7/27/2019 Crimproc - Cases - Digest - First

1/5

People vs Binsol, GR No. L-8346

Facts: This is a case of kidnapping for ransom. A certain Dr. Severo Siasoco was kidnapped by a group of men in his Buck estate in Cavite. Twelveindividuals were accused of the crime. The question presented to the court is whether the accused committed the crime alleged. Their conviction wasprimarily effected through the testimony of sabelo !eciel.This sabelo !eciel is one of the kidnappers and testified against the accused. "e was integral to the kidnapping that he was the one who wrote theransom letter as it was being dictated by Binsol. "is testimonies were corroborated by the victim# Dr. Siasoco.The striking part of this case is the e$clusion of sabelo !eciel in the information against the accused even though he had important participation inthe commission of the crime. This e$clusion led to the trial courts ordering his prosecution but nonetheless his statements were allowed to stand. Thedefense concluded that the act of the prosecution to not include !eciel runs in violation of the duties of the government prosecutor which is to includein the complaint or information when an offense is committed by more than one person all those who according to the evidence appear to beresponsible therefor %&ule '()# section ' and *# &ules of Court+. The defense further contends that the proper procedure that should have been doneis to at least include !eciel in the information and if he appears to be the least guilty# for the fiscal to file later a motion for his discharge to be utili,edas a witness for the prosecution# for only in that way can the defense be given an opportunity to help the court in determining that all the elementsrequired by the rule to warrant such discharge are present %&ule ''*# section -+.

Main Issue: hether or not the testimonies of !eciel valid.

Hel: /es they are valid. t is true that our &ules of Court require that all persons who have participated in the commission of a crime should beincluded in the complaint or information# and that a person included in the complaint or information can only be discharged to be used as a witnessby the government when in the 0udgment of the court the conditions prescribed in Section -# &ule ''*# are present1 !ut t"e #act t"at a pe$son "asnot !een p$eviousl% c"a$&e o$ inclue in t"e in#o$'ation even i# "e appea$s to "ave ta(en pa$t in t"e co''ission o# t"e c$i'e oes notan cannot, p$event t"e &ove$n'ent p$osecuto$ #$o' utili)in& "i' as a *itness i# "e !elieves t"at "e is t"e !est *itness t"at can testi#% asto t"e co''ission o# t"e c$i'e. In t"e isc"a$&e o# "is uties, a &ove$n'ent p$osecuto$ is #$ee to c"oose t"e *itness o$ *itnesses "eee's 'o$e +uali#ie o$ co'petent to testi#% #o$ t"e p$osecution an t"e$e is not"in& eit"e$ in t"e la* o$ in t"e $ules t"at *oul $e+ui$e"i' to #i$st inclue "i' in t"e in#o$'ation an t"en late$ secu$e "is isc"a$&e !e#o$e "e coul p$esent "i' as a &ove$n'ent *itness.

The fiscal is free to produce as witnesses for the prosecution all the persons who had been present at# and cogni,ant of# the perpetration of the crimeand who he believes can testify to the truth hereof."e $ules $elative to t"e $i&"t o# &ove$n'ent p$osecuto$ to utili)e a pe$son *"o "as pa$ticipate in t"e co''ission o# a c$i'e as a *itness#o$ t"e p$osecution, as #ollo*s:

when an offense is committed by more than one person# it is the duty of the fiscal to include all of them in the complaint or information

%section *# &ule '()# &ules of Court+1

if the fiscal desires to utili,e one of those charged with the offense as a government witness# the fiscal may ask the court to discharge one

of them after complying with the conditions prescribed by law %section -# &ule ''*+2

there is nothing in the rule from which it can be inferred that before a person can be presented as a government witness that he be first

included as a co3accused in the information# for the fiscal is free to produce as a witness anyone whom he believes can testify to the truthof the crime charged %4.S. vs. 5nrique,# supra+1 and

the failure to follow the requirements of the rule relative to the use of a person# himself particeps criminis# as a government witness does

not violate the due process clause of the constitution# nor render his testimony ineffectual if otherwise competent and admissiblee cannot therefore discard the testimony of sabelo !eciel simply because he appears to be equally guilty of the crime charged and has not beenincluded in the information as required be section *# &ule '() of the &ules of Court# it appearing that said testimony is admissible and competent andhas been corroborated in some material respects by other evidence of the prosecution. 6oreover# the rule has been substantially complied with

when upon order of the court sabelo !eciel was charged by the fiscal with the same crime in a separate proceeding even if it was later dismissedwhen the very complaining witness# Dr. Siasoco# lost interest in prosecuting him after a 0udgment of conviction had been against his companionsnow defendants3appellants in the present case.

n ot"e$ t"in&s:

There was a question on credibility of the witness7 statement %!eciel7s statement+

o The general rule is that the Supreme Court and other appellant courts cannot be an arbiter for facts# however# it is necessary to

review the testimony7s of !eciel because his testimonies were not done in a manner were he would be granted immunity. On the contrary, a perusal of the decision of the trial court would at once reveal the painstaking care taken by it in

analyzing the testimony of Jeciel precisely because he is one whose conscience is not free from blame and it wanted

to be sure that he told the truth even if by doing so he was exposing himself to a sure prosecution. Court decided against the defense on the question of credibility.

o There were inconsistencies that were noticed# however# they were minor.

The exact date and time of the meetings would therefore appear immaterial. The important thing is that the meetings

actually took place. Even the defense itself has intimated that said contradictions are seemingly trivial matters and canonly be due to mere slips of the memory.

Conspiracy was present.

o !s to the nature of the liability of appellants, we agree with the "olicitor #eneral that said appellants committed the crime with a

common design as shown by the following circumstances$ %&' that (insol actually proposed to Jeciel the plan to kidnap )r."iasoco in order to extort ransom money from him and his family* %+' that Tomas ellerva and -oman erolino likewise told

Jeciel to proceed with that mission to kidnap )r. "iasoco* %' that ellerva and erolino gave instruction to Jeciel as to the timeand place where )r. "iasoco could be found* %/' that Jeciel in fact contacted the men of ellerva and erolino the very day when)r. "iasoco was kidnapped from his farm on the day in 0uestion* and %1' that (insol took an active part the release or rescue of

7/27/2019 Crimproc - Cases - Digest - First

2/5

)r. "iasoco although part of his original scheme was to make it appear that he had nothing to do with kidnapping. Thesecircumstances establish conspiracy and sub2ect appellants to e0ual degree of responsibility.

/0RI vs P1PL1 GR. 8323

Facts: This is a case of murder originally filed with the Circuit Criminal Court %CCC+ is 8asig City. The crime# however# was alleged to have beencommitted in Cavite. Soon after filing with the CCC# the same court would be abolished. The case was then transferred to the &egional Trial Court in8asig City. The 8etitioner# Austria# would now file this petition to question the validity of the 0urisdiction of the 8asig &egional Trial Court. "isargument is that the &egional Trial Court of 8asig shall have no 0urisdiction over the case considering that the alleged crime was committed in Caviteand that it should be the &egional Trial Court in Cavite that should have 0urisdiction over the case.Note: CCC393:;(< empowered the CCC to try =cases that may be filed >therein? from the province of Cavite and its three cities# at 8asig# &i,al.=

Issues: hether or not the transfer to the &egional Trial Court in 8asig was validHel: The Court agrees that after the CCCs ceased to function# the case should have been coursed to the Cavite &TC# the %alleged+ crime havingbeen committed in Alfonso# Cavite. The Court finds# however# circumstances that argue against the setting aside of the 8asig &TC proceedings folack of 0urisdiction.There can be no debate that this case has been pending for the last nine years. The Court cannot indeed imagine the unsettling consequences#should the same be tried anew# in terms of the e$peditious administration# especially# of criminal 0ustice. "e ou$t #ins t"at t"e ens o# spee%t$ial *ill !e su!se$ve !ette$ i# t"e p$oceein&s !e#o$e 5u&e a&uioa R 7 Pasi& *e$e le#t alone.6oreover# the records show that the petitioner had pursued vigorously the case before the lower court# on the supposition that it had 0urisdiction# andhad asked it to render a 0udgment of acquittal# as he in fact requests this Court to set aside its decision %as well as the decision of the respondentCourt of Appeals+. t is a behavior that forces him to accept the 0urisdiction of the 8asig court1 because if the latter lacked 0urisdiction# it cannot act#much less render a decision# whether of a conviction or acquittal. Surely# he cannot rightfully maintain an attack on the trial court@s competence afterhaving accepted and invoked it. 1stoppel is an i'pei'ent a&ainst an% attac(.

n ot"e$ t"in&s:

There were seven issues pertaining to facts.

o The general rule is that the Supreme Court cannot disturb on questions of facts e$cept2 %a+ when the same are grounded entirely

on speculation# surmise# and con0ecture1 %b+ the inference made is manifestly mistaken1 %c+ the Court of Appeals committed agrave abuse of discretion1 %d+ its 0udgment is based on a misapprehension of facts1%e+ it went beyond the issues of the case andits findings contravene admissions of the parties1 %f+ its findings are contrary to those of the trial court1 %g+ the same areconclusions without citation of specific evidence1 %h+ the facts set forth in the appellant@s brief are not disputed by the appelleeand %i+ when the findings of the Court of Appeals are not supported by the evidence or are in fact contradicted by the evidence onrecord

Austria was nonetheless acquitted.

o The decision was firmly based on the testimony of Austria.

3t is true that the petitioner4s story is as already noted by itself self5serving, that alone cannot overcome the

presumption of innocence with which no less than the fundamental law of the land consecrates accused persons. 6hais significant is that the prosecution has shown no sufficient evidence essential for conviction

L0N vs 191/I1 01R1R; G$ 6Facts: 5leven persons believed to be members of the uratong Baleleng gang# an organi,ed crime syndicate involved in bank robberies# were slainby elements of the Anti3Bank &obbery andntelligence Task roup %AB&T+. Among those included in the AB&T were petitioners and petitioner3intervenors.

Acting on a media e$pose of S8; 5duardo delos &eyes# a member of the Criminal nvestigation Command# that what actually transpired was asummary e$ecution and not a shoot3out between the uratong Baleleng gang members and the AB&T# mbudsman Aniano Desiertoformed apanel of investigators to investigate the said incident. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation. "owever# a review boardmodified the panel7s finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty3si$ respondents including herein petitioner# chargedas principal# and herein petitioner3intervenors# charged as accessories. After a reinvestigation# the mbudsman filed amended informations beforethe Sandiganbayan# where petitioner was charged only as an accessory.

The accused filed separate motions questioning the 0urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan# asserting that under the amended informations# the cases falwithin the 0urisdiction of the &egional Trial Court pursuant to Section ; of &.A.

7/27/2019 Crimproc - Cases - Digest - First

3/5

present proof of arbitrariness. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when the following concur2 %'+ it must rest on substantial distinction1%;+ it must be germane to the purpose of the law1 %:+ must not be limited to e$isting conditions only# and %I+ must apply equally to all members of thesame class1 all of which are present in this case.Consequently# for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of officialfunctions of the accused 8G8 officers# the offense charged in the sub0ect criminal cases is plain murder and# therefore# within the e$clusive original

0urisdiction of the &egional Trial Court and not the Sandiganbayan.

n ot"e$ t"in&s:

The question on the law being unconstitutional because it is ex post facto is answered on the negative.

o The law is one that is remedial in nature. n accordance to the constitution# retroactive penal laws shall be rendered

unconstitutional. The questioned law being remedial and not penal defeats the argument with regards constitutionality. There is nothing ex post facto in -.!. 7+/8. Ex post facto law, generally, provides retroactive effect of penal laws. -.!.

7+/8 is not apenal law. 3t is a substantive law on 2urisdiction which is not penal in character. enal laws are those actsof the 9egislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and

provide for their punishment. -.!. :8:1, as regards the "andiganbayan;s 2urisdiction, its mode of appeal and otherprocedural matters, has been declared by the onte2o, it was held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it is

intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his officia

functions. "uch intimate relation must be alleged in the information which is essential in determining the 2urisdiction ofthe "andiganbayan. ?owever, upon examination of the amended information, there was no specific allegation of factsthat the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their officialduties as police officers. 9ikewise, the amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested andinvestigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody. The stringent re0uirement that the charge setforth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to havecommitted in relation to his office was not established.

ca'po, I v '!us'an, ==2 0R ?=2

Facts: The herein 8etitioner and his father# campo # were charged with violation of Sec. : %h+ of &epublic Act. Go. :('-# as amended# in two %;+separate informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. The original charges were then sub0ected to reinvestigation by the special prosecutors.After conducting the reinvestigation of the cases# the special prosecutors was able to find no connivance between the parties involved andrecommended for the withdrawal and dismissal of the case filed with the Sandiganbayan. But the mbudsman# decided to disapprove therecommendation and continue the case with the Sandiganbayan. This is to the dismay of the 8etitioner leading to him filling this case of certiorari

with the Supreme Court.Issue: hether or not the act of disapproval of the mbudsman of the recommendations done with grave abuse of discretion.

Hel: Go# the acts were in fact valid. e find that the petition fails to show a grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in e$cess of 0urisdictionor the part of to be respondent mbudsman. The said respondent@s act of disapproving the recommendation of the special prosecutors to dismissthe informations filed in Crim. Case Gos. ')H(' and ')H(I against ov. 6ariano 4n campo and his son# 6ariano J. campo 9# is not whimsicanor capricious. Geither is it tainted with vindictiveness or arbitrariness. He isapp$ove t"e $eco''enation o# t"e special p$osecuto$s !ecause"e since$el% !elieve t"at t"e$e is su##icient evience to inict !ot" accuse. "is is an e@e$cise o# t"e '!us'anAs po*e$s !ase uponconstitutional 'anate an t"e cou$ts s"oul not inte$#e$e in suc" e@e$cise. The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory andprosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the ffice of the mbudsman but upon practicality as well. therwise# the functions of the courts

will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the ffice of thembudsman with regard to complaints filed before it# in much the same way that the courts would be e$tremely swamped if they could be compelledto review the e$ercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court# or dismissa complaint by a private complainant.

n ot"e$ t"in&s:

There have been a restatement as to when a criminal prosecution can be restrained2

o %&' To afford ade0uate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused*

o %+' 6hen necessary for the orderly administration 2ustice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions*

o %' 6hen there is a pre52udicial 0uestion which is sub52udice*

o %/' 6hen the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority*

o %1' 6here the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation*

o %@' 6hen double 2eopardy is clearly apparent*

o %:' 6here the court has no 2urisdiction over the offense*

o %7' 6here it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution*

o %8' 6here the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance*

o %&A' 6hen there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to 0uash on that ground has been denied*

7/27/2019 Crimproc - Cases - Digest - First

4/5

o %&&' reliminary in2unction has been issued by the "upreme

7/27/2019 Crimproc - Cases - Digest - First

5/5

accused appellant &icardo Jeli$ to the same charge of murder.

n ot"e$ t"in&s:

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial courts and lowered the imposed penalty.

o 8remeditation was not clearly proven by the court a quo

3ndeed, accused5appellant Joseph