Criminal Procedure CaseDigest.docx

7/24/2019 Criminal Procedure CaseDigest.docx

1/21

RULE 113- ARREST

G.R. No. 186471People Vs. De Leon

FACTS:The Pose!"#$ons Ves$on o% F&!#s

On November 9, 2003, at about 5 oclock in the afternoon, acondential informant arrived at the oce of the Station Anti-lle!al "ru! S#ecial O#eration $a%k &orce at the Novaliche%

'olice Station in (ue)on *it+ and re#orted the ille!al activitie%of a #er%on named odante "e eon.

$hereafter, 'olice Senior n%#ector /'Sn%#.1Nilo on! formeda team for a bu+-bu%t o#eration ith 'O2 4a!cala+o a%#o%eur-bu+er. A #re-o#eration re#ort a% #re#ared. 'Sn%#.on! then handed to 'O2 4a!cala+o to /21 #iece% of 'h'00 bill% a% bu+-bu%t mone+ and on hich 'O2 4a!cala+orote hi% initial% N4.

At around 6730 #.m. in the evenin!, the team #roceeded8aran!a+ Sta. 4onica, Novaliche%, (ue)on *it+, here thecondential informant introduced 'O2 4a!cala+o to a##ellanta% a bu+er of %habu. 'O2 4a!cala+o then a%ked a##ellant ifhe had %habu and the latter an%ered in the armative anda%ked him ho much he ould bu+. 'O2 4a!cala+o handed

the mone+ and, in return, a##ellant handed him one /1#la%tic %achet containin! hite cr+%talline %ub%tance. e then%cratched hi% head, hich a% the #re-arran!ed %i!nal thatthe tran%action a% con%ummated, and thereafter arre%teda##ellant. e recovered the bu+-bu%t mone+ from a##ellanta% 'O2 *ollado a##roached them and handcu:ed a##ellant.;#on fri%kin! a##ellant, 'O2 *ollado di%covered another#la%tic %achet on the #er%on of a##ellant.

Afterard%, a##ellant a% brou!ht to the #olice %tation forinve%ti!ation. 'O2 *ollado then #laced hi% initial% on the%achet and the evidence a% %ub%eud!ment of the trialcourt.

'SSUES:% 8u+ 8u%t O#eration Calid Arre%tD

RUL'NG:8u+-8u%t O#eration a% Calid

A##ellant further ar!ue% that the bu+-bu%t o#eration a% fulof irre!ularitie%, renderin! it ille!al. e note% that the 're-O#eration e#ort a% full of di%cre#ancie%.

$he ar!ument% are %#eciou%. Such irre!ularitie% cannooverturn the ndin! of the #re%ence in thi% ca%e of theelement% of violation% of Sec%. 5 and , Art. of A 965.

A bu+-bu%t o#eration i% a form of entra#ment hereb+ a+%and mean% are re%orted to for the #ur#o%e of tra##in! andca#turin! the labreaker% in the e=ecution of their crimina#lan.E22F n thi% >uri%diction, the o#eration i% le!al and ha%been #roved to be an e:ective method of a##rehendin! dru!#eddler%, #rovided due re!ard to con%titutional and le!a%afe!uard% i% undertaken.E23F

n the ca%e at bar, the evidence clearl+ %ho% that the bu+-bu%t o#eration conducted b+ the #olice ocer%, ho madeu%e of entra#ment to ca#ture a##ellant in the act of %ellin! adan!erou% dru!, a% valid and le!al. 4oreover, the defen%eha% failed to %ho an+ evidence of ill motive on the #art of the#olice ocer%. ?ven a##ellant him%elf declared that it a% ther%t time he met the #olice ocer% durin! hi% cro%%e=amination. $here a%, therefore, no motive for the #oliceocer% to frame u# a##ellant.

ikei%e, the identit+ of a##ellant a% the #er%on ho %old thedan!erou% dru!% to 'O2 4a!cala+o and the one in #o%%e%%ionof the %habu cannot be doubted an+more. Such #o%itiveidentication #revail% over a##ellant% defen%e% of denial andalibi. $he%e defen%e% have been invariabl+ vieed b+ the*ourt ith di%favor, for the+ can ea%il+ be concocted budicult to #rove, and the+ are common and %tandard defen%e#lo+% in mo%t #ro%ecution% ari%in! from violation% of the*om#rehen%ive "an!erou% "ru!% Act.E2F

Ab%ent an+ #roof of motive to fal%el+ accu%e a##ellant of %ucha !rave o:en%e, the #re%um#tion of re!ularit+ in the#erformance of ocial dut+ and the ndin!% of the trial courtith re%#ect to the credibilit+ of itne%%e% %hall #revail ove

a##ellant% bare alle!ation.E25F

e, therefore, u#hold the #re%um#tion of re!ularit+ in the#erformance of ocial dutie% and nd that the #ro%ecutionha% di%char!ed it% burden of #rovin! the !uilt of a##ellantbe+ond rea%onable doubt.

??&O?, a##ellant odante "e eon + "ela o%a !uilt+ ofthe crime% char!ed i% A&&4?". SO O"??".

G.R. No. 1(8)87 *&!h 16+ (,,7People Vs. L&"$o

FACTS:On 6 4a+ 996, at about @700 #.m., #olice o#erative% of the"G arre%ted S'O2 Cer!el de "io%, o!elio Anoble and a


2/21

certain Arellano, for unlaful #o%%e%%ion of %habu. n thecour%e of the inve%ti!ation of the three arre%ted #er%on%,edentor$eck, alia% &rank, and Ho%e#h Hunio ere identied a%the %ource of the dru!. An entra#ment o#eration a% then %etafter the three ere #revailed u#on to call their %ource and#retend% to order another %u##l+ of %habu.

At around 700 #.m. that %ame date, $eck and Hunio erearre%ted hile the+ ere about to hand over another ba! of%habu to S'O2 "e "io% and com#an+. (ue%tioned, $eck andHunio informed the #olice o#erative% that the+ ere orkin! a%talent mana!er and !+mna%t in%tructor, re%#ectivel+, of

Glamour 4odelin! A!enc+ oned b+ arence an!. $he todid not di%clo%e their %ource of %habu but admitted that the+ere orkin! for an!. $he+ %aid the+ kne of a %cheduleddeliver+ of %habu earl+ the folloin! mornin! and that theirem#lo+er /an!1 could be found at the 4aria Oro%aA#artment in 4alate. $he #olice o#erative% decided to look foran! to %hed li!ht on the ille!al dru! activitie% of $eck andHunio. 'olice n%#ector *oronel and hi% men then #roceeded to4aria Oro%a A#artment and #laced the %ame under%urveillance.

'ro%ecution itne%% 'olice n%#ector *oronel te%tied that atabout 270 a.m. of @ 4a+ 996, an!, ho a% de%cribed tothe o#erative% b+ $eck, came out of the a#artment and alkedtoard% a #arked 84 car. On nearin! the car, he /itne%%1to!ether ith *a#tain 4ar!allo and to other #olice ocer%

a##roached an!, introduced them%elve% to him a% #oliceocer%, a%ked hi% name and, u#on hearin! that he a%arence an!, immediatel+ fri%ked him and a%ked him too#en the back com#artment of the 84 car.@ hen fri%ked,there a% found in%ide the front ri!ht #ocket of an! andcon%cated from him an unlicen%ed A4$ *al. 3B0 9mmautomatic 8ack-u# 'i%tol loaded ith ammunition%. At the%ame time, the other member% of the o#erative% %earched the84 car and found in%ide it ere the folloin! item%7

I 32 tran%#arent #la%tic ba!% of %habuJI ca%h in the amount of'650,000.00JI one electronic and one mechanical %cale%J andI an unlicen%ed "aeoo 9mm 'i%tol ith ma!a)ine.

$hen and there, an! re%i%ted the arrantle%% arre%t and%earch.

$hree /31 %e#arate nformation% led a!ain%t arence *.an! in the court of ori!in.I Ciolation of "an!erou% "ru!% ActI lle!al 'o%%e%%ion of &irearm%I Ciolation of *omelec Gun 8an

"urin! hi% arrai!nment, accu%ed an! refu%ed to enter a #leato all the nformation% and in%tead inter#o%ed a continuin!ob>ection to the admi%%ibilit+ of the evidence obtained b+ the#olice o#erative%. $hu%, the trial court ordered that a #lea ofKNot Guilt+K be entered for him.5 $hereafter, >oint trial of thethree /31 con%olidated ca%e% folloed.

an! a% !ranted 25 da+% from %aid date ithin hich to lehi% intended "emurrer to ?vidence.L

On 9 Hanuar+ 99@, an! led hi% undated "emurrer to?vidence, #ra+in! for hi% acud!e, the on. 'erfectoA.S. a!uio, Hr., i%%ued the herein a%%ailed e%olution!rantin! an!M% "emurrer to ?vidence and acu%t been committed, and he

ha% #er%onal knoled!e of fact% indicatin! that the #er%on tobe arre%ted ha% committed it, and/c1 hen the #er%on to be arre%ted i% a #ri%oner ho ha%e%ca#ed from a #enal e%tabli%hment or #lace here he i%%ervin! nal >ud!ment or tem#oraril+ conned hile bein!tran%ferred from one connement to another.

None of the%e circum%tance% ere #re%ent hen the accu%eda% arre%ted. $he accu%ed a% merel+ alkin! from the 4ariaOro%a A#artment and a% about to enter the #arked 84 carhen the #olice ocer% arre%ted and fri%ked him and%earched hi% car. $he accu%ed a% not committin! an+ vi%ibleo:en%e at the time of hi% arre%t. Neither a% there anindication that he a% about to commit a crime or that he had>u%t committed an o:en%e. $he unlicen%ed A4$ *al.3B0 9mmAutomatic 8ack-u# 'i%tol that the accu%ed had in hi%

#o%%e%%ion a% concealed in%ide the ri!ht front #ocket of hi%#ant%. $he arre%tin! ocer% had no information andknoled!e that the accu%ed a% carr+in! an unlicen%edhand!un, nor did the+ %ee him in #o%%e%%ion thereoimmediatel+ #rior to hi% arre%t.

$he 32 ba!% of %habu and the other unlicen%ed "aeoo 'i%toith ma!a)ine that ere found and %ei)ed from the car erenot in #lain vie. $he %habu ere in the trunk com#artment,and the "aeoo hand!un a% underneath the driverM% %eat othe car. $he #olice ocer% had no information, or knoled!ethat the banned article% ere in%ide the car, or that theaccu%ed had #laced them there. $he #olice ocer% %earchedthe car on mere %u%#icion that there a% %habu therein.

*learl+ therefore, the arrantle%% arre%t of the accu%ed andthe %earch of hi% #er%on and the car ere ithout #robablecau%e and could not be licit. $he arre%t of the accu%ed did notfall under an+ of the e=ce#tion to the re


3/21

%u%#ect in a!rante delictoJ /b1 arre%t of a %u%#ect here,ba%ed on #er%onal knoled!e of the arre%tin! ocer, there i%#robable cau%e that %aid %u%#ect a% the author of a crimehich had >u%t been committedJ /c1 arre%t of a #ri%oner hoha% e%ca#ed from cu%tod+ %ervin! nal >ud!ment ortem#oraril+ conned hile hi% ca%e i% #endin!.&or a arrantle%% arre%t of an accu%ed cau!ht in a!rantedelicto under #ara!ra#h /a1 of Section 5 to be valid, toreu%t committed, i%actuall+ committin!, or i% attem#tin! to commit a crimeJ and/21 %uch overt act i% done in the #re%ence or ithin the vie of

the arre%tin! ocer.

$he fact% and circum%tance% %urroundin! the #re%ent ca%e didnot manife%t an+ %u%#iciou% behavior on the #art of #rivatere%#ondent arence an! that ould rea%onabl+ invite theattention of the #olice. e a% merel+ alkin! from the 4ariaOro%a A#artment and a% about to enter the #arked 84 carhen the #olice o#erative% arre%ted him, fri%ked and %earchedhi% #er%on and commanded him to o#en the com#artment ofthe car, hich a% later on found to be oned b+ hi% friend,"avid ee. e a% not committin! an+ vi%ible o:en%e then.$herefore, there can be no valid arrantle%% arre%t ina!rante delicto under #ara!ra#h /a1 of Section 5. t i% %ettledthat Kreliable informationK alone, ab%ent an+ overt actindicative of a feloniou% enter#ri%e in the #re%ence and ithinthe vie of the arre%tin! ocer%, i% not %ucient to con%titute

#robable cau%e that ould >u%tif+ an in a!rante delictoarre%t.

Neither ma+ the arrantle%% arre%t be >u%tied under#ara!ra#h /b1 of Section 5. hat i% clearl+ e%tabli%hed fromthe te%timonie% of the arre%tin! ocer% i% that an! a%arre%ted mainl+ on the information that he a% the em#lo+erof $eck and Hunio ho ere #reviou%l+ arre%ted and char!edfor ille!al tran%#ort of %habu. $eck and Hunio did not evencate!oricall+ identif+ an! to be their %ource of the %habuthe+ ere cau!ht ith in a!rante delicto. ;#on the duoM%declaration that there ill be a deliver+ of %habu on the earl+mornin! of the folloin! da+, 4a+ @, hich i% onl+ a fehour% thereafter, and that an! ma+ be found in 4aria Oro%aA#artment alon! 4aria Oro%a Street, the arre%tin! ocer%conducted K%urveillanceK o#eration in front of %aid a#artment,ho#in! to nd a #er%on hich ill match the de%cri#tion ofone arence an!, the em#lo+er of $eck and Hunio. $he%ecircum%tance% do not %ucientl+ e%tabli%h the e=i%tence of#robable cau%e ba%ed on #er%onal knoled!e a% reure, thearrantle%% %earch incidental to the ille!al arre%t i% likei%eunlaful.

$he 'eo#leM% contention that an! aived hi% ri!ht a!ain%tunrea%onable %earch and %ei)ure ha% no factual ba%i%. hilee a!ree in #rinci#le that con%ent ill validate an otheri%eille!al %earch, hoever, ba%ed on the evidence on record,

an! re%i%ted hi% arre%t and the %earch on hi% #er%on andbelon!in!%.32 $he im#lied acection to the validit+ of the arrantle%% arre%t made ofrecord durin! the arrai!nment bol%ter% an!M% claim that here%i%ted the arrantle%% arre%t and %earch.

G.R. No. 17,18, No0e2e (3+ (,,7V&le Vs. People

FACTS:Around B730 #.m. of @ 4arch 2003, he a% conductin! theroutine #atrol alon! San 8enito Norte, Arin!a+, a ;nion

to!ether ith Arata% and Ordoo hen the+ noticed #etitionerlu!!in! a ba!, ali!ht from a mini-bu%. $he tanod% ob%ervedthat #etitioner, ho a##eared %u%#iciou% to them, %eemed tobe lookin! for %omethin!. $he+ thu% a##roached him but thelatter #ur#ortedl+ attem#ted to run aa+. $he+ cha%ed him#ut him under arre%t and thereafter brou!ht him to the hou%eof 8aran!a+ *a#tain Orencio 4ercado /4ercado1 here he, a%averred b+ 8auti%ta, a% ordered b+ 4ercado to o#en hi% ba!'etitioner% ba! alle!edl+ contained a #air of denim #ant%ei!hteen #iece% of e!!#lant and dried mari>uana leave%ra##ed in ne%#a#er and cello#hane. t a% then that#etitioner a% taken to the #olice %tation for furthe

inve%ti!ation.E9F

Arata% and Ordoo corroborated 8auti%ta% te%timon+ on mo%tmaterial #oint%. On cro%%-e=amination, hoever, Arata%admitted that he him%elf brou!ht out the content% o#etitioner% ba! before #etitioner a% taken to the hou%e of4ercado. Nonethele%%, he claimed that at 4ercado% hou%e, ita% #etitioner him%elf ho brou!ht out the content% of hi%ba! u#on order% from 4ercado. &or hi% #art, Ordoo te%tiedthat it a% he ho a% ordered b+ 4ercado to o#en#etitioner% ba! and that it a% then that the+ %a the#ur#orted content% thereof.

$he #ro%ecution likei%e #re%ented 'olice n%#ector a+a, theforen%ic chemi%t ho conducted the e=amination of themari>uana alle!edl+ con%cated from #etitioner. a+a

di%clo%ed on cro%%-e=amination, hoever, that he hadknoled!e neither of ho the mari>uana a% taken from#etitioner nor of ho the %aid %ub%tance reached the #oliceocer%. 4oreover, he could not identif+ ho%e markin! a%on the in%ide of the cello#hane ra##in! the mari>uanaleave%.

$he char!e% ere denied b+ #etitioner. A% the defen%e% %oleitne%%, he te%tied that at around B730 #.m. on @ 4arch2003, he arrived in Arin!a+ from hi% #lace in Santol, a ;nionAfter ali!htin! from the bu%, #etitioner claimed that he entto the hou%e of a friend to drink ater and then #roceeded toalk to hi% brotherM% hou%e. A% he a% alkin!, #ro%ecutionitne%% Ordoo, a cou%in of hi% brother% ife, alle!edl+a##roached him and a%ked here he a% !oin!. 'etitionere#lied that he a% !oin! to hi% brother% hou%e. Ordoo then#ur#ortedl+ reoined them. After in%#ectin! all the content% of hi%ba!, #etitioner te%tied that he a% re%trained b+ the tanodand taken to the hou%e of 4ercado. t a% Arata% ho carriedthe ba! until the+ reached their de%tination.E3F

'etitioner maintained that at 4ercado% hou%e, hi% ba! a%o#ened b+ the tanod and 4ercado him%elf. $he+ took out anitem ra##ed in ne%#a#er, hich later turned out to bemari>uana leave%. 'etitioner denied oner%hi# thereof. eclaimed to have been threatened ith im#ri%onment b+ hi%arre%tor% if he did not !ive the #rohibited dru!% to %omeonefrom the ea%t in order for them to a##rehend %uch #er%on. A%#etitioner declined, he a% brou!ht to the #olice %tation andchar!ed ith the in%tant o:en%e. Althou!h #etitioner divul!edthat it a% he ho o#ened and took out the content% of hi%

ba! at hi% friend% hou%e, he averred that it a% one of thetanod ho did %o at 4ercado% hou%e and that it a% onl+there that the+ %a the mari>uana for the r%t time.

&indin! that the #ro%ecution had #roven #etitioner% !uilbe+ond rea%onable doubt, the $* rendered >ud!ment a!ain%thim to be !uilt+.

'SSUES:N the arrantle%% arre%t e:ected a!ain%t him b+ thebaran!a+ tanod a% unlaful. N the arrantle%% %earch of hi% ba! that folloed a%likei%e contrar+ to la and the mari>uana leave% #ur#ortedl+%ei)ed from him are inadmi%%ible in evidence for bein! thefruit of a #oi%onou% tree.


4/21

RUL'NG:At the out%et, e ob%erve that nohere in the record% can end an+ ob>ection b+ #etitioner to the irre!ularit+ of hi% arre%tbefore hi% arrai!nment. *on%iderin! thi% and hi% active#artici#ation in the trial of the ca%e, >uri%#rudence dictate%that #etitioner i% deemed to have %ubmitted to the >uri%dictionof the trial court, thereb+ curin! an+ defect in hi% arre%t. $hele!alit+ of an arre%t a:ect% onl+ the >uri%diction of the courtover hi% #er%on. 'etitioner% arrantle%% arre%t thereforecannot, in it%elf, be the ba%i% of hi% acu%tied onl+if it ere incidental to a laful arre%t.E9F ?valuatin! theevidence on record in it% totalit+, a% earlier intimated, therea%onable conclu%ion i% that the arre%t of #etitioner ithout aarrant i% not laful a% ell.

'etitioner maintain%, in a nut%hell, that after he a%a##roached b+ the tanod and a%ked to %ho the content% ofhi% ba!, he a% %im#l+ herded ithout e=#lanation and takento the hou%e of the baran!a+ ca#tain. On their a+ there, ita% Arata% ho carried hi% ba!. e denie% oner%hi# over thecontraband alle!edl+ found in hi% ba! and a%%ert% that he %ait for the r%t time at the baran!a+ ca#tain% hou%e.

?ven ca%tin! a%ide #etitioner% ver%ion and ba%in! there%olution of thi% ca%e on the !eneral thru%t of the #ro%ecutionevidence, the unlafulne%% of #etitioner% arre%t %tand% out>u%t the %ame.

t i% obviou% that ba%ed on the te%timonie% of the arre%tin!baran!a+ tanod, not one of the circum%tance% in Sec. 5, ule3 a% obtainin! at the time #etitioner a% arre%ted. 8+their on admi%%ion, #etitioner a% not committin! an o:en%eat the time he ali!hted from the bu%, nor did he a##ear to bethen committin! an o:en%e. $he tanod did not have #robablecau%e either to >u%tif+ #etitioner% arrantle%% arre%t.

&or the e=ce#tion in Section 5/a1, ule 3 to o#erate, thi%*ourt ha% ruled that to /21 element% mu%t be #re%ent7

/1 the #er%on to be arre%ted mu%t e=ecute an overt actindicatin! that he ha% >u%t committed, i% actuall+ committin!,or i% attem#tin! to commit a crimeJ and/21 %uch overt act i% done in the #re%ence or ithin the vie ofthe arre%tin! ocer.

ere, #etitionerM% act of lookin! around after !ettin! o: thebu% a% but natural a% he a% ndin! hi% a+ to hi%de%tination. $hat he #ur#ortedl+ attem#ted to run aa+ a% thetanod a##roached him i% irrelevant and cannot b+ it%elf becon%trued a% adeu%t en!a!ed in, a% actuall+en!a!in! in or a% attem#tin! to en!a!e in criminal activit+.4ore im#ortantl+, #etitioner te%tied that he did not run aa+but in fact %#oke ith the baran!a+ tanod hen the+a##roached him.

?ven takin! the #ro%ecution% ver%ion !enerall+ a% the truth, inline ith our a%%um#tion from the %tart, the conclu%ion ill notbe an+ di:erent. t i% not unrea%onable to e=#ect that#etitioner, alkin! the %treet at ni!ht, after bein! clo%el+ob%erved and then later tailed b+ three unknon #er%on%,ould attem#t to ee at their a##roach. &li!ht #er %e i% not%+non+mou% ith !uilt and mu%t not ala+% be attributed toone% con%ciou%ne%% of !uilt.

ndeed, the %u##o%ed act% of #etitioner, even a%%umin! thatthe+ a##eared dubiou%, cannot be vieed a% %ucient toincite %u%#icion of criminal activit+ enou!h to validate hi%arrantle%% arre%t. f at all, the %earch mo%t #ermi%%ible forthe tanod to conduct under the #revailin! backdro# of theca%e a% a %to#-and-fri%k to alla+ an+ %u%#icion the+ havebeen harborin! ba%ed on #etitioner% behavior.

oever, a %to#-and-fri%k %ituation, folloin! $err+ v. OhioE2@F mu%t #recede a arrantle%% arre%t, be limited to the#er%on% outer clothin!, and %hould be !rounded u#on a!enuine rea%on, in li!ht of the #olice ocer% e=#erience and%urroundin! condition%, to arrant the belief that the #er%ondetained ha% ea#on% concealed about him.

Accordin!l+, #etitioner% aiver of hi% ri!ht to uana leave% alle!edl+ takendurin! the %earch cannot be admitted in evidence a!ain%t hima% the+ ere %ei)ed durin! a arrantle%% %earch hich a%

not laful.

A aiver of an ille!al arrantle%% arre%t doe% not al%o mean aaiver of the inadmi%%ibilit+ of evidence %ei)ed durin! anille!al arrantle%% arre%t. $he folloin! %earche% and %ei)ure%are deemed #ermi%%ible b+ >uri%#rudence7 /1 %earch omovin! vehicle% /21 %ei)ure in #lain vie /31 cu%tom% %earche%/1 aiver or con%ent %earche% /51 %to# and fri%k %ituation%/$err+ Search1 and /61 %earch incidental to a laful arre%t. $hela%t include% a valid arrantle%% %earch and %ei)ure #ur%uantto an euana leave% for bein! the fruit of an unlaful %earch i%not the lone cau%e that militate% a!ain%t the ca%e of the#ro%ecution. e likei%e nd that it ha% failed to convincin!l+e%tabli%h the identit+ of the mari>uana leave% #ur#ortedl+taken from #etitioner% ba!.n thi% ca%e, the totalit+ of the evidence #re%ented utterl+ fail%to overcome the #re%um#tion of innocence hich #etitioneren>o+%. $he failure of the #ro%ecution to #rove all theelement% of the o:en%e be+ond rea%onable doubt mu%#erforce re%ult in #etitioner% e=oneration from criminaliabilit+.

R/L'T/ G/ 5 TA*UNT'NG+ pe#$#$one+ 0s.TE C/URT/F APPEALS+ TE /N. ENA*'N V. PELA/+ Pes$$n

"e+ &n!h 168+ Re$on&l T$&l Co"#+ NCR P&s$*.*.+ &n PE/PLE /F TE P'L'PP'NES+ esponen#s.

FACTS:On 2 Hul+ 99, ?ldon 4a!uan a% drivin! hi% car alon! il%onSt., San Huan, 4etro 4anila, headin! toard% '. Guevarra St'etitioner entered il%on St., here it i% a one-a+ %treet and%tarted travellin! in the o##o%ite or Kron!K direction. At thecorner of il%on and H. Abad Santo% St%., #etitioner% and4a!uan% car% nearl+ bum#ed each other. 'etitioner ali!htedfrom hi% car, alked over and %hot 4a!uan in%ide hi% car.'etitioner then boarded hi% car and left the %cene. A %ecurit+

!uard at a nearb+ re%taurant a% able to take don#etitioner% car #late number.

$he folloin! da+, the #olice returned to the %cene of the%hootin! to nd out here the %u%#ect had come fromJ the+ere informed that #etitioner had dined at *ravin!% 8akeSho# %hortl+ before the %hootin!. $he #olice obtained afac%imile or im#re%%ion of the credit card u%ed b+ #etitionerfrom the ca%hier of the bake %ho#. $he %ecurit+ !uard of thebake %ho# a% %hon a #icture of #etitioner and he #o%itivel+identied him a% the %ame #er%on ho had %hot 4a!uanavin! e%tabli%hed that the a%%ailant a% #robabl+ the#etitioner, the #olice launched a manhunt for #etitioner.

On B Hul+ 99, #etitioner #re%ented him%elf before the SanHuan 'olice Station to verif+ ne% re#ort% that he a% bein!


5/21

hunted b+ the #oliceJ he a% accom#anied b+ to /21 la+er%.$he #olice forthith detained him.

'SSUE:hether or not a laful arrantle%% arre%t had been e:ectedb+ the San Huan 'olice in re%#ect of #etitioner Go.

/LD'NG:$he !eneral rule on arre%t %tate% that the %ame i% valid ife:ected ith a valid arrant. oever, there are in%tance%%#ecicall+ enumerated under the la hen a arrantle%%arre%t ma+be con%idered laful. "e%#ite that, $he arrantle%%

arre%t of herein #etitioner Go doe% not fall ith in the term% of%aid rule. $he #olice ere not #re%ent at the time of thecommi%%ion of the o:en%e, neither do the+ have #er%onalknoled!e on $he crime to be committed or ha% beencommitted not to mention the fact that #etitioner a% not a#ri%oner ho e%ca#ed from the #enal in%titution. ith the%tated fact%, $he alle!ation of the #ro%ecution that #etitionerneed% to %i!n a aiver of the #rovi%ion% of article 25 of therevi%ed #enal code before A #reliminar+ inve%ti!ation ma+ beconducted i% ba%ele%%. n thi% connection, #etitioner ha% allthe ri!ht to a%k for a #reliminar+ inve%ti!ation to determinehether there i% a #robable cau%e that the crime ha% beencommitted and that the #etitioner i% #robabl+ !uilt+ thereof a%ell a% to #revent him from the ha%%le%, an=iet+ anda!!ravation brou!ht b+ a criminal #roceedin!. $hi% rea%on ofthe accu%ed %ub%tantial therefore he %hould not be de#rived

of %uch.

RULE 114 - A'L

P9SR SUPT. /RLAND/ *AUTAS Vs. "e No&Peello

FACTS:Sub>ect matter% of the #re%ent admini%trative ca%e% are tocom#laint% a!ain%t re%#ondent Hud!e Norma *. 'erello,'re%idin! Hud!e of the e!ional $rial *ourt /8ranch 2@61 of4untinlu#a *it+.

&S$ *O4'AN$

'Sr. Su#t. 4abuta% com#lained of certain irre!ularitie%committed b+ re%#ondent Hud!e in the !rant of bail to accu%edAi)a*honaOmadan in *riminal *a%e No. 03-265. Omadan a%char!ed in an nformation, dated A#ril 2, 2003, ith Ciolationof Section of e#ublic Act No. 965, or the *om#rehen%ive"an!erou% "ru!% Act of 2002, for the #o%%e%%ion, cu%tod+ andcontrol of 5@.@B !ram% of 4etham#hetamine +drochloride/%habu1, ith no bail recommended. e%#ondent Hud!e% Orderdated 4a+ 9, 2003, !rantin! Omadan% #etition for bail %tatin!that the evidence of !uilt i% not ver+ %tron!.

S?*ON" *O4'AN$

n *riminal *a%e No. 03-065, entitled, 'eo#le of the 'hili##ine%v%. o%emarie 'a%cual + 4o)o P o%ema, for Ciolation ofSection 5 of .A. No. 965, accu%ed 'a%cual a% char!ed ith%ellin!, tradin!, deliverin! and !ivin! aa+ to another 0.20!ram% of 4etham#hetamine +drochloride /%habu1, ith no

bail recommended.E2F 'a%cual led, on &ebruar+ 5, 2003, amotion for bail on the !round% that the ect of the com#laint%. A%earlier %tated, the criminal ca%e% %ub>ect of the #re%entadmini%trative com#laint% all involve violation% of .A. No.965, or the *om#rehen%ive "an!erou% "ru!% Act of 2002.

/LD'NG:;nder the fore!oin! #rovi%ion, #o%%e%%ion of 50 !ram% omore of metham#hetamine h+drochloride or %habu i%#uni%hable b+ life im#ri%onment to deathJ hence, a ca#itao:en%e. A% %uch, bail become% a matter of di%cretion. n thi%re!ard, ule , Sec. @ of the ule% of *ourt %tate%7

No #er%on char!ed ith the ca#ital o:en%e, or an o:en%e#uni%hable b+ reclu%ion #er#etua or life im#ri%onment, %halbe admitted to bail hen the evidence of !uilt i% %tron!re!ardle%% of the %ta!e of the criminal #ro%ecution.

$he matter of determinin! hether or not the evidence i%%tron! i% a matter of >udicial di%cretion that remain% ith the>ud!e. Such di%cretion mu%t be %ound and e=erci%ed ithinrea%onable bound%.

;nder the #re%ent rule%, a hearin! on an a##lication for bail i%mandator+. hether bail i% a matter of ri!ht or of di%cretionthe #ro%ecutor %hould be !iven rea%onable notice of hearin!,or at lea%t hi% recommendation on the matter mu%t be%ou!ht. n ca%e an a##lication for bail i% led, the >ud!e i%entru%ted to ob%erve the folloin! dutie%7

. n all ca%e%, hether bail i% a matter of ri!ht or di%cretion,notif+ the #ro%ecutor of the hearin! of the a##lication for baior re


6/21

n thi% ca%e, re%#ondent Hud!e !ranted bail in *riminal *a%e%No%. 03-065, 03-0B2, and 03-2BB ithout the re


7/21

in%i%t% on a %im#li%tic treatment that undul+ dilute% the im#ortof the %aid #rovi%ion and triviali)e% the e%tabli%hed #olic+!overnin! the !rant of bail #endin! a##eal.a% and rule% %hould not be inter#reted in %uch a a+ thatlead% to unrea%onable or %en%ele%% con%eu%tice %ince he %tand% indicted in the ;nited State% for healthcare fraud hich re%ulted in more than R,3@6,000.00 lo%%e%to the ;.S. &ederal Government.

On the %cheduled hearin! of November 9, 200, re%#ondentdenied the '0,000.00 bail recommended b+ the 'rovincial'ro%ecutor for the #rovi%ional relea%e of the accu%ed on the!round that the crime 'eaorida a% char!ed ith involvedlar!e %cale e%tafa, a non-bailable o:en%e. oever, later onthat %ame da+, the 8O received information that re%#ondenthad alloed the relea%e from detention of 'eaorida.

n hi% *omment, dated 4arch 22, 2002, re%#ondent e=#lained7On November 20, 200, 'eaorida led an ur!ent motion to= bail. hen the #ro%ecution and the defen%e >ointl+manife%ted that it ould be fair and >u%t if the court ould =the bail bond for the #rovi%ional relea%e of the accu%ed'eaorida at '250,000.00, he !ranted the motion to = bail onNovember 2, 200J and, at the time he i%%ued the Order=in! the bail bond of the accu%ed at '250,000.00, he a% notaare that a de#ortation order had alread+ been i%%ued b+the 8O a!ain%t the latter.E2F

'SSUE:ON the !rant of bail a% correct.

/LD'NG:;nder the rule% on bail, a hearin! i% mandator+ in !rantin!

bail hether it i% a matter of ri!ht or di%cretion.E@F A hearin! i%indi%#en%able for the court to a%k %earchin! ud!e %hould then formulate hi% onconclu%ion a% to hether the evidence %o #re%ented i% %tron!enou!h a% to indicate the !uilt of the accu%ed.E9F Otheri%e,the order !rantin! or den+in! the a##lication for bail ma+ beinvalidated becau%e the %ummar+ of evidence for the#ro%ecution hich contain% the >ud!e% evaluation of theevidence ma+ be con%idered a% an a%#ect of #rocedural due#roce%% for both the #ro%ecution and the defen%e.E0F

$he herein re%#ondent !ranted bail to the accu%ed 'eaoridaithout conductin! a hearin! de%#ite hi% earlie#ronouncement in the Order dated November 9, 200den+in! bail a% he con%idered the crime the accu%ed'eaorida a% char!ed ith to be a non-bailable o:en%e. $hemanife%tation of the #ro%ecutor that he i% not read+ to #re%entan+ itne%% to #rove that the #ro%ecution% evidence a!ain%tthe accu%ed i% %tron!, i% never a ba%i% for the outri!ht !rant ofbail ithout a #reliminar+ hearin! on the matter.EF Ahearin! i% reection to themotion for bail.E2F

$he >oint manife%tation of the #ro%ecution and the defen%ethat it ould be fair and >u%t if the court ould = the baibond for the #rovi%ional relea%e of the accu%ed a'250,000.00 doe% not >u%tif+ the !rantin! of bail ithout ahearin! in a ca%e involvin! a non-bailable o:en%e. A hearin! i%nece%%ar+ for the court to take into con%ideration the!uideline% in =in! the amount of bail %et forth in Section 9ule of the evi%ed ule% of *riminal 'rocedure.

Needle%% to %tre%%, >udicial di%cretion i% the domain of the>ud!e and the dut+ to e=erci%e di%cretion cannot be re#o%edu#on the ill or him of the #ro%ecution or the defen%ee%#ondent %hould have a%certained #er%onall+ hether theevidence of !uilt i% %tron! and endeavored to determine the#ro#riet+ of the amount of bail recommended. $o do aa+

ith the reu%tice reud!e #er%onall+received the ca%h bail bond for the accu%ed. &or thi% acalone, re%#ondent i% alread+ admini%trativel+ liable. Section, ule of the evi%ed ule% of *riminal 'rocedure%#ecie% the #er%on% ith hom a ca%h bail bond ma+ bede#o%ited, namel+7 the collector of internal revenue or the


8/21

#rovincial, cit+ or munici#al trea%urer. A >ud!e i% notauthori)ed to receive the de#o%it of ca%h a% bail nor %hould%uch ca%h be ke#t in hi% oce.'SSUE:ON re%#ondent >ud!e i% !uilt+ of !ro%% mi%conduct forhavin! abu%ed her >udicial authorit+ hen %he #er%onall+acce#ted the ca%h bail bond of the accu%edD

/LD'NG:Qe%. $he fore!oin! act% not onl+ %eriou%l+ undermine andadver%el+ reect on the hone%t+ and inte!rit+ of re%#ondent

>ud!e a% an ocer of the courtJ the+ al%o betra+ a charactera hich %#eak% il l of her #er%on. 4akin! fal%ere#re%entation% i% a vice hich no >ud!e %hould imbibe. A% the>ud!e i% the vi%ible re#re%entation of the la, and moreim#ortantl+ >u%tice, he mu%t therefore, be the r%t to abide b+the la and eave an e=am#le for the other% to follo.t need not be overem#ha%i)ed that in receivin! the ca%h bondre%#ondent >ud!e ran afoul ith ule of the ule% of*riminal 'rocedure. ndeed, in the ca%e of Oce of the *ourtAdmini%trator v. &ernande), the *ourt held that7$he rule% %#ecif+ the #er%on% ith hom a ca%h bail bondma+ be de#o%ited namel+7 the collector of internal revenue, orthe #rovincial, cit+ or munici#al trea%urer. Section of ule of the evi%ed ule% of *riminal 'rocedure /e:ective

"ecember , 20001 #rovide%7S?*. . "e#o%it of *a%h a% bail $he accu%ed or an+ #er%onactin! in hi% behalf ma+ de#o%it in ca%h ith the neare%tcollector of internal revenue or #rovincial, cit+ or munici#altrea%urer the amount of the bail =ed b+ the court, orrecommended b+ the #ro%ecutor ho inve%ti!ated or led theca%e. ;#on %ubmi%%ion of a #ro#er certicate of de#o%it and ofa ritten undertakin! %hoin! com#liance ith thereud!e i% not one of tho%e authori)ed to receive the de#o%itof ca%h a% bail, nor %hould %uch ca%h be ke#t in the oce ofthe >ud!e.??&O?, o%abella 4. $ormi%, 're%idin! Hud!e, 4unici#al$rial *ourt in *itie%, *ebu *it+, 8ranch C, i% found G;$Q of!ro%% mi%conduct and i% S;S'?N"?" from oce for %i= /61month% ithout %alar+ and other benet% and S$?NQAN?" that a re#etition of the %ame or %imilar act% %hall bedealt ith more %everel+.ATT. ED;ARD SERAP'/+ pe#$#$one+ 0s.SAND'GANAAN


9/21

Sandi!anba+an therefore committed !rave abu%e of di%cretionamountin! to e=ce%% of >uri%diction in orderin! thearrai!nment of #etitioner before #roceedin! ith the hearin!of hi% #etition for bail.

/b1 *ourt %ee% no incon%i%tenc+ beteen an a##lication of anaccu%ed for bail and hi% lin! of a motion to ointhearin!% ill %ave the court form havin! to hear the %ameitne%%e% and the #artie% from #re%entin! the %ameevidence%. $here i% no #rovi%ion in the ule% of *ourt!overnin! the hearin!% of to or more #etitioner for bail ledb+ di:erent accu%ed or that a #etition for bail of an accu%ed

be heard %imultaneou%l+ ith the trial of the ca%e a!ain%t theother accu%ed. $he matter %hould be addre%%ed to the %ounddi%cretion of the trial court. n the e=erci%e of it% di%cretion,the Sandi!anba+an mu%t take into account not onl+ theconvenience of the %tate, includin! the #ro%ecution but al%othat of the #etitioner and the itne%%e%.

n the ca%e of Ocam#o v%. 8ernabe, the court ruled that in a#etition or bail hearin!, the court i% to conduct onl+ a%ummar+ hearin!, meanin! %uch brief and %#eed+ method ofreceivin! and con%iderin! the evidence of !uilt a% i%#racticable and con%i%tent ith the #ur#o%e of the hearin!hich i% earl+ to determine the ei!ht of evidence for#ur#o%e% of bail. $he court doe% not tr+ the merit% or enterinto the inu%tication andor that the fact% char!ed do not con%titute ano:en%e.T e attached a *omelec *ertication that he a%e=em#tedT from the !un ban. $he $* !ranted the ud!e


10/21

motion to eo#ard+ a% #rovided under

Section @, but neverthele%% create% a bar to further#ro%ecution under the %#ecial term% of Section B.

$hi% feature mu%t be read ith Section 6 hich #rovide% forthe e:ect% of %u%tainin! a motion to eo#ard+. $he%e uni


11/21

Amon! the accu%ed-movant%, the #ublic ocer ho%e#artici#ation in the alle!ed o:en%e i% %#ecicall+ mentioned inthe 4a+ 30, 2006 4emorandum i% accu%ed &elici%imoa)arte,Hr., the *hairman of the nventor+ and Acce#tance

*ommittee /A*1, hich undertook the inventor+ and naludicial determination of #robablecau%e and for e=amination of itne%%e%.

$he #etitioner% aver that Section B, ule @ of the evi%edule% of *riminal 'rocedure i% not a##licable to the %aidcriminal ca%e% becau%e the e%%ential re


12/21

im#liedl+ or e=#re%%l+, to a mere #rovi%ional di%mi%%al of theca%e%.

$he *ourt al%o a!ree% ith the #etitioner%M contention that nonotice of an+ motion for the #rovi%ional di%mi%%al of thecriminal ca%e% or of the hearin! thereon a% %erved on theheir% of the victim% at lea%t three da+% before %aid hearin! a%mandated b+ ule 5, Section of the ule% of *ourt.

n the ca%e at bar, even if the re%#ondentM% motion for adetermination of #robable cau%e and e=amination ofitne%%e% ma+ be con%idered for the nonce a% hi% motion for a

#rovi%ional di%mi%%al of the criminal ca%e%, hoever, the heir%of the victim% ere not notied thereof #rior to the hearin! on%aid motion on 4arch 22, 999. $here i% no #roof on recordthat all the heir% of the victim% ere %erved ith co#ie% of there%olution of Hud!e A!nir, Hr. di%mi%%in! the %aid ca%e%.

t %hould al%o be noted that hen the evi%ed ule% of*riminal 'rocedure took e:ect on "ecember , 2000, theState onl+ had one +ear and three month% ithin hich torevive the ca%e% or rele the nformation%. $he i%%ue hicharo%e from %uch event a% hether the time-bar in Section Bof ule @ thereof %hould be a##lied #ro%#ectivel+ and notretroactivel+ a!ain%t the State, to hich the *ourt ruled that#rocedural la% ma+ be a##lied retroactivel+.

$he time-bar under Section B of ule @ i% akin to a %#ecial

#rocedural limitation


13/21

in the crime of a#e. hile the other% are acu%t the #re%ence of ala+er in the courtroom or the mere #ro#oundin! of %tandardection%J rather it mean% an ecient anddeci%ive le!al a%%i%tance and not a %im#le #erfunctor+re#re%entation.

A$O7

/1 $he %ole, uncorroborated te%timon+ of an accu%ed hoturned %tate itne%% ma+ %uce to convict hi% co-accu%ed if iti% !iven unhe%itatin!l+ and in a %trai!htforard manner and i%full of detail% hich b+ their nature could not have been the

re%ult of deliberate afterthou!htJ otheri%e, it need%corroboration the #re%ence or lack of hich ma+ ultimatel+decide the cau%e of the #ro%ecution and the fate of theaccu%ed.

/21 $he rule in thi% >uri%diction i% that the te%timon+ of a %elf-confe%%ed accom#lice or co-con%#irator im#utin! the blame toor im#licatin! hi% co-accu%ed cannot, b+ it%elf and ithoutcorroboration, be re!arded a% #roof to a moral certaint+ thatthe latter committed or #artici#ated in the commi%%ion of thecrime. $he te%timon+ mu%t be %ub%tantiall+ corroborated in it%material #oint% b+ unim#eachable te%timon+ and %tron!circum%tance% and mu%t be to %uch an e=tent that it%tru%torthine%% become% manife%t.

a. a% ocil% te%timon+ corroborated in it% material #oint% b+the #ro%ecution% other evidenceD - NOb. f in the armative, a% the corroborative evidenceunim#eachable te%timon+ and %tron! circum%tance% to %uchan e=tent that ocil% tru%torthine%% become% manife%tD - NO

n the a##reciation of circum%tantial evidence, there mu%t beat lea%t to #roven circum%tance% hich in com#lete%e


14/21

are the lar!e number of ca%e% led, indi%criminate !rant ofcontinuance% to liti!ant%, inecient ca%e o mana!ement b+>ud!e%, and unreali%tic mana!ement of the calendar of ca%e%.

$o %olve the%e #roblem%, thi% *ourt ha%, in %everal in%tance%,advi%ed >ud!e% to follo certain !uideline% to facilitate %#eed+ca%e di%#o%ition. Amon! the%e mea%ure% i% thedi%coura!ement of continuance%, e=ce#t for e=ce#tionalrea%on%. $o enforce due dili!ence in the di%#atch of >udicialbu%ine%% ithout arbitraril+ or unrea%onabl+ forcin! ca%e% totrial hen coun%el% are un#re#ared, >ud!e% %hould endeavorto hold them to a #ro#er a##reciation of their dutie% to the

#ublic, a% ell a% to their on client% and to the adver%e #art+.E0F

n criminal ca%e%, #retrial i% mandator+ becau%e, at the out%et,liti!ation i% abbreviated b+ the identication of contentiou%i%%ue%. n civil ca%e%, >ud!e% are al%o reurie% to other #a%%en!er%.

On 0 Hanuar+ 2005, before the 4unici#al $rial *ourt /4$*1 oSibulan, Ne!ro% Oriental, #etitioner a% arrai!ned and he#leaded not !uilt+ to the char!e

're-trial and trial of the ca%e #roceeded. e%#ondent% te%tiedfor the #ro%ecution. After the #ro%ecution had re%ted it% ca%e#etitioner %ou!ht leave to le a demurrer to evidence hicha% !ranted. 'etitioner led hi% "emurrer to ?vidence dated5 A#ril 2005 !rounded on the #ro%ecutionM% failure to #rovebe+ond rea%onable doubt that he i% criminall+ liable foreckle%% im#rudence, to hich re%#ondent% led a *ommentdated 25 A#ril 2005.

4$* !ranted the demurrer and ac


15/21

be+ond rea%onable doubt, re%ultin! in a di%mi%%al of the ca%eon the merit%, tantamount to an aceo#ard+. 8ut hile the di%mi%%al ordercon%eect toa##eal, the %ame i% %till revieable but onl+ b+ certiorariunder ule 65 of the ule% of *ourt. $hu%, in %uch ca%e, thefactual ndin!% of the trial court are conclu%ive u#on thereviein! court, and the onl+ le!al ba%i% to rever%e and %eta%ide the order of di%mi%%al u#on demurrer to evidence i% b+ aclear %hoin! that the trial court, in acuri%diction or a denial of due #roce%%, thu%renderin! the a%%ailed >ud!ment void.

Accordin!l+, re%#ondent% led before the $* the #etition forcertiorari alle!in! that the 4$* !ravel+ abu%ed it% di%cretionin di%mi%%in! the ca%e and failin! to con%ider the evidence ofthe #ro%ecution in re%olvin! the %ame, and in alle!edl+ failin!to follo the #ro#er #rocedure a% mandated b+ the ule% of*ourt. $he $* correctl+ ruled that the 4$* did not abu%e it%di%cretion in di%mi%%in! the criminal com#laint. $he 4$*M%conclu%ion% ere ba%ed on fact% dili!entl+ recited in the orderthereb+ di%#rovin! that the 4$* failed to con%ider theevidence #re%ented b+ the #ro%ecution. $he record% al%o %hothat the 4$* correctl+ folloed the #rocedure %et forth in theule% of *ourt.

$he Order dated 6 4a+ 2005 of the 4unici#al $rial *ourt ofSibulan, Ne!ro% Oriental in *riminal *a%e No. 306-0!rantin! the "emurrer to ?vidence and ac


16/21

ca%e for >ud!ment on the ba%i% of the evidence for the#ro%ecution.

$he motion for leave of court to le demurrer to evidence%hall %#ecicall+ %tate it% !round% and %hall be led ithin anon-e=tendible #eriod of ve /51 da+% after the #ro%ecutionre%t% it% ca%e. $he #ro%ecution ma+ o##o%e the motion ithina non-e=tendible #eriod of ve /51 da+% from it% recei#t.

f leave of court i% !ranted, the accu%ed %hall le the demurrerto evidence ithin a non-e=tendible #eriod of ten /01 da+%from notice. $he #ro%ecution ma+ o##o%e the demurrer to

evidence ithin a %imilar #eriod from it% recei#t.

$he order den+in! the motion for leave of court to ledemurrer to evidence or the demurrer it%elf %hall not berevieable b+ a##eal or b+ certiorari before the >ud!ment.

n criminal ca%e%, the demurrer to evidence #artake% of thenature of a motion to di%mi%% the ca%e for failure of the#ro%ecution to #rove hi% !uilt be+ond rea%onable doubt. n aca%e here the accu%ed le% a demurrer to evidence ithoutleave of court, he thereb+ aive% hi% ri!ht to #re%ent evidenceand %ubmit% the ca%e for deci%ion on the ba%i% of the evidenceof the #ro%ecution. On the other hand, if the accu%ed i%!ranted leave to le a demurrer to evidence, he ha% the ri!htto adduce evidence not onl+ on the criminal a%#ect but al%oon the civil a%#ect of the ca%e if hi% demurrer i% denied b+ the

court.

f demurrer i% !ranted and the accu%ed i% acud!ment notonl+ !rantin! the demurrer to evidence of the accu%ed andacud!ment on the civil a%#ectof the ca%e ould be a nullit+ for the rea%on that thecon%titutional ri!ht of the accu%ed to due #roce%% i% thereb+violated. A% e held in Alonte v. Savellano, Hr.7

Section , #ara!ra#h% /1 and /21, of Article , of the*on%titution #rovide% the fundamental%./1 No #er%on %hall be held to an%er for a criminal o:en%eithout due #roce%% of la./21 n all criminal #ro%ecution%, the accu%ed %hall be #re%umedinnocent until the contrar+ i% #roved, and %hall en>o+ the ri!htto be heard b+ him%elf and coun%el, to be informed of thenature and cau%e of the accu%ation a!ain%t him, to have a%#eed+, im#artial, and #ublic trial, to meet the itne%%e% faceto face, and to have com#ul%or+ #roce%% to %ecure theattendance of itne%%e% and the #roduction of evidence in hi%behalf. oever, after arrai!nment, trial ma+ #roceednotith%tandin! the ab%ence of the accu%ed #rovided that heha% been dul+ notied and hi% failure to a##ear i%un>u%tiable.

Huri%#rudence acknoled!e% that due #roce%% in criminal#roceedin!%, in #articular, reudicial #oer to hear

and determine the matter before itJ /b1 that >uri%diction i%lafull+ acud!ment i% rendered onl+ u#on laful hearin!.

$he above con%titutional and >uri%#rudentiall+ #o%tulate%, b+no elementar+ and dee#l+ imbedded in our on criminal>u%tice %+%tem, are mandator+ and indi%#en%able. $he#rinci#le% nd univer%al acce#tance and are ter%el+ e=#re%%edin the oft-ud!men!rantin! the demurrer to evidence and ac &nATT. GA*AL'EL D.. /NE+

FACTS:e%#ondent% ere char!ed ith ?%tafa$hrou!h &al%ication of'ublic "ocument before the $* of *ebu *it+. $he ca%e aro%efrom the fal%ication of a deed of real e%tate mort!a!ealle!edl+ committed b+ re%#ondent% here the+ made ia##ear that *once#cion, the oner of the mort!a!ed #ro#ert+knon a% the Gorordo #ro#ert+, a=ed her %i!nature to thedocument. ence, the criminal ca%e.

?arlier, *once#cion, ho a% a re%ident of *ebu *it+, hile onvacation in 4anila, a% une=#ectedl+ conned at the 4akat4edical *enter due to u##er !a%tro-inte%tinal bleedin!J anda% advi%ed to %ta+ in 4anila for further treatmente%#ondent% led a 4otion for Su%#en%ion of the 'roceedin!%in the *riminal *a%e on the !round of #re>udicial


17/21

$he coun%el of *once#cion led a motion to take the latter%de#o%ition. e e=#lained the need to #er#etuate *once#cion%te%timon+ due to her eak #h+%ical condition and old a!e,hich limited her freedom of mobilit+. $he $* !ranted themotion and directed that *once#cion% de#o%ition be takenbefore the *lerk of *ourt of 4akati *it+.

$he re%#ondent% motion for recon%ideration a% denied b+ thetrial court on November 3, 2000. $he court ratiocinated that#rocedural technicalitie% %hould be bru%hed a%ide becau%e ofthe ur!enc+ of the %ituation, %ince *once#cion a% alread+ of

advanced a!e. After %everal motion% for chan!e of venue ofthe de#o%ition-takin!, *once#cion% de#o%ition a% nall+taken on 4arch 9, 200 at her re%idence.

'SSUE:ON *once#cion% de#o%ition can be taken in the $* of4akati

RUL'NG:No. t i% ba%ic that all itne%%e% %hall !ive their te%timonie% atthe trial of the ca%e in the #re%ence of the >ud!e. $hi% i%e%#eciall+ true in criminal ca%e% in order that the accu%ed ma+be a:orded the o##ortunit+ to cro%%-e=amine the itne%%e%#ur%uant to hi% con%titutional ri!ht to confront the itne%%e%face to face. t al%o !ive% the #artie% and their coun%el thechance to #ro#ound %uch ud!eto ob%erve the itne%%e% demeanor.

n the ca%e at bench, in i%%ue i% the e=amination of a#ro%ecution itne%%, ho, accordin! to the #etitioner%, a%too %ick to travel and a##ear before the trial court. Section 5of ule 9 thu% come% into #la+, and it #rovide%7 Section 5.?=amination of itne%% for the #ro%ecution. hen it%ati%factoril+ a##ear% that a itne%% for the #ro%ecution i% too%ick or inrm to a##ear at the trial a% directed b+ the court, orha% to leave the 'hili##ine% ith no denite date of returnin!,he ma+ forthith be conditionall+ e=amined before the courthere the ca%e i% #endin!. Such e=amination, in the #re%enceof the accu%ed, or in hi% ab%ence after rea%onable notice toattend the e=amination ha% been %erved on him, %hall beconducted in the %ame manner a% an e=amination at the trial.&ailure or refu%al of the accu%ed to attend the e=aminationafter notice %hall be con%idered a aiver. $he %tatement takenma+ be admitted in behalf of or a!ain%t the accu%ed.

'etitioner% contend that *once#cion% advanced a!e andhealth condition e=em#t her from the a##lication of Section5, ule 9 of the ule% of *riminal 'rocedure, and thu%,call% for the a##lication of ule 23 of the ule% of *ivil'rocedure. $he contention doe% not #er%uade. $he ver+rea%on o:ered b+ the #etitioner% to e=em#t *once#cion fromthe covera!e of ule 9 i% at once the !round hich #lace%her %ud!e, or, if not #racticable, a member of the 8ain !ood %tandin! %o de%i!nated b+ the >ud!e in the order, or, ifthe order be made b+ a court of %u#erior >uri%diction, beforean inferior court to be de%i!nated therein, the e=amination ofa itne%% for the #ro%ecution under Section 5 of the evi%edule% of *riminal 'rocedure /"ecember , 20001 ma+ be doneonl+ before the court here the ca%e i% #endin!.

ule 9 cate!oricall+ %tate% that the conditional e=aminationof a #ro%ecution itne%% %hall be made before the court herethe ca%e i% #endin!. *ontrar+ to #etitioner% contention, therei% nothin! in the rule hich ma+ remotel+ be inter#reted tomean that %uch reuri%diction of %aid court and not hen hei% kilometer% aa+, a% in the #re%ent ca%e. $herefore, thecourt ma+ not introduce e=ce#tion% or condition%.

R'*ERT/ T. SALVANERA+ Pe#$#$one+ 0s. PE/PLE /FTE P'L'PP'NES &n LUC'TA PARANE+ Responen#s.

FACTS:'etitioner imbertoSalvanera, to!ether ith &eliciano Abutin?d!ardo un!ca+ and "omin!o $am#eli=, i% char!ed ith themurder of uben 'arane. $he above-named accu%ed havecon%#ired, confederated and mutuall+ hel#ed each other. A%#er theor+ of the #ro%ecution, #etitioner a% the alle!edma%termindJ un!ca+, the hired hitmanJ Abutin, the driver ofthe motorc+cle hich carried un!ca+ to the #lace of thecommi%%ion of the crimeJ hile $am#eli= delivered the bloodmone+ to the latter. All the accu%ed have been arre%ted anddetained, e=ce#t ?d!ardo un!ca+ ho remained at-lar!ee%#ondent ucita'arane i% the %#ou%e of victim uben'arane.

On Hanuar+ 22, 99@, #etitioner a##lied for bail. $he#ro%ecution, on 4arch , 99@, moved for the di%char!e oaccu%ed &eliciano Abutin and "omin!o $am#eli=, to %erve a%%tate itne%%e%. n an Omnibu% Order dated Se#tember 599@, the trial court !ranted #etitionerM% a##lication for baiand denied the #ro%ecutionM% motion for the di%char!e oaccu%ed Abutin and $am#eli=.

$he #ro%ecution moved for recon%ideration but the motiona% denied. $he #ro%ecution then a##ealed to the *ourt ofA##eal%. t contended that the trial court committed !raveabu%e of di%cretion hen it denied the motion to di%char!e

accu%ed Abutin and $am#eli= to be %tate itne%%e%. t alle!edthat the te%timonie% of the to accu%ed are ab%olutel+nece%%ar+ to e%tabli%h that #etitioner ma%terminded themurder of uben 'arane. $he #ro%ecution likei%e claimedthat it a% #remature and ba%ele%% for the trial court to !rant#etitionerM% a##lication for bail becau%e the #ro%ecution hadnot +et re%ted it% ca%e in the hearin! for the di%char!e of theto accu%ed.

$he *ourt of A##eal% %u%tained the #ro%ecution. t di%char!edaccu%ed &eliciano Abutin and "omin!o $am#eli= from thenformation to become %tate itne%%e%, and cancelled the baibond of #etitioner Salvanera. n it% e%olution datedSe#tember 22, 999, it denied #etitioner% 4otion foecon%ideration. 'etitioner then led hi% 4otion fo


18/21

*larication ith eave of *ourt. $he %ame a% al%o denied ina e%olution dated 4a+ , 2000. ence, thi% a##eal.

'SSUE:ON the *A erred in di%char!in! the accu%ed to become %tateitne%%e% and in cancellin! the bail bond of #etitionerSalvanera.

RUL'NG:e u#hold the rulin! of the *ourt of A##eal%. n the di%char!eof an accu%ed in order that he ma+ be a %tate itne%%, thefolloin! condition% mu%t be #re%ent, namel+7

/1 $o or more accu%ed are >ointl+ char!ed ith thecommi%%ion of an o:en%eJ/21 $he motion for di%char!e i% led b+ the #ro%ecution beforeit re%t% it% ca%eJ/31 $he #ro%ecution i% re


19/21

??&O?, the "eci%ion of the *ourt of A##eal% of 4a+ 2,2005 i% A&&4?" ith 4O"&*A$ON. $he *ourt nd%a##ellant% 4arite%%An! and 'ablo ?%tacio, Hr. !uilt+ be+ondrea%onable doubt of 4urder, ith the !eneric a!!ravatin!circum%tance of u%e of motor vehicle. And in vie of theenactment of e#ublic Act No. 936 on Hune 2, 2006, the#enalt+ i% reduced to reclu%ion #er#etua ithout eli!ibilit+ for#arole.

ERNADETTE ADASA VS. CEC'LLE AAL/S

FACTS:e%#ondent *ecille Abalo% alle!ed in the com#laint%-adavit% that #etitioner 8ernadette Ada%a, throu!h deceit,received and enca%hed to check% i%%ued in the name ofAbalo% ithout the latterM% knoled!e and con%ent and thatde%#ite re#eated demand% b+ Abalo%, Ada%a failed andrefu%ed to #a+ the #roceed% of the check%. Ada%a led acounter-adavit admittin! that %he received and enca%hedthe 2 check%. $hen %he alle!ed in a Su##lemental adavitclaimin! that it a% in%tead 8ebie *orrea ho received the 2check%, but that *orrea had alread+ left the countr+.

A re%olution a% i%%ued b+ the Oce of the *it+'ro%ecutor /O*'1 of li!an *it+ ndin! #robable cau%e a!ain%tAda%a and orderin! the lin! of 2 %e#arate nformation% for?%tafa $hru &al%ication of *ommercial "ocument b+ a 'rivatendividual. *on%e


20/21

into the matter of hether or not "ocumentoM% #lea of !uilta% im#rovidentl+ made. Nonethele%%, it %till found theconviction of a##ellant #ro#er. Nothin! in the record% of theca%e at bench %ho% that the trial court com#lied ith the!uideline% %et forth b+ the Su#reme *ourt in a number ofca%e% after a##ellantM% re-arrai!nment and !uilt+ #lea. $he


21/21

ith re!ard to the %tbill of #articular, ba%icall+ S*had the %ame ndin!%. $hat i%, 8O' failed to %u##l+ Cirataith material matter% hich he need% in order to le are%#on%ive #leadin!. &urther, the %t 8O' contain% nematter% hich are not covered b+ the char!e% in thecom#laint. $he com#laint alle!e% that he a% actin! a% adumm+ but the 8O' %tate that he acted in hi% ocial ca#acit+.$herefore, under the 8O' he acted a% a!ent of the!overnment herea% in the com#laint he alle!edl+ acted a%a!ent of hi% co-defendant%.

$he to bill% of #articular% led b+ the e#ublic failedto #ro#erl+ am#lif+ the char!e% leveled a!ain%t Cirata

becau%e, not onl+ are the+ mere reiteration or re#etition ofthe alle!ation% %et forth in the e=#anded Second Amended*om#laint, but, to the lar!e e=tent, the+ contain va!ue,

immaterial and !enerali)ed a%%ertion% hich are inadmi%%ibleunder our #rocedural rule%.

A% a re%ult, S* order% the di%mi%%al of the com#laintin %o far a% the char!e% a!ain%t Cirata are concerned. $hi% i%>u%tied under the rule% of court /failure to #ro%ecute V#lainti:... fail% to com#l+ ith the%e rule% or an+ order of thecourt1

Side i%%ue%7 hether '*GG can le the 8O' in behalf

of the re#ublic /contention i% that onl+ OSG can act in behalf

of re#ublic1D Q?S. Admin code !ive% #oer to the OSG to

de#uti)e le!al ocer% and to call on an+ de#Mt...etc., a% ma+

be nece%%ar+ to full it% function%. ere, OSG called '*GG fora%%i%tance and authori)ed it to le the 8O'.

Date post:	21-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chrissy-sabella
View:	229 times
Download:	0 times

Criminal Procedure CaseDigest.docx

Documents