Caoili.docx

Caoili vs CA (Presumption of possession when not applied) Facts: Rodolfo Caoili along with Tony Yip was charged with the violation of PD 1612. Through a resolution, The Secretary of Justice excluded Caoili from the information finding that the prima facie presumption of fencing from possession of stolen property does not apply to Caoili because the allegations of Atule and Azuela do not indicate that respondent Caoili acquired the skiving machines in question knowing that the same were stolen property. The presumption does not apply to Caoili as complainant reacquired the subject skiving machines not from respondent Caoili but from Yip. The SOJ did not believe the assertion of the complainant that Caoili told them that he purchased the stolen skiving machines which he in turn sold to Yip for it is simply out of ordinary human behaviour that someone would intimate to another an unlawful act. Despite of this resolution, the trial court still declined the exclusion of the petitioner and opined that the information was already filed in Court and hence the determination of petitioner’s guilt lies only to the Court without interference from the SOJ. Petitioner now contends that the determination of a prima facie case against him cannot attain finality as the matter is still under review by the SOJ who has prerogative over the matter so long as the accused has not yet been arraigned. The CA sided with the Trial Court hence, this petition. Issue: WON the CA committed GAOD? Ruling: Ruling is not related to our topic, there were no discussions about fencing, what was discussed was whether the Court may be precluded from continuing with the case because of the resolution of the SOJ. NO. The rule in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as [to] its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.

People vs Jaranilla (ISLAW applicable to recidivist) Facts: At around 11 in the evening, Gorriceta was driving a pick-up truck on his way home. Along the way he was hailed down by the 3 accused who asked for a ride to Mandurriao. Gorriceta resisted at first but he eventually agreed as he remembered he needed to get something to his father’s house which is near Mandurriao. They reached the destination and Gorriceta parked at a hospital. There he was told by the 3 to wait for them. Few minutes later the 3 accused appeared each of them carrying two fighting cocks. They ran towards the truck and instructed Gorriceta to drive because people were chasing them. While on the road again Gorriceta saw two patrolmen chasing them. Patrolman Jabatan fired a warning shot which caused Gorriceta to stop. When the patrolmen approached the truck they ordered the men to go down but none of them obeyed. One of the accused suddenly pulled out his revolver but did not shoot. Jaranilla, all of a sudden shot Jabatan. The shooting frightened Gorriceta. He immediately started the motor of the truck and drove straight home. Jaranilla kept on firing towards Jabatan. The 3 accused alighted in front of Gorriceta’s house. Jaranilla warned Gorriceta not to tell anybody about the incident. Gorriceta went up to his room. After a while, he heard policemen shouting his name and asking him to come down. Instead of doing so, he hid in the ceiling. It was only at about eight o'clock in the morning of the following day that he decided to come down. His uncle had counselled him to surrender to the police. The policemen took Gorriceta to their headquarters. He recounted the incident to a police investigator. Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robo con homicidio with the aggravating circumstances of use of a motor vehicle, nocturnity, band, contempt of or with insult to the public authorities and recidivism (for Suyo and Brillantes, They admitted their previous convictions for theft). The fiscal utilized Gorriceta as a state witness. Hence, the case was dismissed as to him. During trial and after the prosecution had rested its case, Jaranilla escaped from jail. Issue: WON recidivists are entitled to ISLAW? Ruling: Also to be appreciated against appellants Suyo and Brillantes is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism which was alleged in the information. They admitted their previous convictions for theft. The theft of six roosters valued at six hundred pesos is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (Art. 309[3], Revised Penal Code). That penalty should be imposed in its maximum period because only aggravating circumstances are present (Art. 64[3], Revised Penal Code). Although recidivists, appellants Suyo and Brillantes are not habitual delinquents. They are entitled to an indeterminate sentence (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103).