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 Alonetes house who was then the mayor of Bian,
Laguna. The case was brought before RTC Bian. 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 accuseds 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.