Jalandoni v Secretary of Justice (GR 115239-40, March 2, 2000) Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for libel before the

provincial prosecutor of Rizal against the officials of Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corporation (OMPC): one for a full-page paid advertisement published in five major daily newspapers containing allegations of graft and corruption; the second was for an open letter addressed to the stockholders of OMPC still alleging graft and corruption. The assistant prosecutor issued a memorandum, approved by the provincial prosecutor, recommending the indictment of those charged with libel. An information for the crime of libel was filed with the RTC of Makati. Those charged appealed to the Secretary of Justice. The Secretary then issued a resolution ordering the prosecutor to withdraw the informations filed in court. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but the same was denied. Issue: Does the secretary of justice have control over fiscals and prosecutors? (Sorry, dili kayo clear iyang issue. More on certiorari man gud ni siya nga case. And I dont think certiorari is part of criminal procedure I think lang ha) Held: According to Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Section 1(d) of PD 911 empowers the Secretary of Justice to authorize and direct the investigating fiscal or prosecutor to cause or move for the dismissal of the case where he finds no prima facie cases exists, or to cause the filing of an information in court against the respondent without the necessity of conducting another preliminary investigation. It is a well-settled rule that the secretary of justice has the power to review resolutions or decisions of provincial or city prosecutors or the chief state prosecutor upon petition by a proper party. Under the revised administration code, the secretary of justice exercises the power of direct control and supervision over said prosecutors. He may affirm, nullify, reverse or modify the rulings of the latter as he may deem fit. People vs Jaranilla (L-28547, February 22, 1974) Facts: Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle, nocturnity, band, contempt of or with insult to public authorities and recidivism. The fiscal used Gorriceta as a state witness and the charges against him were dismissed. After the prosecution had rested its case but before the defense had commenced the presentation of evidence, Jaranilla escaped from the provincial jail. The judgment of conviction was promulgated as to defendants Suyo and Brillantes but there was no promulgation as to Jaranilla, since the latter had escaped from jail. When the notice of appeal was filed by the defendants counsel, he erroneously included Jaranilla. Issue: Can Jaranillas appeal be entertained considering that there was no promulgation of judgment as to Jaranilla?

Held: No. According to Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. If

the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Inasmuch as the judgment has not been promulgated as to Jaranilla, he could not have appealed. His appeal through counsel cannot be entertained, only the appeals of Suyo and Brillantes will be considered.
People v Tumlos (67 Phil 320) Facts: Eight cows belonging to Sobrevega and five belonging to Pecasis were taken by the defendant without the knowledge or consent of the owners. An information was filed against the defendant for theft of the eight cows and he was subsequently sentenced. In the present case, defendants was found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo of the crim of theft of large cattle belonging to Pecasis, committed on the same date as the theft of Sobrevegas cattle charged in the previous information. Issue: Is there double jeopardy?

Held: Yes. The theft of the thirteen cows by the defendant took place at the same place and time. He
performed only one act. The fact that the cattle belonged to different owners does not make him criminally liable for two distinct offenses, for the reason that in such case the act must be divided into two, which act is not susceptible of division. There was only one intention: to take for the purpose of appropriating or selling the thirteen cows which he found grazing in the same place. As neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division, the offense arising from the concurrence of its two constituent elements cannot be divided, it being immaterial that the subject matter of the offense is singular or plural, because whether said subject matter be one or several animate or inanimate objects, it is but one. Therefore, as the five cows alleged to be stolen by Irineo Tumlos were integral parts of the thirteen cows which were the subject matter of theft, and as he had already been tried for and convicted of the theft of the other five. The defendant has already been put in jeopardy of being convicted of the theft of the five cows in question when he was tried for and convicted of the theft of the eight. The conviction of the defendant for the theft of five cows would be a violation of his constitutional right not to be punished twice for the same offence.