Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dokumen - Tips - Gosiaco Vs Ching
Dokumen - Tips - Gosiaco Vs Ching
Katrina and Rosemary filed joint motion to suspend the preliminary Issues
investigation for perjury on the ground of a pending prejudicial WON CA erred in dismissing appeal
question before the Court of Appeals WON CA erred in not nullifying order of RTC Judge
o that the issue of whether Peter, Catherine, and Fannie are
related to Bella and therefore legal heirs of the latter was Held:
pending before the Court of Appeals A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel is a
o investigating prosecutor denied the joint motion and found defective certification that is equivalent to non-compliance with the
probable cause against petitioner and Rosemary for two (2) requirement and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the
counts each of falsification of public documents petition.
o prosecutor held that the issue before the Court of Appeals exceptions:
is the validity of the compromise agreement which is not o interest of substantial justice
determinative of the criminal case which involves the o if signed only by counsel and duly informed the court of
liability of petitioner and Rosemary for falsification, pending cases with another court
allegedly for willfully making the false statements in the this case: there was subsequent compliance; submitted together
opposition to the petition for letters of administration and with MR
in the subsequent compromise agreement filed before the sufficient compliance especially in view of the merits of the case,
RTC of Pasig City. which may be considered as a special circumstance or a compelling
reason that would justify tempering the hard consequence of the
3 informations were filed against Katrina and Rosemary for perjury procedural requirement on non-forum shopping
was filed with Makati MeTC
Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, a
Katrina filed a petition for review with the DOJ and a motion to criminal action may be suspended upon the pendency of a
defer proceedings with the MeTC on the ground of pending appeal prejudicial question in a civil action, to wit:
before the DOJ SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. - A petition for
Kat and Rosemary also filed with the MeTC separate motions to suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a
suspend proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the
all were denied prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
o MeTC agreed with the prosecutor When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the
petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any
Kat filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with Makati RTC time before the prosecution rests.
RTC: denied, MR also denied requisites:
o no prejudicial question: quantum of evidence in the civil o civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon
action for annulment of judgment differs from the quantum which the criminal prosecution would be based
of evidence required in the criminal action for falsification
of public documents
o resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the Manebo vs Acosta
guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be early evening, Bernadette Dimatulac and Flordeliza Bagasa were
determined seated beside each other on a papag watching TV inside the church
o jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another of the Kaibigan Foundation
tribunal SPO1 Roel Acosta, with an unidentified male companion, both with
no prejudicial question if issue in civil actino will not determine the short firearms entered the church, approached the 2 girls and at an
criminal responsibility of the accued in the criminal action based on arm's length, SHOT THE DIMATULAC SEVERAL TIMES ON THE HEAD
the same facts AND BODY CAUSING HER IMMEDIATE DEATH
no prejudicial question if there's no necessity that the civil case be 2 men immediately boarded an owner jeep without a plate number
determined first before taking up the criminal case and left: to San Leonardo
no prejudicial question if both cases can proceed independently of Sardia, bystander, saw the 2 men, the jeep and recognized the
each other driver as Numeriano Sapiandante, the Barangay Capt of San
Leonardo, Nueva Ecija
issue of annulment case with CA: principally for the determination complaint for murder was filed by SISTER of Dimatulac, Nieva
of the validity of the compromise agreement which did not include Manebo, against Acosta and Sapiandante before the Special Action
Peter, Catherine, and Fannie as heirs of Bella. Peter, Catherine, and Unit (SAU) of the NBI
Fannie presented evidence to prove that they are also biological SAU recommended the filing murder case against Acosta,
children of Bella and Alejandro Sapiandante and John Doe was referred to the Chief State
Prosecutor (OCSP), DOJ for preliminary investigation
issue of criminal case: whether petitioner committed falsification of respondents, in turn, filed directly with the DOJ a COUNTER-
public documents in executing pleadings containing untruthful CHARGE OF PERJURY, OFFERING FALSE WITNESS AND VIOLATION
statements that she and Rosemary were the only legal heirs of Bella OF PD 1829 against complainants
o Acosta: denied, on special assignment in San Leonardo, no
RESULT OF CIVIL CASE WILL DETERMINE THE INNOCENCE OR GUILT reason for him to kill, Bagasan's description did not fit his
OF KATRINA IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR FALSIFICATION physical attributes, substitution of witness (person
if it is finally adjudged in the civil case that they are not biological identified to be beside victim when shot is Liza Gragasan
children of the late Bella and consequently not entitled to a share in and not Flordeliza Bagasan, presented affidavits of his
her estate as heirs, there is no more basis to proceed with the witnesses that he was in San Leonardo
criminal cases against petitioner who could not have committed o Sapiadante: denied driving get-away vehicle, he did not
falsification in her pleadings know how to drive nor was he a holder of a driver's license,
that Sardia had a grudge against him because of the
dismissal of case filed by Sardia against him, and that Acosta
never testified for him in another case
State prosecutor Abad issued a joint resolution, approved by Chief
State Prosecutor recommending the filing of the murder charges
and the dismissal of the counter-charge
same day, info was filed with the RTC Cabanatuan City
March 23, 2001: respondents filed appeal with the DOJ
meanwhile the case was transferred to Manila RTC and February 23, respondents' counsel until after the resolution of the
2003: alias warrants of arrest were issued petition filed before the CA.
June 27: DOJ Secretary issued a resolution CA rendered the assailed Decision dismissing the petition for lack of
o appealed resolution is hereby REVERSED. The Chief State merit
Prosecutor is directed to move for the withdrawal of the o CA said that the OP committed no error in affirming the
information filed against respondents and to report the resolution of the DOJ Secretary; that courts will not
action taken hereon within ten (10) days from receipt interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations and
hereof leave to the investigating prosecutor a sufficient latitude of
o alibi inherently weak, but assumed strength and discretion in the determination of what constitutes
significance because complainants failed to adduce the sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause for the
required quantum of proof filing of information against the offender
o that Gragasan was beside the victim but was not able to
respond regarding the shooting incident
o that after 4 months, a certain Flordeliza comes forth,
presented affidavit and alleged that she was seated beside
the victim and witnessed the actual shooting
o Bagasan's description of assailant did not fit the physical
attributes of Acosta
o that Manebo only alleged that Acosta only changed his
appearance to avoid being recognized
o Bagasan's presence at the crime scene when the crime was
being committed is highly suspect. Bagasan's delayed
testimony coupled with an erroneous description, casts a
thick cloud of doubt on her credibility
o Sardia was not among those mentioned in the police report
and his testimony was likewise belatedly executed. Sardia's
testimony may also not be given credence with respect to
respondent Acosta since he did not witness the actual
shooting of the victim.
prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw the Information
petitioner filed with the OP, which dismissed the appeal and
AFFIRMED THE RESOLUTION OF THE DOJ SECRETARY
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 43 with the CA
Meanwhile, the RTC of Manila resolved to suspend the resolution
on the motion to withdraw
o respondents were still at large and had not been prejudiced
by the the petition for filing with the CA anyway
o ruled for the suspension of the implementation of the
warrants of arrest for respondents as moved by the