Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
P R O C E D U R E
ii.
INFORMATION
A sworn statement
Subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or Subscribed to by the fiscal
other officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated
May be filed either with the court or in the fiscals office
generally to commence the preliminary investigation of
the charges made
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
a. Features stated in Art. 2, RPC
Cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed
Vessel
(1) First port of entry
(2) Thru which it passed during voyage
File civil action under Art. 27, NCC for damages (PO refuses or neglects to perform official
duty)
c. Offenses wherein any of the essential elements were committed in different territorial
jurisdictions
i.
j.
Clearly no prima facie case against the accused and MTQ on that ground had been denied
d. Offenses committed aboard a train, vehicle, aircraft or vessel (see R110, 15)
i.
Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses.
By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the
fiscals office
If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may be
quashed; however, the prosecution is allowed to amend the info to include the necessary
facts (People vs. Purisima)
The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior
preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.
Zaldivia vs. Reyes since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure
shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, then the running of the
prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on
any date before that.
Reodica vs. CA [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of
prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. It does not
distinguish whether the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only,
or for an action on the merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscals office
should suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling in Zaldivia is not
applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, since that particular
case involved a violation of an ordinance. Therefore, the applicable law therein was not
Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for
Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when
Prescription Shall Begin to Run), 2 of which provides that period of prescription is
suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
a. Name of the accused
Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot
be questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs. Guevarra)
Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the
identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if there is a
variance between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the property stolen.
b. Designation of offense by statute (or of section/subsection of statute violated)
A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since such would allow
the prosecution to prove an offense distantly removed from the alleged date, thus
substantially impairing the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges against him
(People vs. Reyes)
f.
Place of commission
Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place
alleged, provided that the place of actual commission was within the courts jurisdiction
and accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the information
Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral
parts of the crime. If proved, but not alleged, become only generic aggravating
circumstances.
SUBSTITUTION
Where only as to form, there is no need for Another preliminary investigation is entailed
another preliminary investigation and retaking and accused has to plead anew
of plea of accused
Refers to the same offense charged or which
necessarily includes or is necessarily included
in original charges, hence, substantial
amendments to info after plea taken cannot be
If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or
guardian may do so.
Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same
information/complaint
In crimes against chastity, the consent of the victim is a jurisdictional requirement-retraction renders the information void (People vs. Ocapan)
If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the complaint on his own
c. Defamation (consisting of imputation of offenses in [a] or [b])
The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action: and
ii.
The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed
Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from
crime
Must be made before prosecution presents evidence
Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action
b. Petition to suspend the criminal action
May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a pending civil action
Filed at any time before the prosecution rests
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction proceeds
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action
7. Filing fees:
a. Actual or compensatory damages filing fees not required
b. Moral, temperate and exemplary filing fees required
i.
If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing of complaint or information
ii.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information with
the RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is
conducted.
Flores vs. Sumaling What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is
that while before, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for
the arrest of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the
investigating judges power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in
which there is a necessity for placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice. It is therefore error for the investigating judge to order the issuance of a
warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without making any finding
of a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of
justice.
ii.
The Ombudsman
Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
vi. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in
court
Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge
vii. Records will not form records of the case proper
Court on its own or on motion may order production of record
b. If conducted after warrantless arrest
i.
If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the
assistance of counsel, then the procedure for one prior to arrest is followed
ii.
(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the
complainant, arresting officer and witnesses
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities
(d) Other offices authorized by law
ii.
v.
iii. If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he prepares an information and a
resolution
i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and
accused is probably guilty thereof
Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and
uncontradicted, would be enough to merit a conviction of the accused
iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint
If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists
and that there is a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a
warrant of arrest
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the
accused, OR prepares and files an information
While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is
filed with the court, the court acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of
the case and the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or
appeals from the decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of
Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary
investigation.
6. Remedies
a. Motion for preliminary investigation
Filed when accused is arrested without warrant
Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
ii.
Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs.
Ramos)
The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest
(Umil vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case
pending)
c. When a person lawfully arrested escapes
d. Bondsman, for purpose of surrendering the accused
e. Accused attempts to leave country without court permission
4. Procedure
a. WITH WARRANT
i.
ii.
iii. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
iv. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
v.
taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of some offense, made by an actual restraint of the person or by his
submission to custody
In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by responsible officer
(Lim vs. Felix)
iii. Judge issues warrant of arrest
If without preliminary examination, considered irregular (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must file a report and
explanation with judge within 10 days
v.
If warrant served
(1) Person informed that he is being arrested
(2) Informed of cause of his arrest
Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
Person is arrested
ii.
Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary investigation or
inquest
Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
Must be made in a "special appearance" before the court questioning only its lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the
court would be deemed a submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it
whatever jurisdiction it lacked over the person
Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction
of the court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, "Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation"
Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation
a. All involuntary confession were inadmissible; accused had to prove involuntariness
b. Involuntary confessions were inadmissible only if they were false
c. Revert to exclusionary rule: any involuntary confession is inadmissible
d. Miranda rule: the accused must be informed of his rights
ii.
The court had jurisdiction to issue the process (Luna vs. Plaza)
If an arrest is improper, the remedy is a motion for quashal of the warrant of arrest and/or
a motion to quash the information, not habeas corpus (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed, the information
being the judicial process required by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is proper when a person is being restrained illegally, e.g., imprisoned past
maximum penalty allowed by law (Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons)
b. Quashal of warrant of arrest
Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally
flawed
c. Motion to quash information
i.
To remain silent
ii.
Against self-incrimination
iii. To counsel
e. Definition of custodial investigation questioned
f.
Warning must not only be said, officer must make sure the person arrested understands
them specifically
j.
Present rules
i.
ii.
iii. Waiver of rights must not only be with counsel but must be in writing
Confessions made without assistance of counsel are inadmissible as evidence to
incriminate the accused, but they may be used to impeach the credibility of the
accused, or they may be treated as verbal admission of the accused through the
testimony of the witnesses (People vs. Molas)
RULE 114 BAIL
1. Bail security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the
following conditions:
a. Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force at all stages until promulgation of
judgment, unless sooner cancelled
5. Procedure
a. Offense charged is not capital:
i.
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he is
held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
(4) Absent (3), with the MTC
Bail applies to all persons detained, not just to those charged with the offense (Herras vs.
Teehankee)
ii.
Court has power to prohibit person out on bail from leaving the country (Manotoc, Jr. vs.
CA)
iv. Accused posts bail and deposits the same with the Municipal/City/Provincial Treasurer or,
if cash, with the Collector of Internal Revenue
Bail implies delivery of the accused to the sureties who, though not holding him prisoner,
may seize him and imprison him until they can deliver him to court (US vs. Bonoan)
v.
2. General Rule:
All persons are entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with
capital offenses.
Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel facing court martial, who are not in
the same class as civilians (Comendador vs. de Villa)
Bail should be available regardless of other circumstances or the merits of the case, if the
health or the life of the detainee is in danger (Dela Rama vs. People's Court)
Excessive bail is tantamount to denial of bail, which is unconstitutional (Dela Camara vs.
Enage)
3. When bail is a matter of right
Before or after conviction by MTC, MCTC, MJC
Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)
a. Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
b. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal subject to consent of
bondsman
c. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be allowed temporary liberty
under his bail or recognizance
iii. Accused may move to reduce bail, and hearing will be set
Accused is released
ii.
vi. Otherwise, judge sets bail and procedure for non-capital offense is followed
In capital crimes, judge's discretion is limited to determining strength of evidence and
does not cover determining whether bail should be allowed (Herras vs. Teehankee)
Evidence must be strong that the accused is guilty of the capital offense charged, not
just of any offense (Bernardez vs. Valera)
6. Bail bond
an obligation under seal given by accused with one or more sureties and made
payable to proper officer with the condition to be void upon performance by the
accused of such acts as he may legally be required to perform
7. Recognizance
a. Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take it,
with the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being
the appearance of the accused for trial
b. Does not require signature of accused for trial
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not more
than 20 years, and:
a. Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or guilty of the aggravating
circumstance of reiteration;
b. Provisionally escaped, evaded sentence, violated provisions of bail;
c. Committed offense while on probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
a. Caught in flagrante
d. Probability of flight; or
g. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2 times
Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act of God, the obligee or the
law (US vs. Bonoan)
14. Provisional forfeiture
a. Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
b. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear
15. Remedies
a. Application for bail, when bail can be availed of as a matter of right
b. Petition for bail, when the offense charged is a capital offense
For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt
16. Circumstances to be considered in fixing amount of bail:
a. Financial ability of accused to give bail;
i.
ii.
Accused dies
b. Automatic cancellation
i.
Case is dismissed
ii.
Accused is acquitted
f.
Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
j.
17. Notes:
a. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person
(Callanta vs. Villanueva). However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the
articles seized incidentally to such illegal arrest.
b. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary
investigation when he failed to do so before entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
c. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without
prior court permission (warrantless arrest allowed).
RULE 115 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
1. Right of the accused under the Rules
a. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt
In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed innocent until and
unless his conviction is affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of charges
The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later proceedings must be
in a language the accused understands (People vs. Crisologo)
c. To be present at every stage of proceedings, subject to waiver by bail
If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia; the accused
forfeits his rights to be notified of proceedings in the future and to adduce evidence in his
behalf (People vs. Salas)
d. To testify as witness on his own behalf, subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
direct examination; not to be prejudiced by his silence
e. Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
f.
To confront and examine the witnesses against him, including the right to use in evidence
testimony of a witness
i.
ii.
Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when such informer
was crucial in the operation itself; failure to present the informer is a denial of the right
to confront the witness which merits the reversal of the conviction (People vs.
Bagano)
g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his behalf
h. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial,
entitling the accused to mandamus to compel dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if
he is detained
i.
ii.
If he testifies, he may refuse to answer those questions which may incriminate him in
ANOTHER offense
ii.
v.
iv. Action ended in conviction, acquittal or termination without the consent of the accused
Opportunity to cross-examine
c.
ii.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative bodies.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the same act.
RULE 116 ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
1. Procedure
No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of the accused (Caes vs. IAC)
a. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
There is double jeopardy if a person is charged twice under different penal statutes for the
same acts (People vs. Relova)
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party
5. Remedies
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment
Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially complied
with; if not, case may be remanded for re-arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
a. Motion to quash
b. Motion to dismiss
Both filed on the ground of violation of accused's rights, thereby ousting the court of
jurisdiction
d. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
e. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
6. NOTES:
f.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
People vs. Agbayani the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only
when so demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and ground for new
trial. Further, such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing Speedy Trial Act of 1997),
accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within
30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
j.
Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the
manner of statement of such fact is immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)
4. Remedies
a. Motion for specification
2. Kinds of plea
Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill of
Particulars is necessary to clarify the acts for which the accused is being charged
b. Motion to quash
d. Guilty to a lesser offense if fiscal and offended party consents, conviction under offense
charged for purposes of double jeopardy
i.
ii.
iii. Even if info is not amended, and even if lesser offense is not included in offense charged,
court may still find the accused guilty of that lesser offense
May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, when it can be
shown that the accused was not aware of the significance of pleading guilty to the
charges
Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his
plea, and its consequences
Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and determine
his degree of culpability, and accused may still establish presence of mitigating
circumstances in his favor
f.
Motion to quash
Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of exculpatory evidence (if
accused pleaded guilty), trial court should consider the plea withdrawn and in its place, order
the plea of not guilty
Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to quash or by
plea in abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
a. Entry of plea will waive
i.
ii.
a hypothetical admission that even if all the facts alleged were true, the
accused still cannot be convicted due to other reasons
d. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
a. Information does not conform to prescribed form
For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law, only
that it alleges that one offense was necessary to commit the other (People vs. Alagao)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
i.
No territorial jurisdiction
ii.
NOTE: Court will consider no other grounds other than those raised, EXCEPT lack of jurisdiction
over offense charged.
4. Requisites of Double jeopardy
a. Valid information or complaint, sufficient in form and substance
b. Before court of competent jurisdiction
Doctrine of Jurisdiction by Estoppel: depends upon whether the lower court actually had
jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the
theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred on appeal, from assailing such
jurisdiction, for the same 'must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by
consent of the parties or by estoppel'. However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the
case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had
no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on
appeal, to assume an inconsistent position that the lower court had jurisdiction. Here,
the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does
not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.
c. Accused had pleaded
d. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal or termination of case without consent of accused
e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or necessarily includes or is necessarily
included
Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy
to the charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence.
5. Procedure
a. MTQ filed
b. If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
c. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded
yet), EXCEPT when the ground is:
i.
Double jeopardy OR
ii.
6. Remedies
a. Motion to dismiss if certain grounds were not raised or denied in a MTQ
b. Trial
If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial
Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if
necessary; mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if there is not other plain, simple
and adequate remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such grounds,
except:
a. To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
d. Double jeopardy
process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work
out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval.
It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to
only some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter
sentence than that for the greater charge.
Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits; he
must give the defendant the chance to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, 1)
HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare
for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
Under Speedy Trial Act of 1997, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC,
RTC and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the Speedy Trial Act of 1997, an accused may plea
guilty to a lesser offense only if said offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures;
these facts need not be proved by evidence in trial
Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned by either accused or counsel; a later memo of
confirmation, signed only by counsel, cannot cure defect (Fule vs. CA)
Presentation
3. Pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls the
course of action during the trial
4. Procedure
Re-cross
Plea bargaining
ii.
Stipulation of facts
iii. Marking of evidence (does not imply conceding to its admissibility or credibility)
iv. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
v.
Offer
g. Accused may move for discharge
h. Prosecution rests
i.
j.
k. Defense rests
l.
b. Motion to consolidate
Upon the court's discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single case if the
offenses charged arise form the same facts or form part of a series of similar offenses
Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the same manner
(People vs. David)
b. Resides more than 100 km. from means of trial; no means to attend
5. Application (prosecution)
a. Sick or infirm
Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if court
denies motion for discharge, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or refuses to
testify against his co-accused in accordance with his statement (which formed the basis
for his discharge)
b. Party who applies for postponement has not been guilty of neglect
c. Witness can be had at the time to which the trial has been deferred
d. No similar evidence could be obtained
7. Requisites to discharge of an accused as State Witness
f.
Demurrer to evidence
May be made after the prosecution rests its case
If the court finds the prosecution's evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed
i.
If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
ii.
If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived
the right to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment
The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his
behalf when his failure to adduce them during the trial was his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
ii.
1. Judgment
adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense
charged, and the imposition of the proper penalty and civil liability provided by law
on the accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and the acquittal immediately
becomes final and executory. If the accused is found guilty, penalty and civil liability will be
imposed on him.
3. Accused may be convicted of
a. The offense charged
b. A lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged
Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged (People vs.
Guevarra)
4. Contents
a. Written in official language
b. Personally prepared and signed by the judge
ii.
Level of participation
Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did not exist
ii.
Basis of liability
5. Procedure
a. Judge reads judgment in presence of accused
b. If judgment is of acquittal
i.
ii.
Parole
With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall render
judgment imposing said penalty, but refrain from entering judgment and then certify
the case and the entire record thereof to the SC for review (R124, 13)
CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or
re-trial, or dismiss the case
With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or lesser penalty
involving offenses committed on the same occasion, or arising out of same occurrence
where graver penalty of death is available but life imprisonment is imposed; all other
cases, by petition for review on certiorari
If death penalty, automatic review
Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned beyond the maximum penalty
imposed by law (Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious, certiorari lies and no double jeopardy since validity and not
correctness of dismissal is being challenged.
RULE 126 SEARCH AND SEIZURE
1. Search warrant
Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a Motion for Recon
or a Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the notice perfected the appeal, and the trial court
loses its power to modify or set aside the judgment. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal is
where the accused decides to serve his sentence.
2. Effect of appeal by any of several accused
a. Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and applicable to them
b. Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of judgment
c. Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result in double
jeopardy
a. Dismissal made upon motion or with express consent of the accused
b. Dismissal is not an acquittal nor based upon consideration of the evidence or merits of the
case
c. Question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that if the dismissal is
found incorrect, the case has to be remanded to the court of origin to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused
4. When serving sentence, remedy is to petition for habeas corpus
a. Filed when the law under which the accused was convicted is repealed or declared
unconstitutional
b. When a later judgment is rendered acquitting others for similar circumstances
Otherwise, equal protection is violated
c. When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the maximum period of the
new penalty
For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure (US vs. Katz)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it is authorized by a search warrant.
Evidence gathered from an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible.
Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable
character by which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to it, and
such is not an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Villanueva vs. Querubin)
Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill
vs. Diokno)
Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be
effective:
a. The right must exist
b. Person must be aware of the right
c. Person clearly shows the intent to relinquish such right
No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one compromises the
criminal proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)
There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is present (Roan vs. Gonzales)
3. Requisites of a valid search warrant
a. Issued upon probable cause
Probable cause such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent
man to believe that a crime has been committed and the thing
to be searched for and seized is in the place to be searched
b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing judge
Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs.
Gonzales)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion residing in the same locality
Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same search for the same
purpose and of the same place (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
f.
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto (search warrant
becomes void after 10 days)
h. Indicates time, if to be served at night
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
a. Description is as specific as circumstances allow
Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory, and surrenders items seized to
receiving court (not necessarily court which issued the warrant)
Items seized illegally must remain in custodia legis pending resolution of the case (Roan
vs. Gonzales)
i.
c. Things described are limited to those which bear a direct relation to the offense for which the
warrant is issued
ii.
Limited to:
5. Procedure
a. Complainant files application, attaches affidavits
Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case (People vs.
Sy Juco)
Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the person against whom
the warrant is issued, that the objects to be seized are fruits or means of committing a
crime, and that they belong to the same person, thus, not affecting third persons (People
vs. Sy Juco)
d. Vessels and aircrafts for violation of Tariff and Customs Code, EXCEPT dwelling houses
e. Plain view
f.
Moving vehicle
g. Hot pursuit
1. The institution of all criminal actions, including cases governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, shall now be the same.
i.
j.
Inspection of building and premises for enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations
Thus, preliminary investigation is required for all offenses cognizable by the RTC and for some
cases cognizable by the MTC.
3. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the prescriptive period of the
offense except for offenses punishable by special laws.
9. NOTES:
This is in accordance with the ruling in Zaldivia vs. Reyes, which stated that the Rules of Court
cannot amend special laws, and under Act no. 3326**, the prescriptive period for violation of
special laws and municipal ordinances was interrupted only upon the filing of the complaint or
information in court.
b. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in the proceeding.
**
i.
ii.
An Act To Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized By Special Laws and
Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin To Run.
The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be
furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
This amendment is intended to prevent the prosecution from abusing the process of
amendment before plea by dropping any of the accused from the information or reducing the
offense charged, whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a
reinvestigation of the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice (Crespo vs. Mogul).
RULE 111 PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
1. Only the civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted (not merely
impliedly) with the criminal unless the offended party:
a. Waives the civil action
b. Reserves his right to institute it separately OR
c. Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
2. The independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 are no longer deemed or
impliedly instituted with the criminal action or considered as waived
Both actions may proceed separately, the only limitation is the prohibition to recover
damages twice based on the same act or omission.
6. Except for civil actions provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the civil
action which has been reserved cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the
criminal action.
The action contemplated herein is a civil action arising from a crime if reserved or
filed separately and if a criminal case is filed, it has to be suspended.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the period of prescription of the civil action
which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall not run.
7. The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action
shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict.
This rule would only apply if any of the civil actions under section 3 is consolidated
with the criminal action, otherwise, since the actions under section 3 are purely civil actions,
the effects of death of a party are to be governed by the Rules on Civil Procedure.
8. A prejudicial question is limited to a previously instituted civil action in order to minimize
possible abuses by the subsequent filing of a civil action as an after thought for the purpose of
suspending the criminal action.
They may proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
3. The reservation applies only to the civil liability arising from the offense charged.
The employer may not longer be held civilly liable for quasi-delict in the criminal
action as ruled in Maniago vs. Court of Appeals since quasi-delict is not deemed instituted with
the criminal.
2. The complaint should be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as well
as other supporting papers relied upon by the complainant to establish probable cause.
If at all, the only civil liability of the employer in the criminal action would be his
subsidiary liability under the Revised Penal Code.
4. The respondent is now required to submit counter-affidavits and other supporting documents relied
upon by him for his defense.
4. The present rule has also done away with third-party complaints and counterclaims in criminal
actions. These claims must have to be ventilated in a separate civil action.
5. The respondent now has the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant of which
he may not have been furnished and to obtain copies thereof at his expense.
If the records are voluminous, the complainant may be required to identify those
which he intends to present to support his charge and these shall be made available for
examination, copying or photographing by respondent at his expense.
5. The extinction of the civil liability refers exclusively to civil liability arising from crime;
Whereas, the civil liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict only and not as
a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act
charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused.
6. The prosecutor is required to resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the
complainant, in the event that:
a. The respondent cannot be subpoenaed OR
b. The respondent, if subpoenaed, does not submit a counter-affidavit within the 10-day period.
7. The clarificatory hearing shall only to limited to facts and issues which the investigating officer
believes need to be clarified.
After searching questions and answers, determine probable cause and necessity of
placing accused in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
ii.
iii. No warrants:
(1) If one already issued OR
(2) The complaint or information filed under Section 7 (order of detention must be issued)
OR
9. Whether the recommendation of the investigating officer is to file or dismiss the case, he shall,
within 5 days from his resolution, forward the records to:
b. The ombudsman or his deputy, for offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction
Who shall taken appropriate action within 10 days from receipt and immediately
inform the parties of said action.
10. A party has the right to appeal to the Secretary of Justice and require that the parties be notified of
the recommendation of the action to be taken therefrom.
11. The judge must determine the existence of probable cause within 10 days from the filing of the
information.
If the accused has already been arrested, the judge must determine within
10 days the existence of probable cause and issue an order of commitment.
The judge may disregard the prosecutors report and require the
submission of additional evidence to determine the existence of provable case. If he still finds
no probable cause, he shall dismiss the case.
12. Two types of offenses may be filed in the Municipal Trial Court for preliminary investigation:
a. A case is cognizable by the RTC may be filed with the MTC for preliminary investigation.
b. Even if it is cognizable by the MTC because it is an offense where the penalty prescribed by
law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to the fine.
The MTC is authorized in either case to issue a warrant of arrest if there is necessity
of placing the respondent under immediate custody, in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
13. Outline on Issuance of Warrants of Arrest by Municipal Trial Judge
a. During preliminary investigation
The hearing officer shall determine whether there is sufficient ground to hold the
respondent for trial upon the evidence adduced, within 10 days.
Cases which require Preliminary Investigation even if it falls within its original jurisdiction
Evaluate evidence OR
ii.
d. No warrants
i.
If the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody
(issues summons instead)
ii. Cases under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (no warrants except for
failure to appear)
iii. Rule on necessity
14. In case a person is arrested without a warrant, a complaint or information may only be filed after an
inquest conducted in accordance with existing rules.
Provided that in the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be
filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the
affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
15. Before the filing of a complaint or information, the person arrested without a warrant may ask for a
preliminary investigation by a proper officer, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code.
The waiver may be made only in the presence of his counsel pursuant to R.A. no. 7438.
In case the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may,
within 5 days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the
same right to adduce evidence in his defense.
b. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
AND
The request for preliminary investigation must be made before plea, otherwise the right to ask
for a preliminary investigation shall be deemed waived.
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
16. The court must evaluate the resolution of the investigating prosecutor and the supporting evidence
adduced during the preliminary investigation, and such evidence must be included in filing the
information.
17. Issuance of warrants of arrest by the MTC for actions filed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction
provides for two distinct situations: Case may be filed
a. Directly in the MTC OR
b. By the prosecutor in Metro Manila or other chartered cities.
18. If complaint is filed with the prosecutor for offenses which do not require a preliminary investigation,
the procedure is as follows:
a. The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent
b. Accompanied by:
i.
ii.
Other supporting documents relied upon by the complainant to establish probable cause
iii. Affidavits must be sworn before any prosecutor, state prosecutor or government official
authorized to administer oath, or a notary public (in their absence or unavailability)
iv. The prosecutor, et. al., must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is
satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
v.
The prosecutor shall take appropriate action based on the affidavits and other supporting
documents submitted by the complainant within 10 days from its filing.
19. If complaint is filed directly with the MTC for an offense punishable by less than 4 years, 6 months
and 1 day, the procedure is similar to (18).
The judge should then personally examine in writing and under oath the complainant.
20. No warrant of arrest shall issue for cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
RULE 113 ARREST
1. Instances of valid warrantless arrests:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
2. 1(b) removed the requirement that an offense must have in fact been committed and clarified that
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it would be sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest for an
offense that has just been committed.
3. Indubitable existence of a crime is not necessary to justify a warrantless arrest and that personal
knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means
an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting
officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good
faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
RULE 114 BAIL
1. Bail is a matter of right
a. Before or after conviction by the MTC AND
b. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
2. Bail is a matter of discretion after conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
3. Photos taken recently means photos taken within the last six months.
4. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court.
However, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the
offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and
resolved by the appellate court.
This provision modified the ruling in Obosa vs. Court of Appeals in the sense that
except for decisions which changed the nature of an offense from bailable to non-bailable
cases, the trial court may still act on the application of bail even if a notice of appeal have
been filed.
The conviction for the lower offense would not give rise to double jeopardy if the
plead of guilty for the lower offense was without the consent of the offended party.
Even if there is no notice of appeal if the decision of the trial court convicting the
accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application
for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
4. The presence of the offended party is now required at the arraignment and also to discuss the
matter of accuseds civil liability.
In case the offended party fails to appear despite due notice, the trial court may allow
the accused to plead guilty to a lower offense with solely the conformity of the trial prosecutor.
5. The arraignment shall be held within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.
Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular.
6. When the presence of the accused is required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall
be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time.
7. An application for bail by the accused shall NOT be considered as a waiver of his right to
challenge the legality of his arrest or the absence of a preliminary investigation.
Provided such objections are raised before plea.
The time of the pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes
justifying suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period.
6. Certain laws and SC Circulars provide for a shorter time within which the accused should be
arraigned:
a. Republic Act no. 4908
In criminal cases where the complainant is about to depart form the Philippines with
no definite date of return, the accused should be arraigned without delay and his trial
should commence within 3 days from the arraignment and that no postponement of the
initial hearing should be granted except on the ground of illness on the part of the accused
or other grounds beyond the control of the court.
This refers to a situation where an accused pleads guilty but invokes the mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense under Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended.
If the accused, after being allowed to present evidence, however adduces proof, not
only to establish incomplete self-defense, but that he acted with complete legal
justification, his earlier plea of guilty shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty
shall be entered for him.
2. While R.A. No. 8493 or the Speedy Trial Act provides that the accused shall be arraigned within 30
days from the time a court acquires jurisdiction over his person, Rule 116, 1(e) provides for a
shorter time within which an accused who is under preventive detention should be arraigned.
Where an accused is detained, his case should be raffled within 3 days from the filing of the
information or complaint against him, and the judge to whom his case is raffled shall have him
arraigned within 10 days from receipt by the judge of the records of the case.
The pre-trial conference shall be held within 10 days after the arraignment.
3. The consent of both the prosecutor and the offended party is required before an accused may be
allowed by the court to plead guilty to a lesser offense.
These cases must be tried continuously until terminated within 60 days from
commencement of the trial and to be decided within 30 days from the submission of the
case.
7.
A plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be allowed only if the lesser offense is necessarily included
in the offense charged.
Consent of the prosecutor and offended party must be obtained.
8. A counsel de oficio who is appointed to defend the accused at the arraignment is given a
reasonable time to consult with the accused as to his plea before proceeding with the arraignment.
The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
2. Conviction of an accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under the following instances:
a. The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge
b. The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea
was entered in the former complaint or information OR
c. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and of
the offended party except as provided in 1(f) of Rule 116.
3. A case may not be provisionally dismissed without:
a. The express consent of the accused AND
b. Notice to the offended party
4. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years shall
become final after 1 year from the issuance of the order without the case being revived.
5. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 6 years shall become
permanent 2 years from the issuance of the order without the case having been revived.
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. In all criminal cases cognizable by the (1) Sandiganbayan, (2) Regional Trial Court, (3)
Metropolitan Trial Courts, (4) Municipal Trial Court in Cities, (5) Municipal Trial Court and (6)
Municipal Circuit Trial Court
The court shall order a pre-trial conference (this must be held within 30 days from the date the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided
for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court)
2. The following shall be considered during the pre-trial conference:
a. Plea bargaining
b. Stipulation of facts
c. Marking for identification of evidence of the parties
d. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
e. Modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
defense; AND
f.
Such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the
case
3. All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be:
a. Reduced to writing and
b. Signed by the accused and counsel
Otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by
the court.
4. If the counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference
and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation
The court may impose proper sanction or penalties.
RULE 119 TRIAL
1. After a plea of not guilty is entered
The accused shall have at least 15 days to prepare for trial
2. The trial shall commence within 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order.
3. Other laws, rules and regulations prescribe speedy trial for a shorter period for other offenses:
a. Criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure or where the penalty prescribed
by law does not exceed 6 months imprisonment, or a fine of P1,000 or both, irrespective of
other imposable penalties
Governed by Rule 123
b. R.A. No. 4908, An Act Requiring Judges of Courts to Speedily Try Criminal Cases Wherein the
Offended Party is a Person About to Depart from the Philippines with No Definite Date of
Return
Requires such cases to take precedence over all other cases before our courts except
election and habeas corpus cases
The trial in these cases shall commence within 3 days from the date the accused is
arraigned and no postponement of the initial hearing shall be granted except on the
ground of illness on the part of the accused, or other grounds beyond the control of the
accused
c. Speedy Trial of Child Abuse cases
The trial of child abuse cases shall take precedence over all other cases before our courts
except election and habeas corpus cases
The trial in these cases shall commence within 3 days from the date the accused is
arraigned and no postponement of the initial hearing shall be granted except on account
of the illness of the accused or other grounds beyond his control (Sec. 21, Rules and
Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse cases issued pursuant to
Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 1610, The Child Abuse Act)
d. Violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law
e. Under Administrative Order No. 104-96
4. Trial once commenced
Shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated
May be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause
5. After consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel
The court shall set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short term trial calendar at
the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial
6. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed 180 days from the first day of trial, except as
otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court.
7. The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section shall not apply where
special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court provide for a shorter period of trial.
8. The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must
commence:
a. Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused, including but not
limited to the following:
i.
Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused;
ii.
Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal charges against the
accused;
vi. Delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a prejudicial question; and
vii. Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed 30 days, during which any
proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement.
b. Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of an essential witness. (An
essential witness shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his
whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence. He shall be considered unavailable whenever
his whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.)
i.
Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or physical inability of the
accused to stand trial.
ii.
If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter a charge is
filed against the accused for the same offense
Any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time
limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge had there been no
previous charge
iii. A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-accused over
whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction; or, as to whom the time for trial has not run
and no motion for separate trial has been granted.
iv. Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any court motu proprio, or on
motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court granted the
continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice
served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a
speedy trial.
9. The following factors, among others, shall be considered by a court in determining whether to grant
continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule.
a. Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would likely make a
continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of justice; and
b. Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to the
number of accused or the nature of the prosecution, or that it is unreasonable to expect
adequate preparation within the periods of time established therein
10.
iv. When the custodian of the prisoner receives from the public attorney a properly supported
request for the availability of the prisoner for purposes of trial, the prisoner shall be made
available accordingly.
15. In any case in which private counsel for the accused, the public attorney, or the prosecutor:
a. Knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that a necessary witness would
be unavailable for trial;
b. Files a motion solely for delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit;
11. The general rule is that motions for postponement are granted only upon meritorious grounds and
no party has the right to assume that his motion will be granted. The grant or denial of a motion for
postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Unless grave abuse of discretion
is shown, such discretion will not be interfered with either by mandamus or appeal.
12. If the accused is to be tried again pursuant to an order for a new trial
The trial shall commence within 30 days from notice of the order (provided that if the period
becomes impractical due to unavailability of witnesses and other factors, the court may extend
it but not to exceed 180 days from notice of said order for a new trial
13. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1(g), Rule 116 and the preceding section 1, for the first
twelve-calendar-month period following its effectivity on September 15, 1998
The time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by said provision
shall be 180 days. For the second twelve-month period, the time limit shall be 120 days, and
for the third twelve-month period, the time limit shall be 80 days.
14. If the public attorney assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows that the latter is
preventively detained, either because he
a. Is charged with a bailable crime but has no means to post bail, or
b. Is charged with a non-bailable crime, or
c. Makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he knows to be false and
which is material tot he granting of a continuance; or
d. Willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with the provisions hereof
The court may punish such counsel, attorney, or prosecutor, as follows:
i.
ii.
By imposing on any appointed counsel de oficio, public attorney, or prosecutor a fine not
exceeding P5,000; and
iii. By denying any defense counsel or prosecutor the right to practice before the court trying
the case for a period not exceeding 30 days. The punishment provided for by this section
shall be without prejudice to any appropriate criminal action or other sanction authorized
under these Rules.
16. If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 1(g), Rule 116 and
section 1, as extended by section 6 of this Rule
The information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of his right
to speedy trial
17. The accused shall have the burden of proving the motion but the prosecution shall have the burden
of going forward with the evidence to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this Rule.
i.
Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial or cause a notice
to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner requiring such person to so
advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.
19. No provision of law on speedy trial and no rule implementing the same shall be interpreted as a bar
to any charge of denial of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by section 14(2) , Article III, of the
1987 Constitution.
ii.
Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall promptly advise the
prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial. If at anytime thereafter the prisoner
informs his custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect
to be sent promptly to the public attorney.
iii. Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek to obtain the presence
of the prisoner for trial.
The court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
a. On its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or
b. Upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court
21. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court
It shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the
guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt ( in either
case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might
arise did not exist)
4. The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of
the court in which it was rendered.
5. If the conviction is for a light offense
The judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative
6. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city
The judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court
7. If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city
The judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having
jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which
rendered the judgment
8. The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to
approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial court convicting the
accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail
can only be filed and resolved by the appellate court.
9. The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused personally or through his bondsman or
warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the decision.
10. If the accused was tried in absentia because he
b. Personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and
a. Jumped bail or
c. Contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based
The issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return
was made
6. If the return has been made
a. Ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complied with and
RULE 124 PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
1. The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and
in the Supreme Court in original and appealed cases
Shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Rule
2. The provisions of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court (Annulment of Judgments of Final Judgment and
Resolutions) are no longer applicable in criminal cases. The appropriate remedy for lack of
jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud being either:
a. Certiorari under Rule 65 or
b. Habeas corpus under Rule 102
RULE 126 SEARCH AND SEIZURE
1. An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: