Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall e. What is the effect of failure to complete or terminate
be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the preliminary investigation within a reasonable time?
expense of the requesting party.
Failure to complete or terminate preliminary investigation with a
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with reasonable time may cause the dismissal of the case. The long delay
the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the in the termination of the PI would be violative of the constitutional
respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his guarantee of speedy disposition of cases embodied in the Bill of
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his Rights.
defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and
Every accused has the rights to due process and to speedy
certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies
disposition of cases. Inordinate delay in the resolution and
thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall
termination of a preliminary investigation will result in the dismissal
not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-
of the case against the accused.
affidavit.
Delay, however, is not determined through mere mathematical
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if
reckoning but through the examination of the facts and
subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10)
circumstances surrounding each case. But the accused must invoke
day period, the investigating office shall resolve the complaint based
the constitutional rights in a timely manner for failure to do so
on the evidence presented by the complainant.
would be considered as a waiver of such right. [Cagang v.
(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 206438]
facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The parties
Absence of preliminary investigation; effect on jurisdiction of the
can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or
court
cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating
officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's
concerned. jurisdiction over the case nor does it impair the validity of the
information or otherwise, render it defective (Rodis v.
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from
Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 618; People v. Deang, 338 SCRA 657;
submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from
Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773; People v. Buluran, 325
the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be
SCRA 476; Enriquez v. Sarmiento, Jr., 498 SCRA 6). If absence of a
terminated within five (5) days.
preliminary investigation does not render the information invalid
nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, then the denial SC: The complaint filed by Antonio in 1974 was made to “sleep” in
of a motion for reinvestigation cannot likewise invalidate the the office of the PSC until the end of 1979 when it became widely
information or oust the court of its jurisdiction over the case known that Minister Tatad had a falling out with Marcos and the
(Budiongan, Jr. v. De la Cruz, Jr., 502 SCRA 626). 1974 report was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed
with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint 2
Absence of preliminary investigation; not a ground for motion to
months after Tatad’s resignation was accepted by Marcos.
quash
It was found that the Tanodbayan had all the affidavits and counter-
The absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground for a
affidavits necessary for the disposition since October 25, 1982. The
motion to quash. Such ground is not provided for in Sec. 3 of Rule
referral of the complaint by Tanodbayan to the PSC for investigation
117, the provision which enumerates the grounds for a motion to
and report was a revealing attempt to involve an office directly
quash a complaint or information (Budiongan, Jr. vs. De la Cruz, Jr.,
under the President in the prosecutorial process, lending credence
502 SCRA 626).
to the suspicion that the prosecution was politically motivated.
e.1 Discuss Tatad v. Sandiganbayan
The inordinate delay close to 3 years is violative of petitioner’s
Tatad seeks to annul and set aside the resolution of the Tanodbayan constitutional rights. The facts and circumstances surrounding the
and Sandiganbayan and prevent from continuing with the trial or case did not warrant and justify the long delay for the Tanodbayad
any other proceedings in People v. Tatad. to resolve the case. The delay in terminating the PI and filing the
information is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right of
1974 – Antonio de los Reyes filed a formal report with the Legal the petitioner to a speedy disposition of the case against him.
Panel of the Presidential Security Command (PSC) charging Tatad
with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. e.2 Discuss Cagang v. Sandiganbayan
1979 – Tatad had a falling out with Marcos and filed his resignation Petitioner questions the Sandiganbayan’s denial to quash the
as Minister of Public Information and 2 months later Antonio filed Informations and Order of Arrest against Cagang despite the Office
the formal complaint with the Tanodbayan of the same. of the Ombudsman’s alleged inordinate delay in the termination of
the PI.
1980 – Tatad’s resignation was accepted by Marcos.
2003 – Ombudsman received an anonymous complaint alleging that
PSC – Found that Tatad violated the offense charged. some employees and officials in the Vice Governor’s Office of
Issue: Whether the prosecution’s long delay in the filing of these Sarangani committed graft and corruption by diverting public funds
cases with the Sandiganbayan had deprived petitioner of his and transferring them to dummy cooperatives.
constitutional right to due process and the right to a speedy 2005 Information – charging Escobar, Rudes, Maglinte, Cagang,
disposition of the cases against him. accountable officials for Malversation of Public Funds.
2010 – Acquitted Escobar, Maglinte, and Cagang for insufficiency of to elapse without the party having his case tried. The inquiry as to
evidence. whether or not an accused has been denied such right is not
susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of speedy
2011 – Ombudsman Carpio-Morales received a resolution finding
disposition is a relative term.
probable cause to charge Mangalen and Magcalat of Malversation
of Public Funds and approved the recommendation on the The Tatad ruling and Barker Balancing test – that courts must
Information for Violation of R.A. 3019 and Malversation against consider the following factors when determining the existence of
Cagang, Camanay, Zulueta, Macagcalat, and Mangalen. (For inordinate delay:
falsification of Disbursment Voucher for 350k)
1. The length of delay
Cagang filed a Motion to Quash and Set Aside the Order of Arrest
2. The reason for delay
and argued that there was an inordinate delay of 7 years which
would violate his constitutional rights. 3. The defendant’s assertion or non-assertion of the right
2012 Sandiganbayan said – there was no inordinate delay 4. The prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay
considering that 40 invididuals were involved in 81 different
transactions and Cagang did not invoke his right before the Determining the length of delay covers the entire period of
Ombudsman and only did so after the Information was filed. investigation even before trial and may be invoked as early as the
preliminary investigation or inquest.
Filing of the Complaint – February 10, 2003
CAGANG’S PETITION IS DENIED. It is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense (Sec. 1, Rule
f. Probable cause for the purpose of filing an information. 113).
The determination by the prosecutor of probable cause is for the
b. Warrantless arrests.
purpose of either filing an information in court or dismissing the
charges against the respondent. INSTANCES WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST IS NOT NECESSARY
3. Complaint or information is for an offense penalized by fine only Mendoza is a Used Car Supervisor for Juno. When they conducted a
[Sec. 5 (c), Rule 112]. partial audit, they found that 5 cars had been sold by Mendoza
without permission. Mendoza did not remit the payments totaling
INSTANCES OF A VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST
886K and that only 18 out of 20 cars in his custody are accounted
1. In flagrante delicto arrest; for and that he pilfered a total amount of 1M and 46K to Juno’s
prejudice.
2. Doctrine of hot pursuit; and
Mendoza raised the issue that Juno failed to prove their ownership
3. Escapee. (Sec. 5, Rule 113) over the 5 cars he sold. Prosecutor Delgado found probable cause
c. Probable cause for issuance of a warrant of arrest. and recommended the filing of the Information against Mendoza for
Qualified Theft and Estafa.
PROBABLE CAUSE
While Mendoza’s MR is pending, 2 informations for QT and ESTAFA
It refers to facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably were filed before the RTC.
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed by the persons involved. It need not be based on clear RTC Judge Rizalina Capco-Umali dismissed the complaint and held
that the evidence adduced does not support a finding of probable
and convincing evidence of guilt. It simply implies probability of guilt
cause for the offenses of qualified theft and estafa.
and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which
would justify a conviction (The Presidential Ad-Hoc FactFinding RTC denied Juno’s motion for reconsideration.
Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 136225, April 23,
Juno filed a petition for certiorari with the CA and argued that
2008).
determination of probable cause rightfully belongs to the
c.1. Discuss Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, 21 April 2014. prosecutor.
While the determination of probable cause to charge a person of a CA – reversed the trial court and reinstated the case and ruled that
crime is the sole function of the prosecutor, the trial court may RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in supplanting the
dismiss the case if, upon personal assessment of the evidence, it prosecutor’s findings of probable cause with her own findings of
finds that the evidence does not establish probable cause. insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court may dismiss an information filed by 3. Bail
the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent finding of lack of
a. Definition of bail.
probable cause.
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the
SC: There are 2 kinds of determination of probable cause: Executive
and Judicial. law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance
before any court as required under the conditions prescribed under
Executive PI – function that pertains to the public prosecutor to the rules (Sec. 1, Rule 114).
determine whether probable cause exists for the respondent
(would-be-accused) to be held for trial. [for the Information] b. Bail as a matter of right.
Judicial PI – made by a judge to ascertain whether there is probable BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
cause to issue a WARRANT OF ARREST against the accused
1. Before or after conviction by the MeTC, MTC, MTCC or MCTC;
The judge may satisfy himself based on the evidence submitted and
NOTE: All criminal cases under their jurisdiction are bailable offense
if he finds that there is no probable cause, the judge cannot be
because these courts have no jurisdiction to try cases punishable by
forced to issue arrest warrant.
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.(Enrile vs.
The judge does not act as an appellate court for the prosecutor and Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015)
has no capacity to review the prosecutor’s determination of
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
probable cause, rather, he makes a determination of probable
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114);
cause INDEPENDENT of the prosecutor’s finding.
and
While the information filed by Prosecutor Delgado was valid, Judge
3. Before final conviction by all children in conflict with the law for
Capco-Umali still had the discretion to make her own finding of
an offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
whether probable cause exists to order the arrest of the accused.
imprisonment.
She found that Juno Cars failed to prove by competent evidence
that the vehicles alleged to have been pilfered were lawfully owned c. Bail as a matter of discretion.
by them.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION
CA decision reversed. Case against Mendoza is dismissed.
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
NOTE: The prosecution cannot adduce evidence for the denial of bail 2. That even though he was charged with plunder (punishable
where it is a matter of right. However, where the grant of bail is by reclusion perpetua to death), the penalty to him should only be
discretionary, the prosecution may show proof to deny the bail. reclusion temporal because of his age and mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender
Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice
of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal, or at 3. That he was not a flight risk and that his physical condition
least he must be asked for his recommendation. must be seriously considered
Recommendation is necessary because in fixing the amount of bail, His motion was denied.
the judge is required to take into account a number of factors such
Enrile raises the ff grounds:
as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other
bonds or whether he is a fugitive from justice. 1. That before judgment of the Sandiganbayan, he is bailable
as a matter of right since prosecution has failed to show clearly and
c.1. Discuss Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, 18
conclusively that evidence of his guilt is strong.
August 2015.
SC: The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the
June 5, 2014 – Ombudsman charged Enrile and others with plunder
accused at the trial.
on their alleged involvement in the misuse of appropriations under
PDAF. Bail may be granted as a matter of discretion
Enrile – Omnibus Motion w prayer that he should be allowed to Section 7, Rule 114 – Capital offenses or those punishable by
post bail if probable cause was to be found against him. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are NOT bailable. – No
person charged with a. capital offense, etc, shall be admitted to bail
Sandiganbayan – denied the motion for bail on the ground of its
WHEN evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
prematurity considering that Enrile has not yet been placed under
criminal prosecution.
the custody of law.
4. Reading it in a language or dialect known to the accused (People c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
v. AlbertG.R. No. 114001 December 11, 1995);
The accused, with the consent of the offended party and the
5. Asking accused whether he pleads guilty or not guilty (Sec.1(a), prosecutor, may plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
Rule 116); and included in the offense charged (Sec. 2, Rule 116).
6. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record but failure to REQUISITES FOR A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
enter of record shall not affect the validity of the proceedings [Sec.
1. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged;
1(b), Rule 116].
and
NOTE: The accused must be arraigned before the court where the
NOTE: It is necessarily included when some of the essential
complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial [Sec. 1 (a),
elements or ingredients of the crime charge constitute the lesser
Rule 116].
offense and vice versa.
The accused cannot waive the reading of the information to him
2. The plea must be with the consent of both the offended party
and just enter his plea because it is constitutionally required.
and the prosecutor. Consent of the offended party will not be
NOTE: Accused is presumed to have been validly arraigned in the required if said party, despite due notice, fails to appear during
absence of proof to the contrary. arraignment (Riano, 2011).
1. During arraignment XPN: The law still allows accused to change his plea thereafter
provided that the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to
a. If the offended party is present, the latter must
establish guilt of the crime charged (People vs. Valderama, G.R. No.
consent with the prosecutor to the plea; and
99287, June 23, 1992).
b. That the lesser offense is necessarily included in
d. Effect plea guilty to a capital offense.
the offense charged.
DUTY OF THE COURT AFTER THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO A
2. After arraignment but before trial, provided the following
CAPITAL OFFENSE
requisites are present:
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall:
a. The plea of guilty is withdrawn;
1. Conduct a searching inquiry into the:
b. The plea of not guilty and the withdrawal of the
previous guilty plea shall be made before trial; a. Voluntariness of the plea, and
c. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the b. Full comprehension of the consequences of the
offense charged; and d. The plea must have the consent of plea;
the prosecutor and the offended party (Sec. 2, Rule 116).
2. Require the prosecution to prove guilt and the precise degree of
NOTE: No amendment of complaint or information is necessary his culpability; and
(Sec. 2, Rule 116). A conviction under this plea shall be equivalent to
3. Ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and
a conviction of the offense charged for purposes of double jeopardy
allow him to do so if he desires.
(People v. Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000).
NOTE: The defendant after pleading guilty may not present
3. During Pre-trial- Under Sec. 1(a), Rule 118, Pleabargaining is one
evidence as would exonerate him completely from criminal liability
of the matters to be considered.
such as proof of self-defense.
4. After prosecution rests – Allowed only when the prosecution
NOTE: This procedure is mandatory, and a judge who fails to
does not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt for the crime
observe it commits grave abuse of discretion. The reason for this
charged.
strictness is to assure that the State makes no mistake in taking life
except the life of the guilty (People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 119073, March > The court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the
13, 1996). penalty to be imposed
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AFTER THE PLEA OF > Unlike in a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the reception of
GUILTY evidence in this case is not mandatory.
To preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind of either > It is merely discretionary on the court
the trial court or of the Supreme Court, on review, as to the
f. When is suspension of arraignment allowed?
possibility that there might have been misunderstanding on the part
of the accused as to the nature of the charges to which he pleaded Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be
guilty; and to ascertain the circumstances attendant to the suspended in the following cases:
commission of the crime which justify or require the exercise of
greater or lesser degree of severity in the imposition of prescribed 1. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental
penalties (People v. Busa, G.R. No. L-32047, June 25, 1973). condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand
the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto;
NO COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PLEA OF GUILTY
2. There exists a valid prejudicial question;
A plea of guilty entered by one who is fully aware of the direct
consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made 3. A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is
to him by court, the prosecutor or his own counsel, must stand. pending at the Department of Justice or the Office of the President
(Sec. 11, Rule 116); and
NOTE: It is only when the consensual character of the plea is called
into question that the validity of a guilty plea may be impaired. 4. There are pending incidents such as:
Sec. 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence, b. Motion for Inhibition; or
discretionary. c. Motion for Bill of Particulars.
When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, NOTE: The period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days
the court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office
penalty to be imposed. (Sec. 11, Rule 116).
- What should the court do when the accused pleads guilty to a non- Procedurally speaking, after the filing of the information, the court
capital offense? is in complete control of the case and any disposition therein is
subject to its sound discretion. The decision to suspend arraignment
to await the resolution of an appeal with the Secretary of Justice is 2. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED
an exercise of such discretion (Solar Team Entertainment Inc., v.
If the trial court has no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and
How, G.R. No. 140863, August 22, 2000).
decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not
5. Quashal of Information barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same
must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent
a. What are the grounds to quash an information?
of the parties or by estoppel.
1. THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE
3. LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
It is fundamental that the complaint or information must state every
Jurisdiction over the person is that acquired by the voluntary
fact necessary to make out an offense for the Constitution
appearance of a party in court and his submission to its authority, or
guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused should be
by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him [Sec.
through an arrest. Unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter and
14 (2) Art. III, 1987 Constitution].
territory, jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be waived,
AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION either expressly or by implication.
If the motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged NOTE: Where a court has jurisdiction of the offense or subject
do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the matter, the objection that it has no jurisdiction of the person of the
court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. However, accused may be waived. One who desires to object to the
if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or jurisdiction of the court over his person must appear in court for
information still suffers from the same defect despite the that purpose only, and if he raises other questions, he waives the
amendment, the motion shall be granted. objection (Layosa v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-46080, November 10,
1978, citing 22 C.J.S., 1961 Ed. p. 418).
RESOLUTION OF A MOTION TO QUASH BASED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE TEST OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION
GR: A motion to quash on the ground that the allegations of the GR: What determines the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases is
information do not constitute the offense charged, or any offense the extent of the penalty which the law imposes on the
for that matter, should be resolved on the basis alone of said misdemeanor, crime or violation of law charged.
allegations whose truth and veracity are hypothetically admitted.
XPNs:
XP: Additional facts not alleged in the information, but admitted or
not denied by the prosecution may be invoked in support of the
motion to quash (People v. Navarro, 75 Phil. 561).
1. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which is not based on A lawyer appointed by the Secretary of Justice (Sec. 1686, Revised
the penalty provided by law, but on the salary grade of the public Administrative Code).
official;
INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS AN UNAUTHORIZED FILING OF
2. Libel, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC INFORMATION
although the imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years
1. Officer filing is irregularly appointed. It does not necessarily
3. Those offenses cognizable by the family court where the invalidate the information if such officer may be considered de
determining factor is the minority of any of the parties; and facto; 2. Officer is disqualified from appointment to such position.
The information is invalid and the court does not acquire jurisdiction
4. The offense of slight physical injuries is cognizable by the
to try the accused thereon (Villa vs. Banez, G.R. No. L-4313, March
first level courts, but where the victim is a minor, the case is to be
20, 1951);
filed in the RTC.
3. Officer filed the information without the approval by the head or
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
Chief prosecutor (Sec. 4, Rule 112); and
In criminal proceedings, no one should be held to answer for any
4. Information is filed without the complaint in cases involving
crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it was
private crimes.
committed.
NOTE: An infirmity in the information caused by the lack of
4. LACK OF AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER TO FILE INFORMATION
authority of the officer signing it cannot be cured by silence,
Criminal prosecutions are brought by authority of the sovereign, acquiescence, or even by express consent. An invalid information is
and, therefore, only the officers possessed of legal power to do so no information at all. No criminal proceeding may prosper
must be allowed to file criminal information. therefrom, thus, it is subject to quashal (Romualdez vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 14361841, July 30, 2002).
NOTE: The law invests the authority to file and prosecute criminal
cases to the following: Despite a certification which provides that the filing of the
information by the assistant city prosecutor is with the prior
a. Provincial fiscals and their assistants (Sec. 1686, Revised authority and approval of the city prosecutor, the information is
Administrative Code); defective because of the absence of any proof clearly showing that
b. Chief State Prosecutor and his deputies; the assistant city prosecutor had any authority to file the
information on his own or did seek the prior written approval from
c. Tanodbayan and his deputies in special cases (PD 1607); those authorized to do so before filing the Information before the
RTC (Quisay v. People, G.R. No. 216920, January 13, 2016).
5. WHEN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION DOES NOT CONFORM 6. Prescription of the penalty; and
SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE PRESCRIBED FORM
7. The marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344
Lack of substantial compliance with the requirements for a good of the Revised Penal Code
complaint or information required under Secs. 3 to 13, Rule 110
PARDON VS. AMNESTY
renders the accusatory pleading quashable.
PARDON AMNESTY
NOTE: But mere defects in matters of form may be cured by
amendment. Granted by the Chief Executive. Proclaimed by the President,
6. MULTIPLICITY OF OFFENSES CHARGED but it has to be with the
concurrence of Congress.
A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except
when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses It is a private act which must be It is a public act which the
(Sec. 13, Rule 110). pleaded and proved by the courts have to take judicial
person pardoned because the notice of.
7. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION OR LIABILITY courts take no notice of it.
Under Art. 89 of the RPC, criminal liability is totally extinguished by: Granted to one after Granted to classes of persons
1. The death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to conviction. or communities who may be
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the guilty of political offenses,
death of the offender occurs before final judgment; generally before or after the
institution of the criminal
NOTE: The death of the offended party before final conviction will
prosecution and sometimes
not abate prosecution where the offense charged is one against the
after conviction.
State involving peace and order as well as in private crimes (People
v. Misola, G.R. No. L-3606, December 29, 1950). Granted to one after Granted to classes of persons
2. Service of the sentence; conviction. or communities who may be
guilty of political offenses,
3. Amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its generally before or after the
effects; institution of the criminal
prosecution and sometimes
4. Absolute pardon;
after conviction.
5. Prescription of the crime;
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES 9. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on The right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution for a
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the crime of which he has been previously convicted or acquitted.
authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.
the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again
when such proceedings terminate without the accused being b. What is provisional dismissal?
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason
not imputable to him. The term of prescription does not run when It contemplates that the dismissal of the action is not permanent
the offender is absent from the Philippines (Art. 91, RPC). and can be revived within the period set by the Rules of Court.
All agreements or admissions made or entered into during the pre- 1. Agreement; or
trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
2. Palpable mistake
accused and counsel; otherwise the same cannot be used against
the accused (Sec. 2, Rule 118). c. Effect of non-appearance at pre-trial.
NOTE: The court shall approve the agreements covering the matters EFFECT OF NON-APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED OR
in the pre-trial conference. THE PROSECUTOR DURING THE PRE-TRIAL WITHOUT VALID
JUSTIFICATION
PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT AS EVIDENCE
The court may impose proper sanctions or penalties in the form of
Requisites before a pre-trial agreement may be used as evidence:
reprimand, fines or imprisonment, if the counsel does not offer an
1. It is reduced in writing; and
acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation (Sec. 3, Rule 118; Sec. NOTE: To prevent manifest injustice, however, the court, upon its
5, Speedy Trial Act). own initiative or at the instance of any party, may modify the pre-
trial order.
It is an order issued by the court reciting the actions taken, the facts a. What is the order of trial?
stipulated, and the evidence marked during the pre-trial conference ORDER OF TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES
(Sec. 4, Rule 118).
In criminal cases, the trial shall proceed in the following order:
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER
1. The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and,
The pre-trial order shall: in the proper case, the civil liability.
1. Bind the parties; NOTE: In Dangerous Drugs Cases, it is the duty of the
2. Limit the trial to those matters not disposed of; and prosecutionga to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust
operation – from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and
3. Control the course of the action during the trial, unless modified the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the
by the court to prevent manifest injustice (Ibid.; Sec. 5, Speedy Trial consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of
Act of 1998).
the illegal subject of sale (People v. Ong, G.R. No. 175940, February Requisites of trial in absentia:
6, 2008).
1. The accused has already been arraigned;
2. The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and
2. He has been duly notified of the trial; and 3. His failure to appear
damages, if any, arising from the issuance of a provisional remedy in
is unjustified (Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution of the
the case.
Philippines; Bernardo v. People, G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007).
3. The prosecution may present rebuttal evidence unless the court
EFFECTS OF TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main
issue. The accused waives the right to present evidence and cross-
examine the witnesses against him. The accused’s waiver does not
NOTE: Rebuttal evidence is any competent evidence to
mean, however, that the prosecution is deprived of the right to
explain, repel, counteract or disprove the adversary’s proof. It is
require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification
receivable only where new matters have been developed by the
by the witnesses which is vital for conviction of the accused, except
evidence of one of the parties and is generally limited to a reply to
where he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment
new points.
that he is the person named as defendant in the case on trial.
4. The accused may present rebuttal evidence unless the court
c. May an information be amended after arraignment or during
permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main
trial?
issue.
An information may be amended, in form or in substance,
5. Upon admission of the evidence of the parties, the case shall be
without leave court, at any time before the accused enters his
deemed submitted for decision unless the court directs them to
plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment
argue orally or to submit written memoranda (Sec. 11, Rule 119).
may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
NOTE: The order of the trial may be modified when the accused without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information
but interposes a lawful defense [Sec. 11 (e), Rule 119].
The proper procedure for the amendment of an Information is
b. What is trial in absentia?
governed by Sec. 14, Rule 110, of the Rules on Criminal
Sec. 14 (2), Art. III of the Constitution provides that trial may Procedure —
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
SECTION 14. Amendment. — The information or complaint may
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable
be amended, in substance or form, without leave of court at any
(Parada v. Veneracion, A.M. No.RTJ-96-1353, March 11, 1997).
time before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the
trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of His motion was denied.
the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the
Enrile raises the ff grounds:
rights of the accused . . . .
1. That before judgment of the Sandiganbayan, he is bailable
c.1. Discuss Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140311, 30
as a matter of right since prosecution has failed to show clearly
March 2011.
and conclusively that evidence of his guilt is strong.
June 5, 2014 – Ombudsman charged Enrile and others with
SC: The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the
plunder on their alleged involvement in the misuse of
accused at the trial.
appropriations under PDAF.
Bail may be granted as a matter of discretion
Enrile – Omnibus Motion w prayer that he should be allowed to
post bail if probable cause was to be found against him. Section 7, Rule 114 – Capital offenses or those punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are NOT bailable. – No
Sandiganbayan – denied the motion for bail on the ground of its
person charged with a. capital offense, etc, shall be admitted to
prematurity considering that Enrile has not yet been placed
bail WHEN evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
under the custody of law.
the criminal prosecution.
[BAIL IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING THE ACCUSED’S
General Rule – any person, before being convicted, shall be
APPEARANCE AT TRIAL]
bailable, unless the offense is punishable by death, RP, or LI,
Warrant of Arrest was issued and he voluntarily surrendered. AND evidence of guilt is strong.
Motion to Fix Bail was filed and argued that he should be
If evidence of guilt is not strong = Bail is a matter of right
allowed to post bail because:
Bail is discretionary when:
1. The Prosecution has not established that the evidence of his
guilt was strong 1. upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable
by death, RP, LI
2. That even though he was charged with plunder (punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death), the penalty to him should only 2. RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment EXCEEDING 6
be reclusion temporal because of his age and mitigating years, provided that any of the circumstances enumerated in
circumstance of voluntary surrender Sec. 5, Rule 114 is present.
3. That he was not a flight risk and that his physical condition Admission to bail in offenses punished by death, RP, LI is subject
must be seriously considered to Judicial Discretion. Bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a
matter of discretion on the part of the trial court unless there To be considered sufficient, the evidence must prove:
has been a hearing with notice to the prosecution.
1. The commission of the crime; and
Enrile’s poor health justifies his Admission to Bail. The PH’s
2. The precise degree of participation therein by the accused
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every
(Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 195011-19, September 30,
person to liberty and due process (Universal Declaration of
2013).
Human Rights). The PH is under obligation to make available to
every person under detention such remedies which safeguard RULE ON DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
their fundamental right to liberty, including the right to be
admitted to bail. How made 1. Court on its own initiative; or
2. Upon filing of the accused
Enrile’s reputation of having utter respect for the legal for demurrer of evidence: a.
processes of this country and his health condition are also taken With leave of court; or b.
into consideration, he should be granted bail. Without leave of court.
a. Definition of judgment RTC of Lanao Del Sur finding appellant Jerry Ferrer guilty of the
crime of rape committed against Mary Grace Belonio.
Judgment is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty
or not guilty of the offense charged and the imposition of the proper That in October 1995 and continuously thereafter in Wao, Lanao del
penalty and civil liability, if any (Sec. 1, Rule 120). Sur, Ferrer taking advantage of his moral ascendancy as stepfather
of 11-year-old Mary Grace and having sexual intercourse with her
b. Contents of judgment.
against her will when she is alone at home while her mother was
The judgment must state: out.
d. Civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or Trial in asentia followed and prosecution witnesses Tugade, Mary
omission unless a separate civil action has been reserved or waived Grace, her mother, and Dr. Bajaria all presented their testimonies.
(Sec. 2, Rule 120). In 1995 when Mary Grace was 11, she experienced the first of a
2. If of acquittal series of sexual abuses from Ferrer. 3-4 times a week whenever her
mother was not around from October 1995 to December 1997. She
a. Whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely finally revealed it to her Aunt Tugade in 1997.
failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and The Court rendered a 5-page decision and that based on the
evidence, the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant beyond
b. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or reasonable doubt.
omission from which the civil liability might arise did exist (Sec. 2,
Rule 120). Ferrer assails the decision as res ipsa loquitor violative of Sec. 14,
Art. VIII of the Constitution which requires that no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and one of conviction for a light offense, in the presence of the
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. accused’s counsel or representative (Sec. 6, Rule 120).
And its Statutory Expression Rule 120, Sec. 1. AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE THE JUDGMENT
Judgment, definition and form. – The adjudication by the court that GR: The judge of the court who renders the judgment.
the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the
XPNs: When:
imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. It
must be written in the official language, personally and directly 1. The judge is absent or outside the province or city – Judgment
prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly may be promulgated by the clerk of court; and
and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is
based. 2. Accused is confined or detained in another province or city –
Judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC
This Court has struck down as void, decisions of lower courts and having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention (Sec.
even of the CA whose careless disregard of the constitutional 6, Rule120).
behest exposed their cavalier attitude not only to their magisterial
responsibilities but likewise to their avowed fealty to the NOTE: Where there is not merely physical absence of the judge who
Constitution. penned the decision, but the cessation or termination of his
incumbency as such judge, there is no judgment validly entered in
Jerry Ferrer was also not properly accorded the right to counsel such a case (Ong Siu vs. Paredes, G.R. No. L-21638, July 26, 1966).
which must me more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom but one who commits himself to the cause for the WHEN THE ACCUSED IS ABSENT IN THE PROMULGATION OF
defense and acts accordingly. An accused does not cease to have JUDGMENT DESPITE NOTICE
rights just because of his conviction. The promulgation shall still be made by:
SC -> remand the case to the trial court for continuation of the trial 1. Recording such judgment in the criminal docket; and
c. What are the rules on promulgation of judgment? 2. Serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT through his counsel.
It is the official proclamation or announcement of judgment. It is If judgment is one of conviction and the accused is absent without
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any justifiable cause, the court shall order his arrest and he shall lose the
judge of the court which it was rendered, or when the judgment is remedies available in the rules against the judgment and his bail
shall be forfeited.
However, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of NOTE: In case the death penalty is imposed, the CA shall
court to avail of these remedies within 15 days from the automatically review the judgment before it becomes final.
promulgation of judgment.
2. When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied;
If such motion is granted, he may avail of these remedies within 15
3. When the accused has expressly waived in writing his right to
days from notice of such order granting the motion (Sec. 6, Rule
appeal; or
120). He must however, state the reasons for his absence at the
promulgation and prove that his absence was for a justifiable cause. 4. When the accused has applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120).
INSTANCES WHEN JUDGMENT MAY BE PROMULGATED EVEN IF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
THE ACCUSED IS NOT PRESENT
The recording of the judgment or order in the book of entries of
1. A judgment of acquittal; judgments shall constitute its entry. The record shall contain the
dispositive part of the judgment order and shall be signed by the
2. Judgment is for a light offense, in which case judgment may be
clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or order has become
promulgated in the presence of the counsel for the accused or a
final and executory (Sec. 2, Rule 36).
representative; or
FINALITY OF JUDGMENT VS. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
3. Accused fails to attend the promulgation despite due notice or if
he jumped bail or escaped from prison. Notice must be given to the The finality of the judgment is entirely distinct from its entry and the
bondsmen, warden, accused’s bailor and counsel (Sec. 6, Rule 120). delay in the latter does not affect the effectivity of the former,
which is counted from the expiration of the period to appeal
RULE ON MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT
(Munnez vs. CA, G.R. No. L-46040, July 23, 1987).
A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be
9. New Trial, Reconsideration, and Appeal
modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is
perfected (Sec. 7, Rule 120). a. May a judgment of acquittal be the subject of a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal on the part of the prosecution?
NOTE: A judgment of acquittal becomes final immediately after
promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL
(People vs. Sison, 105 Phil. 1248).
Rehearing of a case already decided but before the judgment of
WHEN DOES JUDGMENT BECOME FINAL conviction therein rendered has become final, whereby errors of
law or irregularities are expunged from the record or new evidence
A judgment becomes final:
is introduced, or both steps are taken.
1. After the lapse of time for perfecting an appeal;
NOTE: A hearing shall be conducted when the motion for new trial b. Violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial.
calls for a resolution of a question of fact (Riano, 2011).
2. If the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of
1. Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights the evidence on the merits;
of the accused have been committed during the trial; or
3. If the question is purely legal so that should the dismissal be
2. New and material evidence has been discovered which the found incorrect, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings
accused could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused; and
produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
4. If there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
probably change the judgment (Sec. 2, Rule121).
lack or excess of jurisdiction, certiorari under Rule 65 may be
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION available.
May be filed in order to correct errors of law or fact in the a.1. Discuss Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, 12
judgment. It does not require any further proceeding. September 1986.
GROUNDS August 21, 1983 – Ninoy Aquino was shot etc etc.
1. Errors of law in the judgment which requires no further The President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to
proceedings; or 2. Errors of fact in the judgment which requires no investigate the treacherous assassination of the former senator. The
further proceedings (Sec. 3, Rule121). Board had 125 hearing days.
NOTE: The principle underlying this rule is to afford the trial court The Minority report was sent to the President 1 day ahead of the
the opportunity to correct its own mistakes and to avoid Majority Report. Both the reports rejected the military version of
unnecessary appeals from being taken. what happened and found that only the soldiers in the staircase
with Aquino could have possibly shot him and not Galman.
Q: MAY THE PROSECUTION APPEAL A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL?
Minority Report – only 7 out of the 26 accused should be charged. 6
A: GR: NO. The accused would be subjected to double jeopardy.
were on the service stairs with Aquino and General Luther Custodio
XPNs: who was mainly responsible for the criminal plot.
1. If the dismissal is made upon motion or with the express consent Majority Report – all 26 should be charged for the double murder of
of the accused; Rolando Galman and Ninoy Aquino
Appeals shall be taken before the: 2. The court may also, in its discretion, allow the appellant to
withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is filed before
1. RTC, in cases decided by the MTC, MTCC, MeTC, or MCTC; 2. CA the rendition of the judgment in the case on appeal (Sec. 12, Rule
or to the SC in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by 122).
the RTC; 3. SC, in cases decided by the CA (Sec. 2, Rule122); 4. SC, in
cases decided by CTA en banc (Sec. 1 Rule 116 A.M. No. 05-11-07-
CTA); 5. SC, in cases decided by Sandiganbayan (Sec. 1 Rule 45).