Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crim. Pro. Case Digest
Crim. Pro. Case Digest
OMELIO +
GR No. 194767, Oct 14, 2015
FACTS:
Sometime in 2007, herein petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court
of Davao City, Branch 16 (RTC-Br. 16) a Complaint for sum of money,
damages and attorney's fees against Dennis Li. The complaint included
a prayer for the issuance of a writ of attachment, and after Dennis Li
filed his Answer, RTC-Br. 16 granted herein petitioner's application for
a Writ of Attachment and approved the corresponding attachment
bond. On the other hand, Dennis Li filed a counter-attachment bond
purportedly issued by herein respondent Travellers Insurance & Surety
Corporation (Travellers).
An Alias Writ of Execution was then issued against both Dennis Li and
respondent Travellers based on the counterbond it issued in favor of
the former, and pursuant to said writ, Sheriff Anggot served a Demand
Letter on Travellers.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the petition for certiorari was proper in this case.
Whether respondent judge.
2. Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and gross
ignorance of the law by acting on respondent Travellers' petition
despite the lack of jurisdiction of RTC-Br. 14 and assuming
jurisdiction over the action for prohibition and injunction against
the executive sheriff of a coequal court.
HELD:
Herein petitioner, while acknowledging that the Court of Appeals (CA)
had concurrent jurisdiction over this petition, justified his immediate
resort to this Court by pointing out that respondent judge's conduct
shows his gross ignorance of the law, and any other remedy under the
ordinary course of law would not be speedy and adequate.
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of
courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without
serious consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield
the Court from having to deal with causes that are also well within the
competence of the lower courts, and thus leave time for the Court to
deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the
Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for the
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when
absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to
justify an exception to the policy.
The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was
created by this court to ensure that every level of the judiciary
performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner.
Verily, the issues in this case could have been competently resolved by
the CA, thus, the Court was initially inclined to reject taking
cognizance of this case. However, we cannot close our eyes to the
unbecoming conduct exhibited by respondent judge in obstinately
issuing an injunction against the orders of a co-equal court despite this
Court's consistent reiteration of the time-honored principle that "no
court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or
decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. The
various trial courts of a province or city, having the same or
equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to
interfere with their respective cases, much less with their
orders or judgments."[9] The issue raised in this case, therefore,
falls under one of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of
courts, i.e., where the order complained of is a patent nullity.
To be sure, the law and the rules are not unaware that an issuing
court may violate the law in issuing a writ of execution and have
recognized that there should be a remedy against this violation. The
remedy, however, is not the resort to another co-equal body but to a
higher court with authority to nullify the action of the issuing court.
This is precisely the judicial power that the 1987 Constitution, under
Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2, speaks of and which this Court
has operationalized through a petition for certiorari, under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
Applying the foregoing ruling, it is quite clear that, in this case, the
issuance of the subject writ of preliminary injunction was improper
and, thus, correctible by certiorari. Herein respondent judge does not
have jurisdiction to hinder the enforcement of an order of a co-equal
court. He must be aware that said co-equal court had the exclusive
jurisdiction or authority to correct its own issuances if ever there was,
indeed, a mistake. There is no question, therefore, that subject writ of
preliminary injunction is null and void.
FACTS:
Petitioner Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. (Estipona) is the accused for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of
Dangerous Drugs).
ISSUE:
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT ENCROACHED UPON THE POWER OF THE
SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
HELD:
YES. Section 5(5), A1iicle VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
provides:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,
which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense which
is necessarily included in the offense charged. The word may denotes
an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the
accused to make such plea.61 Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind
that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is
not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise
for the convenience of the accused.62
FACTS:
The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several
inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New
Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits in
support of their testimonies.3 These legislative inquiries led to the filing
of complaints with the Department of Justice.
Petitioner repaired to this court via the present petition, praying for
the annulment and setting aside of the order and warrant of arrest
issued by the respondent judge and granting a writ of prohibition
enjoining and prohibiting respondent judge from conducting further
proceedings until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with
finality.
ISSUES:
Procedural Issues:
A Whether or not petitioner is excused from compliance with the
doctrine on hierarchy of courts considering that the petition should first
be filed with the Court of Appeals.
B. Whether or not the pendency of the Motion to Quash the
Information before the trial court renders the instant petition
premature.
Substantive Issues:
A. Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan has the
jurisdiction over the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in the
assailed Information.
HELD:
PETITIONER DISREGARDED THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS
In a fairly recent case, we summarized other well-defined exceptions
to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts. Immediate resort to this Court
may be allowed when any of the following grounds are present: (1)
when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be
addressed immediately; (2) when the case involves transcendental
importance; (3) when the case is novel; (4) when the constitutional
issues raised are better decided by this Court; (5) when time is of the
essence; (6) when the subject of review involves acts of a
constitutional organ; (7) when there is no other plain, speedy,
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; (8) when the petition
includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or
demanded by the broader interest of justice; (9) when the order
complained of was a patent nullity; and (10) when the appeal was
considered as an inappropriate remedy.51
That the petitioner is a senator of the republic does not also merit a
special treatment of her case. The right to equal treatment before the
law accorded to every Filipino also forbids the elevation of petitioner's
cause on account of her position and status in the government.
Her request for the issuance of a writ of prohibition "until and unless
the Motion to Quash is resolved with finality," is an unmistakable
admission that the RTC has yet to rule on her Motion to Quash and the
existence of the RTC's authority to rule on the said motion.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or
toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
The established rule is that courts of justice will take cognizance only
of controversies "wherein actual and not merely hypothetical issues
are involved."64 The reason underlying the rule is "to prevent the
courts through avoidance of premature adjudication from entangling
themselves in abstract disagreements, and for us to be satisfied that
the case does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent
upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire."65
Various policies and rules have been issued to curb the tendencies of
litigants to disregard, nay violate, the rule enunciated in Section 5 of
Article VIII of the Constitution to allow the Court to devote its time and
attention to matters within its jurisdiction and prevent the
overcrowding of its docket. There is no reason to consider the
proceedings at bar as an exception.
The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the RTC has
exclusive jurisdiction to try violations of RA 9165, including the acts
described in the Information against the petitioner. The
Sandiganbayan, so the respondents contend, was specifically created
as an anti-graft court. It was never conferred with the power to try
drug-related cases even those committed by public officials. In fact,
respondents point out that the history of the laws enabling and
governing the Sandiganbayan will reveal that its jurisdiction was
streamlined to address specific cases of graft and corruption, plunder,
and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.
As such, with the designation of the offense, the recital of facts in the
Information, there can be no other conclusion than that petitioner is
being charged not with Direct Bribery but with violation of RA 9165.
Now the question that irresistibly demands an answer is
whether it is the Sandiganbayan or the RTC that has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 17-
165, i.e., violation of RA 9165.
In the light of the foregoing, the best course of action for the Court to
take is to dismiss the petition and direct the trial court to rule on the
Motion to Quash and undertake all the necessary proceedings to
expedite the adjudication of the subject criminal case.