Professional Documents
Culture Documents
awarding exemplary damages under the Civil Code was understood in its generic
sense.
NOTE: The rape of a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age by the
common-law spouse of her mother is qualified rape. Yet, the crime is only simple
rape, although the State successfully proves the common-law relationship, where
the information does not properly allege the qualifying circumstance of
relationship between the accused and the female. This is because the right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is
inviolable.
proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question. The matter was raised before
the Secretary of Justice after the City Prosecutor approved the petition to
suspend proceedings. It was only after the Secretary of Justice so ordered that
the informations for the violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed with the MeTC of
Quezon City.
Clearly, it was respondents own motion for the suspension of the criminal
proceedings, which motion she predicated on her civil case for accounting, that
caused the filing in court of the 1997 initiated proceedings only in 2000.
Colina appealed the civil aspect of the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
which ordered Domingo to pay the former the civil liability arising from the
offense.
ISSUE: Whether the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case based on
reasonable doubt amounts to the extinguishment of the civil liability of
the accused?
NO. The trial court did not convict petitioner of the offense charged, since the
prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the quantum of
evidence required in criminal cases. Conversely, the lack of evidence to prove
the aforesaid elements of the offense charged does not mean that petitioner has
no existing debt with respondent, a civil aspect which is proven by another
quantum of evidence, a mere preponderance of evidence.
on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the civil case be determined
first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case does not involve a
prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the
criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.
Even if the trial court in the civil case declares AsiaTrust Bank liable for the
unlawful garnishment of petitioners savings account, petitioners cannot be
automatically adjudged free from criminal liability for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, because the mere issuance of worthless checks with
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself the
offense.
NOTE: Applying these principles, the Court finds that the RTCs immediate
dismissal, as affirmed by the CA, was improper as the standard of clear lack of
probable cause was not observed. In this case, records show that certain
essential facts namely, (a) whether or not Desmond committed false
representations that induced Dio to invest in Ocean Adventure; and (b) whether
or not Desmond utilized the funds invested by Dio solely for the Miracle Beach
Project for purposes different from what was agreed upon remain controverted.
As such, it cannot be said that the absence of the elements of the crime of estafa
under Article 315(2)(a)57 and 315(1)(b)58 of the RPC had already been
established, thereby rendering the RTCs immediate dismissal of the case highly
improper.
The Law Firm of Chavez, et. al. v. Atty. Fria, G.R. No.
183014, 07 August 2013
In its Complaint-Affidavit charging the Atty. Fria, the Branch Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong with the crime of Open Disobedience under
Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code, The Law Firm alleged that it had been
following up on the issuance of a writ of execution to implement the judgment of
the court in a civil case. However, Atty. Fria vehemently refused to perform her
ministerial duty of issuing said writ.
In her Counter-Affidavit dated June 13, 2006, Atty. Fria posited that the draft writ
of execution (draft writ) was not addressed to her but to Branch Sheriff, who was
then on leave. Nevertheless, she maintained that she need not sign the draft
writ, the presiding judge issued an Order stating that he himself shall sign and
issue the same.
The prosecutor issued a Memorandum recommending that Atty. Fria be indicted
for the crime of Open Disobedience. The corresponding Information was
thereafter filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Atty. Fria filed a Motion for Determination of Probable Cause which The Law Firm
opposed on the ground that the Rules on Criminal Procedure do not empower
trial courts to review the prosecutors finding of probable cause and that such
rules only give the trial court judge the duty to determine whether or not a
warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The MTC ordered the
dismissal of said criminal case for lack of probable cause.
ISSUE: Is the dismissal of the criminal case based on probable cause
proper?
The dismissal was proper. The judges power to immediately dismiss a criminal
case would only be warranted when the lack of probable cause is clear. The
dismissal ought to be sustained since the records clearly disclose the
unmistakable absence of the integral elements of the crime of Open
Disobedience. While the first element, i.e., that the offender is a judicial or
executive officer, concurs in view of Atty. Frias position as Branch Clerk of Court,
the second and third elements of the crime evidently remain wanting.
2003, it still had to go through careful review and revision before its final
approval. It also pointed out that petitioners never raised any objections
regarding the purported delay in the proceedings during the interim.
The SB denied petitioners Motion to Quash for lack of merit
ISSUE: Is the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases
available during preliminary investigation?
YES. This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings
but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as
well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party
to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with the
administration of justice. The preliminary investigation proceedings took a
protracted amount of time to complete. In this regard, the proceedings were
terminated almost eight years after the filing of the complaint.
NOTE: There is no complete resolution of a case under preliminary investigation
until the Ombudsman approves the investigating officers recommendation to
either file an Information with the SB or to dismiss the complaint. Therefore, in
the case at bar, the preliminary investigation proceedings against the petitioners
were not terminated upon [the DIOs] preparation of the March 27, 2003
Resolution and Information but rather, only at the time [the AO] finally approved
the same for filing with the SB.
Whether such invalid waiver of right warrant the reversal of the finding
of guilt?
NO. Nevertheless, as in the case of an improvident guilty plea, an invalid waiver
of the right to present evidence and be heard does not per se work to vacate a
finding of guilt in the criminal case or to enforce an automatic remand of the
case to the trial court
G.R. Nos. 178057 and 178080 (Villa v. Escalona)
Petitioner Villa assails the CAs decision, arguing that the case against Escalona,
Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano should not have been dismissed, since they failed to
assert their right to speedy trial within a reasonable period of time. She points
out that the accused failed to raise a protest during the dormancy of the criminal
case against them, and that they asserted their right only after the trial court
had dismissed the case against their co-accused Concepcion. A dismissal of the
under Articles 262 to 266 for intentional felonies and Article 365 for culpable
felonies is therefore tantamount to a whimsical, capricious, and abusive exercise
of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. According to the Revised Penal
Code, the mandatory and legally imposable penalty in case the victim dies
should be based on the framework governing the destruction of the life of a
person, punished under Articles 246 to 261 for intentional felonies and Article
365 for culpable felonies, and not under the aforementioned provisions. We
emphasize that these two types of felonies are distinct from and legally
inconsistent with each other, in that the accused cannot be held criminally liable
for physical injuries when actual death occurs.
court does not prevent the Ombudsman from exercising the power that the
Congress has granted him under Section 17 of R.A. 6770.
The authority to grant immunity is not an inherent judicial function. Indeed,
Congress has vested such power in the Ombudsman as well as in the Secretary
of Justice. Besides, the decision to employ an accused as a state witness must
necessarily originate from the public prosecutors whose mission is to obtain a
successful prosecution of the several accused before the courts. The latter do not
as a rule have a vision of the true strength of the prosecutions evidence until
after the trial is over. Consequently, courts should generally defer to the
judgment of the prosecution and deny a motion to discharge an accused so he
can be used as a witness only in clear cases of failure to meet the requirements
of Section 17, Rule 119.
cause of the accusation against her. Such error would not result in the acquittal
of the accused.
If the subject matter of the offense is generic or one which is not described with
such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged, then an erroneous
designation of the offended party is material and would result in the violation of
the accuseds constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against her.
informed of the accuseds death, the Court of Appeals issued the Decision in
2014.
ISSUE: What is the effect of the death of the accused to the criminal
aspect and civil aspect of the case?
Upon the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal
action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the
accused; the civil action instituted therein for the recovery of civil liability ex
delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal action. The
death of the accused-appellant herein, thus, extinguished his criminal liability, as
well as his civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the crime
committed. Accordingly, the Court's Decision dated June 4, 2014 had been
rendered ineffectual and the same must therefore be set aside.