Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping Required only in Civil Cases

Certificate of non-forum shopping is not necessary in criminal cases and distinct causes of action. 

PEOPLE vs. FERRER

G.R. No. 121907.  May 27, 1997 

FACTS:

In 1993, Norma Ferrer was charged with "Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale" before the RTC Dagupan City. Three (3) other informations were filed with the same court, charging her with the crime of Estafa. The court convicted her of Illegal Recruitment. She was absolved from estafa but was ordered to reimburse the placement fees and to pay temperate damages. Ferrer appealed.

Ferrer avers that former Assistant Prosecutor, in filing eight different estafa and illegal recruitment cases against her in different branches of the RTC and the MTC in Dagupan City, has openly violated the Supreme Court's Administrative Circular No. 04-94, dated 08 February 1994, on forum-shopping. 

HELD:

Administrative Circular No. 04-94 concerns only the subject of additional requisites for civil complaints, petitions and other initiatory pleadings filed in courts and other agencies.  Paragraph 1 thereof is explicit; it states:

"The complaint and other initiatory pleadings referred to and subject of this Circular are the: 

- original civil complaint 
- counterclaim 
- cross-claim 
- third (fourth, etc.) party complaint, or 
- complaint-in-intervention 
- petition, or
- application wherein a party asserts his claim for relief."  

Parenthetically, the criminal cases filed against appellant in different courts appear to have distinct causes of action involving different offended parties who are said to have all been victimized by appellant. 

read more...

Death of the Offended Party Not Ground for Dismissal

The death of the party in private crimes does not abate the prosecution.

DONIO vs. VAMENTA
G.R. No. L-38308 December 26, 1984

133 SCRA 616

FACTS: 

Milagros Donio-Teves and Manuel Moreno are accused of and charged with 'ADULTERY' before the CFI Iloilo. During the pendency of the case, the offended spouse, Julian Teves, died. Donio filed a motion to quash.

HELD:  

Death of the offended party is not a ground for extinguishment of criminal liability whether total  or partial. The participation of the offended party is essential not for the maintenance of the criminal action but solely for the initiation thereof. 

The term "private crimes" in reference to felonies which cannot be prosecuted except upon complaint filed by the aggrieved party, is misleading. Far from what it implies, it is not only the aggrieved party who is offended in such crimes but also the State. Every violation of penal laws results in the disturbance of public order and safety which the State is committed to uphold and protect. If the law imposes the condition that private crimes like adultery shall not be prosecuted except upon complaint filed by the offended party, it is, as herein pointed earlier "out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial." Once a complaint is filed, the will of the offended party is ascertained and the action proceeds just as in any other crime. This is shown by the fact that after filing a complaint, any pardon given by the complainant to the offender would be unavailing. It is true, the institution of the action in so-called private crimes is at the option of the aggrieved party. But it is equally true that once the choice is made manifest, the law will be applied in full force beyond the control of, and in spite of the complainant, his death notwithstanding. 

read more...

Insufficiency of Information

The court held the complaint insufficient because it did not show the conditions that must exist under the law before the services of able-bodied male citizens may be required for certain purposes.  

U.S. vs. POMPEYA

G.R. No. L-10255, August 6, 1915 

31 Phil 791

FACTS:  Pompeya was charged with violation of municipal ordinance in an Information which reads as follows: "That on or about March 20 of the current year, 1914, in the jurisdiction of the municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the said accused did willfully, illegally, and criminally and without justifiable motive fail to render service on patrol duty; an act performed in violation of the law." 

Defendant demurs to the complaint on the ground that the acts charged therein do not constitute a crime. 

HELD:  The complaint, in a criminal case, must state every fact necessary to make out an offense. The complaint must show, on its face that, if the facts alleged are true, an offense has been committed. It must state explicitly and directly every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute an offense. If the statute exempts certain persons, or classes of persons, from liability, then the complaint should show that the person charged does not belong to that class. 

The law authorizing the president of the municipality to call upon persons, imposes certain conditions as prerequisites: (1) The person called upon to render such services must be an able-bodied male resident of the municipality; (2) he must be between the ages of 18 and 55 [50], and (3) certain conditions must exist requiring the services of such persons.

Even admitting all of the facts in the complaint in the present case, the court would be unable to impose the punishment provided for by law, because it does not show (a) that the defendant was a male citizen of the municipality; (b) that he was an able-bodied citizen; (c) that he was not under 18 years of age nor over 55 [50]; nor (d) that conditions existed which justified the president of the municipality in calling upon him for the services mentioned in the law. 

read more...

Matters of Defense Not a Ground for Motion to Quash

PEOPLE vs. MIRANDA

G.R. No. L-16122, May 30, 1961 

2 SCRA 261

Facts:    In 1958, Miranda, a postmaster in Cantillan, Surigao was charged in CFI Surigao with the crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents in that he allegedly falsified and made alterations in his records of collections and payment and official cash books, to make it appear that more sums were paid out by him on telegraphic transfers and money orders to contain persons than those actually disbursed, and then as appropriated and converted the difference to his own use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the national government in the amount of P3,684.81

Miranda moved to dismiss the case on the ground that within 24 hours after the discovery of the supposed malversations, he reimbursed or made good the missing amounts, thereby negativing criminal intent on his part, and furthermore, that whatever criminal liability he had incurred under the circumstances was extinguished by such reimbursements.

The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the case. The fiscal moved to reconsider the order of dismissal but the trial court denied the motion. Hence the appeal.

Held:   While Miranda alleged in his motion to quash at his having returned the amounts missing in his accounts before the filing of this case negatives criminal intent on his part, and that the falsifications and malversations charged against him are actually nothing more than honest mistakes or errors in the entries or computations made by him in his books and records, such facts constitute at most a defense against the charges against him which he must prove at the trial; but does not constitute valid ground for the dismissal of this case at a stage when trial has not even began and the prosecution has not yet started presenting its evidence.

It is too well-settled for any serious argument that whether in malversation of public funds or estafa, payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of, or compromise as to, the amounts or funds malversed or disappropriated, after the commission of the crime, affects by the civil liability of the offender but does not extinguished his criminal liability or relieve him from the penalty prescribed by law for the offense committed, because both crimes are public offenses against the People that must be prosecuted and penalized by the Government in its own motion, though complete reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the offended parties.

Even if Miranda is able to show that he committed no malversation, he may still be found guilty of the lesser crime of falsification of public documents, which is necessarily included in the complex crime of malversation through falsification of public documents charged in this case. 

read more...

Motion to Suspend Issuance of Warrant of Arrest Considered a Motion to Quash

A motion to suspend the issuance of the warrant of arrest may be considered a motion to quash because it is not the caption of the pleadings but the allegations therein contained that should prevail. The allegations of said motion, in effect, mean that the information does not charge an offense. 

PEOPLE vs. MATONDO

G.R. No. L-12873, February 24, 1961 

1 SCRA 534

Facts:

In 1955, Matondo and 29 others were charged with violation of Republic Act. No. 947 before CFI Davao for having entered and occupied, through force, strategy and stealth, several portions of public agricultural land in Panabo, Province of Davao, and compromised within the area covered by Sales Application No. 19010 of the PWEA. 

Defendants filed a Motion to Suspend the Issuance of Warrant against them on the ground that they have been in possession of the land, subject matter of the Information, before June 30, 1953, the effectivity of Act 947.

The case was set for hearing and Matondo presented his documentary evidence.

After hearing of the motion, the court dismissed the information. 

The State appealed.

Issue:

Was the dismissal legal in spite of the fact that the hearing had was only on the motion to suspend the issuance of the warrant of arrest against the defendants. 

Held: 

We agree with the Solicitor General that the regular procedure was not followed. This not-withstanding, the motion filed by the defendants, could be considered as a Motion to Quash the information. For one thing, it is not the caption of a pleading, but the allegations contained therein, that should prevail. In the Motion to suspend the issuance of warrant of arrest, the defendants claimed that "their possession of the land, subject matter of the information, dates back before the effectivity of the law punishing the acts". The motion, objectively considered, therefore, was virtually a motion to quash on the ground that the information does not charge an offense or that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, as in fact, with respect to the accused, the offense did not then exist.

read more...

Rule 19 - Intervention

SEC 1. Who may intervene.—A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

SEC. 2.  Time to intervene.–The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court.  A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.

SEC. 3. Pleadings-in-intervention.–The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he unites with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter.

SEC. 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention.–The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. 

read more...