Jimenez v.

Sorongon

Facts: The petitioner who was then president of Unlad Shipping & Management
Corporation, a local manning agency, filed a case for syndicated and large scale illegal
recruitment against Tsakos Maritime Services, Inc. (TMSI) in the Regional Trial Court.
The trial court dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. The petitioner filed a
Notice of Appeal in the RTC which the latter denied on the basis that the petitioner filed
it without the conformity of the Solicitor General, who is mandated to represent the
People of the Philippines in criminal actions.

Issue: WON the case would prosper without the conformity of the Solicitor General?

Held:

No. According to the Supreme Court, every action must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party in interest, who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Procedural law
basically mandates that "all criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In this case,
the petitioner has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case since
the main issue raised by the petitioner involved the criminal aspect of the case. The
petitioner did not appeal to protect his alleged pecuniary interest as an offended party of
the crime, but to cause the reinstatement of the criminal action against the respondents.
This involves the right to prosecute which pertains exclusively to the People, as
represented by the OSG.
People v. Valdez

Facts:

Two accused were tried for three counts of murder: Edwin Valdez and Eduardo Valdez.
The RTC convicted them as charged. The two accused then came to the SC on final
appeal, but on May 9, 2007, Edwin Valdez filed a motion to withdraw appeal, which the
Court granted. On January 18, 2012, the Court promulgated its judgment on the appeal
of Eduardo Valdez, finding him guilty of three counts of homicide, instead of three
counts of murder. Edwin Valdez sent to the Court Administrator a self-explanatory letter,
where he pleaded for the application to him of the judgment promulgated on January
18, 2012 on the ground that the judgment would be beneficial to him as an accused.
The SC granted the request of Edwin Valdez.

Issue: WON the SC rightfully granted the request of Edwin Valdez and thus he is only
guilty of homicide and not murder

Held: Yes, the grant of the request is valid and Edwin Valdez is only guilty of three
counts of homicide. According to the Supreme Court, it is unavoidable for the Court to
pronounce guilty of three homicides, instead of three murders, on account of the
informations not sufficiently alleging the attendance of treachery. The acts or omissions
complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the
court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it
does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every
element of the offense must be stated in the information.
Miguel v. Sandiganbayan

Facts:

Vice Mayor Lucido and other officials were charged with violation of RA 3019. The
Information filed against them states the following wordings: and as such while in the
performance of his official functions, committing the offense in relation to his
office, taking advantage of his official position, conspiring and confederating with the
private [individuals] xxx acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits and advantages. The
petitioner contends that the Informaiton is invalid. He alleges that the phrases "evident
bad faith" and "manifest partiality" actually refers not to him, but to his co-accused,
rendering the information fatally defective.

Issue: WON the Information is valid

Held:

Yes, the Information is valid. The Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "acting with
evident bad faith and manifest partiality" was merely a continuation of the prior
allegation of the acts of the petitioner, and that he ultimately acted with evident bad faith
and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted benefits and advantages to his co-accused
private individuals. This is what a plain and non-legalistic reading of the information
would yield. The petitioner actually disputes is simply the clarity of the phrase’s position,
in relation with the other averments in the information. Given the supposed ambiguity of
the subject being qualified by the phrase "acting with evident bad faith and manifest
partiality," the remedy of the petitioner, if at all, is merely to move for a bill of particulars
and not for the quashal of an information which sufficiently alleges the elements of the
offense charged
People v. Soria

Facts:

Accused, who is the father of private complainant "AAA", was charged of the crime of
rape. The Information states that the accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously with force and intimidation commit an act of sexual assault upon the
person of one "AAA", a minor, 7 years of age, by then and there inserting his penis into
the genital of said complainant, all against her will and consent, which act debases,
degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of said "AAA", as a human being.
However, in the Information filed, there was no proof attached on the age of the private
complainant at the time the crime was committed. Nevertheless, the RTC convicted the
accused for the crime charged and was sentence with the maximum penalty of death.

Issue: WON the RTC rightfully convicted the accused

Held:

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty should only be Reclusion Temporal
because minority in this rape case was only considered as aggravating circumstance
and not qualifying because of the failure to describe minority in the Information. It is
settled that when either one of the qualifying circumstances is omitted or lacking, that
which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence, may be considered
only as an aggravating circumstance.
Union Bank v. People

Facts:

Tomas was charged in court for perjury for making a false narration in a Certificate
against Forum Shopping. The document was notarized in Makati City but was used in
Pasay City. The Information was filed in Makati City. The Petitioner filed a Motion to
Quash contending that venue and jurisdiction should be in the place where the false
document was presented, in Pasay City.

Issue: Where is the proper venue of the case?

Held:

MeTC Makati City is the proper venue of the case. Section 10, Rule 110 of the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure categorically places the venue and jurisdiction
where any of its essential ingredients took place. In this case, the elements of perjury
happened in Makati City, where the falsified document was notarized. As alleged in the
Information that followed, the criminal act charged was for the execution of an affidavit
that contained a falsity.
Solidum v. People

Facts:

Dr. Solidum was judged guilty of the RTC beyond reasonable doubt of reckless
imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries after conducting wrongfully
administration of anaeasthesia during the surgery of a three year old child. The Ospital
ng Maynila was held by the RTC as subsidiarily liable with regard to the payment of
damages.

Issue: WON Ospital ng Maynila is liable for damages

Held:

No. According to the Supreme Court, in criminal prosecutions, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability that is deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only to
that arising from the offense charged. Ospital ng Maynila, being an artificial entity, had
not been charged along with Dr. Solidum. Furthermore, Ospital ng Maynila cannot be
liable as employer because Dr. Solidum is not an employee but a consultant of the
hospital.
Castillo v. Salvador

Facts:

Respondents Phillip and Ramon Salvador were charged of the crime of estafa for
allegedly defrauding petitioner in the amount of USD 100,000.00. The trial court held
that the respondents are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals,
however, acquitted them from the crime and in its decision, there was no dispositive
portion that the petitioner may claim damages. The petitioner appealed in the SC for the
civil aspect of the case.

Issue: WON Petitioner may claim damages given that the respondents had been
acquitted of the crime of estafa?

Held:

Yes. According to the Supreme Court, a reading of the CA decision would show that
respondent was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Thus, since the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, respondent is not exempt from
civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
Lim v. Kou Co Ping

Facts:

The FR Cement Corporation (FRCC), a cement manufacturing plant, issued several

withdrawal authorities which state the number of bags paid for which can be withdrawn
from the plant. Co bought some withdrawal authorities and sold it to Lim. Lim withdrew
on a staggered basis. Sometime, FRCC did not allow Lim to withdraw the remaining
37,200 bags covered by the withdrawal authorities. Lim sought legal recourse after her
demands for Co to resolve the problem with the plant or for the return of her money had
failed. An Information for Estafa was filed against Co in Pasig RTC. The trial court
acquitted Co both for criminal and civil liability of the case. Lim filed a notice of appeal
on the civil aspect of the criminal case. During the pendency of the appeal, Lim filed a
civil complaint for specific performance and damages in Manila RTC against Co on the
ground of breach of contract. Co argues that Lim is guilty of forum shopping because
she is asserting only one cause of action in the appeal from the civil aspect of the
criminal case of estafa and the civil action on specific performance and damages.

Issue:

WON Lim committed forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific performance and
damages during the pendency of her appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case for
estafa?

Held:

No. The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, it having been instituted together
with the criminal action. On the other hand, the second action is a civil action arising
from a contractual obligation and for tortious conduct (abuse of rights).

According to the Supreme Court, a single act or omission that causes damage to an
offended party may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender:
(1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal; and
(2) independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued independently of
the criminal proceedings. The independent civil liability may be based on "an obligation
not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony as provided in Article 31
of the Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort. Because of the distinct and
independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the
offended party may pursue the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or
cumulatively, without offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res
judicata.
Casupanan v. Laroya

Facts:

Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Laroya and the other owned by petitioner
Capitulo and driven by petitioner Casupanan, figured in an accident. As a result, two
cases were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac. Laroya filed a
criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property, while Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict.

Issue:

Whether an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file,
simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the
private complainant in the criminal case?

Held:

Yes. The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the same act or omission he
is accused of in the criminal case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of
the present Rule 111 which states that any cause of action which could have been the
subject of the offense may be litigated in a separate civil action. In this case, the
counterclaim of the accused shall be litigated in a separate civil action.
People v. Romero

Facts:

Accused Martin L. Romero and Ernesto C. Rodriguez were owner and manager of
SAIDDECOR, a Ponzi scheme which guarantees 800% earnings of investment. They
were charged of the crime of estafa and convicted for the same. During the pendency of
the case, Ernesto Rodriguez died.

Issue: WON the liabilities of Ernesto Rodriguez had been extinguished due to his death

Held:

The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability ex delicto. The criminal action is extinguished
inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action
instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
grounded as it is on the criminal case. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicted on a
source of obligation other than delict.