Rule 122
A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC
Rule 65, Rules of Court
Rule 65 - Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus
Section 1: Petition for Certiorari
- Filed when a tribunal, board, or officer acts without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion.
- Filed in the proper court, alleging facts with certainty and seeking the annulment or
modification of proceedings, along with incidental reliefs.
- Must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution, relevant
pleadings, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
Section 2: Petition for Prohibition
- Filed when proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person are without
jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
- Similar filing requirements as in Section 1.
Section 3: Petition for Mandamus
- Filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person neglects the performance of a
duty or unlawfully excludes another from a right.
- Similar filing requirements as in Section 1.
Section 4: When and Where Petition Filed
- The petition must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution.
- Filed in the Supreme Court or, if related to lower courts, corporations, boards, or persons, in
the Regional Trial Court or Court of Appeals as specified.
Section 5: Respondents and Costs
- Private respondents join as interested parties in cases involving acts or omissions.
- Costs awarded are against private respondents, not public respondents.
Section 6: Order to Comment
- The court issues an order for respondents to comment within ten days.
- Provisions of Rule 56, Section 2, regarding summary judgment, may be observed.
- Respondents may file a comment, not a motion to dismiss.
Section 7: Expediting Proceedings; Injunctive Relief
- The court may issue orders to expedite proceedings and grant temporary restraining orders or
preliminary injunctions.
- The petition does not interrupt the principal case unless an injunction has been issued.
Section 8: Proceedings after Comment is Filed
- After filing required pleadings, the court may hear the case or require memoranda.
- Judgment is rendered if the court finds the petition's allegations true.
- The court may dismiss the petition if it is without merit, for delay, or raises insubstantial
questions.
Section 9: Service and Enforcement of Order or Judgment
- A certified copy of the judgment is served upon the concerned entity.
- Disobedience is punishable as contempt, and execution may issue for damages or costs.
This rule provides a mechanism for individuals to seek relief when there is an alleged violation
of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion.
CASES:
Sumbilla v. Matrix Finance Corp., G.R. No. 197582, 29 June 2015
FACTS:
Petitioner obtained a cash loan from respondent Matrix Finance Corporation. As partial
payment, petitioner issued six checks with a uniform face value of ₱6,667.00 each. The checks
were dishonored upon maturity due to a closed account.Petitioner was indicted for six counts of
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22). MeTC found her guilty and imposed a fine of
₱80,000.00 for each count, with subsidiary imprisonment. Decision dated January 14, 2009,
became final due to petitioner's failure to timely file an appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the penalty imposed in the MeTC Decision, already final and executory, may still be
modified.
RULING:
The penalty is meritorious. The maximum fine under Section 1 of BP 22 for each count is
₱13,334.00, double the face value of the dishonored check. MeTC incorrectly computed the
fine using the total face value of the six checks, resulting in ₱80,000.00 per count. While finality
of judgments is a general rule, the Court has the power to suspend its own rules if substantial
justice requires it. Past cases have shown that penalties imposed outside the range prescribed
by law were corrected even in final judgments.In the interest of substantial justice, the penalty
of ₱80,000.00 is corrected to ₱13,334.00 for each count. The alleged violations of Vaca v. Court
of Appeals and Administrative Circular Nos. 12-2000 and 13-2001 are clarified. BP 22 does not
violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.
People v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 110898, 20 February 1996
FACTS:
Grildo S. Tugonon was charged with frustrated homicide for assaulting and stabbing Roque T.
Bade on May 26, 1988, in Barangay Publican, Municipality of Villanueva, Province of Misamis
Oriental.The assault resulted in injuries, but timely medical attendance prevented the victim's
death.After trial, Tugonon was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental
(Branch 21) and sentenced to one year of prision correccional with a fine of P5,000. The RTC
considered privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary
surrender.
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion by granting Tugonon's application for
probation despite his appeal from the judgment of conviction.
RULING:
Yes, the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion. The amendment by P.D. No. 1990 to §4 of
the Probation Law explicitly states that no application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Tugonon
filed his application for probation after the amendment had taken effect, thereby waiving the
right to appeal.
The law does not distinguish between meritorious and unmeritorious appeals. Tugonon's
decision to appeal meant he was taking his chances, contrary to the purpose of probation,
which is not intended as an escape hatch. The amendment sought to prevent the use of
probation to obstruct and delay the administration of justice.
The RTC's misreading of the law, stating that Tugonon, having not perfected an appeal against
the Court of Appeals decision, is not covered by the amendment in P.D. 1990, is incorrect. The
perfection of the appeal refers to the appeal from the judgment of conviction by the trial court,
not that of the appellate court. Therefore, Tugonon was precluded from the benefits of
probation, and the order granting probation is set aside.
Almero v. People, G.R. No. 188191, 12 March 2014
FACTS:
Petitioner Enrique Almero was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
multiple physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 96-6531. Following the conviction, petitioner filed
an Application for Probation, which was denied by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). He then filed
a special civil action with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) raising issues not only regarding
probation denial but also challenging the validity of the judgment itself. The RTC found that the
MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering judgment without ruling on petitioner's
Formal Offer of Exhibits. The RTC also questioned the promulgation of judgment, noting
petitioner's absence. The RTC set aside the judgment and remanded the case to the MTC for
further proceedings.
ISSUES:
1. Whether private complainants have the legal personality to appeal the RTC decision.
2. Whether the RTC erred in nullifying petitioner's judgment of conviction.
3. Whether petitioner is entitled to probation.
RULING:
1. Private Complainants' Legal Personality to Appeal:
The Court of Appeals (CA) held that private complainants had legal personality to appeal the
RTC decision, citing the precedent set in Heirs of the Late Francisco Abueg v. Court of Appeals.
The CA reasoned that since the present petition originated from a criminal proceeding but was
filed as a special civil action, private complainants had a valid grievance and were entitled to
recourse in a civil action.
2. Nullification of Judgment by the RTC:
The CA ruled that the RTC erred in entertaining supplemental grounds assailing the judgment of
conviction. An application for probation is considered a waiver of the right to appeal from the
judgment of conviction, rendering it final. The CA emphasized that probation is a privilege
granted by the state and rests on the discretion of the court. The issues raised by the RTC were
beyond the scope of a probation application.
3. Entitlement to Probation:
The CA held that the denial of probation by the RTC was not a grave abuse of discretion. Even
though petitioner claimed not to have received notice of the judgment promptly, the CA found
that he had neglected to inform the court of his change of address. Moreover, the CA
emphasized that probation is not a right but a privilege granted by the state, and the grant
thereof rests solely upon the discretion of the court.
People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004
Facts:
Ten informations for rape were filed against the appellant, each corresponding to a specific date
between October 7, 1995, and August 28, 1996. The charges uniformly accused Efren Mateo of
raping Imelda Mateo, his stepdaughter, in their house against her consent.Imelda Mateo
testified that the incidents occurred when her mother, Rosemarie Capulong, was not at home.
Issues:
1. The credibility of Imelda Mateo's testimony, given discrepancies in her statements about the
locations of her siblings during the incidents, the use of a handkerchief to cover her mouth, and
her mother's whereabouts.
2. The reliability of the medical examination conducted by Dr. Rosario Fider, which found
superficially healed lacerations on Imelda's private organ.
Ruling:
1. The court found several inconsistencies in Imelda Mateo's testimony, including conflicting
statements about the presence of her siblings during the incidents and whether a handkerchief
was used to cover her mouth. These inconsistencies raised doubts about the reliability of her
testimony.
2. The court also questioned the reliability of the medical examination, noting that Dr. Rosario
Fider's findings suggested only one to three incidents of rape, contrary to the ten charges. This
cast doubt on the accuracy of the medical evidence.
3. The court emphasized the importance of convincing and straightforward testimony in rape
cases. Given the doubts raised by inconsistencies in Imelda's statements and the questionable
medical examination, the court acquitted the appellant, Efren Mateo, due to insufficient proof
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Rocha, G.R. No. 173797, 31 August 2007
Facts:
On September 28, 1993, in Quezon City, the accused, armed with high-powered guns, conspired
to rob BPI. During the robbery, they opened fire, causing the deaths of security guards Roger
Tarroquin and Tito Homeres. The accused fled with money and firearms.
Issues:
1. Whether the accused-appellants can validly withdraw their appeal.
2. Whether the motions to withdraw appeal are a scheme to evade the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Ruling:
The accused-appellants' motions to withdraw appeal are granted. The Court clarified that the
automatic review by the Supreme Court is only required for cases where the death penalty is
imposed. In cases of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a review is conducted only when
the accused files a notice of appeal. The accused can validly withdraw their appeal, and the
Court recognizes the Executive's prerogative to grant clemency. The motions to withdraw appeal
are deemed final and executory.
Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, 9 February 2011
Facts:
Judith Yu, the petitioner, is the subject of a criminal case (Criminal Case No. Q-01-105698) for
estafa filed by Spouses Sergio and Cristina Casaclang. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted
Judith Yu on May 26, 2005, and imposed a penalty of three months of imprisonment, a
₱3,800,000.00 fine with subsidiary imprisonment, and an indemnity to the Casaclangs.
Fourteen days later, on June 9, 2005, Yu filed a motion for a new trial, claiming the discovery of
new and material evidence. On October 17, 2005, the RTC denied the motion for a new trial. On
November 16, 2005, within the 15-day reglementary period allowed for appeal, Yu filed a notice
of appeal, citing the "fresh period rule" from the Neypes case. The RTC, on November 24, 2005,
ordered Yu to submit a copy of Neypes.On December 8, 2005, the prosecution moved to dismiss
the appeal, asserting that Neypes is inapplicable to criminal cases. On January 4, 2006, the
prosecution filed a motion for execution of the decision.
Issue:
Whether the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes, which allows a fresh period of 15 days
from the denial of a motion for reconsideration to file an appeal, applies to appeals in criminal
cases.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Judith Yu, applying the "fresh period rule" to criminal cases.
The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and the period to appeal
is specifically governed by statutes. While Neypes involved a civil case, the Court extended the
application of the "fresh period rule" to criminal cases as well. The decision highlighted that the
substantive law, BP 129, as amended, makes no distinction between civil and criminal cases
regarding the period for appeal. The Court rejected a double standard of treatment and
emphasized the need to extend protection to matters of liberty.
Macapagal v. People, G.R. No. 193217, 26 February 2014
Facts:
Corazon Macapagal is the petitioner, and she has been convicted of estafa by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC). The RTC rendered a decision on November 25, 2008, finding Macapagal guilty of
estafa for misappropriating ₱800,000.00 worth of unreturned and unsold pieces of jewelry.
Macapagal received the decision on January 13, 2009, and subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied on May 20, 2009. She filed a Notice of Appeal on August 3,
2009, but it was denied on June 29, 2010, for being filed out of time.
Issues:
1. Whether the RTC gravely erred in denying the Notice of Appeal.
2. Whether the RTC gravely erred in convicting Macapagal of the crime of estafa.
3. Whether the RTC gravely erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, citing various procedural infirmities:
1. Macapagal availed of the wrong mode of assailing the denial of her notice of appeal. The
petition should have been a special civil action under Rule 65.
2. Even if treated as a petition under Rule 65, it violates the hierarchy of courts, as direct resort
to the Supreme Court is allowed only under special and compelling reasons.
3. The petition, even if treated as an appeal, is dismissed due to the failure to attach a certified
true copy of the decision, final order, or judgment, as required by Rule 45.
4. Macapagal repeatedly disregarded the rules and the Court's lawful orders, including non-
compliance with directives for submission of necessary documents.
merit, affirming the decision of the RTC convicting Corazon Macapagal of estafa.
Sanico v. People, G.R. No. 198753, 25 March 2015
Facts:
Jose “Pepe” Sanico and Marsito Batiquin were charged for trespassing and theft of minerals in
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Catmon-Carmen-Sogod, Cebu. The MCTC convicted
them, sentencing them to imprisonment and imposing fines and damages.
Sanico filed a notice of appeal in the MCTC on April 22, 2009. The Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 25, ordered Sanico to file his memorandum on appeal by January 5, 2010. When Sanico
did not comply, the RTC dismissed the appeal on March 16, 2010.
Despite filing a motion for reconsideration explaining the difficulties he faced due to personal
and legal issues, the RTC denied it on June 1, 2010. Sanico, through his counsel, then filed a
petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 23, 2010.
The CA dismissed the petition on technical grounds, such as non-payment of docket fees and
defective verification. Sanico's motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Issues:
1. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file a memorandum.
2. Whether the CA erred in not nullifying the RTC's dismissal and entry of judgment.
3. Whether the CA erred in not remanding the case to the RTC for the review of legal infirmities
in the MCTC's judgment.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court (SC) held in favor of Sanico:
1. The RTC erred in dismissing the appeal based on the failure to file a memorandum. The
pertinent rule, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, does not require the filing of a memorandum for
criminal appeals. The dismissal was a denial of due process.
2. The CA should not have ignored the RTC's error and should have considered the premature
filing of the petition. The dismissal based on technicalities was unjust to Sanico.
3. The SC did not delve into issues related to damages, deferring them for the RTC's review.
Ramirez v. People, G.R. No. 197832, 2 October 2013
FACTS:
On January 5, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 97 convicted
petitioner Anita Ramirez and Josephine Barangan of Estafa in Criminal Case No. Q-01-100212.
The judgment was promulgated on March 25, 2009, and warrants of arrest were issued. The
petitioner claimed she failed to attend due to her father's wake. On June 6, 2009, she filed an
Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest and Reinstate Bail Bond, denied by the RTC on
October 7, 2009. Despite her awareness of the judgment, she filed her notice of appeal with the
CA only on November 17, 2010. The CA, in its Resolutions dated January 31, 2011, and June 30,
2011, denied her omnibus motion, stating she failed to file the notice of appeal within the 15-
day period prescribed by Rule 122. The CA held that her judgment of conviction had attained
finality, and her absence during promulgation without justifiable cause disrespected the judicial
process.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in denying petitioner's motion to admit notice of appeal and to post
bond on appeal.
RULING:
The CA did not err in denying the omnibus motion. Section 6, Rule 122, mandates that an
appeal must be taken within 15 days from the promulgation of judgment or notice of the final
order. The petitioner filed the notice of appeal more than a year after the denial of her motion
to lift the warrant of arrest.The CA correctly held that, by the time of filing, the judgment had
attained finality, and it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion. The petitioner failed to
present exceptional, special, or meritorious circumstances justifying the belated filing. The
Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with procedural rules for the orderly
disposition of justice. The petitioner's claim of her counsel's failure to communicate the case
status was deemed a "tenuous and implausible" excuse, emphasizing that counsel's omission
binds the client. The petitioner's failure to make periodic checks on the case progress
contributed to the denial of her appeal.The Court stressed that the right to appeal is not a
natural right but a statutory privilege, demanding adherence to the law's requirements. Absent
meritorious grounds, the CA's denial was affirmed.
Olarte v. People, G.R. No. 197731, 6 July 2015
Facts:
Petitioners Hermie Olarte, Ruben Olavario, and Salvador Pasquin were charged with frustrated
homicide for allegedly stabbing Eugene Villostas on September 15, 2002. The incident occurred
in Valenzuela City, and the charge was based on the Information that the accused, without any
justifiable cause, with the intent to kill, stabbed Villostas, but due to timely medical attention,
the wounds did not result in death. All three accused posted bail, but Pasquin jumped bail,
leaving only Olarte and Olavario to be arraigned. During trial, the prosecution presented
witnesses, including Villostas' half-brother, Charlie Penilla, who testified that Villostas was
stabbed by the accused inside a videoke bar. The defense countered that they were victims of a
stoning incident and went to the Barangay Hall to report it. To their surprise, they were accused
of the stabbing incident.
Issues:
1. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses affect their
credibility.
2. Whether the lower courts erred in not appreciating the defense's evidence that petitioners
were not the authors of the crime.
Ruling:
1. The Court held that the errors raised by the petitioners were "appreciation of evidence" or
factual errors, which are not within the province of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45.
2. The Court stated that the petition must be denied because it violates the limitation of the
issues to only legal questions. The Court does not disturb factual findings unless they are
mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to
the findings reached by the court of origin.
Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOs. 183152-54, 21 January 2015
FACTS:
Petitioners, officers of the Philippine National Police, were involved in a buy-bust operation
against drug dealers in 1990. The operation ended in a shooting, resulting in the deaths of three
individuals. The Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty of homicide.
ISSUE:
What are the repercussions of the failure of the accused to appear, without justifiable cause, at
the promulgation of a judgment of conviction?
RULING:
The Court emphasizes that failure to appear without justifiable cause at the promulgation of a
judgment of conviction results in the loss of remedies available against the judgment. This
includes the right to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal. Such provisions are procedural
and aim to ensure the speedy disposition of criminal cases.
The accused must surrender and file a motion for leave of court within 15 days from
promulgation, stating justifiable reasons for their absence. Failure to do so forfeits their right to
avail of remedies against the judgment.
In this case, petitioners failed to surrender within the specified period and did not seek leave to
avail of remedies. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan's decision, having become final and
executory, is affirmed.
People v. Hipona, G.R. NO. 185709, 18 February 2010
FACTS:
Michael A. Hipona (appellant) was convicted of "Rape with Homicide (and Robbery)" by the
Regional Trial Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case involved the rape and homicide
of the victim, AAA, on June 12, 2000. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence,
including appellant's admission to the media about his presence during the crime, possession of
the victim's stolen necklace, and his frequent visits to the victim's house. The trial court
sentenced appellant to death.
ISSUE:
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to prove appellant's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for the complex crime of "Rape with Homicide (and Robbery)."
RULING:
The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The
circumstantial evidence, including appellant's admissions and possession of stolen items,
created a convincing chain of events leading to his culpability. The Court held that the crime was
robbery with homicide, reducing the penalty and adjusting the damages awarded. Exemplary
damages were reduced to ₱25,000.
Batistis v. People, G.R. No. 181571, 16 December 2009
Facts:
Juno Batistis was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violating Section 155
(infringement of trademark) and Section 168 (unfair competition) of the Intellectual Property
Code. The charges stemmed from his possession, reproduction, and sale of counterfeit
Fundador brandy products. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the infringement conviction but
reversed the unfair competition charge. Batistis appealed the trademark infringement
conviction, arguing that the RTC erred in relying on self-serving affidavits and testimonies of the
police officers who conducted the raid on his house.
Issue:
Whether the RTC erred in convicting Juno Batistis based on the self-serving affidavits and
testimonies of the police officers who conducted the raid.
Ruling:
The petition for review lacks merit. The Court held that the appeal was confined only to
questions of law and that Batistis raised issues of evidence and facts. The Court emphasized that
factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding. The evidence
presented, including the testimony of the Operations Manager of Pedro Domecq, S.A.,
demonstrated Batistis's infringement of the Fundador trademark. The Court also noted that
Batistis failed to prove any extraordinary circumstance justifying a departure from the
established factual findings.
Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No. 166995, 13 January 2014
Facts:
On October 31, 1996, an Information was filed against respondent Aliga for the crime of
Qualified Theft thru Falsification of Commercial Document. After the arraignment on December
6, 1996, where Aliga pleaded not guilty, the trial proceeded. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
found Aliga guilty based on clear evidence but absolved her of civil liability as the stolen amount
was returned.
Aliga appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC judgment on the grounds
of inadmissible confession and insufficient circumstantial evidence. The petitioner, representing
the State, filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning the CA's decision.
Issues:
1. Whether the petition for review on certiorari should be dismissed on the ground of double
jeopardy.
Ruling:
The petition is unmeritorious. The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), is the
proper party to file such appeals in criminal cases. The OSG's exclusive authority to represent
the government in litigation, including criminal appeals, is outlined in the Administrative Code.
The private complainant's role is limited to civil liability.
A judgment of acquittal, whether at the trial court or on appeal, is final and unappealable due
to double jeopardy, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The petition for review under Rule 45 is
not the proper avenue for the State to challenge an acquittal. Instead, a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 may be filed, provided the People can establish that the court acted without
jurisdiction or committed a grave abuse of discretion.
In this case, the petitioner failed to show a deprivation of due process, a mistrial, or a grave
abuse of discretion by the CA. The errors alleged were related to the evaluation of evidence,
which is not within the scope of a Rule 65 petition. The court emphasized that certiorari can
only correct jurisdictional errors or those involving grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors in
evidence evaluation.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed, affirming the CA's reversal of the RTC judgment, and
upholding the principles of double jeopardy.
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Piccio, G.R. Nos. 203370 & 215106, 11 April 2016
Facts:
Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (Malayan Insurance) and Helen Y. Dee (petitioners) filed
separate petitions for review on certiorari, challenging the decisions of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in Criminal Case Nos. 06-877, 06-882, and 06-884. The cases stemmed from a libel
complaint initiated by Jessie John P. Gimenez against respondents. The Makati Regional Trial
Court, Branch 137 (Makati-RTC, Br. 137), dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882 for
lack of jurisdiction, and Branch 62 (Makati-RTC, Br. 62) dismissed Criminal Case No. 06-884 for
lack of probable cause. The CA affirmed these decisions, prompting the petitioners to file the
present petitions.
Issues:
1. In G.R. No. 203370, whether the CA erred in denying the appeal due to the lack of
authorization from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
2. In G.R. No. 215106, whether the CA erred in denying the appeal on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, applying the ruling in Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149.
Ruling on G.R. No. 203370:
The Court held that the CA did not err in denying the appeal. The authority to represent the
State in appeals of criminal cases lies solely with the OSG. Since the appeal was not filed with
the authorization of the OSG, petitioners lacked the legal standing to interpose an appeal in the
criminal proceeding. The denial of the appeal was without prejudice to the filing of the
appropriate action to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the libel cases.
Ruling on G.R. No. 215106:
The Court found that Malayan Insurance lacked legal personality to file the petition. Similar to
G.R. No. 203370, the OSG did not authorize the appeal. The Court dismissed the petition,
emphasizing that only the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings. Malayan
Insurance was advised to file the appropriate action to preserve its interest in the civil aspect of
the libel case.
In both cases, the petitions were denied, underscoring the importance of OSG authorization in
criminal appeals and reiterating the jurisdictional nature of venue in libel cases.
Dimakuta v. People, G.R. No. 206513, 20 October 2015
Facts:
Mustapha Dimakuta y Maruhom, also known as Boyet, was charged with Violation of Section
5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation, and Discrimination Act). After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him
and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. Dissatisfied, Boyet appealed to the Court of
Appeals (CA), arguing that there was no evidence of the crime being committed without the
victim's consent or through force, duress, intimidation, or violence.
The CA, relying on the People v. Abello case, modified the RTC decision, finding Boyet guilty of
Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. Boyet then sought
probation and referred to the Colinares v. People case to support his application.
Issue:
The central issue is whether Boyet is eligible to avail of probation based on the CA's review of
the crime and penalty imposed by the trial court.
Ruling:
The Probation Law, as stipulated in Section 4, allows the trial court to suspend the execution of
a sentence and grant probation under specific conditions. However, the law explicitly states that
no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the
appeal from the judgment of conviction.
In this case, Boyet appealed the trial court's judgment to the CA, disputing his guilt and the
evidence presented. His appeal was based on a claim of innocence and lack of sufficient
evidence, which contradicts the spirit of the Probation Law, allowing only qualified penitent
offenders to apply for probation.
As a result, Boyet was not entitled to apply for probation, and the CA's decision, which modified
the penalty, became final. The court emphasized that correcting the error at this stage was
barred by the right against double jeopardy.
The ruling establishes that an accused who files an appeal claiming innocence or lack of
evidence, and later seeks probation, is not qualified under the Probation Law. The court,
therefore, denied Boyet's application for probation and adopted a stance against allowing such
applications in similar situations.
People v. Olivo, G.R. No. 177768, 27 July 2009
Facts:
Accused-appellants Charmen Olivo, Nelson Danda, and Joey Zafra were charged with the crime
of Robbery with Homicide, allegedly committed on November 21, 2000, in Quezon City. The
information accused them of forcibly entering a hardware store, robbing ₱35,000.00, and fatally
shooting the store owner, Mariano Constantino.
During the trial, the prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of Maricel Permejo, an
alleged eyewitness. She claimed that the accused entered the store, demanded money, and
shot Mariano Constantino when he resisted. The accused were subsequently arrested during a
buy-bust operation, identified by Permejo, and charged with robbery with homicide.
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants despite the failure of the
prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
The Court reversed the decision of the trial court and acquitted the accused-appellants. It
highlighted that Maricel Permejo failed to positively identify the accused as the perpetrators of
the crime, as she initially gave a negative answer when asked to identify them in a police line-
up. The Court questioned the circumstances of the arrests, the transfer to Camp Karingal, and
the suggestive police line-up, which cast doubt on the credibility of the eyewitness and the
reliability of her identification.
The Court emphasized the importance of a thorough review of the totality of evidence, not just
the oral testimony during the trial. It found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Charmen Olivo and Nelson Danda. Pursuant to
Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, their co-accused, Joey Zafra, was also declared entitled to
acquittal. The Court ordered their immediate release unless held for some other legal cause.
In summary, the Court's decision hinged on the lack of positive identification, questionable
circumstances surrounding the arrests, and insufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
People v. Dueño, G.R. No. L-31102, 5 May 1979
Facts:
On November 27, 1963, the Provincial Fiscal of Capiz filed an Information for murder against the
three accused, stating that on January 21, 1963, in Maayon, Capiz, the accused, armed with
weapons, conspired to shoot and kill Bernardo Demontano. The accused pleaded not guilty
during arraignment, and the trial commenced.
The prosecution presented evidence, including eyewitness testimonies from Roque Dellomos
and Federico Dolfo, who witnessed the accused attempting to shoot them in the afternoon of
the same day. Later that evening, the accused were identified as the assailants who shot and
killed Bernardo Demontano. The defense primarily asserted an alibi, claiming that the accused
were in a different location at the time of the crime.
The trial court, after considering the evidence and finding the alibi weak, concluded that the
accused were guilty of murder with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation, with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
Issues:
1. Whether the testimonies of eyewitnesses Dellomos and Dolfo are credible.
2. Whether there was a sufficient motive for the accused to commit the murder.
3. Whether the defense of alibi should be given credence.
Ruling:
1. The court upheld the credibility of the eyewitnesses' testimonies, considering their previous
encounter with the accused earlier on the same day and their natural reactions to being
targeted.
2. The court deemed motive irrelevant as the positive identification of the accused had been
established.
3. The court rejected the defense of alibi, stating that the evidence did not show it was
physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime.
Habeas Corpus, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court
Summary of Rule 102 - Habeas Corpus:
Section 1: The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement or detention,
granting relief to individuals deprived of liberty.
Section 2: The Supreme Court or its members may grant the writ, enforceable nationwide.
Courts of First Instance and judges may also grant it within their jurisdiction.
Section 3: The application requires a signed and verified petition stating the details of
imprisonment or restraint.
Section 4: The writ is not allowed if the person is lawfully detained under proper authority.
Section 5: The writ must be granted promptly when the petitioner's case warrants it.
Section 6: The writ is directed to the officer or person responsible for the imprisonment,
commanding them to produce the person before the designated court or judge.
Section 7: The person to be produced is designated in the writ, and the writ may be served by
an officer or a person deputed by the court.
Sections 8-12: The officer executes and returns the writ, detailing the cause of detention,
sickness, or transfer of custody.
Sections 13-15: The return is evidence if the imprisonment is under legal authority, and the
court may discharge the person if unlawfully detained.
Section 16: Penalties are imposed for refusing to issue or obey the writ.
Section 17: A person discharged cannot be imprisoned again for the same offense.
Section 18: Removal from one custody to another requires legal process, and penalties are
imposed for unauthorized removal.
Section 19: The proceedings are recorded, and costs may be taxed against the Republic of the
Philippines or the person in custody, as directed by the court. Fees are included in the costs.
This rule outlines the process and conditions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus,
emphasizing the protection of an individual's liberty against illegal confinement or detention.
CASE:
IN RE: Azucena L. Garcia, G.R. No. 141443, 30 August 2000
Facts:
Azucena L. Garcia seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the validity of her
conviction for three counts of falsification of public documents. The charges stemmed from
allegations of forging signatures and using fraudulent documents in the reconstitution of
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 308462. The petitioner questions the fairness of the trial,
asserting violations of her constitutional rights and disputing the credibility of a key witness,
Vicente N. Coloyan.
Issue:
Whether the judgment of conviction against Azucena L. Garcia is void due to violations of her
constitutional rights, specifically the alleged failure to consider exculpatory evidence and the
use of a paid and perjured witness.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for habeas corpus, stating that it is not an appropriate
remedy for a person already convicted by final judgment. The Court emphasized that issues
related to the trial court's appreciation of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and alleged
prosecutorial misconduct had already been settled in previous decisions. The petitioner's claims
of constitutional violations and ineffective counsel were not substantiated. The Court
underscored that habeas corpus cannot function as a writ of error and is not intended to review
factual or legal errors made during the trial. As the petitioner was out on bail and had
exhausted the appeal process, the petition was deemed an attempt to delay the administration
of justice.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the judgment of conviction and denied
the petition for habeas corpus.
