Ismael-crimbarops.docx

People vs. Cenido [G.R. No. 210801, July 18, 2016]; 797 SCRA 102 FACTS: Remedios with his co-accused were found guilty of illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs. They filed for an MR to which the court denied. However, Remedios died while her appeal was still pending resolution. ISSUE: WON Remedio's criminal liability has been totally extinguished by virtue of his death. HELD: Yes. Under Art. 89, the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Remedios's death renders the Court's Resolution irrelevant and ineffectual as to her. Accordingly, the criminal case against Remedios is dismissed. Ramos v. People [G.R. No. 218466. January 23, 2017.] FACTS: One evening, Ramos et al. were having an altercation with Rolando (victim). Ramos yelled “Okinam patayan ka!” (Son of a bitch! I will kill you!). They chase and eventually surrounded Rolando. The witness heard 4 successive gunshots and it was on the last shot when he saw Rolando fell face down on the ground. To ensure Rolando’s demise, Ramos approached Rolando and shot him again. Ramos et al. fled the scene. The next day, Rolando’s body was found near the duhat tree. Ramos et al. all invoked the defenses of denial and alibi. RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder with the use of unlicensed firearm. CA affirmed RTC’s conviction. ISSUE: WON CA correctly upheld Ramos et al.’s conviction for murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. HELD: NO. Ramos et al. should only be liable for simple murder and not murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. Under Section 1 of RA 8294, the onus probandi of establishing these elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution. In this case, while Rolando sustained five (5) gunshot wounds which led to his demise, it is unclear from the records: (a) whether or not the police officers were able to recover the firearm used as a murder weapon; and (b) assuming arguendo that such firearm was recovered, whether or not such firearm was licensed. The disquisitions of the courts a quo were silent regarding this matter. As the Information alleged that Ramos et al. used an unlicensed firearm in killing Rolando, the prosecution was duty-bound to prove this allegation. Having failed in this respect, the Court cannot simply appreciate the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance. People v. Dela Cruz [G.R. No. 192820, [June 4, 2014]] FACTS: One morning, AAA, 11 years old, was roused from sleep after she felt a touch from somebody, which turned out to be Renato, her father. Renato covered her mouth and told her to keep quiet. She was not able to do anything while her father kissed and touched her private parts. On another occasion, while their mother was away, Renato forcibly led her out of the room to which AAA offered no resistance as her father laid her on the bed at the sala. Renato then inserted his penis in her vagina. Moments later, BBB her eldest sister woke up to urinate and saw Renato on top of AAA and their lower body parts covered with blanket. Renato hurriedly stood up and put on his pants while holding his brief and proceeded to the kitchen in pursuit of BBB. AAA quickly went out of the house w/o a word and proceeded to their aunt's house to tell what she witnessed. Later, BBB told her mother about the incident.

The defense claimed that the case was filed against the accused because his daughter got mad about his wrongdoings to his wife. He also denied that neither did he rape AAA as claimed by the prosecution. Two seperate informations were filed against Renato, charging him with 2 counts of rape. RTC ruled however, that he is guilty of rape on one occassion and only acts of lasciviousness in the other. CA affirmed RTC's decision. ISSUE: WON the penalty for the crime of rape committed was correctly imposed. HELD: YES. Art. 266-B of the RPC states that death penalty should be imposed if the rape was committed when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a perent of the victim. In view of AAA's certificate of live birth, she was only 15 when the rape took place and that her biological father was Renato. Notwithstanding the provisions of Art. 266-B of the RPC, CA correctly held that the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua in accordance of Sec. 2 of RA 9346 which imposes that the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of penalties of the RPC. Jessica Lucila G. Reyes vs. The Honorable Ombudsman [GR Nos. 212593-94, 213163-78, 213540-41, 213542-43, 215880-94, 213475-76; March 15, 2016] FACTS: Petitioners (Gigi Reyes, Janet Napoles, the Napoles siblings, and John De Asis) were all charged in two complaints (one by the NBI, the other by the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman) as coconspirators for their participation in the PDAF scam. The Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable cause against Reyes, Janet Napoles, and De Asis for plunder, and against the same parties including the Napoles siblings for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Informations were filed by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan for the said charges. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution finding probable cause for issuance of warrants of arrest against “all the accused”. Petitioners filed their respective petitions with SC, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman and/or the Sandiganbayan in rendering their resolutions finding probable cause for the charges against the petitioners. ISSUE: WON the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in finding probable cause against the petitioners for plunder and/or violation of Section 3(e), RA 3019. HELD: NO. There was substantial basis to believe that the petitioners were complicit in the crimes charged based on the modus operandi outlined by the whistleblowers and the evidence presented in support of said allegations. Testimonies of the whistleblowers cannot be discounted on invocation of the res inter alios acta rule (Section 28, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence) as the said rule is technical and should not be rigidly applied in preliminary investigation proceedings. There was also no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan as the requirement of personally evaluating the report (and supporting documents thereof) of the Ombudsman was discharged by the Sandiganbayan, as stated in its resolutions. Petitioners failed to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the Sandiganbayan. The alleged “haste” of the Sandiganbayan in issuing the assailed resolutions, by itself, cannot be instantly attributed to an injudicious performance of functions, absent clear proof that functions/proceedings were irregular.

"In dealing with probable cause, as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative to what must be proved.” Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering whether or not there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person charged should be held responsible for it. Being merely based on opinion and belief, "a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. Estrada case - probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, so long as there, is substantial basis for crediting the same. There are two kinds of determination of probable case: executive and judicial. The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial. Public prosecutor has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.