Scribd
Upload
56 views

PEOPLE vs. Lacson, October 7, 2003

The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to criminal procedure: 1. People vs. Lacson discusses whether a new procedural rule establishing a time bar for criminal cases should apply retroactively. The Court ruled it should not, as retroactive application could deny the state's right to due process. 2. Foz vs People concerns whether the information charging libel established proper venue. As it did not allege where the publication was printed/published, the RTC lacked jurisdiction. 3. Lazarte vs. Sandiganbayan found that generally less specificity is needed in alleging conspiracy when it is a mode of committing a crime rather than the crime itself. 4. People vs. Canares established that

Uploaded by

Alan Nageena Arumpac Mamutuk
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views

PEOPLE vs. Lacson, October 7, 2003

The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to criminal procedure: 1. People vs. Lacson discusses whether a new procedural rule establishing a time bar for criminal cases should apply retroactively. The Court ruled it should not, as retroactive application could deny the state's right to due process. 2. Foz vs People concerns whether the information charging libel established proper venue. As it did not allege where the publication was printed/published, the RTC lacked jurisdiction. 3. Lazarte vs. Sandiganbayan found that generally less specificity is needed in alleging conspiracy when it is a mode of committing a crime rather than the crime itself. 4. People vs. Canares established that

Uploaded by

Alan Nageena Arumpac Mamutuk
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused,

the case may be revived only within the periods provided in the new rule. On the other
hand, if a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without the express consent of the
accused or over his objection, the new rule would not apply. The case may be revived or
refiled even beyond the prescribed periods subject to the right of the accused to oppose the
same on the ground of double jeopardy or that such revival or refilingz is barred by the
statute of limitations. Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or
in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication
to supply its meaning.

PEOPLE vs. Lacson, October 7, 2003


FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive application of penal laws should also cover procedures, and
that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the accused. Petitioner
asserts that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to provide relief to the accused in line with the
constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 5 Associate Justices inhibit themselves from deciding in the Motion for
Reconsideration given they were only appointed in the SC after his Feb. 19, 2002 oral arguments.

The rule should be applied prospectively. The court upheld the petitioners contention that while Sec.8
secures the rights of the accused, it does not and should not preclude the equally important right of the
State to public justice. If a procedural rule impairs a vested right, or would work injustice, the said rule
may not be given a retroactive application.

2. WON the application of the time-bar under Section 8 Rule 117 be given a retroactive
application without reservations, only and solely on the basis of its being favorable to the
accused.

The Court is not mandated to apply rules retroactively simply because it is favorable to the
accused. The time-bar under the new rule is intended to benefit both the State and
the accused. When the rule was approved by the court, it intended that the rule be applied
prospectively and not retroactively, for to do so would be tantamount to the denial
of the States right to due process. A retroactive application would result in absurd, unjust
and oppressive consequences to the State and to the victims of crimes and their heirs.

Foz vs People (2009) G.R. 167764


Facts:
Petitioners Vicente Foz, Jr and Danny Fajardo were charged with the crime of libel. Upon

arraignment, they were assisted by counsel de parte and pleaded not guilty to

the crime charged. rial thereafter ensued, finding both of them guilty.
Petitioners moved for recon but was denied. Dissatisfi ed, they appealed to CA
who affi rmed in toto the RTC decision. They then fi led a motion for recon which
CA denied. In their petition to the SC, petitioners raise for the fi rst time the
issue that the information charging them with libel did not contain allegations sufficient
to vest jurisdiction in the RTC of Iloilo City.
Issue:
'WON the RTC of Iloilo "City had jurisdiction over the offense of libel as charged.

Held: SC ruled on the negative.


The "Court notes that petitioners raised for the first time the issue of the RTCs jurisdiction
over the off ense charged only in their Reply fi led before this "Court and fi nds
that petitioners are not precluded from doing so.
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. Article 360 of the Revised
Penal "Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, provides the specifi c rules as
to the venue in cases of written defamation: The criminal action and civil action
for damages in cases of written defamations, as provided for in this chapter shall be
filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the
Province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where
any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense:

The allegations in the Information that


Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the "city of Iloilo and
throughout the region1 only showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay News
was in considerable circulation but did not establish that the said publication
was printed and first published in Iloilo City.

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the
allegations of the complaint or information, and the off ense must have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court. Considering that the Information failed to allege the venue
requirements for a libel case under Article 360, the Court finds that the RTC of Iloilo City had
no jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting petitioners of the crime of
libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its fi ling
with the court of competent jurisdiction.

Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122, March 13,


2009, 581 SCRA 431 conniving, confederating and mutually helping with each
other Is this sufficient to establish conspiracy? Yes, when conspiracy is not charged as a
crime in itself (conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion or sedition) but only as a mode of
committing the crime, there is less necessity of reciting its particularities in the information
because conspiracy is not the gravamen of the offense charged.

6. Designation of Offense

7. Cause of the Accusation

8. Duplicity of the Offense; Exception


Duplicity is the joinder of 2 or more distinct and separate offenses in the same court of an
indictment or information. It is a ground to quash the information under Sec. 3 (e) of Rule
117. See Sec. 13, Rule 110 A complaint or information must charge only one offense
except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. (Soriano v. People,
June 30, 2009)

PEOPLE V. CANARES

DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE:


SECTION 11 OF THE SAME RULE ALSO PROVIDES THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
STATE IN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION THE PRECISE DATE THE OFFENSE WAS
COMMITTED EXCEPT WHEN THE DATE OF COMMISSION IS A MATERIAL ELEMENT OF
THE OFFENSE. THE OFFENSE MAY THUS BE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTEDON
A DATE AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THE ACTUAL DATE OF ITS COMMISSION. (PEOPLE
VS. CANARES, G.R. NO. 174065, FEBRUARY 18, 2009, SECOND DIVISION, BRION, J.).

METROPOLITAN V. REYNALDO

There are situations however when the SC would disagree with the public
prosecutor or the DOJ on the issue of probable cause. In Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company v. Reynaldo, G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010, the OCP
found that the evidence of the complainant was insufficient to hold the
respondent liable for estafa. On petition for review, the DOJ agreed that
there was no estafa committed. The bank then went to the CA which
affirmed the resolution of the DOJ. The SC disagreed holding that novation is
not a ground to extinguish criminal liability. It then directed the public
prosecutor to file the corresponding Information for estafa against the
respondent.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy