitioners were cruising on board a vehicle along
United Nations Avenue, a blue Toyota Sedan Issue: Whether the accused policemen can seek
The fundamental test in reflecting on the viability bumped their vehicle from behind; that when any relief (via a motion to quash the information)
of a motion to quash on the ground that the facts they went out of their vehicle to assess the from the trial court when they had not been
charged do not constitute an offense is whether damage, several armed men alighted from the arrested yet.
or not the facts asseverated, if hypothetically Toyota Sedan, poked guns at, blindfolded, and
admitted, would establish the essential elements forced them to ride in the Toyota Sedan; that Held: NO. At any rate, the accuseds motion to
of the crime defined in law. 33 Matters aliunde they were brought to an office where quash, on the ground of lack of authority of the
will not be considered. filing officer, would have never prospered
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
because as discussed earlier, the Ombudsmans of the accused is deemed waived by the accused The petition seeks to revive the case against
power to investigate offenses involving public when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative respondent Joel R. Pedro (Pedro) for election gun
officers or employees is not exclusive but is relief, except in cases when the accused invokes ban violation after the CA declared the case
concurrent with other similarly authorized the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning permanently dismissed pursuant to Section 8,
agencies of the government. such jurisdiction over his person. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

When the accused had not been arrested yet There is no clear showing that the present case Pedro was charged in court for carrying a loaded
People v. Mapalao,27 as correctly argued by the falls under any of the recognized exceptions. firearm without the required written
OSG, does not squarely apply to the present Moreover, as stated earlier, once the information authorization from the Commission on Elections
case. In that case, one of the accused, Rex is filed with the trial court, any disposition of the (Comelec) a day before the May 14, 2001 national
Magumnang, after arraignment and during the information rests on the sound discretion of the and local elections.
trial, escaped from detention and had not been court. The trial court is mandated to
apprehended since then. Accordingly, as to him independently evaluate or assess the existence of The accusation was based on Batas Pambansa
the trial in absentia proceeded and thereafter the probable cause and it may either agree or Bilang 881 or the Omnibus Election Code (Code)
judgment of conviction was promulgated. The disagree with the recommendation of the after the Marinduque Philippine National Police
Court held that since the accused remained at Secretary of Justice. The trial court is not bound (PNP) caught Pedro illegally carrying his firearm at
large, he should not be afforded the right to to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of a checkpoint at Boac, Marinduque.
appeal from the judgment of conviction unless he Justice.34 Reliance alone on the resolution of the
voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court Secretary of Justice amounts to an abdication of Pedro filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation,
or is otherwise arrested. While at large, the the trial courts duty and jurisdiction to determine which the RTC granted. 7 The preliminary
accused cannot seek relief from the court as he is the existence of probable cause.35 investigation, however, did not materialize.
deemed to have waived the same and he has no Considering that the Information has already Instead, Pedro filed with the RTC a Motion to
standing in court.28 In Mapalao, the accused been filed with the trial court, then the trial court, Quash, arguing that the Information "contains
escaped while the trial of the case was on-going, upon filing of the appropriate motion by the averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
whereas here, the accused have not been served prosecutor, should be given the opportunity to excuse or justification 8 and/or that the facts
the warrant of arrest and have not been perform its duty of evaluating, independently of charged do not constitute an offense." 9 Pedro
arraigned. Therefore, Mapalao is definitely not on the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice attached to his motion a Comelec Certification
all fours with the present case.lavvphil.net recommending the withdrawal of the Information dated September 24, 2001 that he was
Furthermore, there is nothing in the Rules against the accused, the merits of the case and "exempted" from the gun ban. The provincial
governing a motion to quash29 which requires assess whether probable cause exists to hold the prosecutor opposed the motion.
that the accused should be under the custody of accused for trial for kidnapping for ransom.36
The RTC quashed the Information and ordered
the law prior to the filing of a motion to quash on WHEREFORE, we REMAND this case to the
the police and the prosecutors to return the
the ground that the officer filing the information Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Manila, to
seized articles to Pedro. 10 IHCSET
had no authority to do so. Custody of the law is independently evaluate or assess the merits of
The petitioner, private prosecutor Ariel Los Baos
not required for the adjudication of reliefs other the case to determine whether probable cause
(Los Baos), representing the checkpoint team,
than an application for bail.30 However, while the exists to hold the accused for trial.
moved to reopen the case, as Pedro's Comelec
accused are not yet under the custody of the law,
Certification was a "falsification", and the
any question on the jurisdiction over the person Los Banos vs. Pedro
prosecution was "deprived of due process" when
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
the judge quashed the information without a Held: We find the petition meritorious and hold 22 by the previous extinction of criminal liability,
hearing. Attached to Los Baos' motion were two that the case should be remanded to the trial 23 by the rule on speedy trial, 24 and the
Comelec certifications stating that: (1) Pedro was court for arraignment and trial. dismissals after plea without the express consent
not exempted from the firearm ban; and (2) the of the accused. 25 Section 8, by its own terms,
signatures in the Comelec Certification of In People v. Lacson, 21 we ruled that there are cannot cover these dismissals because they are
September 24, 2001 were forged. sine qua non requirements in the application of not provisional. A second feature is that Section 8
the time-bar rule stated in the second paragraph does not state the grounds that lead to a
The RTC reopened the case for further of Section 8 of Rule 117. We also ruled that the provisional dismissal. This is in marked contrast
proceedings, as Pedro did not object to Los time-bar under the foregoing provision is a with a motion to quash whose grounds are
Baos' motion. 11 Pedro moved for the special procedural limitation qualifying the right specified under Section 3. The delimitation of the
reconsideration of the RTC's order primarily of the State to prosecute, making the time-bar grounds available in a motion to quash suggests
based on Section 8 of Rule 117, 12 arguing that an essence of the given right or as an inherent that a motion to quash is a class in itself, with
the dismissal had become permanent. He likewise part thereof, so that the lapse of the time-bar specific and closely-defined characteristics under
cited the public prosecutor's lack of express operates to extinguish the right of the State to the Rules of Court. A necessary consequence is
approval of the motion to reopen the case. prosecute the accused. that where the grounds cited are those listed
under Section 3, then the appropriate remedy is
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION c. Their Comparison to file a motion to quash, not any other remedy.
The CA initially denied Pedro's petition. For Conversely, where a ground does not appear
accuracy, we quote the material portions of its An examination of the whole Rule tells us that a under Section 3, then a motion to quash is not a
ruling: The petition lacks merit. dismissal based on a motion to quash and a proper remedy. A motion for provisional dismissal
provisional dismissal are far different from one may then apply if the conditions required by
To summarize this ruling, the appellate court, another as concepts, in their features, and legal Section 8 obtain. AHCcET
while initially saying that there was an error of consequences. While the provision on A third feature, closely related to the second,
law but no grave abuse of discretion that would provisional dismissal is found within Rule 117 focuses on the consequences of a meritorious
call for the issuance of a writ, reversed itself on (entitled Motion to Quash), it does not follow motion to quash. This feature also answers the
motion for reconsideration; it then ruled that the that a motion to quash results in a provisional question of whether the quashal of an
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion because dismissal to which Section 8, Rule 117 applies. A information can be treated as a provisional
it failed to apply Section 8, Rule 17 and the time- first notable feature of Section 8, Rule 117 is that dismissal. Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Rule 117
bar under this provision. it does not exactly state what a provisional unmistakably provide for the consequences of a
dismissal is. The modifier "provisional" directly meritorious motion to quash. Section 4 speaks of
suggests that the dismissals which Section 8 an amendment of the complaint or information, if
Issue: The issue is ultimately reduced to whether essentially refers to are those that are temporary the motion to quash relates to a defect curable by
Section 8, Rule 117 is applicable to the case, as in character (i.e., to dismissals that are without amendment. Section 5 dwells on the effect of
the CA found. If it applies, then the CA ruling prejudice to the re-filing of the case), and not the sustaining the motion to quash the complaint
effectively lays the matter to rest. If it does not, dismissals that are permanent (i.e., those that bar or information may be re-filed, except for the
then the revised RTC decision reopening the case the re-filing of the case). Based on the law, rules, instances mentioned under Section 6. The latter
should prevail. and jurisprudence, permanent dismissals are section, on the other hand, specifies the limit of
those barred by the principle of double jeopardy, the re-filing that Section 5 allows it cannot be
Consolidated case digests for Criminal Procedure
Maria Victoria Z. Matillano, Set 1 Final Half
done where the dismissal is based on extinction which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
of criminal liability or double jeopardy. Section 7 justification [Section 3 (h), Rule 117], and that the
defines double jeopardy and complements the facts charged do not constitute an offense
ground provided under Section 3 (i) and the [Section 3 (a), Rule 117]. We find from our
exception stated in Section 6. examination of the records that the Information
duly charged a specific offense and provides the
The failure of the Rules to state under Section 6 details on how the offense was committed. 28
that a Section 8 provisional dismissal is a bar to Thus, the cited Section 3 (a) ground has no merit.
further prosecution shows that the framers did On the other hand, we do not see on the face or
not intend a dismissal based on a motion to from the averments of the Information any legal
quash and a provisional dismissal to be confused excuse or justification. The cited basis, in fact, for
with one another; Section 8 operates in a world Pedro's motion to quash was a Comelec
of its own separate from motion to quash, and Certification (dated September 24, 2001, issued
merely provides a time-bar that uniquely applies by Director Jose P. Balbuena, Sr. of the Law
to dismissals other than those grounded on Department, Committee on Firearms and Security
Section 3Conversely, when a dismissal is pursuant Personnel of the Comelec, granting him an
to a motion to quash under Section 3, Section 8 exemption from the ban and a permit to carry
and its time-bar does not apply. firearms during the election period) 29 that Pedro
attached to his motion to quash. This COMELEC
To recapitulate, quashal and provisional dismissal Certification is a matter aliunde that is not an
are different concepts whose respective rules appropriate motion to raise in, and cannot
refer to different situations that should not be support, a motion to quash grounded on legal
confused with one another. If the problem relates excuse or justification found on the face of the
to an intrinsic or extrinsic deficiency of the Information. Significantly, no hearing was ever
complaint or information, as shown on its face, called to allow the prosecution to contest the
the remedy is a motion to quash under the terms genuineness of the COMELEC certification. 30
of Section 3, Rule 117. All other reasons for aATEDS
seeking the dismissal of the complaint or
information, before arraignment and under the Thus, the RTC grossly erred in its initial ruling
circumstances outlined in Section 8, fall under that a quashal of the Information was in order.
provisional dismissal. Pedro, on the other hand, also misappreciated
Thus, we conclude that Section 8, Rule 117 does the true nature, function, and utility of a motion
not apply to the reopening of the case that the to quash. As a consequence, a valid Information
RTC ordered and which the CA reversed; the still stands, on the basis of which Pedro should
reversal of the CA's order is legally proper. now be arraigned and stand trial.
The grounds Pedro cited in his motion to quash
are that the Information contains averments