Crim Pro Digests

7. Topic: Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. LUCILLE DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. MERLINDA COLINA, respondent. G.R. No. 173330. June 17, 2013. NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA. FACTS: An Information was filed with the MTCC against Domingo for violation of BP 22. After the prosecution rested its case, Domingo filed a Demurer to evidence. The MTCC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case. The prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration and in Alternative to Reopen the Civil Aspect of the case which was denied. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Colina, the complainant, appealed the civil aspect of the case with RTC. Domingo was ordered to pay Colina for the civil liability. The RTC also denied Domingo‟s motion for reconsideration. Domingo filed a petition for review with the CA, wherein the RTC‟s decision was affirmed. Aggrieved, Domingo filed a petition for certiorari with the SC. CONTENTION OF DOMINGO: She has the right, and has not waived her right, to present evidence despite the fact that the demurrer to evidence filed was with leave of court. CONTENTION OF COLINA: Domingo is already estopped for her failure to timely invoke her right to present evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not Dominngo failed to timely invoke her right to present evidence HELD: Yes. Petitioner may not argue that her right to due process was violated, because she was given the opportunity to raise this issue a number of times both in the RTC and the CA. Petitioner does not dispute that neither in her Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the RTC nor in her Petition for Review, as well as in her Memorandum filed with the CA, did she raise the issue of her right to present evidence on the civil aspect of the present case. As correctly observed by the CA, it was only in her Motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision that she brought up such matter. Where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law. Equally settled is the rule that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. For her failure to timely invoke her right to present evidence, petitioner is already estopped. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.

8. Topic: Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; The prosecutor’s findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to review by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion MASAYUKI HASEGAWA, petitioner, vs. LEILA F. GIRON, respondent. G.R. No. 184536. August 14, 2013 NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. FACTS: Giron, an office worker, claimed that she and her friend were taken at gunpoint by two men and forcibly boarded into a vehicle. They were detained for more than 24-hours. They were taunted and repeatedly threatened by their abductors into withdrawing the case against Hasegawa. Hasegawa claimed that he has no knowledge of the crime and doesn‟t know the abductors. He asserted that respondent and Marcos were extorting money from him because the instant case was filed right after the negotiations to settle the civil aspect of the three cases they filed with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), National Labor Relations Commission, (NLRC) and MeTC Pasay failed. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Giron filed a Complaint- Affidavit for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention against Hasegawa. Senior State Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. Giron filed a Petition for Review before the DOJ and her subsequent motion for reconsideration were likewise denied. She filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed and set aside the resolution of the DOJ. CONTENTION OF HASEGAWA: The prosecutor‟s findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to review by the courts. CONTENTION OF GIRON: The CA did no err in finding that the prosecutor usurped the duties belonging to the court when she “overstretched her duties and applied the standards, not of ordinary prudence and cautiousness, nor of mere „reasonable belief‟ and probability, but of a full-blown trial on the merits, where rules on admissibility of testimonies and other evidence strictly apply.” ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecutor had overstretched her duties that would amount to grave abuse of discretion warranting the review of the court HELD: Yes. The decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor. Courts will not interfere with the conduct of preliminary investigations, or reinvestigations, or in the determination of what constitutes sufficient probable cause for the filing of the corresponding information against an offender. Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch. Differently stated, as the matter of whether to prosecute or not is purely discretionary on his part, courts cannot compel a public prosecutor to file the corresponding information, upon a

complaint, where he finds the evidence before him insufficient to warrant the filing of an action in court. In sum, the prosecutor‟s findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to review by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion. We find such reason for judicial review here present. We sustain the appellate court‟s reversal of the ruling of the Secretary of the DOJ. The Investigating Prosecutor has set the parameters of probable cause too high. Her findings dealt mostly with what respondent had done or failed to do after the alleged crime was committed. She delved into evidentiary matters that could only be passed upon in a fullblown trial where testimonies and documents could be fairly evaluated in according with the rules of evidence. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution‟s evidence in support of the charge. The validity and merits of a party‟s defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level. By taking into consideration the defenses raised by petitioner, the Investigating Prosecutor already went into the strict merits of the case. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

9. Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prescription of Offenses; Summary Procedure; As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION represented by its manager and authorized representative Norma Tan, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE NELSON F. LIDUA, SR., Presiding Judge of The Municipal Trial Court Branch 3, Baguio City, BENEDICTO BALAJADIA, EDWIN ANG, “JOHN DOES” and “PETER DOES, respondents. G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013. NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City FACTS: Jadewell, pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000, was authorized to render any motor vehicle immobilized by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked. Balajadia and the other respondents dismantled, took and carried away the clamps attached to the wheel of the vehicles, which took place on May 7, 2003. Jadewell filed a complaint for robbery against the respondents with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003. However, the Informations were filed with the MTC on October 2, 2003. Balajadia filed a motion to quash. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The MTC granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case and Jadewell‟s subsequent motion for reconsideration. Jadewell‟s petition for certiorari with RTC was likewise denied. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied. CONTENTION OF JADEWELL: They argued that the filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City, not the filing of the criminal information before Court, is the reckoning point in determining whether or not the criminal action had prescribed. CONTENTION OF BALAJADIA: Respondents argued that Zaldivia v. Reyes held that the proceedings mentioned in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, refer to judicial proceedings. Thus, the SC, in Zaldivia, held that the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor was not a judicial proceeding. The prescriptive period commenced from the alleged date of the commission of the crime on May 7, 2003 and ended two months after on July 7, 2003. ISSUE: Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 tolled the prescription period of the commission of the offense HELD: No. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an ordinance. The respondent judge was correct when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (1992), the violation of a municipal ordinance in Rodriguez, Rizal also featured similar facts and issues with the present case. In that case, the offense was committed on May 11, 1990. The Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.

When the representatives of the petitioner filed the Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to run until the filing of the Information. They had two months to file the Information and institute the judicial proceedings by filing the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. The failure of the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is unfortunate as it resulted in the dismissal of the case against the private respondents. It stands that the doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable to ordinances and their prescription period. It also upholds the necessity of filing the Information in court in order to toll the period. Zaldivia also has this to say concerning the effects of its ruling: The Court realizes that under the above interpretation, a crime may prescribe even if the complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor‟s office if, intentionally or not, he delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late. However, that possibility should not justify a misreading of the applicable rules beyond their obvious intent as reasonably deduced from their plain language. The remedy is not a distortion of the meaning of the rules but a rewording thereof to prevent the problem here sought to be corrected. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.

16. Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Constitutional Law; Warrantless Arrests; Warrantless Searches; Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL REBOTAZO y ALEJANDRIA, accused-appellant. G.R. No. 192913. June 13, 2013. NATURE: APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS: As a result of buy bust operation, conducted by the NBI, Rebotazo was arrested. Two sachets of shabu were confiscated. One sachet was the shabu that Rebotazo sold to the poseurbuyer and the other was found inside his sock. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: Before the SC is a Notice of Appeal from the Decision of the CA. The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC convicting Rebotazo of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. CONTENTION OF REBOTAZO: He argued that his arrest was illegal and the seizure was illegal. CONTENTION OF THE STATE: It was a valid warrantless arrest and seizure. ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest and seizure is valid HELD: Yes. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine cannot apply in the face of a valid buy-bust operation. Given circumstances above, appellant‟s arrest cannot be considered illegal. Time and again, we have ruled that the arrest of the accused in flagrante during a buy-bust operation is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal. As we held in People v. Marcelino, the illegal drug seized was not the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” as the defense would have this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buybust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and a warrant was not needed to conduct it. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

17. Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ and EDWIN VALDEZ, accusedappellants. G.R. No. 175602. February 13, 2013 NATURE: PLEA FOR APPLICATION of Reduced Penalty Imposed on a Co-Accused. FACTS: Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez were co-accused in a murder case. Both were convicted, by the RTC, of 3 counts of murder with a penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. On appeal the CA upheld the RTC‟s decision. Initially both accused filed an appeal before the SC. However, Edwin later on filed a motion to withdraw appeal. Edwin‟s appeal was deemed closed and terminated. The SC promulgated its judgment on the appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez, finding him guilty of three counts of homicide, instead of three counts of murder, and meting on him for each count of homicide the indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Edwin sent to the Court Administrator a self-explanatory letter where he pleaded for the application to him of the judgment given to Eduardo on the ground that the judgment would be beneficial to him as an accused. ISSUE: Whether or not a co-accused may benefit from a favorable judgment on his co-accused HELD: Yes. Edwin cannot be barred from seeking the application to him of the downgrading of the crimes committed (and the resultant lighter penalties) despite the finality of his convictions for three counts of murder due to his withdrawal of his appeal. The downgrading of the crimes committed would definitely be favorable to him. Worth pointing out is that to deny to him the benefit of the lessened criminal responsibilities would be highly unfair, considering that this Court had found the two accused to have acted in concert in their deadly assault against the victims, warranting their equal liabiliy under the principle of conspiracy. We grant Edwin‟s plea based on Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which relevantly provides: Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.―(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. x x x x In this connection, the Court has pronounced in Lim v. Court of Appeals, 491 SCRA 385 (2006), that the benefits of this provision extended to all the accused, regardless of whether they appealed or not. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: ACCORDINGLY, the Court GRANTS the plea of EDWIN VALDEZ

18.Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; In a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor is bound to determine merely the existence of probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the accused has committed the same. LORELI LIM PO, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and JASPER T. TAN, respondents. G.R. No. 195198. February 11, 2013 ANTONIO NG CHIU, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and JASPER T. TAN, respondents. G.R. No. 197098. February 11, 2013 NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals; and SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari. FACTS: Tan was a stockholder of CHVI. Antonio Chiu was the President of the said company. Tan claimed that Po was the personal accountant of the Chiu. However, Po argued that she is merely a consultant of the company. Tan lamented that pertinent information relative to CHVI‟s operations were withheld from him. His repeated requests for copies of financial statements and allowance to inspect corporate books proved futile. He filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor against Chiu and Po for violation of the Corporate Code. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: The prosecutor found probable cause. Chiu and Po‟s motion to reconsider were denied by the prosecutor. The findings of the prosecutor was subjected by Po and Chiu to a petition for review with the DOJ. Initially, the DOJ reversed the prosecutor‟s finding. However, in the end, it affirmed the findings of the prosecutor. Po and Chiu, each filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Po‟s petition was dismissed on a technical ground. Chiu‟s petition was denied for lack of merit. Po filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Chiu filed for certiorari under Rule 65. The SC consolidated the case. CONTENTION OF PO and CHIU: The DOJ gravely abused its discretion in affirming the prosecutor‟s finding. CONTENTION OF TAN: The Court cannot interfere with an executive function of the prosecutor in determining the existence of probable cause during a preliminary investigation. ISSUE: Whether or not the court may interfere with the determination of probable cause which is an executive function HELD: No. As we ruled in Metrobank vs. Tobias III, 664 SCRA 165 (2012), in a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor is bound to determine merely the existence of probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the accused has committed the same. The rules do not require

that a prosecutor has moral certainty of the guilt of a person for the latter to be indicted for an offense after the conduct of preliminary investigation. Further, we have repeatedly ruled that the determination of probable cause, for purposes of preliminary investigation, is an executive function. Such determination should be free from the court‟s interference save only in exceptional cases where the DOJ gravely abuses its discretion in the issuance of its orders or resolutions. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant consolidated petitions are DENIED.

19. Topic: Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prejudicial Questions; A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must first be determined before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. TEODORO A. REYES, petitioner, vs. ETTORE ROSSI, respondent. G.R. No. 159823. February 18, 2013 NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. FACTS: Reyes and Advanced Foundation, represented by its Executive Project Director, Rossi, executed a deed of conditional sale involving the purchase by Reyes of equipments. The parties agreed therein that Reyes would pay the sum of P3,000,000.00 as downpayment, and the balance of P7,000,000.00 through four post-dated checks. Reyes complied, but in January 1998, he requested the restructuring of his obligation under the deed of conditional sale by replacing the four post-dated checks with nine post-dated checks. Reyes commenced an action for rescission of contract and damages in the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City (RTC).While, Rossi charged Reyes with five counts of estafa and five counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati for the dishonor of Checks Another criminal charge for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was lodged against Reyes in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City for the dishonor of another check. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The prosecutor ruled for the suspension of the proceedings relating to the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 based on a prejudicial question. Rossi appealed the resolution of the City Prosecutor to the Department of Justice, but the Secretary of Justice, denied Rossi‟s petition for review. In the petition for certiorari, the CA ruled in favor of Rossi. CONTENTION OF REYES: He asserts that there is a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings CONTENTION OF ROSSI: The rescission of the contract is not a prejudicial question to criminal proceeding for the violation of BP22. ISSUE: Whether or not the rescission of a contract of sale is a prejudicial question that will warrant the suspension of a criminal proceeding for the violation of BP22 HELD: The rescission of a contract of sale is not a prejudicial question that will warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings commenced to prosecute the buyer for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) arising from the dishonor of the checks the buyer issued in connection with the sale. A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must first be

determined before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale for the suspension on the ground of a prejudicial question is to avoid conflicting decisions. Two elements that must concur in order for a civil case to be considered a prejudicial question are expressly stated in Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question.·The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. To properly appreciate if there is a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal actions, reference is made to the elements of the crimes charged. The issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is, therefore, whether or not Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds upon presentment. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is whether or not the breach in the fulfillment of Advanced Foundation‟s obligation warranted the rescission of the conditional sale. If, after trial on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be found to have committed material breach as to warrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the criminal responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the aforementioned elements show, he already committed the violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the conditional sale was still fully binding upon the parties. His obligation to fund the checks or to make arrangements for them with the drawee bank should not be tied up to the future event of extinguishment of the obligation under the contract of sale through rescission. Indeed, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check was already the offense in itself. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings for the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 could proceed despite the pendency of the civil action for rescission of the conditional sale. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review; AFFIRMS the decision the Court of Appeals.