You are on page 1of 6

RULE 117 while victim/deceased Emilio A. Prasmo was walking along A.

Bonifacio Street,
Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an accused has Barangay Sta. Lucia, Novaliches, this City, together with his wife and daughter in-
been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise law, accused pursuant to their conspiracy armed with sumpak, samurai, lead pipe and
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a .38 cal. revolver rob EMILIO A. PRASMO and took and carried away P7,000.00,
valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and Philippine currency, and by reason or on the occasion thereof, with evident
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the premeditation, abuse of superior strength and treachery, accused with intent to kill[,]
conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to attack, assault and employ personal violence upon EMILIOA. PRASMO by then and
another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same there shooting and hacking the victim with the use of said weapons, thereby
or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily inflicting upon him serious and grave wounds which were the direct and immediate
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Emilio
A. Prasmo.
When arraigned, all the accused-appellants entered a plea of not guilty except
People vs De Leon, 754 SCRA 147
accused Antonio. Thus, the RTC ordered a reverse trial in so far as Antonio is
concerned.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. The RTC did not find the accused guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide as
BAYANI DE LEON, ANTONIO DE LEON, DANILO DE LEON and YOYONG charged in the Information, but found all the accused guilty of the crime of murder.
DE LEON, Accused-Appellants. According to the RTC, contrary to the charge of robbery with homicide, the accused
is guilty of the crime of murder because the prosecution failed to establish the crime
G.R. No. 197546 of robbery. The RTC, citing People v. Nimo,23 ratiocinated that in order to sustain a
March 23, 2015 conviction for robbery with homicide, robbery must be proven as conclusively as the
Ponente: PEREZ, J.: killing itself.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the ruling of the
RTC and found all of the accused guilty of the crime of murder. However, contrary
to the findings of the RTC with regard to the crime of robbery, the Court of Appeals
Nature of Case:
reversed the ruling of the RTC and found accused Danilo guilty of the separate crime
Petition for Review (Appeal)
of robbery.
BRIEF
For review is the conviction for the crime of Murder of accused-appellants BAYANI
DE LEON (Bayani), ANTONIO DE LEON (Antonio), DANILO DE LEON ISSUE/S of the CASE
(Danilo), and YOYONG DE LEON (Yoyong) by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),1 1. Whether or not the accused appellant can be convicted for crime of murder
in Criminal Case No. Q-02-113990, which Decision2 was affirmed with which is different from the crime filed in the information which is robbery
modifications by the Court of Appeals. The accused-appellants were charged with with Homicide. Yes
Robbery with Homicide.
2. Whether or not the accused appellant Danilo De Leon was placed in double
FACTS jeopardy when the appellate court also found him guilty of robbery based
on the same information filed where he was already found guilty of murder.
The accused-appellants were charged with Robbery with Homicide under an Yes
Information which reads:
That on or about the 2nd day of March, 2002, in Quezon City, Philippines, the ACTIONS of the COURT
above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping RTC: Accused appelants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
one another, with intent to gain, by means of violence and/or intimidation against MURDER
[sic] person, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob one EMILIO
A. PRASMO, in the following manner, to wit: on the date and place aforementioned,
CA: AFFIRMED in toto with the added MODIFICATION that accused-appellant
Danilo de Leon is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of In case at bar, it is undisputed the presence of all the elements of double
Robbery jeopardy: (1) a valid Information for robbery with homicide was filed; (2)
SC: The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED except for the modification which was the Information was filed in the court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the
aside. accused pleaded not guilty to the charge; and (4) the RTC acquitted Danilo
for the crime of robbery for lack of sufficient evidence, which amounted to
an acquittal from which no appeal can be had. Indeed the conviction for
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS murder was premised on the fact that robbery was not proven. The RTC
Decision which found accused guilty of the crime of murder and not of
1. With regard to the crime charged, accused-appellants are guilty of the crime robbery with homicide on the ground of insufficiency of evidence is a
of Murder instead of Robbery with Homicide. As borne by the records, the judgment of acquittal as to the crime of robbery alone.
only intent of the accused-appellants was to kill Emilio. The "accused-
appellants had an axe to grind against Emilio x x x. The means used by the As the first jeopardy already attached, the appellate court is precluded from
accused-appellants as well as the nature and number of wounds - ruling on the innocence or guilt of Danilo of the crime of robbery. To once
debilitating, fatal and multiple inflicted by appellants on the deceased again rule on the innocence or guilt of the accused of the same crime
manifestly revealed their design to kill him. The robbery committed by transgresses the Constitutional prohibition not to put any person "twice x x
appellant Danilo [was on] the spur of the moment or [was] a mere x in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense."26 As it stands, the
afterthought." acquittal on the crime of robbery based on lack of sufficient evidence is
immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double
As we already held, the nature and location of wounds are considered jeopardy.27 A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. In fact, the
important indicators which disprove a plea of self-defense. A perusal of the Court cannot, even an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of
evidence would depict the presence of a deliberate onslaught against evidence, review the verdict of acquittal of the trial court28 due to the
Emilio. The means used by accused-appellants as shown by the nature, constitutional proscription, the purpose of which is to afford the defendant,
location and number of wounds sustained by Emilio are so much more than who has been acquitted, final repose and safeguard from government
sufficient to repel or prevent any alleged attack of Emilio against accused- oppression through the abuse of criminal processes.29 The crime of robbery
appellant Antonio. Evidently, the accused-appellants intent to kill was was not proven during the trial. As we discussed, the acquittal of the
clearly established by the nature and number of wounds sustained by accused-appellant, including Danilo, is not reversible.
Emilio. The wounds sustained by Emilio indubitably reveal that the assault
was no longer an act of self-defense but a homicidal aggression on the part SUPREME COURT RULING:
of accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. Accused-Appellants BAYANI DE LEON, ANTONIO DE
2. We find that the appellate court erred for violating the constitutional right of LEON, DANILO DE LEON and YOYONG DE LEON are hereby declared guilty
Danilo against double jeopardy as enshrined in Section 21, Article III of the beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are sentenced to suffer the
1987 Constitution, to wit: penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused-appellants are ordered to pay Emilio
Prasmo's heirs the following amounts: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for Emilio
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the Prasmo's death, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary
same offense.1wphi1 If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, damages.
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.24 All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
finality until fully paid.
Double jeopardy attaches if the following elements are present: (1) a valid
complaint or information; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the SO ORDERED.
defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (4) the defendant was acquitted, or
convicted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent.25
RULE 119 Respondent Lucita Parane is the spouse of victim Ruben Parane.
Section 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness.
On January 22, 1997, petitioner applied for bail. The prosecution, on March 4, 1997,
Salvanera vs People, 523 SCRA 147 moved for the discharge of accused Feliciano Abutin and Domingo Tampelix, to
serve as state witnesses.
Rimberto T. Salvanera, petitioner
vs.
People of the Philippines and Lucita Parane, responedents ISSUE/S of the CASE
1. Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it
denied the motion to discharge accused Abutin and Tampelix to be state
G.R. No. 143093 witnesses. -Yes
May 21, 2007 2. Whether or not the cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner is proper. -Yes
Ponente: Puno, C.J.
ACTIONS of the COURT
RTC: Granted petitioners application for bail and denied the prosecutions motion
for the discharge of accused Abutin and Tampelix.
Nature of Case: CA: Discharged accused Feliciano Abutin and Domingo Tampelix from the
Petition for Review (Appeal) Information to become state witnesses, and cancelled the bail bond of petitioner
Salvanera.
BRIEF SC: The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
On appeal are the Decision dated April 30, 1999 and the two Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals, dated September 22, 1999 and May 11, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No.
46945. The Court of Appeals discharged accused Feliciano Abutin and Domingo COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS
Tampelix from the Information in Criminal Case No. TM-1730 for Murder, pending
before the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City, to become state witnesses. 1. In the discharge of an accused in order that he may be a state witness, the
The appellate court likewise cancelled the bail bond of petitioner Rimberto following conditions must be present, namely:
Salvanera.
(1) Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an
offense;
FACTS
(2) The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its
In an Information1 dated November 30, 1996, petitioner Rimberto Salvanera, case;
together with Feliciano Abutin, Edgardo Lungcay and Domingo Tampelix, is charged
with the murder of Ruben Parane, committed as follows: (3) The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement
of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge;
That on or about October 23, 1995, in the Municipality of Gen. Trias, Province of
Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- (4) The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, with
(5) The trial court is satisfied that:
treachery and evident premeditation, then armed with a firearm, did, then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot one RUBEN PARANE a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused
Y MAGSAMBOL, inflicting gunshot wound on his body, resulting to his whose discharge is requested;
instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
As per theory of the prosecution, petitioner was the alleged mastermind; Lungcay, prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said
the hired hitman; Abutin, the driver of the motorcycle which carried Lungcay to the accused;
place of the commission of the crime; while Tampelix delivered the blood money to
the latter. All the accused have been arrested and detained, except Edgardo Lungcay c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated
who remained at-large. in its material points;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and, 2. We affirm the ruling of the appellate court in cancelling the bail bond of petitioner.
The grant of petitioners application for bail is premature. It has to await the
e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense testimony of state witnesses Abutin and Tampelix. Their testimonies must be given
involving moral turpitude. their proper weight in determining whether the petitioner is entitled to bail.
The corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not have to consist of the
very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed state witnesses. We have SUPREME COURT RULING:
ruled that "a conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a fellow criminal than IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED and the Decision and Resolutions of
by any other method. If it is shown that the statements of the conspirator are the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 46945, dated April 30, 1999, September 22,
corroborated by other evidence, then we have convincing proof of veracity. Even if 1999 and May 11, 2000, respectively, are AFFIRMED in toto.
the confirmatory testimony only applies to some particulars, we can properly infer
that the witness has told the truth in other respects." It is enough that the testimony SO ORDERED.
of a co-conspirator is corroborated by some other witness or evidence. In the case at
bar, we are satisfied from a reading of the records that the testimonies of Abutin and
Tampelix are corroborated on important points by each others testimonies and the
circumstances disclosed through the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses,
and "to such extent that their trustworthiness becomes manifest."
As part of the conspiracy, Abutin and Tampelix can testify on the criminal plan of the
conspirators. Where a crime is contrived in secret, the discharge of one of the
conspirators is essential because only they have knowledge of the crime. 8 The other
prosecution witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the crime, as, in fact, there is none. No
one except the conspirators knew and witnessed the murder. The testimonies of the
accused and proposed state witnesses Abutin and Tampelix can directly link
petitioner to the commission of the crime.
The decision to grant immunity from prosecution forms a constituent part of the
prosecution process. It is essentially a tactical decision to forego prosecution of a
person for government to achieve a higher objective. It is a deliberate renunciation of
the right of the State to prosecute all who appear to be guilty of having committed a
crime. Its justification lies in the particular need of the State to obtain the conviction
of the more guilty criminals who, otherwise, will probably elude the long arm of the
law. Whether or not the delicate power should be exercised, who should be extended
the privilege, the timing of its grant, are questions addressed solely to the sound
judgment of the prosecution. The power to prosecute includes the right to determine
who shall be prosecuted and the corollary right to decide whom not to prosecute.

In reviewing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in these areas, the jurisdiction of


the respondent court is limited. For the business of a court of justice is to be an
impartial tribunal, and not to get involved with the success or failure of the
prosecution to prosecute. Every now and then, the prosecution may err in the
selection of its strategies, but such errors are not for neutral courts to rectify, any
more than courts should correct the blunders of the defense. For fairness demands
that courts keep the scales of justice at equipoise between and among all litigants.
Due process demands that courts should strive to maintain the legal playing field
perfectly even and perpetually level.
RULE 119 known as the Gorordo property, affixed her signature to the document. Hence, the
Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. When it satisfactorily criminal case.
appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as
directed by the order of the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date Earlier, on September 10, 1999, Concepcion, who was a resident of Cebu City, while
of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the on vacation in Manila, was unexpectedly confined at the Makati Medical Center due
case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence to upper gastro-intestinal bleeding; and was advised to stay in Manila for further
after reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on him, shall be treatment.
conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the
accused to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The
statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused. On November 24, 1999, respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of the
Proceedings in Criminal Case No. CBU-52248 on the ground of prejudicial question.
Vda. de Manguerra vs Risos, 563 SCRA 471 They argued that Civil Case No. CEB-20359, which was an action for declaration of
nullity of the mortgage, should first be resolved.8 On May 11, 2000, the RTC granted
CONCEPCION CUENCO VDA. DE MANGUERRA and THE HON. RAMON C. the aforesaid motion. Concepcions motion for reconsideration was denied on June 5,
CODILLA, JR., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 2000.9
19, petitioners,
vs. This prompted Concepcion to institute a special civil action for certiorari before the
RAUL RISOS, SUSANA YONGCO, LEAH ABARQUEZ and ATTY. GAMALIEL CA seeking the nullification of the May 11 and June 5 RTC orders. The case was
D.B. BONJE, respondents. docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60266 and remains pending before the appellate court
to date.10
G.R. No. 152643
On August 16, 2000, the counsel of Concepcion filed a motion to take the latters
August 28, 2008
deposition. He explained the need to perpetuate Concepcions testimony due to her
NACHURA, J.:
weak physical condition and old age, which limited her freedom of mobility.
At the outset, the CA observed that there was a defect in the respondents petition by
Nature of Case: not impleading the People of the Philippines, an indispensable party. This
Petition for review on certiorari notwithstanding, the appellate court resolved the matter on its merit, declaring that
the examination of prosecution witnesses, as in the present case, is governed by
BRIEF Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and not Rule 23 of
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Rules of Court. The latter provision, said the appellate court, only applies to civil
assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated August 15, 2001 and its cases. Pursuant to the specific provision of Section 15, Rule 119, Concepcions
Resolution2 dated March 12, 2002. The CA decision set aside the Regional Trial deposition should have been taken before the judge or the court where the case is
Court (RTC) Orders dated August 25, 20003 granting Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de pending, which is the RTC of Cebu, and not before the Clerk of Court of Makati
Manguerras (Concepcions) motion to take deposition, and dated November 3, City; and thus, in issuing the assailed order, the RTC clearly committed grave abuse
20004 denying the motion for reconsideration of respondents Raul G. Risos, Susana of discretion.
Yongco, Leah Abarquez, and Atty. Gamaliel D.B. Bonje.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
Whether or not the examination of prosecution witnesses in the present case is
FACTS
governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and
not Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. Yes, Rule 119 applies
On November 4, 1999, respondents were charged with Estafa Through Falsification
of Public Document before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19, through a criminal
ACTIONS of the COURT
information dated October 27, 1999, which was subsequently amended on November
RTC: No. RTC granted the motion and directed that Concepcions deposition be
18, 1999. The case, docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-52248,5 arose from the
taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati City.
falsification of a deed of real estate mortgage allegedly committed by respondents
CA: Yes. Set aside decision of RTC and any deposition that may have been taken on
where they made it appear that Concepcion, the owner of the mortgaged property
the authority of such void orders is similarly declared void.
SC: The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
The contention does not persuade.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS
The very reason offered by the petitioners to exempt Concepcion from the coverage
It is basic that all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case in the of Rule 119 is at once the ground which places her squarely within the coverage of
presence of the judge.25 This is especially true in criminal cases in order that the the same provision. Rule 119 specifically states that a witness may be conditionally
accused may be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses pursuant to examined: 1) if the witness is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial; or 2) if the
his constitutional right to confront the witnesses face to face.26 It also gives the witness has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning. Thus, when
parties and their counsel the chance to propound such questions as they deem Concepcion moved that her deposition be taken, had she not been too sick at that
material and necessary to support their position or to test the credibility of said time, her motion would have been denied. Instead of conditionally examining her
witnesses.27 Lastly, this rule enables the judge to observe the witnesses outside the trial court, she would have been compelled to appear before the court for
demeanor.28 examination during the trial proper.

This rule, however, is not absolute. As exceptions, Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of To reiterate, the conditional examination of a prosecution witness for the purpose of
Court provide for the different modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a party taking his deposition should be made before the court, or at least before the judge,
to an action. These rules are adopted either to perpetuate the testimonies of witnesses where the case is pending. Such is the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the
or as modes of discovery. In criminal proceedings, Sections 12,29 1330 and 15,31 Rules. We find no necessity to depart from, or to relax, this rule. As correctly held by
Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on the CA, if the deposition is made elsewhere, the accused may not be able to attend,
December 1, 2000, allow the conditional examination of both the defense and as when he is under detention. More importantly, this requirement ensures that the
prosecution witnesses. judge would be able to observe the witness deportment to enable him to properly
assess his credibility. This is especially true when the witness testimony is crucial to
In the case at bench, in issue is the examination of a prosecution witness, who, the prosecutions case.
according to the petitioners, was too sick to travel and appear before the trial court.
Section 15 of Rule 119 thus comes into play, and it provides: While we recognize the prosecutions right to preserve its witness testimony to
prove its case, we cannot disregard rules which are designed mainly for the
Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. When it satisfactorily protection of the accuseds constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during trial
appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as is the general rule. The conditional examination of a witness outside of the trial is
directed by the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of only an exception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules.
returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the
case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence SUPREME COURT RULING:
after reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on him, shall be
conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision and
accused to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The Resolution dated August 25, 2000 and March 12, 2002, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP
statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused. No. 62551, are AFFIRMED.

Petitioners contend that Concepcions advanced age and health condition exempt her SO ORDERED.
from the application of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and
thus, calls for the application of Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

You might also like