Datukan Malang Salibo vs Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex GR 1!"! A#ril $ %&1" 'a(ts) Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao massacre, had a pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in People in People vs Ampatuan Jr. Jr. et. al . When Datukan Malang Salibo learned that the police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao suspected him to be Butukan Butukan S. Malang, Malang, he presen presented ted himself himself to clear clear his name. name. Salibo Salibo presente presented d to the police police pertinent portions of his passport, boarding passes and other documents tending to proe that a cert certai ain n Datuk Datukan an Mala Malang ng Sali Salibo bo was was in Saud Saudii !rabi rabiaa when when the the mass massacr acree happ happene ened. d. "he "he authorities, howeer, apprehended and detained him. He #uestioned the legality of his detention ia $rgent Petition for Habeas %orpus before the %!, maintaining that he is not the accused Batukan S. Malang. "he %! issued the writ, making it returnable to the &udge of '"% "aguig. !fter hearing hearing of the 'eturn, 'eturn, the trial court granted granted Salibo(s Salibo(s petition petition and ordered ordered his immediate immediate release from detention. )n appeal by the Warden, the %! reersed the '"% ruling. "he %! held that een assuming Salibo Salibo was not the Batukan S. Malang named in the !lias !lias Warrant Warrant of !rrest, !rrest, orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies e*hausted e*hausted before the writ of habeas corpus may be inoked. Salibo(s proper remedy, according to the %!, should hae been a motion to #uash information and+or warrant of arrest. )n the other hand, Salibo beliees that the Warden erred in appealing the '"% decision before the %!. Salibo argued that although the %! delegated to the '"% the authority to hear the Warden(s Wa rden(s 'eturn, the '"%(s '"%(s ruling should be deemed as the %! ruling, and hence, it should hae been appealed directly before the S%. *ssue 1) W+ Salibo properly aailed the remedy of a petition for writ of habeas corpus +es Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person depried of liberty due to mistaken identity. identity. -n such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally detained. irst, it was Butukan S. Malang, not Salibo, who was charged and accused in the -nformation and !lias Warrant of !rrest issued in the case of People of People vs Ampatuan. Ampatuan. Based on the eidences presented, Salibo sufficiently established that he could not hae been Butukan S. Malang. "herefore, Salibo was not arrested by irtue of any warrant charging him of an offense, nor restrained under a lawful process or an order of a court. Second, Salibo was not alidly arrested without a warrant. When he was in the presence of authorities, he was neither committing nor attempting to commit an offense, and the police officers had no personal knowledge of any offense that he might hae committed. Salibo was also n ot an escape prisoner. "he police officers hae depried him of his liberty without due process of law. "herefore, Salibo correctly aailed himself of a Petition for Habeas %orpus. *ssue %) W+ a motion to #uash information and+or warrant of arrest is the proper remedy in cases where w here a person perso n with amistaken mistake n identity is detained -o, the %!(s %!(s conten contentio tion n is not correct. correct. Salibo Salibo(s (s proper proper remedy remedy is not a Motion Motion to /uash /uash -nform -nformati ation on and+or and+or Warrant rrant of !rrest !rrest.. one one of the grounds grounds for filing filing a Motion Motion to /uash /uash -nform -nformati ation on apply apply to him. him. 0en 0en if petitione petitionerr Salibo Salibo filed filed a Motion Motion to /uash, /uash, the defect defect he alleged could not hae been cured by mere amendment of the -nformation and+or Warrant of !rrest. %hanging the name of the accused appearing in the -nformation and+or Warrant Warrant of !rrest from 1Butukan S. Malang2 to 1Datukan Malang Salibo2 will not cure the lack of preliminary inestigation in this case. 3ikewise, a motion for reinestigation will not cure the defect of lack of preliminary inestigation. *ssue .) W+ the Warden correctly appealed the '"% ruling on the 'eturn before the %! +es. !n application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made through a petition filed before %! or any of its members, the %! or any of its members in instances authori4ed by law, or the '"% or any of its presiding &udges. "he court or &udge grants the writ and re#uires the officer or person haing custody of the person allegedly restrained of liberty to file a return of the writ. ! hearing on the return of the writ is then conducted. "he return of the writ may may be heard by a court apart from that which issued the writ. Should the court issuing the writ designate a lower court to which the writ is made returnable, the lower court shall proceed proceed to decide the petition of habeas corpus. By irtue of the designation, designation, the lower court ac#uires the power and authority to determine the merits of the petition for habeas corpus. "herefore, the decision on the petition is a decision appealable to the court that has appellate &urisdiction oer decisions of the lower court. 1
JM Do/inguez Agrono/i( Co/#any vs 0i(li(an GR %&$"$! July %$, %&1" The Case: During the stockholders meeting of the 5M Domingue4 !gronomic %ompany, presided by %ecilia 6one of the respondents,7 and attended by orma and Purita 6her co8respondents7 and petitioners Helen, Patrick, 9enneth and Shirley, Patrick and 9enneth were not allowed to ote as their mother and grandmother, both deceased are the stockholders of the company and no settlement of estate was shown to transfer their shares in the company. "ensions rose, and respondents walked out of the meeting. Since #uorum still e*isted, the election proceeded. !s a result, Helen, Patrick, 9enneth and Shirley were elected officers. )n the other hand, after staging the walkout, the respondents e*ecuted a Board 'esolution certifying that during the meeting, the following set of officers were elected as officers: %ecilia, orma, Purita, "essie, and Shirley.
"he petitioners then filed a complaint against respondents before the '"% of Baguio %ity for nullification of meetings, election and acts of directors and officers, in&unction and other reliefs, docketed as %iil %ase o. ;;<=8'. -t was raffled off to Branch > of the '"% for 5udicial Dispute 'esolution. "he petitioners as stockholders then represented themseles as 5MD(s lawful directors and officers, collected rentals and deposited rents due the co mpany to its bank account. "hey then filed a complaint for /ualified "heft against %eclia, orma and Purita. "hey alleged that the respondents, without any authority, conspired to withdraw the amount of P?@<,A<.C from the corporation(s saings account with 0#uitable P%-Bank, and issued %heck o %AAA<?AC in the amount of P
'"% of Baguio %ity. inding probable cause, the latter court issued a warrant for the arrest of respondents. 'espondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the %ourt of !ppeals. "hey aerred the e*istence of a pre&udicial #uestion. By filing the complaint, petitioners were already assuming that they are the legitimate directors of 5MD, which is the ery issue in the intra8corporate dispute pending with the same '"% Branch >. "he %! granted the petition for certiorari, holding that 1Since there is doubt in the instant case as to the sufficiency of the authority of a corporate officer, 5udge "iongson8"abora should hae e*ercised prudence by holding the criminal cases in abeyance pending resolution of the intra8 corporate dispute which priate respondents themseles instituted.2 "he petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that their election as officers of 5MD had been sustained b y irtue of the &udgment in %iil %ase o. ;;<=8' date May ;,
"he petition lacks merit. 2e (2allenged 3rders o4 t2e trial (ourt 5ere issued in grave abuse o4 dis(retion
2
We hae preiously ruled that grae abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court or tribunal iolates or contraenes the %onstitution, the law or e*isting &urisprudence. By grae abuse of discretion is meant, such capricious and whimsical e*ercise of &udgment a s is e#uialent to lack of &urisdiction. "he abuse of discretion must be grae as where the power is e*ercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an easion of positie duty or to a irtual refusal to perform the duty en&oined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. "he word 1capricious,2 usually used in tandem with the term 1arbitrary,2 coneys the notion of willful and unreasoning action. "hus, when seeking the correctie hand of certiorari, a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness in the e*ercise of discretion is imperatie.C -n the case at bar, the %! correctly ruled that 5udge "iongson8"abora acted with grae abuse of discretion when she ordered the arrests of respondents -sip and 3iclican despite the e*istence of a pre&udicial #uestion. !s &urisprudence elucidates, a pre&udicial #uestion generally e*ists in a situation where a ciil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there e*ists in the former an issue that must be pre8emptiely resoled before the latter may proceed, because howsoeer the issue raised in the ciil action is resoled would be determinatie juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.< "he rationale behind the principle is to aoid two conflicting decisions,= and its e*istence rests on the concurrence of two essential elements: 6i7 the ciil action inoles an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal actionE and 6ii7 the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. Here, the %! aptly obsered that %iil %ase o. ;;<=8', the intra8corporate dispute, posed a pre&udicial #uestion to %riminal %ase os. <C>@8' and <C>;8'. "o be sure, %iil %ase o. ;;<=8' inoles the same parties herein, and is for nullification of 5MD(s meetings, election and acts of its directors and officers, among others. %ourt interention was sought to ascertain who between the two contesting group of officers should rightfully be seated at the company(s helm. Without %iil %ase o. ;;<=8'(s resolution, petitioners( authority to commence and prosecute %riminal %ase os. <C>@8' and <C>;8' against respondents for #ualified theft in 5MD(s behalf remained #uestionable, warranting the suspension of the criminal proceedings. 5udge "iongson8"abora cannot deny knowledge of the pendency of %iil %ase o. ;;<=8' as the &udge presiding oer its 5D'. !s correctly held by the %!: Judge iongson6abora is 5ell6a5are o4 t2e existen(e o4 said #re7udi(ial 8uestion that should hae barred the filing of the criminal complaint against petitioners 3iclican and -sip, for the simple reason that a &uridical person can only act through its officers, and the issue in the main case submitted for 5D' before 5udge "iongson8"abora is one for nullification of meetings, election and act of directors and officers, in&unction and other reliefs. "hus, s2e kno5s 4or a 4a(t t2at t2ere is a 8uestion as to 52o are t2e legiti/ate dire(tors o4 JMD su(2 t2at t2ere is doubt as to 52et2er #rivate res#ondents are in a #osition to a(t 4or JMD . 6emphasis added7
Ferily, the '"% ought to hae suspended the proceedings, instead of issuing the challenged )rders issued by the '"%. 2e subse8uent resolution o4 t2e #re7udi(ial 8uestion did not (ure t2e de4e(t
-t may be, as the petitioners pointed out in their motion for reconsideration filed before the %!, that %iil %ase o. ;;<=8' was eentually resoled in their faor through a 5udgment@ dated May ;,
3
Conse8uently, all Cor#orate A(ts 52i(2 t2e de4endants Gherein respondents and one Ierald %abrera and one )scar !#uino 2ave done and #er4or/ed and all do(u/ents t2ey 2ave exe(uted and issued 2ave no 4or(e and e44e(t .
%onsidering that the amount of Php?@A,AAA.AA which defendants hae withdrawn under the account of 5M Domingue4 !gronomic %ompany, -nc. from the 0#uitable J P%- Bank 6now Banco de )ro7 is the same sub&ect in %% no. <C>@8' entitled Pp. s. %ecilia 3iclican and orma D. -sip for /ualified "heft, the %ourt will no longer dwell on the same. **** S3 3RD:R:D 6emphasis and words in bracket added7
"his 5udgment has, on 5une ;, issued its challenged )rders on March CA, in trying criminal cases it should not hae entertained. "he foregoing notwithstanding, it should be made clear that the nullification of the March CA, @8' and <C>;8' may already proceed, and ought to be re8 raffled to re8determine the e*istence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against respondents. W9:R:'3R:, premises considered, the petition is hereby D:-*:D for lack of merit. "he %ourt of !ppeals( !ugust =A, are hereby A''*RM:D.
4
%riminal %ase os. <C>@8' and <C>;8' are hereby R:MA-D:D to the 0*ecutie 5udge of the 'egional "rial %ourt of Baguio %ity to be re8raffled to one of its branches other than Branch >.
:-R*0: vs SA-D*GA-;A+AGR -o %1.$
Bail is a right and a matter of discretion J 'ight to bail is afforded in Sec. C=, !rt --- of the C?> %onstitution and repeted in Sec. >, 'ule CC of the 'ules of %riminal Procedure to wit: 1o person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when eidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.2 'ACS) )n 5une @,
Petitioner again asked the Sandiganbayan in a Motion to Fi Bail which was heard by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner argued that: 6a7 Prosecution had not yet established that the eidence of his guilt was strongE 6b7 that, because of his ad anced age and oluntary surrender, the penalty would only be reclusion temporal , thus allowing for bail andE 6c7 he is not a flight risk due to his age and physical condition. Sandiganbayan denied this in its assailed resolution. Motion for 'econsideration was likewise denied. *SS>:S) C7 Whether or not bail may be granted as a matter of right unless the crime charged is punishable byreclusion perpetua where the eidence of guilt is strong. a. Whether or not prosecution failed to show that if ee r petitioner would be conicted, he will be punishable by reclusion perpetua.
b. Whether or not prosecution failed to show that petitionerKs guilt is strong. <. Whether or not petitioner is bailable because he is not a flight risk. 9:0D) C. +:S. Bail as a matter of right – due process and presumption of innocence. !rticle ---, Sec. C 6<7 of the C?> %onstitution proides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proed. "his right is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail.
"he purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial and so the amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so re#uired, but no higher than what may be reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Bail as a matter of discretion 'ight to bail is afforded in Sec. C=, !rt --- of the C?> %onstitution and repeted in Sec. >, 'ule CC of the 'ules of %riminal Procedure to wit:
!apital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment" not bailable. L o person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
5
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when eidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. "he general rule: !ny person, before coniction of any criminal offense, shall be bailable. 0*ception: $nless he is charged with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua Gor life imprisonment and the eidence of his guilt is strong. "hus, denial of bail should only follow once it has been established that the eidence of guilt is strong.W2ere eviden(e o4 guilt is not strong, bail may be granted according to the discretion of the court. "hus, Sec. @ of 'ule CC also proides: Bail" when discretionary. L $pon coniction by the 'egional "rial %ourt of an offense not punishable by death,reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. "he application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, proided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court. Howeer, if the decision of the trial court conicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non8bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resoled by the appellate court. Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on proisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail sub&ect to the consent of the bondsman. -f the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment e*ceeding si* 6;7 years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances: 6a7 "hat he is a recidiist, #uasi8recidiist, or habitual delin#uent, or has committed the crime aggraated by the circumstance of reiterationE 6b7 "hat he has preiously escaped from legal co nfinement, eaded sentence, or iolated the conditions of his bail without alid &ustificationE 6c7 "hat he committed the offense while under probation, parole, o r conditional pardonE 6d7 "hat the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bailE or 6e7 "hat there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. "he appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, reiew the resolution of the 'egional "rial %ourt after notice to the aderse party in either case. "hus, admission to bail in offenses punished by death, or life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetuasub&ect to &udicial discretion. -n !oncerned !iti#ens vs. $lma, the court held: 1GSuch discretion may be e*ercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should be granted proisional liberty.2 Bail hearing with notice is indispensable 6 Aguirre vs. Belmonte7. "he hearing should primarily determine whether the eidence of guilt against the accused is strong. "he procedure for discretionary bail is described in !ortes vs. !atral : C. -n all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or re#uire him to submit his recommendation 6Section C?, 'ule CC of the 'ules of %ourt as amended7E <. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present eidenc e to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to e*ercise its sound discretionE 6Section > and ?, supra7 6
=. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of eidence of the prosecutionE . -f the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approal of the bailbond 6Section C, supra7 )therwise petition should be denied. <. +:S ?etitioner@s #oor 2ealt2 7usti4ies 2is ad/ission to bail "he Supreme %ourt took note of the PhilippineKs responsibility to the international community arising from its commitment to the %niversal &eclaration of 'uman (ights. We therefore hae the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of eery person to liberty and due process and for detainees to aail of such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. /uoting from)overnment of 'ong *ong +A( vs. ,lalia " the S% emphasi4ed:
* * * uphold the fundamental human rights as well as alue the worth and dignity of eery person. "his commitment is enshrined in Section --, !rticle -- of our %onstitution which proides: 1"he State alues the dignity of eery human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.2 2e ?2ili##ines, t2ere4ore, 2as t2e res#onsibility o4 #rote(ting and #ro/oting t2e rig2t o4 every #erson to liberty and due #ro(ess, ensuring t2at t2ose detained or arrested (an #arti(i#ate in t2e #ro(eedings be4ore a (ourt, to enable it to de(ide 5it2out delay on t2e legality o4 t2e detention and order t2eir release i4 7usti4ied *n ot2er 5ords, t2e ?2ili##ine aut2orities are under obligation to /ake available to every #erson under detention su(2 re/edies 52i(2 sa4eguard t2eir 4unda/ental rig2t to liberty 2ese re/edies in(lude t2e rig2t to be ad/itted to bail 6emphasis in decision7 Sandiganbayan (o//itted grave abuse o4 dis(retion Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the ob&ectie of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial and unwarrantedly disregarded the clea r showing of the fragile health and adanced age of Petitioner. !s such the Sandiganbayan graely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Fi Bail. -t acted whimsically and capriciously and was so patent and gross as to amount to an easion of a positie duty Gto allow petitioner to post bail. Saldariega vs ?anganiban GR %11& A#ril 1", %&1"
"he acts: or failure of the principal witness, P)< elson Fillas to attend seeral hearings, the presiding &udge of '"% /ue4on %ity Branch <<>, 5udge 0lira Panganiban 6respondent7, ordered that the case against accused 'oberta Saldariega 6pe titioner7 for iolation of Section @ and CC of '! C;@ 6%riminal %ase os. /8C C8C>=A@@ and /8C C8C>=A@;7 be proisionally dismissed, with the e*press consent of the accused. Howeer, on 5une @,
We deny the petition. "he %ourt notes that the instant case suffers from procedural infirmities which this %ourt cannot ignore. While this petition is to be treated as one for certiorari under 'ule ;@, it is still dismissible for iolation of the hierarchy of courts. !lthough the Supreme %ourt has concurrent &urisdiction with the '"% and the %! to issue writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as granting parties the absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which an application will be directed. Direct resort to this %ourt is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this case.C Moreoer, this being a petition on certiorari under 'ule ;@, the issues raised herein should be confined solely to #uestions of &urisdiction. "hus, while in the course of the discussion, it may be necessary to thresh out pertinent factual issues, the same is limited for the purpose of resoling the issue on &urisdiction, that is, whether the trial court committed grae abuse of discretion resulting to lack or in e*cess of &urisdiction. When a criminal case is proisionally dismissed with the e*press consent of the accused, the case may be reied by the State within the periods proided under the of the 'ules of %riminal Procedure. ! case shall not be proisionally dismissed e*cept with the e*press consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. Here, a perusal of the )rder, dated May C;, of the 'ules of %riminal Procedure. "here is no iolation of due process as long as the reial of a proisionally dismissed complaint was made within the time8bar proided under the law. Ienerally, the prosecutor should hae been the one who filed the motion to reie because it is the prosecutor who controls the trial. But in this particular case, the defect, if there was any, was cured when the public prosecutor later actiely participated in the denial of the accused(s motion for reconsideration when she filed her %omment+)b&ection thereto. -n the )rder denying the motion, the trial court stated that 1in her %omment+)b&ection, the Public Prosecutor begged to disagree primarily on the ground that double &eopardy has not set in, because the proisional dismissal of the case was with the e*press consent of the accused.2< "he court een went further when it stated that 1although the Motion to 'e8open the case was filed by the witness without securing the conformity of the Public Prosecutor, in effect, the prosecutor has conformed to the re8opening of the case because she 6the prosecutor7 finds that the failure of the witness to appear on two 6<7 hearings was due to the death of the father in law on March <=,
case is proisionally dismissed due to their failure to appear during trial. "hus, in order to e*onerate themseles from a possible administratie and criminal liability, the arresting officers would then opt instead to file the motion to reie on their own. "he proisional dismissal of the case does not operate as an ac#uittal since its dismissal was made with the e*press consent of the accused, thus, there is no double &eopardy. urther, the proscription against double &eopardy presupposes that an accused has been preiously charged with an offense, and the case against him is terminated either by his ac#uittal or coniction, or dismissed in any other manner without his consent. !s a general rule, the following re#uisites must be present for double &eopardy to attach: 6C7 a alid indictment, 6<7 before a court of competent &urisdiction, 6=7 the arraignment of the accused, 67 a alid plea entered by him, and 6@7 the ac#uittal or coniction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of the case against him without his e*press consent. Howeer, there are two 6<7 e*ceptions to the foregoing rule, and double &eopardy may attach een if the dismissal of the case was with the consent of the accused: first, when there is insufficiency of eidence to support the charge against himE and second, where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in iolation of the accused(s right to speedy trial. -n the instant case, while the first four re#uisites are present, the last re#uisite is lacking, considering that here the dismissal was merely proisional and it was done with the e*press consent of the accused8petitioner. Petitioner is not in danger of being twice put in &eopardy with the reopening of the case against her as it is clear that the case was only proisionally dismissed by the trial court. "he re#uirement that the dismissal of the case must be without the consent of the accused is not present in this case. either does the case fall under any of the aforementioned e*ceptions because, in fact, the prosecution had failed to continue the presentation of eidence due to the absence of the witnesses, thus, the fact of insufficiency of eidence cannot be established. 3ikewise, we find no unreasonable delay in the proceedings that would be tantamount to iolation of the accused(s right to speedy trial. "his %ourt has emphasi4ed that 1speedy trial( is a relatie term and necessarily a fle*ible concept.2 -n determining whether the accused(s right to speedy trial was iolated, the delay should be considered in iew of the entirety of the proceedings. "he factors to balance are the following: 6a7 duration of the delayE 6b7 reason thereforE 6c7 assertion of the right or failure to assert itE and 6d7 pre&udice caused by such delay. -n the instant case, petitioner failed to show any eidence that the alleged delay in the trial was attended with malice or that the same was made without good cause or &ustifiable motie on the part of the prosecution. Mere mathematical reckoning of the time inoled would not suffice as the realities of eeryday life must be regarded in &udicial proceedings.@ Here, the delay in the proceedings, which ran from )ctober <@,
certiorari. o argument was shown that the trial court e*ercised its &udgment capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion and hostility. -t is well settled that a petition for certiorari against a court which has &urisdiction oer a case will prosper only if grae abuse of discretion is manifested. "he burden is on the part of the petitioner to proe not merely reersible error, but grae abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e*cess of &urisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order. Mere abuse of discretion is not enoughE it must be grae. "he term grae abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical e*ercise of &udgment as patent and gross as to amount to an easion of a positie duty or a irtual refusal to perform a duty en&oined by law, as where the power is e*ercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.> %ertiorari will issue only to correct errors of &urisdiction, and not errors or mistakes in the findings and conclusions of the trial court. WH0'0)'0, the petition is D0-0D for lack of merit. "he )rders dated 5une C, =A@@ and /8C C8C>=A@; entitled People of the Philippines . 'oberta Saldariega are !-'M0D. 3et the case be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings with dispatch.
Can(eran vs ?eo#le GR %&<<% July 1, %&1"
!n accused cannot be conicted of a higher offense than that alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or information filed against him and for which he was tried. -t matters not how conclusie and conincing is the eidence of guilt against him. "his is the rule applied in this case of %ardo who was charged with the crime of frustrated theft. %ardo was a promo merchandiser of a distillery company. -n his kind of work he met and got ac#uainted with other merchandisers of different products who were working in a big grocery and retail market. )ne day, a security guard of the super market saw %ardo approached one of the counters, pushing a cart which contained two bo*es of 1Magic lakes2 for which he paid PC,AA.AA. $pon erification from the packer that the bo*es hae not been checked yet, the guard and the packer found out upon inspection that the contents of the two bo*es were not Magic lakes but C smaller bo*es of White Beauty %ream worth P
10
)n appeal by %ardo to the %ourt of !ppeals 6%!7 said decision of the '"% finding him guilty of consummated theft was affirmed. But it modified the sentence to imprisonment of < years, months and C day as minimum to ? years, ? months and C day. Were the '"% and the %! correct in finding him guilty of consummated theft.
!ccording to the Supreme %ourt %ardo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but not of consummated theft. "he allegations in the -nformation show that %ardo was charged with frustrated theft only. $nder the %onstitution, to conict him of an offense higher than that charged in the complaint or -nformation would be an unauthori4ed denial of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him which re#uires eer y element of the crime to be set out in said -nformation to enable him to suitably prepare for his d efense. $nder !rticle =A? or the 'eised Penal %ode 6'P%7, the elements of theft are 6C7 the taking of personal propertyE 6<7 the property belongs to anotherE 6=7 the taking was done with intent to gainE 67 the taking away was done without the consent of the ownerE and 6@7 the taking away is accomplished without iolence against person or force upon things. "he unlawful taking which is the depriation of one(s personal property is the element which produces the felon y in its consummated stage. Without the unlawful taking, the offense could only be attempted theft if at all. -n this case, the -nformation itself stated that the taking hae not been accomplished yet since %ardo has not obtained such degree of control oer the stolen items as to freely dispose of them. !nd so, without the unlawful taking, the offense of %ardo can only be attempted theft. He can be conicted only of the lesser crime of attempted theft as there is no crime of frustrated theft. His sentence should thus be reduced to imprisonment ranging from four 67 months as minimum to two 6<7 years and four 67 months as ma*imum 6%anceran s. People, I.'.
11
