CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

A. GENERAL MATTERS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and CRIMINAL LAW, distinguished

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL LAW

Remedial
It provides how the act is to be punished
It provides for the method by which a
person accused of a crime is arrested, tried
or punished.
Substantive
It declares what acts are punishable
It defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.

DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the
punishment for it (People v. Mariano, GR. No. L-40527, 30 June 1976).

BASIC OVERVIEW

1. Commission of Crime

2. Investigation and Evidence Gathering

3. Search and Seizure

4. Filing of Complaint

5. Preliminary Investigation/ Inquest (Appeal to Sec. of Justice)

6. Filing of Information

7. Arrest

8. Bail

9. Arraignment and Plea

10. Pre-Trial

11. Trial

12. Promulgation of Judgment

13. New Trial or Reconsideration

14. Appeal

15. Execution of Judgment

JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER FROM and
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON

MATTER OF THE ACCUSED
Conferred by law at the time of the Acquired by: (a) arrest of the person;
institution of the action. or (b) voluntary submission of the
Determined by the extent of the penalty person (e.g. by filing bail, or
which the law imposes based on the facts motions).
in the complaint/information.
N.B.: Absence of jurisdiction over the subject N.B.: Failure to timely object may be
matter may be raised at any stage. The right deemed a waiver.
to make such objection is never waived.

REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

The following requisites must be present before a court can validly exercise its
power to hear and try a case:

(a) the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(b) the court must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was
committed (this refers to venue or the place where the case is to be tried); and

(c) the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

NB: Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not

only the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that
has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold.
First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a
trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its
territorial jurisdiction. Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on
the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the municipality of
province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available. (Union
Bank of the Philippines v. People, G.R. No. 192565, 28 February 2012).

REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSITORY OR CONTINUING OFFENSES

For transitory or continuing offenses, the courts of the territories where the essential
ingredients of the crime took place have concurrent jurisdiction.

First court to take cognizance will exclude the others (People v. Gorospe, 1988).

Illustration: Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. A

suit on a bounced check can be filed in any of the places where any of the elements
 of the offense occurred, that is, where the check was drawn, issued, delivered or
dishonored. (Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, 17 November 2004)

JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS

MTC, MeTC, MCTC

Violations of city/municipal ordinances;
Crimes punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, regardless of the fine
or other accessory penalties and civil liability;
Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence (Sec. 32, BP
129);
Violations of traffic laws/rules/regulations, of rental laws, and cases where the
penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding 6
months or a fine not exceeding P1000, except that in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence and the imposable fine does not exceed
P10,000.
Special jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for writ of habeas corpus or
application for bail in the province or city where the RTC judge is absent;
Cases involving BP 22Bouncing Checks Law;
In election offenses, cases involving failure to register or failure to vote.

RTC
Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body (Sec. 20, BP
129);
All criminal cases where the penalty is higher than 6 years, including
government-related cases wherein the accused is not one of those falling under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan;
Cases where one or more of accused is 18 years old but not less than 15 years old, or
where one or more of the victims is a minor, at the time of the commission of the
offense (R.A. No. 9344);
Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
Violations of the Child Abuse Act (R.A. No. 7610);
Actions for written defamation/libel (Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC], as
amended by R.A. No. 4363);
Cases of domestic violence against women and children (R. A. No. 8369, Family
Courts Act); and
Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by MTCs in their respective
territorial jurisdiction.

SANDIGANBAYAN

The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases (see
PD 1606, R.A. No. 7975, and R.A. No. 8249):

I. Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices), RA 1379 (Unlawfully

Acquired Property), and the Revised Penal Code (Book II, Title VII, Chapter II,
Section 2), where one of the accused is an official occupying the following
positions (permanent or interim) at the time of the commission of the offense:

1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director

and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the
 Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6758),
specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the

Sangguniang Panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang

Panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers and other city
department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul

and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all
officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the

position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent or higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials
and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-

owned or -controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations.

2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and up

under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

3. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the

Constitution;

4. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice

to the provisions of the Constitution; and

5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

II. Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed with other crimes,
committed by the abovementioned public officials and employees mentioned in
relation to their office.

III. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

N.B.: The officials enumerated in Section (4) (A) (i) of R.A. No. 8249, i.e. city
treasurers, assessors, etc., are subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
regardless of salary grade (Inding v. Sandiganbayan, 434 SCRA 388). Thus, if
the accused does not belong to the national and local officials enumerated, in
order for the Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction over the offense, the same
 must be committed by officials classified as Grade 27 and higher, aside from
other officials, expressly covered.

As explained by the Court in Inding (supra):

Clearly, therefore, Congress intended these officials regardless of their salary

grades, to be specifically included within the Sandiganbayan's original
jurisdiction, for had it been otherwise, then there would have been no need for
such enumeration.

"This conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that some of the officials
enumerated in "a" to "g" are not classified as SG 27 or higher under the x x x
Position Titles and Salary Grades of the Department of Budget and Management
x x x."

People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 169004, 15 September 2010

A member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of a city was charged

for allegedly criminally failing to liquidate certain cash advances he
made in violation of the Auditing Code of the Philippines.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over

said official as his salary grade is below SG 27.

Held: Yes. Those that are classified as SG 26 and below may still
fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan provided that they hold
the positions thus enumerated in said law.

Serana v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008

An information for estafa was filed with the Sandiganbayan

against a former student regent of the University of the Philippines (UP).
Said former student regent moved to quash the information, contending
that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the offense
charged nor over her person in her capacity as UP student regent. She
contends that estafa falls under Crimes Against Property and not on the
chapter on Crimes Committed by Public Officers, only over which, she
argues, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Furthermore, she argues that
it was not the government that was duped, but Pres. Estrada, because the
money came from the Office of the President and not from government
funds. As to jurisdiction over her person, she contends that as a UP
student regent, she is not a public officer since she merely represents her
peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their positions in an ex
officio capacity.

Estafa is one of those felonies within the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan, subject to the twin requirements that: (a) the offense is
committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A)
 of PD No. 1606, as amended; and (b) the offense is committed in relation
to their office.

It is well-established that compensation is not an essential

element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public
office. Delegation of sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer.

A UP Student Regent is a Public Officer. A public office is the

right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a
given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the
benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of Regents. The

Sandiganbayan, also has jurisdiction over the other officers enumerated
in PD No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People, the Supreme Court held that
while the first part of Sec. 4(a) covers only officials with Salary grade 27
and higher but who are by express provisions of law placed under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express
provisions of law. Sec. 4(a)(1)(g) of PD No. 1606 explicitly vested the
Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors and trustees,
or manager of government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities, or educational foundations. Petitioner falls under this
category. The Board of Regents performs functions similar to those of a
board of trustee of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law,
petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by PD No. 1606.

Venue

Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be waived nor subjected to

stipulation.

General Rule: Criminal action shall be instituted in the courts of the municipality or
territory where the offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients
occurred.

Exceptions:

1. Where an offense is committed on a railroad train, in an aircraft or in any other

public or private vehicle in the course of its trip the criminal action may be
instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or territory where such
train, aircraft or other vehicle passed during such trip, including the place of
departure and arrival;

2. Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage the
criminal action may be instituted and tried in the proper court of the first port
of entry or of any municipality or territory through which the vessel passed
during such voyage subject to the generally accepted principles of international
law (Rule 110, Sec. 15);
 3. Felonies under Article 2 of the RPC shall be cognizable by the proper court
where the criminal action was first filed.

i. Piracy the venue of piracy, unlike all other crimes, has no territorial
limits. It may be tried anywhere.

ii. Libel please see the discussion on the venue for filing of libel cases

4. In cases filed under B.P. 22 the criminal action shall be filed in the place where
the check was dishonored or issued. In case of crossed-check, in the place of
depositary or collecting bank;

5. In exceptional circumstances to ensure a fair trial and impartial inquiry, the

Supreme Court shall have the power to order a change of venue or place of trial
to avoid miscarriage of justice (1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 5[4]).

Venue for filing of libel cases:

If the offended party is a private individual

Under Article 360 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 4363, the
venue for libel cases is either:

1. where the complainant actually resides at the time of the

commission of the offense; or

2. where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first

published.

If the private complainant opts for the second, the Information

(formal indictment) must specifically state where the libelous article
was printed and first published.

If the libelous article appears on a website, there is no way of

finding out the location of its printing and first publication. It is not
enough for the complainant to lay the venue where the article
was accessed, as this will open the floodgates to the libel suit being
filed in all other locations where the website is also accessed or
capable of being accessed, and spawn the very ills the amendment
sought to prevent.

Thus, in cases where the libelous article appears on a website, the

private complainant has the option to file the case in his/her place
of residence, which will not necessitate finding out exactly where the
libelous matter was printed and first published.

BONIFACIO, ET AL. v. RTC OF MAKATI, BR. 129

G.R. 184800, 5 May 2010
 An Information for 13 counts of libel was filed before the
RTC of Makati against accused, for providing a public forum in
the internet, which contained defamatory remarks against the
Yuchengco family. The information failed to state the particular
place within the RTCs jurisdiction where the subject article was
printed and first published, or that the offended parties resided in
Makati at the time the alleged defamatory material was printed
and first published. Instead, the information alleged where the
offended party first accessed the internet-published material. The
issue now is whether the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the
case.

The RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over the case.

Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place
where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of
the action but constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. The
venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual
is limited to only either of two places, namely: (a) where the
complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense; or (b) where the alleged defamatory article was printed
and first published. The [Amended] Information in this case
opted to lay the venue by availing of the second. Thus, it stated
that the offending article was first published and accessed by the
private complainant in Makati City. In other words, it considered
the phrase to be equivalent to the requisite allegation of printing
and first publication.

If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and

first published are used by the offended party as basis for the
venue in the criminal action, the Information must allege with
particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first
published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address
of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers,
magazines or serial publications. This precondition becomes
necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass. For the
Court to hold that the Amended Information sufficiently vested
jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply because the
defamatory article was accessed therein would open the
floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where
the Pep Coalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being
accessed.

If the offended party is a public officer

If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at
the time of the commission of the offense, the criminal action may be
filed in the RTC of Manila.

If the offended party is a public officer whose office is outside

Manila, the action may be filed in the RTC of the province or city
where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense.
WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

General Rule: Prosecution of criminal cases may NOT be enjoined.

Exceptions:
To afford protection to the accuseds constitutional rights;
When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid multiplicity of
actions;
When theres a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
When the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
When there is double jeopardy;
When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
In case of persecution rather than prosecution
When the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust or vengeance;
When there is no prima facie case against the accused and a MTQ on that ground
has been denied; or
Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent threatened
unlawful arrest.

B. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

NATURE OF SEARCH WARRANT

A search warrant (SW) is an order in writing; issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines; signed by a judge; and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described in the warrant and bring it before the court.
(Rule 126, Sec. 1)

A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery.

(Malaloan v. CA, 1994)

DISTINGUISH FROM WARRANT OF ARREST

SEARCH WARRANT WARRANT OF ARREST

Order in writing in the name of the Republic
of the Philippines; signed by a judge; and
directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described in the
warrant and bring it before the court. (Rule
126, Sec. 1)
Probable cause to search requires facts to show
that particular things connected with crime are
found in a specific location.
Order directed to the peace officer to execute
the warrant by taking the person stated
therein into custody that he may be bound to
answer for the commission of the offense.
In order to determine probable cause to arrest,
the judge (not the prosecutor) must have
sufficient facts in his hands that would tend to
show that a crime has been committed and
that a particular person committed it.
The rules on searches and seizures cover a The rules on arrest are concerned with the
wider spectrum of matters on the search of seizure of a person. A search may follow an
both persons and places and the seizure of arrest but the search must be incident to a
things found therein. lawful arrest.

APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT, WHERE FILED

1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. (Rule 126,
Sec.2)

2. For compelling reasons stated in the application:

If the place of the commission of the crime is known, any court within the
judicial region where the crime was committed.
Any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

3. However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be
made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

Exception: Malaloan v. CA (1994), subject to Rule 126, Sec. 1

- if a case has not yet been filed, it may be filed in a court with a territorial
jurisdiction other than that where the illegal articles sought to seized are located.

4. In intellectual property rights cases (see A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC, 18 October 2011):

- The issuance of these writs shall be governed by the rules prescribed in Re:
Proposed Rule on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual
Property Rights (A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, which took effect on February 15, 2002).

(A) Special Commercial Courts in Quezon City, Manila, Makati, and Pasig shall have
authority to act on applications for the issuance of writs of search and seizure in
civil actions for violations of the Intellectual Property Code, which writs shall be
enforceable nationwide.

(B) Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, the Special Commercial Courts in
the judicial regions where the violation of intellectual property rights occurred shall
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of search and seizure.

REQUISITES FOR ISSUING SEARCH WARRANT

A SW shall not issue except:

1. upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense;
2. to be determined personally by the judge;
3. after examination under oath or affirmation of complainant and the witness he may
produce;
4. particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. (Rule
126, Sec. 4)

SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANT

 Period of validity 10 days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (Rule 126, Sec.
10)

Right to break door or window to effect search.

The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving
notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window
of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant, or to
liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
(Rule 126, Sec. 7)

Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in presence of two witnesses.

No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of
the letter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
(Rule 126, Sec. 8)

Time of making search

General rule: DAY TIME.
Exception: when the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the
place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be
served at any time of the day or night. (Rule 126, Sec. 9)
A SW violates the above rule if the time of the search is left blank, thus
enabling the officers to conduct the search in the evening of the appointed
search. (Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312 cited in People v. CA, G.R. No.
117412, 8 December 2000)

PROBABLE CAUSE

Probable cause for a search warrant requires such facts and circumstances that
would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched
(Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 [1984]).

The judge determining probable cause must do so only after personally examining
under oath the complainant and his witnesses. The oath required must refer to "the
truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses,
because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the
existence of probable cause." (Id.)

Comparisons

Probable cause in preliminary investigation is the existence of such facts and

circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts
within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he was prosecuted. (Buchanan v. Vda. De Esteban, 1915).

Probable cause in warrantless arrests: Rule 113.5(b) requires that the person
making the arrest has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that the arrestee is responsible for an offense which has just been
 committed. Probable cause must be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief
that a crime has been or is about to be committed. (People. v. Aruta, 1998).

PERSONAL EXAMINATION BY JUDGE OF THE APPLICANT AND WITNESSES

Determined by judge himself

The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the
record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted (Rule 126, Sec.
5).

PERSONAL EXAMINATION BY JUDGE OF THE APPLICANT AND WITNESSES

Searching questions and answers

Such questions as have the tendency to show the commission of a crime and
perpetrator thereof. (Luna v. Plaza, 1968)

PARTICULARITY OF PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THINGS TO BE SEIZED

Warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons
to be seized.

Description of place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the SW can, with
reasonable efforts, ascertain and identify the place intended. (People v. Veloso, 1925)

An apparent typographical error will not necessarily invalidate the SW, as long as
the application contains the correct address. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 1984)

Search Warrant must be for only one specific offense.

General Rule: The offense alleged must be specific to enable the judge to
find the existence of probable cause. Definite provisions of the allegedly
violated laws must be referred to.

Exception: In People v. Marcos (1990), the SW was declared valid despite lack
of mention of specific offense because the application stated that the owner
of the grocery store against whom warrant was directed, had in his
possession unadulterated stocks in violation of the provisions Art. 188 and
189, RPC, which are closely allied articles as the punishable acts defined in
one of them can be considered as including or is necessarily included in the
other.

Test of Particularity
The executing officers prior knowledge as to the place intended in the SW is
relevant.
This would seem especially true where the executing officer is the affiant on
whose affidavit the SW had issued, and when he knows that the judge who
issued the SW intended the building described in the affidavit.
 It has also been said that the executing officer must look to the affidavit in
the official court file to resolve an ambiguity in the SW as to the place to be
searched. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 1984)

PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED

What may be seized (Rule126, Sec. 3)

Personal property subject of the offense.
Personal property stolen/embezzled and other proceeds/fruits of the offense.
Personal property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense.

EXCEPTIONS TO SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT

Instances when warrantless searches are allowed

1. As incident of lawful arrest (Rule 126, Sec. 13)

A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may
have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant.
A motorist flagged down by a policeman for not wearing a helmet is not deemed
arrested since he was only given a traffic citation and the penalty for the ordinance is
only a fine. Hence the subsequent search of the motorcyclist was illegal and the
items seized were inadmissible in evidence. (Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, 29
February 2012)

2. Plain view doctrine.

Requisites:
(a) A valid prior intrusion, i.e., based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police
are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have a right to be where
they are;
(c) Evidence must be immediately apparently illegal (e.g. drug paraphernalia);
(d) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. ( Miclat v.
People, G.R. No. 176077, 31 August 2011)

Objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer, who has a right to be in the position
to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. (Fajardo
v. People, G.R. No. 190889, 10 January 2011)

3. Search of moving vehicle.

Police may conduct searches of moving vehicles without warrant because it is

impracticable to secure prior judicial search warrant since the vehicle can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant may be sought.
 These searches are generally limited to visual inspection, and the vehicles or their
occupants cannot be subjected to body searches EXCEPT when there is probable
cause to believe that the occupant is a law offender or the vehicles contents are
instruments or proceeds of some criminal offense.

4. Searches conducted in checkpoints.

They are valid as long as they are warranted by the exigencies of public order and
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists.
Here, the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to body search
(inspection of the vehicle is limited to visual search).

5. Consented warrantless searches.

When a person voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his
person/premises. (People v. Malasugui, 1936)

6. Customs searches.
For the enforcement of customs duties and tariff laws, the Collector of Customs is
authorized to effect search and seizure without search warrant, except in search of a
dwelling/house. (General Travel Services v. David, 1966)

7. Stop and Frisk.

It is a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapon. (Malacat v. CA, 1997)
Probable cause is not required. But a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officers experience and surrounding condition to warrant a belief that a person has
weapons concealed

ESQUILLO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 182010, 25 August 2010

The trial court found petitioner guilty of illegal possession of

Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. On appeal, petitioner
assails the application of stop-and-frisk in convicting him of said
offense. However, the Supreme Court rejected petitioners contention.
To determine the validity of stop-and-frisk, essential is the
existence of a genuine reason, in light of the police officers
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or
contraband concealed about him. Such a stop-and-frisk practice
serves a dual purpose: (1) the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a
police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the
more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit
the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with
whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.

From these standards, the Court finds that the questioned act
of the police officers constituted a valid stop-and-frisk operation.
The search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially noticed in
petitioners possession - later voluntarily exhibited to the police
 operative - was undertaken after she was interrogated on what she
placed inside a cigarette case, and after PO1 Cruzin introduced
himself to petitioner as a police officer. And, at the time of her arrest,
petitioner was exhibiting suspicious behavior and, in fact, attempted
to flee after the police officer had identified himself.

8. In flagrante delicto.
When a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect an
arrest without a warrant, as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or
within his view.

9. Hot Pursuit.
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person 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 (Rule 113, Sec. 5). In this case, the person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense (Rule 126, sec. 13).

10. Prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest 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 (Rule 113, Sec. 5). In this case, the
person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense (Rule
126, sec. 13).

Remedies from unlawful search and seizure

Employ any means to prevent search.

Without a SW, the officer cannot insist on entering a citizens premises. If he
does so, he becomes an ordinary intruder.
The person to be searched may resist the search and employ any means
necessary to prevent it, without incurring any criminal liability. (People v.
Chan Fook, 1921)

File a criminal action against officer.

A public officer/employee who procures a SW without search just cause is
criminally liable under Art. 129, RPC (search warrants maliciously obtained
and abuse in the service of those legally obtained).

File a motion to quash the illegal SW.

This remedy is employed if search is not yet conducted.

File a motion to return seized things.

This is the remedy used if the search was already conducted and goods
where seized as a consequence thereof.
File a motion to suppress evidence.
This is anchored on the inadmissibility of seized items.
C. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

CRIMINAL ACTIONS, HOW INSTITUTED

Commenced by the filing of the complaint/information. (Rule 110, Sec.1)
NOTE: This tolls the running of the prescriptive period of the offense.

WHO MAY FILE CRIMES THAT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED DE OFFICIO

All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. (Rule 110,
Sec.5)
In cases of public prosecutors heavy work schedule or in the event of lack of public
prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized to prosecute the case.

Cases Which Cannot Be Prosecuted De Officio

Adultery/concubinage
Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
Defamation which consists of the imputation of any of the foregoing offenses

Offended parties who can file a complaint

In adultery and concubinage the offended spouse. Both guilty parties should be
included if both are still alive.
In oral defamation only by the offended party.

CONTROL OF PROSECUTION

a. Prior to filing of a case:

The public prosecutor has the discretion whether or not to file a criminal action.

b. After a case is filed in court:

It is the prosecutors duty, regardless of his personal conviction or opinion, to

proceed with the presentation of the evidence to enable the court to arrive at its own
judgment as to the accuseds guilt; in this situation, the public prosecutor has no
discretion to dismiss the action without the courts approval.

While the Secretary of Justice has the authority to review the acts of his
subordinates in criminal cases, the court always has the discretion to try a motion to
dismiss which the prosecution may file after the Secretary of Justice reverses an
appealed decision. (Roberts v CA, G.R. No. 113930)

The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice since it
is mandated to independently asses the merits of the case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE C. GO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 201644, 24 September 2014
 The Regional Trial Court dismissed the criminal cases, ruling that
the Go and Dela Rosas right to speedy trial was violated as they were
compelled to wait for five (5) years without the prosecution completing
its presentation of evidence due to its neglect. In their petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals, respondents failed to implead the
People of the Philippines as a party thereto.

The petition for certiorari was obviously defective. As provided in

Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all
criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the
public prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the respondents herein to
implead the People of the Philippines as respondent in the case before
the Court of Appeals to enable the Solicitor General to comment on the
petition.

SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense,

subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged
with the enforcement of the law violated. (Rule 110, Sec.3)

An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,

subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. (Rule, 110, Sec.4)

A complaint or information is sufficient if it states:

the name of the accused;
the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of
the offense; and
the place where the offense was committed.

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be
included in the complaint or information. (Rule 110, Sec.6)

An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and
the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a
crime is not an essential element of it. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material
fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its
commission. The failure to specify the exact date or time when it was committed
does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. (People v. Dion, G.R.
No. 181035, 4 July 2011)

LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014
 The gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1,
subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the owner and that the time of
occurrence is not a material ingredient of the crime, hence, the exclusion of
the period and the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected in
the Information, do not make the latter fatally defective. Therefore, Corpuzs
argument that the Information filed against him is formally defective
because the Information does not contain the period when the pieces of
jewelry were supposed to be returned and that the date when the crime
occurred was different from the one testified to by private complainant
Tangcoy is untenable.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DANILO FELICIANO, JR. ET AL.

G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014

The inclusion of the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of

disguise" in the information does not violate the constitutional rights of
appellants Feliciano. Every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be
stated in the information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even
if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. It was, therefore,
incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of
"wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in order
for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial
court.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA v.

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 183652, 25 February 2015

As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one

offense, otherwise, the same is defective. The rationale behind this rule
prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the accused the
necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to
sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the
accused two or more charges which might confuse him in his defense. Non-
compliance with this rule is a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint
or information under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the
accused may raise the same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea,
otherwise, the defect is deemed waived. The accused herein, however,
cannot avail of this defense simply because they did not file a motion to
quash questioning the validity of the Information during their arraignment.
Thus, they are deemed to have waived their right to question the same. Also,
where the allegations of the acts imputed to the accused are merely different
counts specifying the acts of perpetration of the same crime, as in the instant
case, there is no duplicity to speak of.

DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE

The acts and omissions constituting the offense must be alleged.

 Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specified.(Rule 110, Sec. 8)

In case of conflict between the designation of the crime and the recital of facts
constituting the offense, the latter prevails.

Minority: As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the

victim's minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged
and proven beyond reasonable doubt. (People v. Albalate, Jr. G.R. No. 174480,
December 18, 2009)

A mere statement or a conclusion of law is insufficient to convict an accused. (People

v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, 14 November 2011)

- Thus, an information charging sexual abuse, stating that accused with lewd
design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally commit acts
of lasciviousness upon the person of the offended party is insufficient as it
does not contain the essential facts constituting the offense, but a statement
of a conclusion of law. (People v. Pangilinan, supra.).

There is no substitution of the information where the amendment of the information

consists of the allegation of a different mode by which a certain crime is committed,
i.e. when an information charging an accused with violation of Section 3(e) of RA
3019 was modified to change the specification as to the mode of commission thereof.
(Saludaga v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 184537, 23 April 2010)

SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 184537, 23 April 2010

An Information charging petitioners Saludaga and SPO2 Genio for

violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 by causing undue injury to the
government was dismissed for failure of the prosecution to allege and prove
the amount of actual damages caused the government, an essential element of
the crime charged. The Office of the Special prosecutor re-filed the
information, charging the petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019, by giving unwarranted benefit to a private person, to the prejudice of
the government. The issue is whether or not there was a substitution of the
information that should have warranted the conduct of a preliminary
investigation

There is no substituted information here. The Information dated

August 17, 2007 charged the same offense, that is, violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019. Only the mode of commission was modified. While
jurisprudence, the most recent being Talaga, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, provides
that there are two (2) acts or modes of committing the offense, thus: a) by
causing any undue injury to any party, including the government; or b) by
giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, it
does not mean that each act or mode constitutes a distinct offense. An
accused may be charged under either mode or under both should both modes
concur.
 Petitioners reliance on the Teehankee v. Madayag, ruling that, in
substitution of information another preliminary investigation is entailed and
that the accused has to plead anew to the new information is not applicable
to the present case because, as already stated, there is no substitution of
information there being no change in the nature of the offense charged.

SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 17575051, 2 April 2014

Moleta filed a case against Consigna, the Municipal Treasurer of

General Luna, Surigao del Norte, for violation of AntiGraft and Corrupt
Practices and Estafa before the Sandiganbayan. Cosigna argued that the
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction because the crime as charged did not
specify the provision of law allegedly violated, i.e., the specific type of Estafa.
On that issue, the Supreme Court ruled that what is controlling is not the title
of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charge or the particular
law or part thereof allegedly violated but the description of the crime charged
and the particular facts therein recited.

CANCERAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 206442, 1 JULY 2015

In the subject information, the designation of the prosecutor of the

offense, which was Frustrated Theft, may be just his conclusion.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the charge was qualified by the
additional allegation, but, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of
some cause independent of accuseds will, that is, they were discovered
by the employees of Ororama Mega Center who prevented them from
further carrying away said 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream, x x
x. This averment, which could also be deemed by some as a mere
conclusion, rendered the charge nebulous. There being an uncertainty, the
Supreme Court resolved the doubt in favor of the accused, Canceran, and
held that he was not properly informed that the charge against him was
consummated theft.

DUNGO, ET AL. v. PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 209464, 1 JULY 2015

The Amended Information reads:

That on or about 2:30 in the early morning of 14 January

2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Province of
Laguna and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, during a planned initiation rite and being
then officers and members of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity and
present thereat, in conspiracy with more or less twenty other
 members and officers, whose identity is not yet known, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault and use
personal violence upon one MARLON VILLANUEVA y
MEJILLA, a neophyte thereof and as condition for his admission
to the fraternity, thereby subjecting him to physical harm,
resulting to his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs
of the victim.

Petitioners claim that the amended information avers a criminal

charge of hazing by actual participation, but the only offense proved
during the trial was hazing by inducement. Their contention must fail. It
is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the
statute in alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense. The test is whether it enables a person of common understanding
to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment
properly. The planned initiation rite as stated in the information
included the act of inducing Villanueva to attend it. In ordinary parlance,
a planned event can be understood to have different phases. Likewise, the
hazing activity had different stages and the perpetrators had different
roles therein, not solely inflicting physical injury to the neophyte. One of
the roles of the petitioners in the hazing activity was to induce Villanueva
to be present. Dungo and Sibal not only induced Villanueva to be present
at the resort, but they actually brought him there. They fulfilled their
roles in the planned hazing rite which eventually led to the death of
Villanueva. The hazing would not have been accomplished were it not for
the acts of the petitioners that induced the victim to be present. Secrecy
and silence are common characterizations of the dynamics of hazing. To
require the prosecutor to indicate every step of the planned initiation rite
in the information at the inception of the criminal case, when details of
the clandestine hazing are almost nil, would be an arduous task, if not
downright impossible. The law does not require the impossible (lex non
cognit ad impossibilia).

The proper approach would be to require the prosecution to state

every element of the crime of hazing, the offenders, and the
accompanying circumstances in the planned initiation activity, which has
been satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, the amended information
sufficiently informed the petitioners that they were being criminally
charged for their roles in the planned initiation rite.

CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION

Allegations required to safeguard the right to be informed

Allegations must be in ordinary or concise language, sufficient to enable person of
common understanding to know what offense is being charged.
This must be done both for the offense charged and the circumstances involved in its
commission. (Rule 110, Sec. 9)
The prosecutors characterization of the crime is immaterial and purposeless. The
facts stated in the body of the complaint/information determine the crime of which
the accused stands charged and for which he must be tried.
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged.
 Aggravating circumstances must be specified in the information, otherwise they are
not to be considered even if proven during the trial. (Rule 110, Sec. 8)

DUPLICITY OF THE OFFENSE

General Rule:
The information must charge only one offense.
Exception:
When the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.

Remedy of accused when the information charges more than one offense: file a
Motion to Quash.

Section 3, Rule 120 states that "[w]hen two or more offenses are charged in a single
complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court
may convict the appellant of as many as are charged and proved, and impose on
him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law
in each offense."

AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

Amendments in form and substance before plea

General Rule:
It must be made before the accused enters his plea.

Exception:
If the amendment downgrades the nature of the offense charged in, or excludes any
accused from, the complaint/information, it can be made only upon motion of the
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court.

Substantial amendments after plea are proscribed. Unlike formal amendments,

substantial amendments cannot be introduced after plea. (Leviste v. Almeda, 2010)

Formal amendments may be made after plea and during trial; but it should not
cause prejudice to the rights of the accused.

Amendment v. Substitution

Amendment
formal or substantial changes;
can be effected without leave of court;
if only as to form, no need for another PI and plea;
the amended information refers to the same offense charged in the original
information or to an offense included in the original charge;
accused can invoke double jeopardy.

Substitution
involves a substantial change from the original charge;
must be with leave of court;
 another preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to
the new information; and
requires or presupposes that the new information involves a different offense which
does not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge, hence the
accused cannot claim double jeopardy.

DR. JOEL C. MENDEZ v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 179962, 11 June 2014

Dr. Joel Mendez was charged with tax evasion. However, the
prosecutor filed an amended complaint which changed the date of the
commission of the offense. The court ruled that amendments that do not
charge another offense different from that charged in the original one; or do
not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the
accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume are considered
merely as formal amendments. The test on whether a defendant is prejudiced
by the amendment of an information pertains to the availability of the same
defense and evidence that the accused previously had under the original
information.

VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS

Venue - the place where action is to be instituted.

Venue of criminal actions shall be:

in the court of the municipality or territory
where offense was committed; or
where any of its essential ingredients occurred.

How venue or jurisdiction is determined

Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional, being an essential element jurisdiction.

(Macasaet v. People, 2005)

For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. (Uy v. CA, 1997)

When crime is continuing

A person charged with transitory crime maybe validly tried in any municipality or
province where the offense was in part committed. (People v. Gorospe, 1984)

Libel cases
If a private individual, action may also be filed in the province where he actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense. If a public officer, action may be
filed in the court of the province or city where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense. (Art 360, RPC)

Offense committed on railroad

 Action may be instituted and filed in the court of the first port of entry or any
municipality or territory where said train, aircraft or vehicle passed thru, including
place of departure or arrival. (Rule 110, Sec.15[b])

Offense committed on a vessel

Action may be instituted and filed in the court of the first port of entry or any
municipality or territory where the vessel passed during such voyage, subject to
generally accepted principles of international law. (Rule 110, Sec. 15[c])

Offense committed outside the Philippines

Cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed. (Rule 110, Sec.15[d])

INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED PARTY

General Rule:
An offended party has the right to intervene in the prosecution of a crime. (Rule 110,
Sec. 16)

Exceptions:
Where, from the nature of the crime and the law defining and punishing it, no civil
liability arises in favor of a private offended party.
Where, from the nature of the offense, the private offended party is entitled to civil
indemnity arising therefrom but he waived the same or has expressly reserved his
right to institute a separate civil action or he has already instituted such action.
Offended party has already instituted action.

LEONARDO A. VILLALON, et al. v. AMELIA CHAN

G.R. No. 196508, 24 September 2014

Sec. 16 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

expressly allows an offended party to intervene by counsel in the prosecution
of the offense for the recovery of civil liability where the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is instituted with
the criminal action. The civil action shall be deemed instituted with the
criminal action, except when the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action.

In this case, the Court of Appeals found no such waiver from or

reservation made by Chan. The fact that Chan, who was already based
abroad, had secured the services of an attorney in the Philippines reveals her
willingness and interest to participate in the prosecution of the bigamy case
and to recover civil liability from the petitioners. Thus, the trial court should
have allowed, and should not have disqualified, Atty. Atencia from
intervening in the bigamy case as Chan, being the offended party, is afforded
by law the right to participate through counsel in the prosecution of the
offense with respect to the civil aspect of the case.

D. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION WITH CRIMINAL ACTION

General Rule:
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of damages is
deemed instituted with the criminal action. (Rule 111, Sec. 1)

Exception:
If the offended party:
waives a civil action;
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action; or
reserves the right to institute it separately.

Exceptions to the exception:

Claims arising out of a dishonored check under BP 22 where no reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Claims arising from an offense which is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. (Sec. 4,
PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249)

WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY

The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made:
before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence, and
under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity
to make such reservation.

Procedure for making the reservation

Filing a manifestation in the criminal case that the offended party is reserving his
right to file a separate civil action.
Filing the separate civil action and informing the court trying the criminal case that
the offended party has filed a separate civil action.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or 3rd party complaint may be filed by the accused in
the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been subject thereof may
be litigated in a separate civil action. (Rule 111, Sec. 1)

WHEN SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION IS SUSPENDED

The civil action which should be suspended after the institution of the criminal
action is that arising from delict or crime.
Civil actions mentioned in Rule 111, Sec.3, under Arts. 32-34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code are exempted from the rule that after a criminal action has been commenced,
the civil action which has been reserved cannot be instituted until final judgment
has been rendered in the criminal action.

EFFECT OF THE DEATH OF ACCUSED OR CONVICT ON CIVIL ACTION (RULE 111,

SEC.4)

General Rule:
 If death is before arraignment, the case is dismissed without prejudice to the filing
of civil action against estate of the deceased.
If death is after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action, it
extinguishes the civil liability of the accused.

Exceptions:
If civil liability is predicated on other sources of obligations, as with independent
civil actions, recovery may still be made against the estate of the deceased or legal
representative after proper substitution.
If death is while appeal is pending it extinguishes criminal liability and civil
liability based thereon.

Effect of judgment on civil case on the criminal action

A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil
liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act or
omission subject of the civil action. (Rule 111, Sec.5)

DR. ANTONIO P. CABUGAO AND DR. CLENIO YNZON v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 163879, 30 July 2014

It is clear that the death of the accused Dr. Ynzon pending appeal of
his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability. However, the recovery of
civil liability subsists as the same is not based on delict but by contract and
the reckless imprudence he was guilty of under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code. For this reason, a separate civil action may be enforced either
against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on
the source of obligation upon which the same is based, and in accordance
with Section 4, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a

logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal.

The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the
jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or
tribunal.

Requisites of a Prejudicial Question

1. Previously initiated civil action involves issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action;
2. The resolution of such issue determines WON the criminal action may proceed.

Effect of prejudicial question

Gen Rule: Where both a civil and a criminal case arising from the same facts are
filed in court, the criminal case takes precedence.
 Exception: If there exists a prejudicial question which should be resolved first before
an action could be taken in the criminal case.

PEOPLE V. ARAMBULO
G.R. No. 186597, 17 June 2015

In their motion to suspend proceedings, respondents asserted that the

resolution of the two (2) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cases in
their favor would necessarily result in their acquittal in the criminal case for
estafa. The first case, SEC Case No. 05-97-5659, is an action for accounting of all
corporate funds and assets, annulment of sale, injunction, receivership and
damages. The second case, SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, involves the issue on
whether the group of Rodrigo and Buban are the lawful representatives of the
corporation and whether they are duly authorized to make a demand for
remittance.

The following requisites must be present for a civil action to be

considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the
criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case: (1) the civil case
involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution
would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil
action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined;
and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

SEC Case No. 05-97-5659, which is an action for accounting of all

corporate funds and assets, annulment of sale, injunction, receivership and
damages, does not present a prejudicial question to the criminal case for estafa.
Even if said case will be decided against respondents, they will not be adjudged
free from criminal liability. It also does not automatically follow that an
accounting of corporate funds and properties and annulment of fictitious sale of
corporate assets would result in the conviction of respondents in the estafa case.

With respect to SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, a prejudicial question exists.

The Complaint in SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 prays for the nullification of the
election of Anaped directors and officers, including Buban. Essentially, the issue
is the authority of the aforesaid officers to act for and behalf of the corporation. If
it is ruled in the SEC case that the present Anaped directors and officers were not
validly elected, then respondent Victoria may have every right to refuse
remittance of rental to Buban. Hence, the essential element of misappropriation
in estafa may be absent in this case.

RULE ON FILING FEES IN CIVIL ACTION DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH THE

CRIMINAL ACTION
General Rule: Actual damages claimed or recovered by the offended party are not
included in the computation of the filing fees. (Rule 111, Sec. 1)
Exception: In criminal actions for violation of BP22, the amount of the check
involved shall be considered as the actual damages for which no separate civil
action is allowed.
INDEMNITY

Civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the

crime by the offender. (People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 175836, 30 January 2009).

The rule is that the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged will not necessarily
extinguish his civil liability, unless the court declares in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Courts can acquit an
accused on reasonable doubt but still order payment of civil damages in the same
case. It is not even necessary that a separate civil action be instituted. (Romero vs.
People, G.R. No. 167546, 17 July 2009).

E. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

NATURE OF RIGHT

Preliminary investigation (PI) an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether

there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
trial. (Rule 112, Sec.1)

The right to PI is a statutory right in those instances where it is required, and to

withhold it would violate the constitutional right to due process (People v Oandasa,
1968); it is not a formal or technical right but a substantial right.

It is a personal right which the accused may waive expressly or impliedly.

PURPOSES OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

To determine whether or not a crime has been committed and whether or not there
is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty;
To protect the accused from inconvenience, expense and burden of defending
himself in a formal trial;
To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution.

RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA v.
HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 146376, 23 April 2014

Agdeppas assertion that he had been denied due process is

misplaced, bearing in mind that the rights to be informed of the charges, to
file a comment to the complaint, and to participate in the preliminary
investigation, belong to Junia. Clearly, the right to preliminary investigation is
a component of the right of the respondent/accused to substantive due
process. A complainant cannot insist that a preliminary investigation be held
when the complaint was dismissed outright because of palpable lack of merit.
It goes against the very nature and purpose of preliminary investigation to
still drag the respondent/accused through the rigors of such an investigation
 so as to aid the complainant in substantiating an accusation/charge that is
evidently baseless from the very beginning.

PEOPLE v. OMILIG
G.R. No. 206296, 12 August 2015

Accused executed his extrajudicial confession during the preliminary

investigation. Is this extrajudicial confession admissible in evidence?

Custodial Interrogation/Investigation is the questioning initiated by

law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. On the
other hand, Preliminary Investigation is an inquiry or a proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably
guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A person undergoing preliminary
investigation cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation.

The import of the distinction between custodial interrogation and

preliminary investigation relates to the inherently coercive nature of a
custodial interrogation which is conducted by the police authorities. Due to
the interrogatory procedures employed by police authorities, which are
conducive to physical and psychological coercion, the law affords arrested
persons constitutional rights to guarantee the voluntariness of their
confessions and admissions, and to act as deterrent from coercion by police
authorities. These safeguards are found in Article III, Section 12(1) of the
Constitution and Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438. Sans proper safeguards,
custodial investigation is a fertile means to obtain confessions and admissions
in duress.

In this case, accuseds extrajudicial confession is admissible in

evidence because it was obtained obtained during a preliminary
investigation. And even if accuseds extrajudicial confession was obtained
under custodial investigation, it is admissible. To be admissible, a confession
must comply with the following requirements: it must be (a) voluntary; (b)
made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; (c)
express; and (d) in writing. In the case at bar, the prosecution did not
present proof of the absence of any of these requirements.

WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Provincial/city prosecutors and their assistants, national and regional state
prosecutors, and other officers as may be authorized by law. (Rule 112, Sec.2)
COMELEC may conduct investigation re: election offenses. (Omnibus Election
Code)
Ombudsman is authorized to conduct PI re: criminal cases involving public officers
and employees. (Ombudsman Act)

ANLUD METAL RECYCLING CORPORATION v. ANG

G.R. No. 182157, 17 August 2015
 Petitioner explains that there are two determinations of probable
cause: the first is for the purpose of filing a criminal information in the
court, and the second is for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Petitioner
submits that since the first kind is executive in nature, then the Regional
Trial Court had absolutely no jurisdiction to determine the existence of
probable cause to hold respondent as an accused in the crime of estafa.
Hence, for petitioner, the Regional Trial Court grievously erred when it
gave due course to the Omnibus Motion of respondent, which questioned
the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor. Respondent
counters this argument by alleging that the Regional Trial Court may
resolve issues brought before it pursuant to the power of the court to
administer justice.

Petitioners interpretation of the rules on the determination of

probable cause is inaccurate. Although courts must respect the executive
determination of probable cause, the trial courts may still independently
determine probable cause. They are not irrevocably bound to the
determination of probable cause by the prosecutor and the Department of
Justice. The trial court actually has the following options upon the filing
of a criminal information: (a) immediately dismiss the case if the evidence
on record clearly fails to establish probable cause; (b) issue a warrant of
arrest if it finds probable cause; and (c) order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt as to the
existence of probable cause. These options are provided in Rule 112,
Section 6 (a) of the Rules of Court. Indeed, the Regional Trial Court is
allowed to dismiss the charge of estafa against Ang notwithstanding the
executive determination of probable cause by the prosecutor. If we were
to construe otherwise, we would be contradicting the basic principle that
once an information is filed in Regional Trial Court, any disposition of
the case rests already in the sound discretion of the court.

Procedure of PI
Filing of Complaint (Rule 112, Sec. 3[a]);
Action of the investigating prosecutor (Rule 112, Sec. 3[b]);
Respondents counter-affidavit (Rule 112, Sec. 3[c]);
Hearing (Rule 112, Sec. 3[e]).

RESOLUTION OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR

If there is no finding of probable cause, the investigating prosecutor dismisses the
case.
If there is probable cause, he prepares the information and resolution.
Note: The investigating prosecutor cannot file information without prior approval of
superior.

REVIEW
Within 5 days from resolution, the investigating prosecutor officer will forward the
case to the prosecutor or Ombudsman.
 Within 10 days from receipt, the prosecutor or Ombudsman will act on the case,
who must authorize/approve the filing of the information by the investigating
prosecutor.
In case of dismissal by the investigating prosecutor, the prosecutor or Ombudsman,
if he disagrees, may file the information himself or any deputy or order any
prosecutor to do so without conducting a new PI.
The Secretary of Justice may direct the filing of information or dismissal of the
complaint. If an information is already filed in court, he may direct the prosecutor to
move for the dismissal of the information with notice to the parties.

Procedure of Appeal to the Secretary of Justice from a Resolution on Preliminary

Investigation

Filing of a verified Petition for Review within 15 days from receipt of resolution, or
of the denial of the motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation.

Outright dismissal by the Sec. of Justice if the petition is patently without merit or
manifestly intended for delay.

Verified comment to the petition by the adverse party within a non-extendible

period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the petition

Reinvestigation if the Secretary of Justice finds it necessary to reinvestigate the case.

Disposition/Decision of Appeal. The Sec. of Justice may reverse, affirm or modify

the appealed resolution. (only one MR of the Decision is allowed)

It is settled that, when confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information (on the
ground of lack of probable cause to hold the accused for trial based on a resolution
of the DOJ Secretary), the trial court has the duty to make an independent
assessment of the merits of the motion and should not merely rely on the findings
of the Secretary. (Harold Tamargo v. Romulo Awingan, et al., G.R. No. 177727, 19
January 2010)

HAROLD TAMARGO v. ROMULO AWINGAN, ET AL.

G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010

Informations for murder were filed against respondents. The

DOJ, on review, directed the withdrawal of the Informations, and
declared that the extrajudicial confession of Columna was
inadmissible against respondents and that, even if it was admissible,
it was not corroborated by other evidence. The trial prosecutor filed
a motion to withdraw the Informations. The issue now is whether or
not Judge Daguna erred in denying the said motion.

It is settled that, when confronted with a motion to withdraw

an Information (on the ground of lack of probable cause to hold the
 accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary), the trial
court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the merits
of the motion. It may either agree or disagree with the
recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone on the resolution of
the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial courts duty and
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The court must itself be
convinced that there is indeed no sufficient evidence against the
accused. Here, Judge Daguna seriously erred by limiting her
evaluation and assessment only to evidence that supported probable
cause while completely disregarding contradicting evidence.

The validity and merits of a partys defense or accusation, as well as the

admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper
than at the preliminary investigation. (Lee, et al. v. KBC Bank N.V. G.R. No. 164673, 15
January 2010)

LEE, ET AL. v. KBC BANK N.V.

G.R. No. 164673, 15 January 2010

As to the issue of probable cause for estafa, petitioners claim

that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the admissibility
of the facsimile message is a matter best ventilated in a full-blown
trial.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals. The

presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in
nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a
full-blown trial on the merits. In fine, the validity and merits of a
partys defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of
testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper
than at the preliminary investigation.

WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST MAY ISSUE

PC for Prosecutor: WON there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial for which the information
is to be filed.
PC for Judge: WON there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been
committed by the person sought to be arrested, and warrant of arrest should be
issued so that the accused may be held in custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice.
If the judge finds PC, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if
accused is already arrested.
The judge need not personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in the
determination of PC, but he must personally evaluate the prosecutors report
supporting evidence, and on that basis, dismiss the case, issue warrant of arrest, or
require further affidavits.
 PDIC v. HON. CASIMIRO
G.R. No. 206866, 2 Sept 2015

It was error on the part of the Ombudsman to simply

discredit Gomezs affidavit as inadmissible in evidence for being
hearsay. It is noteworthy to point out that owing to the initiatory
nature of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of evidence
should not be applied in the course of its proceedings. In the recent
case of Estrada v. Ombudsman, the Court declared that hearsay
evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in preliminary
investigations because such investigation is merely preliminary, and
does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. Citing a
case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, it was held
that probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long
as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.

CASES NOT REQUIRING A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor involving an offense punishable
by imprisonment of less than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, the procedure outlined in
Rule 112, Sec. 3(a) shall be observed. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint
based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the
complainant within 10 days from filing.

REMEDIES OF ACCUSED IF THERE WAS NO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Effect of denial of right to PI:

While PI is a statutory and substantive right and a component part of due process,
its absence :
(1) does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it
defective;
(2) neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court;
(3) nor constitute a ground for quashing the information.

Before the information or complaint is filed, the person arrested may ask for a P.I.,
but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC in the presence of
his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail. The investigation
must be terminated within 15 days from its inception.

After the filing of the complaint/information in court without a P.I., the accused
may within 5 days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a P.I.

In practice, when an Information is filed and the accused did not undergo P.I., the
following motions may also be filed in court:
Motion for Reinvestigation.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.
INQUEST

Definition of inquest
Inquest is a summary inquiry conducted by the prosecutor for the purpose of determining
whether the warrantless arrest of a person is based on probable cause.

General Rule:
PI is required to be conducted before a complaint/information is filed for an offense
where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, without
regard to the fine. (Rule 112, Sec. 1)
Exception:
When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense that
requires a PI, a complaint/information may be filed without conducting the PI if the
necessary inquest is conducted.

After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a PI, the accused may,
within 5 days from the time he learns of its filling, ask for a PI with the same right to
adduce evidence in his defense as provided in Rule 112. (Rule112, Sec. 6)

F. Arrest

ARREST, HOW MADE

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to
answer for the commission of an offense. (Rule 113, Sec.1)

Constitutional requirements of arrest

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses that he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized. (Art. 3, Sec. 2, Constitution)

An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his

submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.

No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. Person arrested

shall not be subject to a greater restraint than necessary. (Rule 113, Sec. 2)

Time to make arrest: Arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or
night. (Rule 113, Sec. 6)

ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL.

In Flagrante Delicto Literally, caught in the act of committing a crime. When the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to
commit an offense in the presence of the peace officer or private person who
arrested him. (Rule 113, Sec. 5a)
 When a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect an
arrest without a warrant, as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or
within his view. (People v. Ng Yik Bun, G.R. No. 180452, 10 January 2011)

When an arrest is made during an entrapment or a buy-bust operation, it is not

required that a warrant be secured in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section
5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court allowing warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a
private person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. (People v. Sembrano, G.R.
No. 185848, 16 August 2010)

PEOPLE V. SEMBRANO
G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010

Accused was arrested after the police conducted a buy-bust

operation and was eventually convicted for violation of Section 5 of
R.A. No. 9165. On the issue of the legality of the arrest of the accused,
the Supreme Court noted that accused was arrested during an
entrapment operation where he was caught in flagrante delicto
selling shabu. When an arrest is made during an entrapment
operation, it is not required that a warrant be secured in line with the
provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court
allowing warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a private person
when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

Furthermore, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment

which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode
of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due regard for
constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, such as the
one involving accused, deserves judicial sanction. Consequently, the
warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure conducted on
the person of accused were allowed under the circumstances. The
search, incident to accuseds lawful arrest, needed no warrant to
sustain its validity. Thus, there is no doubt that the sachets of shabu
recovered during the legitimate buy-bust operation, are admissible
and were properly admitted in evidence against him.

Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect
the legality of the buy-bust operation and the warrantless arrest of the accused
caught in flagrante delicto. (People v. Manlangit, G.R. No. 189806, 12 January 2011)

Entrapment v. Instigation
Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense
originated from the inducer and not the accused who had no
intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were
it not for the initiatives by the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal
 intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind
of the accused. Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused, while
entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction.

HOT PURSUIT ARREST When an offense has just been committed and the
officer or private person has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge
of acts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it (Rule 113,
Sec. 5b)

ARREST OF ESCAPED PRISONER When the person to be arrested is a prisoner

who has escaped: (Rule 113, sec. 5c)
From a penal establishment or place where he is:
Serving final judgment;
Temporarily confined while his case is pending;
While being transferred from one confinement to another;
Escapee may be immediately pursued or re-arrested without warrant at any
time and in any place within the Philippines. (Rule 113, Sec. 13)

Effect of Failure to Object to Warrantless Arrests

Any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a court
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised before he
enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

METHOD OF ARREST

A. By officer with warrant

Duties of the arresting officer:

Execution of warrant (Rule 113, Sec.4);
The head office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered shall cause the
warrant to be executed within 10 days from its receipt;
To make a report to the judge who issued the warrant within 10 days after
expiration of the period to execute;
In case of his failure to execute, he shall state the reasons therefore;
To arrest the accused and deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without
unnecessary delay. (Rule 113, Sec. 3)

Rights of the arresting officer:

To summon assistance. (Rule 113, Sec. 10)
He may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to assist him in
effecting the arrest.
Persons summoned shall assist in effecting the arrest when he can do so without
detriment to himself.
To break into any building/enclosure where the persons to be arrested is or is
reasonably believed to be. (Rule 113, Sec. 11)
To break out from the building/enclosure when necessary to liberate himself.
(Rule 113, Sec 12)

B. By officer without warrant

 Duties of arresting officer without warrant:
The officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause
of the arrest. (Rule 113, Sec. 8)
Exceptions:
The person to be arrested is engaged in the commission of the
offense;
He is pursued immediately after its commission;
He escapes, flees or forcibly resists before the officer has the
opportunity to so inform him;
Giving such information will imperil the arrest.
The private person shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to
arrest him and the cause of the arrest. (Rule 113, Sec. 9)
Exceptions: same as those for the arrest by an officer.

C. By private person

Duties of private person effecting an arrest:

The private person must deliver the arrested person to the nearest police station or
jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Sec. 7.
Otherwise, the private person may be held liable for illegal detention.

REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT OF ARREST

It must be issued upon probable cause which must be determined personally by a
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce. (Art. 3, Sec. 2, Constitution)

Instances When Judge Issues Warrant of Arrest

Upon the filing of the information by the public prosecutor and after personal
evaluation by the judge of the prosecutors resolution and supporting evidence.
(Rule 112, Sec. 6a)
Upon application of a peace officer and after personal examination by the judge of
the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. (Rule 112, Sec. 6b)

DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF

ARREST.

Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been
committed by the person sought to be arrested.

The probable cause test is an objective one, for in order that there be probable cause,
the facts and circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonable
prudent man that the accused is guilty of the crime which has been committed.
(People v. Allado, 1994)

DISTINGUISH PROBABLE CAUSE OF PROSECUTOR FROM THAT OF A JUDGE

The law requires personal determination on the part of the judge. The judge may
rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor provided he also evaluates the
documentary evidence in support thereof. Hence, the fiscals finding of probable
 cause is not conclusive upon the judge as to his determination of whether or not
there is indeed probable cause. (AAA v. Carbonell, 2007)

PC of Prosecutor: WON there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is

guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial for which information is to
be filed

PC of Judge: WON there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense has been
committed by the person sought to be arrested, and warrant of arrest should be
issued so that the accused may be held in custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice.

G. BAIL

NATURE
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished
by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required
under conditions hereinafter specified. (Rule 114, Sec. 1)
Bail is a constitutional and statutory right.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELCHOR D. BRITA

G.R. No. 191260, 24 November 2014

Brita asserts that the grant of bail bolsters his claim that the evidence
of the prosecution is not strong enough to prove his guilt. The Court is not
convinced. "A grant of bail does not prevent the trial court, as the trier of
facts, from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the
merits." It is not an uncommon occurrence that an accused person granted
bail is convicted in due course.

WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT; EXCEPTIONS

When bail is a matter of right (Rule 114, Sec. 4)

Before or after conviction by MTC;
Before conviction by RTC of all offenses punishable by penalty lower than reclusion
perpetua.

When right to bail not available.

(1) When evidence of guilt is strong in capital offenses or offenses punishable by

reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Except: When the accused charged with a capital offense is a minor, he is entitled to
bail regardless of whether the evidence of guilt is strong.

Capital Offense: An offense which under the law existing at the time of commission
and of the application for admission to bail is punishable by death. (Rule 114, Sec. 6)
 The capital nature of the offense is determined by the penalty prescribed by law and
not the one actually imposed.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding 6 years, the
accused shall be denied bail or his bail shall be cancelled upon showing by the
prosecution of the following:
Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, or habitual delinquency or commission of a
crime aggravated by reiteration.
Previously escaped legal confinement, evaded sentence or violated bail
condition w/o justification
Commission of an offense while under probation, parole or conditional
pardon
Probability of flight
Undue risk that he may commit another crime during pendency of appeal

(2) Right to bail is not available in the military. (Comendador v De Villa, 1991)

(3) After a judgment of conviction has become final.

If he applied for probation before finality, he may be allowed temporary liberty
under his bail (Rule 114, Sec. 24).

(4) After the accused has commenced to serve his sentence. (Rule 114, Sec. 24)

WHEN BAIL IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION

(a) Before conviction, in offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment.

ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015

Enrile claims that before judgment of conviction, an accused

is entitled to bail as matter of right; that it is the duty and burden of
the Prosecution to show clearly and conclusively that Enrile comes
under the exception and cannot be excluded from enjoying the right
to bail; that the Prosecution has failed to establish that Enrile, if
convicted of plunder, is punishable by reclusion perpetua considering
the presence of two mitigating circumstances his age and his
voluntary surrender; that the Prosecution has not come forward with
proof showing that his guilt for the crime of plunder is strong; and
that he should not be considered a flight risk taking into account that
he is already over the age of 90, his medical condition, and his social
standing.

It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the

accused from committing additional crimes, but is to guarantee the
appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the
trial court. Admission to bail in offenses punished by death, or life
imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua is subject to judicial discretion.
For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of whether or
not evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases involving capital
offenses, or offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment lies within the discretion of the trial court. But such
discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain
the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether or not
he should be granted provisional liberty.

Enriles poor health justifies his admission to bail. Enrile has

averred in his Motion to Fix Bail the presence of two mitigating
circumstances that should be appreciated in his favor, namely: that
he was already over 70 years at the time of the alleged commission of
the offense, and that he voluntarily surrendered.

In granting Enriles petition for certiorari, the Court is guided

by the earlier mentioned principal purpose of bail, which is to
guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so
required by the court. The Court is further mindful of the
Philippines responsibility in the international community arising
from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as
value the worth and dignity of every person. Enriles social and
political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the
authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of
his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His
personal disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder,
formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal
processes of this country. At an earlier time many years ago when he
had been charged with rebellion with murder and multiple
frustrated murder, he already evinced a similar personal disposition
of respect for the legal processes, and was granted bail during the
pendency of his trial because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his
solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long
years of public service, and historys judgment of him being at stake,
he should be granted bail. The currently fragile state of Enriles
health presents another compelling justification for his admission to
bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize.

Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of

the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of
the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to
be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying
Enrile bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the
true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial. It is
relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to Enrile will
then enable him to have his medical condition be properly addressed
and better attended to by competent physicians in the hospitals of his
choice. This will not only aid in his adequate preparation of his
defense but, more importantly, will guarantee his appearance in
court for the trial. On the other hand, to mark time in order to wait
for the trial to finish before a meaningful consideration of the
application for bail can be had is to defeat the objective of bail, which
is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty pending the trial.
 (b) Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.

Conviction refers to conviction by the trial court, which has not become
final, as the accused still has the right to appeal. After conviction by the trial
court, the accused convicted of a capital offense is no longer entitled to bail,
and can only be released when the conviction is reversed by appellate court.
(Art. 3, Sec. 13, Constitution)

LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010

Accused was convicted of the lesser crime of homicide and

sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of more than six (6)
years. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. Pending
appeal, he filed an urgent application for admission to bail pending
appeal, citing his advanced age and health condition, and claiming
the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part, which was
denied by the Court of Appeals.

In dismissing petitioners petition, the Supreme Court held

that the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal does
not mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court. The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114
applies to two scenarios where the penalty imposed on the accused
applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years. The first
scenario deals with the circumstances enumerated in the said
paragraph not present. The second scenario contemplates the
existence of at least one of the said circumstances. In the first
situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means
that, if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph
of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has the discretion
to grant or deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal may be
denied even if the bail-negating circumstances in the third paragraph
of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. On the other hand, in the second
situation, the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion,
that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated
circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no other option
except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Thus, a finding that
none of the said circumstances is present will not automatically result
in the grant of bail. Such finding will simply authorize the court to
use the less stringent sound discretion approach

HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR BAIL IN CAPITAL OFFENSES

 Capital offense is an offense which, under the law existing at the time of its
commission and of the application for admission to bail may be punished with
death. The capital nature of an offense is determined by the penalty prescribed by
law, and not by the penalty that may be imposed after trial and on the basis of the
evidence adduced and the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstance. (Rule
114, Sec. 6)

Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment

is not bailable when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution (Rule 114, Sec. 7)

Duty of judge to conduct hearing

Where the prosecution agrees with the accuseds application for bail or foregoes the
introduction of evidence, the court must nonetheless set the application for hearing.

It is mandatory for the judge to conduct a hearing and ask searching and
clarificatory questions for the purpose of determining the existence of strong
evidence against the accused; and the order, after such hearing, should make a
finding that the evidence against the accused is strong.

Prosecution has burden of proof

At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a person in custody for the
commission of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. (Rule
114, Sec. 8)

EVIDENCE OF GUILT in the Constitution and the Rules refers to finding of

innocence or culpability, regardless of the modifying circumstances.

GUIDELINES IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF BAIL. (RULE 114, SEC.9)

DOJ Department Circular No. 89, as amended, otherwise known as the 2000 Bail
Bond Guide provides standards and criteria for recommendation of amount of bail
to be granted, if possible, and the rules for the computation of bail.

Guidelines in fixing the amount of bail. (Rule 114, Sec.9)

Financial ability of the accused
Nature and circumstances of the offense
Penalty for the offense charged
Character and reputation of the accused
Age and health of the accused
Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
Forfeiture of other bail
Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
Forfeiture of other bail
Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
BAIL, WHEN NOT REQUIRED

When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced, he
shall be released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial
thereof or proceedings on appeal.

If the maximum penalty is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of preventive

imprisonment.

Note: No bail shall be required in prosecution of offenses covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, except:
When a warrant of arrest was issued for failure of the accused to appear when so
required
When the accused is:
A recidivist
A fugitive from justice
Charged with physical injuries
Has no known residence (Secs. 10 and 12, Rules on Summary Procedure)

INCREASE OR REDUCTION OF BAIL

The court may either increase or reduce the amount of bail:

After the accused is admitted to bail;
Upon good cause.

INCREASED bail: Accused may be committed to custody if he does not give bail in
the increased amount within a reasonable period of time. (Rule 114, Sec. 20)

REDUCED bail: Person in custody for period equal to or more than minimum of
principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged may be released on a reduced
bond. (Rule 114, Sec. 16)

FORFEITURE AND CANCELLATION OF BAIL

Forfeiture of bail (Rule 114, Sec. 21)

If the accused fails to appear in person as required by the court, bondsmen are given
30 days within which to:
Produce the body of principal or give reason for the non-production.
Bondsmen may:
- Arrest the accused;
- Cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of
suitable age or discretion upon written authority endorsed on a
certified copy of the undertaking;
- Explain why the accused failed to appear.

If the bondsmen fail to do these, judgment is rendered against them, jointly

and severally, for the amount of the bail.
 Bondsmens liability cannot mitigated or reduced, unless the accused has
been surrendered or is acquitted.

Cancellation of bail (Rule 114, Sec. 22)

Upon application of the bondsmen with due notice to the prosecutor, bail may be
cancelled upon:
(a) surrender of the accused has been surrendered of the accused; or
(b) proof of his death.
Upon acquittal of the accused;
Upon the dismissal of the case; or
Upon execution of judgment of conviction.

APPLICATION NOT A BAR TO OBJECTIONS IN ILLEGAL ARREST, LACK OF OR

IRREGULAR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

Bail is no longer a waiver of objections (Rule 114, Sec. 26; Yusop v Sandiganbayan,
2001), provided that the proper objections are timely raised (i.e., before accused enters
a plea). An application or an admission to bail shall NOT bar the accused from
challenging or questioning the:
Validity of his arrest
Legality of the arrest warrant
Regularity of PI
Absence of PI

The court shall resolve the objections as early as practicable but not later than the
start of the trial of the case.

HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER & BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION WATCHLIST

Bondsmen can prevent accused from leaving country by arresting him or asking for
him to be re-arrested by a police officer upon written authority. (Rule 114, Sec. 23)

The accused may be prohibited from the leaving country during the pendency of his
case (People v. Uy Tuising, 1935; Manotoc v. CA 1986). If the accused released on bail
attempts to depart from the Philippines without the permission of the court where
his cases is pending, he may be re-arrested without warrant. (Rule 113, Sec. 23)

Hold-Departure Orders: This may be issued only by the RTCs in criminal cases
within their exclusive jurisdiction. (SC Circular No. 39-97, 19 June 1997)

DOJ Cir. No. 41-10 (25 May 2010)

Sec. 1. Hold Departure Order. - The Secretary of Justice may issue an HDO, under
any of the following instances:

(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases falling within
the jurisdiction of courts below the RTCs.
 (b) Against the alien whose presence is required either as a defendant, respondent,
or witness in a civil or labor case pending litigation, or any case before an
administrative agency of the government.

(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue an HDO against any person, either
motu proprio, or upon the request by the Head of a Department of the Government;
the head of a constitutional body or commission; the Chief Justice of the SC for the
Judiciary; the Senate President or the House Speaker for the Legislature, when the
adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or in the
interest of national security, public safety or public health.

Sec. 2. Watchlist Order. - The Secretary of Justice may issue a WLO, under any of
the following instances:

(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases pending trial
before the Regional Trial Court.

(b) Against the respondent, irrespective of nationality, in criminal cases pending P.I.,
petition for review, or MR before the DOJ or any of its provincial or city prosecution
offices.

(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue a WLO against any person, either
motu proprio, or upon the request of any government agency, including commissions,
task forces or similar entities created by the Office of the President, pursuant to the
"Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003" (R.A. No. 9208) and/or in connection with
any investigation being conducted by it, or in the interest of national security, public
safety or public health

It must be noted that, to avoid the indiscriminate issuance of HDOs resulting in

inconvenience and prejudice to the parties affected thereby the Supreme Court
issued SC Circular No. 39-97 providing that HDOs shall be issued only in criminal
cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.

H. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AT THE TRIAL

(1) To be presumed innocent;

(2) To be informed of the nature and cause of accusation;

(3) To be present and defend in person OR by counsel;

(4) Right to be present at every stage of the proceedings:

This right may be waived when:

- Accused is absent without just cause at the trial;
- Accused under custody escapes.

However, presence is mandatory:

- For purposes of identification;
 - At arraignment; (Rule 116, Sec. 1b)
- At the promulgation of judgment;
o Exception: If the conviction is for a light offense. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)

Requisites of Trial in absentia: (Parada v. Veneracion, 1997)

- Prior arraignment;
- Proper notice of the trial;
- Failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Effects: waiver of right to be present, right to present evidence and right
to cross-examine witnesses. (Gimenez v. Nazareno, 1998)

(5) Right to counsel;

The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsels acts, including
even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique, except, when the
reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due
process of law.

(6) Right to defend in person;

(7) To testify as witness in his behalf;

(8) Right against self-incrimination;

DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 200748, 23 July 2014

A police officer arrested for extortion was compelled to

undergo a drug test by submitting his urine sample. He was
found positive for drugs and thereafter convicted for use of
dangerous drugs (Sec. 15, Art II R.A. 9165). The Court held
that the urine sample is inadmissible for being violative of the
accuseds right against self-incrimination. Cases where non-
testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal that the
pieces of evidence obtained were all material to the principal
cause of the arrest.

(9) Right to confrontation;

(10) Right to compulsory process;

(11) Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;

Remedies against denial of right:

- Motion to dismiss
- Dismissal subject to rules on double jeopardy
- Petition for Mandamus (Vide Abadia v CA, 1994)

(12) Right to appeal.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION (SEC. 2, R.A. No. 7438)

(1) To be assisted by counsel at all times.

Waiver of the right to counsel must be made with the assistance of
counsel. (Art. 3, Sec. 12(1), Constitution)

To be assisted specifically in the following instances:

- Signing of the written custodial report;
- Signing of the written extra-judicial confession
In the absence of counsel and upon valid waiver, it may be
made in the presence of any of his parents, elder brothers
and sisters, spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor, or priest/minister of
gospel as chosen by him.
- Signing of the waiver of the provisions of Art. 125, RPC.

(2) To be informed, in a language known to and understood by him, of his right

to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation.

If he cannot afford to have his own counsel, he must be provided with a

competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.

Assisting counsel may be any lawyer, except those:

- Directly affected by the case;
- Charged with conducting preliminary investigation;
- Charged with the prosecution of crimes (Sec. 3, RA 7438)

(3) To be allowed visits by or conference with:

Any member of his immediate family (Immediate family includes his
or her spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister,
grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and
guardian or ward), or
Any medical doctor or
Priest or religious minister
Chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his
counsel, or by
Any national NGO duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights
or by any International NGO duly accredited by the Office of the
President

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

The Supreme Court held that a judgment acquitting the accused is final and
immediately executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the State may
not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy. (People v.
Balunsat, G.R. No. 176743, 28 July 2010)

PEOPLE V. BALUNSAT
 G.R. No. 176743, 28 July 2010

Accused was convicted by the RTC of two (2) counts of rape

and one (1) count of attempted rape. Upon appeal, the CA modified
the judgment by (a) acquitting him of rape on the ground of
reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 762-T and (b) downgrading
the attempted rape to consummated acts of lasciviousness in
Criminal Case No. 781-T.

The Supreme Court held that a judgment acquitting the

accused is final and immediately executory upon its promulgation,
and that accordingly, the State may not seek its review without
placing the accused in double jeopardy. Such acquittal is final and
unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether it happens
at the trial court or on appeal at the CA.

In Criminal Case No. 781-T, the CA modified the guilty

verdict of the RTC from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. The
Supreme Court affirmed the CAs modification, and held that it can
no longer review the downgrading of the crime by the appellate
court without violating the right against double jeopardy, which
proscribes an appeal from a judgment of acquittal or for the purpose
of increasing the penalty imposed upon the accused. In effect, the
CA already acquitted accused of the charge of attempted rape,
convicting him only for acts of lasciviousness, a crime with a less
severe penalty. Hence, the High Court limited itself to determining
whether there is enough evidence to support accuseds conviction for
acts of lasciviousness.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE COMPUTATION OF TIME IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT TO A

SPEEDY TRIAL
Under Rule 119, Section 3, the only delays that may be excluded from the time limit
within which trial must commence are those resulting from proceedings concerning
the accused. The time involved in the proceedings in a petition for transfer of venue
can only be excluded from said time limit if it was the accused who instituted the
same. Hence, in this case, the time during which the petition for transfer of venue
filed by the private complainant is pending, cannot be excluded from the time limit
of 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order imposed in Section 1, Rule 119. (Mari v.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 187728, 12 September 2011)

I. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA, HOW MADE

Arraignment is the stage where the accused is formally informed of the charged
against him by reading before him the information/complaint and asking him
whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. (Rule 116, Sec. 1a)
 It is the stage where the issues are joined and without which the proceedings cannot
advance further or, if held, will otherwise be void. (Borja v. Mendoza, 1977)

How arraignment made

the complaint or information is furnished the accused in open court;
it is read to him in a language or dialect known to him;
the accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty; and
the accused enters his plea.

A. In general:
The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information
was filled or assigned for trial.
The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea.
NO ARRAIGNMENT IN ABSENTIA (Nolasco v. Enrile, 1985) The presence of the
accused is not only a personal right but also a public duty, irrespective of the gravity
of the offense and the rank of the court.

B. If the accused is under preventive suspension:

The case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case
was raffled within 3 days from the filling of the information complaint.
The accused shall be arraigned within 10 days from the date of the raffle.

WHEN SHOULD PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BE ENTERED

Plea of NOT GUILTY to be entered for the accused when either: (Rule 116, Sec. 1c)
Refuses to plead;
Makes a qualified plea of guilty;
Plea of guilty, but accused presents exculpatory evidence.

WHEN MAY ACCUSED ENTER A PLEA OF GUILT TO A LESSER OFFENSE (RULE 116,
SEC. 2).

At the arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and
prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plea guilty to a lesser offense which
is necessarily included in the offense charged.

After arraignment but before the trial, the accused may still be allowed to plea guilty
to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary.

ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO CAPITAL OFFENSE, WHAT THE COURT SHOULD DO

When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the
precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. (Rule
116, Se. 3)
SEARCHING INQUIRY

It is the process by which the Court conducts a hearing or asks searching and
clarificatory questions from the accused

The court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to
prove his guilt and the precise degree of his culpability, and the accused may
present evidence in his behalf; such procedure is mandatory. Failure to observe the
duties in this regard on the part of the trial judge amounts to grave abuse of
discretion. (People v. Devico,1997)

The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry applies in cases of re-arraignment.

The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in

cases in which it was the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a
"guilty" plea to the accused. (People v. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, 10 January 2011)

IMPROVIDENT PLEA

It is a plea without proper information as to all circumstances affecting it; based

upon a mistaken assumption or misleading information/advice. (Blacks Law
Dictionary)

General Rule: Improvident plea should not be accepted. If accepted, it should not
be held to be sufficient to sustain a conviction. (People v. De Ocampo Gonzaga, 1984).
Case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

Exception: If the accused appears guilty beyond reasonable doubt from the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and defense. (People v. Documento, G.R. No.
188706, March 17, 2010).

To emphasize: Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside

only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on
sufficient and credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be
sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused
but also on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged. (People v.
Documento, id.)

GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT

Unsound mental condition of the accused at the time of the arraignment;
Prejudicial question exists;
Pending petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor with the DOJ or
Office of the President. (Rule 116, Sec.11)

o Accused should file motion to suspend and secure a ruling on his petition
for review within 60 days from the filing of his petition for review.
o N.B.: The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended
by Administrative Order No. 15, Series of 2001, sanction the immediate filing
of an Information in the proper court upon a finding of probable cause, even
during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, if the filing
 of a motion for reconsideration of the resolution finding probable cause
cannot bar the filing of the corresponding information, then neither can it
bar the arraignment of the accused, which, in the normal course of criminal
procedure, logically follows the filing of the information. (Gen. Ramiscal v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172476-99, 15 September 2010)

GEN. RAMISCAL V. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 172476-99, 15 September 2010

The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan twelve (12)

Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and twelve (12)
Informations for falsification of public documents against petitioner
and several other co-accused. Petitioner questioned the finding of
probable cause by the Ombudsman and is pending second motion
for reconsideration. In the meantime, in the Sandiganbayan,
petitioner moved to set aside his arraignment pending resolution of
his second motion for reconsideration.

The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as

amended by Administrative Order No. 15, Series of 2001, sanction the
immediate filing of an Information in the proper court upon a finding
of probable cause, even during the pendency of a motion for
reconsideration. Therefore, if the filing of a motion for
reconsideration of the resolution finding probable cause cannot bar
the filing of the corresponding information, then neither can it bar
the arraignment of the accused, which, in the normal course of
criminal procedure, logically follows the filing of the information.

FELILIBETH AGUINALDO and BENJAMIN PEREZ v. REYNALDO

P. VENTUS and JOJO B. JOSON
G.R. No. 176033, 11 March 2015

Arraignment was suspended pending the resolution of the

Motion for Reconsideration before the DOJ. However, the lapse of
almost 1 year and 7 months warranted the application of the
limitation of the period for suspending arraignment. While the
pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the
arraignment, the Rules limit the deferment of the arraignment to a
period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the
reviewing office. It follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said
period, the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the
motion to defer arraignment.

J. MOTION TO QUASH

GROUNDS (RULE 117, SEC.1)

The following grounds for a motion to quash are EXCLUSIVE (Galzote v. Briones and People,
G.R. No. 164682, 14 September 2011):
1. Facts charged do not constitute an offense.
2. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.
3. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person accused.
4. Officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.
5. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
6. More than one offense is charged. Exception: When a single punishment for various
offenses is prescribed by law.
7. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished.
8. Averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or jurisdiction.
9. 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 (Double Jeopardy Rule)

Matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash. (Antone v. Beronilla, G.R.

No. 183824, 8 December 2010)

ANTONE v. BERONILLA
G.R. No. 183824, 8 December 2010

The trial court quashed the Information on the ground that

the elements of Bigamy were rendered incomplete after respondent
presented documents to prove a fact, which the court believed would
negate the allegation in the Information that there was a first valid
marriage. The evidence presented showed that respondent later
obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of the first union following
the celebration of a subsequent marriage.

The trial court erred when it sustained respondents motion to

quash on the basis of a fact contrary to those alleged in the
Information. A motion to quash an Information is the mode by which
an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or Information
filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for
defects which are apparent in the face of the Information. This
motion is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the
Information, for which reason, the court cannot consider allegations
contrary to those appearing on the face of the Information. In this
case, the documents showing that: (1) the court has decreed that the
marriage of petitioner and respondent is null and void from the
beginning; and (2) such judgment has already become final and
executory, and duly registered with the Municipal Civil Registrar of
Naval, Biliran are pieces of evidence that seek to establish a fact
contrary to that alleged in the Information that a first valid marriage
was subsisting at the time the respondent contracted a subsequent
marriage. This should not have been considered at all because
matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash.

Fundamental test: The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the

material averments of an information is whether the facts alleged therein, which are
hypothetically admitted, would establish the essentials elements of the crime
 defined by law. Evidence aliunde, or matters extrinsic of the Information, are not to
be considered. People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 168918, 2 March 2009.

DISTINGUISH FROM DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Motion to Quash:
Filed before accused enters plea
Does not go into the merits of the case

Demurrer to Evidence:
Filed after the prosecution has rested its case
Based upon the inadequacy of evidence adduced by the prosecution

EFFECTS OF SUSTAINING THE MOTION TO QUASH

Court order sustaining motion

General Rule: The court may order that another complaint or information be filed
(Rule 117, Sec. 5)

Exception: If the MTQ was based on the following:

Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
Double Jeopardy

PEOPLE v. AQUILINO ANDRADE, et al.

G.R. No. 187000, 24 November 2014

It is clearly provided by the Rules of Criminal Procedure that if the

motion to quash is based on an alleged defect in the information which can be
cured by amendment, the court shall order the amendment to be made. In the
present case, the RTC judge outrightly dismissed the cases without giving the
prosecution an opportunity to amend the defect in the Informations. Thus,
the RTC and the CA, by not giving the State the opportunity to present its
evidence in court or to amend the Informations, have effectively curtailed the
State's right to due process.

Court order sustaining motion

General Rule: If in custody, the accused shall not be discharged, unless admitted to
bail. The order must state either release of accused or cancellation of his bond.

Exception: If no order is made or if having been made, no new information is filed

within the time specified in the order or within such further time as the court may
allow for good cause.

Exception to the exception: If the accused is in custody for another charge. (Rule
117, Sec. 5)
 As a rule, when a motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, petitioners
remedy is not certiorari, but to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating the
special defenses invoked in his motion to quash. In the event that an adverse
decision is rendered after trial on the merits, an appeal therefrom is the next
appropriate legal step.

Remedies of the prosecution

General Rule: To amend the information in order to correct the defects if the trial
court makes the order, and thereafter prosecute on the basis of the amended
information (Rule 117, Sec. 4)

Exception: Prosecution is precluded where the ground for the quashal would bar
another prosecution for the same offense.

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT SUSTAINING THE MOTION IS NOT A BAR TO

ANOTHER PROSECUTION

Sustaining the MTQ will not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense
(Rule 117, Sec. 6), except:
If the ground for the quashal is either:
The criminal action or liability has been extinguished. (Rule 117,
Sec.3[g])
The accused has been previously convicted, or in jeopardy of being
convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged. (Rule 117, Sec.3[i])

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Rule on Double Jeopardy

When a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by
acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the express consent of the
accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. (Rule
117, Sec. 3i)

Kinds of Double Jeopardy (Art. 3, Sec. 21, Constitution)

No person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the SAME OFFENSE.
When an act punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall be a bar to another prosecution for the SAME ACT.

Requisites for 1st Jeopardy to Attach

A valid complaint or information - sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction;
The court had jurisdiction;
A valid arraignment;
A valid plea; and
Conviction, acquittal of the accused OR dismissal of the case, without accuseds
express consent
Previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries bars a
second prosecution for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property.

JASON IVLER v. JUDGE MODESTO-SAN PEDRO

G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010

Petitioner assails the RTCs Orders affirming sub-silencio a lower

courts ruling finding inapplicable the double jeopardy clause to bar a second
prosecution for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property, considering accuseds previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries arising from the same incident.

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner would be placed in double

jeopardy in this case. Reason and precedent both coincide in that once
convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused
may not be prosecuted again for that same act. The essence of the quasi
offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally
done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent
or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only
taken into account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance
of the offense. As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result
should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence)
remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and
prosecutions.

PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL

Definition: A case is dismissed without prejudice to its being refilled or revived.

General Rule: Cases are provisionally dismissed where there has already been
arraignment and accused consented to provisional dismissal, with notice to the
offended party.

Exception: If dismissal was due to a demurrer to evidence.

When dismissal becomes permanent:

The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six
(6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after
issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal
shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case
having been revived (Rule 117, Sec. 8).

How to revive a case

Refiling of the information.
 Filing of a new information for the same offense or one necessarily included in the
original offense charged.

Periods of reinstatement or revival

Within 1 year for offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than 6 years.
Within 2 years for offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 6 years.

Requisite procedure (Rule 117, Sec.8):

Motion can be made:
By the prosecution, with the express conformity of the accused
By the accused
By both

Requisites for Provisional Dismissal:

Consent of the prosecutor;
Consent of the accused; and
Notice to the offended party

N.B.: It bears emphasizing that an oral order has no juridical existence until and
unless it had been reduced into writing and promulgated, i.e. delivered by the judge
to the clerk of court for filing, release to the parties and implementation. Thus, a
provisional dismissal, which was declared in open court, but was never reduced
into writing, has no juridical existence. (People v. Salak, G.R. No. 181249, 14 March
2011)

K. PRE-TRIAL

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

When issued

The Pre-Trial Order is issued by the court after the pre-trial conference.

Judgment of acquittal based on pre-trial despite disputed documents and issues of

fact amounts to grave error and renders the judgment void (People v. Santiago,
1989).

Contents
Action taken;
Facts stipulated; and
Evidence marked.

Effects
It binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not disposed of, and controls the
course of action during trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest
injustice (Rule 118, Sec. 4).
REFERRAL OF SOME CASES FOR COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION AND JUDICIAL
DISPUTE RESOLUTION

AM No. 03-1-09-SC

After arraignment, the court shall set the pre-trial conference within 30 days from
the date of arraignment.

In mediatable cases, the judge shall refer the parties and their counsel to the
Philippine Mediation Center unit for purposes of mediation if available.

L. TRIAL

INSTANCES WHEN PRESENCE OF ACCUSED IS REQUIRED BY LAW

Presence is mandatory:
a) For purposes of identification;
b) At arraignment; (Rule 116, Sec. 1[b])
c) At the promulgation of judgment;
Exception: If the conviction is for a light offense. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)
d) Examination of prosecution witness (Rule 119, Sec. 15)
When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too
sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court, or has to
leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may
forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the case is
pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his
absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination has been
served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination
at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination
after notice shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be
admitted in behalf of or against the accused.

REQUISITE BEFORE TRIAL CAN BE SUSPENDED ON ACCOUNT OF ABSENCE OF

WITNESS

Absence or unavailability of an essential witness

Absent means that his whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined by due
diligence.

Unavailable means that his whereabouts are known but presence for the trial
cannot be obtained by due diligence.

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

Requisites:
Accused has been arraigned;
He was duly notified of trial; and
 His failure to appear is unjustified.

Purpose: To speed up disposition of cases.

General Rule: The right to be present at ones trial may be waived.

Exceptions: At certain stages: (Lavides v. CA, G.R. No. 129670, 2000)

Arraignment and plea;
Promulgation of sentence, unless for light offense
During trial whenever necessary for ID purposes
Exception to the exception: If the accused unqualifiedly admits in open court
after arraignment that he is the person named as the defendant in the case
on trial.

REMEDY WHEN ACCUSED IS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED

PERIOD

Effect of delay (Rule 119, Sec.9)

On motion of the accused, the information may be dismissed on the ground of his
right to speedy trial.
This must be raised before trial otherwise it is considered a waiver of the right to
dismiss under this section.
It is subject to the rules on double jeopardy such that if it is with prejudice, it cannot
be revived anymore.
The accused has the burden of proving the ground of denial of right to speedy trial,
while the prosecution has the burden of going forward with the evidence to
establish the exclusion of time under Rule 119, Sec. 3.

REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BECOME A STATE WITNESS

General Rule: It is the duty of the prosecutor to include all the accused in the
complaint or information.

Exception: The prosecutor may ask the court to discharge one of them after
complying with the conditions prescribed by law. (Rules 119, Sec. 17)

This applies only when the information has already been filed in court.

REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BECOME A STATE WITNESS

Requisites: (Rule 119, Sec. 17)

When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of an offense,
upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or
more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be
witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and
the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge, the court is satisfied that:
 (a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
discharge is requested;

(b) The is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of
the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its

material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of

the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state
witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.

General Rule: The order of discharge shall: (Rule 119, Sec. 18)
Amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused;
Bar future prosecutions for the same offense.

Exception: if the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with
his sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge.

Any error in asking for and in granting discharge cannot deprive the discharged of the
acquittal and the constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy. (People v. Verceles,
2002)

Subsequent amendment of the information does not affect discharge. (People v.

Taruc, 1962)

WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM (R.A. No. 6981)

Admission in to the Program (Section 3)

Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the

commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before
any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, may be
admitted into the Program, provided that:

(A) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as
defined under the Revised Penal Code, or its equivalent under special laws;

(B) his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(C) he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats to his life or bodily injury or
there is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or
 corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or evasively,
because or on account of his testimony; and

(D) he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would be testifying against

the other law enforcement officers. In such a case, only the immediate
members of his family may avail themselves of the protection provided for
under this law.

If the Department of Justice, after examination of said applicant and other

relevant facts, is convinced that the requirements of this law and its
implementing rules and regulations have been complied with, it shall admit said
applicant to the Program, require said witness to execute a sworn statement
detailing his knowledge or information on the commission of the crime, and
thereafter issue the proper certification. For purposes of this law, any such
person admitted to the Program shall be known as the Witness.

Witnesses in legislative investigations (Section 4)

In case of legislative investigations in aid of legislation, a witness, with his

express consent, may be admitted into the Program upon the recommendation
of the legislative committee where his testimony is needed when in its judgment
there is pressing necessity therefor: Provided, That such recommendation is
approved by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be.

Memorandum of Agreement With the Person to be Protected (Section 5)

Before a person is provided protection under this law, he shall first execute a
memorandum of agreement which shall set forth his responsibilities including:

a) to testify before and provide information to all appropriate law

enforcement officials concerning all appropriate proceedings in connection
with or arising from the activities involved in the offense charged;

b) to avoid the commission of the crime;

c) to take all necessary precautions to avoid detection by others of the facts

concerning the protection provided him under this law;

d) to comply with legal obligations and civil judgments against him;

e) to cooperate with respect to all reasonable requests of officers and

employees of the Government who are providing protection under this law;
and

f) to regularly inform the appropriate program official of his current

activities and address.

Breach of Memorandum of Agreement (Section 6)

Substantial breach of the memorandum of agreement shall be a ground for the
termination of the protection provided under this law: Provided, however, that
 before terminating such protection, the Secretary of Justice shall send notice to
the person involved of the termination of the protection provided under this law,
stating therein the reason for such termination.

Confidentiality of Proceedings (Section 7)

All proceedings involving application for admission into the Program and the
action taken thereon shall be confidential in nature. No information or
documents given or submitted in support thereof shall be released except upon
written order of the Department of Justice or the proper court.

Any person who violates the confidentiality of said proceedings shall upon
conviction be punished with imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not
more than six (6) years and deprivation of the right to hold a public office or
employment for a period of five (5) years.

Rights and Benefits (Section 8)

The witness shall have the following rights and benefits:

(a) To have a secure housing facility until he has testified or until the threat,
intimidation or harassment disappears or is reduced to a manageable or
tolerable level. When the circumstances warrant, the Witness shall be
entitled to relocation and/or change of personal identity at the expense of
the Program. This right may be extended to any member of the family of the
Witness within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.

(b) The Department of Justice shall, whenever practicable, assist the Witness
in obtaining a means of livelihood. The Witness relocated pursuant to this
law shall be entitled to a financial assistance from the Program for his
support and that of his family in such amount and for such duration as the
Department of Justice shall determine.

(c) In no case shall the Witness be removed from or demoted in work

because or on account of his absences due to his attendance before any
judicial or quasi-judicial body or investigating authority, including
legislative investigations in aid of legislation, in going thereto and in coming
therefrom.

Any Witness who failed to report for work because of witness duty shall be
paid his equivalent salaries or wages corresponding to the number of days of
absence occasioned by the Program. For purposes of this law, any fraction of
a day shall constitute a full day salary or wage. This provision shall be
applicable to both government and private employees.

(d) To be provided with reasonable travelling expenses and subsistence

allowance by the Program in such amount as the Department of Justice may
determine for his attendance in the court, body or authority where his
testimony is required, as well as conferences and interviews with
prosecutors or investigating officers.
 (e) To be provided with free medical treatment, hospitalization and
medicines for any injury or illness incurred or suffered by him because of
witness duty in any private or public hospital, clinic, or at any such
institution at the expense of the Program.

(f) If a Witness is killed, because of his participation in the Program, his heirs
shall be entitled to a burial benefit of not less than Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) from the Program exclusive of any other similar benefits he may
be entitled to under other existing laws.

(g) In case of death or permanent incapacity, his minor or dependent

children shall be entitled to free education, from primary to college level in
any state, or private school, college or university as may be determined by
the Department of Justice, as long as they shall have qualified thereto

State Witness (Section 10)

Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be
a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this law and
by the Department of Justice, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the
following circumstances are present:

(a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as
defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws;

(b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

(c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of
the offense committed;

(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;

(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and

(f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude

An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the court

in order that he may be a State Witness pursuant to Section 9 and 10 of Rule 119
of the Revised Rules of Court may upon his petition be admitted to the Program
if he complies with the other requirements of this law. Nothing in this law shall
prevent the discharge of an accused, so that he can be used as a State Witness
under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Sworn Statement of a State Witness (Section 11)

Before any person is admitted into the Program pursuant to the next preceding
Section he shall execute a sworn statement describing in detail the manner in
which the offense was committed and his participation therein. If after said
examination of said person, his sworn statement and other relevant facts, the
Department of Justice is satisfied that the requirements of this law and its
 implementing rules are complied with, it may admit such person into the
Program and issue the corresponding certification.

If his application for admission is denied, said sworn statement and any other
testimony given in support of said application shall not be admissible in
evidence, except for impeachment purposes.

Effect of Admission of a State Witness into the Program (Section 12)

The certification of admission into the Program by the Department shall be

given full faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor who is required
not to include the Witness in the criminal complaint or information and if
included therein, to petition the court for his discharge in order that he can
utilized as a State Witness. The Court shall order the discharge and exclusion
of the said accused from the information.

Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness to immunity
from criminal prosecution for the offense or offenses in which his testimony
will be given or used and all the rights and benefits provided under Section 8
hereof.

Failure or Refusal of the Witness to Testify (Section 13)

Any Witness registered in the Program who fails or refuses to testify or to

continue to testify without just cause when lawfully obliged to do so, shall be
prosecuted for contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he shall be liable to
prosecution for perjury. If a State Witness fails or refuses to testify, or testifies
falsely or evasively, or violates any condition accompanying such immunity
without just cause, as determined in a hearing by the proper court, his immunity
shall be removed and he shall be subject to contempt or criminal prosecution.
Moreover, the enjoyment of all rights and benefits under this law shall be
deemed terminated.

The Witness may, however, purge himself of the contumacious acts by testifying
at any appropriate stage of the proceedings.

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

The Judicial Affidavit Rule is applicable to all criminal actions:

(1) where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;

(2) where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the
penalty involved; or

(3) with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties
involved are (Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 9).

The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later
than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the
accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits
 such documentary or object evidence as he may have, marking them as
Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or
object evidence shall be admitted at the trial (Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section
9).

If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the judicial
affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his judicial
affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten days from
receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and private
prosecutor, including his documentary and object evidence previously
marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct
testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear before the
court to testify (Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 9).

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Definition: Objection by one of the parties to the effect that the evidence which his
adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or
sustain the issue. (Gutib v. CA, 1999)

How initiated (Rule 119, Sec. 23)

After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the
opportunity to be heard OR (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with
or without leave of court.

Motion for leave to file demurrer (Rule 119, Sec. 23)

It must specifically state its grounds.

It must be filed within a non-extendible period of 5 days after the prosecution rests.
Prosecution may then oppose within a non-extendible period of 5 days from its
receipt.

Effects of granting the demurrer to evidence

The court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (Rule
119, Sec. 23)

Sufficient evidence for frustrating a demurrer is evidence that proves: (Gutib v. CA,
1999)
Commission;
Precise degree of participation.

The prosecution cannot appeal from a ruling granting the demurrer to evidence of
the accused as it is equivalent to an acquittal, unless the prosecution can sufficiently
 prove that the courts action is attended with grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise,
the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy will be violated.
(People v. Sandiganbayan and Basco, et al., G.R. No. 164577, 5 July 2010)

People v. Sandiganbayan and Basco, et al.

G.R. No. 164577, 5 July 2010

In a charge for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, accused filed their
respective motions for leave to file their demurrer to evidence after the prosecution
rested its case. The motions were granted. The Sandiganbayan then granted the
demurrers to evidence and dismissed the case. A Rule 45 Petition was filed by the
People of the Philippines, represented by the Ombudsman, assailing the
Sandiganbayans ruling.

The prosecution cannot appeal from a ruling granting the demurrer to

evidence of the accused as it is equivalent to an acquittal, unless the prosecution can
sufficiently prove that the courts action is attended with grave abuse of discretion.
Otherwise, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy will be
violated.

Procedurally, the prosecution resorted to a wrong remedy. It is settled that

the appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial courts granting an accuseds
demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special civil action of certiorari
under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment,
does not result in jeopardy. Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set
aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right
of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated. Unfortunately, what the
prosecution filed with the Court in the present case is an appeal by way of a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising a pure question of law, which is
different from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Effect of denial of motion for leave to file demurrer

Order denying the motion for leave or order denying the demurrer itself is not
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (Rule 119, Sec. 23)

It is interlocutory, but it may be assigned as error and reviewed in the appeal that
may be taken from the decision on the merits (Cruz v. People, 1999)

The accused has the right to present evidence after demurrer is denied (Rule 119,
Sec. 23)

If Demurrer was filed with leave of court:

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused
may adduce evidence in his defense.

If Demurrer was filed without leave of court:

 When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives
the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the
evidence for the prosecution
Even if the demurrer is granted, the trial court may hold the accused civilly liable
and he can no longer adduce evidence on the civil aspect because of his waiver.
(Alferez v. People, 31 January 2011)

REVERSE TRIAL
A reverse trial is one where the accused presents evidence ahead of the prosecution
and the latter is to present evidence by way of rebuttal to the formers evidence.
This kind of trial may take place when the accused made known to the trial court,
on arraignment, that he is to adduce affirmative defense of a justifying or exempting
circumstance and thus impliedly admitting the acts/s imputed to him.
The trial court may then require the accused to present evidence first, proving the
requisites of the justifying or exempting circumstance he is invoking, and the
prosecution to present rebuttal evidence controverting it.

M. JUDGMENT

REQUISITES OF A JUDGMENT
Written in official language.
Personally and directly prepared by the judge.
Signed by the judge.
Contains clearly and distinctly a statement of facts proved and the law upon which
judgment is based.
Judge who penned the decision need not be the one who heard the case.
The fact alone that the judge who heard the evidence was not the one who rendered
the judgment but merely relied on the record of the case does not render his
judgment erroneous or irregular.

CONTENTS OF JUDGMENT

Conviction

The judgment of conviction shall state:

The legal qualification of the offense and the attendant aggravating, mitigating
circumstances.
Participation of the accused (principal, accomplice or accessory)
That penalty should not be imposed in the alternative.
The civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act, if any, unless the
enforcement of the civil liability is by a separate civil action, or is waived or
reserved.

Judgment for 2 or more offenses

 General Rule: Complaint/information must charge only one offense.
Exception: Cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various
offenses.

General Rule: Duplicitous information is subject to a motion to quash.

Exception: Defect is waived when accused fails to move for quashal.

Thus, where the accused fails to object to 2 or more offenses charged in a single
information/complaint before trial (Rule 120, Sec.3), the court may:

(a) Convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved; and
Exception: One of the offenses has been a necessary means for committing
the other offense and where both have been result of a single act.

(b) Impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the
findings of fact and law in each offense.
Exception: maximum duration of offense: Follow the three-fold rule on the
service of penalty (Revised Penal Code, Art. 70).

Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof

General Rule: The defendant can be convicted only of the crime with which he is
charged.

Rationale: He has the right to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he
is charged before he is put on trial.

However, minor variance between the information and the evidence:

Does not alter the nature of the offense;
Does not determine or qualify the crime or penalty;
Cannot be ground for acquittal.
Exception: The accused can be convicted of an offense only when it is both
charged and proven.
- He can be convicted of an offense proved provided it is included in the
charge, or of an offense charged which is included in that which is proved.
(Rule 120, Sec.4)

The mere fact that the evidence presented would indicate that a lesser
offense outside the courts jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the
court of its jurisdiction which had vested in it under the allegations in the
information.
Exception to the exception: Where there are facts that supervened after the
filing of the information which change the nature of the offense.

When an offense includes or is included in another (Rule 120, Sec. 5)

The offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the
essential elements/ingredients of the former, as alleged in the
complaint/information, constitute the latter.
An offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

Effects:
 The accused shall be convicted of: (Rule 120, Sec. 4)
The offense proved which is included in the offense charged; or
The offense charged which is included in the offense proved
The right to be informed of the charges has not been violated because where an
accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed also of lesser
crimes/offenses included therein. (People v. Villamar, 1998)
Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to
one of the component offenses, the accused can be convicted of the one which is
proven.

State liability for unjust conviction

Under R.A. No. 7309, victims of unjust imprisonment or detention may file a claim
for compensation with the DOJ Board of Claims.

Who may file claims for compensation:

(a) any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but subsequently
released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal;
(b) any person who was unjustly detained and released without being charged;
(c) any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as defined in the
Revised Penal Code under a final judgment of the court; and
(d) any person who is a victim of violent crimes.
For purposes of this law, violent crimes shall include rape and shall likewise refer to
offenses committed with malice which resulted in death or serious physical and/or
psychological injuries, permanent incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion, serious
trauma, or committed with torture, cruelly or barbarity.

CONTENTS OF JUDGMENT

Acquittal
Definition: A finding of not guilty based on the merits, either:
The evidence does not show that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt; or
A dismissal of the case after the prosecution has rested its case and upon motion of
the accused on the ground that the evidence fails to show beyond doubt that
accused is guilty.
REASONABLE DOUBT- Doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof
and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest upon the certainty of
guilt.
Rationale: It is always better to err in acquitting than in punishing. (People v. Lizada,
G.R. No. 97226, 1993)

The Judgment of acquittal shall state whether:

The evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused,
or
It merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, on this second statement, this does not extinguish the civil liability
of the accused arising from his acts, since civil liability arose not from a
crime but from the damage caused by such acts.

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability
unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT; INSTANCES OF PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT
IN ABSENTIA
Promulgation: An official proclamation or announcement of judgment or order.

Two things are essential and necessary for the valid promulgation of a court
decision:
There must be a judge or judges legally appointed or elected and actually
acting either de jure or de facto, and
The said judgment must be duly signed and promulgated during the
incumbency of the judge who signed it. (Miguel v. MTC,1986)

The judgment or sentence does not become a judgment or sentence in law until it:
Is read and announced to the defendant; or
Has become a part of the record of the court. (US v. CFI of Manila, 24 Phil
321)
Where there is no promulgation of judgment, no right to appeal accrues.

Notice for Promulgation

Clerk of Court gives notice to accused personally or through bondsman or warden
and counsel.
If the accused jumps bail or escapes from prison and was tried in absentia, notice
will be served at his last known address. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)

Sin perjucio judgment: Judgment without a statement of facts. (Dizon v. Lopez, 1997)

Promulgation where the judge is absent

The judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court when the judge is absent or
outside the province or city. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)

Presence of accused required in promulgation; exception

General rule: Presence of the accused is mandatory.
Exception: convictions for light offenses.

Presence of accused required in promulgation; exception

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in the Rules against the
judgment and the court shall order his arrest.

Judgment becomes final in 4 instances:

1. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal;
2. When the sentence has been partially / totally satisfied or served; or
3. The accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal,
4. When the accused applies for probation, and thereby waives right to appeal

COLINARES v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 182748, 13 December 2011

It is true that under the probation law the accused who appeals "from
the judgment of conviction" is disqualified from availing himself of the
benefits of probation. But, as it happens, two judgments of conviction have
 been meted out to herein accused: one, a conviction for frustrated homicide
by the regional trial court, now set aside; and, two, a conviction for attempted
homicide by the Supreme Court. x x x The Courts finding that accused was
guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an
original conviction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable
penalty. Had the trial court done him right from the start, it would have
found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty
of two years and four months maximum. This would have afforded accused
the right to apply for probation.

Since the Court found accused guilty only of the lesser crime of
attempted homicide and held that the maximum of the penalty imposed on
him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum,
it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon
remand of the case to the trial court.

WHEN DOES JUDGMENT BECOME FINAL

When judgment of acquittal becomes final

It is immediately final and executory.
The State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy.

N.B.: The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had
the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied
on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous, especially
where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion. (People v.
Paling, G.R. No. 185390, 16 March 2011)

N. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL. (RULE 121, SEC. 2)

(1) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
have been committed during the trial;

General Rule: Error of the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial is neither an
error of law nor an irregularity.
Exception: Acquittal would in all probability have allowed the introduction of
certain testimony which was not submitted at the trial under improper or
injudicious advice of incompetent counsel.
Irregularities must be with much seriousness as to affect prejudicially the
substantial rights of the accused.

(2) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if
introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 121, SEC. 3)
Errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings.

Rationale: To afford the trial court the opportunity to correct its own mistakes and to
avoid unnecessary appeals.

EFFECTS OF GRANTING A NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 121, SEC. 6)

In all cases:
The original judgment is set aside or vacated; and
A new judgment is rendered accordingly.

Specific effects when granted upon different grounds:

A. Errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial

All proceedings and evidence affected shall be set aside and taken anew.
If error or irregularity goes into the jurisdiction, entire proceeding is void and must
be set aside.
Further, the Court may allow introduction of additional or other evidence in the
interest of justice.

B. Newly-discovered evidence
Evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other
evidence shall be taken and considered together with the evidence already on
record.
All proceedings and evidence affected shall be set aside and taken anew.
Further, the Court may allow introduction of additional or other evidence in the
interest of justice.

APPLICATION OF NEYPES DOCTRINE IN CRIMINAL CASES.

Neypes v. CA, 2005:

(SEE YU v. TATAD)

Fresh Period of Appeal after denial of Motion for New Trial or Motion for
Reconsideration.

Henceforth, the fresh period rule shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals
from the MTCs to the RTCs; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the RTCs to the
CA; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA and Rule 45
governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court.

The raison dtre for the "fresh period rule" is to standardize the appeal period
provided in the Rules and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal
period should be counted. Litigants today need not concern themselves with
counting the balance of the 15-day period to appeal since the 15-day period is now
counted from receipt of the order denying a motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration or any final order or resolution. (Yu v. Samson-Tatad, GR No. 170979,
9 February 2011)
 JUDITH YU V. SAMSON-TATAD
GR No. 170979, 9 February 2011

An information for estafa against petitioner was filed with the

Regional Trial Court which convicted the petitioner as charged.
Fourteen days later, petitioner filed a motion for new trial, alleging
that she discovered new and material evidence that would exculpate
her of the crime for which she was convicted. The respondent judge
denied the petitioner's motion for new trial for lack of merit.

The petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Regional Trial

Court, alleging that she had a fresh period of 15 days from the receipt
of the denial of her motion for new trial, within which to file a notice
of appeal. The prosecution filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for
being belatedly filed and a Motion for execution of the decision.

To standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules and

do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period
should be counted, the fresh period rule applies to appeals in
criminal cases. Were we to strictly interpret the fresh period rule in
Neypes and make it applicable only to the period to appeal in civil
cases, we shall effectively foster and encourage an absurd situation
where a litigant in a civil case will have a better right to appeal than
an accused in a criminal case a situation that gives undue favor to
civil litigants and unjustly discriminates against the accused-
appellants. It suggests a double standard of treatment when we favor
a situation where property interests are at stake, as against a situation
where liberty stands to be prejudiced. We must emphatically reject
this double and unequal standard for being contrary to reason.

O. APPEAL

EFFECT OF AN APPEAL
An appeal in a criminal proceeding in throws the whole case open for review and it
becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct an error as may be found in the
appealed judgment, whether or not it is made the subject of assignment of errors.
(People v. Calayca, 1999)

WHERE TO APPEAL
To the RTC from the MTC/MeTC/MCTC
To the Sandiganbayan from the RTC or MTC/MeTC/MCTC if accused is
government-official or employee and act is duty-related (i.e. filed under EO 1, 2, 4
and 14-A)
To the CA from the RTC (if it involves questions of questions of fact and of law)
To the SC from the RTC
- If it involves questions of law only
- If it involves constitutionality or validity of any treaty / ordinance /
Executive Order / regulation or the jurisdiction of the inferior court
 - In criminal cases involving offense for which penalty imposed is death or life
imprisonment
- Other offenses, which, arose out of the same occurrence or which may have
been committed by the accused on the same occasion, as that giving rise to
the more serious offense
To the SC from the CA or the Sandiganbayan
Improper designation
The designation of the wrong court does not necessarily affect the validity of
the notice of appeal. However, the designation of the proper court should be
made within the 15-day period to appeal. Otherwise, Section 2, Rule 50 of
the Rules of Court would apply. (Torres v. People, 2011)

HOW APPEAL TAKEN (RULE 122, SEC. 9)

1) Transmission of record to RTC

Within 5 days from the perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court shall transmit the
original record to the appropriate RTC.

2) Notifications of parties
Upon receipt of the complete record, Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) and
evidence of the case, the RTC clerk of the court shall notify the parties of such fact.

3) Submission of memoranda/briefs
Within 15 days from the receipt of notice, the parties may submit
memoranda/briefs, or may be required by the RTC to do so.

4) Decision
After the submission of such memoranda/briefs or upon the expiration of the
period to file the same, the RTC shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the
case and of such memoranda/briefs as may have been filed.

WHEN APPEAL TO BE TAKEN (RULE 122, SEC. 6)

Within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final
order appealed from.
Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain
proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays
and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with
such rules is mandatory and imperative. Only strong considerations of equity will
lead us to allow an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial
justice. (Villamor v. People; and Vios v. People, 2011)

EFFECT OF APPEAL BY ANY OF SEVERAL ACCUSED

General Rule: An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect
those who did not appeal.
As to the appealing party, the execution of judgment appealed from is stayed
upon the perfection of the appeal.
 As to the co-accused who did not appeal, the judgment of the trial court
insofar as it relates to him becomes final and the appellate court has no
power to interfere with it. (Salvatierra v. CA, 1996)

Exception: Insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable
to those who did not appeal or who withdrew his appeal. (People v. Escano)
The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the
criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.

GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

When appeal by the people will not lie:
The People/State cannot appeal when it will put the accused in double
jeopardy.
The prosecution cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal.

Rationale: A verdict of this nature is immediately final and to try it again on the merits,
even in an appellate court, places the accused in double jeopardy. (Central Bank v. CA,
1989)

QUESTIONING AN ACQUITTAL THROUGH A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

A Rule 65 Petition for certiorari is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal
whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. By way of exception, a judgment
of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court upon a clear showing by the petitioner that the lower court
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus rendering
the assailed judgment void. (People v. Asis, G.R. No. 173089, 25 August 2010)

PEOPLE v. ASIS
G.R. No. 173089, 25 August 2010

Accused Abordo was acquitted by the trial court for two (2)
counts of murder. The prosecution filed a Rule 65 Petition with the
Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. A Rule 45 Petition was
thereafter filed with the Supreme Court to contest the Court of
Appeals Decision.

The Supreme Court held that a Rule 65 Petition for certiorari,

not appeal, is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal whether at
the trial court or at the appellate level. The Philippine judicial system
adheres to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of
acquittal is final and unappealable. By way of exception, a judgment
of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court upon a clear showing
by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of
due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. In this
petition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claims that
 Abordos acquittal in Criminal Case No. N-2213 was improper. Since
appeal could not be taken without violating Abordos
constitutionally guaranteed right against double jeopardy, the OSG
was correct in pursuing its cause via a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 before the appellate court.

REPRESENTATION DURING APPEAL

N.B.: If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an
appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State
through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People
of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not
take such appeal.

P. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES

NATURE
The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are applicable, may be
availed of in connection with the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal
action. (Rule 127, Sec. 1)

KINDS OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

1. Attachment.When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action as

provided in Rule 111, the offended party may have the property of the accused
attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from
the accused in the following cases:

(a) When the accused is about to abscond from the Philippines;

(b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for money or property embezzled
or fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of the accused who is a public
officer, officer of a corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk, in the course
of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a
willful violation of duty;

(c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his property, or is
about to do so; and

(d) When the accused resides outside the Philippines. (Rule 127, Sec. 1)

2. Preliminary Injunction

3. Receivership

4. Delivery of Personal Property

5. Support Pendente Lite