crimpro digest.docx

7/28/2019 crimpro digest.docx

1/5

8. Broc ka vs Enri le

RATIO:

GEN. RULE: Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final

EXCEPTIONS:

1. To afford adequate protection to the consti rights of the accused

2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of

actions

3. When there is no prejudicial question which is subjudice

4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority

5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent

7. When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense

8. h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution

9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that

ground had been denied

11. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of

petitioners

HERE, criminal proceedings had become a case of persecution, have been undertaken by stateofficials in bad faith:

1. Respondents invoked a spurious PDA in refusing Brocka, et als release from detention BUT

This PDA was issued on Jan.28 85 and invoked only on Feb.9 85 upon receipt of TCs order of release violates guideline that PDA shall be invoked within 24 hrs in MM or 48 hours outside MM (Ilagan v

Enrile)

Despite subpoenas for PDAs production, prosecution merely presented a purported xeerox copy of it

violates Court pronouncement that individuals against whom PDAs have been issued should be

furnished with the original, and the duplicate original, and a certified true copy issued by the official

having official custody of the PDA, at the time of the apprehension (Ilagan v Enrile)

2. SolGens manifestation: Brocka, et al should have filed a motion to quash the information [instead ofa petition for HC]Court Held: such a course of action would have been a futile move, considering the circumstances then

prevailing:

1. spurious and inoperational PDA

2. sham and hasty PI clear signals that the prosecutors intended to keep Brocka, et al in detention until the second offense

could be facilitated and justified without need of issuing a warrant of arrest anew

IF-THEN RULE:

If there is manifest bad faith that accompanies the filing of criminal charges (as in this case wherepetitioners were barred from enjoying provisional release until such time that charges were filed) and

where a sham preliminary investigation was hastily conducted THEN charges that are filed as a resultshould lawfully be enjoined.

xx Petition granted. TC permanently enjoined from proceeding in any manner with the cases subject ofthe petition.

9.Narciso vs Sta. Romana-Cruz

When the penalty prescribed by law is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing must be

conducted by the trial judge before bail can be granted to the accused. Absent such hearing, the order

granting bail is void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. In parricide, the accusedcannot be considered an offended party just because he was married to the deceased. In the interest of

justice and in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the sister of the victim may be deemed to

be an "offended party"; hence, she has the legal personality to challenge the void order of the trial court.


2/5

10. Ebarle vs Isnani

A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the fiscal need not be filed by the "offended

party." The rule has been that, unless the offense subject thereof is one that cannot be prosecuted deoficio, the same may be filed, for preliminary investigation purposes, by any competent person. 20 The"complaint" referred to in the Rule 110 contemplates one filed in court, not with the fiscal, In that case,the proceeding must be started by the aggrieved party himself. 21

For as a general rule, a criminal action is commenced by complaint or information, both of which arefiled in court. In case of a complaint, it must be filed by the offended party; with respect to aninformation, it is the fiscal who files it. But a "complaint" filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action maybe filed by any person.

11.Rodriguez vs Gadiane

Ratio

If criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, the appeal on the

criminal aspect of the case must be instituted by the Solicitor General in behalf of the State. The

capability of the private complainant to question such dismissal or acquittal is limited only to

the civil aspect of the case. (Metrobank v. Veridiano II). But if the order which is assailed is not

one dismissing the case or acquitting respondents / defendants, there is no limitation to the

capacity of the private complainant to seek judicial review of the assailed order.

12.Bautista vs City Fiscal

There is no question that the prosecuting fiscal has the right to conduct his own investigation. As early

as 1938, it has been the ruling that after a criminal case has been forwarded by the inferior court to the

trial court which has jurisdiction to try it on the merits, and before the fiscal has filed the necessary

information, the latter not only has the power but also the duty to investigate the facts upon which the

complaint filed in inferior court was based, to examine the evidence submitted and such other evidence

as the parties may deem proper to submit on their own free will or on demand of the fiscal for the

purpose of determining whether there is at least prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the

accused and overcoming the presumption of innocence in his favor. If after he has done all these and

considering an the circumstances of the case, the fiscal believes that the evidence is not sufficient to

establish prima facie the guilt of the accused he should submit to the court before which the case is

pending the corresponding motion for dismissal. (People vs. Ovilla, 65 Phil. 722). Further, in Provincial

Fiscal of Bataan vs. Judge Ambrocio T. Dollete, 103 Phil. 914, the court very clearly said that "because

of the right of a prosecuting attorney to conduct his own investigation of a criminal case elevated to him

from the justice of the peace, naturally, there is corresponding duty or obligation of the prosecuting

witness, especially the offended parties, to submit to said investigation. Consequently, said offendedparties and their legal counsel, the private prosecutor, are not justified in refusing to submit to the same

and to give their testimonies ... It is rather embarrassing for a prosecuting attorney to be compelled to

prosecute a case when he is in no position to do so, because in his opinion he does not have the

necessary evidence to secure conviction or he is not convinced of the merits of the case. If the


3/5

prosecuting attorney fails or refuses to file said information within a reasonable time, then either the

offended parties or the court could invoked Section 1679 of the Revised Administrative Code so that the

Department of Justice could designate one to act as Provincial Fiscal and file the corresponding

complaint or information. "Finally, in Salcedo vs. Suarez, 80 SCRA 237, We held that "[u]pon receipt of

the record in the court of first instance from the municipal court, it is well settled as reaffirmed in Talusan

vs, Ofiana that the Provincial fiscal (or his assistant) has the power to conduct his own investigation or

reinvestigation of a case already elevated to the Court of First Instance by a Municipal Judge or justice

of the peace who conducted a preliminary investigation thereon, in order to determine his own course of

action as prosecuting officer', and thereafter he may either move to dismiss the case or file the

corresponding information."

13.Crespo vs Mogul

ISSUE: Whether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial

Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for review, may

refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits.

RATIO: YES.

It is a cardinal principle that an criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall

be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. And it is through the conduct of a preliminary

investigation that the fiscal determines the existence of a prima facie case that would warrant the

prosecution of a case. The Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal's discretion and control of the criminal

prosecution.

Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the

fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court,

the Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the

merits proceed for the proper determination of the case.

The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as we all know is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to

secure the conviction of the person accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to the

contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the

Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to whether the accused shouldbe convicted or acquitted. The fiscal should not shirk from the responsibility of appearing for the People

of the Philippines even under such circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution of the

case leaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null and void.

The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for the prosecution although he may turn

over the presentation of the evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his direction and control.

The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any

disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sounddiscretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal

cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court

is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within

its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be


4/5

addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done

before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or

upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.

14.Padilla et al vs CA

The old rule that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case also releases him from civil liability is

one of the most serious flaws in the Philippine legal system. It has given rise to numberless instances of

miscarriage of justice, where the acquittal was due to a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as to

the guilt of the accused. The reasoning followed is that inasmuch as the civil responsibility is derived

from the the criminal offense, when the latter is not proved, civil liability cannot be demanded.

This is one of those cases where confused thinking leads to unfortunate and deplorable consequences.

Such reasoning fails to draw a clear line of demarcation between criminal liability and civil responsibility,

and to determine the logical result of the distinction. The two liabilities are separate and distinct from

each other. One affects the social order and the other, private rights. One is for the punishment or

correction of the offender while the other is for reparation of damages suffered by the aggrieved party

it is just and proper that, for the purposes of the imprisonment of or fine upon the accused, the offense

should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But for the purpose of indemnifying the complaining party,

why should the offense also be proved beyond reasonable doubt? Is not the invasion or violation of

every private right to be proved only by preponderance of evidence? Is the right of the aggrieved person

any less private because the wrongful act is also punishable by the criminal law? (Code Commission,

pp. 45-46).

A separate civil action may be warranted where additional facts have to be established or more

evidence must be adduced or where the criminal case has been fully terminated and a separate

complaint would be just as efficacious or even more expedient than a timely remand to the trial courtwhere the criminal action was decided for further hearings on the civil aspects of the case. The offended

party may, of course, choose to file a separate action. These do not exist in this case. Considering

moreover the delays suffered by the case in the trial, appellate, and review stages, it would be unjust to

the complainants in this case to require at this time a separate civil action to be filed.

With this in mind, we therefore hold that the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in awarding

damages despite a judgment of acquittal.


5/5

Documents

crimpro digest.docx