It is well settled that violations of BP 22 cases are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime’s essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
Category Archives: Criminal Procedure
JAYLORD DIMAL vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES – G.R. No. 216922, APRIL 18, 2018
What the ‘plain view’ cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification-whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to a lawful-arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused-and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the ‘plain view’ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.
People vs. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007
Facts: PO3 Teofilo B. Fami (Fami) testified that in the morning of 27 September 1997, he and SPO3 Cesar B. Cabling (Cabling) conducted a stationary surveillance and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking along Perimeter Street, Barangay Pag-asa, Olongapo City. They had received information that a certain male person, more or less 5’4″ in height, 25Continue reading “People vs. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007”
People vs. Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020
Facts: During his arraignment on August 20, 2009, accused-appellant pleaded “guilty” to the crime charged. The RTC found the plea to be voluntary and with full understanding of its consequences. Thus, it directed the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of accused-appellant and to determine the exact degree of his culpability in accordanceContinue reading “People vs. Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERRY SAPLA Y GUERRERO, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020
Facts: On 10 January 2014, at around 11:30 in the morning, an officer on duty at the RPSB office received a phone call from a concerned citizen, who informed the said office that a certain male individual [would] be transpiring marijuana from Kalinga and into the Province of Isabela. The information to their deputy commander,Continue reading “PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERRY SAPLA Y GUERRERO, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TING AND GARCIA – G.R. No. 221505, December 05, 2018
Facts: In an Information dated May 30, 2011, respondents City Mayor Randolph S. Ting and City Treasurer Salvacion I. Garcia, both of Tuguegarao City in the year 2004, were charged with violation of Section 261 (w)(b) of Batas Pambansa Bilang R81, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, for issuing a treasury warrant during theContinue reading “PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TING AND GARCIA – G.R. No. 221505, December 05, 2018”
GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017
Facts: On July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision granting the petitions for certiorari of the Petitioner to annul and set aside the decision of Sandiganbayan denying the Demurrer to Evidence filed by the petitioner. The Supreme Court Granted the Demurrer to evidence of the Petitioner and dismissed the said criminal case. OnContinue reading “GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017”
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO R. DE BORJA, G.R. No. 187448, January 9, 2017
Facts: The case stems from a Complaint filed by petitioner Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, for “Accounting, Reconveyance, Forfeiture, Restitution, and Damages” (Complaint) before the Sandiganbayan (SB) for the recovery of ill-gotten assets allegedly amassed by the individual respondents therein, singly or collectively, during the administration of the late President FerdinandContinue reading “REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO R. DE BORJA, G.R. No. 187448, January 9, 2017”
PEOPLE vs. TAN, G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010
Facts: On December 21, 2000, two Informations for violation of Rule 36 (a)-1,4 in relation to Sections 32 (a)-15 and 566 of the Revised Securities Act, were filed by petitioner People of the Philippines against respondent Dante Tan in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. After arraignment, respondent pleaded not guilty to bothContinue reading “PEOPLE vs. TAN, G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010”
CABADOR vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 186001, October 2, 2009
Facts: On June 23, 2000 the public prosecutor accused petitioner Antonio Cabador before the RTC of Quezon City for murdering, in conspiracy with others. On February 13, 2006, after presenting only five witnesses over five years of intermittent trial, the RTC declared at an end the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and required the prosecution toContinue reading “CABADOR vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 186001, October 2, 2009”
adrianantazo.com 