Remedial Law Review II | Case Digests | jgg

Case Digests in Criminal Procedure

1. PEOPLE V. LIPATA, G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016

Facts: Rolando Cueno went to his aunt’s house to ask for malunggay leaves. However, appellant, Larry
Lipata and a certain Rudy attacked him by repeatedly stabbing him. When the victim fell on the ground,
the assailants escaped. Rolando’s neighbors rushed him to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and to pay the heirs of
the Rolando Cueno for damages. Appellant, through the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), filed a notice of
appeal. The Quezon City Jail Warden, in a letter dated 22 October 2012, informed this Court that appellant
passed away on 13 February 2011.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant’s death extinguishes his criminal and civil liability.

Ruling: The criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant are declared extinguished by his death prior
to final judgment. Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is
extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted
therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal.
We also ruled that if the private offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability ex delicto desires to
recover damages from the same act or omission complained of, he must file a separate civil action, this time
predicated not on the felony previously charged but on other sources of obligation. The source of obligation
upon which the separate civil action is premised determines against whom the same shall be enforced.

2. GIRLIE QUISAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 216920, January 13, 2016

FACTS: The Office of the City Prosecutor filed an information to the RTC charging petitioner for violation
of Section 10 of R.A No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act). Petitioner moved for the quashal of the Information against her on the ground of lack
of authority of the person who filed the same before the RTC because the resolution was issued without the
approval or authority from the City Prosecutor. As such, the Information must be quashed for being tainted
with a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured.

The RTC ruled to deny the petitioner’s motion to quash due to lack of merit since it found that the
certification attached to the Pabatid Sakdal has sufficiently complied with Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules
of Court which requires the prior written authority or approval by, among others, the City Prosecutor, in
the filing of Information. Petitioner then moved for reconsideration but denied. Petitioner elevated the
matter to the CA that consequently, affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

ISSUE: WON the CA correctly held that RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s
motion to quash.

HELD: NO. CA erred in affirming CA’s ruling. As a general rule, complaints or information filed before
the courts without prior written authority or approval of the authorized officers renders the same as defective
and therefore subject to quashal. In this case, there was no proof that a certain officer was authorized to
perform the written authority with the approval and in behalf of the City Prosecutor. In the prior
circumstances, the CA erred in affirming RTC’s ruling, that the officer who filed the same before the RTC
had no authority to do so. Thus, Pabatid Sakdal must be quashed resulting in the dismissal of the criminal
case against petitioner. Finally, it must be stressed that the Rules of Court governs the pleading, practice
and procedure in all courts of the Philippines. For an orderly administration of justice, the provisions
contained therein should be followed by all litigants, but especially by the prosecution arm of the
Government.
3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and PRECIOSA GOMEZ y
CAMPOS, G.R. No. 174471; 12 January 2016

FACTS: Jerry Pepino looted the office of Edward Tan at Kilton Motors Corporation. Therafter, they
abducted Edward and demanded ransom from his father. After the ransom was given, Edward was released.
After five months, the NBI informed Edward that they had apprehended some suspects, and invited him to
identify them from a lineup consisting of seven persons. Edward positively identified Pepino, Gomez, and
Mario. Pepino and Gomez did not testify for their defense. The defense instead presented Zeny Pepino and
Reynaldo Pepino who alleged that they were arrested without a valid warrant of arrest leading to a violation
of their rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not the illegal arrest of an accused is sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.

RULING: No. The Court pointed out at the outset that Gomez did not question before arraignment the
legality of her warrantless arrest or the acquisition of RTC's jurisdiction over her person. Thus, Gomez is
deemed to have waived any objection to her warrantless arrest. It is settled that any objection to the
procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
must be opportunely raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

At any rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered
upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. Simply put, the illegality of the warrantless arrest
cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their
culpability. It is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid information
had been filed, the accused had been arraigned, the trial had commenced and had been completed, and a
judgment of conviction had been rendered against her.

4. DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE GR No. 209387, January 11, 2016

Facts: Accused Dela Cruz was about to board a vessel. However, while his bag went through the security
scan, the operator called the port’ baggage inspector when firearms inside Dela Cruz’s bag registered in the
machine. When as ked if he owns the bag, accused said yes. Thereafter, a port police officer came and
arrested Dela Cruz for violation of Republic Act No. 8294 for illegal possession of firearms and Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881 on Election Gun Ban. Dela Cruz entered a plea of not guilty to both charges during
arraignment. No objections were made prior to his plea.

After trial, RTC convicted Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Dela Cruz appealed alleging that the
evidence is in admissible because his bag was illegally searched.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures when he failed
to object before he entered his plea

Ruling: YES. It is settled that any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised before he enters his plea;
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Appellant is now estopped from questioning any defect in the
manner of his arrest as he failed to move for the quashing of the information before the trial court.
Consequently, any irregularity attendant to his arrest was cured when he voluntarily submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of "not guilty" and by participating in the trial.
5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EDGARDO PEREZ G. R. No. 208071, 09 March 2016

Facts: In an Information, accused-appellant Eduardo was charged with the crime of rape, committed by
having carnal knowledge of his niece, AAA, a 13-year-old girl, against her will and to her damage and
prejudice:
That on or about January 3, 2000, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, y means of force and intimidation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of one AAA, a girl, 13 years
old, against her will; furthermore, there being present an aggravating circumstance in that the
victim is under eighteen (18) years old and the accused is an uncle by affinity of the latter.

Issue: Whether the Information contains all the necessary allegation.

Ruling: No. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings requiring that Informations charging an accused with the
crime of rape qualified by relationship must succinctly state that said accused is a relative within the third
civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. The Information merely alleged that "the accused is an uncle by
affinity of the latter," failing to clearly state that appellant herein is AAA's relative within the third civil
degree of consanguinity or· affinity, as expressly required by the aforecited ruling. Appellant herein cannot,
therefore, be properly ·convicted of rape in its qualified form resulting in a higher award of damages.

Case Digests in Evidence

6. PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO COMBOY Y CRONICO, GR No. 218399, Mar 02, 2016

Facts: Accused, being the father of [AAA] with lewd and unchaste design, exercising, moral ascendancy
upon said private offended party, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with his own daughter [AAA], an 11 year old minor girl while she is asleep or is otherwise
unconscious, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice. Accused asserted that AAA merely
fabricated the accusations against him as she was angry at him for being too strict apart from the fact that
he was not at home when the alleged crime happen.

Issue: WON the defense of denial and alibi can prevail over positive and categorical testimony of the victim

Ruling: NO. Suffice it to say that Comboy's flimsy defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the
positive and categorical testimony of AAA identifying him as the perpetrator of the crimes. In this regard,
it has been long settled that "a young girl would not concoct a sordid tale of a crime as serious as rape at
the hands of her very own father, allow the examination of her private part, and subject herself to the stigma
and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice. Hence,
there is no plausible reason why AAA would testify against her own father, imputing to him the grave crime
of rape, if this crime did not happen," as in this case.

7. AMADO I. SARAUM vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 205472, January 25, 2016

FACTS: A buy-bust operation was conducted against "Pata." During the operation, "Pata" eluded arrest as
he tried to run towards his shanty. The operatives entered the shanty where Saraum and Esperanza were
holding drug paraphernalia apparently in preparation to have a "shabu" pot session. The confiscated items
were placed in the plastic pack of misua wrapper, and made initial markings. At the police station, the
paraphernalia recovered from Saraum were also marked. After the case was filed, the subject items were
turned over to the property custodian of the Office of City Prosecutor. Saraum denied the commission of
the alleged offense. The RTC find Saraum guilty of the charge which CA affirmed. On appeal, Saraum
questioned the decision of the lower court in finding him guilty of illegal possession of paraphernalia and
the chain of custody of the items seized.
ISSUE: WON the non-compliance with the chain of custody rule render the arrest illegal or the items
confiscated from the accused inadmissible.

HELD: NO. Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must
immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance
therewith is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. While the procedure
on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain
an unbroken chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not
necessarily render an accused person's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible.