Está en la página 1de 7

1 Gimenez vs Nazareno omission of said witness is intentional and tainted with bad faith.

 Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule
upon the evidence presented in the court.
 The court need not wait until the accused who escaped decides to appear 4 Amatan vs aujero
in court to present his evidence and cross-examine the witnesses against
him.  the death of the victim cannot by simple logic be reconciled with plea of
 To allow the delay of proceedings renders ineffective the constitutional guilty to a lower offense of attempted homicide for the crime of homicide
provision on trial in absentia. necessarily produces death while attempted homicide does not

2 Alvizo vs sandiganbayan 5 People vs villarama

 delay must not be oppresive.  plea bargaining can be entertained during trial provide the prosecution
 The factors to determine whether or not the right is violated are the does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for the
following: crime charged.
 the length of the delay
 The reasons for such delay
 The assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused.
 The prejudice caused by the delay. 6 People vs alicando

 to show voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the accused and that the
accused has full comprehension of the consequences of the plea.
3 People vs de asis  The records must reveal information about the personality profile of the
accused which can serve as a trust worthy index of his capacity to give a
 Generally, there is nothing that can prevent the prosecution from free and informed plea of guilty. The age, socio-economic as well
presenting witnesses in court not listed in the information unless the educational background of the accused must be plumned by the court.
 The purpose of installing illegal connection is to steal electricity which
is also theft. In other words, it is the same act of installing that is
7 People vs estomaca punishable. Since you are acquitted or convicted under the national law, you
8 People vs mendoza cannot be prosecuted under a municipal law. You are protected by the
second double jeopardy:
 when the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense the court may  If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal in
receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be imposed. It either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. (Double
will certainly be an abuse of discretion on the part of the judge to persist in jeopardy for the punishment of the same act)
holding the accused bound to his admission when the totality of evidence
points to his acquittal. 12 People vs vergara

9 Cinco vs sandiganbayan  Express consent has been defined as that which is directly given either
verbal or in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal, consent requiring
 bill of particulars is not allowed during preliminary investigation, it is no interference or implication to supply its meaning.
applicable only when the case is already in the court for trial or arraignment.  What they did was merely to move for the reinvestigation of the case
However if the fiscal cannot understand then complaint, the case might be before the prosecutor. It cannot be considered as an express consent of the
dismissed accused for the dismissal of the case.

10 Danguilan-vitug vs ca 13 People vs. mogol

 the accused may moved to quash the complaint or information where it  there is no double jeopardy because the dismissal of the case is void.
contains averments which if true would constitute a legal excuse or What the judge should have done is to continue trying the case even if there
justification. Hence, for the alleged privilege to be ground for quashing the is an error of the offense charged. Therefore you cannot dismiss a case then
information, it must be averred in the information itself. If it is not stated, refile it.
then it is not admitted.
14 Enrile vs amin
11 People vs relova
 in the light of the absorption doctrine, the prosecution must fail. All
crimes which are mere components of rebellion or are committed in  can the testimony come ahead before the discharge?
furtherance thereof are absorbed in rebellion. The theory of absorption in  Yes, because of the danger to the life of the accused. The rules of court
rebellion must not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses provide that the accused may be discharged before the prosecution rested its
under special laws. case. In the case the prosecution has not rested its case.
 Moreover, while it is true that the accused turns as state witness must be
15 Santiago vs garchitorena discharged first before testifying, the court may allow the testimony before
the discharge if the circumstances so warrant. The risk in the life of the
 The legalization of 32 information was done by single act and intent accused justified the deviation from the normal course.
thus covered by the concept of delito continuado. The consolidation into 1
offense is proper 19 Webb vs de leon

16 People vs. ocimar  the prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department whose
principal power and responsibility is to see to it that our laws are faithfully
 when you say most guilty, you do not apply the rule on conspiracy. But executed.
you apply the rule on individual acts. By most guilty means, highest degree
of culpability in terms of participation in the commission of the offense and 20 Bernardo vs ca
not the severity of the penalty. In case the on who shot the victim is the
most guilty.  the power to grant leave of court to file a demurrer is subject to the
sound discretion of the trial court. The purpose is to determine whether or
17 People vs ca and inspector joe pring not the accused in filing his demurrer is merely stalling the proceedings.

 hearing means that you have the opportunity to read what the witness 21 The order of dismissal is equivalent but the judgment of acquittal must
said and the opportunity to object. It is not necessary that he will be be in writing. The order dismissing the case was not in writing but was
questioned in court. In the case, the prosecution has submitted the sworn dictated in open court. Since it was never in writing, there was no judgment
statement of the accused and the evidence showing that the conditions for of acquittal.
the discharge have been met. 22 Vino vs. people

18 Rosales vs ca  a person charged as principal maybe convicted as an accessory because

greater responsibility includes lesser responsibility. Accessory is a lesser  to warrant a new trial, the affidavit of desistance must constitute a
degree of participation. recantation and not a mere withdrawal from the prosecution of the case. The
complainant's affidavit of desistance did not constitute a recantation,
23 Parungao vs sandiganbayan because she did not deny the truth of her complaint but merely sought to be
allowed to withdraw and discontinue the case because she wished to start
 he cannot be convicted of malversation if the crime charged is illegal life anew and live normally again. She must renounce her statement and
use public funds and property. In malversation of funds, the offender withdraw it fomally and publicly.
misappropriates public funds for personal use or allows any other person to
take public funds for their personal use. In illegal use of public funds, the 27 People vs. clamor
accused applies public funds under his administration to a public use other
than that for which the fund was appropriated by law or ordinance.  both the previous and the subsequent testimonies should be carefully
compared, the circumstances, reasons or motives for the change shall be
24 Pecho vs. sandiganbayan carefully scrutinized in order to determine the credibility of witnesses.

 There is no such thing as attempted violation of the anti-graft act. The 28 People vs balisacan
attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages only apply to felonies in the
RPC. Under crimes punishable by special law, you only punish the  The prosecution can appeal because the judgment of acquittal is null and
consummated stage, unless the special law says so. void. In the first place, the hearing is not for the purpose of proving his
innocence. The hearing is for the purpose only of proving mitigating
25 People vs CFI circumstance not for proving justifying circumstance. If that is the case, the
plea of guilty is hereby withdrawn and the parties will proceed to trial.
 RTC is divided into several branches, each of the branches is not a court
distinct and separate from others. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in 29 Garcia vs people
the judges, so when the complaint or information is filed before one branch
or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to said branch or the judge alone to the  only death penalty imposed by the RTC shall be automatically reviewed
exclusion of others because it is the same court although different branches. by the SC. In the instant case, the penalty imposed is a capital penalty other
than death, therefore a notice of appeal must be filed. Since the accused
26 People vs. garcia failed to file, the decision becomes final and unappealable.
30 People vs. panganiban appeal.

 where the accused is convicted for murder and is sentenced to reclusion 35 People vs. rio
perpetua, arose out of the same offense occasion as other criminal cases for
murder where the accused is sentenced to death in a joint decision, the  the right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon the conviction of an
former shall be deemed appealed automatically jointly with the other cases. accused by a trial court. It continues even during appeal, such that the duty
of the court to assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused
31 People vs enciso interposes an intent to a appeal.
 Where the accused signified his intent to withdraw his appeal, the court
 Despite the accused's pleas of guilty, it must not be taken against him, is required to know the reason for the withdrawal. Where the reason is
for it is clear in the evidence presented that said guilt has not been proved poverty, the court must assign a counsel de officio, for despite such
beyond reasonable doubt. The that they did not appeal is of no consequence, withdrawal, the duty of the court to protect the rights of the accused subsists
as the case is on automatic review. and perhaps with greater reason.

32 People vs Panganiban 36 Burgos, sr. Vs chief of staff

33 People vs fernandez
 the search warrant was general. What were seized were paraphernalia,
 Acquittal applies to accused number 2. While in effect, he committed a pamphlets, printing machines, etc which according to the search warrant,
defiance of the law by escaping, such act may be committed out of were used in committing the crime of subversion under PD885 so there is
desperation that he cannot his innocence. one law violated.
 It is true that there is only one law violated but there are many sections
34 Teodoro vs ca in the decree. You must allege the section violated, otherwise it becomes a
general warrant.
 under sec. 12 of rule 122, the withdrawal of appeal is not a matter of
right, but a matter which lies in the sound discretion of the court and the 37 Olaes vs people
appellate court. After the parties in this case have filed their memoranda and
the memorandum of the prosecution had been filed and a copy served on  although the provision of the law was not specified, there is only one
appellant, it was too late for Teodoro to move for the withdrawal of the section for marijuana. So, even if it is not mentioned in the search warrant,
it is understood that it points to marijuana. the letter of the law, which provides that no search of a house, room, or any
other premises shall be made except in the presence of at least one
38 People vs dichoso competent witness, resident of the neighborhood.

 marijuana is regulated, shabu is prohibited 41 Mustang lumber, inc vs ca

 the dangerous drug act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically
with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into prohibited and regulated  under the rules of court, a search warrant has a lifetime of ten days.
drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely Hence, it could be served at any time within the said period, and if its object
related Or which belong to the same class of species. Accordingly, one or purpose cannot be accomplished in one day, the same may be continued
search warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the the following day or days until completed. Provided, it is still within the
dangerous drugs act. ten-day period.

39 Twentieth century fox vs ca 42 Washington distillers, inc. vs ca

 television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders and tape cleaners are  in case of question as to the ownership of the bottles, there should be
articles which can be found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate another case for replevin. The la tondeña should file action for interpleader
business of lending or renting out betamax tapes. In short these articles and to determine who really owns the bottles. But you cannot use a mere search
appliances are generally connected with, or related to a legitimate business warrant to resolve the issue of ownership. A search warrant is only to get the
not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of property, but it does not have the same effect as a writ of replevin.
copyright laws. Hence, including these articles without specification and/or
particularity that they were really instruments in violating an anti-piracy law 43 Uy khey teng vs villareal
makes the search warrant too general which could result in any video store.
 they have the authority to arrest the owner because the crime is being
40 Quintero vs nbi committed in their presence. So there is a valid warrantless arrest. And since
there is a valid warrantless arrest, automatically there is also a valid
 such procedure, wherein members of the raiding party can roam around warrantless seizure.
the raided premises unaccompanied by any witness for the others are
accompanying the other raiding party is held violative of both the spirit and 44 People vs catan
 appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto in the act of selling and
delivering marijuana to the poseur-buyers. His case therefore falls under the
category of a valid warrantless arrest. The subsequent search of his house,
yielding other incriminating evidence was a search made as an incident to a
valid warrantless arrest in the immediate vicinity where the arrest was

45 People vs gerente

 the search conducted on gerente's person was lawful because it was

made as an incident to a valid arrest.
 Citing the case of adams vs. williams, it was ruled that the individual
being arrested may be frisked for concealed weapons, that may be used
against the arresting officer, and all unlawful articles found in his person or
within his immediate control may be seized.