Resum del procés cronològic i les participacions de l’estudi

September 10, 2014, G.R. No. 205800 CARPIO, Acting C.J.

FACTS: Petitioners Microsoft and Adobe (corporations organized in the United States) claim that they were informed that Respondents (directors and officers of New Fields, Inc.) were unlawfully reproducing and using unlicensed versions of their software. Padilla, Serrano, and Moradoz (employes and trained to detect unauthorized copies of Adobe and Microsoft software) went to the office of respondents in the Philippine Stock Exchange Center in Ortigas City.

Using a legitimate business pretext, they were able to use two computers owned by New Fields. An application for search warrants was filed before the RTC and was issued the same day. The warrants were served on respondents on 24 May 2010. New Fields employees witnessed the search conducted by the authorities. Several items were seized, including 17 CD installers and 83 computers containing unauthorized copies of Microsoft and/or Adobe software.

The RTC issued an Order quashing both warrants and directing that "all the items seized from the respondents be returned.” Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on 8 November 2010 before the Court of Appeals. Petitioners alleged that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the Motion to Quash despite: (1) respondents’ failure to comply with the three-day notice requirement; and (2) the existence of probable cause, and personal knowledge of the warrant applicant.

Subsequently, the CA denied their petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether the three-day notice rule to submit comments on the motion to quash (NO) (2) Whether the existence of probable cause may be reviewed via Rule 45 (NO)

HELD:

(1) NO. The three day notice rule is not absolute. The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the adverse party’s right to due process. Thus, if the adverse party was given a reasonable opportunity to study the motion and oppose it, then strict compliance with the three day notice rule may be dispensed with. In the instant case, when the court a quo ordered petitioners to submit their comment on the motion to quash, it was, in effect, giving petitioners their day in court. Thus, while the [three]-day notice rule was

not strictly observed, its purpose was still satisfied when respondent judge did not immediately rule on the motion giving petitioners x x x the opportunity to study and oppose the arguments stated in the motion.

(2) NO. Under Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitions for review by certiorari "shall raise only questions of law." A question of fact exists when there is a doubt as to the truth of certain facts, and it can only be resolved through a reexamination of the body of evidence. In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., the Court has ruled that the existence of probable cause is a question of fact.

[RULE 113, SEC. 5] Having been caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers were not only authorized but were even duty-bound to arrest her even without a warrant.

PEOPLE VS. MARISSA MARCELO August 18, 2014, G.R. No. 181541 DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS: There were reports that the accused and her husband were engaged in selling shabu. P/Insp.

Rabulan thus ordered a surveillance of the area where the transaction would take place and coordinated the matter with the Barangay Chairperson of Brgy. Punta Waling-Waling. He subsequently formed a buy-bust team and requested Tarog to participate in the operation. Subsequent to the buy-bust operation, the accused were arrested and charged with an information for violation of RA 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). During the arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty, thus the trial ensued.

The RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA9165, as amended. The CA Affirmed RTC Judgment

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused may be arrested even without a warrant

HELD: YES. The prosecution proved that the accused was apprehended after she exchanged the shabu in her possession for the marked money of the poseur-buyer. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers were not only authorized but were even duty-bound to arrest her even without a warrant.

[RULE 110, SEC. 8, 9] The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.

PEOPLE VS. SAMUEL “TIWTIW” SANICO August 13, 2014, G.R. No. 208469 REYES, J.

FACTS: Two separate criminal offense were charged against the accused. One for acts of lasciviousness, and one for rape. Accused was a butcher and an ice cream vendor who rented a room on the house where AAA lives and her family. AAA claimed that she was raped around 2:00pm while she was washing the dishes. He succeeded in removing her clothes and undergarments and pushing her against the wall. He took off his short pants and briefs and inserted his penis into her vagina for two to three minutes. She felt pain. The accused-appellant then pulled up his short pants and laid down in the sofa. AAA alleged that she was again raped for six or seven times. As to the acts of lasciviousness, AAA alleged that the accused was touching her breast against her will.

The RTC rendered judgment convicting accused appellant of one count of rape and acts of lasciviousness. The CA affirmed with modification.

ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be dismissed for not specifying the specific provision penalizing the act.

HELD: NO. Although the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610, the failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.

In the case at bench, the commission of lascivious conduct was admitted by the accused-appellant in his testimony. No issue regarding his conviction for lascivious conduct had been raised in his appeal before the CA as well. The body stated in no uncertain terms that what was being assailed was merely the conviction for rape. Hence, the penalty imposed by the RTC for lascivious conduct should not be disturbed anymore.

[RULE 124, SEC. 13] The Rules of Court provide that when the CA imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an accused may: (1) File a notice of appeal under Section 13(c), Rule 124 to avail of an appeal as a matter of right before the Court and open the entire case for review on any question xxx

[RULE 110, SEC. 9] The Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly.

DANDY L. DUNGO AND GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR. VS. PEOPLE July 1, 2015, G.R. No. 209464

MENDOZA, J.

FACTS: The accused were alleged to be involved in an initiation rite last January 2006 on one Marlon Villanueva as a condition for his admission to the Alpha Phi Omega (APO) fraternity based in UP Los Baños. He was brought to the hospital but Dr. Masilungan, the attending physician observed that Villanueva was motionless and had no heartbeat. Villanueva did not respond to the resuscitation and was pronounced dead. Dr. Masilungan noticed a big contusion hematoma on the left side of the victim’s face and several injuries on his arms and legs. The RTC found the accused guilty in violation of Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law, which the CA affirmed. The sole assignment of error before the Supreme Court was that their constitutional right to be informed of the accusations against them was violated, as the offense found and proved was different from that charged in the information.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not an appeal by certiorari via Rule 45is proper in this case (NO)

(2) Whether the RTC and CA judgments violated accused’s right to be informed of the accusations against them (NO)

HELD:

(1) NO. The Rules of Court provide that when the CA imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an accused may: (1) File a notice of appeal under Section 13(c), Rule 124 to avail of an appeal as a matter of right before the Court and open the entire case for review on any question; or (2) File a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to resort to an appeal as a matter of discretion and raise only questions of law. In this case, the CA affirmed the RTC decision imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon the petitioners. The petitioner opted to appeal the CA decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. Consequently, they could only raise questions of law. Oddly, the petitioners began to assail the existence of conspiracy in their reply, which is a question of fact.

(2) NO. On the manner of how the Information should be worded Section 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court is enlightening. It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. The Court agrees with the OSG that the "planned initiation rite" as stated in the information included the act of inducing Villanueva to attend it. The hazing would not have been accomplished were it not for the acts of the petitioners that induced the victim to be present.

[RULE 124, SEC. 14] Sec. 14 of rule 124 of the Rules of Court provides that a sheriff make a report to the court every thirty days until the judgment is satisfied in full. In the present case, Padua failed to report to the court and state the reason why the judgment was not satisfied in full within 30 days after his receipt of the writ. He only made a partial report after 2 years.

ATTY. AURORA P. SANGLAY VS. EDUARDO E. PADUA II July 1, 2015, A.M. No. P-14-3182

CARPIO, J.

FACTS: The accused Padua, Sheriff IV in the RTC of San Fernando, La Union , wass ordered "to execute the x x x dispositive portion of the Decision and make a return of [his] proceeding unto [the]

Court within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt [of the writ] and every thirty (30) days thereafter until [the] Writ shall have been fully satisfied.” Padua failed to make the reports as ordered. Thus, Atty.

Sanglay filed with the RTC a motion to direct Padua to enforce the writ of execution and render a report. Padua made a partial report but failed to make any other report. The Office of the Court Administration (OCA) found Padua to be guilty of simple neglect of duty.

ISSUE: Whether or not Padua was guilty of simple neglect of duty.

HELD: YES. Sec. 14 of rule 124 of the Rules of Court provides that a sheriff make a report to the court every thirty days until the judgment is satisfied in full:

SEC. 14. Return of writ of execution. — The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires.

The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.

In the present case, Padua failed to report to the court and state the reason why the judgment was not satisfied in full within 30 days after his receipt of the writ. Despite the March 9, 2010; July 4, 2010;

and, January 20, 2011 motions filed by Atty. Sanglay, Padua failed to make a report to the court every 30 days on the proceedings taken. In fact, Padua made a partial report only after almost two years and only after Atty. Sanglay filed the present administrative complaint. Therefore, Padua is guilty of simple neglect of duty.

[RULE 112, SEC. 6] Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the judge

"may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause." The CA should have denied the People's petition for special civil action of certiorari that assails the correctness of the order of dismissal.

[RULE 122, SEC. 1] It is a final order since it disposes of the case, terminates the proceedings, and leaves the court with nothing further to do with respect to the case against petitioner HPG officers.

CAJIPE VS. PEOPLE April 23, 2014, 723 SCRA 615 ABAD, J.

FACTS: Lilian De Vera alleged that the PNP Special Action Force (SAF) and Highway Patrol Group (HPG) conspired to carry out a plan to shoot and kill her husband Jun and daughter Lia. In December 2008, Lilian called her husband to meet them in Pasay. She got to the place but her husband and daughter did not show up. Their housekeeper called her to inform her that her husband and daughter was involved in a shoot out in their village. Jun was shot dead on the head and Lia, the 7-year old daughter died in the hospital as she was rushed due to a head wound caused by a gunshot. In December 2009, the DOJ found probable cause to indict all the police officers involved in the shoot out. The RTC dismissed the case against the HPG officers for lack of probable cause; while the court issued a warrant of arrest for the SAF officers for finding a probable cause. Before the CA, the court appreciated the affidavits of witnesses stating that the HPG officers joined the SAF officers in pursuing and shooting of Jun while bringing Lia to a safer place. Thus, it issued warrants of arrest for the HPG officers. The CA denied the motions to quash these warrants, hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in issuing the warrants of arrest for the HPG officers.

HELD: YES. The CA clearly erred in not denying the petition for being a wrong remedy. The fact, is that Section 1, Rule 122 of the same rules provides that an appeal may be taken in a criminal action from a judgment or final order like the RTC's order dismissing the case against petitioner HPG officers for lack of probable cause. It is a final order since it disposes of the case, terminates the proceedings, and leaves the court with nothing further to do with respect to the case against petitioner HPG officers.

Since the OSG filed its petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on behalf of the People 112 days from receipt of the dismissal order by the city prosecutor of Parañaque, the petition was filed out of time.

The order of dismissal is thus beyond appellate review.

Of course, the People may refile the case if new evidence adduced in another preliminary investigation will support the filing of a new information against them. But that is another matter.

The RTC judge was within his powers to dismiss the case against petitioner HPG officers. Section 6,

case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause." The CA should have denied the People's petition for special civil action of certiorari that assails the correctness of the order of dismissal since Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that such action is available only when "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."

[RULE 122, SEC. 3, 8, 9] The RTC ignored Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which specifically governed appeals in criminal cases. The failure to file the memorandum on appeal is a ground for the RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil cases. The same rule does not apply in criminal cases, because Section 9(c) imposes on the RTC the duty to decide the appeal “on the basis of the entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed” upon the submission of the appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the period to file the same.

JOSE “PEPE” SANICO VS. PEOPLE March 25, 2015, G.R. No. 198753 BERSAMIN, J.

FACTS: The petitioner and Marsito Batiquin were criminally charged for trespassing and theft of minerals in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Catmon-Carmen-Sogod, Cebu (MCTC). In due course, the MCTC rendered its judgment on April 2, 2009, convicting the accused for violation of Section 103 of Republic Act No. 7942 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

On April 26, 2010, one Atty. Dennis Cañete, another lawyer acting for Sanico, filed a motion for reconsideration vis-à-vis the dismissal of the appeal, stating that Sanico had not filed the memorandum on appeal because he had been beset with problems due to his wife’s debilitating illness which eventually claimed her life, as well as his counsel, Atty. Baring’s own medical condition which caused her to forget how she got this case and whom to contact as principal counsel. This was denied by the RTC. Subsequently, the accused filed a petition for review in the CA, contesting his conviction, and assailing the dismissal of his appeal for failure to file the memorandum on appeal. The CA denied the petition for review.

ISSUE: Whether the CA committed reversible error in not nullifying the RTC’s order dismissing the appeal for failure to file a memorandum.

HELD: YES. The RTC was guilty of the prejudicial error of misapplying the Rules of Court in its dismissal of the appeal timely made by the petitioner. In dismissing the appeal for the sole reason that he did not file the memorandum on appeal, the RTC wrongly relied on Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The RTC thereby ignored Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which specifically governed appeals in criminal cases.

The failure to file the memorandum on appeal is a ground for the RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil cases. The same rule does not apply in criminal cases, because Section 9(c), supra, imposes on the RTC the duty to decide the appeal “on the basis of the entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed” upon the submission of the appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon

the expiration of the period to file the same. Hence, the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal cannot be properly premised on the failure to file the memorandum on appeal.

Having timely perfected his appeal by filing the notice of appeal in the MCTC, the petitioner was entitled to expect that the RTC would resolve his appeal in due course, whether he filed his

Having timely perfected his appeal by filing the notice of appeal in the MCTC, the petitioner was entitled to expect that the RTC would resolve his appeal in due course, whether he filed his