8.

Cuyos vs Garcia, 1988 cases In complex crimes, it is not uncommon that one
constitutive offense carries with it an afflictive
Facts: penalty while the other or other constitutive offenses
Petitioner Alfredo Cuyos was charged with homicide carry with them only a correctional or even a light
with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to penalty. Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime
property, through reckless imprudence. must logically be lodged with the trial court having
jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
Cuyos was a driver of a cargo truck which had penalty imposable on an offense forming part of the
collided with a Volkswagen automobile in a vehicular complex crime.
accident, killing 1 and injuring 4.
A complex crime must be prosecuted integrally, as it
Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty at his were, and not split into its component offenses and
arraignment but before trial could commence, Cuyos the latter made the subject of multiple informations
filed a Motion to Remand the Case to the Court of possibly brought in different courts. This is the thrust
First Instance alleging lack of jurisdiction over the of our case law on the matter.
case on the part of the Municipal Court.
The jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of the
Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga case must be determined, not by the penalty for the
transferred to CFI now RTC of Pampanga physical injuries charged but by the fine imposable
for the damage to property resulting from reckless
Municipal Court judge denied the Motion to Transfer. imprudence.
Hence the present Petition for Certiorari, assailing the
jurisdiction of the respondent court to try the criminal Since the maximum fine imposable in the present
case against petitioner on the merits. case is P54,000.00, and the maximum imprisonment
imposable is six (6) years, clearly, the criminal charge
Issue: Whether the respondent Municipal Court involved falls outside the jurisdiction of the
of San Fernando, Pampanga has jurisdiction to try Municipal Trial Court and consequently within the
the criminal case against petitioner. NO jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of San
Fernando, Pampanga.
The Sol Gen agreed with petitioner, stating that
respondent Municipal Court has no jurisdiction to try
the present criminal case.

Ruling:

The SC agrees with Cuyos and Solicitor General

Under Art 48 of the RPC, in a prosecution for a

complex crime constituted by 2 or more grave or
less grave felonies, the penalty for the most
serious crime is to be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.

One is likely to assume that the most serious offense

of which petitioner is accused is homicide through
reckless imprudence; the penalty imposable would be
prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods.

In the instant case, the maximum fine which may be

imposed upon petitioner is P54,000 (3 x 18,000),
obviously an afflictive penalty and hence, in the
scheme of the RPC, the more serious than the penalty
imposable for homicide through reckless imprudence.
 been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts
10. Pactolin vs Sandiganbayan and circumstances in the complaint or information.
Facts: In this case, the Amended Information encompasses
Petitioner Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin – former Sanggu the acts of Pactolin constitutive of a violation of Art.
Panlalawigan member of Misamis Occidental. 172 in relation to par. 2 of Art. 171 of the RPC.

Mayor Fuentes approved Abastillas request for 2) Note that the last paragraph of Art. 172 does not
financial assistance for the city’s football team. specify that the offending person is a public or private
Mayor Fuentes then designated city councilor, individual as does its par. 1. Note also that the last
Ferraren as OIC Mayor. Asbatillas then received a paragraph of Art. 172 alludes to the use of the false
10,000 check on behalf of the volleyball team document embraced in par. 2 of Art. 171 where it was
made to appear that "persons have participated in any
While Ferraren was the OIC Mayor, Pactolin asked to act or proceeding when they did not in fact
photocopy Asbatillas’s letter to which the Asst City participate".
Treasurer Toledo lent.
Patently, even a public officer may be convicted
Thereafter, Pactolin filed a case for illegal under Art. 172. The crime in Art. 171 is absorbed by
disberesment of public funds against Ferraren while the last paragraph of Art. 172.
Ferraren instituted a criminal complaint of
falsification of a public document against Pactolin The Sandiganbayan's conviction of Pactolin was
based on its factual findings after the prosecution
Pactolin pleaded not guilty during the arraignment but presented both documentary and testimonial pieces of
repeatedly failed to appear during trial on the merits. evidence. We are not a trier of facts so we defer to the
The Sandiganbayan found Pactolin guilty of factual findings of the lower court that had more
Falsification. opportunities and facilities to examine the evidence
presented.
Issue:
1) Did the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the In short, the Sandiganbayan clearly established that
case? YES the copy of the Abastillas letter that Pactolin attached
to his complaint was spurious.
2) If so, did it gravely abuse its discretion when it
convicted him despite its own findings that the Given the clear absence of a satisfactory explanation
falsified document was not in his official custody. regarding Pactolin’s possession and use of the
NO falsified Abastillas letter, the Sandiganbayan did not
err in concluding that it was Pactolin who falsified the
Ruling: letter. The settled rule is that in the absence of
1) Falsification of a public document under the RPC satisfactory explanation, one found in the possession
is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan of and who used a forged is the forger and therefore
pursuant to Sec 4 of RA 8249. guilty of falsification.

Thus, Pactolin's argument about being deprived of his The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint
right to be informed of the charges against him when or information is filed in court, any disposition of the
the Sandiganbayan convicted him as a private person case, be it dismissal, conviction, or acquittal of the
under Art. 172, is baseless. accused, rests on the sound discretion of the court.
The only qualification to this exercise of judicial
The headings in italics of the two articles are not prerogative is that the substantial rights of the
controlling. What is controlling is not the title of the accused must not be impaired nor the People be
complaint, or the designation of the offense charged deprived of the right to due process.
or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated,
but the description of the crime charged and the As we have discoursed, no substantial right of
particular facts therein recited. Pactolin has been impaired nor has there been any
violation of his right to due process. He had been
The character of the crime is not determined by the adequately informed by the detailed litany of the
caption or the preamble of the information or by the charges leveled against him in the information. He
specification of the provision of law alleged to have had the occasion to confront witnesses against him
 and the opportunity to question documents presented belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was
by the prosecution. Under no circumstance in this omitted therein.
case has his right to due process been violated.
11. Antiporda vs Garchitorena However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped
from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
Facts: for in the supplemental arguments to motion for
Antiporda and 3 others were charged with the crime reconsideration and/or reinvestigation dated June 10,
of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos in the 1997 20 filed with the same court, it was they who
Sandiganbayan. "challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion
Because it was not clear whether the offense for Reconsideration that the said crime is work-
committed was office-related, the Sandiganbayan connected,
ordered the prosecution to amend the information.
It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the
The prosecution filed an Amended Information jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief
alleging that one of the accused, Licerio A. against his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to
Antiporda, Jr., took advantage of his position as obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
mayor of Buguey, Cagayan to order the kidnapping of jurisdiction.
Elmer Ramos.
We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has
Accused moved for a reinvestigation of the case and jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it
for the deferment of the issuance of the warrants of was thus vested with the authority to order the
arrest but the Sandiganbayan denied his motion. amendment of the Information.

Accused then moved to quash the amended Rule 110 of the ROC states that an information or
information for lack of jurisdiction of the complaint may be amended, in substance or in form,
Sandiganbayan over the case, but the latter likewise without leave of court, at any time before the accused
denied the same. pleads.

Issue: Whether a reinvestigation is necessary in view of

Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the the Amended Information. NO
case. YES
We hold that the reinvestigation is not necessary
The petitioners argue that the Sandiganbayan had no anymore. A reinvestigation is proper only if the
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because the accused's substantial rights would be impaired.
original information did not allege that one of the
petitioners, Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., took advantage In the case at bar, we do not find that their rights
of his position as mayor of Buguey, Cagayan to order would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended
the kidnapping of Elmer Ramos. Information is filed without a reinvestigation taking
place. The amendments made to the Information
They likewise assert that lacking jurisdiction a court merely describe the public positions held by the
cannot order the amendment of the information. In accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was
the same breath, they contend however that the brought when he was kidnapped.
Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the persons of
the accused. The purpose of a preliminary investigation (to
engender a well-grounded belief that a crime had
They question the assumption of jurisdiction by the been committed and accused are probably guilty
Sandiganbayan over their case yet they insist that said thereof) had already been achieved.
court acquired jurisdiction over their motion to quash.
The petitioner cannot have their cake and eat it too.

The original Information filed with the

Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense
committed by the accused is office-related. It was
only after the same was filed that the prosecution
 prosecution, and in not permitting the same to
propound questions already adverted to.

Issue: Whether the lower court had committed

GAD in rejecting the direct and rebuttal evidence
14. People vs Montejo of the prosecution. YES

Facts: Ruling:
It is obvious to us that said direct and rebuttal
Respodent was Judge Montejo assigned to Criminal evidence, as well as the aforementioned questions, are
Case No. 672. relevant to the issues involved in Criminal Case No.
672.
Prosecution filed for preliminary injunction alleging
Respondents were several policemen were charged It is elemental that all parties in a criminal action are
with murder in Criminal Case No. 672. The entitled to a reasonable opportunity to establish their
information alleged that: Mayor Brown organized respective theories.
groups of police patrol and civilian commandoes and
established a sub-police headquarters which In the case at bar, the issue of the guilt or innocence
entertained criminal complaints. And that one Yakan of the accused is bound to hinge heavily upon the
Awalin Tebag was arrested without warrant, detained, veracity of the opposing witnesses and the weight
tortured, killed, and his body dumped in a nearby attached to their respective testimony.
isolated field. An old Japanese rifle supplied by
Mayor Brown, was placed beside said body. Hence, the parties should be allowed a certain latitude
in the presentation of their evidence, lest they may be
that: that, after due hearing, the rulings of respondent so hampered that the ends of justice may eventually
Judge, rejecting some evidence for the prosecution be defeated or appear to be defeated. The danger of
therein and not permitting the same to propound landing to such result must be avoided.
certain questions, be set aside;
It is apparent from these allegations that, although
That said respondent Judge be ordered to admit the public office is not an element of the crime of murder
aforementioned evidence and permit said questions; in abstract, as committed by the main respondents
and that Senator Roseller Lim be declared, contrary to herein, according to the amended information,
another ruling made by respondent Judge,
disqualified by the Constitution from appearing as the offense therein charged is intimately connected
counsel for the accused in said criminal case. Soon, with their respective offices and was perpetrated
after the filing of the petition, we issued the writ of while they were in the performance, though improper
preliminary injunction prayed for, without bond. or irregular, of their official functions. Indeed, they
had no personal motive to commit the crime and they
That during the course of the trial, respondent Judge would not have committed it had they not held their
rejected the prosecution’s documentary evidence and aforesaid offices.
numerous exhibits.
The co-defendants of respondent Leroy S. Brown,
In contrast with the severe and rigorous policy used obeyed his instructions because he was their superior
by respondent Judge in dealing with the officer, as Mayor of Basilan City.
aforementioned evidence for the prosecution,
petitioner cites the liberality with which the lower CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROHIBITION
court admitted the evidence of the defense. AGAINST SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM
Upon a review of the record, we are fully satisfied APPEARING AS COUNSEL IN CERTAIN
that the lower court had, not only erred, but, also, CRIMINAL CASES; WHEN PROHIBITION
committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the APPLIES EVEN IF THE CRIME CHARGED IS
resolutions complained of, in rejecting the MURDER.
aforementioned direct and rebuttal evidence for the
Special Mention in Lacson vs Executive Secretary:
We held that the offense charged was
committed in relation to the office of the accused
because it was perpetrated while they were in the
performance, through improper or irregular of their
official functions and would not have been committed
had they not held their office, besides, the accused
had no personal motive in committing the crime, thus,
there was an intimate connection between the offense
and the office of the accused.