Crimpro - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

CRIMPROWEEK 1SATURDAYGomez v. People, G. No. 216824, Nov. 10 2020 ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of authority on the part of the handling prosecutor in filing an Information prevents the Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of the accused? - ** NO** FACTS...

Description

CRIMPRO WEEK 1 SATURDAY Gomez v. People, G.R. No. 216824, Nov. 10 2020 ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of authority on the part of the handling prosecutor in filing an Information prevents the Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of the accused? - NO FACTS: An Information was filed against the accused Gina Villa Gomez for corruption of public officials under Art. 212 of RPC. The RTC dismissed the case for the reason that the Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) had no authority to prosecute the case as the Information he filed does not contain the signature or any indication of approval from the City Prosecutor. Hence, the ACP’s lack of authority to file the Information is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured. The Prosecution filed for Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied. The prosecution appealed and elevated the case to the CA through the OSG citing that there is nothing in the Rules of Court which states that the authorization or approval of the city or provincial prosecutor should appear on the face or be incorporated in the Information. The CA granted the petition and reinstated the criminal case, setting aside the decision of the RTC. Hence, this case. RULING: The Court affirmed the decision of the CA and ordered to resume the proceedings of the criminal case. The Court has abandoned the doctrine in Villa v. Ibañez which states that the absence of the signature and approval of the provincial/city/state

prosecutor on the face of an Information is a jurisdictional defect that dismisses a case. The Court clarified that a handling prosecutor's lack of prior written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor in the filing of an Information does not affect a trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused. The Court even emphasized that the written authority or approval is merely a formal requirement and part of preliminary investigation. It is not jurisdictional and may be waived by the accused expressly or impliedly. As such, the formal defect must be raised by the Accused prior to entering his or her plea. Once a plea is made, any defect in the Information is deemed waived. Hence, the consequence of not complying with the formal requirement is that the handling prosecutor’s representation as counsel for the State may not be recognized by the trial court. DOCTRINE: A handling prosecutor's lack of prior written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor in the filing of an Information does not affect a trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused. It is merely a formal requirement and part of preliminary investigation. It is not jurisdictional and may be waived by the accused expressly or impliedly. Buaya v. Polo, G.R. No. 75079, Jan. 26, 1989 ISSUE: Does RTC-Manila has jurisdiction over the case even though Buaya, the accused, was based in Cebu and the crime allegedly took place in Cebu? YES FACTS: The accused Buaya is an insurance agent who was authorized to transact and underwrite insurance business and collect premiums for and on behalf of Country Baker

It was found out that there was a shortage on the amount and that it was alleged that she misappropriated the funds. She was then charged with Estafa before the RTC-Manila under the Respondent Judge Polo. Both the motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration of the denial was denied by the RTC. Hence, Buaya filed a petition for Certiorari before the SC where she seeks to annul and set aside the orders of denial issued by the Respondent Judge. She contested that the Court has no jurisdiction over the case since she was based in Cebu and the funds were misappropriated there as well. RULING: The Court dismissed the petition and remanded the case back to RTCManila. The Court held that according to Sec. 4 of Rule 110 of RoC, all criminal prosecutions shall be instituted and tried in the Court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or any of the elements thereof took place. In the Information filed against the petitioner, it was stated therein the "City of Manila PHL" as one of the places where the petitioner committed estafa. Hence, from the Information itself, RTC-Manila has jurisdiction. Moreover, estafa is a continuing offense (transitory) which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took place. One of the elements of estafa is damage/prejudice to the offended party The private respondent has its principal office in Manila city The failure of the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in MNL Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, Dec. 5, 2012

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner Jimenez has a legal personality to file the petition for certiorari on behalf of the People of the PHL? NONE FACTS: Both the petitioners and respondents own a local manning agency. Later on the petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit against the respondents for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment. The petitioner alleged that the respondents falsely represented their stockholdings to secure a license to operate as a recruitment agency from POEA. The City Prosecution filed the Information against the respondents but later on withdraw the Information. The withdrawal of Information was not allowed by the RTC since they found a probable cause to try the Respondents. Alamil, one of the Respondents, filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause with request to defer enforcement of warrants of arrest. RTC denied the motion but Alamil then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The MoR was granted by the RTC. The RTC was then dismissed the case and set aside the earlier issued warrants of arrest. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal after the RTC denied his motion for reconsideration. RTC denied the notice of appeal since the petitioner filed it without the conformity of the Solicitor General who is mandated to represent the People in criminal actions appeared to CA. Hence, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the decisions of the RTC. The CA dismissed the case outright since only the OSG has the legal personality to represent the People under Admin Code. Moreover, the Petitioner was not a real party interest to institute the case since he is not a victim of the crime charged to respondents but a mere

competitor. Hence, this case. RULINGS: The Court ruled that the petitioner has no legal standing personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case. When the plaintiff/defendant is not a real party in interest, the suit is dismissible. For someone to be a real party in interest, he or she must present substantial interest and not consequential interest. Moreover, all criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In appeals, criminal cases before CA and before SC, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People. In criminal cases, the People is the real party in interest and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in CA or SC. But, ofc, it is subject to exception such as when there is a denial in due process. Hence, the petitioner has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the case since the main issue raised by the petitioner involved criminal aspect of the case. Hence, petition was denied. People v. Vanzuela, G.R. No. 178266, [July 21, 2008] ISSUE: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case which involves estafa in an agrarian dispute? YES FACTS: The RTC dismissed the estafa case filed by Veneranda alleging that the respondents Vanzuela committed estafa after the non-payment of rentals involving a lease of an agricultural land owned by Veneranda.

RTC said that the case involves an agrarian dispute which falls under the primary and exclusive original jurisdiction of the Dept. of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) The RTC emphasized that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because the controversy had the character of an agrarian dispute. RULINGS: The Court held that there are 3 requisites which all need to concur for the Court to acquire Criminal Jurisdiction which are: 1. The Court must have jurisdiction over subject matter 2. The Court must have jurisdiction over over the territory where the offense was committed 3. The Court must have jurisdiction over the persons of the accused For subject matter, The jurisdiction of a tribunal over a subject matter is conferred by the law. It is determined by the material allegations of the Complaint or Information at the time the action was commenced The Lack of Jurisdiction over a SM cannot be cured by silence or express consent. In this case, there is a jurisdiction since it involves the crime of estafa. The law confers to the RTC the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving estafa. For territory, Crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction For persons of the accused, the Respondents voluntarily submitted to RTC's authority. Hence, RTC is wrong in concluding that it has no jurisdiction to the case. Antiporda v. Gatchitorena, G.R. No. 133289 Dec. 23, 1999 Issue:

W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged. Yes SUMMARY: Herein petitioners (accused in a criminal case) were charged of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos. It was filed in the 1 st Division of Sandiganbayan. The Court issued an order giving Prosecutor Agcaoili to amend the Information as there were inadequacies in the allegations. It was unclear whether or not the subject matter of the accusation was office related and therefore the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case. In the amended information, it added that it is in the exercise of the official duties of the accused. Thereafter, accused filed a Motion to have a reinvestigation of the case because of the amendment in the information. However, the Court denied the same said that there was nothing that was added in the original information. Hence, this petition. Ratio: Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the case because the original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the prosecution belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein. However, the Court held that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation filed, it was they who challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is work connected. People v. Lagon, G.R. No. 45815, May 18, 1990 ISSUE: W/N the petition was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction? FACTS:

A criminal information for estafa was filed in the Roxas City Court against the accused Lagon. The City Court stated that at the time of the alleged commission in 1975, the case would have been under the City Court’s jurisdiction; But by the time the criminal information was filed on July 1976, PD 818 (effective Oct. 1975) had already increased the imposable penalty for estafa to one which could not be imposed by the City Court but by the Court of First Instance. The City Court therefore dismissed the information for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to its being refiled. Hence, this petition for review by the people, arguing that the City Court has jurisdiction. RULINGS: The SC ruled that the City Court properly dismissed the information. According to the Judiciary Act of 1948, The RTC or the CFI has the jurisdiction over cases where the penalty exceeds 6 yrs of imprisonment or prision correctional or fine exceeding 6k. While Municipal and City Courts have the jurisdiction over cases where the penalty DOEST NOT exceed 6 yrs of imprisonment or prision correctional or fine NOT exceeding 6k. Moreover, the subject matter jurisdiction of the court is measured by the law in effect at the commencement of the filing of criminal action and not when the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense charged. Thus, jurisdiction over the instant case pertained to the CFI considering PD No. 818 increased the imposable penalty prision mayor. On the issue of retroactivity, this rule on subject matter jurisdiction does not violate the rule of retroactivity of penal laws because the jurisdiction of the court is not determined by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or by the result of the evidence that would be presented during trial but by the extent of which the penalty which the law imposes,

together with other legal obligations, on the basis of facts are recited in the complaint or information. Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296 (2007) Issue: Whether or not the RTC has the jurisdiction of the case despite the fact that at the time the accused was arraigned, RA 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan TC? Facts: Private complainant Carlos filed a case against petitioner Palana for violating BP 22. Carlos testified that Palana issued a post dated check as a security for the money borrowed by Palana. However, the check presented for payment was dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds. Palana was arraigned in 1995 and pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. At the time he was arraigned, RA 7691 was already in effect. RA 7691 expands the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Court. RTC and CA both found the petitioner Palana guilty of the crime charged. Hence, this appeal. Petitioner now is contesting that it should be Metropolitan Trial Court and not the RTC which has the jurisdiction over the case pursuant to RA 7691. Ruling: The Court ruled in negative. The Court held that Jurisdiction to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action and not during the arraignment of the accused. It should be noted that the Information charging petitioner with BP 22 was filed in 1991. And at that time, the governing law determinative of jurisdiction is Batasang Pambasana 129. BP 29 only gives the MTC exclusive jurisdiction over cases where the penalty imposed is imprisonment of not exceeding 4 years and 2 months or a fine of not more that Php 4,000.

Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is punishable with imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed ₱200,000.00, or both fine and imprisonment. In the present case, the fine imposable is ₱200,000.00 hence, the Regional Trial Court properly acquired jurisdiction over the case. Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation unless the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate on actions pending before its enactment. Indeed, R.A. No. 7691 contains retroactive provisions. However, these only apply to civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage

People v. Sandiganbayan & Plaza, G.R. No. 169004, Sept. 15, 2010 Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod whose salary grade is below 27 and charged with violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines? Facts: Respondent Rolando Plaza, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Toledo City, Cebu with salary grade 25, had been charged in the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 89 of The Auditing Code of the Philippines for his failure to liquidate the cash advances he received amounting to P33,000.00 which he received by reason of his office which he was duty bound to liquidate as required by law. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case for its lack of jurisdiction over the case. Now, the petitioner, the People, questions the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan in handling this case. Ruling:

Yes. The Court reiterated that the general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. The exception is not applicable in the present case as the offense involved herein is a violation of The Auditing Code of the Philippines. The Court added that this case falls under Section 4 (b) where other offenses and felonies committed by public officials or employees in relation to their office are involved. The present case having been instituted on March 25, 2004, the provisions of R.A. 8249 shall govern. Moreover, those that are classified as Grade 26 and below such as Plaza may still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold the positions thus enumerated by the law. It is enough that the said offenses and felonies were committed in relation to the public officials or employees' office.

Note: 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 P.D. 1606, as amended, exclusively to cases where the offense charged is either a violation of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379 or Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code People v. Sandiganbayan and Amante Serana v. Sandiganbayan: The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486, promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on June 11, 1978. It was promulgated to attain the highest norms of official conduct required of public officers and employees, based on the concept that public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to the people. 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, 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 the Information having been filed on March 25, 2004. As extensively explained in the earlier mentioned case, Doctrine: The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense. Treñas v. People, G. R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012 Issue: W/N the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the case? NO Summary: Margarita wanted to buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo City. It was then mortgaged with Maybank. The bank manager recommended Hector Treñas to Elizabeth, the niece of Margarita, for advice regarding the transfer of the title. Elizabeth gave P150,000 to Hector who issued a corresponding receipt and prepared a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Subsequently, Hector gave Elizabeth two Revenue Official Receipts. However, she was informed by the BIR that the receipts were fake. Hector admitted to her that the receipts were fake and that he used the P120,000 for his other transactions. Elizabeth demanded the return of the money. Appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a check in the amount of P120,000, deducting from P150,000 the P30,000 as attorney's fees. When the check was deposited with the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the same was dishonored for the reason that the account was closed. An Information was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor before the RTC, both of Makati City. The RTC found petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.

Petitioner then filed an MR, which was denied by the CA. Petitioner then filed his Petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC. Held: The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should ha...