CARMELO F. LAZATIN, MARINO A. MORALES, TEODORO L. DAVID and ANGELITO A.

PELAYO, Petitioner,

vs.

HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO as OMBUDSMAN, and SANDIGANBAYAN, THIRD DIVISION, Respondents.

G.R. No. 147097 June 5, 2009

PERALTA, J.

Facts:

Congressman Carmelo Lazatin and three others faced charges of Illegal Use of Public Funds and violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint alleged that Lazatin, as both proponent and
implementer of projects funded by the Countrywide Development Fund, converted it into cash, allowing
him to handle vouchers, supporting documents, disbursements, and receive checks for personal benefit.
After a preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman approved charges against Lazatin. The OSP
recommended dismissal due to lack of evidence, but the Ombudsman, through the OLA's memorandum,
directed the OSP to proceed with the trial. Lazatin argued that the Constitution only grants the
Ombudsman the power to investigate and recommend, not prosecute, with the power to prosecute
vested in the OSP as a separate entity.

Issue:

Whether or not the Ombudsman was granted the power to prosecute erring officials.

Ruling:

Yes, the Ombudsman possesses the authority to prosecute officials, as established by RA No. 6770. The
Constitution, specifically paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI, permits the Ombudsman to "exercise such
other functions or duties as may be provided by law." The Ombudsman's power to prosecute, including
authorizing the filing of information, is constitutionally sound. In the case at hand, the Ombudsman
appropriately exercised its prosecutorial powers by approving the filing of criminal information against
Lazatin. The overturning of the OSP's recommendation is justified, considering the OSP operates under
the Ombudsman's supervision, control, and authority, as outlined in RA No. 6770. Therefore, the
Ombudsman has criminal jurisdiction over offenses involving public officials and is empowered to
prosecute them.
SHARON CASTRO, Petitioner,

vs.

HON. MERLIN DELORIA, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Guimaras; the COA-Region
VI, represented by its Director; and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 163586 January 27, 2009

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Facts:

Sharon Castro, a Revenue Officer I at the Bureau of Internal Revenue of Guimaras, faced charges of
Misappropriation of Public Funds amounting to P556,681.53. She sought to quash the information,
arguing that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction for preliminary investigation and filing. Castro claimed
the omission of her wage grade in the information affected the RTC's jurisdiction, contending that, as a
salary grade 27 public employee, her case should be handled by the RTC and the public prosecutor, not
the Ombudsman. The RTC rejected the motion, emphasizing that jurisdiction depended on the penalty
for the offense, not the salary grade. It affirmed the Ombudsman's prosecutorial authority for cases
under RTC jurisdiction. The CA dismissed Castro's certiorari petition for lack of merit, leading to her
appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the case is under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, which gives the Ombudsman the
authority to file such a case.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case, granting the
Ombudsman authority to prosecute offenses not only falling under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction but
also within the purview of regular courts. This interpretation is based on Section 15 of Republic Act 6770,
defining the Ombudsman's powers. The Court clarified that the Ombudsman's authority doesn't
diminish the jurisdiction of other courts over cases involving public officers. It emphasized that the Office
of the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor's limited authority under Section 11 of RA 6770 should be
distinct. The Ombudsman can investigate and prosecute various offenses by public officers while
maintaining primary jurisdiction over Sandiganbayan cases. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding
the validity of Ombudsman proceedings and the filed Information against the petitioner.
ARSENIA B. GARCIA, Petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents

G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006

QUISUMBING, J.:

Rodrigo Cawili borrowed money from Luis Panaguiton, who filed a case for violation of BP 22 against
Cawili and his business associate, Ramon Tongson, due to three dishonored checks. Tongson claimed he
was unjustly included, citing multiple loans to Cawili and filed criminal cases against him. City Prosecutor
found probable cause only against Cawili, dismissing charges against Tongson. A partial appeal led to a
DOJ reinvestigation, but ACP Sampaga dismissed the complaint against Tongson, citing prescription.
Petitioner appealed, and Undersecretary Gutierrez ruled in favor, directing the filing of BP 22 charges.
DOJ later ruled the offense had prescribed, ordering the withdrawal of charges against Tongson. A
Supreme Court petition challenges the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Panaguiton's certiorari petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the rule on prescription as provided for in Act No. 3326 applies to offenses under B.P. 22.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court acknowledges Act No. 3326's application to BP 22 offenses, which prescribe in four
years from the commission of the offense or its discovery. The court rejects the notion that only filing a
case in court can toll the prescriptive period, considering the historical context when Act No. 3326 was
enacted. The court rules that the offense has not prescribed, citing the petitioner's filing of the
complaint–affidavit on August 24, 1995, which commenced proceedings and interrupted the prescriptive
period. Finding probable cause, the court grants the petition, reversing and setting aside the Court of
Appeals' resolutions and directing the Department of Justice to refile the information against the
petitioner.
G.R. No. 152662 June 13, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.

MA. THERESA PANGILINAN, Respondent.

PEREZ, J.:

Facts:

On September 16, 1997, Virginia C. Malolos filed estafa and BP Blg. 22 charges against Ma. Theresa
Pangilinan for dishonored checks totaling P9,658,592.00. On December 5, 1997, Pangilinan filed a civil
case against Malolos in Valenzuela City, followed by a motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on
December 10, 1997. Assistant City Prosecutor Ruben Catubay recommended suspension, approved by
the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on March 2, 1998. Secretary of Justice Serafin P. Cuevas reversed this
on January 5, 1999, ordering BP Blg. 22 charges for two checks totaling P8,604,000.00. Two counts were
filed on February 3, 2000. Pangilinan's motion to quash on June 17, 2000, was granted on October 5,
2000. The RTC reversed this on July 27, 2001, but the CA, in a decision on March 12, 2002, dismissed the
cases, citing prescription.

Issue:

Whether the filing of the affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22 against respondent
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on 16 September 1997 interrupted the period of
prescription of such offense.

Ruling:

Yes. The court ruled that the filing of a complaint in the Municipal Court, even for preliminary
examination, interrupts the prescription period of criminal responsibility. Act 3326, as amended, states
that prescription is interrupted when proceedings are initiated. As BP Blg. 22 imposes a penalty of
imprisonment or a fine, it prescribes in four years, with the prescriptive period tolled upon the initiation
of proceedings.
Worldwide Web Corp.

v.

People

G.R. Nos. 161106 & 161266 January 13, 2014

SERENO, C.J

Facts:

The case began with search warrant applications by Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas, alleging
illegal toll bypass operations by the petitioners, constituting theft and violating Presidential Decree No.
401 to PLDT's detriment. Witnesses testified to the petitioners providing international long-distance call
services by bypassing PLDT's facilities. The RTC initially granted search warrants, leading to the seizure of
items. The petitioners moved to quash, arguing lack of probable cause and general warrant nature. The
RTC granted the motions, but the CA reversed, validating the warrants. The petitioners' motions for
reconsideration were denied by the CA.

Issue:

Whether or not PLDT had the personality to question the quashal of the search warrants without the
conformity of the public prosecutor

RULING:

Yes. PLDT had the personality to question the quashal of the search warrants without the conformity of
the public prosecutor.

The Court emphasizes that an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action, but rather a
process issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction. Therefore, the conformity of the
public prosecutor is not necessary before an aggrieved party can move for reconsideration of an order
granting a motion to quash search warrants.
G.R. No. 180122 March 13, 2009

FELICISIMO F. LAZARTE, JR., Petitioner,

vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

TINGA, J.:

Facts:

The National Housing Authority (NHA) awarded A.C. Cruz Construction the original contract for the
Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project, Phase 1 in Bacolod City, sponsored by the World Bank. Due to non-
compliance, the NHA terminated A.C. Cruz Construction and awarded the remaining work to another
company. A special audit by COA revealed irregularities, leading to charges under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act) against Felicisimo Lazarte Jr. and others. Sandiganbayan upheld graft
allegations, and despite dismissing charges against others, Lazarte faced further proceedings after filing a
motion to quash, claiming the information did not constitute an offense.

Issue: Whether or not a statement on the conspiracy of an act is needed in order for an information to
be considered sufficient.

Ruling:

The information against the petitioner in a case involving a violation of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act was not sufficient by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that for a
complaint to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused, the offense's designation by statute,
the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the offended party's name, the approximate time of the
offense, and the place where it occurred. While conspiracy was alleged, it was clarified that when
conspiracy is not a crime itself but a mode of committing the offense, less detail is required in the
information. The Court dismissed Lazarte's petition for certiorari.
G.R. No. 202868 October 2, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL ESPERA y CUYACOT, Accused-Appellant.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Facts:

On the night of January 26, 1999, Ana and her co-worker, "Susie," shared a tricycle ride from the "Get
Well Clinic" in Fatima, Ubay, Bohol. Susie recognized the tricycle driver, the appellant, as a friend of her
husband. Upon reaching Barangay Ekis, Susie disembarked first, leaving Ana alone with the driver. The
tricycle stopped at a quarry site, where the appellant, armed with a gun, assaulted Ana. He threatened
her, forcibly undressed her, and subjected her to sexual violence. After the assault, he warned her not to
reveal his identity and fled. Ana, fearing for her life, followed his instructions until she sensed he was
gone and then went home.

Issue:

Whether or not the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused as the author of the crime.

Ruling:

In this case, the prosecution established the appellant's identity as the offender through clear and
unmistakable evidence. Ana and Susie positively identified him as the tricycle driver who ferried them to
Barangay Ekis. The appellant deceived Ana into going to a quarry, where he assaulted and raped her.
Despite his attempts to conceal his identity, Ana recognized him at the police station two days later and
positively identified him in court. The Court of Appeals noted that Ana identified the appellant not only
by appearance but also by his voice, which she remembered from their interactions during the incident
and later at the police station.
People of the Philippines

vs.

Melen-Cio Bali-Balita

GR No. 134266, September 15, 2000

GONZAGA-REYES, J

Facts:

Ella Magdasoc, 11 years old, filed a rape complaint against Melencio Bali-balita, her mother's common-
law husband. Ella was coerced into the act when her mother was away. Despite reporting the incident to
her mother, who disbelieved her, Ella and her sister Miriam sought help from the police. The accused
was arrested, and the medico-legal examiner confirmed Ella's non-virgin state. The Trial Court found the
accused guilty of statutory rape, considering Ella's age. The defense of denial and alibi was rejected. Due
to the victim's age and the accused being the common-law spouse, the court imposed the death penalty.
The respondents argue that the information lacked the qualifying circumstance of the accused's
relationship with the victim.

Issue:

Whether or not the complaint or information is sufficient.

Ruling:

The information is deemed sufficient as it adequately includes the relationship between the accused,
Melencio Bali-Balita, and the victim, Ella Magdasoc, who is a minor. The mention of the accused as the
common-law husband of the complainant's mother is considered integral and essential in the opening
statement of the information. The argument that this relationship should also be reiterated in the
second paragraph is deemed flawed, as the law only requires the inclusion of names in the opening
statement, not necessarily in the accusatory portion. The information is considered complete, meeting
the requirements outlined in Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

v.

PO2 EDUARDO VALDEZ and EDWIN VALDEZ

G.R. No. 175602.January 18, 2012

Bersamin J.

Facts:

On January 20, 2005, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 86, Quezon City, found the accused guilty of
three counts of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua for each charge. On May 9, 2007, Edwin
Valdez, one of the accused, submitted a motion to withdraw his appeal, which was granted on October
10, 2007, closing his appeal. The appeal of PO2 Eduardo Valdez, the co-accused, is the only one
considered. According to the state's evidence, on March 1, 2000, at a Quezon City canteen, Estrella
Sayson was preparing for her second husband's birthday celebration. Sons Moises and Ferdinand
managed the jai alai betting station. Eduardo and Edwin arrived around 10:00 PM, demanding the jai alai
teller to leave. Despite attempts to reason, the accused, armed with guns, threatened and shot Moises,
Ferdinand, and Joselito, resulting in fatalities and injuries.

Issue:

Whether or not the information was sufficient to establish the qualifying circumstances for homicide due
to to the inability to provide evidence of treachery

Ruling:

The court upholds the convictions but changes the charges against PO2 Valdez to three counts of
homicide due to a lack of evidence for treachery. The factual details in the complaint or information
determine the true nature of the criminal charge, not the caption or preamble. The accused doesn't
need to know the name of the crime until the trial concludes. The complaint must include the name of
the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts complained of, the name of the offended party, the
approximate time, and the location of the offense to be considered sufficient. The specific facts recited in
the complaint matter more than its title, the offense charged, or the law violated; these are the
prosecutor's conclusions.

If the information about a crime doesn't precisely state the elements of the offense, it is insufficient.
Every aspect of the offense must be included in the information, using the definitions and essential
elements of the designated crimes. This ensures the accused has the opportunity to prepare their
defense, assuming they don't independently know the details of the offense.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner

vs.

JOSEPH ASILAN y TABORNAL, Respondent

G. R. No. 188322 - April 11, 2012

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Facts:

On March 27, 2006, in Manila, Joseph Asilan conspired with another unknown person to attack and use
violence against PO1 Randy Adovas, a police officer. Adovas, in the performance of his duty, was
handcuffing Asilan's co-conspirator for illegal possession of a deadly weapon. Asilan appeared suddenly
and, with intent to kill, attacked Adovas, stabbing him repeatedly with a fan knife and grabbing his
service firearm, which he used to shoot the officer. Adovas sustained mortal wounds and died. Asilan
pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on April 10, 2006. The prosecution's version, presented
through witness Joselito Binosa, stated that on the incident night, he heard a gunshot while at El Niño
Bakery in Manila. Approaching the scene, he witnessed uniformed policemen arresting someone. As the
police officer was about to handcuff the person, Asilan arrived, stabbed the officer multiple times, and
took the officer's gun, shooting him. Binosa pointed out Asilan, leading to his arrest. In his defense,
Asilan claimed he was in Mandaluyong on the mentioned night. He stated that three motorcycles
stopped in front of him, passengers frisked him, and he was taken to the police station. He alleged being
forced to admit to the stabbing, medically examined at a hospital, and confronted with the alleged knife
used in the incident.

issue:

Whether or not Asilan should be convicted with Murder and not the offense of Direct assault.

Ruling:

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Asilan of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The prosecution failed to prove the offense of direct assault, leading to Asilan's acquittal on that charge.
The RTC clarified that while Adovas was in uniform when attacked, there was insufficient evidence to
establish conclusively that he was performing his duty. The court determined that the killing involved
treachery, as Adovas was attacked from behind, denying him the chance to defend himself. Asilan was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua to death.