People vs. Velasco [G.R. No. 110592.January 23, 1996] 252 SCRA 135 Facts: In 1991, buy bust operation, accused-appellant Velasco, doing laundry; one officer designated poseur-buyer. Appellant handed over less than 1 gram of shabu in exchange for a 50peso marked bill After the exchange and upon pre-arranged signal, couching teammates rushed to the scene and immediately apprehended the appellant. When the police officers asked appellant to open her pockets, they found five more decks of shabu. Defenses of the appellant are denial and frame-up, as she maintained that the six decks of shabu were planted evidence. Accused appeals: 1. that the trial court erred in admitting the decks of shabu in evidence against her because they were obtained through a warrantless arrest and search and 2. that appellant likewise assails the jurisdiction of the trial court (RTC) over the case Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that: SEC. 5. Arrest without a warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Ruling: there is no showing that appellants apprehension was marred by such official abuse. Appellant failed to establish that Pat. Godoy and the other members of the buy-bust team are policemen engaged in mulcting or other unscrupulous activities who were motivated either by the desire to extort money or exact personal vengeance, or by sheer whim and caprice, when they entrapped her. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the principle that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect, must prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of appellant that she had been framed As to the issue of whether or not R.A. 7691 operated to divest the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction over appellants case, we rule in the negative.It has been consistently held as a general rule that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action.[23] Where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive No. Jurisdiction attached upon the commencement of the action and could not be ousted by the passage of R. while the SEC case was pending. Private respondent Ramos sold their shares of stocks of PPI to petitioner Saavedra for 1. Respondent Ramos questioned petitioner's capacity to sue in behalf of PPI. par. petitioner filed a civil complaint for damages against Ramos alleging that he (petitioner) was the President and principal stockholder of the company. it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of a statute.A. 93173 September 15. where petitioner withheld payment because the sellers failed to comply with their warranties. the application of which to criminal cases is. No. it appearing from the records that the appellant has been in jail for more than 4 years and 2 months. shares of stock to him was automatically rescinded on 15 September 1987. prospective in nature.D. they being intracorporate disputes. claiming that petitioner ceased to be its president when the sale of the PPI.R. 5. but with the MODIFICATION that the proper imposable sentence should be the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as the minimum. On December. However. Ramos filed a perjury (Criminal) case against Saavedra when he declared that he was the president of PPI in his declaration in the civil case which was then suspended. unless she is otherwise detained for some other cause G. evidenced by a Secretary’s Certificate dated December 1987 that Ramos was then and there declared as president following the “automatic revocation of MOA” . her immediate release from custody is hereby ordered.effect.[26] thereby having served more than the maximum imposable penalty. SC upheld the jurisdiction of the SEC and ruled that under Sec. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the SEC. In November. to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as the maximum thereof. went to SC. In July 1988. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction of inferior courts. THEREFORE: the judgment of conviction rendered by the court a quo against the accusedappellant Yolanda Velasco y Pamintuan is AFFIRMED. to stress. there was unpaid balance about 200k.2M payable in instalments. DOJ 226 SCRA 438 Facts: In July 1987. subject to release once the warranties were complied with. it was deposited in escrow instead. Ramos and group executed a document “Rescission of MOA” and filed a case with SEC to declare it valid and legal. The Civil Case for damages where then suspended. (b). denied. Prosecutor found probable cause for filing information and charging petitioner for perjury. 1993 SAAVEDRA Vs. with an automatic rescission clause in case any installment was not paid on its due date. 902-A. of P. By September 1987. the SEC has "primary and exclusive" jurisdiction over the twin issues of ownership and automatic rescission. is his duty to protect the innocent from hasty. (6a) o Section 7. the DOJ should have deferred the proceedings. and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered.RULE 111 Sec 6 and 7: o Section 6. — A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. if the courts cannot resolve a question which is within the legal competence of an administrative body prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal. 16 This duty. — The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action. the jurisdiction to rule on that question of automatic rescission is lodged with the Securities and Exchange Commission. and that petitioner may raise the pendency of the issue before the SEC as his defense at the trial proper. Consequently. In such instances the judicial process is suspended pending referral to the administrative body for its view on the matter in dispute. Of equal importance. 14 much less can the Provincial Prosecutor arrogate to himself the jurisdiction vested solely with the SEC Public respondent DOJ in attempting to justify the action of the Provincial Prosecutor avers that the latter is empowered to make a preliminary ruling on the matter for the purpose of finding probable cause against petitioner. especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge. Petitioner then filed for review on certiorari to SC (rule 65) Petitioner contends that respondent DOJ gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the findings of the Provincial Prosecutor that he made a "deliberate assertion of falsehood" on the basis of the conclusion that automatic rescission had set in. in addition to the "primary and exclusive" jurisdiction of the SEC. experience and services of the administrative agency to ascertain technical and intricate matters of fact. courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal 12 having been so placed within its special competence under a regulatory scheme. Ruling: Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. and it has been repeated often enough. and (b) . Since the issue has not yet been resolved. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. APPLICABLE PROVISION: Rules of Court . Elements of prejudicial question. The duty of a prosecutor during preliminary investigation is not only to find evidence to warrant continuation of the criminal process against an accused. We are not persuaded. For. Petitioner went to DOJ to review the resolution but the latter uphold the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause for perjury. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial. expensive and useless trials. was already bereft of factual and legal bases. at the very outset. demands the outright termination of the criminal prosecution of petitioner which. the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. Motion to reconsider also was filed but again denied by DOJ. A fortiori. authorized to receive and administer oath. 4 elements of the crime of perjury to be taken into account in determining whether there is a prima facie case. to wit: (a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter. 1994 People vs. It simply mentions an “investigating officer” who shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. Galvez vs. No. without reference to his being a military officer. Correspondingly. May 17. It is only in the prosecution of cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan where the Ombudsman enjoys exclusive control and supervision. Under AO 8. the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood. 2001 PEOPLE V.R. (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer. There is nothing in Art. 3257 is not determinative of whether or not the charge for perjury against petitioner can prosper. . The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation and later recommended the filing of an information. CA 237 SCRA 685 G. it does not necessarily mean that the criminal prosecution has basis. Repiroga 357 SCRA 819 G. 71 of CA 408 that exclusively vests the authority on a military officer to conduct preliminary investigation in cases involving members of the AFP. No. Verily. the outcome of SEC Case No.R.the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. 114046 October 24. the power of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation over a military case may be exercised together with any provincial or city prosecutor or his assistants since all prosecutors are now deputized Ombudsman prosecutors. A complaint was filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor charging A with murder. Given the foregoing. (5a) Be that as it may. Even if private respondent Ramos succeeds in proving the validity of the automatic rescission of the sale before the SEC. and. the contention of A that the authority to file charges against him lies within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman cannot be upheld. (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. REPIROGA 17 May 2001 Facts: A was a member of the Philippine Army. (c) that in that statement or affidavit. there is grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the Resolution of 25 July 1988 finding a prima facie case for perjury against petitioner. 138451. the Information filed with the Pasig Trial Court pursuant thereto must likewise be dismissed. Issues: Should the preliminary investigation be conducted by an authorized military officer before any information could be filed against AFP members? Does the authority to file charges against him lies within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman? Held: No. the assailed DOJ Resolutions must be struck down as having been issued without sufficient factual and legal bases. Sol. RTC dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction (should be under inferior courts because the imposable penalty is 6m1d to 4y2m. Facts: In July 1986. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Upon being arraigned. A preliminary investigation guarantees the accused his right to submit counter-affidavits and present evidence. or if subpoenaed. However. and. for his own negligence. The prosecution contends that the penalty of destierro for the concubine is 6m1d to 6yrs. upon complaint of wife Alma Aggabao. private respondents entered a plea of not guilty. does not submit counter-affidavits within the 10-day period. fourth. . Isabela.Accused-appellant's contentions may be narrowed down to four (4) issues: first. and filed a motion to dismiss. a civil court and not a court-martial. accused-appellant failed to present his counter-affidavit despite due notice. third.R. if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed. 1990 182 SCRA 750 Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) – RTC order dismissing the criminal information for concubinage filed against private respondents. second. Gen. whether he acted in lawful self-defense.[18] During the prescribed period. 88232 February 26. Eduarte G. the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor conducting the preliminary investigation did not err when he resolved the case solely on the basis of complainants evidence and. No. Rule 112 Sec 3(d) PP vs. accused-appellant cannot now blame the investigating officer. had jurisdiction over his person who was then a military officer as well as over the offense. Motion for reconsideration still unsuccessful. an information against private respondents Elvino Aggabao and Villa Suratos for the crime of concubinage allegedly committed in September 1983 was filed by Provincial Fiscal in RTC of Cabagan. petitioned to SC under Rule 65. whether the trial court. whether the filing of the Information was proper since he failed to file his counter-affidavit during preliminary investigation. the investigating officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant. Hence. whether the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor had jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation. Hence. well within the jurisdiction of RTC.