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
people vs durango case digestFull 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
WWC v. PEOPLE – SEARCH WARRANTS Motion to Quash search warrants are not crimina actions. As such! the" are e#cu$e$ %rom $irect su&ervision an$ contro o% the Pu'ic Prosecutor. An or$er (uashin) a search warrant *issue$ in$e&en$ent" &rior to the %iin) o% a crimina action+ &arta,es o% a %ina or$er that can 'e the &ro&er su'-ect o% an a&&ea. PNP filed applications for warrants before the RTC QC to search the office premises of Worldwide Web Corporation located in Eastwood as well as the premises of Planet Internet in Pasig. The applicat applications ions alleged alleged that these these corporat corporations ions were were conduct conducting ing illegal illegal toll bypass bypass ope operatio rations ns penali!ed under P.". #$% &unauthori!ed installation of telephone connections' to the pre(udice of P)"T. The RTC QC conducted a hearing on the applications for search warrants and granted three applications &two in Pasig one in QC'. Thereafter o*er a hundred items were sei!ed. WWC + Planet Internet filed motions to ,uash. The RTC granted the motions to ,uash as they were in the nature natu re of general general warrants warrants so the propertie properties s were released released to WWC + Planet Planet Inte Internet rnet.. PLT move$ %or reconsi$eration! reconsi$eration! 'ut the motion was $enie$ on the )roun$ that it ha$ %aie$ to )et the con%ormit" o% the Cit" Prosecutor &rior to %iin) the motion as re(uire$ un$er Sec. /! Rue 001 o% the Rues on Crimina Proce$ure. The C- re*ersed the RTC decision. Petitioners move$ %or reconsi$eration! averrin) that the PLT shou$ have %ie$ a &etition %or certiorari rather than an a&&ea when it (uestione$ (uestione$ the RTC. RTC. The C upheld upheld the deci decisio sion n of the C- in that con%ormit" o% the &u'ic &rosecutor is not necessar" to )ive the a))rieve$ &art" &ersonait" to (uestion an or$er (uashin) search warrants. An a&&ication %or a search warrant is not a crimina action! but is a special criminal process. It is obtained not by the filing of a complaint or information but by the filing of an application conducted either as an incident in a main criminal case already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed. Where the search warrant is issue$ as an inci$ent in a &en$in) crimina case! the (uasha o% a search warrant is mere" interocutor" . The determination of the guilt of the accused still needs to be settled. In contrast where a search warrant is a&&ie$ %or an$ issue$ in antici&ation o% a crimina case "et to 'e %ie$! the or$er o% (uashin) the warrant *an$ $enia o% a motion %or reconsi$eration o% the )rant+ en$s the -u$icia &rocess. There is nothin) more to 'e $one a%ter. SANTOS2CONC3O v. O4 SEC When the com&aint is su'mitte$ '" the N53! there is no nee$ %or a sworn statement '" the com&ainant i% a sworn a%%i$avit '" the witness is aso attache$! 'ecause the N53 is area$" un$er oath. 6urthermore! the ori)ina com&ainant is converte$ into the witness when the N53 %ies the com&aint with the &rosecutor. /Wowo /Wowowe wee e stampe stampede de00 Wo Wowo wowe wee e had had an ann anni*e i*ers rsary ary episo episode de at 1ltra 1ltra which which result resulted ed in a stampede claiming 2% li*es and in(ured hundreds. The "I)3 in*estigated the stampede and the "45 created an e*aluating panel to e*aluate the report and determine if there was basis to proceed with the PI. It concluded that there was no sufficient basis to proceed with the P.I. because there was not enough information submitted. The case was referred to the N6I for further in*estigation. The N6I found probable cause and thereby recommended a P.I. for rec7less imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and multiple physical in(uries. 3t su'mitte$ to the O4 an investi)ation re&ort *this is the com&aint+. com&aint+. Attache$ to the re&ort was a etter %rom one o% the victims! an$ a sworn a%%i$avit '" a witness. The &etitioners conten$ that the N53 re&ort was not a &ro&er com&aint since it was not un$er oath as re(uire$ '" Rue 001. A P.3. can vai$" &rocee$ on the 'asis o% an a%%i$avit o% an" com&etent &erson without the re%erra $ocument *i,e the N53 Re&ort+ havin) 'een sworn to 'ecause the aw o%%icer *N53+ is the nomina com&ainant. ec. com&ainant. ec. 8&a' of Rule %%9 is substantially complied with e*en if only the
witnesses e:ecute affida*its before a competent officer. What is re,uired is to reduce the e*idence into affida*its for while reports and e*en raw information may (ustify the initiation of an in*estigation the P.I. stage can be held only after sufficient e*idence has been gathered and e*aluated which may warrant e*entual prosecution. E:tra Issue; - complaint for purposes of conducting a P.I. differs from a complaint for purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution. The complaint in a P.I. is not entirely the affida*it of the complainant for the affida*it is treated as a component of the complaint.