Documents

Title Five

Description
ADHAKHDAHKJ
Categories
Published
of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Title Five   CIVIL LIABILITY Chapter One PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES Article 100.   Civil liability of a person guilty of felony.  - Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. BATAS PAMBANSA Blg. 129   AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Section 20.   Jurisdiction in criminal cases.    –  Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive srcinal jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. Section 32.   Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases.    –  Except in cases falling within the exclusive srcinal jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (1) Exclusive srcinal jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and (2) Exclusive srcinal jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however,  That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive srcinal  jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A, No. 7691)  SEC. 8. Complaint. - For purposes of preliminary investigation, the complaint filed with the prosecutor's office shall, as far as practicable, be accompanied or covered by an Information Sheet and shall state, among others a) the full and complete names and exact home, office or postal addresses of the complainant and his witnesses; b) The full and complete name and exact home, office or postal address of the respondent; c) The offense charged and the place and exact date and time of its commission; and d) Whether or not there exists a related case and, if so, the docket number of said case and the name of the Investigating Prosecutor thereof. SEC. 40. Designation of offense charged. - For offenses that are punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the caption shall set forth the denomination of the offense and the specific article and paragraph of the statute violated. Where there is another charge or countercharge in the same case having one case number or in case of a consolidated resolution involving two or more criminal cases with two or more docket numbers, the caption shall also contain said information. DIGESTS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION October 26, 2012 FACTS:  Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the “extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty. On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez to the United States. On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Mark Jiminez through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition. ISSUE: Whether or not to uphold a citizen’s basic due process rights or the governments ironclad duties under a treaty. RULING: Petition dismissed. The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien , and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of the law of the land. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provision of the constitution or statute of the local state. Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. “Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of i nternational law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.  “The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. “Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the incorporation clause in the above cited constitutional provision. “In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and  a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances. “The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogate priori takes effect  –  a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution People vs Lagon (51) People vs Beriales Facts:  Ricardo Beriales, Benedicto Custodio and Pablito Custodio were convicted of the crime of murder by CFI of Leyte. They have allegedly murdered one Saturnina Gonzales Porcadilla on September 14, 1974. Upon the hearing , appellants’  counsel moved for a reinvestigation of the case which was granted. Trial court postponed hearing until December 17 and 18, 1974. The fiscal filed a motion to defer the hearing until such time as the reinvestigation shall have terminated. The trial court, however, motu proprio cancelled the Dec. 17 & 18 hearing and reset the arraignment and trial to December 10 and 11, 1974. At the December 10 hearing, counsel of appellants manifested to the court that the city fiscal had set the reinvestigation on December 12, 1974 and had already sent subpoenas to the witnesses. The court nevertheless proceeded to hearing the next day, December 11. Upon appellants’ counsels insistence, the court relying on constitutional mandate of the right to a speedy trial, re-scheduled the hearing to December 13. On the day of the trial, counsel asked to the court to wait for the City Fiscal to appear since the Fiscal might be able to report on the reinvestigation. However, the court insisted on arraigning the appellants. Appelants refused to give a plea because they are waiting for the fiscal, the trial court entered a plea of “Not Guilty” for each of them. Appellants counsel manifested that they could not go to trial without the City Fiscal. For the same reason, counsel refused to cross-examine the witnesses presented. Counsel reiterated that they do not agree with the trial when defense was called to present evidence. Trial court considered the case to be submitted for decision and announced promulgation of the decision on December 17. Issues: (1) Whether or not the trial court should hold the trial until after the reinvestigation (2) Whether or not appellants were denied due process (3) Whether or not the fiscal should be present during proceedings Held: (1) After the trial court granted the appellants’ motion for reinvestigation, it became incumbent upon the court to hold in abeyance the arraignment and trial of the case until the City Fiscal shall have conducted and made his report on the result of such reinvestigation. (2) When the trial court ignored the appellants’  manifestationsobjecting to the arraignment and trial of the case, it committed a serious irregularity which nullifies the proceedings because such procedure is repugnant to the due process clause of the Constitution. (3) Although fiscal turns over active conduct of trial to private prosecutor, he should be present during the proceedings. While there is nothing in the rule of practice and procedure in criminal cases which denies the right of the fiscal to turn over the active conduct of the trial to a private prosecutor, nevertheless, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he must be present during the proceeding.  Republic vs Sunga June 20, 1988 FACTS:  An information for Attempted Homicide was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of CamarinesSur against accused-private respondents Rafael Anadilla, Ariston Anadilla and Jose  Anadilla. Ahearing was set but was postponed since Rafael Anadilla was not yet arrested by the authorities.The court a quo issued an order for the arrest of said accused, and at the same time set a newtrial date. However, 4 months before the trial date, the court a quo issued the now assailed order which reads: ³Considering that the offended party, Jose Dadis is no longer interested in the further prosecution of this case and there being no objection on the part of the accused Ariston Anadilla, Rafael Anadilla and Jose Anadilla, this case is hereby DISMISSED with costs de oficio. Consequently, the order of arrest issued by this Court against the accused Rafael  Anadilla dated March 11, 1974, is hereby ordered lifted and has no force and effect. The bail bond posted for the provisional liberty of the accused is hereby ordered cancelled. In the case of Ariston Anadilla and Jose Anadilla, the Provincial Warden is hereby ordered to release said accused from their detention immediately upon receipt of this order. SO ORDERED.³ The order was based on an AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE which was executed and notarized by the victim and mentioned that: a.he was no longer interested in the further prosecution of the case b.he had forgiven the accused c.his material witnesses could not be located, and that without their testimonies, the guilt of the accused could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The provincial fiscal moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, but was also denied. Hence the petition and issue of the case. ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo may dismiss a criminal case on the basis of an affidavit ofdesistance executed by the offended party, but without a motion to dismiss filed by theprosecuting fiscal. RATIO: The court cites a similar case Crespo v. Mogul in its when it answered that the filing of acomplaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquiresjurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case. When after thefiling of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trialcourt and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, theCourt thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose ofdetermining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accusedis terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. The rule is that once a complaint is filed, the disposition of the accused rests in the sounddiscretion of the court. The fiscal cannot impose his opinion on the court when the case has beensubmitted to it as his jurisdiction ends in the direction and control of the prosecution of the case.Only the court can decide what the best direction is for the case, as it is within its exclusive jurisdiction. In this case, almost 10 years have elapsed since the date of the filing of the information,hence it was not unusual that the victim could not find his witnesses, the testimonies of whom areneeded to convict the accused. The fiscal still believed that he could convict the accused withoutthee testimonies in his MR!  Although the Crespo doctrine holds that it is the courts duty to judge whether acase should be dismissed, any move of the offended part to dismiss the case, evenwithout objection of the accused, should first be submitted to the fiscal. It is only after thefiscal¶s hearing that the court should exercise its duty to continue or dismiss the case. Petition dismissed PEOPLE VS MADALI
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks