Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses

1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense upon the filing of complaint by a complainant or an
information by the prosecuting officer

à Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or surrender; such jurisdiction once gained cannot be lost
even if accused escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno)
à Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the institution of the action and is retained even if
the penalty for the offense is later lowered or raised (People vs. Lagon)
2. Complaint – sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace
officer or other public official charged with the enforcement of the law violated
Information – accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court

3. Complaint and Information distinguished:

Complaint Information

A sworn statement Need not be sworn to

Subscribed by the offended party, any peace

officer or other officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated Subscribed to by the fiscal

May be filed either with the court or in the

fiscal’s office generally to commence the
preliminary investigation of the charges
made Filed with the court

4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:

1. Features stated in Art. 2, RPC

à Cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed

1. Continuing crimes committed in different judicial regions

2. Offenses wherein any of the essential elements were committed in different territorial jurisdictions
3. Offenses committed aboard a train, vehicle, aircraft or vessel (see R110, §15)

i. Railroad, train, aircraft

(1) Territory or municipality where vehicle passed

(2) Place of departure

(3) Place of arrival

ii. Vessel

(1) First port of entry

(2) Thru which it passed during voyage

e. Libel and written defamation

5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an information or include a person therein as an
accused

1. In case of grave abuse of discretion, action for mandamus

2. Lodge a new complaint against the offenders
3. Take up matter with the Secretary of Justice
4. Institute administrative charges against the erring fiscal
5. File criminal charges under Art. 208, RPC (prosecution of offenses)
6. File civil action under Art. 27, NCC for damages (PO refuses or neglects to perform official duty)
7. Secure appointment of another fiscal
8. Institute another criminal action if no double jeopardy is involved

6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not available, EXCEPT

1. To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights of accused

2. Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
3. Pre-judicial question which is sub judice
4. Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
5. Prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
6. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Court has no jurisdiction over the case
8. Case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. Charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
10. Clearly no prima facie case against the accused and MTQ on that ground had been denied

7. Institution of Criminal Actions:

a. In RTC:

à By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite preliminary investigation therein.

b. In Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts:

à By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscal’s office

c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts

à By filing the complaint ONLY with the office of the fiscal

à In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged (Rule 110, §1)

d. Offenses subject to summary procedure

[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of municipal or city ordinances; and (4) criminal
cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties and
civil liabilities]
à The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary
investigation.

à Zaldivia vs. Reyes – since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall be deemed commenced only when
it is filed in court, then the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and
not on any date before that.
à Reodica vs. CA – [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription shall be interrupted by the
filing of the complaint or information. It does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or
investigation only, or for an action on the merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscal’s office should
suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on
Summary Procedure, since that particular case involved a violation of an ordinance. Therefore, the applicable law therein was
not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (“An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts
and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run”), §2 of which provides that period of
prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.

8. Contents of information

a. Name of the accused

à Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot be questioned for the first time on
appeal (People vs. Guevarra)

à Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the identification of the act
charged. Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if there is a variance between the allegation and the proof as to the
ownership of the property stolen.

b. Designation of offense by statute (or of section/subsection of statute violated)

à Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.

à If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may be quashed; however, the prosecution
is allowed to amend the info to include the necessary facts (People vs. Purisima)

c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense

à Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)

d. Name of offended party

e. Approximate time of commission

à Approximation of time is sufficient; amendment as to time is only a formal amendment; no need to dismiss case (People vs.
Molero)
à A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since such would allow the prosecution to prove an offense
distantly removed from the alleged date, thus substantially impairing the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges
against him (People vs. Reyes)

f. Place of commission
à Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place alleged, provided that the place of
actual commission was within the court’s jurisdiction and accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the
information

à Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral parts of the crime. If proved, but
not alleged, become only generic aggravating circumstances.

9. Amendment of information and Substitution of information, distinguished

Substitution
Amendment

Involves either formal or substantial changes Necessarily involves a substantial change

Needs leave of court as original information

Without leave of court if before plea has to be dismissed

Where only as to form, there is no need for

another preliminary investigation and Another preliminary investigation is entailed
retaking of plea of accused and accused has to plead anew

Refers to the same offense charged or which

necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in original charges, hence,
substantial amendments to info after plea
taken cannot be made over objections of
accused for if original info is withdrawn,
accused could invoke double jeopardy
Requires or presupposes that new info
involves a different offense which does not
include or is not included in the original
charge, hence, accused cannot claim double
jeopardy

10. After plea, amendment only as to matters of form, provided

1. Leave of court is obtained; and

2. Amendment is not prejudicial to rights of accused

11. When amendment is only as to form

1. Neither affects or alters nature of offense charged

2. Charge does not deprive accused of a fair opportunity to present his defense
3. Does not involve a change in basic theory of prosecution

12. Exceptions to rule on venue

1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
2. Continuing offenses
3. Piracy which is triable anywhere
4. Libel (residence; or where first published)
5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry

13. Special cases (who may prosecute)

a. Adultery and concubinage

à Only offended spouse can be complainant

à Both guilty parties must be included in complaint

b. Crimes against chastity

à With consent of the offended party, offended spouse, grandparents, guardian, or state as parens patriae, in that order

à Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the case independently of parents, grandparents or
guardian, unless she is incompetent/incapable on grounds other than minority.

à If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or guardian may do so.

à In crimes against chastity, the consent of the victim is a jurisdictional requirement–retraction renders the information void
(People vs. Ocapan)

à If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the complaint on his own

c. Defamation (consisting of imputation of offenses in [a] or [b])

à Complainant must be offended party

à The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case because of her interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)

14. Procedure

1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place (territorial jurisdiction)
1. Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2. Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
à Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be prejudicial to the accused and should be allowed
(People vs. CA)

d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper offense, court shall dismiss original
info upon the filing of a corrected one, provided that the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution)

à Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the case; the motion to dismiss
must be addressed to the court which has discretion over the disposition of the case (Republic vs. Sunga)

à Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the amendment is made; otherwise,
deemed to have consented thereto.

15. Remedies

a. Motion to quash

à May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally, a flaw in the info)

à If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right to question it is waived (People
vs. Ocapan)

b. Motion to dismiss
à May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash

16. Duplicity of Offense (in information or complaint)

à Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same information/complaint

à Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure is equivalent to a waiver

à Exception: when existing laws prescribe a single punishment (complex crimes)

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action

1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the criminal proceeding to recover damages from
the offender.

à Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the Constitutional rights of citizens
(Aberca vs. Ver)

à Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to prove damages, the offended
party is not barred from filing a separate civil action

2. Civil action for recovery of civil liability impliedly instituted, EXCEPT

1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
à NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the
corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
à San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA – past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111 that a reservation be made prior
to the institution of an independent civil action is an “unauthorized amendment” to substantive law is now no longer
controlling. Far from altering substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of
suits, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in short, the attainment of
justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.

3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT

1. Independent civil action (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of NCC)

2. Prejudicial civil action
3. Civil case consolidated with criminal action
4. Civil action not one intended to enforce civil liability arising from the offense (e.g., action for legal separation against a
spouse who committed concubinage)

4. Prejudicial question arises when

1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action
2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not

à Requisites for a prejudicial question:

1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action: and
 2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed

à Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.

5. Remedies

a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from crime

à Must be made before prosecution presents evidence

à Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action

b. Petition to suspend the criminal action

à May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a pending civil action

à Filed at any time before the prosecution rests

6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in
a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.

à Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action

7. Filing fees:

1. Actual or compensatory damages – filing fees not required

2. Moral, temperate and exemplary – filing fees required
1. If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing of complaint or information
1. If not alleged, filing fees considered a first lien on the judgment
Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation

1. Preliminary investigation – inquiry or proceeding to determine if there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should
be held for trial

à A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC; complaints may be filed with the
MTC without need of an information, which is merely recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
à Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the information; an information filed without a
preliminary investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence, the accused may ask for one; it is the fiscal’s refusal to
conduct a preliminary investigation when the accused demands one which is a violation of the rights of the accused (Doromal
vs. Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss the info, but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1) conduct its own
investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information with the RTC, EXCEPT where
the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is conducted.

3. Right to Preliminary Investigation

à A personal right and may be waived

à Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea
4. Who conducts Preliminary Investigation

1. Provincial or city fiscals and their assistants

2. Judges of MTC and MCTC
3. National and regional state prosecutors
4. Such other officers as may be authorized by law
5. Duly authorized legal officers of COMELEC
1. The Ombudsman
2. The PCGG, in cases of ill-gotten wealth

5. Procedure

a. If conducted prior to arrest

i. Complainant files complaint with

(a) Provincial or city fiscal

(b) Regional or state prosecutor

(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities

(d) Other offices authorized by law

1. Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena complainant and respondent to submit affidavits and
counter-affidavits
1. If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he prepares an information and a resolution
à i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused is probably guilty thereof
à Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted, would be enough to merit a
conviction of the accused

iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint

à If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that there is a need to place the
accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest

à Flores vs. Sumaling – What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while before, it was mandatory for
the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the
investigating judge’s power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing
him in custody “in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.” It is therefore error for the investigating judge to order the
issuance of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without making any finding of a necessity to place the
accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in court

à Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge

vii. Records will not form records of the case proper

à Court on its own or on motion may order production of record

b. If conducted after warrantless arrest

1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the assistance of counsel, then the
procedure for one prior to arrest is followed
1. Inquest conducted as follows

(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the arrest

(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the complainant, arresting officer and
witnesses

(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused, OR prepares and files an
information

à While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed with the court, the court
acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of the case and the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining
petitions for review or appeals from the decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary investigation.

6. Remedies

a. Motion for preliminary investigation

à Filed when accused is arrested without warrant

à Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC

b. Motion for preliminary investigation

à Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed without a preliminary investigation

c. Motion for re-investigation

d. Appeal to DOJ

à Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the ground that his rights to due process of law were
violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction

e. Petition for prohibition

à Filed with appellate court to stop the criminal proceedings

à Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases

à When prohibition proper to restrain criminal proceedings:

1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
 5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
Rule 113 Arrest
1. Arrest – taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of some offense, made by
an actual restraint of the person or by his submission to custody

2. General Rule: No person may be arrested without a warrant.

à Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for an offense.

à “Invitations” are not arrests and are usually not unconstitutional, but in some cases may be taken as commands (Babst vs.
NBI); however, the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed is considered as placing him under “custodial investigation.” (RA 7438)

à Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted

à Arrest may be made at any time of the day or night

3. Warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a private person

a. When person to be arrested is committing, attempting or has committed an offense

b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge that the person to be
arrested committed it

à Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
à The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest (Umil vs. Ramos)

c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case pending)

1. When a person lawfully arrested escapes

2. Bondsman, for purpose of surrendering the accused
3. Accused attempts to leave country without court permission

4. Procedure

a. With warrant

1. Complainant files application with affidavits attached

2. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination to determine probable cause

à In determining probable cause, judge must:

(1) Personally examine witness

(2) Witness must be under oath

(3) Examination must be reduced to writing (Luna vs. Plaza)

à In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by responsible officer (Lim vs. Felix)

iii. Judge issues warrant of arrest

à If without preliminary examination, considered irregular (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)

iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must file a report and explanation with judge within
10 days

v. If warrant served

(1) Person informed that he is being arrested

(2) Informed of cause of his arrest

(3) Officer may break door or window if admission to building is refused

(4) Person physically restrained

à For private citizens making an arrest

à May not do so except to do some service to humanity or justice

(5) No violence or unnecessary force may be used

(6) Officer may summon assistance

(7) Person who escapes after arrest may be immediately pursued

vi. Person arrested is brought to nearest police station or jail

b. Without warrant:

1. Person is arrested
1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary investigation or inquest
à Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
1. Fiscal files info

5. Requisites for a warrant of arrest:

1. Probable cause
2. Signed by judge
3. Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to be arrested
à John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar)

6. Remedies

a. Petition for writ of habeas corpus

à Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the person detained

à Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was illegally arrested (void warrant or unlawful
warrantless arrest, or warrantless arrest beyond period with no information filed)

à Habeas corpus is not allowed when:

 1. The person is in custody of an officer under process of law, and
2. The court had jurisdiction to issue the process (Luna vs. Plaza)
à If an arrest is improper, the remedy is a motion for quashal of the warrant of arrest and/or a motion to quash the
information, not habeas corpus (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
à Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed, the information being the judicial process required
by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
à Habeas corpus is proper when a person is being restrained illegally, e.g., imprisoned past maximum penalty allowed by law
(Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons)

b. Quashal of warrant of arrest

à Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed

c. Motion to quash information

à Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed

à Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court questioning only its lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused

à Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court would be deemed a
submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction it lacked over the person

à Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, e.g., by filing for
bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, “Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation”

à Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation

1. All involuntary confession were inadmissible; accused had to prove involuntariness

1. Involuntary confessions were inadmissible only if they were false
2. Revert to exclusionary rule: any involuntary confession is inadmissible
1. Miranda rule: the accused must be informed of his rights
1. To remain silent
2. Against self-incrimination
3. To counsel
4. Definition of custodial investigation questioned
1. It begins only after arrest
2. Police investigations prior to arrest are not covered
3. The rights may be waived, but the rights to be informed of these rights, i.e., to warning, may
not be waived
4. Warning must not only be said, officer must make sure the person arrested understands them
specifically
5. Present rules
1. Voluntary confessions are admissible
2. Test of voluntariness determined on a case-to-case basis
3. Waiver of rights must not only be with counsel but must be in writing
à Confessions made without assistance of counsel are inadmissible as evidence to incriminate the accused, but they may be
used to impeach the credibility of the accused, or they may be treated as verbal admission of the accused through the
testimony of the witnesses (People vs. Molas)
Rule 114 Bail
1. Bail – security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
appearance before any court as required under the following conditions:
1. Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force at all stages until promulgation of judgment, unless sooner
cancelled
2. Accused shall appear before court when required
3. Failure to appear despite notice to him or the bondsman will waive his right to be present and trial shall proceed in
absentia
4. Bondsman shall surrender accused for execution of judgment
à Bail applies to all persons detained, not just to those charged with the offense (Herras vs. Teehankee)
à Court has power to prohibit person out on bail from leaving the country (Manotoc, Jr. vs. CA)
à Bail implies delivery of the accused to the sureties who, though not holding him prisoner, may seize him and imprison him
until they can deliver him to court (US vs. Bonoan)
2. General Rule: All persons are entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with capital offenses.
à Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel facing court martial, who are not in the same class as civilians
(Comendador vs. de Villa)
à Bail should be available regardless of other circumstances or the merits of the case, if the health or the life of the detainee
is in danger (Dela Rama vs. People’s Court)
à Excessive bail is tantamount to denial of bail, which is unconstitutional (Dela Camara vs. Enage)

3. When bail is a matter of right

à Before or after conviction by MTC, MCTC, MJC

à Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment

4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)

1. Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
2. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal subject to consent of bondsman
3. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail or
recognizance

5. Procedure

a. Offense charged is not capital:

i. Accused applies for bail

(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending

(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he is held

(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC

(4) Absent (3), with the MTC

 1. Judge sets bail
1. Accused may move to reduce bail, and hearing will be set
2. Accused posts bail and deposits the same with the Municipal/City/Provincial Treasurer or, if cash, with the
Collector of Internal Revenue
3. Accused is released

b. Offense charged is capital:

1. Accused petitions for bail

2. Judge sets hearing to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong
à Ex-parte hearing on bail is arbitrary and unacceptable (Herras vs. Teehankee)
1. Prosecution presents evidence
1. Court may not force fiscal to produce evidence (Herras vs. Teehankee)
2. If evidence is strong, bail is denied
1. Otherwise, judge sets bail and procedure for non-capital offense is followed
à In capital crimes, judge’s discretion is limited to determining strength of evidence and does not cover determining whether
bail should be allowed (Herras vs. Teehankee)
à Evidence must be strong that the accused is guilty of the capital offense charged, not just of any offense (Bernardez vs.
Valera)
6. Bail bond – an obligation under seal given by accused with one or more sureties and made payable to proper officer with
the condition to be void upon performance by the accused of such acts as he may legally be required to perform

7. Recognizance

1. Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do
some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance of the accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the trial, except:
1. Substitution of info (see R110, §14)
2. Court believes that material witness may not appear at the trial

9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal offense – not higher that 6 month
imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, or both)

1. a. Caught in flagrante
2. Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and intimidation)
3. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
4. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his recognizance)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to which the law or ordinance attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for 2 or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty
6. Committed offense while on parole or under conditional pardon
7. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2 times

10. Instances when accused may be released on recognizance:

1. Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light felony or criminal offense the imposable penalty to which does
not exceed 6 months and or P2000 fine
 2. Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the imposable principal penalty, without
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation and before the same has been resolved, but NO BAIL was filed or accused is incapable
of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish bail

11. Cancellation of bail

a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal

1. Accused surrenders back to custody

1. Accused dies

b. Automatic cancellation

1. Case is dismissed
1. Accused is acquitted
2. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment

12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not more than 20 years, and:

1. Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or guilty of the aggravating circumstance of reiteration;
2. Provisionally escaped, evaded sentence, violated provisions of bail;
3. Committed offense while on probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
4. Probability of flight; or
5. Undue risk that during appeal, he may commit another crime

13. When bail is forfeited

a. Accused fails to appear before court when required

à 30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him

b. Bondsman fails to produce him within 30 days

c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily explain to the court why accused did not appear when first required to do so

à Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
à Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act of God, the obligee or the law (US vs. Bonoan)

14. Provisional forfeiture

1. Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear

15. Remedies

1. Application for bail, when bail can be availed of as a matter of right

2. Petition for bail, when the offense charged is a capital offense

à For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt
16. Circumstances to be considered in fixing amount of bail:

1. Financial ability of accused to give bail;

2. Nature and circumstances of offense;
3. Penalty of offense charged;
4. Character and reputation of accused;
5. Age and health of accused
6. Weight of evidence against accused
7. Probability of accused appearing for trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bonds;
9. Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
10. Pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond

17. Notes:

1. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person (Callanta vs.
Villanueva). However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the articles seized incidentally to such
illegal arrest.
2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation when he failed to
do so before entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior court permission
(warrantless arrest allowed).
Rule 115 Rights of Accused

1. Right of the accused under the Rules

a. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt

à In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed innocent until and unless his conviction is affirmed
(Castillo vs. Felix)

b. To be informed of the nature and cause of charges

à The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later proceedings must be in a language the accused
understands (People vs. Crisologo)

c. To be present at every stage of proceedings, subject to waiver by bail

à If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia; the accused forfeits his rights to be notified of
proceedings in the future and to adduce evidence in his behalf (People vs. Salas)
1. To testify as witness on his own behalf, subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination; not to
be prejudiced by his silence
2. Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
3. To confront and examine the witnesses against him, including the right to use in evidence testimony of a witness
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the RP
1. Given in another proceeding
2. With the same parties
3. Same subject matter
4. Opportunity to cross-examine
à Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when such informer was crucial in the operation itself;
failure to present the informer is a denial of the right to confront the witness which merits the reversal of the conviction
(People vs. Bagano)

g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his behalf

h. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial

à Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial, entitling the accused to mandamus
to compel dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained

i. To have the right of appeal

2. Rights of the accused under the Constitution

a. To due process

b. Against self-incrimination

à Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be allowed (Villaflor vs. Summers)
à Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of information, without which confession made by the accused is
inadmissible (People vs. Nicandro)
à Confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible (People vs. Opida)
à Right against self-incrimination and to counsel do not apply during custodial investigation (People vs. Ayson)

à During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form:

1. Accused may refuse to testify

2. If he testifies, he may refuse to answer those questions which may incriminate him in ANOTHER offense

c. Against double jeopardy

d. To be heard by himself and counsel

3. Double jeopardy

1. First jeopardy must have attached prior to the first

2. First jeopardy attached and terminated
3. Valid complaint or information
1. Competent court with jurisdiction
2. Accused had pleaded
3. Action ended in conviction, acquittal or termination without the consent of the accused

c. Offense charged in later case is:

1. Same as that in previous case

1. Necessarily includes or is included in the previous case
2. An attempt or frustration of the offense in previous case
1. An offense lesser than that charged to which the accused pleaded guilty with the consent of the fiscal and
the offended party
4. Exceptions to double jeopardy

1. The offense was made graver by supervening events

2. The facts constituting the graver offense were only discovered after the filing of the earlier information
à No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new charge arose only after arraignment and conviction (People vs.
City Court)
à No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there was no competent court (Galman vs. Sandiganbayan)
à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of the accused (Caes vs. IAC)
à There is double jeopardy if a person is charged twice under different penal statutes for the same acts (People vs. Relova)

c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party

5. Remedies

1. Motion to quash
2. Motion to dismiss

à Both filed on the ground of violation of accused’s rights, thereby ousting the court of jurisdiction

6. NOTES:

à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.

à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14

1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.

However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies.

à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
for the same act.

Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea

1. Procedure

1. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none

à If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of good repute for probity and ability to
defend accused

c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment

à Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially complied with; if not, case may be
remanded for re-arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
1. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
2. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3. Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4. Accused personally makes his plea
5. Plea is entered into record
6. If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
à People vs. Agbayani – the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only when so demanded does denial
thereof constitute reversible error and ground for new trial. Further, such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly.

à NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”), accused must be given at least 15 days
to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.

j. Case proceeds to pre-trial, trial or hearing, depending on the plea

à Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the manner of statement of such fact is
immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)

2. Kinds of plea

1. No plea – a plea of not guilty shall be entered

2. Conditional plea of guilt – a plea of not guilty shall be entered
3. Not guilty – case proceeds to trial or pre-trial
4. Guilty to a lesser offense – if fiscal and offended party consents, conviction under offense charged for purposes of
double jeopardy
5. Info may be amended
1. Case goes to trial
2. Even if info is not amended, and even if lesser offense is not included in offense charged, court may still find the
accused guilty of that lesser offense

e. Guilty to a capital offense

à Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his plea, and its consequences
à Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and determine his degree of culpability, and
accused may still establish presence of mitigating circumstances in his favor

f. Guilty to a non-capital offense

à Court receives evidence from the parties to determine penalty to impose

à Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of exculpatory evidence (if accused pleaded guilty), trial
court should consider the plea withdrawn and in its place, order the plea of not guilty

à Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to quash or by plea in abatement; cannot cure
jurisdictional defects.

3. Effects

a. Entry of plea will waive

1. Right to question illegality of the arrest

2. Right to question any irregularity in the preliminary investigation
3. Right to file a motion to quash

b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any time before judgment is rendered

c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the prosecution of presenting evidence and
still result in the conviction of the accused.

4. Remedies

a. Motion for specification

à May be filed any time before plea, even after a MTQ

à Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill of Particulars is necessary to clarify the
acts for which the accused is being charged

b. Motion to quash

à May be filed at anytime before plea is entered

à Based on grounds provided by the rules

c. Motion to suspend arraignment

à Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a pending civil case

d. Motion to withdraw an improvident plea of guilt

à May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, when it can be shown that the accused was not aware
of the significance of pleading guilty to the charges
Rule 117 Motion to Quash
1. Motion to quash – a hypothetical admission that even if all the facts alleged were true, the accused still cannot be
convicted due to other reasons

2. When to file Motion to Quash

General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived

Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1. No offense charged
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy

3. Grounds

a. Information does not conform to prescribed form

à For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law, only that it alleges that one offense
was necessary to commit the other (People vs. Alagao)

b. Court has no jurisdiction

1. No territorial jurisdiction
2. No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver considered even upon failure to move to
quash on such ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused
à The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for the pre-suspension hearing
(Layosa vs. Rodriguez)

c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy

à Bars another prosecution

à No waiver

à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the consent of the accused (Que vs. Cosico), unless ground for dismissal
is: (a) denial of right to speedy trial; or (b) insufficiency of evidence.
à If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no valid information and there could be no
double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)
à Cudia vs CA – it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should prepare informations
for offenses committed within Pampanga but outside Angeles City. An information must be prepared and presented by the
prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a
motion to quash the information is a waiver of all objections to it insofar as formal objections to pleadings are concerned,
questions relating to want of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Moreover, since the complaint or
information was insufficient because it was so defective in form or substance that conviction upon it could not have been
sustained, its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy, and will not be a bar to a
second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single punishment for various offenses

e. Facts alleged do not constitute an offense

à May be raised at any time

à No waiver

à For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty existing at the time

f. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished

g. Information contains allegations which, if true, would be a legal excuse or justification

h. Officer who filed the information had no authority

à Presentation of evidence cannot cure an invalid information (People vs. Asuncion)

NOTE: Court will consider no other grounds other than those raised, EXCEPT lack of jurisdiction over offense charged.

4. Requisites of Double jeopardy

a. Valid information or complaint, sufficient in form and substance

b. Before court of competent jurisdiction

à Doctrine of “Jurisdiction by Estoppel”: depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no
jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred on appeal,
from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same ‘must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the
parties or by estoppel’. However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory,
such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted,
on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position — that the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies.
The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.

c. Accused had pleaded

d. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal or termination of case without consent of accused

e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or necessarily includes or is necessarily included

à Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the charge of damage to property
through reckless imprudence.

5. Procedure

1. MTQ filed
2. If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded yet), EXCEPT when the ground
is:
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies

1. Motion to dismiss – if certain grounds were not raised or denied in a MTQ

2. Trial

à If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial

à Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if necessary; mandamus or certiorari will only
be granted if there is not other plain, simple and adequate remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such grounds, except:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining – process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to
only some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.

à Under “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC, RTC and Sandiganbayan,
pretrial is mandatory.

à Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, an accused may plea guilty to a lesser offense only if
said offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.

2. Stipulation of facts

à Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures; these facts need not be proved
by evidence in trial

à Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned by either accused or counsel; a later memo of confirmation, signed only by counsel,
cannot cure defect (Fule vs. CA)

3. Pre-trial order – binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls the course of action during
the trial

4. Procedure

1. Judge must calendar pre-trial

2. Either party may waive the pre-trial
3. If court appoints counsel de oficio, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare
4. In the pre-trial conference
5. Plea bargaining
6. Stipulation of facts
7. Marking of evidence (does not imply conceding to its admissibility or credibility)
8. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
9. Other matters which will promote a fair and expeditious trial

e. Judge issues pre-trial order

Rule 119 Trial

1. In trial, the defense tries

1. To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
2. To assail the credibility of such evidence
3. To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and adding other evidence to cast
reasonable doubt
à Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits; he must give the defendant the chance
to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose)

2. Procedure

a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, §1)

à HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within
30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.

1. Accused may move that his witnesses be examined

2. Defense witnesses examined by any judge or lawyer
3. Prosecution witnesses, if they would be unable to attend trial, may be examined by the judge handling the case
4. Trial continues from day to day, unless postponed for a just cause
5. Prosecution presents evidence

à Presentation

à Testimonies: direct examination

à Cross-examination

à Re-cross

à Offer

1. Accused may move for discharge

2. Prosecution rests
3. Defense may, with or without leave of court, file a demurrer to evidence
4. Defense presents evidence
5. Defense rests
6. Prosecution presents rebuttal evidence
7. Defense presents rebuttal evidence
8. Trial is closed; case is submitted for judgment

3. When mistake made in charging proper offense

1. If Accused cannot be convicted of offense charged or offense necessarily included therein

2. Accused detained, not discharged
3. Original case dismissed upon filing of proper information
à Example: Charged with theft. At trial, appears that offense is estafa. The prosecution can ask for the dismissal of the info
in order to file a new one for estafa. No Double Jeopardy because no valid info in the first case.
4. Application for examination of witnesses for accused before trial

1. Sick or infirm; unable to attend trial

2. Resides more than 100 km. from means of trial; no means to attend

5. Application (prosecution)

1. Sick or infirm
2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning

6. Requisites for postponement due to absence of a witness

1. Witness is really material and appears to the court to be so

2. Party who applies for postponement has not been guilty of neglect
3. Witness can be had at the time to which the trial has been deferred
4. No similar evidence could be obtained

7. Requisites to discharge of an accused as State Witness

1. Testimony of accused absolutely needed

2. No other direct evidence available EXCEPT his testimony
3. Testimony can be corroborated on material points
4. Accused does not appear to be most guilty
5. Accused has never been convicted of offense involving moral turpitude
à Discharge of accused, when not all the requisites were met, cannot be revoked as long as he testified according to what was
expected of him (People vs. Aninon)

8. Remedies

a. Motion for separate trials

à Filed by the fiscal to try several accused separately

à Granted at the court’s discretion

à May also be ordered by the court motu proprio

b. Motion to consolidate

à Upon the court’s discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single case if the offenses charged arise form the same
facts or form part of a series of similar offenses

à Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the same manner (People vs. David)

c. Motion for continuance – filed to postpone trial for just cause

d. Motion to exclude public

à Excluding parties, counsels and court personnel

à May also be ordered by court motu proprio

e. Motion for discharge

à Filed before the prosecution rests

à Hearing to determine existence of requisites for discharge

à Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness

à Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if court denies motion for discharge, his
sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.

à Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in
accordance with his statement (which formed the basis for his discharge)

f. Demurrer to evidence

à May be made after the prosecution rests its case

à If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed

à Otherwise, if demurrer denied

1. If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and
the case is submitted for judgment
à Case may also be dismissed motu proprio

g. Motion to reopen

à Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered

à To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before

à Granted on discretion of the judge

à The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his behalf when his failure to adduce them
during the trial was his own fault (People vs. Cruz)