FACTS:
Charmen Olivo (Olivo), Nelson Danda (Danda), and Joey Zafra (Zafra) were charged for the crime of robbery with homicide of Mariano Constantino. After trial, the trial court found Olivo, Danda and Zafra, guilty. Only Olivo and Danda appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the ruling of the trial court, thus, the instant appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court acquitted Olivo and Danda for the failure of the lone eyewitness of the prosecution to identify the accused-appellants.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acquittal of Olivo and Danda would benift Zafra who did not join the former in their appeal.
HELD:
The present rule is that an appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Our pronouncements here with respect to the insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to convict appellants beyond reasonable doubt are definitely favorable and applicable to accused Joey Zafra. He should not therefore be treated as the odd man out and should benefit from the acquittal of his co-accused. In fact, under similar conditions and on the same ratiocination, Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court has justified the extension of our judgment of acquittal to the co-accused who failed to appeal from the judgment of the trial court which we subsequently reversed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondent’s Motion to Amend.
90 HELD:
We affirm the rulings of the CA.
The statutory requirement that when no motion for reconsideration is filed within the reglementary period, the decision attains finality and becomes executory in due course must be strictly enforced, first, to avoid delay in the administration of justice and, second, to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors.
However, in exceptional cases, substantial justice and equity considerations warrant the giving of due course to an appeal by suspending the enforcement of statutory and mandatory rules of procedure. Certain elements are considered for the appeal to be given due course, such as: (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (5) the other party will not be unduly prejudiced thereby.
Several of these elements obtain in the case at bar.
First, records show that petitioner admits her civil obligation to respondent for a total of P3,300,000.00. Second, it cannot be said that petitioner will be unduly prejudiced if respondent’s Motion to Amend for the sole purpose of including the civil liability of petitioner in the order of acquittal shall be allowed. Foremost, petitioner admits her civil obligation to respondent.
PEOPLE VS. TARUC GR NO. 185202; FEBRUARY 18, 2009 FACTS:
Francisco Taruc (“Taruc”) was charged before the RTC of Bataan with the crime of murder in connection with the death of Emelito Sualog. Taruc pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the RTC of Bataan found Taruc guilty for murder and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty. The case was brought to the Court of Appeals for automatic review in accordance with A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC. Thereafter, the CA was informed that Taruc escaped from prison. Then, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. Taruc appealed the Decision of the CA to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Taruc has lost his right to appeal his conviction considering that he escaped from jail and eluded arrest.
HELD:
Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.
Although Rule 124, Section 8 particularly applies to the Court of Appeals, it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Notwithstanding, accused-appellant did not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review jurisdiction, considering that what was involved was capital punishment. Automatic review being mandatory, it is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases.
91 But accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to appeal to the Supreme Court. There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even by the accused himself but the right of appeal is not one of them. The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against him. While at large, he cannot seek relief from the court, as he is deemed to have waived the appeal. Thus, having escaped from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to its jurisdiction, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. Thus, appeal is dismissed.
TIU VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND EDGARDO POSTANES GR NO. 16273; APRIL 21, 2009 FACTS:
Respondent Edgardo Postanes (Postanes) charged Remigio Pasion (Pasion) for slight physical injuries. On the other hand, petitioner David Tiu (Tiu) filed a criminal charge for grave threats against Postanes. The Slight Physical Injuries was docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-412 while the Grave Threats was docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-413. Both were filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City. Postanes together with his witnesses testified as to his innocence in Criminal Case No. 96- 413. In Criminal Case No. 96-413, where he stood as the accused, Postanes adopted his testimony and his witnesses’ testimonies which were formally offered and admitted in Criminal Case No. 96-412. In its Decision, the MeTC dismissed the both criminal cases for insufficiency of evidence. Tiu then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the MeTC which was denied, thus, he filed a Petition for Certiorari with the RTC. The judgment of acquittal of Postanes in Criminal Case No. 96-413 was declared void by the RTC. Postanes moved for reconsideration of the decision and when he was denied, he filed Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the RTC decision and affirmed the dismissal of Criminal Case No. No. 96-413. Thus, Tui filed a Petition for Review assailing the Resolution of the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was double jeopardy when Tui filed a Petition for Review with the CA assailing the MeTC decision acquitting Postanes.
HELD:
The petition is defective since it was not filed by the Solicitor General. It was filed by Tiu, the private complainant through his counsel. Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals. Tiu, the offended party is without legal personality to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals before this Court.
Further, the elements of double jeopardy were all present: (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent. The Information against Postanes was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; the MeTC had jurisdiction; Postanes was arraigned and entered a non- guilty plea; and the MeTC dismissed Criminal Case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence amounting to an acquittal from which no appeal can be had. The Petition is denied.
92 MICLAT, JR. VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 176077, 31 AUGUST 2011
Facts:
On November 2002, P/Insp. Valencia called upon his subordinates after the receiving an INFOREP Memo from Camp Crame relative to the drug-trading activities being undertaken in Caloocan City involving Abe Miclat, Wily alias "Bokbok" and one Mic or Jojo. A surveillance team was formed headed by SPO4 Palting and is composed of five more operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit, namely: PO3 Pagsolingan, PO2 Modina, PO2 De Ocampo, and herein witness PO3 Antonio. When the group of SPO4 Palting arrived at the site they were at once led by their informant to the house of one "Abe." PO3 Antonio then positioned himself at the perimeter of the house, while the rest of the members of the group deployed themselves nearby. Thru a small opening in the curtain-covered window, PO3 Antonio peeped inside and there at a distance of 1½ meters, he saw "Abe" arranging several pieces of small plastic sachets which he believed to be containing shabu. Slowly, said operative inched his way in by gently pushing the door as well as the plywood covering the same. Upon gaining entrance, PO3 Antonio forthwith introduced himself as a police officer while "Abe," on the other hand, after being informed of such authority, voluntarily handed over to the former the four (4) pieces of small plastic sachets the latter was earlier sorting out. PO3 Antonio immediately placed the suspect under arrest and brought him and the four (4) pieces of plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to their headquarters and turned them over to PO3 Fernando Moran for proper disposition. On 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting Miclat Jr. of the crime of possession of a dangerous drugs. Aggrieved, petitioner sought recourse before the CA, who in turn affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.In affirming the RTC, the CA ratiocinated that contrary to the contention of the Miclat Jr., the evidence presented by the prosecution were all admissible against him. Moreover, it was established that he was informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest. Miclat Jr. raised the matter to the Supreme Court assailing the legality of his arrest and the subsequent seizure of the arresting officer of the suspected sachets of dangerous drugs from him. Petitioner insists that he was just watching television with his father and sister when police operatives suddenly barged into their home and arrested him for illegal possession of shabu. Moreover, being seen in the act of arranging several plastic sachets inside their house is not sufficient reason for the police authorities to enter his house without a valid warrant. In the same vein, peeping through a curtain-covered window cannot be contemplated as within the meaning of the plain view doctrine, rendering the warrantless arrest unlawful.
Issue:
Whether peeping through a window can be contemplated as within the meaning of the plain view doctrine, rendering the warrantless arrest lawful.
Held:
Yes. An exception to the right guaranteed against warrantless arrest is that of an arrest made during the commission of a crime. Such warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and valid under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
peace office of 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; xxx
For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court has ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
93 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.
In the instant case, he was caught in flagrante delicto and the police authorities effectively made a valid warrantless arrest. Facts reveal that on the date of the arrest, agents of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU) were conducting a surveillance operation in the area to verify the reported drug-related activities of several individuals, which included the Miclat Jr. During the operation, PO3 Antonio, through petitioner’s window, saw petitioner arranging several plastic sachets containing what appears to be shabu in the living room of their home. The plastic sachets and its suspicious contents were plainly exposed to the view of PO3 Antonio, who was only about one and one-half meters from where petitioner was seated. Upon gaining entrance, the operative introduced himself as a police officer. After which, Miclat Jr. voluntarily handed over to PO3 Antonio the small plastic sachets. Considering the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of the petitioner, petitioner was clearly arrested in flagrante delicto as he was then committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, within the view of the arresting officer.
As to the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it too falls within the established exceptions. The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and judicial exceptions, and among them are warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest and search of evidence in "plain view". The seizure made by PO3 Antonio of the four plastic sachets from the petitioner was not only incidental to a lawful arrest, but it also falls within the purview of the "plain view" doctrine.
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Since Miclat Jr.’s arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized from the petitioner was the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in plain view of the arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove petitioner’s guilt of the offense charged.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28846 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
PEOPLE VS. MARIACOS G.R. NO. 188611, 16 JUNE 2010 Facts:
On October 2005 the San Gabriel Police Station of La Union, conducted a checkpoint, composed of The Chief of Police, PO2 Pallayoc, and other policemen, near the police station at the poblacion to intercept
94 a suspected transportation of marijuana from Barangay Balbalayang, La Union. When the checkpoint did not yield any suspect or marijuana, the Chief of Police instructed PO2 Pallayoc to proceed to Barangay Balbalayang to conduct surveillance operation. There PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network who informed him that a baggage of marijuana had been loaded on a passenger jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. The agent mentioned three (3) bags and one (1) blue plastic bag. Further, the agent described a backpack bag with an "O.K." marking. PO2 Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and positioned himself on top thereof. While the vehicle was in motion, he found the black backpack with an "O.K." marking and peeked inside its contents and found bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspapers. He then asked the other passengers on top of the jeepney about the owner of the bag, but no one knew. When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together with the other passengers. Unfortunately, he did not notice who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only realized a few moments later that the said bag and three (3) other bags, including a blue plastic bag, were already being carried away by two (2) women. He caught up with the women and introduced himself as a policeman. He told them that they were under arrest, but one of the women got away. PO2 Pallayoc brought the woman, who was later identified as accused- appellant Belen Mariacos, and the bags to the police station.
The RTC promulgated a decision finding Mariacos guilty as charged. She appealed her conviction to the CA arguing that the search conducted on the bag, assuming it was hers, without a search warrant and with no permission from her, violates heer constitutional rights against warrantless search. The CA dismissed appellant’s appeal and affirmed the RTC decision in toto ruling that Mariacos was caught in flagrante delicto of "carrying and conveying" the bag that contained the illegal drugs, and thus held that appellant’s warrantless arrest was valid.
Issue:
Whether the warrantless search conducted on the bag of a moving vehicle was valid
Held:
YES. Mariacos’ main argument centered on the inadmissibility of the evidence used against her. Among the instances when a warrantless search is valid, is search of a moving vehicle. According to jurisprudence, this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. However, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. The essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be searched.