Case Digest (G.R. No. 45629) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Atilano G. Mercado vs. Alfonso Santos and Iñigo S. Daza, decided September 22, 1938 under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, petitioner Mercado sought probate of the last will and testament of his wife, Ines Basa, in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. On June 27, 1931, without opposition and upon the testimony of an attesting witness, the will was admitted to probate. In April 1934, five intervenors moved—first ex parte, then with notice—to reopen and close the probate proceedings for lack of jurisdiction; both motions were denied by the probate court and the Supreme Court of the Philippines in Basa vs. Mercado (July 26, 1935). Meanwhile, intervenor Rosario Basa de Leon filed three separate criminal complaints between October 1932 and February 1934 in justice of the peace courts at San Fernando and Mexico, Pampanga, accusing Mercado of forgery of the very will he had probated. Each complaint led to arrest, bond postings of ₱4,000, appointment of counsel, and was dismisse Case Digest (G.R. No. 45629) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Probate of the will
- May 28, 1931 – Petitioner filed in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga a petition to probate the will of his deceased wife, Ines Basa.
- June 27, 1931 – Without opposition and upon testimony of one attesting witness, the court admitted the will to probate.
- April 11, 1934 – Five intervenors moved ex parte to reopen the probate proceedings, alleging lack of jurisdiction; motion denied.
- May 24, 1934 – Same motion, this time with notice to the adverse party, denied by the probate court.
- July 26, 1935 – On appeal to the Supreme Court, the order denying the reopening of probate was affirmed (Basa vs. Mercado, 33 Off. Gaz., 2521).
- Criminal proceedings for alleged forgery
- First complaint (Oct. 27, 1932)
- Filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, by intervenor Rosario Basa de Leon for falsification of the probated will.
- Petitioner arrested, posted P4,000 bond, engaged counsel; preliminary investigation continued twice; complaint dismissed at complainant’s instance on Dec. 8, 1932.
- Second complaint (Mar. 2, 1933)
- Filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Mexico, Pampanga, again for falsification.
- Petitioner arrested, posted P4,000 bond, engaged counsel; after investigation, complaint dismissed at complainant’s instance (citing petitioner’s poor health) on Apr. 27, 1933.
- Third complaint and reinvestigation
- Feb. 2, 1934 – Provincial Fiscal filed information in the Justice of the Peace Court of Mexico; petitioner arrested, bond posted, counsel engaged.
- Apr. 24, 1934 – Case dismissed after investigation for lack of evidence and conclusive proof of authenticity.
- May 9, 1934 – Provincial Fiscal moved the Court of First Instance for reinvestigation; granted May 23, 1934; fourth arrest; bond and counsel again procured.
- Investigation dragged on for nearly a year until Feb. 18, 1935, when the case was ordered tried on the merits.
- Pretrial and appellate proceedings
- Nov. 25, 1935 – Petitioner interposed a demurrer, alleging the will had been probated and that the probate order was conclusive; overruled Dec. 24, 1935.
- Jan. 14, 1936 – Motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal denied.
- Motion to dismiss on same grounds denied; petitioner filed petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals.
- June 19, 1937 – Court of Appeals denied certiorari petition, dissolved injunction; three justices dissented.
- Thereafter – Case brought before the Supreme Court by certiorari.
Issues:
- Does the probate of a will by a court of competent jurisdiction bar a criminal prosecution for alleged forgery of that will?
- Was the petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy trial violated by repetitive arrests, protracted investigations, and delays?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)