Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NARVASA, C.J.:p
Whether it is the Regional Trial Court, or the Metropolitan Trial Court or other
first level court which has exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal actions
of libel, is the issue raised by the People of the Philippines, as petitioner in
the special civil action of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus at bar. The
fairly simple facts from which the issue has arisen are hereunder briefly
narrated.
On January 30, 1995 an information for libel was filed against Isah V. Red in
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case thereby initiated was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 95-60134 and raffled to Branch 82.
Red filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the RTC had
no jurisdiction of the offense. The Judge found merit in the motion and by an
Order dated March 29, 1995, remanded the case to the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Quezon City "for proper action/disposition in the premises." His
Honor declared that "(u)nder Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691, which took effect on
April 15, 1994, exclusive original jurisdiction over 'all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof is vested in the
Municipal Trial Court. . . " The case was accordingly transferred to the
Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court where it was docketed as Case No. 4300548 and raffled to Branch 43.
Thereafter, the private prosecutor, "under the control and supervision of the
Fiscal," filed a "Manifestation and Motion to Remand" dated August 1, 1995
praying that the case be returned to the RTC. The movant invoked Article
the same counsel reiterating the plea to remand the case back to the RTC,
and further directed "the prosecution to present . . (its) next witness," trial
having in the meantime commenced.
Now, in this proceeding, the State prays for judgment: "(1) declaring the
questioned Orders dated August 14, 1995, September 7, 1995, and October
18, 1995 as null and void for having been issued by the respondent court
acting without jurisdiction; (2) enjoining the respondent court from further
conducting trials in Criminal Case No. 43-00548; and (3) commanding the
respondent court to remand Criminal Case No. 43-00548 to the Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for proper disposition." It
cites Jalandoni v. Endaya (55 SCRA 261 [1974]), where this Court (a) drew
attention to the categorical language of Article 360 of the Revised Penal
Code to the effect that "it is a court of first instance that is specifically
designated to try a libel case," and (b) indicated "thirteen (13) cases,
from People v. Topacio, 59 Phil. 356 (1934) to Time, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA
303 (1971), wherein this . . Court ruled that municipal courts do not have
jurisdiction over libel cases." 3 It further argues that in light
of Jalandoni, and Berces v. Guingona (241 SCRA 539 [1995]) to the effect
that a subsequent statute, general in character as to its terms and
application, is not to be construed as repealing a special or specific
enactment unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifest or an
irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists between them Article
360 of the Revised Penal Code may not be deemed to have been
superseded by Republic Act No. 7691.
This Court has already had occasion to resolve the issue, substantially in line
with the position taken by the People, account having been taken of
substantially the same arguments adduced by the opposing parties in this
case. In G.R. No. 122126 entitled Lydia Caro vs. Court of
Appeals and Violeta Sarigumba, involving the same jurisdictional issue as
that specifically presented in the case at bar, this Court promulgated a
Resolution on June 19, 1996 pertinently reading as follows:
Anent the question of jurisdiction, we . . find no reversible error
committed by public respondent Court of Appeals in denying petitioner's
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The contention . . that R.A. No.
7691 divested the Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction to try libel cases
cannot be sustained. While libel is punishable by imprisonment of six
months and one day to four years and two months (Art. 360, Revised
Penal Code) which imposable penalty is lodged within the Municipal Trial
Courts' jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691 (Sec. 32 [21]), said law,
however, excludes therefrom ". . cases falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts . . ." The Court in Bocobo
vs.Estanislao, 72 SCRA 520 and Jalandoni vs. Endaya, 55 SCRA 261,
correctly cited by the Court of Appeals, has laid down the rule that
Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive jurisdiction over libel cases,
hence, the expanded jurisdiction conferred by R.A. 7691 to inferior courts
cannot be applied to libel cases.
Moreover, Administrative Order No. 104-96 treating of the subject:
". . DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL COURTS FOR KIDNAPPING, ROBBERY,
CARNAPPING, DANGEROUS DRUGS CASES AND OTHER HEINOUS
CRIMES; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND
JURISDICTION IN LIBEL CASES" issued on October 21, 1996 by the
Chief Justice upon the advice and consent of the Court En Banc, inter
alia provides, in categorical acknowledgment of the validity of the doctrine
just adverted to, that "LIBEL CASES SHALL BE TRIED BY THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THEM TO THE
EXCLUSION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS."
The proposition is hereby reaffirmed, the Court perceiving no argument
advanced by respondents justifying its abrogation or modification.
Concerning respondents' contention that the challenged orders are now
immutable, having become final and executory for failure of the prosecution
to take an appeal therefrom, it suffices to advert to the familiar and uniformly
applied axiom that only final orders i.e., those that finally dispose of a
case, leaving nothing more to be done by the court respecting the merits of a
case can become final and executory in the sense of becoming
unalterable through an appeal or review proceeding. 4 Interlocutory orders, on
the other hand i.e., those which resolve incidental motions or collateral
matters but do not put an end to the case never become final in the sense
of becoming unchangeable and impervious to impugnation after expiration of
the period prescribed for taking an appeal from a final judgment. 5
Respecting respondents' claim that venue is merely procedural, suffice it to
point out that unlike in civil cases, in criminal cases venue is jurisdictional. 6
In the instant petition for review, which has additionally prayed for a writ
of preliminary injunction or for a temporary restraining order, petitioner
tells us that the appellate court has erred
1. When it ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,
upon private respondents, posting of a bond in the sum of
P10,000.00, despite the pendency of the cancellation proceedings in
Inter Partes case Nos. 3397 and 3739, and in subsequently
amending its decision by issuing the writ of preliminary injunction
itself.
2. When respondent court failed to apply and totally disregarded the
provisions of the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial
property, as well as the memorandum of the Minister of Trade, dated
November 20, 1980.
3. In holding that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction by the Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) is not
applicable in this case, and in further holding that the issues involved
in this case is not whether the "SUNSHINE" trademark in question is
registerable or cancellable.
4. Respondent court erred in holding that the ground of litis
pendentia under the Rules of Court does not apply in this case for the
reason that the cause of action in the cancellation proceedings before
the BPTTT is not the same as the cause of action in the case a quo.
5. In ordering the lower court to proceed with the action a quo, although
for a good cause shown the lower court, in its sound discretion, may
suspend the action pending outcome of the cancellation proceeding
between Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. and Fitrite, Inc. in inter partes Case No.
3397 and 3739 before BPTTT. 4
The petition was given due course; however, neither a writ of preliminary
injunction nor a restraining order was issued by this Court.
Unadorned, the issues would revolve simply around the question of
whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error (1) in
allowing the trial court to proceed with the case for "injunction with
jurisdiction over the action a quo; and therefore the trial court should,
and as it correctly did, yield its jurisdiction to BPTTT.
The trial court erred in adopting such fallacious argument. The issue
involved in the action a quo is not whether the "SUNSHINE"
trademark in question is registerable or cancellable which is the
issue pending in BPTTT that may be technical in nature requiring
"expertise, specialized skills and knowledge" since the trademark
has already been registered in both the Supplemental and Principal
Registers of BPTTT in the name of FITRITE; actually, the issue
involved in the action a quo is whether CONRAD's acts of importing,
selling and distributing biscuits, cookies and other food items bearing
said registered "SUNSHINE" trademark in the Philippines without the
consent of its registrant (FITRITE) constitute infringement thereof in
contemplation of Sec. 22 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended.
Under Sec. 22, the elements that constitute infringement are simply
(1) the use by any person, without the consent of the registrant, (2) of
any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale,
business or services, among other things, bearing such registered
mark or trade-name. This, clearly, is a factual question that does not
require any specialized skill and knowledge for resolution to justify
the exercise of primary jurisdiction by BPTTT.
But, even assuming which is not the case that the issue involved
here is technical in nature requiring specialized skills and knowledge,
still Industrialized Enterprises does not authorize the outright dismissal of
a case originally cognizable in the courts; what it says is where primary
jurisdiction comes into play in a case "the judicial process is suspended
pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view. 5
The appellate court's finding that there is an urgent necessity for the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction pending resolution by BPTTT
of the petition for cancellation filed by Sunshine USA in Inter Partes Case
No. 3397 would indeed appear to have merit. The prematurity of
petitioner's motion to dismiss places the case at bench quite apart from
that of Developers Group of Companies, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 219
SCRA 715. The allegations of the complaint, perforced hypothetically
deemed admitted by petitioner, would here justify the issuance by
appellate court of its injunction order. Petitioner, itself, does not even
appear to be a party in the administrative case (Inter Partes Case No.
3397). The averment that Sunshine USA is petitioner's principal, and that
CARPIO, J., C
VELASCO, JR
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,* a
ABAD, JJ.
-versus-
SANDIGANBAYAN
DIVISION) and ROLANDO PLAZA,
Respondents.
(THIRD
Promulgated:
September 1
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
the period required by law, with deliberate intent and intent to gain,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to
liquidate said cash advances of P33,000.00, Philippine Currency,
despite demands to the damage and prejudice of the government in
the aforesaid amount.
PERALTA, J.:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that seeks to reverse and set aside the
19,
12,
2005. Eventually,
2005 directing
the
petitioner
Sandiganbayan
to
submit
promulgated
its
its
Resolution[6] on July 20, 2005 dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction,
The facts follow.
Respondent Rolando Plaza, a member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu, at the time relevant to this case, with
salary grade 25, had been charged in the Sandiganbayan with violation of
Section 89 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445, or The Auditing Code of
without prejudice to its filing before the proper court. The dispositive
portion of the said Resolution provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant case
is hereby ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without
prejudice to its filing in the proper court.
SO ORDERED.
the Philippines for his failure to liquidate the cash advances he received on
December 19, 1995 in the amount of Thirty-Three Thousand Pesos
(P33,000.00) . The Information reads:
That on or about December 19, 1995, and for sometime
prior or subsequent thereto at Toledo City, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused ROLANDO PLAZA, a high-ranking public
officer, being a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo
City, and committing the offense, in relation to office, having
obtained cash advances from the City Government of Toledo in the
total amount of THIRTY THREE THOUSAND PESOS
(P33,000.00), Philippine Currency, which he received by reason of
his office, for which he is duty bound to liquidate the same within
to
office. Furthermore,
petitioner
questioned
the
Sandiganbayans
that the Inding case did not categorically nor implicitly constrict or confine
the application of the enumeration provided for under Section 4 (a) (1) of
either a violation of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379 or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII
similarities to the present one. In fact, the respondent in the earlier case,
of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner adds that the enumeration in Section 4
(a) (1) of P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 7975 and R.A. 8249, which was
made applicable to cases concerning violations of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379 and
this case. The only difference is that, respondent Amante failed to liquidate
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, equally applies to
[8]
exceptions to the general rule are provided in the rest of the paragraph and
with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines, this Court cited the
that it has original jurisdiction only over the following cases: (a) where the
accused is a public official with salary grade 27 and higher; (b) in cases
where the accused is a public official below grade 27 but his position is one
of those mentioned in the enumeration in Section 4 (a) (1) (a) to (g) of P. D.
1606, as amended and his offense involves a violation of R.A. 3019, R.A.
1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; and (c)
if the indictment involves offenses or felonies other than the three
aforementioned statutes, the general rule that a public official must occupy a
position with salary grade 27 and higher in order that the Sandiganbayan
could exercise jurisdiction over him must apply.
In a nutshell, the core issue raised in the petition is whether or not the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of theSangguniang
permanent,
acting
or
interim
capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense: x x x.[14]
Like in the earlier case, the present case definitely falls under Section
Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. 7975 which
took effect on May 16, 1995, which was again amended on February 5,
employees in relation to their office are involved where the said provision,
1997 by R.A. 8249, is the law that should be applied in the present case, the
offense having been allegedly committed on or about December 19, 1995 and
determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the
commission of the offense. The present case having been instituted on March
25, 2004, the provisions of R.A. 8249 shall govern. P.D. 1606, as amended
by R.A. 8249 states that:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - - The Sandiganbayan shall
exercise original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more 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:
(1) Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as grade 27 and
higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically including:
(a) Provincial governors, vicegovernors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and provincial treasurers,
1958; one Yokan Awalin Tebag was arrested by order of Mayor Brown,
without any warrant or complaint filed in court, and then brought to, and
detained in, the aforementioned sub-station; that while on the way
thereto, said Awalin Tebag was maltreated, pursuant to instructions of
Mayor Brown, concurred in by Pollisco, to the effect that Tebag be
mauled until such time as he shall surrender his gun; that, once in the
sub-station, Tebag, whose hands were securely tied, was subjected, by
defendants Lacerna, Hasbi, Pollisco, Dinglasa, and other special
policemen, to further and more severe torture, in consequence of which
Tebag died; that, in order to simulate that Tebag had been killed by peace
officers in the course of an encounter between the latter and a band of
armed bandits of which he formed part, the body of Tebag was brought,
early the next morning, to a nearby isolated field, where defendant Hasbi
fired twice at said dead body from behind, and then an old Japanese rifle,
supplied by Mayor Brown, was placed beside said body; and that, in
furtherance of the aforementioned simulation, a report of said imaginary
encounter, mentioning Tebag as the only member of a band of armed
bandits whose identity was known, was submitted and respondent Hasbi
caused one of his companions to shoot him on the left arm.
During the trial of said criminal case, respondent Judge rejected the
following evidence for the prosecution therein:
1. Exhibit A A report of Capt. F. G. Sarrosa, Commanding Officer of the
PC Detachment in Basilan City, who investigated the case, showing that
on June 5, 1958, he and Lt. Clemente Antonio, PAF, found nine (9)
detainees in the Tipo-Tipo sub-station. This was part of the chain of
evidence of the prosecution to prove that persons used to be detained in
the aforementioned sub-station by the main respondents herein, without
either a warrant of arrest or a complaint filed in court.
2. Exhibit C Letter of Atty. Doroteo de Guzman to the officer in charge
of the sub-station, dated June 4, 1958, inquiring as to the whereabouts of
Awalin Tebag, who, according to the letter, was arrested in his house, by
policemen, on June 4, 1958. Capt. Sarrosa took possession of this letter
in the course of his aforementioned investigation.
3. Exhibits G, G-1, G-2 and G-3 These are the transcript of the
testimony of Tebag's mother, before the City Fiscal of Basilan City, when
she asked an autopsy of the body of her son.
4. Exhibits J to V Consisting of the following, namely: a sketch of the
sub-station; pictures of several huts therein, indicating their relative
positions and distances; a picture depicting how the body of Tebag was
taken from a camarin in the sub-station; a picture showing how
Patrolman Hasbiwas shot by a companion, at this request; and a picture,
Exhibit T, demonstrating how Mayor Brown allegedly gave the Japanese
rifle, Exhibit Y, to Hasbi, to be planted beside Tebag's body.
Although referred to by Yakan Carnain, Arit, Lianson, Kona Amenola, and
Asidin, in the course of their testimony as witnesses for the prosecution,
these exhibits were not admitted in evidence, which were presented to
show how they were able to observe the movements in the sub-station,
the same being quite small.
5. Exhibits X (a "barong") and X-1 (a scabbard) Amenola said that
these effects were given to him by Mayor Brown in the latter's office, and
that he then saw therein the Japanese rifle, Exhibit Y, which was later
placed beside the dead body of Awalin Tebag.
6. Exhibits DD, DD-1, FF, JJ, KK and LL These show that on April 28,
1958, Yakan Kallapattoh and Fernandez (Pilnandiz) executed affidavits
admitting participation in a given robbery; that an information therefor
(Exh. KK) was filed against them on May 2, 1958, with the municipal
court of Basilan City (Criminal Case No. 1774); and that, in compliance
with warrants for their arrest then issued, they were apprehended and
detained in the sub-station, thus corroborating the testimony of
prosecution witness Yakans Amenola, Carnain Asidin and Arip to the
effect that Kallapattoh and Fernandez (Pilnandiz) were together with
them, in the aforementioned sub-station, when Tebag was maltreated and
died therein, on June 4, 1958, as well as confirming Pollisco's statement,
Exhibit TT-18, before the City Fiscal of Basilan city, on June 21, 1958,
admitting that Fernandez was in the sub-station on June 5, 1958, on
account of the warrant of arrest adverted to. Through the exhibits in
question the prosecution sought, also, to bolster up its theory that
respondent Pollisco and Hasbi about it. Respondent Judge did not allow
the record clerk of the City Fiscal's office to identify said exhibits, upon
the ground that it was too late to present him although when the exhibits
were marked by the prosecution it reserved the right to identify them as
part of official records.
2. Exhibits PP, QQ to QQ-3 Respondent Pollisco had testified that on
June 4, 1958, Hadji Aisa inquired about one Awalin; that he told Aisa that
Awalin was taken by Mayor Brown to the seat of the city government; and
that he (Pollisco) suggested that Datu Unding be advised not to worry,
because there was no evidence against Awalin. To impeach the veracity
of Pollisco, the prosecution presented the exhibits under consideration,
for the same show that one Dong Awalin (who is different from Awalin
Tebag) was apprehended on May 27, 1958, and released on bail on June
23, 1958; that Pollisco could not have truthfully informed Aisa on June 4,
1958, what Dong Awalin had been taken by Mayor Brown to the seat of
the city government and that there was no evidence against him; for he
was then a detention prisoner; and that Pollisco could not have had in
mind, therefore, said Dong Awalin as the Awalin about whom Aisa had
inquired. Indeed, Exhibits TT-13 to TT-16 show that, testifying before the
City Fiscal, respondent Pollisco said that he twice ordered Patrolman
Lacerna on June 4, 1958, to bring Awalin Tebag to him (Pollisco) for
investigation.
3. Exhibits SS to SS-7 These are the testimonies before the City
Fiscal, of defense witness Mohammad Sali who, on cross examination by
the prosecution, denied having given it. Thus the predicate therefor was
established by the prosecution which sought thereby to impeach Sali's
veracity.
4. Exhibits TT, TT-1 to TT-25 These are the testimonies, before the
City Fiscal of the main respondents herein, who gave a different story
before respondent Judge. The prosecution thus sought to impeach their
veracity as witnesses in their own behalf, after laying down the predicate
in the course of their cross examination.
(Lost income);
On 24 June 1994, the private prosecutors moved for the transmittal of the
records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan on the ground that, pursuant
to our decision of 11 March 1994 in Republic of the Philippines vs.
Asuncion, 4 the trial court has no jurisdiction over the cases because the
offenses charged were committed in relation to the office of the accused
PNP officers. In his Manifestation with Urgent Motion to Transmit
Records, the State Prosecutor adopted the motion of the private
prosecutors. 5
In its order of 15 August 1994, 6 the trial court, thru respondent Judge,
ruled that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the subject
cases because the informations do not state that the offenses were
committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers. Citing
People vs. Montilla, 7 it held that the allegation in the informations that the
accused PNP officers took advantage of their office in the commission of
the offense charged is merely an allegation of an aggravating
circumstance. It further stated that a public office is not a constituent
element of the offense of kidnapping with murder nor is the said offense
intimately connected with the office. It then denied the motion for transfer
of the records to the Sandiganbayan and declared that the trial of the
case should continue.
Relying on People vs. Montejo, 8 the prosecution moved to reconsider the
said order. 9
On 7 September 1994, 10 the trial court issued an order denying the
motion because People vs. Montejo is not applicable, since in that case
there was (a) an intimate connection between the offense charged and
the public position of the accused and (b) a total absence of personal
motive; whereas, in these cases, no such intimate connection exists and
the informations emphasize that the accused were moved by selfish
motives of ransom and extortion.
The respondent Judge then resumed the reception of the evidence for
the other accused. Accused Gargallano, Fernandez, Lamis, Delgado, and
Geroche, as well as his three witnesses, had already completed their
respective testimonies when, upon motion of the prosecution, the
respondent Judge voluntarily inhibited himself on 15 September 1994.
The cases were then re-raffled to Branch 49 of the RTC of Bacolod City.
On 5 December 1994, the prosecution, represented by the Office of the
Solicitor General, filed with us a petition for certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order
the offender, and we further intimated that the fact that the offense was
committed in relation to the office must be alleged in the information. 20
There is no dispute that the prescribed penalties for the offenses charged
in Criminal Cases Nos. 15562 and 15563 before the court below are
higher than prision correcional or imprisonment for more than six years.
The only question that remains to be resolved then is whether the said
offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP
officers.
Relying on its evidence and on the Montejo case, the petitioner submits
that the crimes charged in the subject cases were connected with public
office because the accused PNP officers, together with the civilian
agents, arrested the two swindling suspects in the course of the
performance of their duty and not out of personal motive, and if they
demanded from the two suspects the production of the money of the
Dumancas spouses and later killed the two; they did so in the course of
the investigation conducted by them as policemen. The petitioner further
asserts that the allegations in the informations reading "taking advantage
of his position as Station Commander of the Philippine National Police"
and "taking advantage of their respective positions" presuppose the
exercise of the functions attached to the office of the accused PNP
officers and are sufficient to show that the offenses charged were
committed in relation to their office. The petitioner then concludes that the
cases below fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information, 21 and not by the result of evidence after
trial. 22
In Montejo 23 where the amended information alleged:
Leroy S. Brown, City Mayor of Basilan City, as such, has organized
groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes consisting of regular
policemen and . . . special policemen, appointed and provided by him
with pistols and high power guns and then established a camp . . . at
Tipo-tipo, which is under his command . . . supervision and control,
where his codefendants were stationed, entertained criminal
complaints and conducted the corresponding investigations, as well
as assumed the authority to arrest and detain persons without due
process of law and without bringing them to the proper court, and that
in line with this set-up established by said Mayor of Basilan City as
such, and acting upon his orders, his codefendants arrested and
maltreated Awalin Tebag, who died in consequence thereof.
we held that the offense charged was committed in relation to the office
of the accused because it was perpetrated while they were in the
performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions and
would not have peen committed had they not held their office; besides,
the accused had no personal motive in committing the crime; thus,
there was an intimate connection between the offense and the office of
the accused.
Unlike in Montejo, the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 15562 and
15563 in the court below do not indicate that the accused arrested and
investigated the victims and then killed the latter in the course of the
investigation. The informations merely allege that the accused, for the
purpose of extracting or extorting the sum of P353,000.00, abducted,
kidnapped, and detained the two victims, and failing in their common
purpose, they shot and killed the said victims. For the purpose of
determining jurisdiction, it is these allegations that shall control, and not
the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial.
The allegation of "taking advantage of his position" or "taking advantage
of their respective positions" incorporated in the informations is not
sufficient to bring the offenses within the definition of "offenses committed
in relation to public office." In Montilla vs. Hilario, 24 such an allegation
was considered merely as an allegation of an aggravating
circumstance, 25 and not as one that qualifies the crime as having been
committed in relation to public office, It says:
But the use or abuse of office does not adhere to the crime as an
element; and even as an aggravating circumstance, its materiality
arises, not from the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that
the criminals are public officials but from the manner of the commission
of the crime.
Also, in Bartolome vs. People of the Philippines, 26 despite the allegation
that the accused public officers committed the crime of falsification of
official document by "taking advantage of their official positions," this
Court held that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case
because "[t]he information [did] not allege that there was an intimate
connection between the discharge of official duties and the commission
of the offense."
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all
officers of higher rank;
(a) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants and
officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and
special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of governmentowned or -controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations;
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade "27"
and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27" and
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to
their office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying the
positions corresponding to salary grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in
the said Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of
superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction
thereof shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as
the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided
in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying the positions
corresponding to salary grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the said
Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of
superintendent 35 or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction
thereof shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the
case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 7 of the new law in relation
to Section 2 thereof.
As regards the motions for bail of accused-respondents Jeanette
Dumancas and Nicolas Torres, the same must fail. Section 17, Rule 114
of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 17 Bail, where filed. (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed
with the court where the case is pending, or, in the absence or
unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same
court within the province or city. If the accused is arrested in a
province, city or municipality other than where the case is pending,
bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of said place, or, if
no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge,
municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.
(b) Whenever the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the
accused seeks to be released on recognizance, the application
therefor may be filed only in the particular court where the case is
pending, whether for preliminary investigation, trial, on appeal.
(c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply
for bail with any court in the province, city or municipality where he is
held.
In the instant case, the motions for bail filed by the said accusedrespondents with the Regional Trial Court where the cases against them
are pending were denied sometime in February, 1994
In Enrile vs. Salazar, 38 as reiterated in Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, 39 this
Court said: "Only after that remedy [petition to be admitted to bail] was
denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court [be]
invoked, and even then, not without first applying to the Court of Appeals
if appropriate relief was also available there."
There is no showing that the said accused-respondents have questioned
the denial of their applications for bail in a petition for certiorari either
before the Court of Appeals or this Court. It was only on 26 December
1994, when they filed their respective comments on the instant petition,
that they challenged the denial premised on the ground that the evidence
of guilt against them was not strong. Even if their respective Comment
and Reiteration of Motion for Bail 40 and respondent Dumancas's Motion
for Bail 41 filed on 22 March 1995, were treated as petitions for certiorari,
still the same would not prosper for not having been seasonably filed.
While the Rules of Court does not fix a time-frame for the filing of a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
existing jurisprudence requires that the same be filed within a reasonable
period of time from receipt of the questioned judgment or order. 42 And,
in Philec Workers' Union vs. Hon. Romeo A. Young 43 it was held that a
petition forcertiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should be filed
within a reasonable period of three months from notice of the decision or
order. Here, about nine to ten months had already elapsed before the
respondents assailed the denial of their motions for bail. In any event, the
private respondents who were denied bail are not precluded from
reiterating before the trial court their plea for admission to bail.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged orders are
AFFIRMED, and the motions for bail of accused-respondents Jeanette
Dumancas and Nicolas Torres are DENIED.
The temporary restraining order issued on 12 December 1994 is LIFTED,
and the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City is directed to immediately
resume the hearings of Criminal Cases Nos. 15562 and 15563 and to
thereafter resolve them with reasonable and purposeful dispatch.
This decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting:
While I agree with the ponencia of Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. that
the two (2) informations subject of the present petition should remain in
the Regional Trial Court, I arrive at this conclusion based solely on the
provisions of Rep. Act No. 7975.
It is my considered opinion, unlike the majority, that the accused PNP
personnel committed the crime alleged in the two (2) informations in
relation to their office. The wording of the two (2) informations clearly
shows that P/Col. Nicolas M. Torres used his authority over his
subordinate officers when he ordered them to arrest the two (2) swindling
suspects/victims in connection with the complaint of the Dumancas
superior. Under such circumstances, the two (2) informations would have
been properly filed with the Sandiganbayan since the law in force at the
time was P.D. No. 1606 which gave the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over
offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office where the
penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correctional or
imprisonment of six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00.
that she would call a certain Atty. Geocadin so the proper cases could be
filed against them. Such statements of Dumancas indicate lack of any
criminal intent unless the contrary is later proven during the trial.
The above view notwithstanding, Rep. Act No. 7975 has revised the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Under said revised jurisdiction, the
Regional Trial Courts now have jurisdiction over offenses committed by
PNP officers with ranks below that of superintendent or its equivalent,
whether or not the offenses are committed in relation to their office. In the
present case, none of the accused PNP officers has the rank of
superintendent or higher.
3. Jeanette Dumancas came back from abroad even after the charges
against her had been filed. Certainly, this is not indicative of a probability
of her later jumping bail should she be released on bail.
Section 7 of Rep. Act No. 7975 also provides that upon effectivity of said
Act, all criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under
P.D. No. 1606 where trial has not begun in said court, shall be referred to
the proper courts.
In the present case, even if the criminal cases were then within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the offenses having been committed in
relation to the accuseds' office, as earlier discussed, yet, the cases were
not filed in said court. Since the cases now fall within the jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court under the express provisions of Rep. Act No.
7975, they can remain in said regional trial court.
On the issue of whether accused Jeanette Yanson-Dumancas should be
granted bail, I agree with Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan that the Court
should exercise its discretion, disregard technicalities and rule on the
motion for bail filed with this Court.
Accused Jeanette Yanson-Dumancas should, in my view, be released on
bail for the following reasons:
1. The spouses Dumancas were included in the informations as accused
merely because they were the ones who complained to the police that
the two (2) victims had swindled them. There is no showing that the
spouses knew, much less instigated, the kidnapping and murder of the
victims. Of note is a portion of the testimony of the alleged lone
eyewitness and co-conspirator turned state witness, Moises Grandeza,
where he declared that Jeanette Dumancas told accused Dominador
Geroche to bring the two (2) swindling suspects to the police station and
CRUZ, J.:
That on or about the 12th day of January, 1977, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused ROLANDO BARTOLOME Y PEREZ, a public officer having
been duly appointed and qualified as Senior Labor Regulation Officer
and Chief of the Labor Regulations Section, Ministry of Labor,
National Capital Region, Manila, conspiring and conniving with the
other accused ELINO CORONEL Y SANTOS, also a public officer
having been duly appointed and qualified as Labor Regulation Officer
of the same office, taking advantage of their official positions, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously prepare and falsify an
official document, to wit: the CS Personal Data Sheet (Civil Service
Form No. 212) which bears the Residence Certificate No. A-9086374
issued at Manila on January 12, 1977, by making it appear in said
document that accused ROLANDO BARTOLOME Y PEREZ had
taken and passed the 'Career Service (Professional Qualifying
Examination on 'May 2, 1976' with a rating of '73.35% in Manila' and
Title VII, Book Two, of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes a
wide range of offenses committed by public officers, from knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment under Article 204 to abuses against chastity
in Article 245, but falsification of an official document is not included. This
is punished in Article 171 under Title IV, Book Two, on Crimes against
Public Interest.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Manila, Philippines, January 21, 1982.
RICARDO A. BUENVIAJE
Special Prosecutor
We hold that the proceedings in the court a quo are nun and void ab
initio. The Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case.
The pertinent case is Montilla v. Hilario, 1 where a municipal mayor and three policemen charged with
murder and frustrated murder retained Rep. Floro Crisologo as their counsel. The prosecution sought
to disqualify him on the ground that a member of Congress could not appear as counsel "in any
criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed
in relation to his office." 2 The Supreme Court allowed his appearance, interpreting the underscored
phrase in this wise:
With respect to the question whether or not Senator Roseller Lim may
appear as counsel for the main respondents herein, as defendants in
said criminal case, the Constitution provides that no Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives shall 'appear as counsel ...
in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense committed in relation of his
office ... (Art. VI Sec. 17, Const. of the Phil.). The issue, therefore, is
whether the defendants in Criminal case No. 672 are accused of an
offense committed in relation' to their office.
A mere perusal of the amended information therein readily elicits an
affirmative answer. It is alleged in said amended information that
'Leroy S. Brown, City Mayor of Basilan City, as such, has organized
groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes consisting of regular
policemen and ... special policemen, appointed and provided by him
with pistols and high power guns and then established a camp ... at
Clearly, therefore, as the alleged falsification was not an offense committed in relation to the office of
the accused, it did not come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It follows that all its acts in
the instant case are null and void ab initio. 4
BRION, J.:
We review in this Rule 45 petition, the decision1 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 65, Makati City (RTC-Makati City) in Civil Case No. 091038. The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the RTC-Makati City
decision dismissing the petition for certiorari of petitioners Union Bank of
the Philippines (Union Bank) and Desi Tomas (collectively, the
petitioners). The RTC found that the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63,
Makati City (MeTC-Makati City) did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion in denying the motion to quash the information for perjury filed
by Tomas.
The Antecedents
Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) for making a false narration in a Certificate against
Forum Shopping. The Information against her reads:
That on or about the 13th day of March 2000 in the City of Makati, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously make untruthful statements under oath upon a material matter
The MeTC-Makati City denied the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has
jurisdiction over the case since the Certificate against Forum Shopping
was notarized in Makati City.4 The MeTC-Makati City also ruled that the
allegations in the Information sufficiently charged Tomas with
perjury.5 The MeTC-Makati City subsequently denied Tomas motion for
reconsideration.6
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC-Makati City to
annul and set aside the MeTC-Makati City orders on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion. The petitioners anchored their petition on the rulings
in United States v. Canet7 and Ilusorio v. Bildner8 which ruled that venue
and jurisdiction should be in the place where the false document was
presented.
The Assailed RTC Decision
In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the RTC-Makati City held:
[I]nsofar as the petitioners stance is concerned[,] the more recent case of
[Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy] (GR Nos. 174168 & 179438, March 30, 2009)
however, reaffirms what has been the long standing view on the venue
with respect to perjury cases. In this particular case[,] the high court
reiterated the rule that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in
the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed,
or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. It went on to declare
that since the subject document[,] the execution of which was the subject
of the charge[,] was subscribed and sworn to in Manila[,] then the court of
the said territorial jurisdiction was the proper venue of the criminal
action[.]
xxxx
x x x Given the present state of jurisprudence on the matter, it is not
amiss to state that the city court of Makati City has jurisdiction to try and
decide the case for perjury inasmuch as the gist of the complaint itself
which constitute[s] the charge against the petitioner dwells solely on the
act of subscribing to a false certification. On the other hand, the charge
against the accused in the case of Ilusorio v. Bildner, et al., based on the
The case presents to us the issue of what the proper venue of perjury
under Article 183 of the RPC should be Makati City, where the
Certificate against Forum Shopping was notarized, or Pasay City, where
the Certification was presented to the trial court.
The Courts Ruling
We deny the petition and hold that the MeTC-Makati City is the proper
venue and the proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case
against the petitioners.
Venue of Action and Criminal Jurisdiction
Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It
determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be instituted,
but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The
reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is
limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and
try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial
jurisdiction.12 Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded
on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the
municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his
defense are available.13
Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases carries
jurisdictional consequences. In determining the venue where the criminal
action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction over it,
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides:
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted
and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
[emphasis ours]
The above provision should be read in light of Section 10, Rule 110 of the
2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states:
In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under Article 183
of the RPC for making a false Certificate against Forum Shopping. The
elements of perjury under Article 183 are:
We also find that the third element of willful and deliberate falsehood was
also sufficiently alleged to have been committed in Makati City, not Pasay
City, as indicated in the last portion of the Information:
[S]aid accused stated in the Verification/Certification/Affidavit of merit of a
complaint for sum of money with prayer for a writ of replevin docketed as
[Civil] Case No. 342-00 of the Metropolitan Trial Court[,] Pasay City, that
the Union Bank of the Philippines has not commenced any other action
or proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or
agency, accused knowing well that said material statement was
false thereby making a willful and deliberate assertion of
falsehood.17 (underscoring ours)
Tomas deliberate and intentional assertion of falsehood was allegedly
shown when she made the false declarations in the Certificate against
Forum Shopping before a notary public in Makati City, despite her
knowledge that the material statements she subscribed and swore to
were not true. Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati
City is the proper court to try the perjury case against Tomas, pursuant to
Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
as all the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury were
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.
Referral to the En Banc
The present case was referred to the En Banc primarily to address the
seeming conflict between the division rulings of the Court in the Ilusorio
case that is cited as basis of this petition, and the Sy Tiong case that was
the basis of the assailed RTC-Makati City ruling.
The Cited Ilusorio and Sy Tiong Cases
The subject matter of the perjury charge in Ilusorio involved false
statements contained in verified petitions filed with the court for the
issuance of a new owners duplicate copies of certificates of title. The
verified petitions containing the false statements were subscribed and
sworn to in Pasig City, but were filed in Makati City and Tagaytay City.
The question posed was: which court (Pasig City, Makati City and/or
Tagaytay City) had jurisdiction to try and hear the perjury cases?
We ruled that the venues of the action were in Makati City and Tagaytay
City, the places where the verified petitions were filed. The Court
reasoned out that it was only upon filing that the intent to assert an
alleged falsehood became manifest and where the alleged untruthful
statement found relevance or materiality. We cited as jurisprudential
authority the case of United States. v. Caet18 which ruled:
It is immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed and sworn, so long as
it appears from the information that the defendant, by means of such
affidavit, "swore to" and knowingly submitted false evidence, material to a
point at issue in a judicial proceeding pending in the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo Province. The gist of the offense charged is not the
making of the affidavit in Manila, but the intentional giving of false
evidence in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo Province by means of
such affidavit. [emphasis and underscoring deleted]
In Sy Tiong, the perjured statements were made in a GIS which was
subscribed and sworn to in Manila. We ruled that the proper venue for the
perjury charges was in Manila where the GIS was subscribed and sworn
to. We held that the perjury was consummated in Manila where the false
statement was made. As supporting jurisprudence, we cited the case of
Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice19 that, in turn, cited an American case
entitled U.S. v. Norris.20We ruled in Villanueva that
Perjury is an obstruction of justice; its perpetration well may affect the
dearest concerns of the parties before a tribunal. Deliberate material
falsification under oath constitutes the crime of perjury, and the crime is
complete when a witness' statement has once been made.
The Crime of Perjury: A Background
To have a better appreciation of the issue facing the Court, a look at the
historical background of how the crime of perjury (specifically, Article 183
of the RPC) evolved in our jurisdiction.
The RPC penalizes three forms of false testimonies. The first is false
testimony for and against the defendant in a criminal case (Articles 180
and 181, RPC); the second is false testimony in a civil case (Article 182,
RPC); and the third is false testimony in other cases (Article 183, RPC).
Based on the Information filed, the present case involves the making of
an untruthful statement in an affidavit on a material matter.
These RPC provisions, however, are not really the bases of the rulings
cited by the parties in their respective arguments. The cited Ilusorio
ruling, although issued by this Court in 2008, harked back to the case of
Caet which was decided in 1915, i.e., before the present RPC took
effect.21 Sy Tiong, on the other hand, is a 2009 ruling that cited
Villanueva, a 2005 case that in turn cited United States v. Norris, a 1937
American case. Significantly, unlike Canet, Sy Tiong is entirely based on
rulings rendered after the present RPC took effect.22
The perjurious act in Caet consisted of an information charging perjury
through the presentation in court of a motion accompanied by a false
sworn affidavit. At the time the Caet ruling was rendered, the prevailing
law on perjury and the rules on prosecution of criminal offenses were
found in Section 3, Act No. 1697 of the Philippine Commission, and in
Subsection 4, Section 6 of General Order No. 5823 for the procedural
aspect.
Section 3 of Act No. 1697 reads:
Sec. 3. Any person who, having taken oath before a competent tribunal,
officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the Philippine Islands
authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare,
depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration,
disposition, or certificate by him subscribed is true, willfully and contrary
to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not
believe to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be punished by a fine of
not more than two thousand pesos and by imprisonment for not more
than five years; and shall moreover, thereafter be incapable of holding
any public office or of giving testimony in any court of the Philippine
Islands until such time as the judgment against him is reversed.
This law was copied, with the necessary changes, from Sections
539224 and 539325 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.26 Act No.
1697 was intended to make the mere execution of a false affidavit
punishable in our jurisdiction.27
In turn, Subsection 4, Section 6 of General Order No. 58 provided that
the venue shall be the court of the place where the crime was committed.
As applied and interpreted by the Court in Caet, perjury was committed
by the act of representing a false document in a judicial proceeding. 28 The
venue of action was held by the Court to be at the place where the false
document was presented since the presentation was the act that
consummated the crime.
The annotation of Justices Aquino and Grio-Aquino in their textbook on
the RPC29 interestingly explains the history of the perjury provisions of the
present RPC and traces as well the linkage between Act No. 1697 and
the present Code. To quote these authors:30
Art. 180 was taken from art. 318 of the Old Penal Code and art. 154 of
Del Pans Proposed Correctional Code, while art. 181 was taken from art.
319 of the old Penal Code and Art. 157 of Del Pans Proposed
Correctional Code. Said arts. 318 and 319, together with art. 321 of the
old Penal Code, were impliedly repealed by Act 1697, the Perjury Law,
passed on August 23, 1907, which in turn was expressly repealed by the
Administrative Code of 1916, Act 2657. In view of the express repeal of
Act 1697, arts. 318 and 321 of the old Penal Code were deemed revived.
However, Act 2718 expressly revived secs. 3 and 4 of the Perjury Law.
Art. 367 of the Revised Penal Code repealed Act Nos. 1697 and 2718.
It should be noted that perjury under Acts 1697 and 2718 includes false
testimony, whereas, under the Revised Penal Code, false testimony
includes perjury. Our law on false testimony is of Spanish origin, but our
law on perjury (art. 183 taken from sec. 3 of Act 1697) is derived from
American statutes. The provisions of the old Penal Code on false
testimony embrace perjury committed in court or in some contentious
proceeding, while perjury as defined in Act 1697 includes the making of a
false affidavit. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on false
testimony "are more severe and strict than those of Act 1697" on perjury.
[italics ours]
With this background, it can be appreciated that Article 183 of the RPC
which provides:
The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person,
who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make
an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person
authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.
[emphasis supplied; emphases ours]
in fact refers to either of two punishable acts (1) falsely testifying under
oath in a proceeding other than a criminal or civil case; and (2) making a
false affidavit before a person authorized to administer an oath on any
material matter where the law requires an oath.
As above discussed, Sy Tiong decided under Article 183 of the RPC
essentially involved perjured statements made in a GIS that was
subscribed and sworn to in Manila and submitted to the SEC in
Mandaluyong City. Thus, the case involved the making of an affidavit, not
an actual testimony in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil. From
this perspective, the situs of the oath, i.e., the place where the oath was
taken, is the place where the offense was committed. By implication, the
proper venue would have been the City of Mandaluyong the site of the
SEC had the charge involved an actual testimony made before the
SEC.
In contrast, Caet involved the presentation in court of a motion
supported and accompanied by an affidavit that contained a falsity. With
Section 3 of Act No. 1697 as basis, the issue related to the submission of
the affidavit in a judicial proceeding. This came at a time when Act No.
1697 was the perjury law, and made no distinction between judicial and
other proceedings, and at the same time separately penalized the making
of false statements under oath (unlike the present RPC which separately
deals with false testimony in criminal, civil and other proceedings, while
If Article 183 of the RPC were to be used, as what in fact appears in the
Ilusorio ruling, then only that portion of the article, referring to the making
of an affidavit, would have been applicable as the other portion refers to
false testimony in other proceedings which a judicial petition for the
issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of a Certificate of
Condominium Title is not because it is a civil proceeding in court. As a
perjury based on the making of a false affidavit, what assumes materiality
is the site where the oath was taken as this is the place where the oath
was made, in this case, Pasig City.
Procedurally, the rule on venue of criminal cases has been subject to
various changes from the time General Order No. 58 was replaced by
Rules 106 to 122 of the Rules of Court on July 1, 1940. Section 14, Rule
106 of the Rules of Court provided for the rule on venue of criminal
actions and it expressly included, as proper venue, the place where any
one of the essential ingredients of the crime took place. This change
was followed by the passage of the 1964 Rules of Criminal
Procedure,33 the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure,34 and the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which all adopted the 1940 Rules of
Criminal Procedures expanded venue of criminal actions. Thus, the
venue of criminal cases is not only in the place where the offense was
committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place.
1wphi1
In the present case, the Certification against Forum Shopping was made
integral parts of two complaints for sum of money with prayer for a writ of
replevin against the respondent spouses Eddie Tamondong and Eliza B.
Tamondong, who, in turn, filed a complaint-affidavit against Tomas for
violation of Article 183 of the RPC. As alleged in the Information that
followed, the criminal act charged was for the execution by Tomas of an
affidavit that contained a falsity.
Under the circumstances, Article 183 of the RPC is indeed the applicable
provision; thus, jurisdiction and venue should be determined on the basis
of this article which penalizes one who "make[s] an affidavit, upon any
material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an
oath in cases in which the law so requires." The constitutive act of the
offense is the making of an affidavit; thus, the criminal act is
consummated when the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and
sworn before a duly authorized person.
Based on these considerations, we hold that our ruling in Sy Tiong is
more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of
the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To reiterate for the
guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime of perjury committed
through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is
committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her
affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury
are executed. When the crime is committed through false testimony
under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at
the place where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as
supplement to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is neither
criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue may
either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where
the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission are both
material ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases, determination of
venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to be
constitutive of the crime committed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for
lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Pico deals with an application for bail, where there is the special
requirement of the applicant being in the custody of the law. In Feliciano
v. Pasicolan, 16 we held that "[t]he purpose of bail is to secure ones
release and it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free.
Thus, bail is the security required and given for the release of a person
who is in the custody of law." The rationale behind this special rule on
bail is that it discourages and prevents resort to the former pernicious
practice wherein the accused could just send another in his stead to post
his bail, without recognizing the jurisdiction of the court by his personal
appearance therein and compliance with the requirements therefor. 17
In cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the general rule
applies, i.e., the accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding
this, there is no requirement for him to be in the custody of the law. The
following cases best illustrate this point, where we granted various reliefs
to accused who were not in the custody of the law, but were deemed to
have placed their persons under the jurisdiction of the court. Note that
none of these cases involve the application for bail, nor a motion to
quash an information due to lack of jurisdiction over the person, nor a
motion to quash a warrant of arrest:
There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing pleadings seeking
affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent
submission of ones person to the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the
case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the
jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These
pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other
grounds for dismissal are included; 18 (2) in criminal cases, motions to
quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the accused; and (3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The first two
are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute a
waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The third is a
consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court process
forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue
in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
The records of the case show that the prosecutors certification was
accompanied by supporting documents, following the requirement under
Lim, Sr. v. Felix30 and People v. Inting.31 The supporting documents are
the following:
1. Resolution dated 21 June 2001 of State Prosecutor Leo S.
Reyes;
2. Affidavit dated 22 May 2001 of Modesto Gutierrez;
3. Affidavit dated 19 May 2001 of Romeo B. Ocon;
4. Joint Counter Affidavit dated 23 May 2001 of Mayor Jose C.
Miranda and Reynaldo de la Cruz;
However, after a careful scrutiny of the records of the case, including the
supporting evidence to the resolution of the prosecutor in his
determination of probable cause, we find that Judge Anghad gravely
abused his discretion.
According to petitioners:
In this case, the nullity of the order of Judge Tumaliuan, for the arrest of
the petitioners is apparent from the face of the order itself, which clearly
stated that the determination of probable cause was based on the
certification, under oath, of the fiscal and not on a separate determination
personally made by the Judge. No presumption of regularity could be
drawn from the order since it expressly and clearly showed that it was
based only on the fiscals certification.28
from the information; and (4) it was given during the election period
amidst a "politically charged scenario where "Santiago City voters were
pitted against each other along the lines of the Miranda camp on one side
and former City Mayor Amelita S. Navarro, and allegedly that of DENR
Secretary Heherson Alvarez on the other."32
We painstakingly went through the records of the case and found no
reason to disturb the findings of probable cause of Judge Tumaliuan.
It is important to note that an exhaustive debate on the credibility of a
witness is not within the province of the determination of probable cause.
As we held in Webb33:
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that
more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by
the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing
evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. As well put in Brinegar v. United States, while probable
cause demands more than "bare suspicion," it requires "less than
evidence which would justify x x x conviction." A finding of probable cause
merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of
guilt.
x x x Probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and should be
determined in a summary manner. Preliminary investigation is not a part
of trial x x x.
Dismissing a criminal case on the basis of a decision of this Court in
another case with different accused constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Judge Anghad had quashed the warrant of arrest on the ground, among
other things, that there was a petition for review of the assistant
prosecutors resolution before the Secretary of Justice. However, after
the Secretary of Justice affirmed the prosecutors resolution, Judge
Anghad summarily dismissed the two criminal cases against the
petitioners on the basis of the following explanation:
Rodel Maderal was one of the accused in People vs. Wilfredo Leano, et
al., RTC, Branch 41, Manila, and based from his sworn statements, he
pinpointed to Mr. Miranda the mastermind and with him and the other
police officers as the direct perpetrators, the October 9, 2001 Decision of
the Supreme Court absolving the five cops of murder, certainly makes his
sworn Statements a "narration of falsehood and lies" and that because of
the decision acquitting said officers "who were likewise falsely linked by
said Rodel Maderal in his April 27, 2001 statements, it is now beyond
doubt that Rodel Maderal made untruthful, fabricated and perjured
statements and therefore the same is without probable value." This Court
agrees with the defenses views. Indeed, of what use is Maderals
statements when the Supreme Court rejected the prosecutions evidence
presented and adduced in Criminal Case No. 97-160355. Rodel Maderal
is supposed to turn state witness in these two (2) cases but with the
Supreme Court decision adverted to, the probative value of his
statements is practically nil.
xxxx
This Court finds merit to the manifestation of the accused Miranda dated
October 18, 2001, praying for the summary dismissal of the two (2)
murder charges in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in
People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo Leao, et al., G.R. No. 13886,
acquitting the accused therein and in effect disregarding all the evidence
presented by the prosecution in that case. Accordingly, the two (2)
informations [for] murder filed against Jose Miranda are ordered
dismissed.34
This is a clear case of abuse of discretion. Judge Anghad had no right to
twist our decision and interpret it to the discredit of SPO2 Maderal, who
was still at large when the evidence of the prosecution in the Leao case
was presented. A decision, even of this Court, acquitting the accused
therein of a crime cannot be the basis of the dismissal of criminal case
against different accused for the same crime. The blunder of Judge
Anghad is even more pronounced by the fact that our decision in Leao
was based on reasonable doubt. We never ruled in Leao that the crime
did not happen; we just found that there was reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the accused therein, since the prosecution in that case relied on
It is also worthy to point out at this juncture that the Joint Order of Judge
Anghad dated November 14, 2001 is NOT ONE of those Orders which
3523 and No. 36-3524 be transferred to and raffled in the Regional Trial
Court of the City of Manila. In this connection,
1) Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Executive Judge of
the RTC of the City of Santiago, Isabela, who is directed to effect
the transfer of the cases within ten (10) days after receipt hereof;
2) The Executive Judge of the RTC of the City of Santiago,
Isabela, is likewise directed to report to this Court compliance
hereto within ten (10) days from transfer of these cases;
3) The Executive Judge of the City of Manila shall proceed to
raffle the criminal cases within ten (10) days from the transfer;
4) The Executive Judge of the City of Manila is likewise directed
to report to this Court compliance with the order to raffle within
ten (10) days from said compliance; and
5) The RTC Judge to whom the criminal cases are raffled is
directed to act on said cases with reasonable dispatch.
6) Finally, Judge Anastacio D. Anghad is directed to issue
forthwith warrants of arrest for the apprehension of petitioners
Jose C. Miranda, Alberto P. Dalmacio, Romeo B. Ocon, and
accused Rodel T. Maderal, conformably with the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 18 December 2002.
The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court dated 4 August
2003 is hereby LIFTED. Costs against Petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
worse than his predicament twelve (12) years ago. He postulates that no
probable cause likewise exists in this case, and what is worse is that no
bail is recommended.
This petition gives us an opportunity to revisit the concept and implication
of probable cause, the existence of which is necessary for the prosecutor
to have an accused held for trial and for a trial judge to issue a warrant
for his arrest. It is mandatory therefore that there be probable cause
before an information is filed and a warrant of arrest issued.
Unfortunately, however, at times a criminal case is filed, a warrant of
arrest issued and a person consequently incarcerated on unsubstantiated
allegations that only feign probable cause.
Petitioners Diosdado Jose Allado and Roberto L. Mendoza, alumni of the
College of Law, University of the Philippines, are partners of the Law Firm
of Salonga, Hernandez and Allado. In the practice of their profession, and
on the basis of an alleged extrajudicial confession of a security guard,
they have been accused of the heinous crime of kidnapping with murder
by the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) and ordered arrested
without bail by respondent judge.
The focal source of the information against petitioners is the sworn
statement dated 16 September 1993 of Security Guard Escolastico
Umbal, a discharge of the Philippine Constabulary, implicating them as
the brains behind the alleged kidnapping and slaying of one Eugen
Alexander Van Twest, a German national. 2 In that extrajudicial
confession, Umbal claimed that he and his companions were met by
petitioners at Silahis Hotel and in exchange for P2.5M the former
undertook to apprehend Van Twest who allegedly had an international
warrant of arrest against him. Thus, on 16 June 1992, after placing him
under surveillance for nearly a month, Umbal, Ex-policeman Rolando
Gamatero, AFPCIG Agent Roberto Santiago and SPO2 Sergio Antonino
abducted Van Twest. They blocked his blue Nissan Pathfinder under the
Alabang overpass and forced him into their car. They brought him to a
"safe house" just behind the New Bilibid Prisons. Umbal was tasked to
watch over their quarry. After four (4) days, Gamatero, Santiago and
Antonino returned to the "safe house" together with petitioners and SPO2
Roger Bato, known to Umbal also as "Batok." SPO2 Bato faked the
interrogation of Van Twest, pretending it was official, and then made him
sign certain documents. The following day, Gamatero shot Van Twest in
the chest with a baby armalite, after which Antonino stabbed him
repeatedly, cut off his private part, and later burned his cadaver into fine
ashes using gasoline and rubber tires. Umbal could not recall the exact
date when the incident happened, but he was certain it was about a year
ago.
A day after Umbal executed his extrajudicial confession, the operatives of
the PACC, armed with a search warrant issued by Judge Roberto A.
Barrios of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 11, 3 separately raided
the two (2) dwellings of Santiago, one located at No. 7 Sangley Street,
and the other, along Amalingan Street, both in Green Heights
Subdivision, Paraaque. The raiders recovered a blue Nissan Pathfinder
and assorted firearms and ammunition and placed Santiago and his
trusted aide, Efren Madolid, under arrest. Also arrested later that day
were Antonio and Bato who were found to have in their possession
several firearms and ammunition and Van Twest's Cartier sunglasses.
After evaluating the pieces of evidence gathered by PACC operatives,
Sr., Supt. Panfilo Lacson, Chief of PACC Task Force Habagat, referred
the case to the Department of Justice for the institution of criminal
proceedings against AFPCIG Agent Roberto Santiago, SPO1 Sergio
Antonino, SPO2 Roger Bato, Ex-policeman Rolando Gamatero, Efren
Madolid, and petitioners herein, Atty. Diosdado Jose Allado and Atty.
Roberto L. Mendoza, for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition,
carnapping, kidnapping for ransom with murder, and usurpation of
authority. 4 In his letter to the State Prosecutor dated 17 September 1993,
Sr. Supt. Lacson charged that
Atty. Roberto L. Mendoza and Atty. Allado of Salonga, Hernandez and
Allado Law Offices . . . planned and conspired with other suspects to
abduct and kill the German national Alexander Van Twest in order to
eliminate him after forcing the victim to sign several documents
transferring ownership of several properties amounting to several
million pesos and caused the withdrawal of P5M deposit from the
victim's bank account.
against them 12 and the 15-page undated resolution under the letterhead
of PACC, signed by the panel of prosecutors, with the Head of the PACC
Task Force recommending approval thereof. 13 That same day, the
information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati and raffled
off to Branch 62 presided by respondent Judge Roberto C. Diokno.
On 4 February 1994, respondent judge, in response to petitioners'
request, gave them until 8 February 1994 to submit their opposition to the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against all the accused. 14 On 7 February
1994, petitioners complied with the order of respondent judge. 15 The
following day,
8 February 1994, petitioner Allado filed an appeal with the Secretary of
Justice seeking review and reversal of the undated resolution of the
panel
of prosecutors, 16 which appeal was adopted by petitioner Mendoza. 17 On
11 February 1994, petitioner Allado moved to defer the proceedings
before the trial court pending resolution of his appeal before the
Secretary of Justice. 18 However, on even date, respondent judge issued
the assailed warrant of arrest against petitioners. 19 Hence, on 15
February 1994, petitioners filed with us the instant petition
forcertiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order.
On 16 February 1994, we required respondents to comment on the
petition and set the case for hearing on 28 February 1994. After the
hearing, we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining PACC from
enforcing the warrant of arrest and respondent judge from conducting
further proceedings on the case and, instead, to elevate the records to
us. Meanwhile, on 27 February 1994, petitioners voluntarily surrendered
at the Headquarters of the Capital Command (CAPCOM), Philippine
National Police (PNP), Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Metro Manila, and
on 29 February 1994, they were released on the basis of our temporary
restraining order.
Petitioners, in their 335-page petition, inclusive of annexes, principally
contend that respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and
in excess of jurisdiction in "whimsically holding that there is probable
cause against petitioners without determining the admissibility of the
evidence against petitioners and without even stating the basis of his
standing procedure that they can base their findings merely on their
personal opinion and reasonable belief, yet, this permissiveness should
not be interpreted as giving them arbitrary powers and letting them loose
in the determination of the existence of probable cause, a delicate legal
question which can result in the harassment and deprivation of liberty of
the person sought to be charged or arrested. There we said
Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is,
or may be, well founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the
prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to
believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.
The term does not mean "actual and positive cause" nor does it import
absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.
Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough
that it is it believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes
the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of
evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.
Whether an act was done causing undue injury to the government and
whether the same was done with manifest partiality or evident bad faith can
only be made out by proper and sufficient testimony. Necessarily, a
conclusion can be arrived at when the case has already proceeded on
sufficient proof. 28
fact already dead otherwise his obligation to his client would have ceased
except to comply with his duty "to inform the court promptly of such death
. . . and to give the name and residence of his executor, administrator,
guardian or other legal representative," 34 which he did not.
Under the circumstances, we cannot discount petitioners' theory that the
supposed death of Van Twest who is reportedly an international fugitive
from justice, a fact substantiated by petitioners and never refuted by
PACC, is a likely story to stop the international manhunt for his arrest. In
this regard, we are reminded of the leading case ofU.S. v.
Samarin 35 decided ninety-two years ago where this Court ruled that when
the supposed victim is wholly unknown, his body not found, and there is
but one witness who testifies to the killing, the corpus delicti is not
sufficiently proved.
Then, the extrajudicial statement of Umbal suffers from material
inconsistencies. In his sworn statement, he said that he together with his
cohorts was met by petitioners in Silahis Hotel where they hatched the
plan to abduct Van Twest. 36 However, during the preliminary
investigation, he stated that he was not part of the actual meeting as he
only waited outside in the car for his companions who supposedly
discussed the plan inside Silahis Hotel. 37
Umbal also said that petitioners arrived with Bato and conducted a mock
interrogation of Van Twest who thereafter signed various documents
upon being compelled to do so. 38 During the clarificatory questioning,
however, Umbal changed his story and said that he was asked to go
outside of the "safe house" at the time Van Twest was interrogated and
thus did not see if Van Twest indeed signed certain documents. Why
Umbal had to be sent out of the "safe house,"
no explanation was offered. Did these documents really exist? Or could
the
non-existence of these documents be the reason why PACC was not able
to comply with the order of the prosecutors to produce them during the
preliminary investigation? And then, what happened to the P2.5M that
was supposedly offered by petitioners in exchange for the abduction of
Van Twest? These and more remain unanswered.
themselves to support the belief that they are guilty of a crime that in fact
happened. Quite obviously, this has not been met.
Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the warrant for the arrest of petitioners it appearing that he did not
personally examine the evidence nor did he call for the complainant and
his witnesses in the face of their incredible accounts. Instead, he merely
relied on the certification of the prosecutors that probable cause existed.
For, otherwise, he would have found out that the evidence thus far
presented was utterly insufficient to warrant the arrest of petitioners. In
this regard, we restate the procedure we outlined in various cases we
have already decided.
In Soliven v. Makasiar, 41 we said that the judge (a) shall personally
evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
issue a warrant of arrest; or, (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, may disregard the fiscal's report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion on the existence of probable cause.
In People v. Inting, 42 we emphasized the important features of the
constitutional mandate: (a) The determination of probable cause is a
function of the judge; it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to
ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination;
(b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge.
It merely assists him in making the determination of probable cause. The
judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him. By
itself, the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is
the report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and
all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which
are material in assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause;
and, (c) Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary
inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether
the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the two inquiries
be conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there
should be no confusion about their objectives. The determination of
probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. The preliminary
investigation
proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the
accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore, whether or not he
should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial
is a function of the prosecutor.
In Lim v. Felix, 43 where we reiterated Soliven v. Makasiar and People v.
Inting, we said
[T]he Judge does not have to personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a
commissioner for the taking of the evidence. However, there should be
a report and necessary documents supporting the Fiscal's bare
certification. All these should be before the Judge.
The extent of the Judge's personal examination of the report and its
annexes depends on the circumstances of each case. We cannot
determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the Judge's
examination should be. The Judge has to exercise sound discretion for,
after all, the personal determination is vested in the Judge by the
Constitution. It can be as brief or as detailed as the circumstances of
each case require. To be sure, the judge must go beyond the
Prosecutor's certification and investigation report whenever necessary.
He should call for the complainant and witnesses themselves to answer
the court's probing questions when the circumstances of the case so
require.
Clearly, probable cause may not be established simply by showing that a
trial judge subjectively believes that he has good grounds for his action.
Good faith is not enough. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the
constitutional protection would be demeaned and the people would be
"secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" only in the fallible
discretion of the judge. 44 On the contrary, the probable cause test is an
objective one, for in order that there be probable cause the facts and
circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonably
discreet and prudent man that the accused is guilty of the crime which
has just been committed.45 This, as we said, is the standard. Hence, if
upon the filing of the information in court the trial judge, after reviewing
the information and the documents attached thereto, finds that no
probable cause exists must either call for the complainant and the
witnesses themselves or simply dismiss the case. There is no reason to
hold the accused for trial and further expose him to an open and public
accusation of the crime when no probable cause exists.
But then, it appears in the instant case that the prosecutors have similarly
misappropriated, if not abused, their discretion. If they really believed that
petitioners were probably guilty, they should have armed themselves with
facts and circumstances in support of that belief; for mere belief is not
enough. They should have presented sufficient and credible evidence to
demonstrate the existence of probable cause. For the prosecuting officer
"is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
obligation to govern all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.
As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law,
the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.
He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor indeed, he should do
so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul
ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated
to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to
bring about a just one" 46
In the case at bench, the undue haste in the filing of the information and
the inordinate interest of the government cannot be ignored. From the
gathering of evidence until the termination of the preliminary
investigation, it appears that the state prosecutors were overly eager to
file the case and secure a warrant for the arrest of the accused without
bail and their consequent detention. Umbal's sworn statement is laden
with inconsistencies and improbabilities. Bato's counter-affidavit was
considered without giving petitioners the opportunity to refute the same.
The PACC which gathered the evidence appears to have had a hand in
the determination of probable cause in the preliminary inquiry as the
undated resolution of the panel not only bears the letterhead of PACC but
was also recommended for approval by the head of the PACC Task
Force. Then petitioners were given the runaround in securing a copy of
the resolution and the information against them.
Indeed, the task of ridding society of criminals and misfits and sending
them to jail in the hope that they will in the future reform and be
productive members of the community rests both on the judiciousness of
judges and the prudence of prosecutors. And, whether it is a preliminary
investigation by the prosecutor, which ascertains if the respondent should
be held for trial, or a preliminary inquiry by the trial judge which
determines if an arrest warrant should issue, the bottomline is that there
is a standard in the determination of the existence of probable cause, i.e.,
there should be facts and circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves
to warrant a prudent and cautious man to believe that the accused is
guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Judges and prosecutors are
not off on a frolic of their own, but rather engaged in a delicate legal duty
defined by law and jurisprudence.
In this instance, Salonga v. Pao 47 finds application
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent
against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him
from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense
and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless
and expensive trial (Trocio v. Manta, 118 SCRA 241, citing Hashim v.
Boncan, 71 Phil. 216). The right to a preliminary investigation is a
statutory grant, and to withhold it would be to transgress constitutional
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary
and discriminatory use of political power. This bundle of rights guarantees
the preservation of our natural rights which include personal liberty and
security against invasion by the government or any of its branches or
instrumentalities. Certainly, in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights
takes precedence over the right of the State to prosecute, and when
weighed against each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former.
Thus, relief may be availed of to stop the purported enforcement of
criminal law where it is necessary to provide for an orderly administration
of justice, to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive
and vindictive manner, and to afford adequate protection to constitutional
rights. 49
Perhaps, this case would not have reached this Court if petitioners were
ordinary people submissive to the dictates of government. They would
have been illegally arrested and detained without bail. Then we would not
have the opportunity to rectify the injustice. Fortunately, the victims of
injustice are lawyers who are vigilant of their rights, who fight for their
liberty and freedom not otherwise available to those who cower in fear
and subjection.
Let this then be a constant reminder to judges, prosecutors and other
government agents tasked with the enforcement of the law that in the
performance of their duties they must act with circumspection, lest their
thoughtless ways, methods and practices cause a disservice to their
office and maim their countrymen they are sworn to serve and protect.
We thus caution government agents, particularly the law enforcers, to be
more prudent in the prosecution of cases and not to be oblivious of
human rights protected by the fundamental law. While we greatly applaud
their determined efforts to weed society of felons, let not their impetuous
eagerness violate constitutional precepts which circumscribe the
structure of a civilized community.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED.
The temporary restraining order we issued on 28 February 1994 in favor
of petitioners, Atty. Diosdado Jose Allado and Atty. Roberto L. Mendoza,
is made permanent. The warrant of arrest issued against them is SET
ASIDE and respondent Judge Roberto C. Diokno is ENJOINED from
proceeding any further against herein petitioners in Crim. Case No. 941757 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
SO ORDERED
REGALADO, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena,
Branch 60, convicting accused-appellant Bienvenido
Leoparte, alias "Emben," of the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the
indemnification of the offended party in the sum of P30,000.00. 1
Taking an atypical but laudable stand in this case, the Solicitor General,
in lieu of an appellee's brief, filed a manifestation and motion
recommending the acquittal of appellant since his guilt had not been
established beyond reasonable doubt. Rare though such instances may
be, it is tangible proof that said government counsel, although tasked with
representing the prosecution against an appeal from a judgment of
conviction, yields in proper cases to the paramount consideration that
while guilt should not escape, innocence must not suffer. Our task then is
The first and second assignment of errors are palpably without merit. The
complaint by the offended party provided for in Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code does not determine the jurisdiction of the courts over crimes
against chastity but is only a condition precedent for the exercise by the
proper authorities of the power to prosecute. 7
The same not being jurisdictional, the failure of appellant to raise said
issue at the trial court barred him from raising said issue on appeal, in
consonance with Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Sec. 8. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground
therefor. The failure of the accused to assert any
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because he did not file a
motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said
motion, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a
motion to quash, except the grounds of no offense
charged, lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged,
extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy, as
provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (f) and (h) of Section 3
of this Rule.
Article 344 was not enacted for the specific purpose of benefiting the
accused. When it is said that the requirement in Article 344 that a
complaint of the offended party or her relatives is jurisdictional, what is
meant is that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding. It
is not the complaint which confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case.
The court's jurisdiction is vested in it by the Judiciary Law. 8 Such
condition has been imposed out of consideration for the offended woman
and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather
than go through with the scandal of a public trial. 9
The overriding consideration in determining the issue of whether or not
the condition precedent prescribed in Article 344 has been complied with
is the intent of the aggrieved party to seek judicial redress for the affront
committed. 10 In the case at bar, the active cooperation of the offended
party in the prosecution of the case, as witness, clearly indicates said
intent. Moreover, the information filed by the fiscal specifically states that
the same was instituted upon the complaint of the offended party.
lovemaking, immoral though it may be, yet still lovemaking in the true
sense of the art. For, a rapist, whose only objective at the moment is
the satisfaction of his lust, would not understandably have the time
much less the concern to remove all of his victim's clothing, including
his own, and indulge in the sexual act preceded as it was by such
intimate and elaborate foreplay. That the sexual union was
consummated when appellant and complainant were in total
nakedness, appellant having removed complainant's dress and
underwear with such ease, only signifies that she was a willing partner
to the love tryst. In fact, complainant while describing the sexual
intercourse, never mentioned on her own initiative any form of
resistance from her. For that matter, the resistance she claims to have
employed, albeit weakly, was only in response to the question of
counsel, aware perhaps that without resistance the complaint for rape
against appellant is doomed. Worse still is the reason advanced by
complainant for resisting the sexual act. She allegedly resisted
appellant not because she does not like it but simply because she was
already getting married to another man.
In the same vein, the subsequent sexual intercourses between
complainant and appellant in a house of the latter's uncle, where only
the two of them stayed for two nights, and in appellant's own house,
were no less than part of their pre-marital honeymoon. They indulged in
the sexual activity while being completely naked with such frequency
and regularity. No resistance ever came from complainant except the
lame allegation that she was getting married to another man.
4. As complainant's theory of abduction with rape crumbles, appellant's
claim that they eloped because they are sweetheart gains more solid
grounds. Complainant admitted that the various woman's dresses and
underthings in appellant's possession were hers. However, she failed to
explain why they were all in appellant's possession. The only logical
explanation is that which was offered by appellant. That when he and
complainant met on the night of September 16, 1985, she was carrying
with her some clothes, aside from what she was wearing. Here again
the physical facts of the case belie any claim of abduction. For when a
woman leaves her own house with some extra clothes with her, the
theory of elopement is more credible than the allegation of abduction.
The recital of the foregoing circumstances, taken not only from the
defense evidence but from that of the prosecution itself, cannot but
support the claim of appellant that the offended party went with him
voluntarily and that their sexual relations thereafter were with their mutual
consent. We are accordingly convinced that, as prayed for by appellant
and recommended by the Solicitor General, a verdict of not guilty should
be handed down in this case.