People v. Badilla (G.R. No. 218578) - August 31, 2016 Chain of Custody rule - Section 21 of RA 9165.
Full description
Lumauig v. People - G.R. No. 166680 (July 7, 2014) Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code - Failure of Accountable Officer to Render AccountsFull description
digestFull description
CrimPro digestFull description
consti2Full description
Constitutional law 2 Rights of the accusedFull description
Digest in Crim 2
Constitutional Law Bill of RightsFull description
Full description
crim rev
sFull description
CrimProFull description
case digestFull description
PEOPLE V. MENDOZA
G.R. No. 137405Full description
Full description
Digest of Comerciante v. PeopleFull description
Arraignment and Plea PEOPLE v DURANGO This case has reached the SC by an automatic review from the decision of the RT RTC of Malabon of Death Penalty.
Facts: Bonifacio Durango was charged with two counts of rae. During arraignment! Durango entered a lea of not guilty. ". During the trial! Durango#s defense counsel manifested to the court that Durango wanted to withdrew his earlier lea of not guilty and substitute it with a lea of guilty. $. %n the basis of the manifestation! Durango was re&arraigned! and this time he leaded guilty. 'fter the rosecution had concluded its resentation! the RTC rendered a decision (nding the accused guilty and sentencing him to death. )ssue: *hether the RTC erred in convicting Durango desite his imrovident lea of guilty +eld: ,es. *hen an accused enters a lea of guilty! the trial court is mandated to see to it that the e-acting standards laid down by the rules therefore are strictly observed. )t cannot be said that when a erson leads guilty to a crime there is no chance at all that he could! in fact! be innocent. The imrovident lea! followed by an abbreviated roceeding! with ractically no role at all layed by the defense is ust too meager to accet as being the standard constitutional constitutional due rocess at wor/ enough to forfeit human life. The case was set aside and and remanded to the trial court court for further further and aroriate aroriate roceedings. roceedings.
People v Chua 0acts: %n 'ril 1$! 1223! 'lberto Chua was charged with the crime of rae against her daughter Chenny Chua! a minor. ". %n 'ril "4! 1223! 'lberto Chua was arraigned and he leaded 5not guilty.5 't the retrial conference! however! aellant! through counsel! manifested that he was withdrawing his lea and changing it to 5guilty5 as charged. $. The trial court 6uestions the voluntariness of his change of lea and his comrehension of its conse6 conse6uen uences ces.. Satis( Satis(ed ed with with aell aellan ant7s t7s res resons onse! e! the court court order ordered ed his his rear rearra raign ignmen ment. t. 'ellant! with the assistance of counsel! withdrew his lea of 5not guilty5 and entered a lea of 5guilty5 as charged. Thereafter! the court ordered the rosecution to resent its evidence. The trial court court found aellant aellant guilty guilty of the o8ense and and sentenced him to death. 'lberto Chua claims that the trial court acceted his lea of guilt without following the rocedure rocedure laid down in the Rules of Court. )ssue: *hether the RTC erred in convicting Chua guilty of the o8ense and sentencing to death +eld: ,es. *hen the accused enters a lea of guilty to a caital o8ense! the trial court must do the follow following ing:: 91 condu conduct ct a searc searchin hing g in6uir in6uiry y into into the volunt voluntari arines ness s of the the lea lea and the accused7s full comrehension of the conse6uences thereof; 9" re6uire the rosecution to resent evidence to rove the guilt of the accused and the recise degree of his culability; and 9$ as/ the accused if he desires to resent evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. This rocedure rocedure is mandatory and a udge who fails to observe it commits grave abuse of discretion. •
the court did not robe carefully carefully and thoroughly into the reasons for aellant7s change of lea and his comrehension of the conse6uences of said lea.
•
•
the trial court did not e-lain the essential elements of the crime with which aellant was charged. 'ellant was convicted of incestuous rae but did not secify under what articular aragrah of 'rticle $$< the charge was made. trial court did not only neglect to ma/e the searching in6uiry! it also failed to in6uire from aellant whether he desired to resent evidence in his behalf. This is the third re6uirement under Section $! Rule 11=
Motion to uash People v Gopio 0acts: 'gustin >oio! by means of violence! force and intimidation! have carnal /nowledge with Ma. Princess Millano 911yo ". >ioio leaded not guilty when arraigned. $. The o8ense charged was committed sometime between the months of May and ?une 122< in %bando! Bulacan. 't that time! the barangay was celebrating its (esta. @. >oio! on the other hand! testi(ed that it was imossible for him to commit the crime of rae against the victim in May and ?une of 122< because he was then in Aovaliches! ueon City. >oio e-lained that he has been selling (sh there almost every day since 122@. <. Trial Court rendered its decision! (nding accused&aellant guilty of a crime of statutory rae as charged and sentenced him to su8er the enalty of reclusion eretua =. %n aeal in the SC! >oio alleged that: a. the trial court erred in not (nding that the information is insucient to suort a udgment of conviction for its failure to state the recise date of the o8ense charged; and b. the trial court gravely erred in (nding accused&aellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. )ssue: *%A the trial court has correctly ruled the caseE +eld: ,es. The trial court correctly ruled that accused&aellant 'gustin >oio is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rae. Fnder Rule 114! = and 11 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure! an information is sucient as long as it states the statutory designation of the o8ense and the acts or omissions constituting the same! since in rae cases! the time of commission of the crime is not a material ingredient of the o8ense. SC also held that: )t is now too late to 6uestion the form or substance of the information because when he entered his lea at his arraignment! accused&aellant did not obect to the suciency of the information against him ! "he rule is that# at an$ time %e&ore entering his plea# the accused ma$ move to 'uash the in&ormation on the ground that it does not con&orm su%stantiall$ to the prescri%ed &orm! "he &ailure o& accused(appellant to assert an$ ground &or a motion to 'uash %e&ore he pleads to the in&ormation# either %ecause he did not )le a motion to 'uash or &ailed to allege the same in said motion# shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds for a motion to quash ! e-cet when the grounds are that no o8ense was charged! the court trying the case has no urisdiction over the o8ense charged! the o8ense or enalty has been e-tinguished! and the accused would be twice ut in eoardy.
Rece%ido v People 0acts: Sometime in 1224! Caridad Dorol went to the house of her cousin! 'niceto Recebido! at San )sidro! Sorsogon to redeem her roerty! an agricultural land which Caridad Dorol mortgaged to Recebido sometime in 'ril of 123<. Recebido and Dorol did not e-ecute a document on the mortgage but Dorol instead gave etitioner a coy of the Deed of Sale dated ?une 1=! 12G$ e-ecuted in her favor by her father! ?uan Dorol. ". Recebido refused to allow Caridad Dorol to redeem her roerty on his claim that she had sold her roerty to him in 12G2. Caridad Dorol maintained and insisted that the transaction between them involving her roerty was a mortgage. $. Caridad Dorol veri(ed from the %ce of the 'ssessor in Sorsogon but the 6uestioned Deed of Sale was found that the signature was falsi(ed. @. Caridad Dorol (led her comlaint against 'niceto Recebido with the AB)! Hegasi City and its uestioned Documents Division conducted an e-amination in the original coy of the Deed of Sale in 6uestion allegedly signed by Caridad! articularly her signature a-ed thereon. <. The %ce of the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon (led the information indicting etitioner for 0alsi(cation of Public Document with the RTC Sorsogon. =. Fon arraignment! etitioner leaded not guilty. G. Trial court rendered the decision against Recebido 3. %n aeal! the Court of 'eals arms the RTC decision. )ssue: *hether or not the crime charged had already rescribed at the time the information was (ledE 9issue on motion to 6uash Ruling: The defense of rescrition! although not invo/ed in the trial! may! as in this case! be invo/ed on aeal. +ence! the failure to raise this defense in the motion to 6uash the information does not give rise to the waiver of Recebido to raise the same anytime thereafter including during aeal.
Nonetheless ! we hold that the crime charged has not rescribed. Fnder 'rticle 21 of the Revised Penal Code! the eriod of rescrition shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the o8ended arty! the authorities! or their agents! - - -. Denied for lac/ of Merit. Aote: 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 le a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion shall be deemed a aiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, e!cept the grounds of no o"ense charged, lac# of $urisdiction over the o"ense charged, extinction of the oense or penalty and $eopardy
People v Duran 0acts: 'n information was (led in the ?ustice of Peace of Samar by the assistant rovincial (scal accusing Mayor Duran of the crime of serious slander by deed. ". Duran was accused of bo-ing and slaing )gnacio 'marillo 9councilor in the resence of many eole and during a meeting at the Municial Building. $. Duran moved to 6uash the information or! alternatively! for a reinvestigation! claiming that the comlaint and the adavits of the rosecution witnesses (led with the inferior court did not state that the accused ever slaed the o8ended arty so that the o8ense charged did not constitute grave serious slander by deed! while the information (led in the court of (rst instance suciently charged the o8ense. The motion was not e-ressly resolved but must have been denied! because the case roceeded to trial. @. 'fter the rosecution had rested its case! the defense moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that the guilt of the accused had not been roved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court! +onorable Imilio Benite residing! ordered the dismissal of the comlaint! but on the ground that it did not ac6uire urisdiction. <. 0rom this order of dismissal! the rosecution aealed to SC. )ssue: *%A the dismissal was erroneousE Ruling: ,es. )n dismissing the information for not having been (led by the o8ending arty! that re6uired all rosecutions for the crime of inuria committed against rivate ersons to be instituted only uon the comlaint of the aggrieved arty. *o+ever# this la+ has alread$ %een repealed %$ Article ,-. o& the Revised Penal Code . The erroneous dismissal of the comlaint notwithstanding! we cannot now remedy the error because! as correctly argued by the aellant! this aeal by the government laces him in double eoardy. /ettled is the rule that +here a trial court has 0urisdiction %ut mista1enl$ dismisses the complaint or in&ormation on the ground o& lac1 o& it# the order o& dismissal is unappeala%le %ecause an appeal %$ the government there&rom +ould place the accused in second 0eopard$ &or the same o2ense . The only e-cetion to this rule is where the dismissal was made with the consent of the accused . )t cannot be said that the aellant herein consented to the dismissal of the case on the ground of lac/ of urisdiction! because his motion to 6uash after the rosecution has resented its evidence was based on another ground! namely! that the rosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cudia v CA 0acts: Renato Cudia was arrested in Mabalacat! Pamanga for the crime of )llegal Possession of 0irearms and 'mmunition. ". +e was brought to Sto. Domingo! 'ngeles City which a reliminary investigation was conducted and as a result the City Prosecutor (led an information against him. $. Fon his arraignment! the court called the attention of the arties and contrary to the information! Renatio Cudia had committed the o8ense inMabalacat and not in 'ngeles City. @. Thus the udge ordered that the case should be assigned to a court involving crimes committed outside 'ngeles City conse6uently it was assigned to Branch <= of the 'ngeles City RTC. <. +owever! the Provincial Prosecutor of Pamanga (led an information charging Cudio with the same crime and it was li/ewise assigned to Branch <= of the 'ngeles City RTC which resulted into two )nformation (led with the same crime. This romted the City Prosecutor to (le a Motion to DismissJ *ithdraw the )nformation which the trial courtgranted. =. Renato (led a Motion to uash the criminal case (led by the Provincial Prosecutor on the ground that his continued rosecution for the o8ense of illegal ossession of (rearms and ammunition for which he had been arraigned in the (rst criminal case! and which had been dismissed desite his oosition would violate his right not to be ut twice in eoardy of unishment for the same o8ense. The trial court denied the motion to 6uash; hence! etitioner raised the issue to the Court of 'eals. Theaellate court! stating that there was no double eoardy! dismissed the same on the ground that the etition could nothave been convicted under the (rst information as the same was defective. Petitioner7s motion for reconsideration wasdenied; hence! this aeal. )ssue: *hether or not the Court of 'eals erred when it found that the City Prosecutor of 'ngeles City did not have the authority to (le the (rst information. Ruling: Ao. )t is lainly aarent that the City Prosecutor of 'ngeles City had no authority to (le the (rst information! the o8ense having been committed in the Municiality of Mabalacat! which is beyond his urisdiction. Presidential Decree Ao.1"G
b )nvestigate andJor cause to be investigated all charges of crimes! misdemeanors and violations of all enal laws and ordinances within their resective urisdictions and have the necessary information or comlaint reared or made against the ersons accused. )n the conduct of such investigations he or his assistants shall receive the sworn statements or ta/e oral evidence of witnesses summoned by suboena for the urose. )t is thus the Provincial Prosecutor of Pamanga! not the City Prosecutor! who should reare information for o8enses committed within Pamanga but outside of 'ngeles City. 'n information! when re6uired to be (led by a ublic rosecuting ocer! cannot be (led by another. )t must be e-hibited or resented by the rosecuting attorney or someone authoried by law. )f not! the court does not ac6uire urisdiction. )n (ne! there must have been a valid and sucient comlaint or information in the former rosecution. 's the (scal had no authority to (le the information! the dismissal of the (rst information would not be a bar to etitioner7s subse6uent rosecution. 's the (rst information was fatally defective for lac/ of authority of the ocer (ling it! the instant etition must fail for failure to comly with all the re6uisites necessary to invo/e double eoardy. Thus Motion for Reconsideration is DIA)ID.