CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

LACSON vs THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al.

GR NO. 128096 / January 20, 1999
J. Martinez

CHAPTER/TOPIC:

FACTS:

In the early morning of May 18, 1995, eleven (11) persons believed
to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, reportedly an
organized crime syndicate which had been involved in a spate of
bank robberies in Metro Manila. Headed by Chieff Superintendent
Jewel Canson of the Philippine National Police (PNP). This was
composed of police officers from the Traffic Management Command
(TMC) led by petitioner-intervenor Senior Superintendent Francisco
Zubia, Jr.; Presidential Anti-Crime Commission — Task Force
Habagat (PACC-TFH) headed by petitioner Chief Superintendent
Panfilo M. Lacson; Central Police District Command (CPDC) led by
Chief Superintendent Ricardo de Leon; and the Criminal
Investigation Command (CIC) headed by petitioner-intervenor Chief
Superintendent Romeo Acop.
Thus, on November 2, 1995, petitioner Panfilo Lacson was among
those charged as principal in eleven (11) information for
murder before the Sandiganbayan's Second Division, while
intervenors Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr. were among those
charged in the same informations as accessories after-in-the-fact.

ISSUE/S:

Whether the offense of multiple murder was committed in relation

to the office of the accussed PNP officers.

RULING/HELD: (ALAC)

Yes, the undersigned Special Prosecution Officer III. Office of the

Ombudsman hereby accuses CHIEF INSP. MICHAEL RAY AQUINO
and the other PNP officers, of the crime of Murder as defined and
penalize under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code committed as

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

follows. That on or about May 18, 1995 in Mariano Marcos Avenue,

Quezon City Philippines and within the jurisdiction of his
Honorable Court, the accused CHIEF INSP. MICHAEL RAY
AQUINO, et al., all taking advantage of their public and official
positions as officers and members of the Philippine National Police
and committing the acts herein alleged in relation to their public
office, conspiring with intent to kill and using firearms with
treachery evident premeditation and taking advantage of their
superior strengths did then and there willfully unlawfully and
feloniously shoot JOEL AMORA.

The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth with such
particularly as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the
accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was,
sad to say, not satisfied. We believe that the mere allegation in the
amended information that the offense was committed by the
accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. That
phrase is merely a conclusion between of law, not a factual
averment that would show the close intimacy between the offense
charged and the discharge of the accused's official duties.

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

DE LIMA vs GUERRERO, et al.

GR NO. 229781 / October 10, 2017
J. Velasco Jr.

CHAPTER/TOPIC:

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. On February 17, 2017, three
Informations were filed against petitioner De Lima and several co-
accused before the RTC of Muntinlupa City. This Information
charging petitioner for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section
(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,
contained the following averments:
That within the period from November 2012 to March 2013, in the
City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused Leila M. De Lima, being then the
Secretary of the Department of Justice, and accused Rafael Marcos
Z. Rages, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of
Corrections, by taking advantage of their public office, conspiring
and confederating with accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an
employee of the Department of Justice detailed to De Lima, all of
them having moral ascendancy or influence over inmates in the
New Bilibid Prison, did then and there commit illegal drug trading.
In the following manner: De Lima and Ragos, with the use of their
power, position, and authority, demand, solicit and extort money
from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to support
the senatorial bid of De Lima in the May 2016 election.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not petitioner, in filing the present petition, violated the

rule against forum shopping given the pendency of the Motion to
Quash the Information before the Regional Trial Court of
Muntinlupa City in Criminal Case No. 17-165 and the Petition for
Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No.

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

149097, assailing the preliminary investigation conducted by the

DOJ Panel.

RULING/HELD: (ALAC)

Yes. Forum shopping therefore exists when the following elements

are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties
representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights
asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that
any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration.

The presence of the first requisite is at once apparent. The

petitioner is an accused in the criminal case below, while the
respondents in this case, all represented by the Solicitor General,
have substantial identity with the complainant in the criminal case
still pending before the trial court. To restate for emphasis, the RTC
has yet to rule on the Motion to Quash. Thus, the present
petition and the motion to quash before the RTC are simultaneous
actions that do not exempt petitions for certiorari from the rule
against forum shopping.

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

UYBOCO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR NO. 211703 / December 10, 2014
J. Velasco Jr.

CHAPTER/TOPIC:

FACTS:

Petitioner asserts that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the

existence of a conspiracy and in convicting him in the absence of
proof beyond reasonable doubt of such conspiracy. More
importantly, petitioner finds fault in the Sandiganbayan's denial of
his Motion to Reconsider the Decision of this Honorable Court with
a Plea to Re-Open the Proceedings dated January 22, 2014. Section
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. In his motion, petitioner prayed for
the reopening of the proceedings on the ground that his
constitutional rights to due process and to competent counsel were
violated when his former counsel, due to blatant error, abuse of
discretion, and gross incompetence, did not present any evidence in
his defense, causing serious prejudice to him.

Based on the records of the case, the elements of the crime charged
exist in the present case. On the first element, accused Valencia
was a public officer at the time the acts in question were
committed. Thus, while petitioner was a private individual, he was
found to have been in conspiracy with accused Valencia. This is in
accord with the rule that private persons may be charged in
conspiracy with public officers. The Sandiganbayan found that
petitioner and accused Valencia acted in conspiracy to commit the
crime charged, to wit: The records show that conspiracy existed by
and between accused Rodolfo Valencia and Edelbert Uyboco,
president of Gaikoku.

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the petitioner’s right to due process was denied due
to his former counsel’s error, abuse of discretion or gross
incompetence.

RULING/HELD: (ALAC)

No. The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even
mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The
basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope
of a "general or implied authority" is regarded as an act of the client.
To properly claim gross negligence on the part of the counsel, the
petitioner must show that the counsel was guilty of nothing short of
a clear abandonment of the client’s cause.
In the same vein, accused-movant Uyboco’s clear admission that
"he had been given the opportunity to present his evidence" and
despite said opportunity, he and his counsel decided/opted not to
present any evidence for his defense. The accused EDELBERT C.
UYBOCO has deemed it unnecessary to present further evidence in
his defense.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor correctly pointed out that

petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard during trial. This
opportunity to be heard is the essence of due process. While
petitioner claims that he was incorrectly advised by his former
counsel that the presentation of evidence is no longer necessary,
this unfortunate mistake cannot qualify as gross negligence or
incompetence that would necessitate a reopening of the
proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

AAA vs BBB
GR NO. 212448 / January 11, 2018
J. Tijam

CHAPTER/TOPIC:

FACTS:

Petitioner AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon

City. Their union produced two children: CCC was born on March
4, 2007 and DDD on October 1, 2009. In May of 2007, BBB started
working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent
resident status in September of 2008. AAA claimed, albeit not
reflected in the Information, that BBB sent little to no financial
support, and only sporadically. There were also allegations of virtual
abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical
and sexual violence. To make matters worse, BBB supposedly
started having an affair with a Singaporean woman named Lisel
Mok with whom he allegedly has been living in Singapore.

Things came to a head on April 19, 2011 when AAA and BBB had a
violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore during her visit with
their kids. As can be gathered from the earlier cited Information,
despite the claims of varied forms of abuses, the investigating
prosecutor found sufficient basis to charge BBB with causing AAA
mental and emotional anguish through his alleged marital infidelity.

On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance as Counsel for the

Accused with Omnibus Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information,
Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest was filed on behalf
of BBB. Granting the motion to quash on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction and thereby dismissing the case.

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the Philippine courts may exercise jurisdiction over

an offense constituting psychological violence under Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9262 committed through marital infidelity, when the
alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring outside the
country?

RULING/HELD: (ALAC)

Yes. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED.

It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the

abusive conduct or act of violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No.
9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph (C) was committed
outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the
place where the complaint is filed in view of the anguish suffered
being a material element of the offense.

The Court stated that even if the alleged extra marital affair causing
the offended wife mental and emotional anguish is committed
abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262
absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

ANG vs COURT OF APPEALS

GR NO. 182835 / April 20, 2010
J. Abad

CHAPTER/TOPIC:

FACTS:

The evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Irish

Sagud (Irish) and accused Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan
University in Aurora Province. Rustan courted Irish and they
became "on-and-off" sweethearts towards the end of 2004. When
Irish learned afterwards that Rustan had taken a live-in partner
(now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish broke up with
him. Before Rustan got married, however, he got in touch with Irish
and tried to convince her to elope with him, saying that he did not
love the woman he was about to marry. Irish rejected the proposal
and told Rustan to take on his responsibility to the other woman
and their child. Irish changed her cellphone number but Rustan
somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages.
Irish replied to his text messages but it was to ask him to leave her
alone.

In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Irish received through

multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman
with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure, it was from one of the
numbers Rustan used. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got
other text messages from Rustan. And he threatened to spread the
picture he sent through the internet.
Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred
her to the police. Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan
through the cellphone numbers he used in sending the picture and
his text messages. Irish asked Rustan to meet and there the latter
was arrested by the police. Rustan claims that it was Irish herself
who sent the obscene picture (Exhibit A) to him. He presented six
pictures of a woman whom he identified as Irish. Michelle Ang
(Michelle), Rustan’s wife, testified that she was sure Irish sent the

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
JUDGE ANGELO ARIZALA

six pictures. Michelle claims that she received the pictures and hid
the memory card.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the

nude picture in this case, already constitutes a violation of Section
5(h) of R.A. 9262.

RULING/HELD: (ALAC)

Yes. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or

series of acts of harassment against the woman, and the
harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to her.

The Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced based
on Rustan’s low regard for the alleged moral sensibilities of today’s
youth. What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of
course only be determined based on the circumstances of each
case. What makes it further terrifying is that, as Irish testified,
Rustan sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all
to see. That must have given her a nightmare.
In conclusion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved
each and every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt.

MARIE FIDES ANDAO – 1B

SY. 2022-2023