CaseDig: Cariaga vs.

People
G.R. No. 180010; July 30, 2010
Posted by: Stephanie Jurgen Tuquib on 19 July 2018

FACTS:

Petitioner Cenita M. Cariaga is a municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela whose been

charged with three separate cases before the Regional Trial Court of Isabela, all for
malversation of public funds. Cariaga was convicted for the said cases. Hence, an appeal
was filed before the Court of Appeals. 

The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it
is the Sandiganbayan which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereon. Petitioner,
admitting the procedural error committed by her former counsel, implores the Court to
relax the Rules to afford her an opportunity to fully ventilate her appeal on the merits
and requests the Court to endorse and transmit the records of the cases to the
Sandiganbayan in the interest of substantial justice.

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE APPEAL OF [PETITIONER] WRONGFULLY DIRECTED TO THE

COURT OF APPEALS BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT OR BE ENDORSED AND
TRANSMITTED TO THE SANDIGANBAYAN WHERE THE APPEAL SHALL THEN
PROCEED IN DUE COURSE.

HELD:

Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility of a person being deprived
of liberty due to a procedural lapse militates against the Courts dispensation of justice,
the Court grants petitioners plea for a relaxation of the Rules.

For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice,
such that any rigid and strict application thereof which results in technicalities tending
to frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided.

In Ulep v. People, the Court remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan when it found that

x x x petitioners failure to designate the proper forum for her appeal was inadvertent.
The omission did not appear to be a dilatory tactic on her part. Indeed, petitioner had
more to lose had that been the case as her appeal could be dismissed outright for lack of
jurisdiction which was exactly what happened in the CA.

1|Criminal Procedure
The trial court, on the other hand, was duty bound to forward the records of the case to
the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan. It is unfortunate that the RTC judge concerned
ordered the pertinent records to be forwarded to the wrong court, to the great prejudice
of petitioner. Cases involving government employees with a salary grade lower than 27
are fairly common, albeit regrettably so. The judge was expected to know and should
have known the law and the rules of procedure. He should have known when appeals
are to be taken to the CA and when they should be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. He
should have conscientiously and carefully observed this responsibility specially in cases
such as this where a persons liberty was at stake. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The slapdash work of petitioners former counsel and the trial courts apparent ignorance
of the law effectively conspired to deny petitioner the remedial measures to question her
conviction.[11]

While the negligence of counsel generally binds the client, the Court has made
exceptions thereto, especially in criminal cases where reckless or gross negligence of
counsel deprives the client of due process of law; when its application will result in
outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so
require. [12] It can not be gainsaid that the case of petitioner can fall under any of these
exceptions.

Moreover, a more thorough review and appreciation of the evidence for the prosecution
and defense as well as a proper application of the imposable penalties in the present
case by the Sandiganbayan would do well to assuage petitioner that her appeal is
decided scrupulously.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.

29514 are SET ASIDE. Let the records of the cases be FORWARDED to the
Sandiganbayan for proper disposition.

MAYOR BAYANI ALONTE VS. JUDGE SAVELLANO, 287 SCRA 245

Vitug, J.
Mayor Alonte of Binan, Laguna was charged of rape before Branch 25, RTC
of Laguna. However, as a result of a petition for a transfer of venue filed by
the prosecution and granted by the SC, his case was transferred to RTC
Branch 53, Manila, presided over by the respondent judge.
After the petitioner’s arraignment, the prosecution submitted an
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE signed by the private complainant JUVIE-LYN
PUNONGBAYAN where she prayed for the withdrawal of the case because
she is no longer interested in pursuing the same with no intention of re-
filing the said case in the future.

2|Criminal Procedure
Pending resolution of the said motion to withdraw, the petitioner filed a
motion for bail. The same was not resolved despite several motions filed by
the petitioner to resolve the same.
On December 17, 1997, counsel for the petitioner, ATTY. PHILIP SIGFRID
FORTUN, received a notice from the respondent judge notifying him of the
promulgation of the decision in this case despite the fact that the
prosecution and the defense have not presented their evidence in court.
On December 18, 1997, the respondent judge issued a Decision convicting
the petitioner of rape and sentenced to suffer a penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner was denied his right to due process of law.
Held:
In order that an accused in a criminal proceedings is deemed to have been
given the right to due process of law, the following requisites must be
complied with before a decision is rendered:
1.            the court or tribunal trying the case is clothed with jurisdiction to
hear and determine the matter before it;
2.            that jurisdiction was lawfully acquired by it over the person of the
accused;
3.            that the accused is given the opportunity to be heard; and
4.            that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing (PEOPLE VS.
DAPITAN, 197 SCRA 378)
The act of the respondent judge in rendering a decision without even giving
the petitioner the right to adduce evidence in his behalf is a gross violation
of his right to due process of law.  The Decision rendered is NULL AND
VOID for want of due process.

Alonte vs. Savellano - GR No. 131652, March 9, 1998

BAYANI M. ALONTE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO
JR., NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
Due Process in Criminal Proceedings – Waiver of Right to Due Process

Facts:

3|Criminal Procedure
Bayani M. Alonte, incumbent Mayor of Biñan, Laguna, was accused of raping Juvie-Lyn
Punongbayan with accomplice Buenaventura Concepcion. It was alleged that
Concepcion befriended Juvie and had later lured her into Alonte’s house. The case was
brought before the Regional Trial Court of Biňan. The counsel and the prosecutor later
moved for a change of venue due to alleged intimidation. While the change of venue was
pending, Juvie executed an affidavit of desistance. The prosecutor continued on with the
case and the change of venue was done notwithstanding opposition from Alonte. The
case was raffled to the Manila Regional Trial Court under J Savellano. Savellano later
found probable cause and had ordered the arrest of Alonte and Concepcion. Thereafter,
the prosecution presented Juvie and had attested the voluntariness of her desistance the
same being due to media pressure and that they would rather establish new life
elsewhere. Case was then submitted for decision and Savellano sentenced both accused
to reclusion perpetua. Savellano commented that Alonte waived his right to due process
when he did not cross examine Juvie when clarificatory questions were raised about the
details of the rape and on the voluntariness of her desistance.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Alonte has been denied criminal due process.

HELD: 

The Supreme Court ruled that Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding on
the case due to animosity between him and the parties. There is no showing that Alonte
waived his right. The standard of waiver requires that it “not only must be voluntary, but
must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences.” Mere silence of the holder of the right should
not be so construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver. Savellano has not shown impartiality by repeatedly not
acting on numerous petitions filed by Alonte. The case is remanded to the lower court
for retrial and the decision earlier promulgated is nullified.

Alonte vs. Sevillano. Jr.

G.R. No. 131652 & 131728,287 SCRA 245, March 9, 1998 

FACTS: Petitioners were charged for rape before the RTC of Binan, Laguna. A petition
for a change of venue to RTC of Manila was filed by the offended party. During the
pendency of such petition, the offended party executed an affidavit of desistance. The
court granted the change of venue. Public respondent Judge Savellano issued warrant of
arrest for both petitioners. Alonte surrendered and Concepcion posted bail.
They pleaded “not guilty” to the charge. Thereafter, the prosecution presented Juvie and
had attested the voluntariness of her desistance the same being due to media pressure
and that they would rather establish new life elsewhere. Case was then submitted for

4|Criminal Procedure
decision and Savellano sentenced both accused to reclusion Perpetua. Savellano
commented that Alonte waived his right to due process when he did not cross examine
Juvie when clarificatory questions were raised about the details of the rape and on the
voluntariness of her desistance.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners-accused were denied of due process.
RULING: YES.
There is no showing that Alonte waived his right. The standard of waiver requires that it
“not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient
awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Mere silence of the
holder of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must
indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. The case is remanded to the lower
court for retrial and the decision earlier promulgated is nullified.
Jurisprudence acknowledges that due process in criminal proceedings, in particular,
require:
(a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to
hear and determine the matter before it;
(b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused;
(c) that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and
(d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.
The above constitutional and jurisprudential postulates, by now elementary and deeply
imbedded in our own criminal justice system, are mandatory and indispensable. The
principles find universal acceptance and are tersely expressed in the oft-quoted
statement that procedural due process cannot possibly be met without a “law which
hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
trial.”

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxx

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. (Sec. 5,

Constitution)

Facts: 

CFI issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of 7
persons believed in the possession of the accused Pablo Sola in his hacienda in
Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. Armed with the above warrant, the Philippine
Constabulary proceeded to the place of Sola. Diggings made in a canefield yielded two
common graves containing the 7 bodies.

5|Criminal Procedure
Seven (7) separate complaints for murder were thus filed against Pablo Sola and 18
other persons before CFI of Kabankalan. The trial court ordered their arrest. However,
without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is strong, the court granted them the right to post bail. Pablo Sola and two
others have since been released from detention. The witnesses in the murder cases
informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan
which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their safety could be jeopardized. At least 2
of the accused are official with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been
released on bail. In addition, most of the accused remained at large. There had also been
reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses.
Prosecution petitioned for a) change of venue for trial and b) cancellation of the bail
bonds.

Issues:

1. Whether or not change of venue is proper

2. Whether or not the bail bond should be cancelled for failure to abide by the basic

requirement that the prosecution be heard in a case where the accused is charged with a
capital offense, prior to bail being granted.

Held:

1. Yes. The Constitution is quite explicit. The Supreme Court could order "a change of

venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice." The exercise by this
Honorable Court of its above constitutional power in this case will be appropriate. The
witnesses in the case are fearful for their lives. They are afraid they would be killed on
their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Because of fear, they
may either refuse to testify or testimony falsely to save their lives. It may be added that
there may be cases where the fear, objectively viewed, may, to some individuals, be less
than terrifying, but the question must always be the effect it has on the witnesses who
will testify. The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in
mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue.

2. Yes. Considering that bail was granted to the accused without hearing the
prosecution, the bail bonds must be cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of
Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio for such hearing.

Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be
6|Criminal Procedure
resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution
must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that
it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. If the
prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of
procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered
void on that ground.

Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness
must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true.
This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of justice
requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that there is strong
evidence of guilt. It does not suffice, as asserted herein, that the questions asked by the
municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. That fact
did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. (People vs. Sola, G.R. No. L-
56158-64 March 17, 1981)

Antiporda vs. Garchitorena

G.R. No. L-133289, 321 SCRA 551, December 23, 1999

FACTS: Petitioners were charged with the crime of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos filed
before the Sandiganbayan without claiming that one of the accused is a public officer
who took advantage of his position. The information was amended to effectively
describe the offense charged herein and for the court to effectively exercise its
jurisdiction over the same by stating that Antiporda took advantage of his position.
Accused filed a motion for new preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance
and/or recall warrant of arrest issued. The same was denied. The accused subsequently
filed a motion to quash the amended information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged because of the amended information. This was denied as well as the MR on the
same. Hence, this petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

RULING: YES. They are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. 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 belatedly remembered that a jurisdictional fact was
omitted therein.  However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the supplemental arguments to motion for
reconsideration and/or reinvestigation dated June 10, 1997 filed with the same court,
it was they who "challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case
and clearly stated in their Motion for Reconsideration that the said crime is work
connected.

7|Criminal Procedure
Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice, that
is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of
the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties. In the case of Arula vs. Espino it was quite clear that all three requisites, i.e.,
jurisdiction over the offense, territory and person, must concur before a court can
acquire jurisdiction to try a case. It is undisputed that the Sandiganbayan had
territorial jurisdiction over the case. And we are in accord with the petitioners when they
contended that when they filed a motion to quash it was tantamount to a voluntary
submission to the Court's authority.

Nature: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or

Temporary Restraining Order to restrain the 1 st Division Sandiganbayan from further
proceeding with Crim. Case No. 24339 and from enforcing the warrants of arrest or to
maintain the status quo until further orders from this Court.

Antiporda vs. Garchitorena

G.R. No. L-133289, 321 SCRA 551, December 23, 1999

Facts:

·         Municipal Mayor Antiporda and others were charged with the crime
of kidnapping one Elmer Ramos. It was filed with the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan. The Information reads as follows:

“That on September 1, 1995, in Sanchez Mira, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused Eliterio Rubiaco, Caesar Talla, Vicente Gascon
and Licerio Antiporda, Jr…did then and there… kidnap Elmer Ramos from his
residence in Marzan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan against his will with the use of a Maroon
Tamaraw FX motor vehicle…“

·         Sandiganbaya ordered the prosecution to submit an amendment to the

Information:

[Sandiganbayan] expressed anxiety as to the Court's jurisdiction over the

case considering that it was not clear whether or not the subject matter of the
accusation was office related.

For this purpose, Prosecutor Agcaoili is given 30 days to submit the amendment
embodying whatever changes necessary in order for the Information to
effectively describe the offense herein charged...

8|Criminal Procedure
·         The prosecution filed an Amended Information:

“That on September 10, 1997, at Sanchez Mira, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused Licerio Antiporda, Jr., being the Municipal
Mayor of Buguey, Cagayan in the exercise of his official duties as such and
taking advantage of his position, ordered, confederated and conspired with Juan
Gallardo, Barangay Captain of San Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan (now
deceased) and accused Eliterio Rubiaco, barangay councilman of San
Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan, Vicente Gascon and Caesar Talla… kidnap and
abduct the victim Elmer Ramos… and detain him illegally at the residence of
Antiporda  for more than five (5) days.”

·         Accused then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that

a reinvestigation of the case be conducted and the issuance of warrants of arrest be
deferred. 

·         Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto denied the Omnibus Motion.

·         The accused filed a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold

in Abeyance and/or Recall Warrant of Arrest Issued which was also denied "on
the ground that there was nothing in the Amended Information that was
added… so that the accused could not claim a right to be heard separately in an
investigation in the Amended Information.

·         Also, the Court ruled that "since none of the accused have submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court, the accused are not in a position to be
heard on this matter at this time"

·         The accused filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information for lack of

jurisdiction over the offense charged. 

·         Sandiganbayan ignored the Motion to Quash since the accused have

continually refused to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court.

·         A MR was filed wherein it was alleged that the filing of the Motion to

Quash and the appearance of their counsel during the scheduled
hearing amounted to their voluntary appearance and invested the court with
jurisdiction over their persons. 

·         Sandiganbayan denied the MR.

Issues:

9|Criminal Procedure
a) Can the Sandiganbayan, which has no jurisdiction as charged in the original
complaint, acquire jurisdiction through the amendment of Information? NO, petitioners
barred by estoppel.

Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction

·         Sec. 4, par (a) of P.D. 1606, as amended by P.D. 1861:

(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in

relation to their office…

·         Criminal Jurisdiction Requisites:

(1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance
of (SUBJECT MATTER)

(2) the offense must have been committed within its territorial

jurisdiction (VENUE OR TERRITORY)

(3) the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for
trial (PERSON OF THE ACCUSED)

a) forcibly by warrant of arrest

b) or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

·         Petitioners:

o    Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction since the original information did not allege that
one of the petitioners, took advantage of his position as mayor.

o    Court lacking jurisdiction cannot order the amendment of the information.

·         Court:

o    They cannot question the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan because

they insist that said court acquired jurisdiction over their motion to quash.  

SUBJECT MATTER

WON the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the offense charged?

·         NO. The original Information did not mention that the offense committed
by the accused is office-related.

10 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
·         BUT, the petitioners are estopped for in the MR filed with the Sandiganbayan, it
was they who "challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case and clearly
stated in their MR that the said crime is work connected.

·         A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against
his opponent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question
that same jurisdiction. 

·         Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was

thus vested with the authority to order the amendment of the Information.

b) Can the amended information be allowed without conducting anew a preliminary

investigation for the graver offense charged therein?

·         Reinvestigation is not necessary anymore. It is proper only if the

accused's substantial rights would be impaired. The amendments merely
describe the public positions and where the victim was brought when he was
kidnapped.

·         A preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the

case on the merits and but determines only whether there is probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty.

·         The purpose of a preliminary investigation has been achieved already and we see
no cogent nor compelling reason why a reinvestigation should still be conducted.

Lutgarda Cruz vs. People Case Digest

If the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the accused, and
the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, it necessarily exercises
jurisdiction over all matters that the law requires the court to resolve. This includes
the power to order the restitution to the offended party of real property located in
another province.

Facts: 

Cruz was charged with the crime of estafa though falsification of public documents before the RTC
of Manila. Allegedly, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjucation of a parcel of land when she
knew that there were other surviving heirs. The offended party did not reserve the right to file a
separate civil action. Hence, it was tried together with the criminal case. The RTC acquitted Cruz but
on the civil aspect, it court ordered the return of the parcel of land to the surviving heirs. CA upheld
the RTC decision.

11 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
Petitioner appealed contending that the CA erred in finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to
render judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner asserts that the Manila trial court
had no jurisdiction over the parcel of land in Bulacan which is outside the trial court's territorial
jurisdiction.

Issue:

Does the RTC of Manila had jurisdiction to render judgment on the civil aspect of the criminal case
involving a property in Bulacan?

Held:

Being a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, not the civil procedure rules which pertain to civil action arising from the initiatory
pleading that gives rise to the suit.

There are three important requisites which must be present before a court can acquire criminal
jurisdiction. First, the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Second, the court must
have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed. Third, the court must have
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. In the instant case, the trial court had jurisdiction over the
subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the power to hear and decide cases involving
estafa through falsification of a public document. The trial court also had jurisdiction over the
offense charged since the crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The trial court also
acquired jurisdiction over the person of accused-petitioner because she voluntarily submitted to the
courts authority.

Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and the
crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction
over all issues that the law requires the court to resolve. One of the issues in a criminal case is the
civil liability of the accused arising from the crime. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides
that [E]very person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Article 104 of the same Code
states that civil liability x x x includes restitution.

The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted in the criminal action unless reserved by
the offended party. In the instant case, the offended party did not reserve the civil action and the civil
action was deemed instituted in the criminal action. Although the trial court acquitted petitioner of
the crime charged, the acquittal, grounded on reasonable doubt, did not extinguish the civil liability.
Thus, the Manila trial court had jurisdiction to decide the civil aspect of the instant case - ordering
restitution even if the parcel of land is located in Bulacan.

Case remanded for further proceedings. (Lutgarda Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 123340. August 29,
2002)

12 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs HENRY T.
GO G.R. No. 168539 March
25, 2014
 mjva  Criminal Procedure  August 29, 2019 1 Minute

FACTS

An information was filed against Henry Go for alleged violation of

entering into a contract which is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous
to the government and for having supposedly conspired with then DOTC
Secretary Arturo Enrile.

Henry Go filed a Motion to Quash the Information filed against him on

the ground that the operative facts adduced therein do not constitute an
offense under Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. Respondent, citing the show
cause order of the SB, also contended that, independently of the
deceased Secretary Enrile, the public officer with whom he was alleged to
have conspired, respondent, who is not a public officer nor was
capacitated by any official authority as a government agent, may not be
prosecuted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019

ISSUE

WON  the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private person who was
alleged to have conspired with a public official whose salary grade is 27
and that public official has died prior to the filing of the information.

RULING

13 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
The SB is a special criminal court which has exclusive original
jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.A. 3019 committed by
certain public officers, as enumerated in P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A.
8249. This includes private individuals who are charged as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories with the said public officers. In the instant
case, respondent is being charged for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A.
3019, in conspiracy with then Secretary Enrile. Ideally, under the law,
both respondent and Secretary Enrile should have been charged before
and tried jointly by the Sandiganbayan. However, by reason of the death
of the latter, this can no longer be done. Nonetheless, for reasons already
discussed, it does not follow that the SB is already divested of its
jurisdiction over the person of its jurisdiction over the person of and the
case involving herein respondent.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs HENRY T. GO G.R. No. 168539, March

25, 2014

Fact:
An Information filed against respondent is an offshoot of this Court’s
which nullified the various contracts awarded by the Government.
Subsequent to the Decision, a certain Pesayco filed a complaint with
the Office of the Ombudsman against several individuals for alleged
violation of R.A. 3019. Among those charged was herein respondent,
who was then the Chairman and President of PIATCO, for having
supposedly conspired with then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile
(Secretary Enrile) in entering into a contract which is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict, among
others, herein respondent for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019.
While there was likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary
Enrile, he was no longer indicted because he died prior to the issuance
of the resolution finding probable cause. The Sandiganbayan issued

14 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
an Order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused considering that the
accused is a private person and the public official Arturo Enrile, his
alleged co-conspirator, is already deceased, and not an accused in this
case. The Sandiganbayan grants the Motion to Quash and the
Information filed in this case is hereby ordered quashed and
dismissed. Hence this case.

Issue:
Whether the death of a Public Officer in a crime extinguishes the
Liability of his co-conspirators

Held:
No, It is true that by reason of death, there is no longer any public
officer with whom respondent can be charged for violation of R.A.
3019. It does not mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy
between them can no longer be proved or that their alleged
conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the
death of public officer is his criminal liability. His death did not
extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of
conspiracy between him and private respondent. Stated differently,
the death of a public officer does not mean that there was no public
officer who allegedly violated Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019, that there was
probable cause to the public officer for infringement of Sections 3 (e)
and (g) of R.A. 3019. Were it not for his death, he should have been
charged. The requirement before a private person may be indicted for
violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such
private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a
public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person
must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If
circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged

15 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
in court, as in the present case where the public officer has already
died, the private person may be indicted alone.

Miranda et al. v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March

31, 2006
Crim Pro - Jurisdiction

Facts:
On March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Ramon, Isabela which were later
identified as the bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private respondent
Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness protection program.

            Two Informations for murder were filed against 5 police officers including SPO2 Maderal
in the RTC of Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila. The RTC
convicted the accused and sentenced them two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2
Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time being at large. Upon automatic review, the SC
acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.

            In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn confession and identified the
petitioners as the ones responsible for the death of the victims, so, Tuliao filed a criminal
complaint for murder against the petitioners. Acting Presiding Judge Tumaliuan issued a
warrant of arrest against the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.

            Then, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to

reinvestigate, and to recall or quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion,
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of the petitioners and issued a Joint order denying the
urgent motion on the ground that since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons,
the motion cannot be properly heard by the court.

Issues: Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he does not submit his person to
the jurisdiction of the court.

Whether or not a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.

16 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
Held. No, one who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the Jurisdiction of the
Court. Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither jurisdiction over the
person of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.

            Citing Santiago v. Vasquez, there is a distinction between the custody of the law and
jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the Court can act upon the
application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other relief sought by the
dependant where by mere application, thereof, constitutes a waiver of the defence of lack of
jurisdiction over the person accused.

David vs. Agbay G.R. No. 199113 March 18, 2015 Retroactivity of laws,
Citizenship, R.A. 9225
August 4, 2018

FACTS:

Petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon

retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines and purchased a lot along the beach
in Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a residential house. However, the portion where they
built their house is public land and part of the salvage zone.

 Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) over the subject land with the DENR.
In the said application, petitioner indicated that he is a Filipino citizen.

 Private respondent Editha Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, a
Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification
of public documents under Article 172 of the RPC against the petitioner.

 Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of Republic Act
No. 9225.

 The CENRO rejected petitioner’s MLA, ruling that petitioner’s subsequent re-acquisition of
Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab initio.

 An information for Falsification of Public Document was filed before the MTC and a warrant of
arrest was issued against the petitioner.

 Since the crime for which petitioner was charged was alleged and admitted to have been
committed before he had re- acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that
petitioner was at that time still a Canadian citizen.

17 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
Petitioner elevated the case to the RTC via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the MTC. The petition was denied.

 ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner may be indicted for falsification for representing himself as a Filipino
in his Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship
under the provisions of R.A. 9225.

 RULING:

Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A.
9225, he belongs to the first category of natural- born Filipinos under the first paragraph of
Section 3 who lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. As the new law
allows dual citizenship, he was able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the
required oath of allegiance.

For the purpose of determining the citizenship of petitioner at the time of filing his MLA, it is
not necessary to discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity of such
reacquisition because R.A. 9225 itself treats those of his category as having already lost
Philippine citizenship, in contradistinction to those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign
citizens after R.A. 9225 came into force. In other words, Section 2 declaring the policy that
considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship,
should be read together with Section 3, the second paragraph of which clarifies that such policy
governs all cases after the new law’s effectivity.

Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is a Filipino
citizen at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian
citizen.

 Under CA 63, the governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen,
naturalization in a foreign country was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loses
his Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six
months later, the falsification was already a consummated act, the said law having no retroactive
effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in
finding probable cause for falsification of public document under Article 172, paragraph 1.

1) Distinction

18 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
!
2) There is, however, an exception to
the rule that filing pleadings seeking
affirmative relief
constitutes voluntary appearance, and
the consequent submission of one’s
person to the
jurisdiction of the court.
• This is in the case of pleadings
whose prayer is precisely for the
avoidance of the jurisdiction
of the court, which only leads to a
special appearance.
• These pleadings are:
(1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the person of
19 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
the defendant, whether or not other
grounds for dismissal are included;
(2) in criminal cases, motions to quash
a complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over
the person of the accused; and
(3) motions to quash a warrant of
arrest.

!
•
The first two are consequences of the
fact that failure to file them would
constitute a waiver
of the defense of lack of jurisdiction
over the person.
•

20 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
The third is a consequence of the fact
that it is the very legality of the court
process
forcing the submission of the person
of the accused that is the very issue in
a
motion to quash a warrant of arrest.

!
3) SC- affirmed CA
• Judge Anghad is directed to issue
warrants of arrest for petitioners

!
!
21 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
!
!
!
PERSON IN CUSTODY OF LAW
JURISDICTION OVER THE
PERSON
Required before a court can act upon
the application
for bail
Required for the adjudication of reliefs
One can be under custody of law but
not yet subject
to the jurisdiction of the court!

22 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
!
(for ex: person arrested by virtue of
warrant and he
files a motion to quash warrant before
arraignment)
One can be subject to the jurisdiction
of the court
over his person and yet not be in
custody of law!

!
(for ex: accused escapes custody)
Literally custody over the body of the
accused
Accused:!
-
23 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
has been arrested, or!
-
surrendered and!
-

24 | C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e