Professional Documents
Culture Documents
prosecution of the case may still resume in the trial court, as decided by the
Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the
respondent Court of Appeals dated August 31, 1994 is AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.
PEOPLE v VILLALON
G.R. No. 43659 : December 21, 1990.]
192 SCRA 521
Facts:
Complainant Mariano Carrera and his brother, Severo Carrera, are coowners of a parcel of land located at Barrio Buenlag, Binmaley, Pangasinan,
registered in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47682. That
on or about the 15th day of February, 1964, in the City of Dagupan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above named
accused FEDERICO DE GUZMAN, being then a private individual, after having
in his possession Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47682, did then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally falsify and forge the signature of one
MARIANO F. CARRERA, in a Power of Attorney, causing and making it appear
that the said MARIANO F. CARRERA, signed and affixed his signature in the
said Power of Attorney, which is a public document, when as a matter of fact
and in truth, said MARIANO F. CARRERA, did not in anyway (sic) participate in
any acts thereof, nor gave his permission, and in order to make good the
acts of falsification, with intent of gain and by means of fraud and other
deceits, the said accused FEDERICO DE GUZMAN, thru the said falsified
public document (Power of Attorney) did succeed in securing the loan from
the People's Bank and Trust Company in the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P8,500.00) Philippine currency, without the
knowledge and consent of said MARIANO F. CARRERA, to the damage and
prejudice of the latter in the amount of P4,250.00, and other consequential
damages. As earlier noted, then Presiding Judge Manuel Castaeda of the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch III, dismissed the case on
January 28, 1976 on the ground that the crime had prescribed. The People's
motion for reconsideration was denied by the succeeding Presiding Judge
Felicidad Carandang Villalon. On March 25, 1976, the prosecution filed a
notice of appeal from both orders of the trial court
Issue :
Whether the People could appeal from the order of dismissal because
the private respondent would thereby be placed in double jeopardy;
Ruling:
As a general rule, the dismissal or termination of the case after
arraignment and plea of the defendant to a valid information shall be a bar
to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit
the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes
or is necessarily included in the complaint or information (Section 9, Rule
113). However, an appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal (of
the criminal case) by the trial court shall not constitute double jeopardy if (1)
the dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent, of the
defendant, and (2) the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon
consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case; and (3) the
question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that
should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded
to the court of origin for further proceedings, to determine the guilt or
innocence of the defendant. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit and the challenged orders of public respondent are
AFFIRMED.
People v. Esparas
73 SCAD 275 (1996)
Facts:
Esparas was charged with violation of DDA for importing 20kg of
shabu. After arraignment and pleading not guilty, she escaped from jail and
was tried in absentia. She was found guilty and was sentenced to death. She
remains at large at present.
Issue:
Whether the Court may proceed to automatically review Esparass
death sentence despite her absence.
Held:
Yes, the Court held that its power to review a decision imposing the
death penalty cannot be waived either by the accused or by the courts.
There, the Court said, mainly, that the judgment of conviction (capital
punishment of death) entered on trial is not final, cannot be executed, and is
wholly without force or effect until the cause has been passed upon by the
Supreme Court. TC acts as a commissioner who takes the testimony and
reports the same to the Court with its recommendation. A decision of TC
does not become final unless and until it has been reviewed by the Court. An
accused who was sentenced with the highest penalty is entitled under the
law to have the sentence and all the facts and circumstances upon which it is
founded placed before the Court, as the highest tribunal of the land, to the
end that its justice and legality may be clearly and conclusively determined.
Such procedure is merciful. It gives a second chance for life. The 1973
Constitution did not also prohibit death penalty. Sec. 9, Rule 122 provided the
procedure for review of death penalty cases by the Court. Sec. 10, Rule 122
of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure even reenacted said procedure of
review and even expressly used the term "automatic review and judgment"
by the Court. the Court reiterated the rule that escape of a death convict will
not automatically result in the dismissal of his appeal. This is the text and
tone of Sec. 10, Rule 122, which is the more applicable rule. There is more
wisdom in mandating the review by the Court of all death penalty cases,
regardless of the wish of the convict and regardless of the will of the Court.
Nothing less than life is at stake and any court decision authorizing the State
to take life must be as error-free as possible. An appellant may withdraw his
appeal not because he is guilty but because of his wrong perception of the
law, or because he may want to avail of the more speedy remedy of pardon,
or because of his frustration and misapprehension that he will not get justice
from the authorities. The Court has the duty to review all death penalty
cases. No litigant can repudiate this power which is bestowed by the
Constitution. The power is more of a sacred duty which the Court has to
discharge to assure the People that the innocence of a citizen is the main
concern especially in crimes that that shock the conscience. This principle is
implicit in the Constitution which recognizes that an accused, to be right,
while the majority, even if overwhelming, has no right to be wrong. counsel
for the accused is given a new period of 30 days from notice hereof to file
the brief of esparas.
DE JOYA v MARQUEZ
227 SCRA 9 (1993)
Facts:
Manuel Dy filed a criminal case against Hao and Tan for syndicated
estafa. Dy complained that he was enticed to invest in large sum of money in
State Resources Development Management Corporation wherein he issued
several checks amounting to almost P114M and in turn the corporation
issued several checks to Dy where were dishonored due to insufficient funds.
A resolution was issued by Prosecutor Nicdao finding probable cause to indict
petitioner and his other co-accused for syndicated estafa and a copy of the
articles of incorporation of the aforementioned corporation named petitioner
as incorporator and director to which they had knowledge of its activities and
transactions. The court finds that these documents sufficiently establish the
existence of probable cause. The petitioner then filed for certiorari and
prohibition to nullify the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Marquez for estafa.
Petitioner asserts that respondents judge erred in finding probable cause
justifying the issuance of the warrant against him and his co-accused.
Issue:
May De Joya seek relief from court/trial even though he continuously
refuses to surrender and submit to the Courts jurisdictions?
Ruling:
No, a person is not entitled to seek relief from the Supreme Court nor
from the trial court where he continuously refuses to surrender and submit to
the courts jurisdiction. His continued refusal to submit to the courts
jurisdiction should give this Court more reason to uphold the action of the
respondent judge. The purpose of a warrant of arrest is to place the accused
under the custody of the law to hold him for trial of the charges against him.
It should be remembered that he who invokes the courts jurisdiction must
first submit to its jurisdiction.
People v. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 129211, October 2, 2000
Appeal See: Rule 122 Section 11 (Effect of Appeal by any of several accused)
FACTS:
Artellero was employed as a cement mixer and helper of co-accused
Rodriguez, a mason in the construction of the upper floors of the Far East
Bank and Trust Company - Manila. Both were charged with the crime of
robbery with homicide for the killing of the bank security guard, Matias. On
October 11, 1991, early in the morning, at the FEBTC-Manila, a messenger
discovered the lifeless body of Matias, inside the bank premises. The body
was hogtied with a nylon cord, and bore 32 stab wounds. The chairs and
tables inside the bank were in disarray. The banks emergency exit vault bore
chisel marks. At around 6:00 A.M., SPO3 Mendoza and two other officers of
the WPD arrived after receiving a report on the incident. They interviewed
the bank janitor, a Mr. Cawagdan, and the other security guard, Vargas. Then
they ordered the transfer of the body of Matias to the morgue. The police
found a bloodstained scissors mate inside a podium located near the main
entrance of the bank. The head guard of the bank's security agency also
reported that three .38 cal. revolvers and five 12 gauge shotguns were
missing from the guard rostrum. On October 18, 1991, Artellero and
Rodriguez were charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
After due trial, the trial court rendered a decision finding Artellero and
Rodriguez guilty of murder, instead of robbery with homicide. The charge of
Robbery with Homicide is dismissed it being not the proper charge. Both the
accused are acquitted from the charge of Robbery for insufficiency of
evidence. Both appealed. However, Rodriguez withdrew his appeal for
financial reasons.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal taken by Artellero shall affect Rodriguez's
conviction or acquittal despite withdrawal of his appeal
Held: Yes. Although it is only Artellero who persisted with the present appeal,
the well established rule is that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws
the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised
by the parties. The records show that Rodriguez had withdrawn his appeal
due to financial reasons. However, Section 11 (a) of Rule 122 of the Rules of
Court provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall
not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellant court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Rule 122 Section 11
(Effect of Appeal by any of several accused) (a) An appeal taken by one or
more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to
the latter; (b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not
affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from. (c) Upon
perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order
appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party. As we have
elucidated, the evidence against and the conviction of both Artellero and
Rodriguez are inextricably linked. Hence, Artellero's acquittal, which is
favorable and applicable to Rodriguez, should benefit the latter. The decision
of the trial court was REVERSED. Artellero and Rodriguez are ACQUITTED.