# 4 People v.
Henry Go The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity
Facts: An information was filed against the late ARTURO ENRILE,
then Secretary of the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) for alleged violation of Section 3(g) of
Republic Act No. 3019 (R.A. 3019), otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act.in conspiracy with HENRY T. GO, Chairman
and President of the Philippine International Air Terminals, Co., Inc.
(PIATCO) who entered into a Concession Agreement, after the project
for the construction of the NAIA Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III)
was awarded to Paircargo Consortium/PIATC.
On September 16, 2004, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon found probable cause to indict, among others, herein
respondent for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. While there was
likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary Enrile, he was
no longer indicted because he died prior to the issuance of the
resolution finding probable cause.
The prosecution contended that the SB has already acquired
jurisdiction over the person of respondent by reason of his voluntary
appearance, when he filed a motion for consolidation and when he
posted bail. The prosecution also argued that the SB has exclusive
jurisdiction over respondent’s case, even if he is a private person,
because he was alleged to have conspired with a public officer.
Go filed a Motion to Quash the Information filed against him on the
ground that the operative facts adduced therein do not constitute an
offense under Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. Go citing the show cause
order of the SB, also contended that, independently of the deceased
Secretary Enrile, the public officer with whom he was alleged to have
conspired, respondent, who is not a public officer nor was capacitated
by any official authority as a government agent, may not be prosecuted
for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019.
Issue: Whether Go, a private person, may be indicted for conspiracy in
violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with whom
he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the
Information.
Held: Yes.
It is a settled rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with
public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the
pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in consonance with
the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public
officers and private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices
act or which may lead thereto.
The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation
of Section 3(g) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019, among others, is that such
private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a
public officer; If circumstances exist where the public officer may no
longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public
officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone.
The SB is a special criminal court which has exclusive original
jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.A. 3019 committed by
certain public officers, as enumerated in P.D. 1606 as amended by
R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals who are charged as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public officers.
#8 Sanchez v. Demetriou
Facts: Sanchez has brought this petition for certiorari to challenge the
order of the respondent judge denying his motion to quash the
information for rape with homicide filed against him and six other
persons.
The Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the filing of
appropriate charges against several persons, including the petitioner,
in connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the
killing of Allan Gomez
Issue: NOT SURE WITH THE ISSUE.
Doctrines:
of the information or otherwise render the same defective and neither
does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a
ground for quashing the information. If no preliminary investigation has
been held, or if it is flawed, the trial court may, on motion of the
accused, order an investigation or reinvestigation and hold the
proceedings in the criminal cases in abeyance.
The Ombudsman’s power under Sec. 15, paragraph (1) of RA 6770 is
not an exclusive authority but rather a shared or concurrent authority in
respect of the offense charged.
Where the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, he may move to quash the information but only on that ground.
If he raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to
have waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the
jurisdiction of the court.
The prosecutor cannot be compelled to include in the information a
person against whom he believes no sufficient evidence of guilt exists.
There is no direct relation between the commission of rape with
homicide and the petitioner’s office as municipal mayor because public
office-is not an essential element of the crime charged. The taking of
human life is either murder or homicide whether done by a private
citizen or public servant, and the penalty is the same except when the
perpetrator, being a public functionary, took advantage of his office, as
alleged in this case, in which event the penalty is increased. But the
use or abuse of office does not adhere to the crime as an element; and
even as an aggravating circumstance; its materiality arises, not from
the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that the criminals are
public officials but from the manner of the commission of the crime.
#12 People v. Valdez
Facts: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged the
two accused in the RTC with three counts of murder for the killing of
Ferdinand Sayson, Moises Sayson, Jr., and Joselito Sayson.
The Information provides as follows:
xxx “with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, evident premeditation
and abuse of superior strength did xxx assault, attack and employ
personal violence upon” the victims “by then and there shooting [them]
with a gun, hitting [them]” on various parts of their bodies “which [were]
the direct and immediate cause of [their] death[s]” xxx
RTC convicted the two accused of three counts of murder and
sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count of murder
and the CA affirmed the convictions.
Issue: WON PO2 Valdez can be held guilty of an offense (murder)
despite failure of the informations to allege the facts and circumstances
constituting treachery
Held: No.
The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the
caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere
conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint
or information.
Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What
facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be
determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the
specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime
in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the
accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his
defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent
knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
PO2 Valdez is guilty only of three counts of homicide due to the failure
of the informations to allege the facts and circumstances constituting
treachery.
#16 Matrido v. People

Facts: Sheala Matrido is a credit and collection assistant of Empire
East Land Holdings, Inc., tasked to collect payments from buyers of
real estate properties, issue receipts and remit the payments to Empire
East. Matrido received amortization payment from one Amante dela
Torre in the amount of P22,470.66 but remitted only P4,470.66.
On Empire’s investigation, Matrido was found to have failed to remit
payments received from its clients, prompting it to file various
complaints.
By Resolution, the City Prosecution Office of Makati dismissed the
Complaint for estafa for insufficiency of evidence but found probable
cause to indict petitioner for qualified theft. On arraignment, petitioner
entered a plea of “not guilty. After trial, Branch 56 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati convicted Matrido os qualified theft which the
CA affirmed.
Issue: WON the CA gravely erred in affirming the decision of the trial
[court] convicting the petitioner of the crime of qualified theft despite
the fact that the prosecution tried to prove during the trial the crime of
estafa thus denying the petitioner the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of accusation against her.
Held: No.
It is fundamental that every element constituting the offense must be
alleged in the information. The main purpose of requiring the various
elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the
accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the
offense. No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt
may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is
charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily
included therein.
A variance between the allegation in the information and proof
adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material
and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial
rights.
It is settled that it is the allegations in the Information that determine
the nature of the offense, not the technical name given by the public
prosecutor in the preamble of the Information. The recital of facts and
circumstances in the Information sufficiently constitutes the crime of
qualified theft.
#20 Lim v. Co Ping
Facts:
Issue: WON Lim commited forum shopping in filing the civil case
for specific performance and damages during the pendency of her
appeal on the civil aspect of the criminal case for estafa
Held: No.
A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may
give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender.―(1)
civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal
offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and (2)
independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued
independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil
liability may be based on “an obligation not arising from the act or
omission complained of as a felony,” as provided in Article 31 of the
Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort. It may also be
based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but,
nevertheless, treated independently from the criminal action by specific
provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code (“in cases of defamation, fraud
and physical injuries”).
The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based on the
acts or omissions that constitute the criminal offense; hence, its trial is
inherently intertwined with the criminal action. For this reason, the civil
liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. If the
action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent
to the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until
the final outcome of the criminal action. The civil liability based on
delict is extinguished when the court hearing the criminal action
declares that “the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist.
On the other hand, the independent civil liabilities are separate from
the criminal action and may be pursued independently, as provided in
Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code
Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil
liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue the
two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without
offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
#24 Magestrado v. People
Facts: Elena M. Librojo filed a criminal complaint for perjury against
Magestrado with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. After
the filing of petitioner’s counter-affidavit and the appended pleadings,
the Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an
information for perjury against petitioner. Thus, Assistant City
Prosecutor Josephine Z. Fernandez filed an information for perjury
against petitioner with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon
City.
Petitioner filed a motion for suspension of proceedings based on a
prejudicial question. Petitioner alleged that Civil Case for recovery of a
sum of money pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City, Branch 84, and Civil Case for Cancellation of Mortgage,
Delivery of Title and Damages, pending before the RTC of Quezon
City, Branch 77, must be resolved first before Criminal Case of perjury
may proceed since the issues in the said civil cases are similar or
intimately related to the issues raised in the criminal action.
MeTC-Branch 43 issued an Order denying petitioner’s motion for
suspension of proceedings it appearing that the resolution of the
issues raised in the civil actions is not determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Issue: WON the civil case involves prejudicial question
Held: No
A prejudial question is defined as that which arises in a case the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein,
and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The
prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court
but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in
another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and
separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. For a prejudicial
question in a civil case to suspend criminal action, it must appear not
only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon
which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the
resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. Thus, for
a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause
the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of
the civil case, the following requisites must be present: (1) the civil
case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues
raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question
must be lodged in another tribunal.
There is no prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can,
according to law, proceed independently of each other.
#28 Burgundy v. Reyes
Facts: Josefa “Jing” C. Reyes (Reyes), sometime in 1996, offered her
services to petitioner as the latter’s real estate agent in buying parcels
of land in Calamba, Laguna, which are to be developed into a golf
course. She informed petitioner that more or less ten (10) lot owners
are her clients who were willing to sell their properties. Convinced of
her representations, petitioner released the amount of P23,423,327.50
in her favor to be used in buying those parcels of land. Reyes, instead
of buying those parcels of land, converted and misappropriated the
money given by petitioner to her personal use and benefit. Petitioner
sent a formal demand for Reyes to return the amount of
P23,423,327.50, to no avail despite her receipt of the said demand. As
such, petitioner filed a complaint for the crime of Estafa against Reyes
before the Assistant City Prosecutor’s Office of Makati City.
Reyes, while admitting that she acted as a real estate agent for
petitioner, denied having converted or misappropriated the involved
amount of money. According to her, it was upon the petitioner’s
prodding that she was constrained to contact her friends who were
also into the real estate business, including one named Mateo
Elejorde. Reyes argued that not all elements of estafa particularly the
element of misappropriation was sufficiently established.
After a preliminary investigation was conducted against Reyes, the
Assistant Prosecutor of Makati City issued a Resolution and
recommended that respondent be indicted of the crime of Estafa
defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code.
Issue: WON the investing prosecutor was correct in finding the
existence of all the elements of the crime of estafa
Held: Yes
The finding of probable cause was made after conducting a preliminary
investigation. A preliminary investigation constitutes a realistic judicial
appraisal of the merits of a case. Its purpose is to determine whether
(a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is a probable
cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof.
In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines
whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial; A
preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive
presentation of the parties’ evidence. A preliminary investigation does
not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence.
#32 PCGG v. Navarro-Gutierrez
Facts: The instant case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint dated filed
by the PCGG — through Rene B. Gorospe, the Legal Consultant in-
charge of reviewing behest loan cases — against former
officers/directors of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as
well as former officers/stock holders of National Galleon Shipping
Corporation (Galleon) charging them of violating Sections 3(e) and (g)
of RA 3019.
The Ad Hoc Committee created by President Ramos found out that the
loans/accommodations obtained by Galleon from DBP possessed
positive characteristics of behest loans, considering that: (a) Galleon
was undercapitalized; (b) the loan itself was undercollateralized; (c) the
major stockholders of Galleon were known to be cronies of President
Marcos; and (d) certain documents pertaining to the loan account were
found to bear “marginal notes” of President Marcos himself.
Resultantly, the PCGG filed the instant criminal complaint against
individual respondents.
The Ombudsman found no probable cause against private
respondents and, accordingly, dismissed the criminal complaint
against them because the pieces of evidence attached to the case
records were not sufficient to establish probable cause against the
individual respondents.
The PCGG moved for reconsideration but it was denied.
Issue: WON there is probable cause to indict individual respondents of
violating Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019
Held: Yes
The conduct of preliminary investigation proceedings — whether by the
Ombudsman or by a public prosecutor — is geared only to determine
whether or not probable cause exists to hold an accused-respondent
for trial for the supposed crime that he committed.
The term does not mean “actual or positive cause” nor does it import
absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.
Probable cause does not require an inquiry whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the
act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. A
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that,
more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspects. It
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not
on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining
probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances
without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he
has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is
determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the accused
is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not
require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a
conviction.
#34 Zaldiva v. Reyes
Facts: The petitioner is charged with quarrying for commercial
purposes without a mayor’s permit in violation of Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 1988, of the Municipality of Rodriguez, in the Province of
Rizal. The offense was allegedly committed on May 11, 1990.
The referral-complaint of the police was received by the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal on May 30, 1990. The corresponding
information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez on
October 2, 1990. The petitioner moved to quash the information on the
ground that the crime had prescribed, but the motion was denied. On
appeal to the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, the denial was sustained by
the respondent judge.
Her conclusion is that as the information was filed way beyond the two-
month statutory period from the date of the alleged commission of the
offense, the charge against her should have been dismissed on the
ground of prescription.
The prosecution contends that the prescriptive period was suspended
upon the filing of the complaint against her with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor. Agreeing with the respondent judge, the
Solicitor General also invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules
on Criminal Procedure.
Issue: WON the charge against the petitioner, which is for violation of a
municipal ordinance of Rodriguez is governed by the Rule on
Summary Procedure and not Section 1 of Rule 110
Held: Yes
Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure does not apply
to offenses which are subject to summary procedure. The phrase “in all
cases” appearing in the last paragraph obviously refers to the cases
covered by the Section, that is, those offenses not governed by the
Rule on Summary Procedure.
Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, “the complaint or
information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior
preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.” Both parties
agree that this provision does not prevent the prosecutor from
conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the
case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court,
whether or not the prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary
investigation. This means that the running of the prescriptive period
shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on
any date before that.
In case of conflict, the Rule on Summary Procedure as the special law
prevails over Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
and also Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure must yield to
Act No. 3326.
The prescriptive period for the crime imputed to the petitioner
commenced from its alleged commission on May 11, 1990 and ended
two months thereafter on July 11, 1990 in accordance with Section 1 of
Act No. 3326