People vs Sobrepena

Guys, I think nasayop ug formulate ang issue because petitioner in this case ang people. And RTC denied
the bail dili “granted”, sa case also kay CA overturned RTC, thus, CA granted bail to the RESPONDENTS.
Sooooo, idk.

Issue: Did CA commit serious reversible error when it nullified the bail granted to the petitioners by
the RTC?

Ruling: CA committed error in reversing the RTC order which denied the petition for bail of the
respondents.

What is controlling in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the ROC is the determination of whether the evidence
of guilt is strong, which is a matter of judicial discretion that remains with the judge. In this case, the RTC
held a summary hearing and based on the summary of evidence, formulated its conclusion in denying
the Petition to Bail of the respondents. The respondents then filed a petition for Certiorari with the CA.
The CA granted their petition and held that based on the evidence presented by the prosecution in the
bail hearing, the evidence of guilt is not strong.

The CA decision is not so much on the bail application but already on the merits of the case. The
matters dealt involved the evaluation of evidence which is not within the jurisdiction of the CA to
resolve in a Petition for Certiorari. The findings and assessment of the trial court during the bail hearing
were only a preliminary appraisal of the strength of the prosecution's evidence for the limited purpose
of determining whether respondents are entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.

FYI: Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court also states that no person charged with a capital
offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail
when the evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal action.

Another FYI: A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. It does not
include correction of the trial court's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon. It does not
go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof.

Javier vs Gonzales

Issue: Was the promulgation in absentia of the judgment of conviction of Gonzales, valid?

Ruling: Yes it was validly promulgated.

If the accused has been notified of the date of promulgation, but does not appear, the
promulgation of judgment in absentia is warranted. This rule is intended to obviate a repetition of the
situation in the past when the judicial process could be subverted by the accused by jumping bail to
frustrate the promulgation of judgment. The only essential elements for its validity are: (a) the judgment
was recorded in the criminal docket; and (b) a copy thereof was served upon the accused or counsel.

FYI: Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment. xx xx In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of
promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in
the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.

Records show that respondent was properly informed of the promulgation scheduled on 15 December
2005. The RTC Order dated 30 November 2005 documents the presence of his counsel during the
hearing. It is an established doctrine that notice to counsel is notice to client. In addition, the Return of
Service states that the Order and Notice of Promulgation were personally delivered to respondent's
address.

Onsorio vs Navera

Issue: Whether or not a writ of habeas corpus is SSgt. Osorio’s proper remedy?

Ruling: No. The writ of habeas corpus’ primary purpose "is to inquire into all manner of involuntary
restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient.” Habeas corpus, therefore, effectively
substantiates the implied autonomy of citizens constitutionally protected right to liberty. However, a
writ of habeas corpus may no longer be issued if the person allegedly deprived of liberty is restrained
under a lawful process or order of the court. The restraint then has become legal. Therefore, the remedy
of habeas corpus is rendered moot and academic.

The arrest warrants against SSgt. Osorio were issued by the court that has jurisdiction over the
offense charged. Thus, the remedy of habeas corpus is already moot and academic and his proper
remedy is to pursue the orderly course of trial and exhaust the usual remedies such as to file a motion
to quash the information or the warrant of arrest.

Maturan vs COMELEC

Issue: Does the penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office imposed on a candidate for
public office who repeatedly fails to submit his SOCE amount to the cruel degrading and inhuman
punishment prescribed by the Bill of Rights?

Ruling: There must be clear showing that statute contravenes the Constitution. The petitioner has not
demonstrated herein how R.A. No. 7166 could have transgressed the Constitution. A review of R.A. No.
7166 indicates that perpetual disqualification from public office has been prescribed as a penalty for the
repeated failure to file the SOCE and does not constitute cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. The
constitutional proscription under the Bill of Rights extends only to situations of extreme corporeal or
psychological punishment that strips the individual of his humanity.

Moreover, that Congress has deemed fit to impose the penalty of perpetual disqualification on
candidates who repeatedly failed to file their SOCEs cannot be the subject of judicial inquiry. It has the
absolute discretion to penalize by law with perpetual disqualification from holding public office in
addition to administrative fines the candidates who fail more than once to file their SOCEs. Such penalty
is intended to emphasize the need to file the SOCE as another means of ensuring the sanctity of the
electoral process.

People vs Estrada

Issue: Would a conviction for illegal recruitment whether simple or committed in large scale preclude
punishment for estafa under Art. 315 (2)(a) of the RPC?

Ruling: No. A conviction for illegal recruitment whether simple or committed in large scale would not
preclude punishment for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. No double jeopardy could attach
from the prosecution and conviction of the accused for both crimes considering that they are penalized
under different laws and involved elements distinct from one another

Conviction under Article 315(2)(a) elements: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party, suffered damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. These are elements completely different from those required
for illegal recruitment. Meanwhile, Article 13(f) of the Labor Code on illegal recruitment, shall mean any
act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers, and including
referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not
undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.

FYI: Prosecution was able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Estrada committed three (3)
counts of estafa in addition to Illegal recruitment.