Case 59 Tagaston vs.

people of the Philippines

G.R. No. 222870 July 8, 2019

FACTS
In March 2012, Susano Bacala and Emalyn Bacala filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Murder and
Frustrated Murder against several individuals. They filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
their Counter-Affidavits, which was partially granted by the City Prosecutor. The City
Prosecutor issued an Omnibus Motion finding probable cause for Murder and Frustrated Murder
on 4 April 2012, and the Informations were filed on the same date. The cases were then raffled to
Executive Judge Francisco F. Maclang, who issued Warrants of Arrest against the accused.

The accused learned about the partial grant of their motion for extension, the City Prosecutor's
Omnibus Motion, the filing of the Informations, and the issuance of the warrants of arrest on 10
April 2012. They then filed a Petition for Review before the Department of Justice, an
Administrative Complaint against the City Prosecutor, and a Motion for Inhibition and Holding
in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest before the trial court. the accused filed a Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals
ISSUE
(1) Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in sustaining the warrants of
arrest issued by Judge Maclang;
(2) Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in ruling that petitioners were not
deprived of due process.
RULING:
1, NO, Petitioners assail the issuance of the warrants of arrest against them by Judge Maclang.
However, the issuance of a warrant of arrest is within the discretion of the issuing judge upon
determination of the existence of probable cause.
While it is within the trial court's discretion to make an independent assessment of the evidence
on hand, it is only for the purpose of determining whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
The judge does not act as an appellate court of the prosecutor and has no capacity to review the
prosecutor's determination of probable cause; rather, the judge makes a determination of
probable cause independent of the prosecutor's finding.
2. NO, an appeal before the DOJ Secretary does not hold in abeyance the proceeding before the
trial court pursuant to the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal
If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, a copy of the motion
to defer proceedings filed in court must also accompany the petition. The
investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor shall not be impleaded as party respondent in the
petition. The party taking the appeal shall be referred to in the petition as either "Complainant-
Appellant" or "Respondent-Appellant."
In this case, no motion to defer proceedings has been filed in the trial court.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition.

Case 60
Mendoza vs People of the Philippines
GR. 197293 April 21, 2014

FACTS:
In the complaint-affidavit, The partial audit showed that the buyers of the five cars made
payments, but Alfredo failed to remit the payments totalling ₱886,000.00. It was further alleged
that while there were 20 cars under Alfredo’s custody, only 18 were accounted for. Further
investigation revealed that Alfredo failed to turn over the files of a 2001 Hyundai Starex and a
Honda City 1.5 LXI. Juno Cars alleged that taking into account the unremitted amounts and the
acquisition cost of the Honda City, Alfredo pilfered a total amount of ₱1,046,000.00 to its
prejudice and damage.
The prosecutor file information and accused file motion of reconsideration but it was denied, He
then filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice
While Alfredo’s motion for reconsideration was still pending, two informations for qualified
theft10 and estafa11 were filed before the Regional Trial Court, The court ruled that the evidence
presented does not support a probable cause determination for the offenses of qualified theft and
estafa.
Juno Cars then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
ISSUE
WON determination of probable cause is exclusively vested on the prosecutor
RULING
NO, the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the subsequent determination of the
existence of probable cause lie solely within the discretion of the public prosecutor. If upon
evaluation of the evidence, the prosecutor finds sufficient basis to find probable cause, he or she
shall then cause the filing of the information with the court.
Once the information has been filed, the judge shall then "personally evaluate the resolution of
the prosecutor and its supporting evidence to determine whether there is probable cause to issue
a warrant of arrest. At this stage, a judicial determination of probable cause exists
Judge Capco-Umali made an independent assessment of the evidence on record and concluded
that "the evidence adduced does not support a finding of probable cause for the offenses of
qualified theft and estafa. Specifically, she found that Juno Cars "failed to prove by competent
evidence" that the vehicles alleged to have been pilfered by Alfredo were lawfully possessed or
owned by them, or that these vehicles were received by Alfredo, to be able to substantiate the
charge of qualified theft. She also found that the complaint "[did] not state with particularity the
exact value of the alleged office files or their valuation purportedly have been removed,
concealed or destroyed by the accused," which she found crucial to the prosecution of the crime
of estafa under Article 315, fourth paragraph, no. 3(c) of the Revised Penal Code.
The court ordered a clarificatory hearing to clarify essential offenses and directed the private
complainant to provide relevant documents and affidavits, which the complainant failed to do.

Case 61 People of the Philippines vs Sandiganbayan

GR NO 239878
Feb 28 2022

FACTS
the city, through respondents, entered into a contract with Palacio and Rosa "Mia" Trading, This
was allegedly done without the requisite public bidding under the procurement law
the Commission on Audit (COA) post-audited the transaction. It was discovered that there was
an overpricing of fertilizer
Task Force Abono filed the Complaint against respondents, This was approved by the
Ombudsman on March 22, 2017.
Then on September 22, 2017, respondent Monteros filed a motion to quash information/dismiss
the case and a motion (A) to quash/hold in abeyance the release of the warrant of arrest; and (B)
to defer arraignment and other proceedings. Monteros claimed that her right to speedy
disposition of cases was violated because of the length of time that had passed from the COA
investigation in 2006 to the filing of the Information before the Sandiganbayan in 2017
The prosecution countered that the delay in this case is reasonable. the Sandiganbayan granted
the motions of respondents and dismissed the criminal case against them
ISSUE
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in granting the motions filed by respondents, which resulted to the
dismissal of the criminal case and their acquittal.
RULING
NO, Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
the Court considers the motion for reconsideration filed by Monteros before the OMB sufficient
for purposes of determining whether the respondents' right to speedy disposition had been
violated. Her invocation of the right in the motion is deemed to cover the other respondents as
they are co-respondents in a single case and it assails a single resolution that applies to all of
them. In any event, worthy of great consideration is respondents' immediate filing of the motions
to quash before the Sandiganbayan after the filing of the Information. These circumstances show
that respondents did not in any way sleep or waive their right to speedy disposition of cases.
Considering all the foregoing, respondents' right to speedy disposition of cases was undoubtedly
infringed. The Sandiganbayan therefore did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
the criminal case against them.

Case 62 Binay vs Ombudsman

G. R. No. 213957-58

FACTS:
the City of Makati, through Ernesto A. Aspillaga and former Mayor Binay, entered into a
contract with Apollo Medical Equipment and Supplies (Apollo), which was represented by its
owner, Apollo B. Carreon (Carreon).7 Under the contract, the City of Makati was to purchase
from Apollo ₱38,799,700.00 worth of hospital beds and bedside cabinets for the Ospital ng
Makati. 8
Check No. 06279, covered by Disbursement Voucher No. 1730, was issued with amount of P3
5,106,910.91.
Apollo delivered the beds, it was discovered that the beds were not manufactured by UGM-
Medysis, but by Juhng Mei Medical Instruments Co., Ltd, the manufacturer's invoice for the
transaction showed that the items' actual total cost was merely ₱2,447,376.14
two (2) Complaints were filed separately by the COA and one Roberto G. Brillante (Brillante)
before the Office of the Ombudsman
ISSUE
WON petitioner's right to due process was violated when she was not served with a copy of her
co-accused's Motions for Reconsideration
RULING
Court explained that a preliminary investigation is not a part of trial. Consequently, it need not
be subjected under the same due process requirements mandated during trial
Under procedural law, a respondent under preliminary investigation has the right
to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant, but he does not have a
similar right over the evidence submitted by his or her co-
respondents. 68 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
All the same, petitioner cannot insist that she was deprived of due process. It has been
consistently held that "due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of." 69 Petitioner does not deny that she moved
for reconsideration of the assailed August 29, 2013 Consolidated Resolution. She was given the
opportunity to question the decision against her. She was not denied due process.

Case 63 Duropan vs People of the Philippines

Gr 230825 June 10 2020

FACTS:
On March 7, 2009, Duropan, Coloma, and another barangay official saw William Pacis Lino
Baldoza Jr., Jeremias Moquila, Melvin Magbanua, and Ronnel Zambra harvesting nipa palm in a
plantation.12 Coloma approached them and asked who gave them authority to harvest. Pacis
replied that they were ALIMANGO members.13
Doubting Pacis' claim, Duropan and Coloma pushed Pacis and his companions on board two (2)
paddle boats. Pacis then protested and inquired whether Duropan and Coloma can arrest them
without a warrant. Despite their objections, Pacis' group was brought to the Police Station of
Maribojoc, Bohol.14
Upon investigation, Pacis and his companions were released. The Maribojoc Chief of Police
determined that the barangay officials had no legal basis to arrest Pacis.

ISSUE
WON the accused is GUILTY beyond reasonable ground of the crime of Unlawful Arrest
RULING
YES,to prosecute accused of the crime of unlawful arrest successfully, the following elements
must be proved
(1) that the offender arrests or detains another person;
(2) that the arrest or detention is to deliver the person to the proper authorities; and
(3) that the arrest or detention is not authorized by law or that there is no reasonable ground to.
[F]or a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, two elements must concur: (1) the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she] has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
The petitioners' defense is unfounded as the private complainant and his group were registered
members of the ALIMANGO organization. The Regional Trial Court emphasized that barangay
officials should have investigated illegal mangrove cutting and required the complainant to
provide proper documents. The petitioners' actions, including ignoring the complainant's
membership claim, arresting him without reasonable ground, and forcibly bringing him to the
police station, constitute bad faith.

Case 64
That on or about June 14, 2010, at Barangay Ugong, Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away to
another and distribute to SPO1 Leonardo G. Taldo, of the Philippine National Police-Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force (PNPAIDSOTF), who acted as poseur buyer, two (2)
bricks sea led with packaging tape, each weighing more or less 1046.22 grams and 1065.75
grams of cocaine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.[5] Trial ensued.

During the trial, forensic chemist PSI Mark Alain B. Ballesteros (PSI Ballesteros), SPO2
Leonardo Taldo,] PO3 Lawrence Perida, SPO3 Miguel Ngo and SPO3 Glenn Marlon Caluag
testified for the prosecution. Meanwhile, appellant, his daughter Carla Mendoza (Carla), and
Dennis Perillo (Perillo) of GMA 7 News and Current Affairs testified for the defense.[
ISSUE

WON The arresting officers did not have probable cause for warrentless arrest
RULING
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense
On June 15, 2010, appellant was arrested in Flagrante delicto after a buy-bust operation.
Possession-buyer SPO2 Leonardo Taldo paid appellant six P500.00 bills in exchange for two
bricks of suspected cocaine. Taldo called SPO3 Ngo's phone, and the buy-bust team arrested the
appellant and searched his vehicle, resulting in the seizure of another shoebox containing two
more bricks of suspected cocaine.
Objections against the lawfulness of an arrest which are not raised through a motion to quash
before the accused enters his or her plea are deemed waived, for the voluntary submission of an
accused to the jurisdiction of the court and his or her active participation during the trial cures
any defect or irregularity that may have attended an arrest.

Here, appellant questioned the validity of his arrest only on appeal before the Court of Appeals.
By that time, he was already estopped from raising any objection against the legality of his
warrantless arrest. To be sure, appellant willingly stipulated during the pre-trial that the trial
court had jurisdiction over his person.] He is therefore barred from claiming otherwise.

CASE 65 Veridiano Vs People of the Philippines

GR No 200370 June 7 2017

FACTS
at about 7:20 a.m. of January 15, 2008, a concerned citizen called a certain P03 Esteves,
police radio operator of the Nagcarlan Police Station, informing him that a certain alias
"Baho," who was later identified as Veridiano, was on the way to San Pablo City to
obtain illegal drugs
P03 Esteves informed PO I Cabello and P02 Vergara, who were instructed by Chief of Police
June Urquia, to establish a checkpoint in Barangay Taytay, Nagcarlan, Laguna.
Police found Veridiano in a passenger jeepney from San Pablo, Laguna, and confiscated a tea
bag containing marijuana. POI Cabello confiscated the bag and marked it with his initials.
Veridiano was arrested and informed of his constitutional rights. He was taken to the police
station, where PO 1 Cabello handed it over to PO 1 Solano. PO 1 Solano request a laboratory
examination, which revealed the tea bag tested positive for marijuana.
Petitioner argues that the tea bag containing marijuana leaves was seized in violation of his right
against unreasonable searches and seizures.46 He asserts that his arrest was illega

ISSUE
WON warrantless arrest is valid
RULING
NO, A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest before a
search is made. Otherwise stated, a lawful arrest must precede the search; "the process cannot be
reversed."78 For there to be a lawful arrest, law enforcers must be armed with a valid warrant.
Nevertheless, an arrest may also be effected without a warrant.
There are three (3) grounds that will justify a warrantless arrest. Rule 113, Section 5 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Section 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. -A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
The petitioner's arrest was not justified as an inflagrante delicta arrest under Rule
113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, as he was not committing a crime at the
checkpoint. The police relied solely on the tip they received, which is insufficient
to support a warrantless arrest without an overt act from the person to be arrested.
The warrantless arrest cannot be justified under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the law enforcers had no personal
knowledge of any fact or circumstance indicating that the petitioner had just
committed an offense.