CASE DIGESTS

SUBMITTED TO : JUDGE MIA JOY CAWED

(PROFESSOR :REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2)
(UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO – SCHOOL OF LAW)

SUBMITTED BY : PHILIP RAY B. AMELING

February 02, 2018

 TOPIC: DOJ vs Ombudsman on investigation of cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan

[G.R. Nos. 105965-70. March 20, 2001]

GEORGE UY, petitioner, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, THE HON.

OMBUDSMAN AND THE HON. ROGER C. BERBANO, SR., SPECIAL
PROSECUTION OFFICER III, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR, respondents.

FACTS:

Motion for Further Clarification filed by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto

of the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9, 1999 and resolution dated
February 22, 2000 that the prosecutory power of the Ombudsman extends only
to cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and that the Ombudsman has no
authority to prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of regular courts.

ISSUE:

W.O.N THE OMBUDSMAN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER.

RULING :

RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989):

Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.--The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have the following powers, functions and duties:

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may
take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government,
the investigation of such cases;

Sec. 11. Structural Organization. x x x

 (2) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall be composed of the Special
Prosecutor and his prosecution staff. The Office of the Special Prosecutor
shall be an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman and shall
be under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman.

(3) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and
control and upon authority of the Ombudsman, have the following
powers:

(a) To conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal cases within

the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;
(b) To enter into plea bargaining agreements; and
(c) To perform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman.

(1) Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over

cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The law defines such primary
jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman "to take over, at any stage,
from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of
such cases." The grant of this authority does not necessarily imply the
exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases involving public officers and
employees cognizable by other courts. The exercise by the Ombudsman
of his primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan is
not incompatible with the discharge of his duty to investigate and
prosecute other offenses committed by public officers and employees.

Indeed, it must be stressed that the powers granted by the

legislature to the Ombudsman are very broad and encompass all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance committed by public officers
and employees during their tenure of office.

(2) The jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman should not be equated
with the limited authority of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of
RA 6770. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of
the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision
and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman.[3] Its power to
conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal
cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Certainly, the
lawmakers did not intend to confine the investigatory and prosecutory
power of the Ombudsman to these types of cases.

(3) The Ombudsman is mandated by law to act on all complaints against

officers and employees of the government and to enforce their
administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the
evidence warrants.[4] To carry out this duty, the law allows him to utilize
the personnel of his office and/or designate any fiscal, state prosecutor
or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or
 prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain
cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him work under his
supervision and control.[5] The law likewise allows him to direct the
Special Prosecutor to prosecute cases outside the Sandiganbayan's
jurisdiction in accordance with Section 11 (4c) of RA 6770.

(4) In September 1989, Congress passed RA 6770 providing for the

functional and structural organization of the Office of the
Ombudsman. As in the previous laws on the Ombudsman, RA 6770 gave
the present Ombudsman not only the duty to receive and relay the
people's grievances, but also the duty to investigate and prosecute for
and in their behalf, civil, criminal and administrative offenses committed
by government officers and employees as embodied in Sections 15 and
11 of the law.
(5) A perusal of the law originally creating the Office of the Ombudsman
then (to be known as the Tanodbayan), and the amendatory laws issued
subsequent thereto will show that, at its inception, the Office of the
Ombudsman was already vested with the power to investigate and
prosecute civil and criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and even
the regular courts.

Finally, it must be clarified that the authority of the Ombudsman to

prosecute cases involving public officers and employees before the regular
courts does not conflict with the power of the regular prosecutors under the
Department of Justice to control and direct the prosecution of all criminal
actions under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rules
of Court must be read in conjunction with RA 6770 which charged the
Ombudsman with the duty to investigate and prosecute all illegal acts and
omissions of public officers and employees. The Court held in the case
of Sanchez vs. Demetriou that the power of the Ombudsman under Section 15
(1) of RA 6770 is not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent
authority in respect of the offense charged.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court's ruling in its decision dated August 9,

1999 and its resolution dated February 20, 2000 that the Ombudsman
exercises prosecutorial powers only in cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
is SET ASIDE.
 TOPIC: DOJ vs Ombudsman on investigation of cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan

[G.R. No. 149311. February 11, 2005]

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, through SECRETARY HERNANDO PEREZ,

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION through DIRECTOR
REYNALDO WYCOCO, STATE PROSECUTORS LEO B. DACERA III,
MISAEL M. LADAGA AND MARY JOSEPHINE P. LAZARO, petitioners, vs.
HON. HERMOGENES R. LIWAG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge
Branch 55, Regional Trial Court, Manila, PANFILO M. LACSON,
MICHAEL RAY B. AQUINO, respondents.
FACTS:

Mary Ong alleges that she was a former undercover agent of the
Presidential AntiOrganized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Narcotics Group Jan. 8, 2001.

She filed before the OMB a complaint against PNP General Panfilo M.
Lacson, PNP Colonel Michael Ray B. Aquino, other high-ranking officials of the
PNP, and several private individuals.

Her complaint-affidavit gave rise to separate cases involving different

offenses imputed to respondents Lacson and Aquino including:

1. Kidnapping for ransom of Zeng Jia Xuan, Hong Zhen Quiao, Zeng Kang
Pang, James Wong and Wong Kam Chong;

2. Murder of Wong Kam Chong; and

3. Kidnapping for ransom and murder of Chong Hiu Ming May 7, 2001.

A panel of prosecutors from the DOJ sent a subpoena to Lacson et al

May 18, 2001 - Lacson and Aquino sent a letter saying the DOJ should dismiss
the complaint because the OMB has a similar complaint with the same facts.

On May 28, 2001,the DOJ denied the dismissal Lacson and Aquino filed
in the RTC a motion for prohibition, insisting the DOJ does not have
jurisdiction .Judge Liwag issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the
DOJ from conducting a preliminary investigation DOJ et., al, hereby appealed
to the SC
 ISSUE:/RULING:

W.O.N. the DOJ can concurrently investigate a case wherein the OMB
has an existing complaint before it.

No - the pendency of the case before the OMB is one of primary

jurisdiction to investigate 1987 Admin Code governing the DOJ states:

Section 1. Declaration of policy. It is the declared policy of the State to

provide the government with a principal law agency which shall be both its
legal counsel and prosecution arm; administer the criminal justice system in
accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the investigation
of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and administration of the correctional
system;

Section 3. Powers and Functions. To accomplish its mandate, the

Department shall have the following powers and functions: Investigate the
commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and
correction system; PD 1275 states:

Section 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service;

Supervision and Control of the Secretary of Justice. There is hereby
created and established a National Prosecution Service under the
supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice, to be composed of the
Prosecution Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice and such
number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and City
Fiscals Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily
responsible for the investigation and prosecution of all cases involving
violations of penal laws. OMB act (RA 6640) states:

Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. The Office of the

Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the

Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may
take over, at anystage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the
investigation of such cases; Art. 11, Sec. 13 of the Constitution vests the
OMB with plenary investigative powers and fiscal autonomy They are
granted great leeway in investigating and prosecuting offenses
Prosecution under the OMB has preference over other bodies RA 6770
gives them primary jurisdiction in cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and authorizes them to take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency, the investigation of such cases The DOJ has
general jurisdiction, it cannot diminish the primary jurisdiction of the
OMB This is the first case wherein the first complaint was filed with the
OMB before the DOJ The subsequent assumption of the DOJ would not
promote an orderly administration of Justice Defendants would not know
where their recourse would be (DOJ or OMB) There is a risk of conflicting
resolutions regarding guilt Two investigations would lead to unnecessary
expenditure of government funds Petition dismissed, OMB to have
jurisdiction for the preliminary investigation
 TOPIC : Information and aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA,

WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, Accused-
appellants.

G.R. No. 196735 May 5, 2014

FACTS:

On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7)

members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House
Canteen, near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman,
when they were attacked by several masked men carrying baseball bats and
lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required hospitalization. One
of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries.

An information for murder was filed against several members of the Scintilla
Juris fraternity and separate informations were also filed against them for the
attempted and frustrated murder of Sigma Rho fraternity members.

RTC found Alvir, Feliciano Jr., Soliva, Medalla and Zingapan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder. Others were acquitted. The
case against Guerrero was ordered archived by the court until his
apprehension. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not accused-appellants’ constitutional rights were violated when

the information against them contained the aggravating circumstance of the
use of masks despite the prosecution presenting witnesses to prove that the
masks fell off
 RULING:

FIRST ISSUE:

No.

The Court held that an information is sufficient when the accused is fully
apprised of the charge against him to enable him to prepare his defense. The
argument of appellants that the information filed against them violates their
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them holds no water. The Court found no merit on the appellants’
arguments that the prosecution should not have included the phrase “wearing
masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the information since they were
presenting testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing masks or
that their masks fell off.

It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being

alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an aggravating
circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such

It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating

circumstance of “wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the
information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be
admissible by the trial court.

In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance because, like

nighttime, it allows the accused to remain anonymous and unidentifiable as he
carries out his crimes.

The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to

prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent
them from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance.

What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is

that there was a concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of
disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the
accused that in the commission of the offense they were being charged with,
they tried to conceal their identity.

The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the accused were
not wearing masks is also not violative of their right to be informed of their
offenses.
 The information charges conspiracy among the accused. Conspiracy
presupposes that “the act of one is the act of all.” This would mean all the
accused had been one in their plan to conceal their identity even if there was
evidence later on to prove that some of them might not have done so.

SECOND ISSUE:

Yes.

The Court held that the accused were sufficiently identified by the
witnesses for the prosecution. It was held that the trial court, in weighing all
the evidence on hand, found the testimonies of the witnesses for the
prosecution to be credible. Slight inconsistencies in their statements were
immaterial considering the swiftness of the incident.

Evidence as part of the res gestae may be admissible but have little
persuasive value in this case

According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer Salvador, when he

arrived at the scene, he interviewed the bystanders who all told him that they
could not recognize the attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued,
could be evidence that could be given as part of the res gestae.

There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully eating

lunch on a school campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that the
statements of the bystanders were made immediately after the startling
occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res gestae.

The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible, have little

persuasive value since the bystanders could have seen the events transpiring
at different vantage points and at different points in time. Even Frisco Capilo,
one of the bystanders at the time of the attack, testified that the attackers had
their masks on at first, but later on, some remained masked and some were
unmasked.

When the bystanders’ testimonies are weighed against those of the victims who
witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to end at close range, the
former become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack occurred. Their
account of the incident, therefore, must be given considerably less weight than
that of the victims.

Accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder, and there was

treachery in the commission of the crime
 The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a
place where they would be reasonably expected to be on guard for any sudden
attack by rival fraternity men.

The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes and
baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was with their arms. In
a situation where they were unarmed and outnumbered, it would be impossible
for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in less
than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders being
able to help them until after the incident.

The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for
the victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was
present in this case.
 TOPIC : Information and aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

- versus -
EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA,
G.R. No. 176385

February 26, 2008

FACTS:
On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two
counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants,
together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murder case
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-0258 while the two frustrated murder
cases were docketed as Criminal Cases No. 98-0260 and No. 98-0270. The
accusatory portions of the Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 98-0258
For: Murder
That on or about 11:10 o'clock in the evening, more or less, on the
29th day of August, 1997, at Purok 7, Barangay San Vicente, Santa Elena,
Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating, and helping each
other to attain a common purpose, with treachery, evident premeditation and
abuse of superior strength, while armed with firearms, assault, attack, and use
personal violence upon one JOSITA FERNANDEZ-NOVELO, by then and there
shooting the said victim on her face causing upon the latter serious and mortal
wounds which were the direct and proximate cause of the death of the victim to
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said victim.

That the commission of the offense is attended by aggravating circumstance of

nighttime purposely sought to facilitate the same and dwelling.

Criminal Case No. 98-0260

For: Frustrated Murder

That on or about 11:10 in the evening of the 29th day of August, 1997, at Purok
7, Barangay San Vicente, Santa Elena, Camarines Norte, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping each other to attain a common
purpose, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent
to kill, while armed with firearms and knife, and with treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength, attack, assault, and use
personal violence upon one ANTONIO BEA, by then and there, poking a firearm
at said private offended party, tying his hands with a rope and thereafter,
stabbing said victim on different parts of his body, thus causing upon the latter
serious and mortal wounds capable of causing death, hence, performing all the
acts of execution which could have produced the crime of murder as a
consequence, but nonetheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of their (accused) will, that is, by the timely and able medical
assistance rendered to said victim which prevented his death, to the damage
and prejudice of herein private complainant.

Criminal Case No. 98-0270

For: Frustrated Murder

That on or about 11:10 o'clock in the evening of August 29, 1997 at the
fishpond at Purok 7, Barangay San Vicente, municipality of Santa Elena,
province of Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another with intent to kill with treachery and evident
premeditation and while armed with long firearms and 12 gauge shot gun, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, kick and
strike one ANTONIO NOVELO with a shotgun, hitting him on the different parts
of his body and then shot one said Antonio Novelo but missed, which ordinarily
would cause the death of Antonio Novelo thus performing all the acts of
execution which should have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence,
but nonetheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of their
will, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Antonio
Novelo, which prevented his death, to his damage and prejudice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery, generic aggravating
circumstance of dwelling and nighttime should be appreciated in the cases.

RULING:
The RTC is correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery in
the killing of Josita Novelo and in the stabbing of Antonio Bea.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the

hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.
Frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected and the
victim is unarmed. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it
impossible for the victim to defend himself/herself or to retaliate.
In the killing of Josita Novelo, the victim was at her home when someone called
her. When the victim went outside, suddenly Jesus Trinidad held her.
Thereafter, Jesus Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad mauled Josita Novelo. Without
warning, Jesus Trinidad shot the helpless victim on the cheek. Said attack was
so sudden and unexpected that the victim had not been given the opportunity
to defend herself or repel the aggression. She was unarmed when she was
attacked. Indeed, all these circumstances indicate that the assault on the
victim was treacherous.
The stabbing of Antonio Bea was also attended with treachery. While Bea,
whose hands were tied behind his back, and the assailants were walking along
the dike, Emelio Tolentino unexpectedly stabbed the victim four times. The
victim could not put up a defense as the attack was swift and he was not in the
position to repel the same since his hands were tied.

Also affirmed is the ruling of the RTC appreciating the presence of the generic
aggravating circumstance of dwelling in Criminal Case No. 98-0258. Evidence
shows that Josita Novelo was killed in her own house. When the crime is
committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given
provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
Here, the crime was committed inside the house of the deceased victim.
Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy
the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him
or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.

Dwelling, however, cannot be appreciated in Criminal Case No. 98-0260

considering that the same was not alleged in the information. Under Section 9,
Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances must be
alleged in the information and proved otherwise; even if proved but not alleged
in the information, the same shall not be considered by the Court in the
imposition of the proper penalty on the accused.
The aggravating circumstance of nighttime in both cases should not be
appreciated. Nighttime is considered an aggravating circumstance only when it
is sought to prevent the accused from being recognized or to ensure their
escape. There must be proof that this was intentionally sought to ensure the
commission of the crime and that the perpetrators took advantage of it.
Although the crime was committed at nighttime, there is no evidence that the
appellants and their companions took advantage of nighttime or that nighttime
facilitated the commission of the crime.