Crimpro Case Digest 1-11

1. Cenita M. Cariaga vs. People of the Philippines GR No. 180010 
 2. Alonte vs. Savellano Jr. 287 SCRA 245
 3. Cruz vs. CA 388 SCRA 72
 4. Antiporda vs. Garchitorena 321 SCRA 551
 5. Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Supergreen, Inc. 518 SCRA 750
 6. Agbayani vs. Sayo 89 SCRA 699 
 7. Foz, Jr. vs. People GR No. 167764
 8. Bonifacio, et al vs. RTC of Makati GR No. 184800
 9. Mobilia Products vs. Umezawa GR No. 149357
 10. Lacson vs. Executive Secretary 301 SCRA 289 
 11. Cuyos vs. Garcia 160 SCRA 302

2. Alonte vs. Savellano Jr. 287 SCRA 245
 FACTS: Alonte was accused of raping JuvieLyn Punongbayan with accomplice Buenaventura Concepcion. It was alleged that Concepcion befriended Juvie and had later lured her into Alonete’s house who was then the mayor of Biňan, Laguna. The case was brought before RTC Biňan. The counsel and the prosecutor later moved for a change of venue due to alleged intimidation. While the change of venue was pending, Juvie executed an affidavit of desistance. The prosecutor continued on with the case and the change of venue was done notwithstanding opposition from Alonte. The case was raffled to the Manila RTC under J Savellano. Savellano later found probable cause and had ordered the arrest of Alonte and Concepcion. Thereafter, the prosecution presented Juvie and had attested the voluntariness of her desistance the same being due to media pressure and that they would rather establish new life elsewhere. Case was then submitted for decision and Savellano sentenced both accused to reclusion perpetua. Savellano commented that Alonte waived his right to due process when he did not cross examine Juvie when clarificatory questions were raised about the details of the rape and on the voluntariness of her desistance. ISSUE: Whether or not Alonte has been denied criminal due process. HELD: The SC ruled that Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding on the case due to animosity between him and the parties. There is no showing that Alonte waived his right. The standard of waiver requires that it “not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Savellano has not shown impartiality by repeatedly not acting on numerous petitions filed by Alonte. The case is remanded to the lower court for retrial and the decision earlier promulgated is nullified.

4. Antiporda vs Garchitorena (1999) G.R. 133289

Facts: Accused Mayor Licerio Antiporda and others were charged for the crime of kidnapping, the case was filed in the first division of Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, the Court ordered the prosecution to submit amended information, which was complied evenly and the new information contained the place where the victim was brought. The accused filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that a reinvestigation be conducted and the issuance of warrants of arrest be deferred but it was denied by the Ombudsman. The accused thereafter filed a Motion for New Preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance and/or recall warrant of arrest issued but the same was also denied. Subsequently, the accused filed a Motion to Quash Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, which was ignored for their continuous refusal to submit their selves to the Court and after their voluntary appearance which invested the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over their persons, their motion for reconsideration was again denied. Issue (1): WON the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged. Held: No. The original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the prosecution belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein. However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation filed with the same court, it was they who “challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is work connected. It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was thus vested with the authority to order the amendment of the Information.

Issue (2): WON reinvestigation must be made anew. Held: No. A reinvestigation is proper only if the accused’s substantial rights would be impaired. In the case at bar, we do not find that their rights would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended Information is filed without a reinvestigation taking place. The amendments made to the Information merely describe the public positions held by the accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was brought when he was kidnapped. It must here be stressed that a preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the persons accused in jeopardy. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. The purpose of a preliminary investigation has been achieved already and we see no cogent nor compelling reason why a reinvestigation should still be conducted.