Legally Yours,  Remedial Law

Del Castillo Case Doctrines (Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure)

Del Castillo Case Doctrines

Summaries of case doctrines penned by Justice Del Castillo.

Remedial Law Criminal Procedure

Almuete v. People
G.R. No. 162336, February 1, 2010The requisites to justify an injunctive relief in criminal cases are:
1) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable;
2) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial; and
3) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

Barangay Dasmarinas v. Creative Play Corner School  
G.R. No. 169942, January 24, 2011

A second motion for extension is limited only to a period of 15 days and must be presented with the most compelling reason.

Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 149261, December 15, 2010

A prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of evidence that will establish probable cause justifying the filing of the criminal information – judicial review is allowed only if it is clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion.

Corpuz v. Del Rosario
G.R. No. 158104, March 26, 2010

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect.

De Guzman v. Gonzales III
G.R. No. 175256 & 19160, August 23, 2010

Civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. If the action for civil liability ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of the criminal action.

Lim v. Kou Co Ping
G.R. No. 191260, November 24, 2014

A grant of bail does not prevent the trial court from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial of the merits.

Olarte v. People
G.R. No. 198024, March 16, 2015

Any irregularity attending the arrest of an accused should be timely raised in a motion to quash the Information at any time before arraignment, failing in which he is deemed to have waived his right to question the regularity of his arrest.

People v. Brita
G.R. No. 197590, November 24, 2014

The determination of probable cause does not require actual or absolute certainty, nor clear and convincing evidence; it only requires reasonable belief or probability that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the accused.

People v. Cunanan
G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017

Probable cause does not mean actual and positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. It is only concerned with the question of whether the affiant has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed or is committing the crime charged.

People v. Gayoso
G.R. No. 179031, November 14, 2012

The allegation in the information of the various ways of committing the offense should be regarded as a description of only one offense and the information is not thereby rendered defective on the ground of multifariousness.

People v. Go
G.R. No. 212193, February 15, 2017

The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor from 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 v. Guillen
G.R. No. 191756, November 25, 2013

The right to remain silent cannot be waived except in writing and the presence of counsel; any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall be inadmissible in evidence.

A special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The proper procedure is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial and raise his defenses, and perfect an appeal in case of an adverse decision. ”

People v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017

In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule 113, two elements must concur:

1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer

A waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

People v. Soria
G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014

When an accused files a demurrer to evidence, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. To be sufficient, the evidence must prove:
1) the commission of the crime; and
2) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.

The grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

People v. Tionloc
G.R. No. 174504, March 21, 2011

Although the dismissal order based on demurrer to evidence is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65.

People v. Torres
G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014

When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court.

Soriano v. People
G.R. No. 197731, July 6, 2015

The review on appeal of a decision in a criminal case wherein the CA imposes a penalty other than death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is by petition for review on certiorari raising only questions of law.

Villamor v. People
G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013

The practice of requiring the convict to appear before the trial court for promulgation of the appellate court should be immediately discontinued as it is an unauthorized surplusage entailing unnecessary expenses and which also creates security problems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: