Lawyerly

GR Nos. 164068-69

2013-11-19

ROLANDO P. DE LA CUESTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

ABAD, J.

The rule of course is that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not by the caption of the information or the citation of the law allegedly violated but by the actual recital of facts in that information.[56] Consequently, the issue is whether the facts alleged in the informations in the subject criminal cases make out a case for the crime of technical malversation.

GR No. 180109

2010-07-26

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH 'JOJO' V. GREY

NACHURA, J.

Likewise, the allegation that the filing of the complaint was politically motivated does not serve to justify the nullification of the informations where the existence of such motive has not been sufficiently established nor substantial evidence presented in support thereof.[62]

GR No. 161929

2009-12-08

LYNN PAZ T. DELA CRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Pursuant to this provision, it becomes mandatory for the court to immediately issue the suspension order upon a proper determination of the validity of the information.[23] The court possesses no discretion to determine whether a preventive suspension is necessary to forestall the possibility that the accused may use his office to intimidate witnesses, or frustrate his prosecution, or continue committing malfeasance. The presumption is that unless the accused is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both.[24]

GR No. 173637

2009-04-21

DANTE T. TAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We emphasize that in determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts are required to do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is clearly insufficient,[28] and particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[29]

GR No. 180700

2008-03-04

VILLASEÑOR AND MESA v. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL.

REYES, R.T., J.

Socrates v. Sandiganbayan,[26] citing the Court's pronouncements in Luciano v. Provincial Governor,[27] recounted:The Court then hastened to clarify that such a view may not be taken as an encroachment upon the power of suspension given other officials, reiterating in the process that a line should be drawn between administrative proceedings and criminal actions in court, that one is apart from the other. x x x[28] (Underscoring supplied) Based on the foregoing, criminal actions will not preclude administrative proceedings, and vice-versa, insofar as the application of the law on preventive suspension is concerned.

GR No. 177223

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. CASTOR BATIN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation [to] Article 14, paragraph 3 and 15, and Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. Like in the previous two cases, this Court found the Information to have sufficiently alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance. Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the information because these are matters of defense. Informations need only state the ultimate facts; the reasons therefor could be proved during the trial.[35]

GR NO. 170562

2007-06-29

ANGEL CELINO v. CA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Finally, as a general rule, the remedy of an accused from the denial of his motion to quash is for him to go to trial on the merits, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.[42] Although the special civil action for certiorari may be availed of in case there is a grave abuse of discretion,[43] the appellate court correctly dismissed the petition as that vitiating error is not attendant in the present case.

GR NO. 167025

2005-12-19

HERMINIO C. PRINCIPIO v. OSCAR BARRIENTOS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

At the outset, we reiterate the fundamental principle that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and therefore not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. In other words, it cannot be the subject of appeal until the judgment, or a final order is rendered. The proper procedure to be followed is to enter a plea, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment. Although the special civil action for certiorari may be availed of in case there is a grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, that vitiating error is not attendant in the present case.[15]

GR NO. 161640

2005-12-09

SAMSON B. BEDRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

(d) No specific rules need be laid down for such pre-suspension hearing. Suffice it to state that the accused should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him, e.g., that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation; that the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 or of the bribery provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of the Act; or he may present a motion to quash the information on any of the grounds provided in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The mandatory suspension decreed by the Act upon determination of the pendency in court of a criminal prosecution for violation of the Anti-Graft Act or for bribery under a valid information requires at the same time that the hearing be expeditious, and not unduly protracted such as to thwart the prompt suspension envisioned by the Act. Hence, if the trial court, say, finds the ground alleged in the quashal motion not to be indubitable, then it shall be called upon to issue the suspension order upon its upholding the validity of the information and setting the same for trial on the merits. The pre-suspension hearing envisaged in the afore-quoted law is conducted to determine basically the validity of the information, from which the court can have a basis either to suspend the accused and proceed with the trial of the case, or withhold the suspension of the latter and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceedings which impairs its validity. That hearing may be treated in the same manner as a challenge to the validity of the information by way of a motion to quash.[27] The law does not require that the guilt of the accused be established in a pre-suspension proceeding before trial on the merits proceeds.[28] Neither does it contemplate a proceeding to determine (1) the strength of the evidence of culpability against him, (2) gravity of the offense charged, or (3) whether or not his continuance in office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence before the court could have a valid basis in decreeing preventive suspension pending the trial of the case.[29]

GR No. 154714

2004-08-12

RAFAEL T. FLORES v. LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA

TINGA, J,

Again, in Socrates v. Sandiganbayan,[33] the Court reiterated the doctrine that the preventive suspension under Section 13, R.A. No. 3019 is compulsory, thus:…[I]t is evident that upon a proper determination of the validity of the information, it becomes mandatory for the court to immediately issue the suspension order. The rule on the matter is specific and categorical. It leaves no room for interpretation. It is not within the court's discretion to hold in abeyance the suspension of the accused officer on the pretext that the order denying the motion to quash is pending review before the appellate courts….

GR No. 142456

2004-07-27

DR. DEMETRIO BEROÑA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CARPIO, J.

The purpose of a pre-suspension hearing is to determine the validity of the information. The court can then have a basis to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or withhold the suspension and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceedings that impairs its validity. That hearing is similar to a challenge to the validity of the information by way of a motion to quash.[7] In this case, the Sandiganbayan had determined the validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing conducted for that purpose. Hence, petitioners' suspension is unquestionably mandatory.

GR No. 130656

2000-06-28

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO REANZARES * also known as ARMANDO RIANZARES

BELLOSILLO, J.

Consequently, the accused should be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659[14] as the allegations in the Information are enough to convict him therefor. In the interpretation of an information, what controls is the description of the offense charged and not merely its designation.[15]

	GR Nos. 164068-69 2013-11-19	ROLANDO P. DE LA CUESTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
The rule of course is that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not by the caption of the information or the citation of the law allegedly violated but by the actual recital of facts in that information.[56] Consequently, the issue is whether the facts alleged in the informations in the subject criminal cases make out a case for the crime of technical malversation.
	GR No. 180109 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH 'JOJO' V. GREY NACHURA, J.
Likewise, the allegation that the filing of the complaint was politically motivated does not serve to justify the nullification of the informations where the existence of such motive has not been sufficiently established nor substantial evidence presented in support thereof.[62]
	GR No. 161929 2009-12-08	LYNN PAZ T. DELA CRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Pursuant to this provision, it becomes mandatory for the court to immediately issue the suspension order upon a proper determination of the validity of the information.[23] The court possesses no discretion to determine whether a preventive suspension is necessary to forestall the possibility that the accused may use his office to intimidate witnesses, or frustrate his prosecution, or continue committing malfeasance. The presumption is that unless the accused is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both.[24]
	GR No. 173637 2009-04-21	DANTE T. TAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We emphasize that in determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts are required to do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is clearly insufficient,[28] and particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[29]
	GR No. 180700 2008-03-04	VILLASEÑOR AND MESA v. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL. REYES, R.T., J.
Socrates v. Sandiganbayan,[26] citing the Court's pronouncements in Luciano v. Provincial Governor,[27] recounted:The Court then hastened to clarify that such a view may not be taken as an encroachment upon the power of suspension given other officials, reiterating in the process that a line should be drawn between administrative proceedings and criminal actions in court, that one is apart from the other. x x x[28] (Underscoring supplied) Based on the foregoing, criminal actions will not preclude administrative proceedings, and vice-versa, insofar as the application of the law on preventive suspension is concerned.
	GR No. 177223 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. CASTOR BATIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation [to] Article 14, paragraph 3 and 15, and Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. Like in the previous two cases, this Court found the Information to have sufficiently alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance. Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the information because these are matters of defense. Informations need only state the ultimate facts; the reasons therefor could be proved during the trial.[35]
	GR NO. 170562 2007-06-29	ANGEL CELINO v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Finally, as a general rule, the remedy of an accused from the denial of his motion to quash is for him to go to trial on the merits, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.[42] Although the special civil action for certiorari may be availed of in case there is a grave abuse of discretion,[43] the appellate court correctly dismissed the petition as that vitiating error is not attendant in the present case.
	GR NO. 167025 2005-12-19	HERMINIO C. PRINCIPIO v. OSCAR BARRIENTOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At the outset, we reiterate the fundamental principle that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and therefore not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. In other words, it cannot be the subject of appeal until the judgment, or a final order is rendered. The proper procedure to be followed is to enter a plea, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment. Although the special civil action for certiorari may be availed of in case there is a grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, that vitiating error is not attendant in the present case.[15]
	GR NO. 161640 2005-12-09	SAMSON B. BEDRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
(d) No specific rules need be laid down for such pre-suspension hearing. Suffice it to state that the accused should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him, e.g., that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation; that the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 or of the bribery provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would warrant his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of the Act; or he may present a motion to quash the information on any of the grounds provided in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. The mandatory suspension decreed by the Act upon determination of the pendency in court of a criminal prosecution for violation of the Anti-Graft Act or for bribery under a valid information requires at the same time that the hearing be expeditious, and not unduly protracted such as to thwart the prompt suspension envisioned by the Act. Hence, if the trial court, say, finds the ground alleged in the quashal motion not to be indubitable, then it shall be called upon to issue the suspension order upon its upholding the validity of the information and setting the same for trial on the merits. The pre-suspension hearing envisaged in the afore-quoted law is conducted to determine basically the validity of the information, from which the court can have a basis either to suspend the accused and proceed with the trial of the case, or withhold the suspension of the latter and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceedings which impairs its validity. That hearing may be treated in the same manner as a challenge to the validity of the information by way of a motion to quash.[27] The law does not require that the guilt of the accused be established in a pre-suspension proceeding before trial on the merits proceeds.[28] Neither does it contemplate a proceeding to determine (1) the strength of the evidence of culpability against him, (2) gravity of the offense charged, or (3) whether or not his continuance in office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence before the court could have a valid basis in decreeing preventive suspension pending the trial of the case.[29]
	GR No. 154714 2004-08-12	RAFAEL T. FLORES v. LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA TINGA, J,
Again, in Socrates v. Sandiganbayan,[33] the Court reiterated the doctrine that the preventive suspension under Section 13, R.A. No. 3019 is compulsory, thus:…[I]t is evident that upon a proper determination of the validity of the information, it becomes mandatory for the court to immediately issue the suspension order. The rule on the matter is specific and categorical. It leaves no room for interpretation. It is not within the court's discretion to hold in abeyance the suspension of the accused officer on the pretext that the order denying the motion to quash is pending review before the appellate courts….
	GR No. 142456 2004-07-27	DR. DEMETRIO BEROÑA v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
The purpose of a pre-suspension hearing is to determine the validity of the information. The court can then have a basis to either suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or withhold the suspension and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceedings that impairs its validity. That hearing is similar to a challenge to the validity of the information by way of a motion to quash.[7] In this case, the Sandiganbayan had determined the validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing conducted for that purpose. Hence, petitioners' suspension is unquestionably mandatory.
	GR No. 130656 2000-06-28	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO REANZARES * also known as ARMANDO RIANZARES BELLOSILLO, J.
Consequently, the accused should be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659[14] as the allegations in the Information are enough to convict him therefor. In the interpretation of an information, what controls is the description of the offense charged and not merely its designation.[15]

SALVADOR P. SOCRATES v. SANDIGANBAYAN