NILO T. PATES v.

COMELEC
GR. No. 184915

June 30, 2009

FACTS: Petitioner filed his petition for certiorari on the final COMELEC Resolution
on October 22, 2008 or two days late which must be filed 30 days from such notice
however it fell on a Saturday (October 18, 2008), as the petitioner only had the
remaining period of 26 days to file his petition, after using up 4 days in preparing
and filing his Motion for Reconsideration. His petition was dismissed. He insists that
the fresh period rule applicable to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should
likewise apply to petitions for certiorari of COMELEC rulings filed under Rule 64. He
asks for Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted
RULING: No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that unless
otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each Commission may be brought to the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For this reason, the Rules of Court
provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable only to decisions of the
COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. This Rule expressly refers to the application
of Rule 65 in the filing of a petition for certiorari, subject to the exception clause
except as hereinafter provided. Rule 64, however, cannot simply be equated to Rule
65 even if it expressly refers to the latter rule.

PO3 BENITO SOMBILON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 175528

September 30, 2009

FACTS: AAA, a fifteen (15)-year old minor, was investigated by Appellant at the
Calinan Police Station, Davao City in connection with a complaint for Theft, during
the investigation she was touched all over her body including her breasts, her belly,
and her private parts. She struggled to resist the sexual advances but Appellant
prevailed. RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of acts of lasciviousness
with the aggravating circumstance of petitioners taking advantage of his public
position which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in affirming the appreciation of aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of his public position for failure to allege in the
information
RULING: Yes, Rule 110 Sec. 8 states that a complaint or information shall state the
designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances
and under Sec. 9 The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense
and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense
is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the
court to pronounce judgment.
Clearly, it is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying
circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information.
Otherwise, they cannot be considered by the trial court in its judgment, even, if
they are subsequently proved during trial. A reading of the Information shows that
there was no allegation of any aggravating circumstance.

HEIRS OF JANE HONRALES v. JONATHAN HONRALES

G.R. No. 182651

August 25, 2010

FACTS: Jane Honrales was fatally shot by her husband, respondent Jonathan
Honrales. Information for parricide was filed against him with the RTC of Manila. He
was arraigned before the MeTC and pleaded guilty to the charge of reckless
imprudence resulting in parricide.
On October 27, 2004, respondent filed with the RTC a motion seeking to dismiss the
parricide charges against him. He cited his arraignment and conviction by the MeTC
as grounds for the dismissal of the case against him.
Petitioner heirs argue that the MeTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the case
for parricide through reckless imprudence and that jurisdiction remained with the
RTC where the Information for parricide was filed.
ISSUE: Whether there is double jeopardy
RULING: NO. Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a
first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly
terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first
jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c)
after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the
accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
In this case, the MeTC took cognizance of the Information for reckless imprudence
resulting in parricide while the criminal case for parricide was still pending before
the RTC. Therefore, as the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide was
included in the charge for intentional parricide pending before the RTC, the MeTC
clearly had no jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it, the RTC having
retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of all other courts. The
requisite that the judgment be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is
therefore absent.

HPS Software v. PLDT

G.R. No. 170694

December 10, 2012

FACTS: PAOCTF filed two applications for the issuance of search warrant for
Violation of Article 308 of the RPC for Theft of Telephone Services and for Violation
of P.D. 401 following the complaint of PLDT that they were able to monitor the use
of the respondents in their premises of Mabuhay card and equipments capable of
receiving and transmitting calls from the USA to the Philippines without these calls
passing through the facilities of PLDT. The court issued the questioned search
warrants. HPS Corporation filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and Return of the
Things Seized on the grounds that the same did not refer to a specific offense; that
there was no probable cause; and that the search warrants were general warrants
and were wrongly implemented.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrants have been properly issued

RULING: Yes. The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the
following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable
cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any
other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine,
under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may
produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons and things to be seized.
The pieces of evidence adduce are more than sufficient to support a finding that
test calls were indeed made by PLDTs witnesses using Mabuhay card with PIN code
number 332 1479224 and, more importantly, that probable cause necessary to
engender a belief that HPS Corporation, et al. had probably committed the crime of
Theft through illegal ISR activities exists. To reiterate, evidence to show probable

cause to issue a search warrant must be distinguished from proof beyond

reasonable doubt which, at this juncture of the criminal case, is not required.