Crimpro Digested Cases

Transcript

People vs. Velasco [G.R. No. 110592. January 23, 1996] 252 SR! 135 Facts: • • • • • • • • In 1991, buy bust operation, accused-appellant Velasco, doing laundry; one officer designated poseur-buyer.  Appellant handed over over less than than 1 gra of shabu shabu in e!change e!change for a "#peso ar$ed ar$ed bill  After the e!change e!change and upon upon pre-arranged pre-arranged signal, signal, couching couching teaates teaates rushed rushed to the scene and iediately apprehended the appellant. %hen the police officers as$ed appellant to open her poc$ets, they found five ore dec$s of shabu. &efenses of the appellant are denial and frae-up, as she aintained that the si! dec$s of shabu 'ere planted evidence.  Accused appeals: appeals: 1. 1. that the the trial court court erred in aditting the the dec$s of shabu in evidence evidence against her because they 'ere obtained through a 'arrantless arrest and search and (. that appellant li$e'ise assails the )urisdiction of the trial court *+ over the case  /ection 5(a) of +ule 110 of the +ules on riinal rocedure 'hich provides that: SEC. 5. Arrest without a warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private  person may, may, without a warrant, warrant, arrest a person: (a) When in his presence, the person to e arreste! has committe!, is actually committin", or is attemptin" to commit an offense. +uling: there is no sho'ing that appellants apprehension 'as arred by such official abuse.  Appellant failed to establish that that at. 2odoy and and the other other ebers ebers of the buy-bust tea tea are policeen engaged in ulcting or other unscrupulous activities 'ho 'ere otivated either by the desire to e!tort oney or e!act personal vengeance, or by sheer 'hi and caprice, 'hen they entrapped her. the presuption of regularity in the perforance of official duty, as 'ell as the principle that findings of the trial court on the credibility of 'itnesses, are entitled to great respect, ust prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated clai of appellant that she had been fraed  As to the issue of 'hether 'hether or or not +.A. 3491 operated operated to divest the +egional rial ourt of  )urisdiction over over appellants appellants case, case, 'e rule in the negative.It negative.It has has been consistently consistently held as a general rule that the )urisdiction of a court to try a criinal action is to be deterined by the la' in force at the tie of the institution of the action. 5(06 %here a court has already obtained and is e!ercising )urisdiction over a controversy, its )urisdiction to proceed to the final deterination of the cause is not affected by ne' legislation placing )urisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. he e!ception to the rule is 'here the statute e!pressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactent. %here a statute changing the )urisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that 'as pending prior to the enactent of a statute. 7urisdiction attached upon the coenceent of the action and could not be ousted by the passage of +.A. 3491 reapportioning the )urisdiction of inferior courts, the application of 'hich to criinal cases is, to stress, prospective in nature. "#$R$%&R$: the )udgent of conviction rendered by the court a 8uo against the accusedappellant olanda Velasco y aintuan is AFFI+&, but 'ith the <&IFIAI<= that the proper iposable sentence should be the indeterinate penalty of si! *4 onths of arresto mayor as the iniu, to four *> years and t'o *( onths of  prision correccional as the a!iu thereof. ?o'ever, it appearing fro the records that the appellant has been in )ail for ore than > years and ( onths, 5(46 thereby having served ore than the a!iu iposable penalty, her iediate release fro custody is hereby ordered, unless she is other'ise detained for soe other cause G.R. No. 931'3 Sep(e)*er 15, 1993 /AAV&+A Vs. &<7 ((4 /+A >0@ Facts: • • • • • • • • In 7uly 19@3, rivate respondent +aos sold their shares of stoc$s of I to petitioner /aavedra for 1.( payable in instalents, 'ith an autoatic rescission clause in case any installent 'as not paid on its due date. y /epteber 19@3, there 'as unpaid balance about (##$, 'here petitioner 'ithheld payent because the sellers failed to coply 'ith their 'arranties; it 'as deposited in escro' instead, sub)ect to release once the 'arranties 'ere coplied 'ith. In =oveber, petitioner filed a civil coplaint for daages against +aos alleging that he *petitioner 'as the resident and principal stoc$holder of the copany. +espondent +aos 8uestioned petitionerBs capacity to sue in behalf of I, claiing that petitioner ceased to be its president 'hen the sale of the I, shares of stoc$ to hi 'as autoatically rescinded on 1" /epteber 19@3. +aos and group e!ecuted a docuent C+escission of  uch less can the rovincial rosecutor arrogate to hiself the  )urisdiction vested solely 'ith the / ublic respondent &<7 in attepting to )ustify the action of the rovincial rosecutor avers that the latter is epo'ered to a$e a preliinary ruling on the atter for the purpose of finding probable cause against petitioner, and that petitioner ay raise the pendency of the issue before the / as his defense at the trial proper. %e are not persuaded. he duty of a prosecutor during preliinary investigation is not only to find evidence to 'arrant continuation of the criinal process against an accused. eleents of  the crie of per)ury to be ta$en into account in deterining 'hether there is a pria facie case, to 'it: *a that the accused ade a stateent under oath or e!ecuted an affidavit upon a aterial atter; *b that the stateent or affidavit 'as ade before a copetent officer, authoried to receive and adinister oath; *c (a( 4n (a( s(a(e)en( or a//4av4(, (e accuse )ae a 4ll/ul an el4*era(e asser(4on o/ a /alseoo ; and, *d that the s'orn stateent or affidavit containing the falsity is re8uired by la' or ade for a legal purpose. Verily, there is grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the +esolution of (" 7uly 19@@ finding a pria facie case for per)ury against petitioner. A fortiori, the assailed &<7 +esolutions ust be struc$ do'n as having been issued 'ithout sufficient factual and legal bases. orrespondingly, the Inforation filed 'ith the asig rial ourt pursuant thereto ust li$e'ise be disissed. 2alve vs. A (03 /+A 4@" G.R. No. 1106 &c(o*er 2, 199 eople vs. +epiroga 0"3 /+A @19 2.+. =o. 10@>"1. ay 13, (##1 <J V. +I+<2A 13 ay (##1 Facts: A 'as a eber of the hilippine Ary. A coplaint 'as filed before the #@ that e!clusively vests the authority on a ilitary officer to conduct preliinary investigation in cases involving ebers of the AF. It siply entions an Cinvestigating officerD 'ho shall e!aine available 'itnesses re8uested by the accused, 'ithout reference to his being a ilitary officer. 2iven the foregoing, the contention of A that the authority to file charges against hi lies 'ithin the )urisdiction of the  issues: first, 'hether the trial court, a civil court and not a court-artial, had )urisdiction over his person 'ho 'as then a ilitary officer as 'ell as over the offense; second, 'hether the Assistant rovincial rosecutor had )urisdiction to conduct the preliinary investigation; third, 'hether the filing of the Inforation 'as proper since he failed to file his counter-affidavit during preliinary investigation; and, fourth, 'hether he acted in la'ful self-defense.  A preliinary investigation guarantees the accused his right to subit counter-affidavits and present evidence. ?o'ever, if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not subit counter-affidavits 'ithin the 1#-day period, the investigating officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the coplainant.51@6 &uring the prescribed period, accused-appellant failed to present his counter-affidavit despite due notice. ?ence, the Assistant rovincial rosecutor conducting the preliinary investigation did not err 'hen he resolved the case solely on the basis of coplainants evidence and, for his o'n negligence, accused-appellant cannot no' blae the investigating officer. +ule 11( /ec 0*d PP vs. $uar(e G.R. No. 77232 %e*ruary 26, 1990 172 SR! '50 etition for ertiorari *+ule 4" L + order disissing the criinal inforation for concubinage filed against private respondents, on the ground of lac$ of )urisdiction. %ac(s n July 1976, upon coplaint of 'ife Ala Aggabao, an inforation against private respondents lvino Aggabao and Villa /uratos for the crie of concubinage allegedly coitted in /epteber 19@0 'as filed by rovincial Fiscal in + of abagan, Isabela. Gpon being arraigned, private respondents entered a plea of not guilty, and filed a otion to disiss. + disissed on the ground of lac$ of )urisdiction *should be under inferior courts because the iposable penalty is 41d to >y(. he prosecution contends that the penalty of destierro for the concubine is 41d to 4yrs, 'ell 'ithin the )urisdiction of +. otion for reconsideration still unsuccessful. ?ence, /ol. 2en. petitioned to / under +ule 4".