WHAT IS THE BASIS IN DETERMINING THE NATURE
OF AN ACTION AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT?
Civil Procedure
It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and
whether the tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction
over such action are to be determined from:
 the material allegations of the complaint,
 the law in force at the time the complaint
is filed, and
 the character of the relief sought
irrespective of whether plaintiff is
entitled to all or some of the claims
averred.
Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the
theories set up by the defendant in an answer to
the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.
Otherwise, jurisdiction would be dependent
almost entirely upon the whims of defendants. (AC
Enterprise vs. Frabelle Properties Corp. G.R. No.
166744. Nov. 2, 2006, Callejo, J).
RA 7975
I. Jurisdiction of the SBN
1. Violations of RA 3019 – The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, RA 1379, Chapter II,
Sec. 2, Title VII of the RPC where one of the
principal accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government,
whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity at the time of the commission of the
offense, like –
a. Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional
director or higher otherwise classified as
grade 27 and up;
b. Members of Congress and officials
thereof classified as grade 27 and up;
c. Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
d. Chairmen and Members of the
Constitutional Commissions without
prejudice to the Constitution;
e. All other national and local officials
classified as grade 27 and higher.
2. Other offense and felonies committed by the
public officials in relation to their office;
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A;
II. Officers not occupying grade 27 or higher.
Jurisdiction is vested in the proper MTC, RTC as
the case may be.
1. SB has exclusive appellate jurisdiction on
appeals from the final judgments,
resolutions or orders of regular courts
where all the accused are occupying
positions lower than grade 27;
2. SB has exclusive original jurisdiction over
petitions for the issuance of the writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunction and other ancillary writ
and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction, provided that the jurisdiction
over these petitions shall not be exclusive of
the SC;
(Note: This means that that these petitions can be
filed directly with the SC).
3. All cases elevated to the SB and from the SB,
the office of the Ombudsman shall represent
the state, thru its special prosecutor;
4. If a private individual is charged with a public
officer, they shall be triad jointly;
a. Criminal and civil actions for the recovery
of civil liability arising from the offense
shall be filed simultaneously or be deemed
to be jointly filed;
b. No reservation of the right to file a civil
action;
c. If the civil action has been filed ahead and
no judgment yet when the criminal is filed,
the civil cases shall be transferred to the
SB or appropriate court for consolidation
and joint determination with the criminal,
otherwise, the separate civil action shall be
deemed abandoned;
III.
1. Final orders and judgments shall have findings
of facts.
2. Petition for reconsideration to be filed within 15
days from promulgation or notice of the orders,
etc.. Motion for Reconsideration to be decided
within 30 days from submission.
3. Decisions to be enforced in the manner
prescribed by law.
4. Decisions and final orders of courts appealable
within 15 days from promulgation.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE FINDINGS
OF FACTS BY THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN?
Civil Procedure
What is the nature of the findings of facts by the
Office of the Ombudsman?
Section 27(2) of R.A. No. 6770 provides that findings
of facts by the Office of Ombudsman are
conclusive when supported by substantial
evidence. Thus, as long as there is substantial
evidence to support the Ombudsman’s decision, it
will not be reversed. The rationale of the rule is that,
it is based not only upon respect for the investigatory
and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution
to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality
as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be
grievously hampered by innumerable petitions
assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with
regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same
way that the courts would be extremely swamped if
they could be compelled to review the exercise of
discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting
attorneys each time they decide to file an information
in court or dismiss a complaint by a private
complainant. (Young v. Office of the Ombudsman,
G.R. No. 110736, December 27, 1993, 228 SCRA
718; Ocampo v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 103446-47,
August 30, 1993).
AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO SIGN AND ISSUE
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION?
Civil Procedure
Is a Special Prosecutor authorized by law to sign
and issue preventive suspension?
No. With respect to the conduct of administrative
investigation, the Special Prosecutor’s authority,
insofar as preventive suspension is concerned, is akin
to that of the PIAB-A, i.e., recommendatory in nature.
It bears stressing that the power to place a public
officer or employee under preventive suspension
pending an investigation is lodged only with the
Ombudsman or the Deputy Ombudsmen.
Consequently, petitioner Special Prosecutory
Villa Ignacio had no authority to issue the March 17,
2004 Order placing respondent Valera under
preventive suspension for six months without pay in
connection with the administrative case OMB-C-A-
03-0379-J. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Atty.
Valera, G.R. No. 164250, September 30, 2005,
Callejo, J).
Forum Shopping
When forum shopping exists.
Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an
adverse judgment in one forum, a party seeks another
and possibly favorable judgment in another forum
other than by appeal or special civil action for
certiorari. There is also forum shopping when a party
institutes two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one
or the other court would make a favorable disposition.
(Mun. of Taguig v. CA, G.R. No. 142619, September
13, 2005, 469 SCRA 588; Fels Energy, Inc. v. The
Province of Batangas, et al., G.R. No. 168557,
February 16, 2007).
Factor that determines the existence of forum
shopping.
An important factor in determining the
existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to
the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of
similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.
The rationale against forum shopping is that a party
should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple
petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court
processes, which tends to degrade the administration
of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial
procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily
burdened dockets of the courts. (Wee v. Galvez, G.R.
No. 147394, August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 96; Fels
Energy Inc. v. Province of Batangas, et al., G.R. No.
168557, February 16, 2007).
There is forum shopping when there exist: (a)
identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent
the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded
on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two
preceding particulars is such that any judgment
rendered in the pending case, regardless of which
party is successful, would amount to res judicata in
the other. (Fels Energy, Inc. v. The Province of
Batangas, et al.).
FORUM SHOPPING AND ITS EFFECTS
Civil Procedure
Forum Shopping And Its Effects
1. Concept
There is forum shopping when as a result of an
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks
favorable opinion, other than by appeal or
certiorari in another.
2. Cases
Syjuco vs. Castro, G.R. No. 70403, July 7, 1989
A lawyer was held solidarily liable with his client for
delaying the administration of justice for almost a
quarter of a century. This is the origin of forum
shopping.
Masinsin vs. Albano, G.R. No. 86421, May 31, 1994
For resorting to forum shopping, a lawyer was warned
that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with
more severely.
Forunda vs. Atty. Arnold Guerrero, 480 SCRA
201 [2006]
While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest
of their clients’ right, they should not forget that they
are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to
exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. In this case, a lawyer was
suspended due to forum shopping.
Bong Siong Yao vs. Atty. Leonardo Aurelio, 485
SCRA 553
Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession
for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for
instigating hostility against any person – most
especially against a client or former client.
Huibona vs. Concepcion, et al., G.R. No. 153785,
August 31, 2006
The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of
court processes which degrades the administration of
justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure
and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened
dockets of the courts.
Case references:
Balaoing vs. Calderon, 221 SCRA 533
Kalilid Wood Industries Corp. vs. CA, 197 SCRA 735
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park vs. CA, August 5,
1998
PRC vs. CA, G.R. No. 117817
PRC vs. Nitafan, G.R. No. 110437, July 9, 1998
Aldez Realty, Inc. vs. CA, 212 SCRA 623
Guilty of forum shopping. - G. R. No. 193415
II. Petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping.
Petitioners have committed two distinct acts of
forum-shopping,[49] namely: (1) petitioners willfully
and deliberately went to different courts to avail
themselves of multiple judicial remedies founded on
similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs,
and (2) they did not comply with their undertaking to
report the filing of the Second Complaint within five
days from its filing.
A. Petitioners filed multiple suits based on similar
facts while seeking similar reliefs—acts proscribed
by the rules on forum-shopping.
We rule that petitioners were guilty of willful and
deliberate forum-shopping when they filed their
Second Complaint with the trial court insofar as they
undertook to obtain similar reliefs as those sought in
the instant Petition.
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the
courts.[53]
In Yu v. Lim,[54] this Court enumerated the requisites
of forum-shopping, as follows:
Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in another.
Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the
following requisites:
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
representing the same interests in both actions;
(2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for,
the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
(3) identity with respect to the two preceding
particulars in the two cases, such that any
judgment that may be rendered in the pending
case, regardless of which party is successful,
would amount to res judicata in the other
case.[55]

Respondent Bank argues that the rights asserted by What is essential in determining the existence of
petitioners, as well as the reliefs petitioners seek in the forum-shopping is the vexation caused the courts and
instant Petition, are identical to those raised in their litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or
Second Complaint.[50] administrative agencies to rule on similar or related
causes and/or grant the same or substantially similar
Petitioners, on the other hand, counter that the reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of
disparity between the two cases lies in the issue to be conflicting decisions being rendered upon the same
resolved. More particularly, they allege that the issue issues.[56]
in this Petition is the summary application of the
payment of 12% interest per annum as a precondition A comparison of the reliefs sought by petitioners in
for the issuance of a writ, as opposed to the issue in the instant Petition and in their Second Complaint
the Second Complaint involving the validity of the confirms that they are substantially similar on two
real estate mortgage and compliance with the rules on points: (1) revocation and cancellation of the
the holding of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.[51] Certificate of Sale and (2) permanent injunction on
any transfer and/or consolidation of title in favor of
Forum shopping is the act of litigants who respondent Bank. These similarities undoubtedly
repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial create the possibility of conflicting decisions from
remedies in different fora, simultaneously or different courts:
successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and Instant Petition Second Complaint
circumstances; and raising substantially similar issues WHEREFORE, it is most WHEREFORE, it is
either pending in or already resolved adversely by respectfully prayed that respectfully prayed
some other court; or for the purpose of increasing their immediately upon filing of of the Honorable
chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not in this petition, the same be Court that pending
one court, then in another.[52] given due course, and an consideration and
order issue, ex parte: hearing on the
The rationale against forum-shopping is that a party principal reliefs
should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous (1) A Resolution be herein prayed for, a
remedies in two different courts, for to do so would issued directing the Ex- Temporary
constitute abuse of court processes which tends to Officio Sheriff and his Restraining order
degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc Assisting Sheriff to undo, (TRO) and/or Writ
upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the cancel, revoke the of Preliminary
Certificate of Sale they Injunction be issued declared
issued; immediately permanent. x x
restraining and/ or x[58](Emphases
(2) Enjoining the stopping the supplied.)
Register of Deeds of defendants Ex-
Paranaque (or any of her Officio Sheriff As illustrated above, there is a clear violation of the
subordinates, agents, Atty. Jerry R. rules on forum-shopping, as the Court is being asked
representatives and persons Toledo and Deputy to grant substantially similar reliefs as those that may
acting in their behalf to Sheriff Paulo Jose also be granted by the trial court, in the process
cease and desist from N. Cusi from creating a possibility of conflicting decisions.
allowing any transfer executing and We emphasize that the grave evil sought to be avoided
and/or consolidation of issuing a final deed by the rule against forum-shopping is the rendition by
respondents banks title to of sale in favor of two competent tribunals of two separate and
the property in the defendant bank contradictory decisions.[59] To avoid any confusion,
question and an order be and further this Court adheres strictly to the rules against forum
issueddirecting the ordering the shopping, and any violation of these rules results in
Register of Deeds to defendant the dismissal of a case.[60]The acts committed and
undo, cancel and revoke Registrar of Deeds described herein can possibly constitute direct
the registration of the of Paranaque City contempt.[61]
Certificate of Sale on to hold in abeyance
November 13, 2009 and the registration of B. Petitioners did not report the filing of their
other proceedings had the final deed of Second Complaint within five (5) days, in violation
thereafter, the petition be sale and other of their undertaking to do so.
given due course and documents of
judgment be rendered as consolidation Aside from the fact that petitioners sought
follows: pending resolution substantially similar reliefs from different courts, they
of this Honorable likewise failed to disclose to this Court the filing of
1. Making the injunction Court. Plaintiffs their Second Complaint within five (5) days from its
permanent. pray for the filing, in violation of their previous undertaking to do
following additional so.[62]
2. Issuing a writ of reliefs:
mandatory injunction for Every litigant is required to notify the court of the
the respondent Ex-Officio 1. After hearing on filing or pendency of any other action or such other
Sheriff to undo, revoke the merits, the Real proceeding involving the same or similar action or
and cancel the Certificate Estate Mortgage be claim within five (5) days of learning of that
of Sale issued and/ or declared and fact.[63] Petitioners claim that it was merely due to
directing the Register of rescinded and/or null inadvertence that they failed to disclose the said filing
Deeds to undo, revoke and void; within five (5) days, contrary to their undertaking. [64]
and cancel the This Court is not inclined to accept this self-serving
registration of the 2. The Certificate explanation. We cannot disregard the glaring fact that
Certificate of Sale and/or of Sale [dated respondents had to call the attention of petitioners to
defer any consolidation of November 4, 2009] the said requirement before the latter admitted that
title in favor of issued by the they had indeed filed their Second Complaint.
respondent bank pending defendant Sheriffs
final resolution of this and its subsequent As previously established, petitioners have violated
petition. registration on two (2) components of forum-shopping, more
November 13, 2009 particularly:
3. Reversing and setting with the Registry of (1) petitioners willfully and deliberately went to
aside the Decision of the Deeds be declared different courts to avail themselves of multiple
Court of Appeals dated null and void; judicial remedies founded on similar facts and
March 24, 2010 and raising substantially similar reliefs, an act which
Resolution dated August 5, 3. After due may be punishable as direct contempt;[65] and
2010.[57] (Emphasis hearing, the (2) they did not comply with their undertaking to
supplied.) preliminary report the filing of the Second Complaint within
injunction be five days from its filing. The latter action may
 also possibly be construed as a separate count for
indirect contempt.
While in a limited sense, petitioners have already been
given the chance to rebut the prayer to hold them in
contempt, We hereby provide sufficient avenue for
them to explain themselves by requiring them to show
cause, within fifteen (15) days, why they should not
be held in direct and indirect contempt of court.
A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE
AWAY) - Jose C. Sison () - October 10, 2006 –
To curb the malpractice of a party from instituting two
or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same
cause with the intention of getting a favorable
decision from one or the other courts, the Rules now
require that every case filed must be accompanied by
a "Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping". The plaintiff
or the principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a
claim for relief that he has not commenced any action
or filed any complaint involving the same issues in
any other court and that no such other action is
pending therein. Without such certification, the case
will be dismissed (Section 5, Rule 7 Rules of Court).
The question arising in this case of the spouses Ric
and Vera is on whether such certificate is likewise
required in the filing of a compulsory counterclaim to
the complaint they have filed.
The spouses were the registered owners of a parcel of
land with an area of 19,405 square meters. They
mortgaged the said land in favor of a Rural Bank (the
bank) to secure a loan of P515,000 which they
obtained from said bank. When the bank foreclosed
the mortgage and auctioned the property with the
bank emerging as the highest bidder and
consolidating ownership over the property, Ric and
Vera sued the bank before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) for annulment of the foreclosure sale and
damages. The spouses claimed that no prior demand
or notice was given them before instituting the
foreclosure proceeding. They further alleged that the
foreclosure sale was conducted without proper
publication as the Sheriff’s notice was published in a
newspaper that was not of general circulation. They
claimed that they were not notified of the foreclosure
sale and were not given an opportunity to redeem their
property.
In answer, the bank denied specifically the said
allegations of the spouses alleging that oral and
written demands were made upon the spouses to pay
their loan but they ignored them; that proper notice of
the filing of the petition for foreclosure was given
them; that there was proper notices and publication of
the foreclosure sale through public auction; and that
the spouses were actually given more than two years
to redeem their property, but they failed to do so. By
way of compulsory counterclaim, the bank alleged
that because of the spouses’ clearly unfounded action,
it suffered actual damages of P100,000;
compensatory damages of P100,000; moral damages
of P500,000 and litigation expenses of P50,000. So
the bank asked that said damages be paid by the
spouses.
In reply, the spouses asked the RTC to dismiss the
counterclaim as it was not accompanied by a
certification against non-forum shopping. Were the
spouses correct?
No. The Rule distinctly provides that the required
certification against forum shopping is intended to
cover an initiatory pleading, meaning an incipient
application of a party asserting a claim for relief. The
bank’s answer with counterclaim is not an initiatory
pleading but a responsive pleading filed merely to
counter the spouses’ complaint that initiates the civil
action. In other words, the rule requiring such
certification does not contemplate a
defendant’s/respondent’s claim for relief that is
derived only from, or is necessarily connected with,
the main action or complaint. In fact upon failure by
the plaintiff to comply with such requirement, the
Rule directs the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, not the dismissal of the defendant’s
counterclaim (Carpio and Orendain vs. Rural Bank of
Sto. Tomas Inc., G.R. 153171).
Unending cases
- Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) - November 28,
2014 - 12:00am
A recent move by the Ombudsman once more brings
to mind the complaint of an ordinary citizen who
opposed her nomination to the position which was
then being considered by the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC). As reported in the major dailies in June 2011,
the lady who opposed her nomination was a party to
a case in the Supreme Court which was decided by the
Ombudsman when she was still an SC Justice. The
case comes to mind again because it gives the
impression that there seems to be no end to court
litigations.
In that case, as reported in the papers, the lady was
found by the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) to have been illegally dismissed by a bank
which was ordered to pay her separation pay of one
month salary for every year of service and retirement
benefits. This decision was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals and when the bank filed a petition before the
SC questioning the CA decision, the SC dismissed it
with finality. But after two years, six months and 19
days, the SC through then Justice Carpio-Morales
resurrected the case and even reversed the NLRC and
CA ruling in her favor. Such ruling is really quite
difficult to comprehend especially to a non-lawyer
like that lady. When a case is dismissed with finality,
can it still be revived after more than two years?
The same question once more surfaced in the recent
action of the Ombudsman who filed another case
against former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez in a
different form and in another forum after four
criminal cases filed against him by the same Office of
the Ombudsman arising from the complaint of Mark
Jimenez way back in 2003 have already been
dismissed with finality. Indeed even Mr. Mark
Jimenez himself was quite dumbfounded as he asked
upon learning the action of the Ombudsman: Hindi ba
double jeopardy na yon?
Record shows that four criminal cases were filed by
the Office of the Ombudsman with the
Sandiganbayan against former Justice Secretary
Perez, as a consequence of the same complaint of
Mark Jimenez in 2003.
The first case was for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act under RA 3019 which landed in
the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. This case
was dismissed on November 13, 2008. The decision
of the Sandiganbayan was elevated by the
Ombudsman to the Supreme Court and docketed as
G. R. No. 188165.
The second case was robbery which went to the
Second Division of the Sandiganbayan. The said
division dismissed this case on November 20, 2008.
The said decision was appealed to the Supreme Court
and docketed as G. R. No. 189063.
The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 188165 (People of
the Philippines vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, et al.) and G.
R. No. 189063 (People of the Philippines vs. Hon.
Sandiganbayan, et al.) sustained the dismissal of both
cases. The Ombudsman filed a motion for
reconsideration and on February 17, 2014, the
Supreme Court denied the Motion for
Reconsideration, with FINALITY and further ordered
that — “NO FURTHER pleadings or motions shall be
entertained herein.” and “Let an ENTRY of
judgment in these cases be made in due course.” In
other words these cases were dismissed twice, once
by the Sandiganbayan and on the second time by the
Supreme Court which dismissed the same with
finality.
The third case was for alleged violation of the SALN
law because Perez allegedly did not include the dollar
deposit in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and
Networth for 2001. This case was dismissed by Third
Division of the Sandiganbayan on June 15, 2011.
The fourth case against Perez was for falsification of
public documents because he allegedly did not
include the dollar deposit in his Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Networth for 2001, which is exactly
the same as the third case against him for violation of
the SALN law. This case was also dismissed, this time
by the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan on May
16, 2014 because “the prosecution failed to present
competent or sufficient evidence against him to
sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt.”
All of these four cases were dismissed one by one by
the First, Second, Third and Fifth Divisions of the
Sandiganbayan. So, from the point of view even of the
common tao, tapos na ang boksing, like the Pacquiao
fight. But after being acquitted in the four criminal
cases and after the lapse of more than ten years since
the alleged victim, Jimenez, complained about it, the
Ombudsman still filed a civil case for forfeiture of the
dollars allegedly received by Perez for which he was
criminally charged and already acquitted. This move
of the Ombudsman is really quite disturbing. It
conveys a chilling message that a person already
absolved in all four criminal cases filed against him
can still be sued civilly for the same subject. This is
not only forum shopping but a form of harassment
since the dismissal of the criminal cases indubitably
shows that there is really no basis for filing the civil
case.

With this recent move, the Ombudsman has further

confirmed the public perception that administration of
justice in this country not only takes so long but seems
to have no end. This is quite unfortunate because the
Ombudsman is supposed to be more efficient,
independent and impartial in the performance of her
job as champion of the people and Tanodbayan.
Announcement: Kindly support the event organized
by the Ateneo High School Class 12J of my grandson
Jigo Sison which happens tomorrow, Nov. 29, 2014 at
the Cervini field of the Ateneo de Manila University
starting at 4 p.m.The event is called EXSTO or the
Latin term meaning “to show one’s self” amply
demonstrating that these young boys are already
grown up and matured enough to organize such a
unique affair consisting of a picnic, concert and
movie for the benefit of the Tulong Dunong and
Katipunan Calamity Fund drive. You can get your
tickets from Cef 639175384694.
G.R. No. 183681 July 27, 2015
SPO2 ROLANDO JAMACA, Petitioner,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N - PERALTA, J.:
This resolves the petition for review on certiorari
seeking the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) promulgated on May 26, 2004 and the
Resolution2 dated June 19, 2008 in CA G.R. CR No.
23887. The CA affirmed the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City (RTC), finding
petitioner SP02 Ro1ando Jamaca guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Grave Threats in Criminal Case
No. 97-1598.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Private complainant Atty. Emilie Bangot filed a
complaint for Grave Threats against petitioner with
the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military,
docketed as OMB-MIL-CRIM-97-0754. He likewise
filed a similar complaint before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City.
In a Resolution3 dated January 26, 1998, the Office of
the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military dismissed
the complaint on the ground that the accusation
against petitioner was unfounded, based solely on the
statement of one Rustom Roxas that there were no
threatening words uttered by petitioner. A petition for
certiorari was filed with this Court to assail said ruling
of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military, but the same was dismissed in a Resolution
dated July 29, 1998, which read, thus:
The petition [or] for certiorari is dismissed for utter
lack of merit, having failed to comply with well nigh
all the relevant requisites laid down by law,
prescinding from the obvious proposition that the
Supreme Court does not review findings and
conclusions of investigators conducting a preliminary
inquiry or investigation into charges of a crime.4
On the other hand, private complainant's complaint
before the Office of the City Prosecutor prospered and
led to the filing of an Information against petitioner.
He was charged with grave threats defined and
penalized under paragraph l of Article 282 of the
Revised Penal Code allegedly committed as follows:
That on [or] about July 22 1997 in the evening, at
Kalambaguhan/Burgos Streets, Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent to kill and moved by personal resentment which
he entertained against Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr., did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
threaten the latter with the infliction upon him of a
wrong amounting to a crime subject to a condition, by
threatening to kill the offended party thus uttering or
shouting words in the presence of: and within the
hearing distance of Jay Jay R. Bangot (son of
offended party) as follows, to wit:
KUNG MATANGTANG AKO SA TRABAHO,
BUAKON KO ANG ULO NI ATTY. BAN GOT ...
which means in English: "If I will loss my work I will
break the head of Atty. Ban got ... ", or words of
similar import, directed to the said offended party,
Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr., without however attaining
accused's purpose, thereby casting fear upon offended
party's person and endangering his life.
Contrary to and in violation of Art. 282, paragraph 1,
of the Revised Penal Code.5
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty and
trial then ensued. The prosecution presented three
witnesses, including the son of private complainant,
who all testified that while petitioner was at the house
of Rustom Roxas, they all heard petitioner utter words
threatening to cause private complainant Atty. Bangot
grave bodily harm. On the other hand, petitioner
insisted that he went to the house of Rustom Roxas, a
relative by affinity of Atty. Bangot, to ask Rustom
Roxas to mediate and reconcile him (petitioner) with
Atty. Bangot. Petitioner denied that he ever
mentioned any threatening words against Atty.
Bangot. Elisea Jamaca, petitioner's wife, corroborated
petitioner's testimony. The prosecution then presented
Phoebe Roxas, the wife of Rustom Roxas, as rebuttal
witness. She testified that she was in the very same
room and clearly heard petitioner utter words to the
effect that if he (petitioner) loses his job, he will break
the head of Atty. Bangot. She also said that Jay
Bangot, the son of private complainant, was also there
in their house, sitting only about two and a half meters
away from petitioner, when petitioner made the
threats against Atty. Bangot.
The trial court, ascribing greater credibility to the
testimony of each of the prosecution witnesses, ruled
that the evidence clearly established the guilt of
petitioner. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered finding accused SP02 Rolando
Jamaca guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of
the offense of GRAVE THREATS defined and
punishable under paragraph 2 of Art. 282 of the
Revised Penal Code without attendance of any
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Consequently, pursuant to said law, he is hereby
sentenced with the accessories of the law as provided
by Art. 44 of the Revised Penal Code, to an
imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day to be
served at the City Jail, Cagayan de Oro City and to
pay a fine in the sum of Five Hundred Pesos (₱500.00)
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
computed at the rate of one (1) day for each eight
pesos but in no case will it exceed one-third of the
term of the sentence.
No pronouncement as to the credit of preventive
imprisonment since accused immediately put up a
bond for his temporary liberty without waiting for his
arrest.
SO ORDERED.6
The trial court's Decision was appealed to the CA and,
on May 26, 2004, the CA promulgated a Decision
affirming in toto petitioner's conviction for the crime
of Grave Threats. Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration was denied by the CA per Resolution
dated June 19, 2008.
Petitioner then filed his Petition for Review on
Certiorari and a Supplemental Petition for Review on
Certiorari with this Court. The only issue presented in
the original petition is whether the CA should have
dismissed the petition outright and ruled that the RTC
had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case
because private complainant was guilty of forum
shopping, having filed similar complaints before both
the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman and the Office
of the City Prosecutor. Subsequently, in his
Supplemental Petition, petitioner raised additional
issues, to wit:
I there was as yet, no indictment to speak of. No
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT
APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
AS THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED
PETITIONER FOR THE CRIME OF GRAVE
THREATS BY THE TRIAL COURT HAD LONG
BEEN DISMISSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR
THE MILITARY IN ITS RESOLUTION OF
JANUARY 26, 1998 FOR EXACTLY THE SAME
CRIME, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THIS
HONORABLE COURT IN G.R. NO. 134664 WHEN
IT DISMISSED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
OF SUCH DISMISSAL AND THAT ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT HAD BEEN MADE ON DECEMBER
1, 1998, HENCE, IF THIS ERRONEOUS
CONVICTION IS NOT REVERSED IN THIS
PETITION FOR REVIEW THE SAME WOULD
[BE] TANTAMOUNT TO VIOLATING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT THE INFORMATION FILED BY
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF
CAGAYAN DE ORO IS NULL AND VOID FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION AS THE OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY
HAD ALREADY DISMISSED THE CASE AFTER
IT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME, THE
PETITIONER BEING A POLICE OFFICER.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO GRAVE
THREATS BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS IN
THE COMPLAINT ARE MERELYHEARSAY.7
The petition is bereft of merit.
It should be borne in mind that for a claim of double
jeopardy to prosper, petitioner has to prove that a
first jeopardy has attached prior to the second. As
stated in Braza v. Sandiganbayan,8 "[t]he first
jeopardy attaches only
(a) after a valid indictment;
(b) before a competent court;
(c) after arraignment;
(d) when a valid plea has been entered; and
(e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted,
or the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent."9
In this case, the complaint before the Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for the Military was dismissed
as early as the preliminary investigation stage, thus,
complaint or Information has been brought before a
competent court. Hence, none of the aforementioned
events has transpired for the first jeopardy to have
attached.
In Vincoy v. Court of Appeals,10 which is closely
analogous to the present case, the private complainant
therein initially filed a complaint with the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Pasay City, but said office
dismissed the complaint. Private complainant then re-
filed the complaint with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Pasig City. The Office of the Prosecutor
of Pasig City found probable cause and filed the
Information against the accused therein. In said case,
the Court categorically held that:
The dismissal of a similar complaint x x x filed by
[private complainant] before the City Prosecutor's
Office of Pasay City will not exculpate the petitioner.
The case cannot bar petitioner's prosecution. It is
settled that the dismissal of a case during its
preliminary investigation does not constitute double
jeopardy since a preliminary investigation is not part
of the trial and is not the occasion for the full and
exhaustive display of the parties' evidence but only
such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an
offense has been committed and accused is probably
guilty thereof. For this reason, it cannot be considered
equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquital.11
The fore going ruling was reiterated in Trinidad v.
Office of the Ombudsman,12 where the Court has
categorically ruled that since the preliminary
investigation stage is not part of the trial, the dismissal
of a case during preliminary investigation would not
put the accused in danger of double jeopardy in the
event of a re-investigation or the filing of a similar
case. An investigating body is not bound by the
findings or resolution of another such office, tribunal
or agency which may have had before it a different or
incomplete set of evidence than what had been
presented during the previous
investigation.13 Therefore, petitioner's indictment
pursuant to the findings of the Office of the City
Prosecutor, and his eventual conviction for the crime
of grave threats, has not placed him in double
jeopardy.
As to petitioner's argument that the information filed
by the Office of the City Prosecutor is null and void
for lack of jurisdiction as the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military had already dismissed
the case, the same is likewise tenuous. In Flores v.
Montemayor,14 the Court clarified that the
Ombudsman's jurisdiction to investigate public
officers and employees as defined under Section 15 of
R.A. No. 6770 is not exclusive, and explained, thus:
This power of investigation granted to the
Ombudsman by the 1987 Constitution and The
Ombudsman Act is not exclusive but is shared with
other similarly authorized government agencies, such
as the PCGG and judges of municipal trial courts and
municipal circuit trial courts. The power to conduct
preliminary investigation on charges against public
employees and officials is likewise concurrently
shared with the Department of Justice. Despite the
passage of the Local Government Code in 1991, the
Ombudsman retains concurrent jurisdiction with the
Office of the President and the local Sanggunians to
investigate complaints against local elective
officials.15
Petitioner's argument that the CA should have
dismissed the petition outright because private
complainant committed forum shopping by filing
similar complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman
for the Military and the Office of the City Prosecutor,
should not be given consideration. The Court stated in
De Guzman v. Ochoa,16 that failure to comply with
the requirements on the rule against forum shopping
is not a ground for the motu proprio dismissal of the
complaint because the rules are clear that said issue
shall cause the dismissal of the case only upon motion
and after hearing.17 More importantly, as the Court
held in S. C. Megaworld Construction and
Development Corporation v. Parada,18 to wit:
It is well-settled that no question will be ente1iaincd
on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings
below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments
not brought to the attention of the lower court,
administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need
not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot
be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic
considerations of fairness and due process impel this
rule. Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is
barred by estoppel.
xxxx
In Young v. John Keng Seng, it was also held that the
question of forum shopping cannot be raised in the
CA and in the Supreme Court, since such an issue
must be raised at the earliest opportunity in a motion
to dismiss or a similar pleading. The high court even
warned that "[i]nvoking it in the later stages of the
proceedings or on appeal may result in the dismissal
of the action x x x.19
With regard to the sufficiency of the evidence
presented by the prosecution, the Court has time and
again abided by the principle that factual findings of
the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of
witnesses and the probative weight of their
testimonies, and the conclusions based on these
factual findings are to be given the highest respect.
Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate and
reexamine evidence that had been analyzed and ruled
upon by the trial court and affirmed by the CA.
Moreover, the supposed inconsistencies of witnesses
in recounting the wordings of the threats uttered by
petitioner, are much too trivial and inconsequential to
put a dent on said witnesses' credibility. As ruled in
People v. Cabtalan,20 "[m]inor inconsistencies and
discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not
affect the credibility of witnesses, as well as their
positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crime."21 Both the trial court and
the CA found the prosecution witnesses' candid and
straightforward testimony to be worthy of belief and
this Court sees no reason why it should not conform
to the principle reiterated in Medina, Jr. v.
People22 that:
Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial
court's factual findings and evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by
the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the
trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts
and circumstances that would justify altering or
revising such findings and evaluation. This is because
the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-
hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling
examination, thereby placing the trial court in the
unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and
to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and
candor.23 The records of this case, particularly the
testimonies of the witnesses, reveal no outstanding or
exceptional circumstance to justify a deviation from
such long-standing principle. There is no cogent
reason to overturn the courts' ruling that the
prosecution evidence, is worthy of belief. Thus,
prosecution evidence established beyond any
reasonable doubt that petitioner is indeed guilty of
grave threats.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the

Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 26, 2004
and the Resolution dated June 19, 2008 in CA-GR.
CR No. 23887 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.