Remedial Law 2 Cases

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

1/24

G.R. No. 183788 April 5, 2010

KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI,Petitioner,vs.THE HON. JOE!ITO ". #I!!AROA, i$ %i& '(p('i)* (& +r&ii$ J/ o r($'% o )% RT" o (4()i "i)*, ($ANNIE TORRE-TY,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

#I!!ARAA, JR.,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari1under Rule ! of the 1""# Rules of Civil Procedure, as a$ended, assailin% the Resolutionsdated &u%ust '(, '))#'and *ul+ 1, '))( of the Court of &ppeals in C&-.R. SP No. ""#. The Court of &ppeals dis$issed the

petition for certiorari and prohi/ition filed /+ petitioner see0in% the reversal of the Nove$/er 1, ')) and 2arch ", '))# Orders of theRe%ional Trial Court 3RTC4 of 2a0ati Cit+, 5ranch , which found that there was no pre6udicial 7uestion to warrant the suspension ofthe cri$inal actions a%ainst petitioner.

The followin% facts are esta/lished8

So$eti$e in &u%ust '))), Rose$ar+ Torres T+-Rase0hi 3Rose$ar+4, the sister of petitioner9s late father &le:ander Torres T+, filed apetition for the issuance of letters of ad$inistration of the estate of her $other, 5ella Torres 35ella4, /efore the RTC of Pasi%Cit+.! Petitioner initiall+ opposedRose$ar+9s petition, /ut the+ eventuall+ reached an a$ica/le settle$ent and entered into aco$pro$ise a%ree$ent which the+ su/$itted to the RTC for approval.#In a Decisiondated Nove$/er 1", '))', the RTC approved theco$pro$ise a%ree$ent.

Su/se7uentl+, two 3'4 of Rose$ar+9s alle%ed si/lin%s, Peter Torres T+ 3Peter4 and Catherine Torres T+-Chave; 3Catherine4, filed with the

Court of &ppeals a Petition to &nnul *ud%$ent &pprovin% Co$pro$ise &%ree$ent, doc0eted as C&-.R. SP No. #'''. "Peter andCatherine clai$ed that the+ are also /iolo%ical children of the late 5ella, and are entitled to participate in the settle$ent of the latter9sestate. owever, in su/se7uent discussions, Rose$ar+ $ade 0nown to the$ her intention to %et adisproportionatel+ lar%er share of the estate, /ut the+ did not a%ree. No a%ree$ent was reached and as far as the+ 0now, no pro%ress was$ade towards the settle$ent of 5ella9s estate. The+ were not aware that Rose$ar+ had filed a petition for the issuance of letters ofad$inistration and that a 6ud%$ent /+ co$pro$ise a%ree$ent was rendered /+ the RTC of Pasi% Cit+. Rose$ar+ had falsel+ averred thataside fro$ herself, petitioner, who was her niece, was the onl+ other heir of 5ella. In petitioner9s opposition, it was li0ewise averred that

petitioner and Rose$ar+ were the onl+ heirs of 5ella. The su/se7uent co$pro$ise a%ree$ent contained si$ilar aver$ents, and it was notdisclosed that Peter, Catherine, and =annie were also 5ella9s heirs. It was onl+ so$eti$e in *une ')) that the+ ca$e to 0now of thedecision /+ co$pro$ise a%ree$ent of the Pasi% Cit+ RTC.

Petitioner and Rose$ar+ filed their answers11 to the petition for annul$ent of 6ud%$ent and the petition-in-intervention. The+ raisedsi$ilar defenses. The+ denied that Peter, Catherine, and =annie were heirs of 5ella for, as far as the+ 0new, the three 3(4 were literall+

purchased fro$ third persons who represented to 5ella and the latter9s co$$on-law hus/and, &le6andro T+, that the+ were a/andonedchildren. 5ella and &le6andro too0 pit+ on the three 3(4 and /rou%ht the$ up as their own. This was 0nown within the fa$il+ circle, /utwas not disclosed to Peter, Catherine, and =annie in order to protect the$ fro$ the sti%$a of 0nowin% the+ were unwanted children.>owever, &le6andro and 5ella did not le%all+ adopt the$? hence, the+ were never conferred the ri%hts of le%iti$ate children.

@hile the action for annul$ent of 6ud%$ent was pendin% /efore the Court of &ppeals, =annie filed a co$plaint 1' for falsification andper6ur+ a%ainst petitioner and Rose$ar+. =annie alle%ed that petitioner and Rose$ar+ falsel+ and $aliciousl+ stated in the pertinentpleadin%s filed /efore the RTC of Pasi% Cit+ that the late 5ella had onl+ two 3'4 heirs, na$el+ the two 3'4 of the$. Petitioner andRose$ar+ forthwith filed a 6oint $otion to suspend the preli$inar+ investi%ation on the %round of a pendin% pre6udicial 7uestion /eforethe Court of &ppeals.1(The+ ar%ued that the issue of whether Peter, Catherine, and =annie are related to 5ella and therefore le%al heirs ofthe latter was pendin% /efore the Court of &ppeals. The investi%atin% prosecutor denied the 6oint $otion and found pro/a/le cause a%ainst

petitioner and Rose$ar+ for two 3'4 counts each of falsification of pu/lic docu$ents.1The prosecutor held that the issue /efore theCourt of &ppeals is the validit+ of the co$pro$ise a%ree$ent which is not deter$inative of the cri$inal case which involves the lia/ilit+

of petitioner and Rose$ar+ for falsification, alle%edl+ for willfull+ $a0in% the false state$ents in the opposition to the petition for lettersof ad$inistration and in the su/se7uent co$pro$ise a%ree$ent filed /efore the RTC of Pasi% Cit+.

On Dece$/er '), '))!, three 3(4 infor$ations1!a%ainst petitioner and Rose$ar+ were thus filed with the 2etropolitan Trial Court32eTC4 of 2a0ati Cit+, 5ranch 1.

Petitioner filed a petition for review1 with the Depart$ent of *ustice 3DO*4 and a $otion to defer proceedin%s 1#/efore the 2eTC on the%round of the pendin% appeal /efore the DO*. &lso, petitioner and Rose$ar+ filed with the 2eTC separate $otions to suspend

proceedin%s on the %round of pre6udicial 7uestion.1 >owever, petitioner9s appeal was dis$issed /+ the DO*,1" while her $otions /eforethe 2eTC were denied /+ the said court.')The 2eTC a%reed with the prosecutor that the issue /efore the Court of &ppeals in the actionfor annul$ent of 6ud%$ent is the validit+ of the co$pro$ise a%ree$ent while the cri$inal case involves their lia/ilit+ for falsification of

pu/lic docu$ents. The 2eTC also denied petitioner9s $otion for reconsideration.'1

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

2/24

&%%rieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohi/ition '' with the RTC of 2a0ati Cit+, 5ranch . In an Order'( datedNove$/er 1, ')), the RTC denied the petition on the %round that there was no pre6udicial 7uestion? hence, the 2eTC did not act with%rave a/use of discretion in den+in% petitioner9s $otion to suspend proceedin%s. The RTC held that there was no pre6udicial 7uestion asthe 7uantu$ of evidence in the civil action for annul$ent of 6ud%$ent differs fro$ the 7uantu$ of evidence re7uired in the cri$inalaction for falsification of pu/lic docu$ents. Petitioner9s $otion for reconsideration' was also denied /+ the RTC in its Order'! dated2arch ", '))#.1avvphi1

Andaunted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohi/ition /efore the Court of &ppeals assailin% the RTC9s orders. In its &u%ust'(, '))# Resolution,'the appellate court dis$issed the petition on the %round that the certification of non-foru$ shoppin% was si%ned

onl+ /+ petitioner9s counsel and not /+ petitioner herself. Petitioner9s $otion for reconsideration was also denied in the *ul+ 1, '))Resolution'# of the Court of &ppeals.

>ence, the present recourse.

Petitioner alle%es that8

I

T>E >ONOR&5&T T>E CERTI=IC&TION O= NON-=ORA2 S>OPPIN @&S SINED 5 COANSEe ar%ues that such denial effectivel+ deprived hi$ of his su/stantive ri%ht to a

preli$inar+ investi%ation.

Still, petitioner9s ar%u$ent fails to persuade. There is nothin% procedurall+ i$proper on the part of the trial court in disre%ardin% the resultof the preli$inar+ investi%ation it itself ordered. *udicial action on the $otion rests in the sound e:ercise of 6udicial discretion. In den+in%the $otion, the trial court 6ust followed the 6urisprudential rule laid down in Crespo v. !udge "ogul(' that once a co$plaint orinfor$ation is filed in court, an+ disposition of the case as to its dis$issal or the conviction or ac7uittal of the accused rests on the sounddiscretion of the court. The court is not dutifull+ /ound /+ such findin% of the investi%atin% prosecutor. In Solar #eam Entertainment$ %ncv. !udge &o'(( we held8

It /ears stressin% that the court is however not /ound to adopt the resolution of the Secretar+ of *ustice since the court is $andated toindependentl+ evaluate or assess the $erits of the case, and $a+ either a%ree or disa%ree with the reco$$endation of the Secretar+ of*ustice. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretar+ of *ustice would /e an a/dication of the trial court9s dut+ and 6urisdiction todeter$ineprima faciecase.

Conse7uentl+, petitioner has no valid /asis to insist on the trial court to respect the result of the preli$inar+ investi%ation it ordered to /econducted.

In fine, we find no reason not to uphold petitioner9s conviction. The records su/stantiate the RTC and C&9s findin% that petitionerpossessed, al/eit constructivel+, the su/6ect firear$s and a$$unition when he arrived in the Philippines on *anuar+ (), 1"". 2oreover,no si%nificant facts and circu$stances were shown to have /een overloo0ed or disre%arded which if considered would have altered theoutco$e of the case.

In the prosecution for the cri$e of ille%al possession of firear$ and a$$unition, the Court has reiterated the essential ele$ents in Peoplev. Eling( to wit8 314 the e:istence of su/6ect firear$? and, 3'4 the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the sa$e does not havethe correspondin% license for it.

In the instant case, the prosecution proved /e+ond reasona/le dou/t the ele$ents of the cri$e. The e:istence of the su/6ect firear$s andthe a$$unition were esta/lished throu%h the testi$on+ of &cierto. Their e:istence was li0ewise ad$itted /+ petitioner when he enteredinto stipulation and throu%h his su/se7uent 6udicial ad$ission. Concernin% petitioner9s lac0 of authorit+ to possess the firear$s, SPO5ondoc, *r. testified that upon verification, it was ascertained that the na$e of petitioner does not appear in the list of re%istered firear$

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

8/24

holders or a re%istered owner thereof. &s proof, he su/$itted a certification to that effect and identified the sa$e in court. The testi$on+of SPO 5ondoc, *r. or the certification fro$ the =EO would suffice to prove /e+ond reasona/le dou/t the second ele$ent. (!

& final point. Repu/lic &ct 3R&4 No. '"(too0 effect on *une , 1""# or after the co$$ission of the cri$e on *anuar+ (), 1"".>owever, since it is advanta%eous to the petitioner, it should /e %iven retrospective application insofar as the penalt+ is concerned.

Section 1 of PD 1, as a$ended /+ R& '" provides8

Section 1. (nla'ful "anufacture$ Sale$ Acquisition$ Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or %nstruments (sed or%ntended to be (sed in the "anufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. : : :

The penalt+ ofprision mayorin its $ini$u$ period and a fine of Thirt+ thousand pesos 3P(),))).))4 shall /e i$posed if the firear$ isclassified as hi%h powered firear$ which includes those with /ores /i%%er in dia$eter than .( cali/er and " $illi$eter such as cali/er .), .1, ., .! and also lesser cali/ered firear$s /ut considered powerful such as cali/er .(!# and cali/er .'' center-fire $a%nu$ andother firear$s with firin% capa/ilit+ of full auto$atic and /+ /urst of two or three8Provided$ ho'ever, That no other cri$e was co$$itted

/+ the person arrested.

Prision mayor in its $ini$u$ period ran%es fro$ si: +ears and one da+ to ei%ht +ears. >ence, the penalt+ i$posed /+ the RTC asaffir$ed /+ the C& is proper.

6HEREORE,the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of &ppeals in C&-.R. CR No. '1)! affir$in% the *anuar+'(, 1"" Decision of the Re%ional Trial Court of Pasa+ Cit+, 5ranch 1)" dated *anuar+ '(, 1"", convictin% petitioner TeofiloEvan%elista of violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1, as a$ended, and sentencin% hi$ to suffer the penalt+ ofi$prison$ent of si: +ears and one da+ to ei%ht +ears and to pa+ a fine of P(),))).)) is AIRED.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 177727 J($/(r* 1, 2010

HARO!D #. TAARGO,Petitioner,vs.ROU!O A6INGAN, !!OYD ANTI+ORDA ($ !I"ERIO ANTI+ORDA, JR.,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

"ORONA,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 of the Nove$/er 1), ')) decision' and 2a+ 1, '))# resolution(of the Court of &ppeals3C&4 in C&-.R. SP No. "(1).

&tt+. =ran0lin B. Ta$ar%o and his ei%ht-+ear-old dau%hter, ail =ran;ielle, were shot and 0illed at around !81! p.$. of &u%ust 1!, '))(alon% Nueva Street corner Escolta Street, 5inondo, 2anila. The police had no leads on the perpetrators of the cri$e until a certainRe+naldo eron surfaced and e:ecuted an affidavit dated Septe$/er 1', '))(. >e stated that a certain

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

9/24

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

10/24

She co$pletel+ i%nored other relevant pieces of evidence such as8 314 Colu$na9s 2a+ (, ')) letter to respondent

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

11/24

6HEREORE, the petition is here/+ DENIED.

G.R. No. 18=02 (* , 2010

!IGAYA ANTO ($ ROERT UNDA,Petitioners,vs.DOINGO I. ORDA, JR.,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

NA"HURA,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule ! of the Rules of Court, see0in% to reverse and set aside the Court of &ppeals 3C&4Decision1 dated 2a+ '), '))" and its Resolution' dated Septe$/er 1), '))". The assailed Decision reversed and set aside the Ordersdated Septe$/er (), '))! and Dece$/er ', '))! of the Re%ional Trial Court 3RTC4 of ParaMa7ue Cit+, 5ranch '#, ( while the assailedResolution denied the $otion for reconsideration filed /+ petitioners

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

12/24

Re%ional Trial Court of Parana7ue Cit+, 5ranch '#, are REBERSED and SET &SIDE. The E:ecutive *ud%e of the Re%ional Trial Courtof ParaMa7ue Cit+ is DIRECTED to cause the re-raffle of Cri$inal Case No. )1- )"'1 for appropriate proceedin%s.

SO ORDERED.1

The C& concluded that the RTC turned a deaf ear to the crucial testi$onial evidence of the prosecution that, $ore li0el+ than not, thecri$e char%ed was co$$itted /+ the accused. It specificall+ pointed out that Sa/ino positivel+ identified the accused and related in detailtheir supposed participation in 0illin% =rancis. The court could not also i%nore the state$ents $ade /+ *onas at the ris0 of incri$inatin%hi$self. @ith these, the C& found it necessar+ that a full /lown trial /e conducted to unearth the truth /ehind their testi$onies. Indisre%ardin% the evidence presented /+ the prosecution, the C& declared that, indeed, the RTC co$$itted %rave a/use of discretion. It,however, clarified that, in $a0in% the a/ove pronounce$ents, the court was not enunciatin% that the accused were %uilt+ of the cri$echar%ed.1# =or possi/le /ias and pre6udice, the court li0ewise ordered the inhi/ition of the Presidin% *ud%e and the su/se7uent re-raffle ofthe case.1

On $otion of petitioners, the C& clarified that the reversal of the RTC Orders carried with it the reversal of the trial court9s findin% thatpetitioners were entitled to /ail.1"

>ence, the present petition raisin% the followin% issues8

3a4 Sec. 1, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court defines what are to /e appealed. F&ppeal $a+ /e ta0en fro$ a 6ud%$ent or final orderthat co$pletel+ disposes of the case.F The Septe$/er (), '))! order of the RTC of ParaMa7ue Cit+ dis$issin% the infor$ationfor $urder Fdisposes of the action in its entiret+ and leaves nothin% $ore to /e done to co$plete the relief sou%ht.F >ence, there$ed+ of the People of the Philippines is appeal. HD+ Chun vs. 2endo;a,

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

13/24

On the first issue, the petition for certiorari filed /+ respondent under Rule ! of the Rules of Court is inappropriate. It /ears stressin% thatthe Order of the RTC, %rantin% the $otion of the prosecution to withdraw the Infor$ations and orderin% the case dis$issed, is final

/ecause it disposed of the case and ter$inated the proceedin%s therein, leavin% nothin% to /e done /+ the court. Thus, the proper re$ed+is appeal.'1

Respondent filed with the C& the special civil action for certiorari under Rule ! of the Rules of Court instead of an ordinar+ appeal, not/ecause it was the onl+ plain, speed+, and ade7uate re$ed+ availa/le to hi$ under the law, /ut, o/viousl+, to $a0e up for the loss of hisri%ht to an ordinar+ appeal. It is ele$entar+ that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot /e a su/stitute for an appeal, wherethe latter re$ed+ is availa/le, as it was in this case. & special civil action under Rule ! cannot cure a part+9s failure to ti$el+ appeal the

assailed decision or resolution. Rule ! is an independent action that cannot /e availed of as a su/stitute for the lost re$ed+ of an ordinar+appeal.''

To /e sure, a petition for certiorari is dis$issi/le for /ein% the wron% re$ed+. Indeed, we have noted a nu$/er of e:ceptions to this%eneral rule, to wit8 14 when pu/lic welfare and the advance$ent of pu/lic polic+ dictate? '4 when the /roader interest of 6ustice sore7uires? (4 when the writs issued are null and void? 4 when the 7uestioned order a$ounts to an oppressive e:ercise of 6udicial authorit+?!4 when, for persuasive reasons, the rules $a+ /e rela:ed to relieve a liti%ant of an in6ustice not co$$ensurate with his failure to co$pl+with the prescri/ed procedure? or 4 in other $eritorious cases.'(

None of the a/ove e:ceptions are present in the instant case? hence, we appl+ the %eneral rule.1avvphi1 Respondent not havin% availedhi$self of the proper re$ed+ to assail the dis$issal of the case a%ainst petitioners, the dis$issal has /eco$e final and e:ecutor+. '

=or reasons that will /e discussed /elow, even on the $erits of the case, the C& erred in reversin% the Orders of the RTC.

The tas0 of the Presidin% *ud%e when an Infor$ation is filed with the court is first and fore$ost to deter$ine the e:istence or non-e:istence of pro/a/le cause for the arrest of the accused. Pro/a/le cause is such set of facts and circu$stances that would lead areasona/l+ discreet and prudent $an to /elieve that the offense char%ed in the Infor$ation or an+ offense included therein has /eenco$$itted /+ the person sou%ht to /e arrested. In deter$inin% pro/a/le cause, the avera%e $an wei%hs the facts and circu$stanceswithout resortin% to the cali/rations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical 0nowled%e. >e relies on co$$on sense. &findin% of pro/a/le cause needs onl+ to rest on evidence showin% that, $ore li0el+ than not, a cri$e has /een co$$itted and that it wasco$$itted /+ the accused. Pro/a/le cause de$ands $ore than suspicion? it re7uires less than evidence that would 6ustif+ conviction. '!

2oreover, when confronted with a $otion to withdraw an Infor$ation on the %round of lac0 of pro/a/le cause /ased on a resolution ofthe DO* Secretar+, the /ounden dut+ of the trial court is to $a0e an independent assess$ent of the $erits of such $otion. >avin%ac7uired 6urisdiction over the case, the trial court is not /ound /+ such resolution, /ut is re7uired to evaluate it /efore proceedin% furtherwith the trial and should e$/od+ such assess$ent in the order disposin% the $otion. '

Records show that the RTC, on $otion of the prosecution, allowed the withdrawal of the Infor$ations for $urder, holdin% that theprosecution witnesses9 testi$onies were not credi/le. Pursuant to the Court9s Decision in .R. No. 1!'(, the RTC reviewed anew therecords of the case and $ade an independent evaluation of the evidence presented to ascertain the e:istence or non-e:istence of pro/a/lecause to indict the petitioners. &fter such evaluation, the court, on Septe$/er (), '))!, dis$issed the case for $urder a%ainst the accused,includin% petitioners herein, ratiocinatin% that no pro/a/le cause e:isted to indict the$ for their cri$e. Conse7uentl+, it lifted the warrants

for their arrest and ordered their i$$ediate release fro$ detention. The prosecution9s $otion for reconsideration was denied on Dece$/er', '))!.

& closer scrutin+ of the Order of the RTC reveals that the Presidin% *ud%e allowed the withdrawal of the Infor$ations, conse7uentl+dis$issed the case a%ainst petitioners, and lifted the warrants for their arrest on the followin% %rounds8 14 the incredi/ilit+ of the earlierstate$ents of ina, Ernesto and Dennis /ecause of their su/se7uent recantation?'#'4 the i$pro/a/ilit+ that Dennis and Ernesto saw andheard the conversations of the accused in view of the counter-evidence su/$itted /+

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

14/24

vs.EI!IO A. GONZA!EZ III, )%$ Oi'r-I$-"%(r, Oi' o )% Dp/)* O;/&;($ or !/>o$, ADORA"ION A. AGADA,Gr() I$

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

15/24

R/li$ o )% Oi' o )% Dp/)* O;/&;($ or !/>o$

E$ilio &. on;ale; III 3on;ale;4, the Officer-in Char%e of the Office of the Deput+ O$/uds$an for

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

16/24

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

17/24

issued the warrants1! for the arrest of the petitioners.

On 1 Octo/er 1"", petitioners filed an O$ni/us 2otion to uash, Recall @arrants of &rrest andJor =or Reinvesti%ation. 1 Petitionersinsisted that the+ were denied due process /ecause of the non-o/servance of the proper procedure on preli$inar+ investi%ation prescri/edin the Rules of Court. Specificall+, the+ clai$ed that the+ were not afforded the ri%ht to su/$it their counter-affidavit. Then the+ ar%uedthat since no such counter-affidavit and supportin% docu$ents were su/$itted /+ the petitioners, the trial 6ud%e $erel+ relied on theco$plaint-affidavit and attach$ents of the respondent in issuin% the warrants of arrest, also in contravention with the Rules of Court.Petitioners further pra+ed that the infor$ation /e 7uashed for lac0 of pro/a/le cause. 2oreover, one of the accused, i.e., 5en

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

18/24

It appears fro$ the records that upon the issuance of the warrant of arrest, petitioners i$$ediatel+ posted /ail as the+ wanted to avoide$/arrass$ent, /ein% then the officers of Ar/an 5an0. On the scheduled date for the arrai%n$ent, despite the petitioners9 refusal to entera plea, the court a 7uo entered a plea of FNot uilt+F for the$.

The erstwhile rulin% of this Court was that postin% of /ail constitutes a waiver of an+ irre%ularit+ in the issuance of a warrant of arrest,that has alread+ /een superseded /+ Section ', Rule 11 of the Revised Rule of Cri$inal Procedure. The principle that the accused is

precluded fro$ 7uestionin% the le%alit+ of the arrest after arrai%n$ent is true onl+ if he voluntaril+ enters his plea and participates durin%trial, without previousl+ invo0in% his o/6ections thereto.''

&s held in O0a/e v. >on. utierre;8'(

It /ears stressin% that Section ', Rule 11 of the Revised Rules on Cri$inal Procedure is a new one, intended to $odif+ previous rulin%sof this Court that an application for /ail or the ad$ission to /ail /+ the accused shall /e considered as a waiver of his ri%ht to assail thewarrant issued for his arrest on the le%alities or irre%ularities thereon. The new rule has reverted to the rulin% of this Court in People v.

ed. The new rule is curative in nature /ecause precisel+, it was desi%ned to suppl+ defects and cur/ evils in procedural rules. >ence, therules %overnin% curative statutes are applica/le. Curative statutes are /+ their essence retroactive in application. 5esides, procedural rulesas a %eneral rule operate retroactivel+, even without e:press provisions to that effect, to cases pendin% at the ti$e of their effectivit+, inother words to actions +et undeter$ined at the ti$e of their effectivit+. 5efore the appellate court rendered its decision on *anuar+ (1,'))1, the Revised Rules on Cri$inal Procedure was alread+ in effect. It /ehoved the appellate court to have applied the sa$e in resolvin%the petitioner9s petition for certiorari and her $otion for partial reconsideration.1avvphi1

2oreover, considerin% the conduct of the petitioner after postin% her personal /ail /ond, it cannot /e ar%ued that she waived her ri%ht to7uestion the findin% of pro/a/le cause and to assail the warrant of arrest issued a%ainst her /+ the respondent 6ud%e. There $ust /e clearand convincin% proof that the petitioner had an actual intention to relin7uish her ri%ht to 7uestion the e:istence of pro/a/le cause. @henthe onl+ proof of intention rests on what a part+ does, his act should /e so $anifestl+ consistent with, and indicative of, an intent to

voluntaril+ and une7uivocall+ relin7uish the particular ri%ht that no other e:planation of his conduct is possi/le. : : :.>erein petitioners filed the O$ni/us 2otion to uash, Recall @arrants of &rrest andJor =or Reinvesti%ation on the sa$e da+ that the+

posted /ail. Their /ail /onds li0ewise e:pressl+ contained a stipulation that the+ were not waivin% their ri%ht to 7uestion the validit+ oftheir arrest.'On the date of their arrai%n$ent, petitioners refused to enter their plea due to the fact that the issue on the le%alit+ of theirarrest is still pendin% with the Court. Thus, when the court a 7uo entered a plea of not %uilt+ for the$, there was no valid waiver of theirri%ht to preclude the$ fro$ raisin% the sa$e with the Court of &ppeals or this Court. The postin% of /ail /ond was a $atter of i$perativenecessit+ to avert their incarceration? it should not /e dee$ed as a waiver of their ri%ht to assail their arrest. The rulin% to which we havereturned inPeople v. ed'! stated8

: : : The present defendants were arrested towards the end of *anuar+, 1"'", on the Island and Province of 2arindu7ue /+ order of the6ud%e of the Court of =irst Instance of

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

19/24

respondents, plus two 3'4 copies for the official file. The said affidavits shall /e sworn to /efore an+ fiscal, stateprosecutor or %overn$ent official authori;ed to ad$inister oath, or, in their a/sence or unavaila/ilit+, a notar+pu/lic, who $ust certif+ that he personall+ e:a$ined the affiants and that he is satisfied that the+ voluntaril+e:ecuted and understood their affidavits.

Sec. ". Cases not fallin% under the ori%inal 6urisdiction of the Re%ional Trial Courts nor covered /+ the Rule on Su$$ar+Procedure.

3a4 @here filed with the fiscal.L If the co$plaint is filed directl+ with the fiscal or state prosecutor, theprocedure outlined in Section (3a4 of this Rule shall /e o/served. The fiscal shall ta0e appropriate action /asedon the affidavits and other supportin% docu$ents su/$itted /+ the co$plainant. 3underscorin% supplied4

The cri$e to which petitioners were char%ed was defined and penali;ed under second para%raph of &rticle 1#' in relation to &rticle 1#1of the Revised Penal Code.

&rt. 1#'.Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. L The penalt+ of prision correccional in its $ediu$ and$a:i$u$ periods and a fine of not $ore than P!,))) pesos shall /e i$posed upon8

1. &n+ private individual who shall co$$it an+ of the falsifications enu$erated in the ne:t precedin% article in an+ pu/lic orofficial docu$ent or letter of e:chan%e or an+ other 0ind of co$$ercial docu$ent? and

'. &n+ person who, to the da$a%e of a third part+, or with the intent to cause such da$a%e, shall in an+ private docu$entco$$it an+ of the acts of falsification enu$erated in the ne:t precedin% article.

&n+ person who shall 0nowin%l+ introduce in evidence in an+ 6udicial proceedin% or to the da$a%e of another or who, with the intent tocause such da$a%e, shall use an+ of the false docu$ents e$/raced in the ne:t precedin% article or in an+ of the fore%oin% su/divisions ofthis article, shall /e punished /+ the penalt+ ne:t lower in de%ree.

Prision correccional in its $ediu$ and $a:i$u$ periods translates to i$prison$ent of ' +ears, $onths and 1 da+.' The ne:t lower inde%ree to prision correccional is arresto $a+or in its $a:i$u$ period to prision correccional in its $ini$u$ period which translates to $onths and 1 da+ to ' +ears and $onths'#of i$prison$ent. Since the cri$e co$$itted is not covered /+ the Rules of Su$$ar+Procedure,' the case falls within the e:clusive 6urisdiction of the first level courts /ut appl+in% the ordinar+ rules. In such instance,

preli$inar+ investi%ation as defined in Section 1, Rule 11' of the 1"! Rules of Cri$inal Procedure is not applica/le since such sectioncovers onl+ cri$es co%ni;a/le /+ the RTC. That which is stated in Section "3a4 is the applica/le rule.

Ander this Rule, while pro/a/le cause should first /e deter$ined /efore an infor$ation $a+ /e filed in court, the prosecutor is not$andated to re7uire the respondent to su/$it his counter-affidavits to oppose the co$plaint. In the deter$ination of pro/a/le cause, the

prosecutor $a+ solel+ rel+ on the co$plaint, affidavits and other supportin% docu$ents su/$itted /+ the co$plainant. If he does not findpro/a/le cause, the prosecutor $a+ dis$iss outri%ht the co$plaint or if he finds pro/a/le cause or sufficient reason to proceed with thecase, he shall issue a resolution and file the correspondin% infor$ation.

The co$plaint of respondent, ver/ati$, is as follows8

CO2P

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

20/24

Ar/an 5an0Ar/an &venue, 2a0ati2etro 2anila

entle$en8

This has reference to +our propert+ located a$on% Ro:as 5oulevard, Pasa+ Cit+ which +ou purchasedfro$ Isa/ela Su%ar Co$pan+ under a Deed of &/solute Sale e:ecuted on Dece$/er 1, 1"".

In line with our warranties as the Seller of the said propert+ and our underta0in% to deliver to +ou the fulland actual possession and control of said propert+, free fro$ tenants, occupants or s7uatters and fro$ an+o/struction or i$pedi$ent to the free use and occupanc+ of the propert+ and to prevent the for$er tenantsor occupants fro$ enterin% or returnin% to the pre$ises. In view of the transfer of ownership of the

propert+ to Ar/an 5an0, it $a+ /e necessar+ for Ar/an 5an0 to appoint &tt+. PeMa li0ewise as itsauthori;ed representative for purposes of holdin%J$aintainin% continued possession of the said propert+and to represent Ar/an 5an0 in an+ court action that $a+ /e instituted for the a/ove$entioned purposes.

It is understood that an+ attorne+9s fees, cost of liti%ation and an+ other char%es or e:penses that $a+ /eincurred relative to the e:ercise /+ &tt+. PeMa of his a/ove$entioned duties shall /e for the account ofIsa/ela Su%ar Co$pan+ and an+ loss or da$a%e that $a+ /e incurred to third parties shall /e answera/le

/+ Isa/ela Su%ar Co$pan+.

Ber+ trul+ +ours,

Isa/ela Su%ar Co$pan+

5+8

>ER2&N PONCE*AE P>I

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

21/24

I would li0e to re7uest for an authorit+ fro$ Ar/an 5an0 per attached i$$ediatel+ as the tenants are7uestionin% authorit+ of the people who are helpin% us to ta0e possession of the propert+.

2aril+n On%

c. 2e$orandu$ dated ') Nove$/er 1"", cop+ of which is attached as anne: F>F, which states8

2E2OR&NDA2

To8 &tt+. 2a%adaleno 2. PeMaDirector

=ro$8 Enri7ue C. 2ontilla IIIPresident

Date8 ') Nove$/er 1""

ou are here/+ directed to recover and ta0e possession of the propert+ of the corporation situated at Ro:as5oulevard covered /+ TCT No. !(' of the Re%istr+ of Deeds for Pasa+ Cit+, i$$ediatel+ upon thee:piration of the contract of lease over the said propert+ on '" Nove$/er 1"". =or this purpose, +ou areauthori;ed to en%a%e the services of securit+ %uards to protect the propert+ a%ainst intruders. ou $a+ also

en%a%e the services of a law+er in case there is a need to %o to court to protect the said propert+ of thecorporation. In addition, +ou $a+ ta0e whatever steps or $easures are necessar+ to ensure our continued

possession of the propert+.

ENRIAE C. 2ONTIT.

S%d. 2&D&

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

22/24

It is evident that in the affidavit-co$plaint, specificall+ in para%raph 1, respondent $erel+ introduced and identified Fthe /oard of the/an0, na$el+, Teodoro 5orlon%an, *r., Delfin on;ales, *r., 5en6a$in De

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

23/24

&lthou%h the e:tent of the 6ud%es personal e:a$ination depends on the circu$stances of each case, to /e sure, he cannot 6ust rel+ on the/are certification alone /ut $ust %o /e+ond it. This is /ecause the warrant of arrest issues not on the stren%th of the certification standin%alone /ut /ecause of the records which sustain it.(>e should even call for the co$plainant and the witnesses to answer the courts

pro/in% 7uestions when the circu$stances warrant.(!

&n arrest without a pro/a/le cause is an unreasona/le sei;ure of a person, and violates the privac+ of persons which ou%ht not to /eintruded /+ the State.(

2easured a%ainst the constitutional $andate and esta/lished rulin%s, there was here a clear a/dication of the 6udicial function and a clearindication that the 6ud%e /lindl+ followed the certification of a cit+ prosecutor as to the e:istence of pro/a/le cause for the issuance of awarrant of arrest with respect to all of the petitioners. The careless inclusion of 2r. 5en owever, there are reco%ni;ede:ceptions which, as su$$ari;ed in,roc-a v.Enrile,( are8

a. To afford ade7uate protection to the constitutional ri%hts of the accused?("

/. @hen necessar+ for the orderl+ ad$inistration of 6ustice or to avoid oppression or $ultiplicit+ of actions?)

c. @hen there is a pre6udicial 7uestion which issub judice?1

d. @hen the acts of the officer are without or in e:cess of authorit+?'

e. @here the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or re%ulation?(

f. @hen dou/le 6eopard+ is clearl+ apparent?

%. @here the court had no 6urisdiction over the offense?!h. @here it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution?

i. @here the char%es are $anifestl+ false and $otivated /+ the lust for ven%eance? #and

6. @hen there is clearl+ noprima faciecase a%ainst the accused and a $otion to 7uash on that %round has /een denied.

T% &/&)($)i

8/10/2019 Remedial Law 2 Cases

24/24

considered as proceedin% fro$ the personal 0nowled%e of herein respondent who failed to, /asicall+, alle%e that he was present at the ti$eof the e:ecution of the docu$ents. Neither was there an+ $ention in the co$plaint-affidavit that herein respondent was fa$iliar with thesi%natures of the $entioned si%natories to /e a/le to conclude that the+ were for%ed. @hat &tt+. PeMa actuall+ stated were /ut sweepin%assertions that the si%natories are $ere du$$ies of ISCI and that the+ are not in fact officers, stoc0holders or representatives of thecorporation. &%ain, there is no indication that the assertion was /ased on the personal 0nowled%e of the affiant.

The reason for the re7uire$ent that affidavits $ust /e /ased on personal 0nowled%e is to %uard a%ainst hearsa+ evidence. & witness,therefore, $a+ not testif+ as what he $erel+ learned fro$ others either /ecause he was told or read or heard the sa$e. Such testi$on+ isconsidered hearsa+ and $a+ not /e received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. ! >earsa+ is not li$ited to oral testi$on+ or

state$ents? the %eneral rule that e:cludes hearsa+ as evidence applies to written, as well as oral state$ents. !#The re7uire$ent of personal 0nowled%e should have /een strictl+ applied considerin% that herein petitioners were not %iven theopportunit+ to re/ut the co$plainant9s alle%ation throu%h counter-affidavits.

uite noticea/le is the fact that in the letter dated 1" Dece$/er 1"" of >er$an Ponce and *ulie &/ad, neither of the two $ade therepresentation that the+ were the president or secretar+ of ISCI. It was onl+ &tt+. PeMa who asserted that the two $ade suchrepresentation. >e alle%ed that 2aril+n On% was never a stoc0holder of ISCI /ut he did not present the stoc0 and transfer /oo0 of ISCI.&nd, there was neither alle%ation nor proof that 2aril+n On% was not connected to ISCI in an+ other wa+.lawphil 2oreover, even if2aril+n On% was not a stoc0holder of ISCI, such would not prove that the docu$ents she si%ned were falsified.

The Court $a+ not /e co$pelled to pass upon the correctness of the e:ercise of the pu/lic prosecutor9s function without an+ showin% of%rave a/use of discretion or $anifest error in his findin%s.! Considerin%, however, that the prosecution and the court a 7uo co$$itted$anifest errors in their findin%s of pro/a/le cause, this Court therefore annuls their findin%s.

Our pronounce$ent in *i$ene; v. *i$ene;!"as reiterated in 5alta;ar v. People is apropos8

It is : : : i$perative upon the fiscal or the 6ud%e as the case $a+ /e, to relieve the accused fro$ the pain of %oin% throu%h a trial once it isascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a pri$a facie case or that no pro/a/le cause e:ists to for$ a sufficient /elief as tothe %uilt of the accused. &lthou%h there is no %eneral for$ula or fi:ed rule for the deter$ination of pro/a/le cause since the sa$e $ust /edecided in the li%ht of the conditions o/tainin% in %iven situations and its e:istence depends to a lar%e de%ree upon the findin% or opinionof the 6ud%e conductin% the e:a$ination, such a findin% should not disre%ard the facts /efore the 6ud%e nor run counter to the cleardictates of reasons. The 6ud%e or fiscal, therefore, should not %o on with the prosecution in the hope that so$e credi/le evidence $i%htlater turn up durin% trial for this would /e a fla%rant violation of a /asic ri%ht which the courts are created to uphold. It /ears repeatin%that the 6udiciar+ lives up to its $ission /+ visuali;in% and not deni%ratin% constitutional ri%hts. So it has /een /efore. It should continueto /e so.

On the fore%oin% discussion, we find that the Court of &ppeals erred in affir$in% the findin%s of the prosecutor as well as the court a 7uoas to the e:istence of pro/a/le cause. The cri$inal co$plaint a%ainst the petitioners should /e dis$issed.

6HEREORE, the petition is here/+ GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of &ppeals dated ') *une '))), in C&-.R. SP No.", is RE#ERED and ET AIDE. The Te$porar+ Restrainin% Order dated ' &u%ust '))) is here/+ $ade per$anent.&ccordin%l+, the 2unicipal Trial Court in Cities, Ne%ros Occidental, 5a%o Cit+, is here/+DIRE"TED to DII Cri$inal Case Nos.(, , ! and .