CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY.
LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
DEFINITION; REQUISITES
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to hear
and try a particular offense that involves the punishment of it.
REQUISITES FOR A COURT CAN TRY A CRIMINAL CASE (as cited
in Arula v. Espino):
1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
- The offense is one which the court is by law
authorized to take cognizance of
- It is conferred by law.
2. JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
- The offense must have been committed within its
territorial jurisdiction
- The court has jurisdiction limited only that was
committed within its jurisdiction
- AVL: It has something to do with its geography.
The physical territory of a court.
3. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
- The person charged with the offense must have
been brought into its forum for trial, forcibly by
warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary
submission to the court
Antiporda v. Hon. Garchitorena
Facts: Accused Antiporda Jr., and three others were charged
with kidnapping one Elmer Ramos. Because it was not clear
whether or not the offense committed was office-related, the
Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to amend the
Information. The prosecution filed an Amended Information
alleging that one of the accused, Antporda, Jr., took advantage
of his position as mayor of Buguey, Cagayan to order the
kidnapping of Elmer Ramos. Accused moved for a
reinvestigation of the case and for the deferment of the
issuance of the warrants of arrest but the Sandiganbayan
denied his motion. Accused then moved to quash the
amended information for lack of jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over the case, but the latter likewise denied
the same.
Issue: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over
the offense
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that accused are estopped
from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the
case for in the motion for reconsideration they had filed with
the same court, they clearly stated that the crime was work-
connected. The Court also held that a reinvestigation need not
be conducted because the amendments to the information
merely described the public positions of the accused, and the
purpose of a preliminary investigation (to engender a well-
grounded belief that a crime had been committed and accused
are probably guilty thereof) had already been achieved.
Layosa case: The voluntary appearance of the accused at the
pre-suspension hearing amounted to his submission to the
court’s jurisdiction even if no warrant of arrest has yet been
issued.
De los Santos-Reyes case: The court said that the accused have
no right to invoke the processes of the court since they have
not been placed in the custody of the law or otherwise
deprived of their liberty by reason or as a consequence of the
filling of the information. The court had no authority to act on
the petition.
Reconciliation of the two cases: The only difference is that De
los Santos-Reyes case harped mainly on the warrant of arrest
angle while the Layosa case dealt more on issue of voluntary
submission ruling.
AVL: The charged was not under the Sandiganbayan because
the first charged alleged is not office-related but it was
amended. The Court invoked the doctrine of estoppel. This
case tells us that you do not ask relief from the court and later
on question its jurisdiction. You will be estopped from in
saying so. The petitioner in this case cannot have their cake
and eat it too.
Arula v. Espino
Facts: Arula and other recruits of Capt. Facelo of AFP was taken
to Corregidor Island to undergo training. A shooting incident
occurred at Corregidor resulting in the infliction of serious
physical injuries upon Arula. Despite his wounds, he succeeded
in fleeing Corregidor. He filed a criminal complaint with the city
fiscal of Cavite City. On the other hand, a general court-martial
has been convened to try the case against the army personnel
involved in the Corregidor incident. The Armed Forces lawyers
now moved to dismiss the complaint filed with the city fiscal of
Cavite upon the ground that the civil courts had lost
jurisdiction over the case because a court-martial had been
convened.
Issue: Whether or not the general court-martial has
jurisdiction over the case
Ruling: The rule accords to the court first acquiring jurisdiction
over the person of the accused by the filing of charges and
having him in custody the preferential right to proceed with
the trial.
Well-known is the rule that when several courts have
concurrent jurisdiction of the same offense, the court first
acquiring jurisdiction of the prosecution retains to it the
exclusion of the others. This rule, however, requires that
CMYV 2018 1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall have first
been obtained by the court in which the first charge was field.
No indictment has yet been filed with the CFI of Cavite, the
same being merely in the preliminary investigation phase. The
mere filing of a complaint with the prosecuting fiscal cannot
have parity with the filing of such complaint with the court.
Even if there could be such parity, it is not the mere filing of
the complaint or information but the actual taking into custody
of the accused under the process of one court or the other. The
general court-martial acquired jurisdiction not only because of
filing the charges but also because it first acquired custody or
jurisdiction of the persons of the accused.
AVL:
Which of the two courts may have jurisdiction over the case?
In a situation where two courts with concurrent jurisdiction,
the ruling of the court was that the court that have acquired
the jurisdiction FIRST over the persons of the accused coupled
with the fact that a complaint must filed in that same court and
that court will have jurisdiction over the case.
In this case, the Court of First Instance has not yet acquired the
jurisdiction over the person while the other court has already
acquired the jurisdiction over the person after the filing of
another complaint with that second court. And that second
court will now have the jurisdiction.
So, it is not the filing per se, it is filing PLUS acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
This only applies if two courts will have concurrent jurisdiction
People of the Phil. v. Umbrero
Facts: This case is an appeal from a decision from the RTC of
Aparri convicting Umbrero for murder. The information
alleged that the accused killed Alfonso Urbi. The accused
assailed the jurisdiction of the court because of the absence of
the preliminary investigation. Umbrero alleged that he was
denied his right to due process. He states that there was no
preliminary investigation conducted as his name was not
included in the criminal complaint filed with the municipal
court which conducted the preliminary investigation.
Issue: Whether or not the absence of the preliminary
investigation would affect the court's jurisdiction over the
person of the accused
Ruling: The allegation is unmeritorious. The appellant never
asked for or called the attention of the court before entering
his plea, as to the absence of a preliminary investigation. His
right to preliminary investigation, then is deemed waived as he
failed to invoke such right prior to or, at least at the time of the
entry of his plea in the court of first instance. The entry of their
plea constituted a waiver of their right to preliminary
investigation and any irregularity that attended it.
Jurisdiction was acquired by the Court over the person of
Umbrero as the accused appeared at the arraignment and
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
AVL: The right to PI is a substantial right under the right of due
process. But in this case, since Umbrero entered his plea of not
guilty without invoking his right to PI, the Court said that
Umbrero is deemed to have waived his right. In this case, the
court acquired jurisdiction over Umbrero as the accused
appeared at the arraignment. But if we look at the third
element –
there are two ways for the Court to acquire jurisdiction,
(1) warrant of arrest or
(2) voluntary submission.
In this case, Umbrero voluntarily submitted himself to the
court by asking the court an affirmative relief. Either of the two
so long as the court will acquire jurisdiction and so long as the
other two elements will be present, then the court will now
exercise jurisdiction over the case.
Valdepenas v. People
Facts: Ester Ulsano, 17yrs old, assisted by her mother filed
forcible abduction with rape against Valdepenas. CFI found
him guilty as charged. CA modified to abduction with consent.
Valdepenas filed an MR & MNT on the finding of minority at
time of occurrence which was granted but on retrial the prior
CA ruling was affirmed. 2nd MR based on lack of jurisdiction of
CFI was denied so he filed petition for certiorari. Petitioner's
theory is that no complaint for abduction with consent has
been filed and the lower court acquired no jurisdiction over his
person or over the crime of abduction with consent and had,
therefore, no authority to convict him.
Issue: WON CA erred in not reversing CFI for lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the
action for the offense of abduction with consent?
Ruling: No. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is
acquired upon either his apprehension, with or without
warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court. In
the case at bar, it is not claimed that petitioner had not been
apprehended or had not submitted himself to the jurisdiction
of the court. Indeed, although brought before the bar of justice
as early as January 25, 1956, first, before the then justice of the
peace court of Piat, then before the CFI of Cagayan, later
before the CA, thereafter back to CFI, and then, again, before
the CA, never, within the period of six (6) years had he
questioned the judicial authority of any of these three (3)
courts over his person.
He is deemed waived whatever objection he might have had
to the jurisdiction over his person, and, hence, to have
submitted himself to the Court's jurisdiction. His behavior and
every single one of the steps taken by him before said courts—
particularly the motions therein filed by him — implied, not
CMYV 2018 2
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
merely a submission to the jurisdiction thereof, but, also, that
he urged the courts to exercise the authority thereof over his
person.
Abduction with consent -­­ jurisdiction over a given crime, not
vested by law upon a particular court, may not be conferred
thereto by the parties involve in the offense.
In the case at bar, the offended woman and her mother have
negated such preference by filing the complaint and going
through the trials and tribulations concomitant with the
proceedings in this case, before several courts, for the last ten
(10) years. Petitioner says that the complaint was for forcible
abduction, not abduction with consent; but, as already
adverted to, the latter is included in the former.
This allegation implies that Ester is a minor living under patria
protestas, and, hence, single, thus leading to the presumption
that she is a virgin. She was taken by force from their dwelling
when her mother was away and brought to a secluded area
and raped.
AVL: The charged was changed from forcible abduction with
rape to abduction with consent. According to petitioner, there
was no abduction with consent to begin with. Accordingly, the
Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the crime of abduction
with consent.
Would that argument apply?
On the jurisdiction over the person of the accused, it is
acquired upon apprehension when there is with or without
warrant or a submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Valdepenas case clarifies that you may get arrested even
without a warrant.
Was the accused apprehended or did he submit himself to the
jurisdiction of the court?
Neither. Wala.
But, why is it that the Court said that the lower court still
acquired jurisdiction over the case?
There was waiver on the part of the accused. It took him six (6)
years to assail the jurisdiction of the court. In fact, he asked for
affirmative relief. The Court said wala man unta ka nadakpan
and at the same time wala pud nimo gi voluntarily submit imu
self sa court, but you did not trace the facts. For 6 years,
accused never questioned the jurisdiction hence, it is deemed
waived on his part to question the jurisdiction.
Gimenez v. Nazareno
Facts: Suan, Potot, Mula, Cargando, Baguio, and de la Vega Jr.
(private respondent), were charged with murder. All the
named accused were arraigned and each of them pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged. Nazareno, respondent judge, set
the hearing of the case. All of the accused were informed of it.
Before the scheduled hearing, de la Vega Jr., escaped from his
detention center and failed to appear in court. The fiscals filed
a motion with the lower court to proceed with the hearing of
the case against all the accused praying that de la Vega Jr., be
tried in absentia invoking application of Sec. 19, Art. IV of the
1973 Constitution.
The lower court proceeded with the trial but nevertheless gave
the private respondent the opportunity to take the witness
stand the moment he shows up in court. The lower court
dismissed the case against the five accused while holding
abeyance the proceedings against the private respondent. The
petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the
decision on the ground that it will render nugatory the
constitutional provision on "trial in absentia" cited.
The lower court maintains that jurisdiction over private
respondent was lost when he escaped and that his right to
cross-examine and present evidence must not be denied him
once jurisdiction over his person is reacquired
Issue: Whether or not a court loses jurisdiction over an accused
who after being arraigned escapes from the custody of the law
Ruling: Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance
of parties but continues until the case is terminated
notwithstanding his escape from the custody of the law.
David v. Agbay
Facts: David became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon
their retirement, David and his wife returned to the
Philippines. They purchased a lot along the beach in Oriental
Mindoro. However, they came to know that the portion where
they built their house is public land and part of the salvage
zone. David filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) over
the subject land with the DENR at the CENRO in Socorro. In the
said application, petitioner indicated that he is a Filipino
citizen.
Editha A. Agbay opposed the application on the ground that
David, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land.
Meanwhile, while David’s MLA was pending, he re-acquired his
Filipino citizenship under the provisions of R.A. 9225 as
evidenced by Identification Certificate No. 266-10-07 issued by
the Consulate General of the Philippines (Toronto).
In his defense, David averred that at the time he filed his
application, he had intended to re-acquire Philippine
citizenship and that he had been assured by a CENRO officer
that he could declare himself as a Filipino.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued its Resolution
finding probable cause to indict David and recommending the
filing of the corresponding information in court.
After the filing of the Information and before his arrest, David
filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of Probable
Cause in the MTC. MTC denied the motion holding that it lack
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner-accused as the
CMYV 2018 3
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
motion was filed prior to his arrest. David argued that
jurisdiction over the person of an accused cannot be a pre-
condition for the re-determination of probable cause by the
court that issues a warrant of arrest.
Issue: Whether or not the MTC erred in its decision in denying
the motion
Ruling: The MTC erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over
his person. Custody of the law is not required for the
adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived
when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except
in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court
by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.
AVL: There was a motion for redetermination of probable
cause but the MTC denied. The MTC said that the court has no
jurisdiction because the motion was filed prior to the arrest.
For the MTC, it can only rule on the motion for
redetermination of probable cause if the Court will acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused and it could only
happen if he will be a Filipino resident.
What the court had in mind is the custody of the law but that's
not what the rules require. Because what the rules require is
jurisdiction over that person. It doesn't say custody of the
law. The rules require only the jurisdiction over the person.
The court has to distinguish custody of the law from
jurisdiction over the person.
How did the court differentiate the two?
The court said that custody of the law is required before the
court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required
for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant
where the mere application therefore constitutes a waiver of
the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or
voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.
How do you voluntary surrender yourself under the custody
of the law?
You go to the police and submit yourself.
When is custody of the law required?
It is required when the person will apply for bail or before
posting for bail. Other than that, the court may acquire
jurisdiction over you even without you being under the
custody of the law.
If you are under the custody of the law, does the court
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused?
No, it's not automatic. One can be under the custody of the law
but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant
files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant.
When can one be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over
his person and yet not be in the custody of the law?
When an accused escapes custody after his trial has
commenced.
Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the
person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty,
binding him to become obedient to the will of the law. Custody
of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused. It
includes, but is not limited to, detention.
What is required for criminal jurisdiction to set in is jurisdiction
over the person of the accused. Do not associate arrest with
jurisdiction over the person. Jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is a legal principle. It is not contained of any physical
aspect of the person being detained. But, the thing is if you get
detained that signify jurisdiction over your person so long as
you question the validity of the warrant.
Lahi ang appearance. Lahi ang surrender. Appearance is wala
pa gali arrest but you ask relief from court. This case is one of
those. You file a motion for redetermination of probable cause.
(Medyo wala kuno nag tuon ug crim pro ang judge). Because
the judge associated the jurisdiction over the person of the
accused with the fact of arrest.
DETERMINATION
Buaya v. Judge Polo and the Country Bankers Insurance
Facts: Solemnidad Buaya is an insurance agent of private
complainant of Country Bankers Insurance Corporation. Buaya
was authorized to transact and underwrite insurance business
and collect the corresponding premiums for and in behalf of
the private respondent. Allegedly, an audit was conducted on
petitioner's account which showed a shortage. She was
charged with estafa before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the
RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction over the offense since the
collection was done in Cebu City and the offense complained
of is purely civil in nature. The RTC denied the motion to
dismiss.
Issue: Whether or not RTC Manila has jurisdiction over the case
Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterated that the averments in
the complaint or information characterize the crime to be
prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried. Thus,
in order to determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal
cases, the complaint must be examined for the purpose of
ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the
punishment provided for by law fall within the jurisdiction of
the court where the complaint is filed.
The jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the
allegations of the complaint or information, and not by the
CMYV 2018 4
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
findings the court may make after the trial. Further, Section
14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
In all criminal — prosecutions the action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the
offense was committed or any of the essential elements
thereof took place. The subject information charges petitioner
with estafa committed "during the period 1980 to June 15,
1982 inclusive in the City of Manila, Philippines . . . ."
Clearly then, from the very allegation of the information the
RTC of Manila has jurisdiction. Besides, the crime of estafa is a
continuing or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at
the place where any of the essential elements of the crime
took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage
or prejudice to the offended party. The private respondent has
its principal place of business and office at Manila. The failure
of the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums she
collected allegedly caused damage and prejudice to private
respondent in Manila.
AVL: The Court determines jurisdiction by reading the
complaint or information. If the court could have or should
have jurisdiction through the complaint or information then
this court can proceed regardless of the findings made by the
court after the trial. So, read the information or complaint and
there you will find the allegations for which the court may
conclude that it may have or may not have jurisdiction. The
court have to read.
Jurisdiction is determined through the allegations in the
information or complaint.
People v. Lagon
Facts: Libertad Lagon was charged with estafa under par2(d)
RPC 315 in the amount of P4,232.80 as payment for goods or
merchandise.
 April 1975 - alleged commission of the crime [arresto
mayor max to PC min]
 Oct 22 1975 – PD 818 was enacted increasing the penalty
to PM med
 July 1976 – criminal information filed at City Court
 Dec 1976 – City Court dismissed the information because
the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged
was beyond the court's authority to impose.
 City Court: at the time of the institution of the action
 OSG: agreed with the City Court
Issue: Whether or not the City Court had jurisdiction over the
case
Ruling: NO. It is settled doctrine that jurisdiction of a court in
criminal law matters is determined by the law in effect at the
time of the commencement of the criminal action and not the
law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense
charged.
Under Sec 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, “municipal judges in
the capitals of provinces and sub-provinces and judges of city
courts shall have like jurisdiction as the CFI to try parties
charged with an offense within their respective jurisdictions,
in which penalties provided do not exceed prision correccional
or fines not exceeding P6,000 or both”.
At the time of the commission of the crime, the imposable
penalty under Art 315 of the RPC was arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional it is minimum period,
falling well within the jurisdiction of the City Court. But when
the information was filed, PD 818 had increased the imposable
penalty to prision mayor in its medium period.
It has been repeatedly held that in criminal prosecutions,
jurisdiction is not determined by what may be meted out to
the offender in after trial but by the extent of the penalty
which the law imposes. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the
Court in which the information is filed, it is retained regardless
of whether the evidence proves a lesser offense which carries
a penalty that would otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of an
inferior court.
In the instant case, should the information be refiled with the
RTC, the court may not impose a more onerous penalty upon
Lagon.
Although the RTC retains subject-matter jurisdiction to try and
decide the refiled case under PD 818, given the date of the
commission of the crime (before effectivity of PD 818), the
lower penalty provided in Art 315 (otherwise within the
jurisdiction of the City Court) should be imposed. Hence, this
petition for review.
AVL: In criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction of the court is not
determined by what may be meted out to the offender after
trial or even by the result of the evidence that would be
presented during the trial but by the extent of the penalty
which the law imposes on the basis of the facts as recited in
the complaint or information regardless of what will be the
final penalty that the court will imposed. Basahon ang
information. Tan awun unsa ang charged. Tan awun pila ang
penalty imposable. That's the only case that the court needs to
determine if it has jurisdiction.
Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the
information is filed, it is retained regardless whether the
evidence proves a lesser offense than that charged in the
information. Thus, it may be that after trial, a penalty lesser
than the maximum imposable under the statute is proper
under the specific facts and circumstances proven at the trial.
In such case, that lesser penalty may be imposed by the trial
court provided even if the reduced penalty otherwise falls
within the exclusive jurisdiction of an inferior court.
CMYV 2018 5
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
People of The Phil v. Benipayo
Facts: Photokina Marketing Corp. filed a complaint for libel
against Benipayo, chairman of the COMELEC, for allegedly
being the one alluded to by the respondent in his speech at UP
Diliman which was published in Manila Bulletin issues. Said
speech is as follows: "Now, they are at it again, trying to
hoodwink us into contract that is so groslly disadvantageous to
the government that it offends common sense to say that it
would be worth the 6.5 billion-peso price tag".
Benipayo questioned the jurisdiction of the Office of the
Prosecutor of QC and moved for the dismissal of the case on
the assertion that the trial court had no jurisdiction over his
person for he was an impeachable officer and thus, could not
be criminally prosecuted before any court during his
incumbency; and that, assuming he can be criminally
prosecuted, it was the Office of the Ombudsman that should
investigate him and the case should be filed with the
Sandiganabayan.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over libel cases
to the exclusion of all other courts
Ruling: Art. 360 of the RPC, as amended by RA 4364, is explicit
on which court has jurisdiction to try cases of written
defamations.
The criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written
defamations shall be filed simultaneously or separately with
the court of first instance [now, the RTC] of the province or city
where the libelous article is printed and first published or
where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time
of the commission of the offense… .
AVL: Uniformly applied is the familiar rule that the jurisdiction
of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law
in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless a
latter statute provides a retroactive application thereof. The
law vests upon the RTC the cases of written defamations
without qualification. You don't consider the other courts
regardless of whether the crime is committed in relation to
office. Because the law is categorical - civil and criminal
actions. If written defamations, you go to RTC.
PIlipinas Shell v. Romars International
Facts: Petitioners received information that respondent was
selling, offering for sale, or distributing liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) by illegally refilling the steel cylinders manufactured by
and bearing the duly registered trademark and device of
respondent Petron. Petron then obtained the services of a
paralegal investigation team who went to respondent's
premises located in San Juan, Baao, Camarines Sur, bringing
along four empty cylinders of Shellane, Gasul, Total and
Superkalan and asked that the same be refilled. Respondent's
employees then refilled said empty cylinders at respondent's
refilling station. Petitioners then requested the NBI to further
investigate this matter. They witnessed trucks coming from
respondent's refilling facility loaded with Gasul, Shellane and
Marsflame cylinders, which then deposit said cylinders in
different places, one of them a store called “Edrich
Enterprises”.
The NBI, in behalf of Petron and Shell, filed with the RTC-Naga
two separate Applications for Search Warrant. The RTC-Naga
granted the applications and issued search warrants. On the
same day, the NBI served the warrants at the respondent's
premises in an orderly and peaceful manner, and articles or
items described in the warrants were seized.
Respondent filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrants, where
the only grounds cited were: (a) there was no probable cause;
(b) there had been a lapse of four weeks from the date of the
test-buy to the date of the search and seizure operations; (c)
most of the cylinders seized were not owned by respondent
but by a third person; and (d) Edrich Enterprises is an
authorized outlet of Gasul and Marsflame. The RTC-Naga
denied the Motion to Quash.
Respondent's new counsel filed an Appearance with Motion
for Reconsideration. It was only in said motion where
respondent raised for the first time, the issue of the
impropriety of filing the Application for Search Warrant at the
RTC-Naga City when the alleged crime was committed in a
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC-Iriga City.
Respondent pointed out that the application filed with the
RTC-Naga failed to state any compelling reason to justify the
filing of the same in a court which does not have territorial
jurisdiction over the place of the commission of the crime, as
required by Section 2 (b), Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
The RTC-Naga granted respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration, thereby quashing the Search Warrants.
Petitioner then appealed to the CA, but the appellate court
affirmed the RTC Order quashing the search warrants.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision was
denied.
Issues:
1. Whether venue in an application for search warrant is
jurisdictional? – NO
2. Whether the issue of lack of jurisdiction may be waived
and may even be raised for the first time on appeal? – NO
Ruling: The CA gravely erred in equating the proceedings for
applications for search warrants with criminal actions
themselves. Proceedings for said applications are not criminal
in nature and, thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does
not apply thereto. Evidently, the issue of whether the
application should have been filed in RTC-Iriga City or RTC-
Naga, is not one involving jurisdiction because, as stated in the
afore-quoted case, the power to issue a special criminal
process is inherent in all courts.
CMYV 2018 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Unfortunately, the reasoning of the CA, is inceptionally flawed,
because as pronounced by the Court in Malaloan v. Court of
Appeals, and reiterated in the more recent Worldwide Web
Corporation v. People of the Philippines, to wit: an application
for a search warrant is a “special criminal process,” rather than
a criminal action.
The basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously equating the
application for and the obtention of a search warrant with the
institution and prosecution of a criminal action in a trial court.
It would thus categorize what is only a special criminal process,
the power to issue which is inherent in all courts.
Such warrant is definitively considered merely as a process,
generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary
jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a
court pursuant to its original jurisdiction.
AVL: Under the Omnibus Motion Code, if you file a motion you
should assert all the grounds available at that time of filing the
motion. Failure to include a ground in that omnibus motion
means waiver on your part to raise that ground after the filing
of the omnibus motion.
Omnibus means ALL. Mu file kag motion to quash didto or
demurrer of evidence sa court, in that instance, if you don't
include a ground in that omnibus motion at the time you file it,
that ground will be deemed waived. You cannot use that
ground anymore.
EXCEPTIONS
1) If the ground was not available or was not yet existing at the
time you file a motion - you can raise that in another
subsequent motion
2) If the issue is jurisdiction over the subject matter
In this instance, the issue as to jurisdiction to issue search
warrant was raised late.
AVL: That's why the Court had to ask, is it really an issue of
jurisdiction over the subject matter? Because if that's the case
then technically you can raise that. But the court said:
A search warrant as a subject matter is not jurisdictional
because an application for search warrant is a special criminal
process rather than a criminal action. Jurisdiction of a subject
matter is inapplicable because in fact it is a special criminal
process. It does not touch upon the issue of jurisdiction over
the issue of subject matter. Because jurisdiction of a subject
matter pertains to criminal actions where the court considers
the offense charged in an information or complaint, check the
imposable penalty, and check what the law says.
It is only a special criminal process. Therefore, it does not touch
upon the issue of jurisdiction of the subject matter, you should
impugn validity of a search warrant at that time you file a
motion together with the other grounds. Otherwise, the
motion will be deemed waived.
When should you raise jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Because it is conferred by law, it may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings even on appeal.
AVL:
What are the exceptions to that rule?
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
Technically, you can question jurisdiction over the subject
matter even on appeal but Tijam is an exception.
So long as the facts of Tijam are present, wherein the case has
been pending for almost 15 years before Tijam raised the issue
of jurisdiction. The Court said a party cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative relief against his
opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,
repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. This case speaks
of laches. Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been
done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within
a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
assert it.
These are the two exceptions to the rule that you may
question the jurisdiction over the subject matter
1. Estoppel under the Antiporda case
2. Laches under Tijam case
JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT COURTS
SUPREME COURT
ART. VIII, SEC. 5, PAR. 1, 1987 CONSTITUTION
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiotrari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
AVL: Exclusive original means you can file this case on that
court for the first time and this court will decide.
CMYV 2018 7
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
ART. VIII, SEC. 5, PAR. 2, 1987 CONSTITUTION
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is
in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
Can the RTC judge declare a treaty unconstitutional?
Yes, it can. Refer to 2(a).
AVL: It means that there is a lower court that may have
declared unconstitutional and the SC can review, revise,
reverse, modify or affirm.
RULE 45, SEC. 1, 1997 RULES OF COURT
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court – A party
desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or
resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts,
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court
a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may
include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or
other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of
law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek
the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in the
same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.
AVL: A notice of appeal is the paper you file in the superior
court where your case was decided to let the court and the
other side know that you are appealing the court's decision.
Filing a notice of appeal begins the entire appeals process.
COURT OF APPEALS
SEC. 3, (A), RULE 122 OF REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Section 3. How appeal taken. —
(a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of
Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a
notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment
or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof
upon the adverse party.
AVL: If RTC decides a case using its original jurisdiction, you
appeal that to the CA if it's a criminal case and by notice of
appeal.
SEC. 3, (B), RULE 122 OF REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.
AVL: Petition for Review is different from petition for
Certiorari. Certiorari is not an appeal but an extraordinary
remedy under Rule 65. Review, on the other hand, is an
appellate procedure. What makes it appellate procedure, it is
provided for by the Rules when the decision is silent you
appeal to a higher tribunal. It's automatic. But when it comes
to Certiorari, it's not an appellate remedy.
What makes certiorari not an appellate remedy?
It involves questions of law or if the ground is grave abuse of
discretion, you file this petition.
SEC. 9 (3) OF B.P. 129
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and
quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission,
Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor
Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1)
of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth
paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
People of the Phils. v. Delos Reyes
Facts: Val de los Reyes was convicted of two counts of rape. He
pleaded not guilty but before the prosecution has finished
presenting their evidence, respondent jumped bail.
Consequently, he was tried trial in absentia and was found
guilty of the rapes. He was sentenced to suffer death penalty.
The case was appealed directly to the SC wherein the SC ruled
that the RTC violated Rule 132, Secs. 1 and 2, and Rule 133,
Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court. The case was remanded to the RTC,
in which the ruling was again the same as before.
CMYV 2018 8
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Issue: Whether de los Reyes' motion for reconsideration be
granted
Ruling: The SC ruled that the petition be dismissed.
When de los Reyes jumped bail and was tried trial in absentia,
there was still no sign of him showing. By this, he has no right
to pray for affirmative relief before the court and he loses his
standing in court. Unless he surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right
to seek relief. So even if the SC remanded the cases to the CA,
they would still be forced to dismiss the petition as he is a
fugitive. Rule 124, Sec. 8 of the Rules of Court shall apply in
which the CA can motu proprio can dismiss the petition if
accused jumped bail.
The SC stressed the appeal is a statutory privilege and it should
be exercised in the right manner and in accordance with the
law.
AVL: If an RTC decides a criminal case and imposes a penalty
of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, this case says that
there should be an automatic review by the CA.
SANDIGANBAYAN
SEC. 4, R.A. 8249 AS AMENDED BY RA 10660
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book
II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused
are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, 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 (Republic Act 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 and
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.
(3) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989;
AVL: This is a catch-all provision. If it doesn't fall under other
qualifications but its salary grade is Grade 27, it means that it
falls under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan if the case is
under RA 3019.
(4) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(5) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; and
(6) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’
and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed
with other crimes committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in
relation to their office.
AVL: If the felony is in relation to the office whether simple or
complexed with other crimes and the perpetrator is one of
those listed under subsection a, it is the Sandiganbayan that
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection
with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not
allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b)
alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the
same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not
exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
CMYV 2018 9
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
AVL: If it exceeds 1M, you go to Sandiganbayan. If it's less
than 1M, you can go to RTC.
Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the
cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
under this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than
where the official holds office.
In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions
corresponding to Salary Grade ’27’ or higher, as prescribed in
the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers
mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall
be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial
court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court,
as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions
as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of
regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own
original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein
provided.
AVL: Kung di mu fall under the Sandiganbayan and it is the RTC
or the MTC that decides the case, you go to the Sandiganbayan
for appeal.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
over petitions for the issuance of
the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar
nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in
cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1,
2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction
over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme
Court.
The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as well as the implementing rules that the
Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter
promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review
to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and
petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In
all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of
the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall
represent the People of the Philippines, except in
cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14
and 14-A, issued in 1986.
In case private individuals are charged as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations, they
shall be tried jointly with said public officers and
employees in the proper courts which shall exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over them.
Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary
notwithstanding, the criminal action and the
corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil
liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted
with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding
by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the
filing of the criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action,
and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action
separately from the criminal action shall be
recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil
action had heretofore been filed separately but
judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the
criminal case is hereafter filed with the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil
action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or
the appropriate court, as the case may be, for
consolidation and joint determination with the
criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action
shall be deemed abandoned.
Metropolitan Bank v. Hon. Sandoval
Facts: The Republic brought a complaint for reversion,
reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages in
Sandiganbayan against Ferdinand Marcos and other
defendants, for the recovery of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of
the Marcoses and dummies. Among the properties subject of
the action were two parcels of land registered in the names of
Spouses Genito. AS it appears that Asian Bank claimed
ownership of the two parcels of land and was in possession of
the properties by virtue of writ of possession, the Republic
moved for the amendment of the complaint in order to
implead Asian Bank as an additional defendant. The motion
was granted by the Sandiganbayan. When its presentation of
evidence against the original defendants is about to terminate,
Republic moved to hold separate trial against Asian Bank.
Asian Bank sought the deferment of any action on the motion
until it was first given the opportunity to test and assail
testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the
Republic.
Furthermore, Asian Bank contended that if a separate trial
without having been sufficiently apprised about the evidence
the Republic had adduced before it was brought in as an
additional defendant would amount to deprivation of its day
in the court. The Republic, in its reply, maintained that
separate trial is proper because it has entirely different and
independent cause of action from the original defendants.
Nonetheless, SandiganbayAn granted Republic's motion for
separate trial. Metrobank commenced Special civil action for
Certiorari as the successor-in-interest of Asian Bank.
Issue: Was Republic entitled to a separate trial against Asian
Bank?
Ruling: No, the granting of the Republic's motion for separate
trial was improper. Section2, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court
CMYV 2018 10
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
provides: The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid
prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim,
counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate
issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims,
third-party complaints or issues.
The Trial court, therefore, is given discretion to determine if a
separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-
party complaint should be held, provided that the exercise of
such discretion is in furtherance of convenience or to avoid
prejudice to any party. General rule is that all issues in every
case must be tried at once. Exceptions to the rule are
permitted only when there are extraordinary grounds for
conducting separate trials, or when separate trials of the issues
will avoid prejudice, or when separate trial of the issues will
further convenience, or promote justice.
In this case, Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of its
discretion in ordering separate trial as to Asian Bank on the
ground that the issue against Asian bank was distinct and
separate from that against the original defendants. The
justification of Sandiganbayan did not constitute compelling
reason, to begin with the issue relevant to Asian Bank was not
complicated, and cause of action against Asian bank was
necessarily connected with the cause of action against the
original defendant. Furthermore, only a joint trial with the
original defendants could afford to Metrobank the equal and
efficient opportunity to confront and to contest all the
evidence bearing on its ownership of the properties. Hence,
the disadvantages that a separate trial would cause to
Metrobank would far outweigh any good or benefit that the
Republic would seemingly stand to gain from the separation of
trials.
AVL: According to Asian Bank, Sandiganbayan should only have
jurisdiction over it because the Republic has not imputed any
responsibility to Asian Bank for the illegal accumulation of
wealth by the original defendants, or has not averred that
Asian Bank was a business associate, dummy, nominee, or
agent of the Marcoses.
How can Asian Bank, considered as a private entity, be under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan? How did the Court
address that? It falls under which part of our discussion?
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction because it is incidental.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection
with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
Under Section 2 of Executive Order No. 14, all cases of the
Commission regarding alleged illgotten properties of former
President Marcos and his relatives, subordinates, cronies,
nominees and so forth, whether civil or criminal, are lodged
within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, "and all incidents arising from, incidental to,
or related to such cases necessarily fall likewise under the
Sandiganbayan’s exclusive and original, subject to review on
certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court."
Villanueva v. People of the Phils.
AVL: This case clarifies that if a case is decided by the RTC or
MTC, they may appeal the decision to the Sandiganbayan.
Which cases may be appealed to the Sandiganbayan if the
case is decided by RTC or MTC?
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
in all cases involving the RA 3019.
If it's a RA 3019 case, it's not automatic that you go to
Sandiganbayan because you still need to determine that the
alleged perpetrator of a crime under RA 3019 is one of those
officials listed. In fact, if a crime is allegedly committed by a
public officer that does not belong to the two, where do you
go? Proper RTC or MTC. That's what this phrase meant:
In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions
corresponding to salary grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in
the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers
mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall
be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial
court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court ' as
the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as
provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
But if the case is decided by this proper court in the exercise of
its exclusive original, definitely you may appeal it with the
Sandiganbayan. And the Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive appellate jurisdiction, by means of petition for
review.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
SEC. 7, R.A. 9282
Section 7. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:
b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein
provided:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses
arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code
or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by
the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs:
Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in
this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified
amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the
jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law
or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
CMYV 2018 11
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the
recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times
be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in
the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal
action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of
the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil
action separately from the criminal action will be recognized.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of
the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by
them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or
orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their
appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction.
Which criminal offenses may be prosecuted by the CTA?
Violations of National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and
Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs.
AVL: However, it's not automatic. Because it the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
is less than 1M or where there is no specified amount
claimed, you go to the regular Courts. But you may appeal it
to the CTA.
Which cases fall under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction in
criminal offenses?
Par. 2 (a), (b), and (c).
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SEC. 20, B.P. 129
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. – Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive
and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall
hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
SEC. 2, R.A. 7691
Section 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal
Cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan,
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city
or municipal ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof:
Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence, they shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof.
AVL: In civil procedure, the RTC is termed as the Court of
General Jurisdiction. It is such kay kung wala nay lain, you go
to RTC. Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court/tribunal, except those falling under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, is under RTC.
Kung wala nakasulat asa ka mu file, same with civil cases,
default choice is the RTC.
But if the law provides for concurrent jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan, adto naka sa Sandiganbayan.
METROPOLITAN/MUNICIPAL/MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
SEC. 32, B.P. 129
Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal
cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan,
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or
municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective
of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount
thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving
damage to property through criminal negligence they shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (as amended
by R.A, No. 7691)
CMYV 2018 12
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS

SEC. 1, PAR. B, 1991 RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

SHARI’AH COURTS

Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary

procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their
jurisdiction:
ART. 155 OF P.D. 1083
Article 155. Jurisdiction. The Shari'a Circuit Courts shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over;

B. Criminal Cases:
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed
by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not
exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding
(P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil
liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in
offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the
imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).
This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs
cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with
another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure;
nor to a criminal case where the offense charged is
necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the
ordinary procedure.
(1) All cases involving offenses defined and punished
under this Code.
(2) All civil actions and proceedings between parties
who are Muslims or have been married in
accordance with Article 13 involving disputes
relating to:
(a) Marriage;
(b) Divorce recognized under this Code;
(c) Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
(d) Customary dower (mahr);
(e) Disposition and distribution of property upon
divorce;
(f) Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts,
(mut'a); and
(g) Restitution of marital rights.
(3) All cases involving disputes relative to communal
properties.

AVL: This law amends BP 129.

By default, you go to MTC if a criminal case involves of a

 violation of a city/municipal ordinance
 offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6
years

If it exceeds 6 years, go to RTC. It is under MTC automatically

if the case falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure.

[Bar Exam Question of AVL]

Distinguish criminal jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan and RTC.

If the fine is more than 1000 under MTC but also under
Summary Procedure
 In offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the
imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).

CMYV 2018 13
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
CHAPTER 2: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
SECTION 1. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions
shall be instituted as follows:
(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required
pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with
the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation.
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information
directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor.
In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be
filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise
provided in their charters.
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the
running period of prescription of the offense charged unless
otherwise provided in special laws.
How do you institute criminal actions?
It depends.
AVL: The complaint in Sec. 5 pertains to the complaint for
purposes for conducting PI.
Sec. 1 classifies criminal actions:
1. Those that needs preliminary investigation
 WHERE TO FILE: File it in the prosecution office
 CASES REQUIRED PI: Offenses where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4 years), two (2)
months, and one (1) day (Sec. 1 of Rule 112)
 INITIATE CRIMINAL ACTION THROUGH: filing a
complaint with the proper officer
2. Those that do need preliminary investigation
 "FOR ALL OTHER OFFENSES": means offenses that
does not need PI
 INSTITUTE CRIMINAL ACTION THROUGH: filing
complaint or information directly with the MTC or
filing a complaint with the office of the prosecutor
3. Manila and other chartered cities
 CHARTERED CITIES are those cities created by law
 this is an instance where it is under MTC but you
cannot do direct filing
Borlongan v. Pena
Principle: While probable cause should first be determined
before an information may be filed in court, the prosecutor is
not mandated to require the respondent to submit his
counter-affidavits to oppose the complaint. In the
determination of probable cause, the prosecutor may solely
rely on the complaint, affidavits and other supporting
documents submitted by the complainant. If he does not find
probable cause, the prosecutor may dismiss outright the
complaint or if he finds probable cause or sufficient reason to
proceed with the case, he shall issue a resolution and file the
corresponding information.
If respondent's turned accused was not able to file counter-
affidavit, does that cost infirmity in the criminal
prosecution? Does that deprive accused his right to due
process?
NO. In fact, what the prosecutor must do upon receiving
complaint is:
1. Dismiss a complaint if he/she does not see any sufficient
reason to proceed with the case; or
2. File the Information if he finds probable cause
The prosecutor is not mandated to require the submission of
counter-affidavits. Prosecution can just rely on the complaint
and supporting documents to determine if there is probable
cause.
Can a court of law enjoin or restrain a criminal prosecution?
GR: NO
Exception: You can under the following grounds:
1. When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate
protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
2. When it is necessary for the orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance
or regulation
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by
lust for vengeance; and
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on the ground has been
denied
AVL: Unfortunately, the right to file a counter-affidavit is not
part of due process. The prosecution can determine absence
or presence of probable cause based on affidavits and
complaint and supporting documents.
CMYV 2018 14
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Jadewell Parking Systems v. Hon. Lidua
Principle: The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt
the running of the period of prescription of the offense
charged unless otherwise provided in special laws
FACTS: Jadewell, pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000, was
authorized to render any motorvehicle immobilized by placing
its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked.Balajadia
and the other respondents dismantled, took and carried away
the clampsattached to the wheel of the vehicles, which took
place on May 7, 2003. Jadewell filed acomplaint for robbery
against the respondents with the Office of the City Prosecutor
on May 23,2003. However, the Informations were filed with
the MTC on October 2, 2003. Balajadia filed amotion to quash.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The MTC granted the motion to quash
and dismissed the case and Jadewell‟s subsequent motion for
reconsideration. Jadewell‟s petition for certiorari with RTC
was likewise denied. Their motion for reconsideration was also
denied.
CONTENTION OF JADEWELL: They argued that the filing of the
criminal complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Baguio City, not the filing of the criminal information before
Court, is the reckoning point in determining whether or not the
criminal action had prescribed.
CONTENTION OF BALAJADIA: Respondents argued
that Zaldivia v. Reyes held that the proceedings mentioned in
Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, refer to judicial
proceedings. Thus, the SC, in Zaldivia, held that the filing of the
Complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor was not
a judicial proceeding. The prescriptive period commenced
from the alleged date of the commission of the crime on May
7, 2003 and ended two months after on July 7, 2003.
ISSUE: Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the
City Prosecutor on May 23,2003 tolled the prescription period
of the commission of the offense
HELD: No. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the
prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an
ordinance. The respondent judge was correct when he applied
the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277
(1992), the violation of a municipal ordinance in Rodriguez,
Rizal also featured similar facts and issues with the present
case. In that case, the offense was committed on May 11,
1990. The Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the
Information was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Rodriguez on October 2, 1990.
When the representatives of the petitioner filed the Complaint
before the Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the prescription
period was running. It continued to run until the filing of the
Information. They had two months to file the Information and
institute the judicial proceedings by filing the Information with
the Municipal Trial Court. The failure of the prosecutor to
seasonably file the Information is unfortunate as it resulted in
the dismissal of the case against the private respondents. It
stands that the doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable to ordinances
and their prescription period. It also upholds the necessity of
filing the Information in court in order to toll the period.
Zaldivia also has this to say concerning the effects of its ruling:
The Court realizes that under the above interpretation, a crime
may prescribe even if the complaint is filed seasonably with the
prosecutor’s office if, intentionally or not, he delays the
institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too
late. However, that possibility should not justify a misreading
of the applicable rules beyond their obvious intent as
reasonably deduced from their plain language. The remedy is
not a distortion of the meaning of the rules but a rewording
thereof to prevent the problem here sought to be corrected.
People of the Phil. V. Pangilinan
FACTS: Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, the respondent in this instant
case allegedly issued 9 checks with the aggregate amount of
P9,658,692 in favor of Virginia Malolos. But, upon Malolos'
presentment of the said checks, they were dishonored. So, on
Sept. 16, 1997, Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for estafa
and violation of BP 22 against Pangilinan. On December 5,
1997, Pangilinan filed a civil case for accounting, recovery of
commercial documents, enforceability and effectivity of
contract and specific performance against Malolos before the
RTC of Valenzuela City. Later, Pangilinan also filed on
December 10, 1997, a "Petition to Suspend Proceedings on the
Ground of Prejudicial Question". On March 2, 1998, Assistant
City Prosecutor Ruben Catubay recommended Pangilinan's
petition which was approved by the City Prosecutor of Quezon
City. Malolos, then, raised the matter before the DOJ.
On January 5, 1999, Sec. of Justice Serafin Cuevas reversed the
resolution of the City Prosecutor and ordered the filing of the
informations for violation of BP 22 in connection with
Pangilinan's issuance of two checks, the charges involving the
other checks were dismissed. So, two counts of violation for BP
22, both dated Nov. 18, 1999, were filed against Pangilinan on
Feb. 3, 2000 before the MeTC of Quezon City.
On June 17, 2000, Pangilinan filed an "Omnibus Motion to
Quash the Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant
of Arrest” before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City, alleging that
the criminal liability has been extinguished by reason of
prescription. The motion was granted. Malolos filed a notice of
appeal and the RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC.
According to the RTC, the offense has not yet prescribed
"considering the appropriate complaint that started the
proceedings having been filed with the Office of the Prosecutor
on 16 September 1997". Dissatisfied, Pangilinan raised the
matter to the Supreme Court for review but it was referred to
the CA "for appropriate action". On October 26, 2001, the CA
CMYV 2018 15
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
reversed the decision of the RTC and recognized Feb. 3, 2000 No.
as the date of the filing of the informations.
AVL: Sec. 2 pertains to the complaint or information that is
ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the affidavit-complaint for filed with the court of law for purposes of instituting criminal
estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22 against respondent with the action.
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on 16 September
1997 interrupted the period of prescription of such offense.
SECTION 3. COMPLAINT DEFINED
RULING: Yes. Under Section 1 of Act No. 3326 which is the law
applicable to B.P. 22 cases, “[v]iolations penalized by special Section 3. Complaint defined. — A complaint is a sworn written
acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by
accordance with the following rules:… after four years for the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer
those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, charged with the enforcement of the law violated.
but less than two years.” Under Section 2 of the same Act,
“[t]he prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are REQUISITES:
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run 1. Must be in writing
2. Must be in the name of the People of the Philippines
again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
against all persons who appear to be responsible for the
constituting jeopardy.
offense involved
3. Must charge a person with an offense;
Since B.P. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of 4. It must subscribed by the offended party, by any peace
imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more officer or public officer charged with the enforcement of
than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefore the law violated
prescribes in four (4) years in accordance with the aforecited
law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should This must be considered vis-a-vis Sec. 4.
be tolled upon the institution of proceedings against the guilty
person.
SECTION 4. INFORMATION DEFINED
The affidavit-complaints for the violations were filed against
respondent on 16 September 1997. The cases reached the Section 4. Information defined. — An information is an
MeTC of Quezon City only on 13 February 2000 because in the accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,
meanwhile, respondent filed a civil case for accounting subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
followed by a petition before the City Prosecutor for
REQUISITES:
suspension of proceedings on the ground of “prejudicial
1. Must be in writing
question”. The matter was raised before the Secretary of
2. Must charge a person with an offense
Justice after the City Prosecutor approved the petition to
3. Must be subscribed by the fiscal; and
suspend proceedings. It was only after the Secretary of Justice 4. Must be filed in court
so ordered that the informations for the violation of BP Blg. 22
were filed with the MeTC of Quezon City. Salient differences of Complaint and Information:
Complaint Information
Clearly, it was respondent’s own motion for the suspension of Subscribed by the offended Subscribed by the fiscal
the criminal proceedings, which motion she predicated on her party, any peace officer or (indispensable requirement)
civil case for accounting, that caused the filing in court of the other officer charged with
1997 initiated proceedings only in 2000. the enforcement of the law
violated
It may be filed either in court It is filed with the court
or in the prosecutor’s office
SECTION 2. THE COMPLAINT OF INFORMATION
It must be made under oath It need not be under oath.
The fiscal who files it is
Section 2. The Complaint or information. — The complaint or
already acting under his
information shall be in writing, in the name of the People of
oath of office
the Philippines and against all persons who appear to be
responsible for the offense involved.
Can a complaint under Sec. 3 be under the name of the
offended party?
Is this the complaint that you file before the Office of the
Prosecutor?

CMYV 2018 16
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
No. It can be subscribed and under oath by the offended party
but it must always be under the name of the People of the
Philippines.
Santos-Concio v. Department of Justice
PRINCIPLE: The requirement under Sec. 3 cannot be used also
as a requirement for a complaint to be filed for purposes of
conducting preliminary investigation.
FACTS: The ULTRA stampede happened as a result of the
Wowowee anniversary. Concio et al questioned the complaint
filed by the NBI organized by the DOJ since their complaint is
not under oath. NBI argued that such complaint be not under
oath because the purpose of the complaint is for the conduct
of the preliminary investigation in order for the prosecutor to
find probable cause and file such case in the proper court.
AVL: This case clarifies for purposes of preliminary
investigation we may mention complaint and for purposes of
institution of criminal action we may mention complaint. What
we discussed so far is a complaint for institution of criminal
action which must be contained in one document, and it must
be subscribed and sworn to. That requirement, you cannot use
that as also a requirement for a complaint to be filed for
purposes of conducting preliminary investigation.
If you look at Sec. 3(a) Rule 112, what is required to be sworn
to are the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses.
The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and
shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant
and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to
establish probable cause.
As clearly worded, the complaint is not entirely the affidavit of
the complainant, for the affidavit is treated as a component of
the complaint. The phraseology of the above-quoted rule
recognizes that all necessary allegations need not be contained
in a single document.
So long as the complaint for purposes of PI is accompanied by
affidavits which are sworn to by the complainant and his or her
witnesses, the requisite must that it must be sworn to for PI to
proceed is already satisfied.
The COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, from
which the latter may initiate a PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION,
refers to:
1. Any written complaint;
2. Filed by an offended party or not;
3. Not necessarily under oath
Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz
Facts: An information for parricide was filed against Joselito
Narciso for the death of his wife Corazon Sta. Romana-Narciso.
After his review asked and motion for reconsideration was
both denied, he asked for reinvestigation of his warrant of
arrest. Prosecutor found no reason to disturb and the case was
remand for arraignment and trial. Thereafter, he filed an
‗Urgent Ex-Parte‘ to allow him to Post Bail‘. The Public
Prosecutor registered no objection and said motion was
granted on the same day. It was opposed by respondents
herein, then they moved for the postponement of the hearings
because no witness was available, Not obtaining any resolution
on her ‗Motion To Lift Order Allowing Accused to Post Bail‘
private complainant (respondent herein) filed this petition
before the CA. CA granted the petition. Hence this case.
Petitioner averred that CA erred when it reversed and set aside
the order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which
granted the petitioner his constitutional right to bail,
considering the absence of strong evidence or proof of his
guilt, and more especially when the public prosecutors, who
have direct control of the proceedings and after assessment of
the evidence, have themselves recommended the grant of bail.
Issue: Whether the bail granted was valid and CA should not
have reversed RTC.
In a parricide case, can there be an offended party for
purposes of filing the complaint?
Petitioner Narciso is charged with parricide in connection with
the death of his wife.
First Issue: Granting of the bail
Second Issue: Personality of the deceased (the wife of Narciso)
Ruling:
To grant a bail, there must be hearing. There must be
reasonable time for the judge to examine the evidence if the
bail should be granted. The
Flores vs. Jover
Principle: When you invoke the liberal construction, you
invoke the exception.
People v. Oso
Principle: Complaint was only for forcible abduction while
Information was for forcible abduction with rape. If there is a
variance in a complaint or information in crimes against
chastity, it is the complaint which is controlling.
People v. Bangalao
Variance in the complaint and information.
Information – there was a use of force
Complaint – no use of force
Can you dismiss a case on the ground that of variance
between a complaint and information?
No. It cannot be held for dismissal as the prosecution should
be based on the complaint.
CMYV 2018 17
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan
Principle: Take the provision of Sec. 4 of Rule 110 vis-a-vis with
Sec. 4 of Rule 112, which states:
"If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the
respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and
information. He shall certify under oath in the information that
he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has
personally examined the complainant and his witnesses"
If the Information does not contain that Certification, is it
defective?
Absence of certification does not vitiate nor nullify the
Information.
But there's more into it. Because Sec. 4 of Rule 112 requires
that there must be a conduct of personal examination by the
investigating prosecutor.
Absence of that certification does not mean that the
Information is not valid. Walay certification nga gipangayo. The
question is what if there is in fact no personal examination?
Would the information be valid?
No, the Information is not valid. If certification ra ang wala diha
sa Information but it can proven that there is a conduct of
personal examination, there is no problem. Because what is
required is the conduct of personal examination and not the
certification.
 Absence of certification, but there is personal examination
– valid Information
 Absence of certification and absence of personal
examination
– not valid Information
SECTION 5. WHO MUST PROSECUTE CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal
actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor.
However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is
not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public
officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may
prosecute the case. This authority cease upon actual
intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to
the Regional Trial Court. (This Section was repealed by A.M.
No. 02-2-07-SC effective May 1, 2002)
The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be
prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended
spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both alive,
nor, in any case, if the offended party has consented to the
offense or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness
shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
offended party or her parents, grandparents or guardian, nor,
in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by any
of them. If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated
before she can file the complaint, and she has no known
parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the
criminal action in her behalf.
The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the
prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts
of lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents,
or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing
so. Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the
complaint, her parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the
same. The right to file the action granted to parents,
grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons
and shall be exercised successively in the order herein
provided, except as stated in the preceding paragraph.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the
imputation of the offenses mentioned above shall be brought
except at the instance of and upon complaint filed by the
offended party. (5a)
The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be governed
by the provisions thereof.
Who is this private prosecutor?
Lawyer hired by the private party.
Conditions for a private prosecutor to prosecute a
criminal action
1. The public prosecutor has a heavy work schedule, or
there is no public prosecutor assigned in the province
or city;
2. The private prosecutor is authorized in writing by the
Chief of the Prosecutor Office or the Regional State
Prosecutor (RSP);
3. The authority of the private prosecutor must be
approved by the court;
4. The private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the
case until the end of the trial unless the authority is
withdrawn or otherwise revoked
5. In case of the withdrawal or revocation of the
authority of the private prosecutor, the same must be
approved by court
Prosecution of Private Crimes
Who may prosecute:
1. CONCUBINAGE AND ADULTERY
Only by the offended spouse who should have
the status, capacity, and legal representation at the time
of filing of the complaint, regardless of age:
CMYV 2018 18
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
 When the complainant had already divorced
the accused, he can no longer file the complaint
 Reason: the complainant is not legally a spouse
anymore at the time of the institution of the action,
therefore, he has no personality to file a complaint
regardless of the fact that adultery was indeed
committed during the existence of the marriage;
 Both guilty parties must be included in the complaint;
 The offended party must neither gave his consent to
the offense nor pardoned the offenders.
AVL: You cannot prosecute concubinage and adultery without
complaint filed by the offended party.
2. SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION AND ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
Prosecuted exclusively and successively by the following
persons in this order:
a. By the offended woman;
b. By the parents, grandparents or legal/judicial
guardians in that successive order, if the offended
party is incompetent or incapable of doing so;
c. By the State pursuant to the DOCTRINE OF PARENS
PATRIAE, when the offended party dies or becomes
incapacitated before she could file the complaint and
she has no known parents, grandparents or guardian.
3. Defamation imputing of a person any of the foregoing
crimes of of concubinage, adultery, seduction, abduction
or acts of lasciviousness can be prosecuted only by the
party or parties defamed.
If the offended party is of legal age and does not suffer
from physical or mental disability, she alone can file the
complaint to the exclusion of all regardless of the fact that
he/she subsequently dies.
Chua v. Padillo (digest)
AVL: Can the CA compel DOJ to include information of
individuals not included in the Information filed by the
prosecution office?
Having been vested by law with the control of the
prosecution of criminal cases, the public prosecutor, in the
exercise of his functions, has the power and discretion to:
a) determine whether a prima facie case exists;
b) decide which of the conflicting testimonies should be
believed free from the interference or control of the
offended party;and
c) subject only to the right against self-incrimination,
determine which witnesses to present in court.
Given his discretionary powers, a public prosecutor cannot be
compelled to file an Information where he is not convinced
that the evidence before him would warrant the filing of an
action in court. For while he is bound by his oath of office to
prosecute persons who, according to complainants evidence,
are shown to be guilty of a crime, he is likewise duty-bound
to protect innocent persons from groundless, false, or
malicious prosecution
The Court stressed, however, that the public prosecutors
exercise of his discretionary powers is not absolute.
First, the resolution of the investigating prosecutor is subject
to appeal to the Secretary of Justice who, under the
Administrative Code of 1987, as amended, exercises control
and supervision over the investigating prosecutor. Thus, the
Secretary of Justice may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the
ruling of said prosecutor. In special cases, the public
prosecutors decision may even be reversed or modified by the
Office of the President.
Second, the Court of Appeals may review the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on the
ground that he committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Gonzales v. HSBC
Principle: The department of the government which is
responsible in prosecution of crimes is the Executive
Department in pursuant of the principle of faithful execution
of the laws under the Constitution.
AVL: This Court consistently adheres to the policy of non-
interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and
to leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of
discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient
evidence as will establish probable cause for the filing of an
information against the supposed offender, courts can only
review whether or not the executive determination of
probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction
resulting from grave abuse of discretion. Thus, although it is
entirely possible that the investigating prosecutor may
erroneously exercise the discretion lodged in him by law, this
does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment
by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, absent any showing
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction.
Pinote v. Ayco
(digest)
AVL: When can a private prosecutor prosecute the case
including its criminal aspect? When can you do this? What are
the requisites? What are the limitations?
Conditions for a private prosecutor to prosecute a
criminal action
Exception: Authority is revoked
Why was the judge held liable?
CMYV 2018 19
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Judge Ayco allowed the presentation of the evidence of the
two witnesses in the absence of Prosecutor Pinote.
OCA Circular No. 39-2002
"....in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not
available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public
officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may
prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon actual
intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case
to the Regional Trial Court."
A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 5, RULE 110 OF THE REVISED
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal
actions either commenced by complaint or by information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a
public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the
public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public
prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in
writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional
State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the
approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the
criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to
prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence
of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or
otherwise withdrawn.
People v. Piccio
(digest)
Can the private complainant appeal without the
intervention of the OSG?
Yes. But only up to its civil aspect of the case.
Busuego vs Office of the Ombudsman
(digest)
The wife still lived with the husband having found out that
the husband's concubinage. Whether or not the wife
condones the act?
There is no condonation because the wife thought that the
husband already changed and stopped womanizing. The Court
said that there was no showing that the wife had knowledge of
the husband's specific acts of concubinage with Sia and Julie.
It's not just the husband promise.
It takes more than that knowledge of the wife.
Apuya vs. Judge Ramos
(digest)
The complainant was only thirteen (13) years old when the
case was filed. The judge dismissed the complaint on the
ground that complainant has no personality to file (the) action
without the assistance of her guardian or her parents. Under
Sec. 5, the offended party, even if she were a minor, has the
right to initiate the prosecution for the above offenses,
independently of her parents, grandparents or guardian,
unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon
grounds other than her minority. The act of complainant was
adequate to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to hear try
and hear the case and respondent Judge should have been
familiar with the provisions. A judge's lack of familiarity with
the Rules undermines public confidence in the competence of
the courts. His failure to follow basic legal commands
embodied in the law and the rules constitutes gross ignorance
of the law for which he should be subjected to disciplinary
action.
SECTION 6. SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — 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.
Cristobal vs. People of the Philippines
(digest)
AVL: According to RA 8484, the prohibited act that the accused
charge is possessing of possessing a counterfeit access device
or access device. Petitioner assails the validity of the
Information and claims that he was not informed of the
accusation against him. He explains that though he was
charged with possession of an access device fraudulently
applied for, the act of possession, which is the gravamen of the
offense, was not alleged in the Information.
The Court said that in the Information filed before the RTC, it
was clearly stated that the accused is petitioner Mark
Soledad y Cristobal a.k.a. Henry Yu/Arthur. It was also
specified in the preamble of the Information that he was being
charged with Violation of R.A. No. 8484, Section 9(e) for
possessing a counterfeit access device or access device
fraudulently applied for.
The preamble or opening paragraph should not be treated as
a mere aggroupment of descriptive words and phrases. It is as
much an essential part of the Information as the accusatory
paragraph itself. The preamble in fact complements the
accusatory paragraph which draws its strength from the
preamble. It lays down the predicate for the charge in general
terms; while the accusatory portion only provides the
necessary details. The preamble and the accusatory
CMYV 2018 20
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
paragraph, together, form a complete whole that gives sense
and meaning to the indictment.
Even if the word possession was not repeated in the
accusatory portion of the Information, the acts constituting it
were clearly described in the preamble.
People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
(digest)
AVL: Test of sufficiency of the complaint and information
is whether it enables a person of common understanding to
know the charge against him, and the court to render
judgment properly. x x x The purpose is to allow the accused
to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the
trial.
The guilt of one is the guilt of all. The Court said it
was 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.
The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence
that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the
masks fell off does not prevent them from including disguise
as an aggravating circumstance. What is important in alleging
disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a
concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of
disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to
sufficiently apprise the accused that in the commission of the
offense they were being charged with, they tried to conceal
their identity.
People of the Philippines vs. Mamaruncas
(digest)
People of the Philippines vs. Dela Cruz
(digest)
That on or about the 2nd day of August, 1997, in the City of
Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse
on his daughter either by raping her or committing acts of
lasciviousness on her, which has debased, degraded and
demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of his daughter,
JEANNIE ANN DELA CRUZ as a human being.
Was the accused convicted of rape?
Yes
Was the accused convicted of violation of anti-child abuse
law?
No. Since the information simply alleged rape. It doesn't say
which part of the anti-child abuse law was not stated. You need
to state the specific acts.
Lazarte vs. Sandiganbayan
(digest)
Petitioner ascribes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction to the Sandiganbayan in:
(1) upholding the validity and sufficiency of the Information
despite its failure to make out an offense and conform to
the prescribed form;
(2) denying his motion to quash considering that the
remaining averments in the Information have been
rendered unintelligible by the dismissal of the charges
against some of his co-accused; and
(3) using as bases the Prosecutions Memoranda dated 27 July
2004 and 30 May 2006 to supplement the inadequacies of
the Information.
But the Court said NO because what is the fundamental test in
reflecting on the viability of a motion to quash is the sufficiency
of the averments in the information that is, whether the facts
asseverated, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the
essential elements of the crime defined by law.
What is the test to determine the sufficiency of Information?
The facts and circumstances defined must to enable a person
of common understanding to know what offense is intended
to be charged and enable the court to know the proper
judgment. The Information must allege clearly and accurately
the elements of the crime charged. What facts and
circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be
determined by reference to the definition and elements of the
specific crimes. The test is whether the crime is described in
intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the
accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged.
The raison detre of the rule is to enable the accused to suitably
prepare his defense. Another purpose is to enable accused, if
found guilty, to plead his conviction in a subsequent
prosecution for the same offense.
People of the Philippines vs. Posada
(digest)
The Court said that it must be pointed out that the
prosecution filed a defective information.
An Information is fatally defective when it is clear that it does
not really charge an offense or when an essential element of
the crime has not been sufficiently alleged. In this case, while
the prosecution was able to allege the identity of the buyer and
the seller, it failed to particularly allege or identify in the
Information the subject matter of the sale or the corpus
delicti. We must remember that one of the essential elements
to convict a person of sale of prohibited drugs is to identify
CMYV 2018 21
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
with certainty the corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution took
the liberty to lump together two sets of corpora
delicti when it should have separated the two in two different
informations.
Instead of charging the couple with one illegal selling and
twelve possession, ilahang gi-lump. So, dili na ka determine asa
diha ang selling ug asa diha ang possession. Ilang ebidensya
kuno kay isa lang ka sale unya possession ang the rest.
The Court said accused were not appraised what charge they
were facing. Ang ebidensya wala nagkadi-mao.
The Anti-Drugs law is specific. You must allege specific
contraband that has been stolen or possessed. We have the
so-called "chain of custody". That's why diri nakalusot ang mga
accused from the charge of selling because the prosecution
cannot identify. Duha ka corpus delicti man gud - one is for
selling and the other was possession. And the charge was for
12 and in fact usa lang. The problem now is okay unta tu if the
prosecution can show nga ang usa mao na siya ang gi sell pero
they were not able to do so.
For that, the court found guilty the accused only with illegal
possession.
People of the Philippines vs. Morilla
(digest)
How can someone be found guilty of conspiracy when in fact
conspiracy is not stated in the Information?
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually
came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and
pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and,
from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of
facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that
they are parts of some complete whole.
Further, it must be noted that accused Morilla participated and
presented his defenses to contradict the allegation of
conspiracy before the trial and appellate courts. His failure or
neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it
SECTION 7. NAME OF THE ACCUSED
Section 7. Name of the accused. — The complaint or
information must state the name and surname of the accused
or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is
known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be
described under a fictitious name with a statement that his
true name is unknown.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him
or appears in some other manner to the court, such true name
shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record.
 Appellation or nickname is enough so long as the accused
is known.
 If you state the name, surname, appellation or nickname is
okay. The conjunction used is "or".
Why is Section 7 important?
The name is used to prove the identify the accused. It has
something to do with the identification of the accused.
People of the Philippines vs. Cagadas
(digest)
Principle: Any question of the identity of the accused shall be
raised during arraignment. If the accused will enter his plea
and actively participates in the trial, it is deemed a waiver on
his part to raise the question of his identity.
People of the Philippines vs. Padica
(digest)
Principle: There is a mistake in the identity of the accused in
this case. But, it shall only be considered as a matter of form
and may be corrected at any stage of the proceeding because
it did not in any way deprive the appellant of a fair opportunity
to present his defense.
This is a case of kidnapping for ransom with murder.
AVL: General rule is failure to sufficiently alleged the name of
the accused in the complaint or information will render the
complaint or information invalid. But the Court said in this case
that the accused conviction will be hold. Because there is no
dispute that the appellant's name arraigned under the Original
Information and that he entered plea of not guilty under the
same name.
Gi panganlan siya ug Leonardo. If you said not guilty identified
as Leonardo, the Court said that why do you contest of your
conviction on that basis since to begin with you entered your
plea when you were identified as Leonardo and not by your
real name Leon Jr.
What if you were wrongfully identified through a different
name? What is your remedy?
- Motion to Quash OR
- Motion to demurrer of evidence and the ground is lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
What the court is saying technically NO, you are identified by
the name Leonardo and did not object and in fact entered your
plea when you should have avail the remedies. If you don't do
this, it is a waiver of the right to question the erroneous
identification of your person by using a name different from
your real name in the Information.
CMYV 2018 22
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
But the Court said:
The subsequent amendment to insert in the information Leon
Marajas, Jr.'s real name involved merely a matter of form as it
did not, in any way, deprive appellant of a fair opportunity to
present his defense. Moreover, the amendment neither
affected nor altered the nature of the offense charged since
the basic theory of the prosecution was not changed nor did it
introduce new and material facts. Such an amendment is
explicitly allowed under the second paragraph of Section 7, in
relation to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the
pertinent portion of which provides that "(t)he information or
complaint may be amended, in substance or form, without
leave of court, at any time before the accused pleads; and
thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by
leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be
done without prejudice to the rights of the accused." At any
rate, whatever irregularity may have attended the inclusion of
appellant's name as an accused in the amended information
has been waived by his subsequent appearance and entry of
plea at his arraignment under said amendatory information.
People of the Philippines vs. Amodia
(digest)
Principle: Positive identification pertains essentially to proof
of identity and not necessarily to the name of the assailant. A
mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent, and does
not necessarily amount to, a mistake in the identity of the
accused especially when sufficient evidence is adduced to
show that the accused is pointed to as one of the perpetrators
of the crime.
AVL: One of the important requisites to convict an accused is
positive identification. It has something to do with
presentation of proof of identity and not really on the name of
that particular accused. So long as you can prove the identity
of the accused, erroneous designation in the Information of
the name of the accused will now be secondary. It will not be
fatal to the conviction of such accused. Be that as it may, the
Court said e have on record that prior to the defenses
presentation of evidence, Pablo referred to himself as Pablo
Amodia when the court asked him his name. We likewise find
no competent evidence, other than his assertion and those of
his siblings, showing that his true name is really Pablito
Amodia. We therefore conclude that any uncertainty on the
name by which the accused is or should be known is an
extraneous matter that in no way renders his identification as
a participant in the stabbing uncertain.
People of the Philippines vs. Pondivida
(digest)
AVL: Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of
identity and not per se to that of being an eyewitness to the
very act of commission of the crime. There are two types of
positive identification. A witness may identify a suspect or
accused in a criminal case as the perpetrator of the crime as an
eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime. This
constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be instances
where, although a witness may not have actually seen the very
act of commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively
identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as
for instance when the latter is the person or one of the persons
last seen with the victim immediately before and right after the
commission of the crime. This is the second type of positive
identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence,
which, when taken together with other pieces of evidence
constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and
reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author
of the crime to the exclusion of all others. If the actual
eyewitnesses are the only ones allowed to possibly positively
identify a suspect or accused to the exclusion of others, then
nobody can ever be convicted unless there is an eyewitness,
because it is basic and elementary that there can be no
conviction until and unless an accused is positively identified.
Such a proposition is absolutely absurd, because it is settled
that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the
only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion
and finding of guilt.
Proving the positive identity of the accused
1. Eyewitness – conviction
2. No eyewitness, there can still be conviction – so long as
that identity of the accused will still be identified
SECTION 8. DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE
Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by
the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense,
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
Offense means
- Charged with the accused
- Other term "crime"
 State the designation of the Offense:
Ex. Child Prostitution under RA 7610 - Use the term on that
particular offense designated on that particular law.
 Aver the Acts or Omissions Constituting the Offense:
Failure to do so shall be fatal.
 Specify its Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances
What if there is inconsistency between the designation of the
offense and the factual allegations (acts or omissions
constitution the offense) in the Information? Which will
prevail?
CMYV 2018 23
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
- It is the recital of the facts of the commission of the offense
and not the designation for that particular offense that will
determine the crime being charged on that Information.
- Mas importante ang allegations as to the acts or omissions
that constitute the offense.
People v. Vidana
Principle: What is more controlling is the allegations as to the
acts or omissions constituting the offense.
The Court said look into the Information. The charged is for
Rape and not for Child Abuse under RA 7610.
That on or about the 16th day of September 2003, at x x x
Province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused with lewd designs and intent to have carnal
knowledge of, his own daughter, a minor, 15 years old, and
while using his influence as a father, over said minor, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of and sexual intercourse with said minor against
her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
The Court said that if you look at these factual allegations it
constitutes the crime of Rape and not sexual abuse. So, can
you convict an accused for qualified rape kung ang
nomenclature gihatag is sexual abuse?
The Court said YES. Because what is more controlling is the
allegations as to the acts or omissions constituting the
offense.
People v. Soriano
The designation of the offense was qualified rape and the
penalty is death. According to the accused, the minority of
May Ann must be specifically alleged in the information as a
qualifying circumstance in order that it may be appreciated
against him. Otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed
upon him as he was not fully apprised of the charges against
him.
Principle: The Court said that the rules state that the specific
qualifying or aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the
information and duly proven during the trial. Otherwise, even
if these were subsequently proven, the same cannot be
appreciated in determining the proper penalty. However, it
need not be alleged that the aggravating circumstance is
qualifying.
Malto v. People
The designation of the offense in the information against
petitioner was changed from violation of Section 5(b), Article
III of RA 7610 to violation of Section 5(a), Article III thereof.
The information against petitioner did not allege anything
pertaining to or connected with child prostitution. It did not
aver that AAA was abused for profit. What it charged was that
petitioner had carnal knowledge or committed sexual
intercourse and lascivious conduct with AAA; AAA was induced
and/or seduced by petitioner who was her professor to indulge
in sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct and AAA was a 17-
year old minor. These allegations support a charge for violation
of paragraph (b), not paragraph (a), of Section 5, Article III, RA
7610.
The designation in the information of the specific statute
violated is imperative to avoid surprise on the accused and to
afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.
However, the failure to designate the offense by statute,or to
mention the specific provision penalizing the act,or an
erroneous specification of the law violated does not vitiate the
information if the facts alleged clearly recite the facts
constituting the crime charged.What controls is not the title of
the information or the designation of the offense but the
actual facts recited in the information.In other words, it is the
recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the
nomenclature of the offense, that determines the crime being
charged in the information. The facts stated in the amended
information against petitioner correctly made out a charge for
violation of Section 5(b), Article III, RA 7610.
Thus, even if the trial and appellate courts followed the wrong
designation of the offense, petitioner could be convicted of the
offense on the basis of the facts recited in the information and
duly proven during trial.
Licyayo v. People
Principle: It's not needed to specifically state the Article or
Section in the specific law that is alleged to be violated.
Because what is really controlling is the allegations of the acts
or omissions constituting the offense.
People v. Nocum
Principle: Before the amendment of Sec 8, there was no
requisite for stating qualifying and aggravating circumstances
in the complaint or information. After the implementation of
the rule, qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
alleged in the complaint or information, failure to do so will not
convict the accused of a crime as aggravated or as qualified. In
pursuant to the rule that there can be no retroactive
application to pending cases in criminal cases.
The Judge said in this case that the prosecution shall be
afforded due process for failure to include aggravating and
qualifying circumstances in the information.
The Court said that you do not afford due process to the State
because the State is the one who is supposed to afford due
process to the accused. There is no such thing as due process
in favor of the prosecution.
People v. Valdez
CMYV 2018 24
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Principle: It is not enough to only state the definition of the
crime. What is required is to allege the acts constituting,
aside from the offense, the qualifying circumstances of the
crime (in this case kay treachery).
People v. Feliciano
Principle: It is the argument of appellants that the information
filed against them violates their constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
them. They argue that the prosecution should not have
included the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of
disguise" in the information since they were presenting
testimonial evidence that not all the accused were wearing
masks or that their masks fell off. The inclusion of the phrase
"wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the
information does not violate their constitutional rights.
It should be remembered that 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.
In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating circumstance
because, like nighttime, it allows the accused to remain
anonymous and unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes.
What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating
circumstance is that there was a concealment of identity by the
accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information was,
therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in
the commission of the offense they were being charged with,
they tried to conceal their identity.
People v. Ubina
Principle: The twin circumstances of minority and relationship
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
R.A. No. 7659, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances
because they alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase
the penalty. As special qualifying circumstances they must be
specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the
information; xxx If the offender is merely a relation - not a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or common law
spouse of the mother of the victim – the specific relationship
must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is "a relative by
consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third
civil degree.
The information in the case only mentioned appellant as
AAA’s uncle, without specifically stating that he is a relative
within the third civil degree, either by affinity or consanguinity.
Even granting that during trial it was proved that the
relationship was within the third civil degree either of
consanguinity or affinity, still such proof cannot be appreciated
because appellant would thereby be denied of his right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him. Appellant cannot be charged with committing the crime
of rape in its simple form and then be tried and convicted of
rape in its qualified form.
People v. Nuyok
Principle: Minority was not alleged in the Information. The
Court said that the circumstances of minority of the victim and
her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify the
crime of rape, but only her relationship to the accused was
alleged and proved. The trial court was precluded from
considering the attendance of such qualifying or aggravating
circumstances in the judgment because of the failure to
properly allege them.
SECTION 9. CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
Section 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying
and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the language used in
the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is being charged
as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for
the court to pronounce judgment.
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan
Petitioner asserts that there is no allegation in paragraph (a) of
the amended Information of a combination or series of overt
or criminal acts constituting plunder as described in Section
1(d) of R.A. 7080 as amended.
The Court said the word series is synonymous with the clause
on several instances; it refers to a repetition of the same
predicate act in any of the items in Section 1(d) of the law. We
further held that the word combination contemplates the
commission of at least any two different predicate acts in any
of the said items.
Principle: The use of derivatives or synonyms or allegations of
basic facts constituting the offense charged is sufficient. You
may use synonyms. So long as it is sufficient to enable a person
of common understanding to know what offense is intended
to be charged and enable the court to know the proper
judgment.
People v. Aure
AAA was raped by appellants while she was under the custody
of the CIDG. Further, appellants were members of the PNP-
CIDG at the time they raped AAA.
CMYV 2018 25
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Nonetheless, these aggravating/qualifying circumstances were
not specifically alleged in the informations.
Principle: It is settled that the aggravating/qualifying
circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in the
information, otherwise they cannot be appreciated, even if
they are subsequently proved during the trial.
The Court said they cannot impose the proper penalty
considering the aggravating or qualifying circumstance is not
alleged.
People v. Tampus
Both the circumstances of the minority and the relationship of
the offender to the victim must be alleged in the information
and proved during the trial in order for them to serve as
qualifying circumstances.
Although the victim's minority was alleged and established,
her relationship with the accused as the latter's daughter was
not properly alleged in the Information, and even though this
was proven during trial and not refuted by the accused, it
cannot be considered as a special qualifying circumstance that
would serve to increase the penalty of the offender.
Principle: Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, every
Information must state the qualifying and the aggravating
circumstances attending the commission of the crime for them
to be considered in the imposition of the penalty.
In the case at bar, the Information did not state that Ida is the
mother of ABC, this circumstance could not be appreciated as
a special qualifying circumstance. Ida may only be convicted as
an accomplice in the crime of simple rape.
Dr. Mendez v. People
(This case tackles more on Amended Information than Cause
of Accusation. Gi skip ni Atty)
SECTION 10. PLACE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE
Section 10. Place of commission of the offense. — The
complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood
from its allegations that the offense was committed or some
of the essential ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where it
was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense
or is necessary for its identification.
US v. Chua Mo
Principle: So long as you can state the particular place where
the crime is committed, the judge can take judicial notice
whether or not this place is in fact within its territorial
jurisdiction.
Union bank v. People (Quite an Important Case)
Facts: Desi Tomas was charged with perjury for making a false
narration in a Certificate against Forum Shopping. It was
alleged that Tomas stated under oath that the Union Bank of
the Philippines has not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in another tribunal or
agency aside from that which is filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City for the collection of sum of money with
prayer of writ of replevin filed against Eddie and Eliza
Tamondong and a John Doe.
Tomas filed a motion to quash arguing that the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Makati City does not have jurisdiction over the
case as, though it was notarized in Makati, the Certificate
against Forum Shopping was used or submitted before the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
Ruling: 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. Unlike in civil cases, a finding of
improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional
consequences. In determining the venue where the criminal
action is to be instituted and the court which has jurisdiction
over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
AVL: In civil cases, venue is different from jurisdictions. In
criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional.
The Court said that Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-
Makati City is the proper court to try the perjury case against
Tomas, pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure as all the essential elements
constituting the crime of perjury were committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City.
 Makati City – where she swore
 Pasay City – where she used the certificate against
forum shopping
(The case mentioned about Iluorio & Sy Tiong cases)
Ilusorio Case
 Subject matter: Perjury
 Issue: Subscribed and sworn to in Pasig but filed in
Makati and Tagaytay
CMYV 2018 26
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
 Question: Which court had jurisdiction to try and hear
the perjury case? Pasig, Makati or Tagaytay?
 Peculiarity: Venue is in Makati. The Court reasoned
out that it was only upon filing that the intent to
assert an alleged falsehood became manifest and
where the alleged untruthful statement found
relevance or materiality.
 Conclusion: Pag subscribed and sworn to kay wala pa
then kung imo i-file nana, that's the manifestation of
your intent to defraud or to allege falsehood. The
Court cited US vs Caet which says:
It is immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed
and sworn, so long as it appears from the information
that the defendant, by means of such affidavit,
"swore to" and knowingly submitted false evidence,
material to a point xxx.
Sy Tiong Case
 Subject matter: Perjury
 Issue: Subscribed and sworn to in Manila
 Peculiarity: The Court ruled that the proper venue for
the perjury charges was in Manila where the GIS was
subscribed and sworn to.
AVL: Ruling in Sy Tiong is more in accord with Article 183 of the
RPC and Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
Perjury is an obstruction of justice; its perpetration well may
affect the dearest concerns of the parties before a tribunal.
Deliberate material falsification under oath constitutes the
crime of perjury, and the crime is complete when a witness'
statement has once been made.
What is the ruling now?
Principle: The crime of perjury is committed at the time the
affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is
at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are
executed.
When the crime is committed through false testimony under
oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is
at the place where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu
of or as supplement to the actual testimony made in a
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn
statement is submitted, venue may either be at the place
where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath
was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission are
both material ingredients of the crime committed.
In all cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts
alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the crime
committed.
Parulan v. Director of Prisons
He escaped from Rizal and he was caught in Manila.
AVL: The Court said there are crimes which are called
transitory or continuing offenses because some acts material
and essential to the crime occur in one province and some in
another, in which case, the rule is settled that the court of
either province where any of the essential ingredients of the
crime took place has — jurisdiction to try the case.
Principle: Kung asa ka masakpan when you evade your service,
pwede ma file ang charge didto. The filing there will be valid.
People v. Mercado
A carabao is stolen.
AVL: The moment you take something from the possession of
another person without its consent, theft is consummated.
Bisag asa pa na nimo gi dala-dala, possession is not an element
of the offense.
Principle: The place where you are arrested in possession of
the stolen item is not one of the places that may be considered
as options where you may file a case for theft because theft is
not a continuing offense.
Therefore, the phrase "the particular place where it was
committed constitutes an essential element of the offense the
particular place where it was committed constitutes an
essential element of the offense" is not applicable to the crime
of theft.
Duran v. Tan
The car was stole in Manila. The car was found in Rizal.
Principle: The Court said the place where the automobile was
found is NOT an essential ingredient to the crime but a mere
circumstance which could add nothing to the nature of the
offense. It has no added value to the offense because the time
the accused took away the car completes the crime of
carnapping. Therefore, where you may find the vehicle is not
an option to file the case.
People v. Puedan
Principle: The time or place of the commission of the offense
is not an essential element of the crime. The gravamen of the
offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years
old.
SECTION 11. DATE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE
Section 11. Date of commission of the offense. — It is not
necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise
date the offense was committed except when it is a material
CMYV 2018 27
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have
been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual
date of its commission.
Bear in mind:
 Not necessary to state the precise date of the offense.
 Exception is when it is a material ingredient of the
offense.
 Minimum requirement: It is alleged that the offense
is committed on a date as near as possible to the
actual date.
People v. Delfin
In the Information: Date is November 27 2000
What is proved in the trial: Date is September 27 2000
According to Sec. 11, it is not necessary to state in the
complaint or information the precise date. The difference of
November and September is very near.
Principle: In crimes where the date of commission is not a
material element, like murder, it is not necessary to allege such
date with absolute specificity or certainty in the information.
The Rules of Court merely requires, for the sake of properly
informing an accused, that the date of commission be
approximated.
AVL: The foregoing rule, however, is concededly not
absolute. Variance in the date of commission of the offense as
alleged in the information and as established in evidence
becomes fatal when such discrepancy is so great that it
induces the perception that the information and the evidence
are no longer pertaining to one and the same offense.
General Rule: Approximation may be enough
Exception:
1. The date is a material ingredient of the offense
2. If the discrepancy between the date alleged in the
Information and in the evidence is so great that it induces
doubt as to whether the offense alleged in the
Information and the offense actually prove are one and
the same offense
In the case of Opemia (mentioned in the case)
- Theft was committed on June 1952.
- Information stated July 1947.
The Court said it is required that the act be alleged to have
been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which
the offense was committed as the information or complaint
would permit. The period of almost five years between 1947
and 1952 covers such a long stretch of time that one cannot
help but be led to believe that another theft different from that
committed by the Defendants in 1952 was also perpetrated by
them in 1947.
In this case, however, the Court did not apply Opemia, but the
general rule.
Despite their disparity as to the date of the alleged murder, the
Court said that there is no mistaking that both the information
and the evidence of the prosecution but pertain to one and the
same offense i.e., the murder of Emilio. The Court find
it implausible the likelihood that the accused may have been
caught off-guard or surprised by the introduction of evidence
pointing to commission of the murder considering that all
documentary attachments to the information all referred to
the murder as having been committed on that date.
People v. Bernabe
This case tells us another situation where discrepancy in the
date may be fatal. Ang una is Opemia where the discrepancy is
so great that it creates a doubt whether the offense alleged in
the Information and the offense actually proven is one and the
same.
Principle: The date of the commission of the rape becomes
relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the
complainant’s narration practically hinge on the date of the
commission of the crime.
AVL: When the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of
the witness is in doubt, mag-daog nata sa date sa commission
of the crime. Therefore, this is an exception to the rule nga
kung straightforward ang testimony sa rape case.
People v. Noel Dion
Principle: The court reiterated in this case that when it comes
to rape the date of commission of the crime is irrelevant
because it is the act of rape that is required to be proven. The
time of the commission of the crime assumes importance only
when it creates serious doubt as to the commission of the rape
or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of
conviction. The date of the commission of the rape becomes
relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the
complainants narration practically hinge on the date of the
commission of the crime.
AVL: Kung magduda na gali if the rape was really committed or
kung enough ba ang evidence, that's the time that we look into
the date.
People v. Canares
First rape - 1992, victim is 9 years old
Second rape - 1999, victim is 16 years old
Facts: The accused argued that he allegation that the rape was
committed "sometime between the year 1992 to 1995" is very
broad, considering particularly AAA’s testimony that she was
CMYV 2018 28
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
raped more than 10 times. He posits that since the specific
incident of rape for which he was convicted is uncertain, the
doubt should be resolved in favor of his acquittal.
Principle: The Court ruled in favor of AAA because the
gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of the
woman. Date is irrelevant. It becomes relevant only when
there is serious doubt as to the accuracy and truthfulness of
the complainant’s narration practically hinge on the date of
the commission of the crime.
Court ruled that allegations of rape in the information
committed,
- "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,"
- "on or about and sometime in the year 1988," or
- "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,"
- "sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent
thereto," and
- "sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto,"
all constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11 of Rule
110.
In People v. Salalima, the Court also ruled that the allegation
that the sexual assaults were committed, "sometime during
the month of March 1996 or thereabout," or "sometime during
the month of April 1996 or thereabout," and also, "sometime
during the month of May 1996 or thereabout" substantially
informed the accused of the crimes charged since all the
elements of rape were stated in the informations.
The situation in the present case can be directly compared with
People v. Bugayong where the information charged that the
accused committed multiple rapes "before and until October
15, 1994." The Court found this allegation sufficient to convict
the accused of rape committed in 1993 on account of the
categorical statement in the private complainant’s sworn
affidavit of the year when the rape was committed. The Court
found that this allegation substantially cured the perceived
vagueness in the criminal charge and ruled that the accused
has been sufficiently informed under the circumstances.
We add that while AAA testified that Canares had raped her
more than 10 times, Canares was not charged for all ten rapes.
The Information only sought to hold him liable for a single
count of rape committed "sometime between 1992 to 1995."
The Information is very specific, too, that the victim was then
nine (9) years old so that the rape referred to was the incident
on or about 1992, given that AAA was born in September 1982
Even if the information failed to allege with certainty the time
of the commission of the rapes, the defect, if any, was cured
by the evidence presented during the trial and any objection
based on this ground must be deemed waived as a result of
accused-appellant’s failure to object before arraignment.
AVL: From now on, you can use the argument that if the
accused does not object to the date then it will constitute a
waiver.
People v. Balino
Principle: The Court held that the date of the commission of
rape is not an essential element of the crime.1âwphi1 It is not
necessary to state the precise time when the offense was
committed except when time is a material ingredient of the
offense. In statutory rape, time is not an essential element
except to prove that the victim was a minor below twelve years
of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Therefore,
given the victim’s established date of birth on the basis of the
evidence adduced, she was definitely short of 12 years of age
when the crime of rape was committed against her.
AVL: This is an instance where the date of the commission
becomes an important ingredient. When it comes to statutory
rape, date becomes relevant. Therefore, you must allege and
prove the date.
People v. Alvero
Crime: Rape
Principle: A variance of a few months between the time set out
in the indictment and that established by the evidence during
trial has been held not to constitute an error so serious as to
warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score
Gabionza v. Court of Appeals
Crime: Violation of RA 1161 (Social Security Law)
Facts: Petitioner was arraigned on 7 December 1993. On 10
February 1998 or about four (4) years after he was arraigned,
the public prosecutor filed a Motion for Leave of Court to
Amend Information, to change the material dates stated in the
Information from January 1991 to May 1993 to January 1991
to May 1992. Petitioner opposed the motion contending that
the proposed amendment was substantial in nature, hence to
allow the same would be a violation of his right to be informed
of the cause and nature of the accusation against him and
would negate or prejudice defenses that were otherwise
available to him.
Principle:
May an Information be amended to change the material
dates of the commission of the offense after the accused had
been arraigned?
YES.
The Court said for one, a comparison of the amended
Information (January 1991 to May 1992) and the original one
(January 1991 to May 1993) shows that the period stated in
the former is even shorter than and is included within the
latter. Also, the averment in or about and during the period
CMYV 2018 29
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
gives a sufficient approximation of the date of the commission
of the offense.
Therefore, the first Information had adequately
informed petitioner of the period of time when the crime was
committed. No surprise, ergo, no violation of rights, could
spring from merely replacing the original period, more so with
one that is shorter and included within the same.
REYES
In relation to the case of Gabionza, Gabionza invoked the case
since the date in the case was so fatal (5 years gap is involved).
Peculiar: The discrepancy of five years of the theft of a truck is
so great that it is fatal to the prosecution of the crime.
SECTION 12. NAME OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Section 12. Name of the offended party. — The complaint or
information must state the name and surname of the person
against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such
person has been or is known. If there is no better way of
identifying him, he must be described under a fictitious name.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended
party is unknown, the property must be described with such
particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.
(b) If the true name of the of the person against whom or
against whose properly the offense was committed is
thereafter disclosed or ascertained, the court must cause the
true name to be inserted in the complaint or information and
the record.
(c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to
state its name, or any name or designation by which it is known
or by which it may be identified, without need of averring that
it is a juridical person or that it is organized in accordance with
law.
Lee Pue liong v. Chua Pue Chin Lee
Issue: Whether or not the private prosecutor can intervene
even if there is no existence of civil liability
Ruling: The Court said it is reasonable to assume that the
offended party in the commission of a crime, public or private,
is the party to whom the offender is civilly liable, and therefore
the private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is
the offended party.
Principle: This case tells us that that there is a private offended
party in crimes even in public crimes.
Sayson v. People (Qualified by Senador case)
Facts: The accused argued that in the alleged Information, the
private offended party is not the same as that of in the
presented in the trial. Also, in the Information, the crime
alleged is estafa but the evidence presented in the trial is not
the same as of estafa. He argued that he must be acquitted.
Principle: The Court said that when an offense shall have been
described in the complaint with sufficient certainty as to
Identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person
injured shall be deemed immaterial as the same is a mere
formal defect which did not tend to prejudice any substantial
right of the defendant.
AVL: In cases against property, the designation of the name of
the offended party is not an absolute necessity so long as the
criminal charged in the complaint or information can be
properly identified.
In short, immaterial ang pag state kung kinsa ang offended
party if you can pinpoint the crime/offense charged as a crime
against property. Sec 12 tells us that it is possible to prosecute
an offense against property even if the name of the offended
party or the offended party is no designated.
The Information in this case is enough to allege the crime of
estafa.
Senador v. People
What was alleged in the Information is different from what is
alleged in the complaint. The Court said there is no defect.
This case is important because it qualifies the ruling in Sayson.
The rule now:
1. If the subject matter is GENERIC AND NOT IDENTIFIABLE
 An error in the designation of the offended party is
FATAL and would result in the acquittal of the accused
 There is a need to IDENTIFY
 Generic means there is no earmarks to identify the
particular the property
 Ex. Money, ID Sling
2. If the subject matter is SPECIFIC AND IDENTIFIABLE
 An error in the designation of the offended party is
IMMATERIAL
CMYV 2018 30
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
 Ex. Defamation
Sales v. Adapon
Principle: The offense of falsification complained of was a
public offense the charges for which could be initiated by
anyone, as opposed to a private crime whose institution could
be made only by particular individuals.
If it is Falsification, there is no need to identify the private
offended party. Participation of the offended party is similar to
that of the relator in other jurisdictions. The State can do it.
SECTION 13. DUPLICITY OF THE OFFENSE
Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or
information must charge but one offense, except when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
AVL: If you allege more than one offense, the Information shall
become defective. If it is defective, it is subject to quashal.
Exceptions to the Rule:
1. Complex Crimes
2. Special Complex Crimes
3. Continuing Crimes
If you are the accused and the Information charges one offense
and doesn't fall any of the exceptions:
 Remedy: File a MOTION TO QUASH
 Must file BEFORE arraignment. If not, it is deemed
waived.
 If waived, accused will be convicted as many as the
offenses charged in the Information.
People v. Ferrer
Principle: The information in this case is defective because it
has charged more than one offense.
Argument of the State was the case of Buenviaje.
The Court said that:
The rule in the case of People vs. Buenviaje cited and invoked
by the State, has no application to the case, because there the
defendant, who was not a duly licensed physician, gave
medical assistance and treatment to a certain person and
advertised himself and offered services as a physician by
means of cards or letterheads and advertisement in the
newspapers, latter being a means to commit the former, and
both violations are punishable with the same penalty, whereas
in the present case causing cigarettes or things of value to be
distributed by the defendant to the people who attended a
political meeting is a violation distinct from that of
electioneering committed by a classified civil service officer or
employee. The former has no connection with the latter.
In this case, a violation of Sec 51 is distinct from that of Sec 54.
There are two distinct offenses alleged in the Information.
COMMITTING SEC. 51 IS NOT A MEANS OF COMMITTING SEC.
54 and vice versa. A person can commit the crimes in Sec. 51
& Sec. 54 separately without the two being related. It just so
happen the accused committed both crimes. But Buenviaje
cannot be invoked. In Buenviaje, the Court said that one crime
is related to the other and that the crimes are have the same
penalty . In the case at bar, 51 & 54 have different penalties.
People v. De los Santos
The accused ran over members of the PNP. He was charged
with crimes of multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder,
and multiple attempted murder contained in one Information.
Principle: Technically, the Information is not allowed.
However, the accused failed to object thereto before they
enter his plea. As such, the defect was waived.
Effect: Accused can be convicted as many offenses as alleged
in the Information.
People v. Chingh
The Information has sufficiently informed accused-appellant
that he is being charged with two counts of rape. Although two
offenses were charged, which is a violation of Section 13, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states
that [a] complaint or information must charge only one
offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment
for various offenses. Nonetheless, Section 3, Rule 120 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure also 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.
Principle: Consequently, since Armando failed to file a motion
to quash the Information, he can be convicted with two counts
of rape.
Loney v. People
In this case, the prosecution charged each petitioner with four
offenses, with each Information charging only one offense.
Thus, petitioners erroneously invoke duplicity of charges as a
ground to quash the Informations. On this score alone, the
petition deserves outright denial.
People v. Lucena
CMYV 2018 31
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Three Informations were charged for three counts of rape. The
accused argued that it should only be one because he was only
motivated by a single criminal intent.
The prosecution said that the [appellant] thrice succeeded in
inserting his penis into the private part of [AAA].
The three (3) penetrations occurred one after the other at an
interval of five (5) minutes wherein the [appellant] would rest
after satiating his lust upon his victim and, after he has
regained his strength, he would again rape [AAA].
Hence, it can be clearly inferred from the foregoing that when
the [appellant] decided to commit those separate and distinct
acts of sexual assault upon [AAA], he was not motivated by a
single impulse[,] but rather by several criminal intent. Hence,
his conviction for three (3) counts of rape is conclusive.
People v. Tabio
The Court also observes that there is duplicity of the offenses
charged in the information, which is a ground for a motion to
quash.
Principle: Three (3) separate acts of rape were charged in one
information only. But the failure of appellant to interpose an
objection on this ground constitutes waiver.
AVL: Note – Quashal of information does not mean the
accused will be acquitted. Igo ra ipa amend ang Information.
Fajardo v. People
An information for illegal possession of firearm should now
particularly refer to the paragraph of Section 1 under which
the seized firearm is classified, and should there be numerous
guns confiscated, each must be sorted and then grouped
according to the categories stated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 8294,
amending P.D. No. 1866.
It will no longer suffice to lump all of the seized firearms in one
information, and state Section 1, P.D. No. 1866 as the violated
provision, as in the instant case, because different penalties
are imposed by the law, depending on the caliber of the
weapon. To do so would result in duplicitous charges.
AVL: Depende sa caliber and depende sa penalty sa Sec 1 of RA
8294.
Principle: 1 Caliber + 1 Penalty = 1 Information
SECTION 14. AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or
information may be amended, in form or in substance, without
leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea.
After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may
only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the
nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from
the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion
by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with
leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the
motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,
especially the offended party. (n)
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has
been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall
dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of
a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with
section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed
in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to
give bail for their appearance at the trial.
AVL:
1st and 2nd paragraph = amendment;
3rd paragraph = substitution
Summary of the Rules in Amendment:
1. Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial
amendment even without leave of court can be done.
2. After the plea and during trial, only a formal amendment
can be done with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
3. However, any amendment before the plea, which
downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or
excludes any accused from the complaint or information,
can be made only
- upon motion by the prosecutor,
- with notice to the offended party and
- with leave of court.
4. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion
and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,
especially the offended party.
Summary of the Rules in Substitution:
1. If a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense
before judgment, the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
charging the proper offense, provided there is no double
jeopardy.
2. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at the trial.
Dabalos v. Regional Trial Court
Principle: In the present case, the accused petitioner has not
yet been arraigned, hence, the RTC was correct in directing the
amendment of the Information and in denying the motion to
quash the same. Sec. 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
provides that an information may be amended, in form or in
substance, without leave of court, at any time before the
accused enters his plea.
CMYV 2018 32
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
Ricarze v. Court of Appeals
Why is there a need to determine whether it is a formal or
substantial amendment?
Ans.: In order to know when it can be allowed. You can only do
substantial amendment before arraignment.
What is substantial amendment?
Ans.: A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
AVL: If you change the offense, jurisdiction of the court or
recital of facts then that makes it substantial.
The following have been held to be mere formal amendments:
(1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the
penalty that the court might impose in the event of
conviction;
(2) an amendment which does not charge another offense
different or distinct from that charged in the original one;
(3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecutions
theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused
and affect the form of defense he has or will assume;
(4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any
substantial right of the accused; and
(5) an amendment that merely adds specifications to
eliminate vagueness in the information and not to
introduce new and material facts, and merely states with
additional precision something which is already contained
in the original information and which adds nothing
essential for conviction for the crime charged
What is the test whether the amendment is substantial or
formal?
Ans.: The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the
amendment is whether a defense under the information as it
originally stood would be available after the amendment is
made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would
be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in
the other. An amendment to an information which does not
change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect
the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the
accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each
been held to be one of form and not of substance
In the case, there was merely a substitution of private
complainant which is not a substantial amendment. The
substitution did not alter the basis of the charge in both
Informations, nor did it result in any prejudice to petitioner.
The documentary evidence in the form of the forged checks
remained the same, and all such evidence was available to
petitioner well before the trial. Thus, he cannot claim any
surprise by virtue of the substitution.
Kummer v. People
Principle: Change of the date of the commission of the crime
is a formal amendment.
When it comes to criminal cases, the date of the commission
of the crime is secondary. You can do that through formal
amendments.
Pacoy v. Cajigal
Principle: The first paragraph provides the rules
for amendment of the information or complaint, while the
second paragraph refers to the substitution of the information
or complaint.
It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and
substitution of the information may be made before or after
the defendant pleads, but they differ in the following respects:
1. Amendment may involve either formal or substantial
changes, while substitution necessarily involves a substantial
change from the original charge;
2. Amendment before plea has been entered can be effected
without leave of court, but substitution of information must be
with leave of court as the original information has to be
dismissed;
3. Where the amendment is only as to form, there is no need
for another preliminary investigation and the retaking of the
plea of the accused; in substitution of information, another
preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused has to
plead anew to the new information; and
4. An amended information refers to the same offense charged
in the original information or to an offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the original charge, hence
substantial amendments to the information after the plea has
been taken cannot be made over the objection of the accused,
for if the original information would be withdrawn, the
accused could invoke double jeopardy. On the other hand,
substitution 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.
In determining, therefore, whether there should be an
amendment under the first paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110,
or a substitution of information under the second paragraph
thereof, the rule is that where the second information involves
the same offense, or an offense which necessarily includes or
is necessarily included in the first information, an amendment
of the information is sufficient; otherwise, where the new
information charges an offense which is distinct and different
from that initially charged, a substitution is in order.
CMYV 2018 33
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ATTY. LIGUTAN | UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
There is identity between the two offenses when the evidence
to support a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to
warrant a conviction for the other, or when the second offense
is exactly the same as the first, or when the second offense is
an attempt to commit or a frustration of, or when it necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in, the offense charged in
the first information. In this connection, an offense may be
said to necessarily include another when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the
information, constitute the latter. And, vice-versa, an offense
may be said to be necessarily included in another when the
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of
those constituting the latter.

CMYV 2018 34