Remedial Crimpro

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RECITS, NOTES, CASES
PRELIMINARY 1. What is jurisdiction over subject

matter?
CONSIDERATIONS
Jurisdiction over subject matter is meant the nature of the
Criminal Procedure – is the method prescribed by law cause of action and of the relief sought, and this is
for the apprehension of persons accused of any criminal conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the
offense, and for their punishment, in case of conviction.
court, and is to be sought for in the general nature of its
It talks about apprehension, investigation, trial, and power, or in the authority specially conferred. (Herrera v.
judgement of a person charged with a criminal offense. Barreto, G.R. No. 8692 [1913])
Jurisdiction over subject matter means that the power to
Criminal Procedure vs. Criminal Law
hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines
Substantive – it defines Remedial – it provides for its powers. (Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. 48754 [1941])
crimes, treats of their the method by which a
nature, and provides for person accused of crime is 2. How is jurisdiction over the subject
their punishment. It arrested, tried and matter conferred? How is it
declares what acts are punished. It provides how determined?
punishable. the act is to be punished.
Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by law.
Laws means the constitution and statutes enacted by the
Congress. Rules of procedure yield to substantive matter.
Interpretation: Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the ROC:
The conferment must be clear. Jurisdiction cannot be
Section 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be presumed. The assumption of jurisdiction cannot be
liberally construed in order to promote their objective justified by convenience or assumed justice or propriety.
of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition (De Jesus v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-26816 [1967])
of every action and proceeding.
Jurisdiction over criminal case is determined by the
The rules governing criminal procedure ought to be allegations of the complaint or information. If the facts set
constructed liberally enough to protect the substantial out the complaint or information are sufficient to show
rights of the accused. that the court has jurisdiction, then it has jurisdiction.
Otherwise, it has no jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction – is the power of the court to hear, try and
decide a case. 3. Suppose that Mr Manco stole a bag
and its contents worth 3,000,000.00.
Requisites: In criminal cases, the court must have
The case was filed to the RTC of
jurisdiction:
Malolos. Later on it was found out that
1. Over the subject matter; the value that was stolen was only
2. Over the territory; and worth 500,000.00. The judge
3. Over the person of the Accused sentenced him with 4 years of prision
correccional. Was the ruling of the
Jurisdiction is prescribed by law. RTC valid?
Once jurisdiction is acquired, it stays within the same Yes. The ruling of the RTC is valid. Jurisdiction is not
until the case has been terminated. This called the doctrine determined by the penalty actually imposed after trial but
of “Adherence to Jurisdiction” by the penalty imposable by law on the offense.
If the court acts without jurisdiction, the judgment is void. In criminal prosecutions, jurisdiction of the court is not
determined by what may be meted out to the offender
If the court acts in excess of jurisdiction, the judgment is after trial, or even by the result of the evidence that would
wrong and must be reversed upon error. be presented during the trial, but by the extent of the
penalty which the law imposes, together with other legal
If the court exercised jurisdiction irregularly, then it is obligations, on the basis of the facts as recited in the
irregular and must be corrected by motion. complaint or information constitutive of the offense
charged, for once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in
1| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

Compiled by Edgar Manco.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
which the information is filed, it is there retained a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
regardless of whether the evidence proves a lesser offense otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title
than that charged in the information. (People vs. Buissan, VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more
105 SCRA 547, No. 54419 [1981]) of the accused are officials occupying the following positions
in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim
4. Suppose that Mr Manco stole a bag capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
with its contents worth 500,000. The
"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying
case instead was filed to the MTCC of the positions of regional director and higher,
Malolos. Later on, it was found out otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of
that the value of the contents was the Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
3,000,000.00. The MTCC convicted including:
him of prision mayor on its maximum
penalty. Was the ruling of MTCC "(a) Provincial governors, vice-
valid? governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers and
No. It is not valid. The MTCC is only allowed to impose other provincial department heads;
the penalty of imprisonment of up to 6 years. Hence, the
MTCC acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it "(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members
convicted the accused with a penalty beyond its of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
jurisdiction. treasurers, assessors engineers and
other city department heads;
5. Suppose that Mr Ang is a
"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service
Congressman, falling under SG 30. occupying the position of consul and
What court has jurisdiction over Mr higher;
Ang?
"(d) Philippine army and air force
It depends. Under the law, Mr Ang shall be tried in colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank;
Sandiganbayan if the offense charged against him was a
violation of R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, or Chapter II, Section "(e) Officers of the Philippine National
2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code whether Police while occupying the position of
in permanent, acting, or interim capacity, at the time of provincial director and those holding
the commission of the offense. It does not matter whether the rank of senior superintendent or
Mr Ang is the principal, accomplice or an accessory since higher;
he and his co-accused (if there’s any) would be jointly
"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and
tried before the Sandiganbayan. (Sec. 4 (a), P.D. 1606 as their assistants, and officials and
amended by R.A. 8249) prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
Likewise, he shall be tried in the very same court if he
committed offenses or felonies whether simple or "(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or
complex if the same was committed in relation to their managers of government-owned or -
office. (Sec. 4 (b), P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249) controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions
or foundations;
However, he will be tried in the MTC or in the RTC if he
committed offenses or felonies whether simple or "(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof
complex but the same was not committed in relation to classified as Grade'27'and up under the
their office. Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989;
6. Suppose that Mr Ang, a sheriff with a
"(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to
salary grade of 24, extorted money the provisions of the Constitution;
and did not act according to the writ of
demolition. An amount valued at "(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
100,000.00 was collected by Mr Ang. Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution; and
What court should the case be filed?
"(5) All other national and local officials
The case should be filed in the in regular courts. Under classified as Grade'27'and higher under the
Section 4 of PD 1606 as amended by RA8249 the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
following fall under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. 1989.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
"b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed which vests on Courts of First Instance, Circuit Criminal
with other crimes committed by the public officials and Courts, and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts
employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in concurrent exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases
relation to their office. involving violations of said Act.
"c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in That Congress indeed did not intend to repeal these special
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, laws vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Regional Trial
issued in 1986. Courts over certain cases is clearly evident from the
exception provided for in the opening sentence of Section 32
of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691. These special
The position of Mr Ang was not included in those
laws are not, therefore, covered by the repealing clause
provided by PD 1606. Hence Mr Ang should be tried in (Section 6) of RA No. 7691.
the regular courts.
Neither can it be successfully argued that Section 39 of RA.
a. How about if the offense was No. 6425, as amended by P.D. No. 44, is no longer operative
because Section 44 of B.P. Big. 129 abolished the Courts of
bribery?
First Instance, Circuit Criminal Courts, and Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Courts. While, indeed, Section 44
Since Mr Ang committed bribery, the penalty for the provides that these courts were to be "deemed automatically
offense is prision mayor in its medium to maximum abolished" upon the declaration by the President that the
periods, and that his position do not fall under those which reorganization provided in B.P. Blg. 129 had been
are triable under the Sandiganbayan, the case should be completed, this Court should not lose sight of the fact that
filed in the RTC. the Regional Trial Courts merely replaced the Courts of
First Instance as clearly borne out by the last two sentences
of Section 44, to wit:
b. How about if the offense was
malversation? Consequently, it is not accurate to state that the "abolition"
of the Courts of First Instance carried with it the abolition
Since Mr Ang committed malversation, and being able to of their exclusive original jurisdiction in drug cases vested
collect 100,000.00, the penalty for the offense is by Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by P. D. No. 44.
If that were so, then so must it be with respect to Article 360
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
of the Revised Penal Code and Section 57 of the Decree on
perpetua, and that his position do not fall under those Intellectual Property. On the contrary, in the resolution of
which are triable under the Sandiganbayan, the case 19 June 1996 in Caro v. Court of Appeals and in the
should be filed in the RTC. resolution of 26 February 1997 in Villalon v. Baldado, this
Court expressly ruled that Regional Trial Courts have the
exclusive original jurisdiction over libel cases pursuant to
Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.
7. Leila de Lima, while DOJ secretary, Hence, given the caption of the information filed against
was charged with violation of the her, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over her case.
Dangerous Drugs Act. The Therefore it is the RTC who has exclusive jurisdiction
information was filed in the RTC of over drug cases.
Muntinlupa and avers that she did
acts of bribery to the inmates of the
NBP to support her senatorial
candidacy. She avers that the 8. Suppose that Mr Ang’s girlfriend
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over published pictures which are
her case. Is she correct? offensive and defamatory. On what
court has jurisdiction over the case?
No. She is not correct. It was held in Morales vs. Court of
appeals that: It is the RTC who has jurisdiction over civil and criminal
aspects of libel.
The aforementioned exception refers not only to Section 20
of B.P. Blg. 129 providing for the jurisdiction of Regional Article 360. Persons responsible. - Any person who shall
Trial Courts in criminal cases, but also to other laws which publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any
specifically lodge in Regional Trial Courts exclusive defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
jurisdiction over specific criminal cases, e. g., (a) Article responsible for the same.
360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. Nos.
1289 and 4363 on written defamation or libel; (b) Decree on The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or
Intellectual Property (P. D. No. 49, as amended), which business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
vests upon Courts of First Instance exclusive jurisdiction publication, shall be responsible for the defamations
over the cases therein mentioned regardless of the imposable contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author
penalty; and (c) more appropriately for the case at bar, thereof.
Section 39 of RA No. 6425, as amended by P.D. No. 44,

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written 10. Suppose that Mr Manco committed
defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance theft in Malolos. Where would you file
(now RTC) of the province or city where the libelous article the information?
is printed and first published or where any of the offended
parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the The information should be filed in the MTCC of Malolos,
offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended
parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of if the value of the stolen goods is less than 1,200,000.00,
Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the or in the RTC of Malolos, if the value of the stolen goods
action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City is more than 1,200,000.00.
of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous
article is printed and first published, and in case such public
officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action
a. Suppose that Mr Manco averred
shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province during hearing that the crime
or city where he held office at the time of the commission of was commited in QC and
the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first
published and in case one of the offended parties is a private
moved to dismiss the case. The
individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First motion was granted by the
Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at court. Is the granting of the
the time of the commission of the offense or where the
libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided,
motion valid?
further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court
where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, No. The granting of the motion is not valid. The
furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or jurisdiction of the court is determined on the material
civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire allegations of the information filed to the court and not to
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided,
finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of
the allegations of the accused.
written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which
have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this b. Suppose that the snatching
law. happened along McArthur
highway and the bus passed
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written
defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be along Malolos and Calumpit.
conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or Which court has jurisdiction?
city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the
province where such action may be instituted in accordance
with the provisions of this article.
If the value of the stolen goods are less than
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the 1,200,000.00, then both the MTC of Calumpit and the
imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio
shall be brought except at the instance of and upon MTCC of Malolos has jurisdiction over the case. Since
complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (Article 360, the event happened on a bus, the place of its departure,
RPC as amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955, destination as well as towns that it went through has
R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965). jurisdiction over the case.
However, if the value of the stolen goods exist

1,200,000.00, then it is triable in the RTC of Malolos
9. Distinguish Original jurisdiction from since both Malolos and Calumpit are covered under the
exclusive, appellate, and concurring territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Malolos.
jurisdiction.
c. Suppose that he committed
Original jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a robbery in a bank or by a band,
case for the first time. what court has jurisdiction?
Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to It is the RTC in the locality where the robbery was
review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of committed.
lower courts.
There is exclusive jurisdiction when one court has the

power to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other
courts.
There is concurrent jurisdiction where two or more

courts from different systems simultaneously have
jurisdiction over a specific case.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
d. Suppose that instead of 5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations, defined in
committing robbery, he issued Title One of Book Two of this Code.
a check worth 3,000,000.00 in
Malolos. Upon presentment in 2. In cases of Piracy. Piracy is a crime against
QC, the check bounced. What humanity (hostes humani generis). It is not
court has jurisdiction? committed against any state but against all
mankind. It may be punished in any tribunal of
Both the MeTC of QC and MTCC of Malolos has any country where the offender may be found into
jurisdiction. which he may be carried.
3. Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft,
Violation on Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22), as per AM or other public or private vehicle while in the
No. 00-11-01-SC, are triable under the Municipal Trial course of its trip, the criminal action shall be
Courts and shall be governed by the Rules of Summary instituted and tried in the court of any
Procedure in Criminal Cases. municipality or territory where such train, aircraft
or other vehicle passed during such its trip,
BP 22 is a transitory crime. Hence, being such, the courts including the place of its departure and
in the localities where the essential elements of the crime arrival.(Rule 110, Section 15)
were committed (that is, issuance of check and 4. Where an offense is committed on board a vessel
presentment) have jurisdiction over the offense. in the course of its voyage, the criminal action
shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first
11. How do you determine the territorial port of entry or of any municipality or territory
jurisdiction of the court? where the vessel passed during such voyage,
subject to the generally accepted principles of
The territorial jurisdiction of a court is determined by the international law.(Rule 110, Section 15)
material allegations in the complaint or information. 5. In cases where the SC, in the interest of truth and
impartial justice, transfers the place of trial from
12. What are the exceptions on territorial one place to another. The courts can, by
jurisdiction? appropriate means, do all things necessary to
preserve and maintain every quality needful to
The following are the exceptions on territorial make the judiciary an effective institution of
jurisdiction: Government. They have, therefore, inherent
power to preserve their integrity, maintain their
1. Where the offense was committed under the dignity and to insure effectiveness in the
exceptional circumstances provided by Art. 2 of administration of justice. (Borromeo v. Mariano)
the RPC.
13. Is jurisdiction same from venue? If
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as not, distinguish.
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be No. Jurisdiction is different from venue. Venue is the
enforced not only within the Philippine
place of trial. It deals with the locality. Jurisdiction on the
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its other hand treats of the power of the court to decide the
jurisdiction, against those who: case on the merits (Crisostomo v. Echiverri).
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine Venue is procedural while jurisdiction is substantive.
ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency In civil cases, venue can be waived and can be a subject
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and of an agreement. In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional.
securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands; 14. How do you acquire jurisdiction over
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the the person?
introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding number; Jurisdiction over the person can be acquired on the
following modes:
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
1. Involuntary apprehension. A person can be
arrested:
a. By virtue of a warrant of arrest; or

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
b. Without a warrant pursuant to Rule 113, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal
Section 5. Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by
the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
— A peace officer or a private person may, imprisonment.
without a warrant, arrest a person:
Sine Mr Manco is not under the custody of the law, the
(a) When, in his presence, the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually
court cannot grant the application for bail.
committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; a. Suppose that he went to the
court. Same question.
(b) When an offense has just been
committed, and he has probable cause Still No. Even if Mr Manco went to the court, he is still
to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the not under the custody of law. Hence the court cannot grant
person to be arrested has committed it; the application for bail.
and
16. Can the court dismiss the case having
(c) When the person to be arrested is a acquired jurisdiction over the territory
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is and subject matter but without the
serving final judgment or is person, can it be dismissed?
temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being Yes. Jurisdiction over the person is an essential requisite
transferred from one confinement to
another. for criminal jurisdiction. Without it, the accused may
move for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) of jurisdiction.
above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police 17. Can jurisdiction be waived?
station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
No. The "objection on jurisdictional grounds which is not
waived even if not alleged in a motion to dismiss or the
2. By voluntary submission to the court, either by: answer is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Lack
a. Voluntary surrender; or of jurisdiction over the subject matter can always be
b. Motions seeking affirmative relief. raised anytime, even for the first time on appeal, since
jurisdictional issues cannot be waived subject, however,
Exceptions to the rule on voluntary submission: to the principle of estoppel by laches." (Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium, Volume One, Tenth Edition.
1. Making a special appearance to the court to
Hereinafter as Regalado)
question the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the accused and a motion to quash was
filed to that court; RULE 110
2. Motion to quash the warrant of arrest. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
15. Mr Manco has a warrant. His mom 1. How do you institute criminal actions?
went to the RTC of Malolos and asked
for bail and filed an application for Criminal actions are instituted as provided by Rule 110,
bail. Can the court grant the Section 1.
application for bail? Why?
Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal
No. An application for bail may only be done when one is actions shall be instituted as follows:
under the custody of law. Section 4 of Rule 113 states
that: (a) For offenses where a preliminary
investigation is required pursuant to section
Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. — 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with the
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as proper officer for the purpose of conducting
the requisite preliminary investigation.
a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or
released on recognize as prescribed by law or
this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the (b) For all other offenses, by filing the
complaint or information directly with the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with 6. CASE: PEOPLE v. COQUIA
the office of the prosecutor. In Manila and
other chartered cities, the complaint shall be People v. Coquia
filed with the office of the prosecutor unless G.R. No. L-16456; EN BANC; June 29, 1963
otherwise provided in their charters.
J. Regala
2. When is preliminary investigation FACTS: From an incident which occurred on July 1, 1957, one
required? David Naval filed with the Municipal Court of Naga a
complaint for grave oral defamation against Coquia. Thereafter
Preliminary investigation is required when the crime and by virtue of that complaint, the same court ordered her
committed has penalty of at least 4 years 2 months and 1 arrest. On July 22, 1957, however, the same court forwarded the
day. records of the case to the CFI of Camarines Sur for the
continuance of the proceedings since the accused had
renounced her right to the second stage of preliminary
3. What is a complaint? investigation. On August 2, 1957, the CFI endorsed the case to
the Office of the City Attorney for reinformation. For some
Section 3. Complaint defined. — A complaint is a sworn explained reasons, the case was left completely unacted on by
written statement charging a person with an offense, the City Fiscal's office until January 26, 1959 when the City
subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or Fiscal filed with the CFI of Camarines Sur the corresponding
other public officer charged with the enforcement of the information for grave oral defamation against Coquia.
law violated.
The defense filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
4. What is an information? prescription which was opposed by the prosecution which was
granted by the lower court. A motion for reconsideration
Section 4. Information defined. — An information is an therefor having been denied, the City Attorney, represented by
accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, the Solicitor General's Office, appealed.
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
ISSUE: Did the prescription settled in which would bar the
5. Supposing that Mr Manco shot Mr government from prosecuting the accused?
Manalastas but Mr Manalastas
RULING: Yes. The Solicitor General concedes that the delay
managed to survive. How are you in the filing of the information for this case had been unduly
going to initiate a frustrated homicide long. The concession extends to an admission that prescription
case? had indeed set in. Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code:
Since the crime is frustrated homicide, the penalty would ART. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. —
be prision mayor. So I will file a case against Mr Manco The period of prescription shall commence to run from
to the Prosecutor for a preliminary investigation. the day on which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and
a. Suppose that instead of shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information, and shall commence to run again when
shooting Mr Manalastas, Mr such proceedings terminate without the accused being
Manco uttered grave threats convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
against the former. What any reason not imputable to him.
mode?
The term of prescription shall not run when the
Since the crime of grave threats was committed without offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
any monetary condition, the penalty is arresto mayor and
In the case of Del Rosario, the Court declared that —
a fine of 500.00. I could file the complaint directly to the
court or go to the prosecutor to file the appropriate Under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, light
information. offenses prescribe in two months. Article 91 of the
same Code provides that "the period of prescription
b. Suppose that Mr Castillo shall commence to run from the day on which the
committed grave coercion crime was discovered by the offended party, the
against Mr Manco. What mode? authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by
the filing of the complaint or information, and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings
Since the crime of grave coercion was committed without
terminate without the accused being convicted or
any relation to his religious beliefs, the penalty is arresto acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason
mayor and a fine of 500.00. I could file the complaint not imputable to him." The complaint or information
directly to the court or go to the prosecutor to file the referred to in the above provisions which interrupts the
appropriate information. running of the prescriptive period, as ruled in the case

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
of People v. Tayco (73 Phil. 509), is that which is filed evident and malicious purpose of insulting, dishonoring,
in the proper court and not the denuncia or accusation humiliating and bringing into contempt the good name and
lodged by the offended party in the Fiscal's Office . . . reputation' of said complainant. On January 7, 1956, Miss Meris
. lodged the charge of libel with the provincial fiscal of
Pangasinan, who assigned it to an assistant provincial fiscal,
The records of this case clearly show that no formal complaint who filed on February 22, 1956 with the Justice of the Peace
or information as contemplated by the aforementioned Article Court of Pozorrubioa complaint for libel against Olarte that the
91 of the Penal Code was ever filed therein within the defendant waived her right to a preliminary investigation,
reglementary period. As a matter of fact, the said formal whereupon the justice of the peace court forwarded the case to
complaint or information was filed only after the lapse of the CFI of Pangasinan, in which the corresponding information
more than one year. Considering that under the Code, the was filed on July 3, 1956. The defendant moved to quash the
prescriptive period for grave oral defamation is six months, the information upon the ground of prescription of the offense and
only conclusion deducible is that the same has prescribed. such motion was granted and the case was dismissed with costs
de oficio. The Court initially ruled that said crime has not been
Appeal dismissed. extinguished by prescription and thus was remanded to the
lower court.
7. Suppose that the place where the
happening of the crime was not a city, The lower court set the case for hearing on the merits and the
prosecution started presenting its evidence. However, on
can you file the complaint to the August 26, 1963, the defense presented a motion to quash the
fiscal? information, supplemented by another motion of September 5,
1963, on the ground of prescription of the offense charged in
Yes. There is nothing under the rules which prohibits the the information. The prosecution opposed said motions and
aggrieved party to file the complaint to the office of the after due hearing, the lower court issued the order sustaining the
defense's new motion to quash upon the ground of prescription.
prosecutor. Hence, it was appealed. The defendant moved to dismiss the
appeal but the same, as well with its reconsideration, was
What is provided in the rules is that in Manila and other denied.
chartered cities, it is required that the complaint shall be
filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise ISSUE: Did the prescription settled in which would bar the
provided in their charters. government from prosecuting the accused?
8. Mr. Manco slapped you in Malolos, RULING: No. Analysis of the precedents on the issue of
prescription discloses that there are two lines of decisions
where would you file the case? following differing criteria in determining whether prescription
of crimes has been interrupted. One line of precedents holds that
I would file the case to the City Prosecutor’s office in the filing of the complaint with the justice of the peace (or
Malolos City. Although the offense committed was slight municipal judge) does interrupt the course of the prescriptive
physical injuries, Section 1 of Rule 110 states that in term: People vs. Olarte L-13027, June 30, 1960 and cases cited
chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed in the office therein; People vs. Uba, L-13106, October 16, 1959; People vs.
Aquino, 68 Phil. 588, 590. Another series of decisions declares
of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided. that to produce interruption the complaint or information must
have been filed in the proper court that has jurisdiction to try
9. What is the last part of Rule 110, the case on its merits: People vs. Del Rosario, L-15140,
Section 1? December 29, 1960; People vs. Coquia, L-15456, June 29,
1963.
The last part of Rule 110 states that:
In view of this diversity of precedents, and in order to provide
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the guidance for Bench and Bar, this Court has reexamined the
running period of prescription of the offense charged question and, after mature consideration, has arrived at the
conclusion that the true doctrine is, and should be, the one
unless otherwise provided in special laws.
established by the decisions holding that the filing of the
complaint in the Municipal Court, even if it be merely for
10. People v. Olarte purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, should,
and does, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal
People v. Olarte responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or
GR No. L-22465; EN BANC; February 28, 1967 information is filed can not try the case on its merits.
J. J.B.L. Reyes
And it is no argument that Article 91 also expresses that the
FACTS: Defendant Ascension P. Olarte is charged with libel. interrupted prescription " shall commence to run again when
It is alleged in the information that on or about the 24th day of such proceedings terminate without the accused being
February 1954 and subsequently thereafter said defendant had convicted or acquitted", thereby indicating that the court in
written certain letters which were libellous to Miss Meris, 'with which the complaint or information is filed must have power to

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
acquit or convict the accused. Precisely, the trial on the merits considered is the nature of the offense charged in the
usually terminates in conviction or acquittal, not otherwise. But information which is grave oral defamation, not the crime
it is in the court conducting a preliminary investigation where committed by the accused, as said crime was found by the Court
the proceedings may terminate without conviction or acquittal, to constitute only simple slander". Since the prescription for
if the court should discharge the accused because no prima facie grave oral defamation is six months, the crime has not yet
case has been shown. prescribed when it the information was filed. Moreover, the
Solicitor General argues that the filing of the complaint in the
Case remanded to lower court with costs against appellee. Fiscal's office interrupts the period of prescription.
11. Why the court in Olarte did abandoned ISSUES:

the Coquia doctrine? 1. Did the crime of simple slander found by the CA
prescribed already?
The Court explained it as follows 2. Did the filing of a complaint in the Fiscal's office
interrupted the prescription of the offense?
Several reasons buttress this conclusion: first, the text of
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, in declaring that the RULING:
period of prescription "shall be interrupted by the filing of 1. Yes. An accused cannot be convicted for the lesser
the complaint or information" without distinguishing offense necessarily included in the crime charged if at
whether the complaint is filed in the court for preliminary
the time of the filing of the information, the lesser
examination or investigation merely, or for action on the offense has already prescribed. Otherwise, according
merits. Second, even if the court where the complaint or to the Court, would be to sanction a circumvention of
information is filed may only proceed to investigate the the law on prescription by the simple expedient of
case, its actuations already represent the initial step of the accusing the defendant of the graver offense.
proceedings against the offender. Third, it is unjust to 2. Yes. Prescription is interrupted with the filing of the
deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication case even if the court is without jurisdiction, even if it
on account of delays that are not under his control. All that be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or
the victim of the offense may do on his part to initiate the investigation. Thus, the filing of the complaint in the
prosecution is to file the requisite complaint. (People v.
Fiscal's office interrupts the period of prescription.
Olarte)
Accused acquitted.
12. Francisco v. CA
13. Assuming that in the Francisco case,
Francisco v. CA it was filed within 3 months. Can the
G.R. No. L-45674; May 30, 1983; Second Division
J. de Castro
court convict the accused for simple
slander?
No. The court cannot convict the accused for simple

FACTS: On February 6, 1966, Dr. Angeles, then the Director
of Morong Emergency Hospital, filed a case for intriguing slander for the crime had already prescribed after two
against honor allegedly committed on December 26, 1965 by months.
Dr. Francisco and Atty. Bernardino. On May 3, 1966, the
Provincial Fiscal filed an information against Francisco and 14. Comparative analysis of Coquia,
Bernardino with the CFI of Rizal of the crime of grave oral Olarte, and Francisco doctrines.
defamation. Later, the information was amended by adding
statements allegedly uttered by the two accused constituting the Coquia Francisco
crime of slander. The trial court convicted Francisco and Olarte Doctrine
Doctrine Doctrine
Bernardino of the crime of grave oral defamation. Upon appeal, In RPC Cases, In RPC Cases, In RPC Cases,
the trial court's decision was modified finding the accused prescription prescription Prescription is
guilty of simple slander. Francisco, argues that since the CA would only be would be interrupted with
had found that the offense committed was the lesser offense of interrupted once interrupted upon the filing of the
simple slander, which under Art. 90 of the RPC, prescribes in the complaint or the filing of the case even if the
two months, the CA should have dismissed the case. Further, information is complaint to the court is without
Francisco claims that the CA should have acquitted him on the filed before a prosecutor or by jurisdiction, even
ground that the said crime had already prescribed as per court. the filing of a if it be merely for
evidence presented, the alleged defamatory remarks were complaint or purposes of
information preliminary
committed on December 26, 1965, while the information
directly to the examination or
charged against him was filed more than four months later. The
court. investigation.
Solicitor General, however, contends that "for the purpose of
determining the proper prescriptive period, what should be
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
15. Zaldivia v. Reyes Jr. This interpretation is in consonance with the afore-quoted Act
No. 3326 which says that the period of prescription shall be
Zaldivia v. Reyes Jr. suspended "when proceedings are instituted against the guilty
EN BANC; G.R. No. 102342; July 3, 1992 party." The proceedings referred to in Section 2 thereof are
"judicial proceedings," contrary to the submission of the
J. Cruz
Solicitor General that they include administrative proceedings.
His contention is that we must not distinguish as the law does
FACTS: A complaint for quarrying for commercial purposes
not distinguish. As a matter of fact, it does.
without a mayor’s permit, committed on May 11, 1990 was
filed before the fiscal’s office constituting an offense in The complaint should have been filed within a reasonable time
violation of a municipal ordinance on May 30, 1990. The fiscal before the court. It is only then that the running of the
filed it on October 2, 1990. The defendant’s counsel filed a prescriptive period is interrupted.
motion to quash on ground that the action to file the complaint
has prescribed. The motion was denied. The RTC affirmed the At any rate if there be a conflict between the Rule on Summary
denial. The fiscal contends that the filing of the complaint Procedure and Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
before his office already interrupts the prescription period. Procedure, the former should prevail as the special law. And if
there be a conflict between Act. No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the
ISSUE: Does the filing of information/complaint before the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter must again yield
fiscal office constituting a violation against an ordinance because this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, is
interrupts prescription? not allowed to "diminish, increase or modify substantive rights"
under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution.
RULING: No. The mere filing of complaint to the fiscal’s office
Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right.
does not interrupt the running of prescription on offenses
punishable by a special law. Petition granted.
As it is clearly provided in the Rule on Summary Procedure that  N.B. it is Act 3326 is the governing law on prescription of
among the offenses it covers are violations of municipal or city crimes punishable by a special law which states that
ordinances, it should follow that the charge against the prescription is only interrupted upon judicial proceeding.
petitioner, which is for violation of a municipal ordinance of
Rodriguez, is governed by that rule and not Section 1 of Rule 16. Llenes v. Dicdican
110.
Llenes v. Dicdican
Where paragraph (b) of the section does speak of "offenses G.R. No. 122274; July 31, 1996; En Banc
falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts and J. Davide Jr.
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts," the obvious reference is to
Section 32(2) of B.P. No. 129, vesting in such courts: FACTS: Vivian Guinet with filed with the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas a complaint for grave oral
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
defamation against Susan Llenes, the Education Supervisor of
with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months,
DECS Regional Office of Cebu. The investigating officer, in
or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine
his resolution, recommended that the case be endorsed to the
and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or
Office of the City Prosecutor for the filling of the necessary
other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
information against the petitioner. The City Prosecutor filed
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature,
with the MTC an information for grave oral defamation against
value, or amount thereof; Provided, however, That in offenses
the petitioner. The latter filed a motion to quash the information
involving damage to property through criminal negligence they
on the ground that the criminal action or liability has been
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable
extinguished. She contended that the offense already prescribed
fine does not exceed twenty thousand pesos.
when the information was filed 186 days or 6 months and 6 days
These offenses are not covered by the Rule on Summary from the alleged commission thereof. The Motion to Quash was
Procedure. denied by the MTC. The RTC Judge Dicdican affirmed the
decision of the latter.
Under Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, "the
complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without ISSUE: Did the offense of grave oral defamation already
need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary prescribed?
investigation." Both parties agree that this provision does not
prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary RULING: No. The basic substantive laws on prescription of
investigation if he wants to. However, the case shall be deemed offense are Article 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code for
commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the offenses punished thereunder, and Act No. 3326, as amended,
prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. for those penalized by special laws. Under Article 90 of the
This means that the running of the prescriptive period shall be Revised Penal Code, the crime of grave oral defamation
halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on prescribes in 6 months. In the instant case, the alleged
any date before that. defamatory words were directly uttered in the presence of the

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
offended party on 23 September 1993. Hence, the prescriptive FACTS: On June 30, 2004 the Office of the Ombudsman filed
period for the offense started to run on that date. in Sandiganbayan two informations against Herminio Disini,
which are corruption of public officials, Art 212 in rel. to Art
In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, this Court not only reiterated 210 (RPC) and violation of RA 3019. The information was
Olarte of 1967 but also broadened its scope by holding that the amended, adding conspiracy with former Pres. Marcos and
filing of the complaint in the fiscal's office for preliminary taking advantage of close personal relation, intimacy and free
investigation also suspends the running of the prescriptive access. On Aug. 2, Disini moved to quash on the ground that
period. The rule, however, is entirely different under Act No. criminal actions has been extinguished by prescription and
3326, as amended, whose Section 2 explicitly provides that the information do not conform to the prescribed form. On Sept.
period of prescription shall be interrupted by the institution of 16, Disini voluntarily submitted himself for arraignment and
judicial proceedings. plead of not guilty to obtain the Sandiganbayan’s favorable
In Zaldivia vs. Reyes, it was held that the proceedings referred action on his Motion for permission to travel abroad. The
to in said Section 2 are "judicial proceedings," which means the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion on January 17, 2005.
filing of the complaint or information with the proper court. Likewise the reconsideration was denied. Disini challenged the
Zaldivia, however, provides no safe refuge to the petitioner for jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan alleging prescription.
in the first place, it involved a violation of an ordinance, which
is covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. By its express ISSUE: Did the cases filed against him had already prescribed?
mandate, Section 1, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court does not
apply to cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. RULING: NO. The offenses charged in the
Second, it is the filing in the proper court of the complaint or informations have not yet prescribed. The crime of corruption
information which suspends the running of the period of of public officials charged in Criminal Case No. 28001 is
prescription. punished by Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code with the"
same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted."
Under Section 15 of Article XI of the Constitution, Conformably with Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the
period of prescription for this specie of corruption of public
The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the officials charged against Disini is 15 years. Disini was charged
following powers, function and duties: with a violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019. By express
1. Investigate and prosecute on its own or on provision of Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, the
complaint by any person, any act or omission offenses committed under R.A. No. 3019 shall prescribe in 15
of any public officer or employee, office or years.
agency, when such act or omission appears to
be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It For crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code, Article 91
has primary jurisdiction over cases thereof provides that prescription starts to run from the day on
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may authorities, or their agents. As to offenses punishable by R.A.
No. 3019, Section 2 of R.A. No. 3326 states:
take over, at any stage from any investigatory
agency of the Government, the investigation
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of
of such cases.
the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same
Needless to state, these broad constitutional and statutory be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and
provisions vest upon the Ombudsman and his Deputies the the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation
power to initiate or conduct preliminary investigations in and punishment.
criminal cases filed against public officers or employees,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run
Accordingly, the filing of the private respondent's complaint for again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
grave oral defamation against the petitioner with the constituting double jeopardy.
Ombudsman-Visayas tolled the running of the period of
prescription of the said offense. Since the complaint was filed Corollary the prescriptive period for the crime which is the
on 13 October 1993, or barely twenty days from the subject herein, commenced from the date of its discovery in
commission of the crime charged, the filing then of the 1992 after the Committee made an exhaustive investigation.
information on 28 March 1994 was very well within the six- When the complaint was filed in 1997, only five years have
month prescriptive period. elapsed, and, hence, prescription has not yet set in. The rationale
for this was succinctly discussed in the 1999 Presidential Ad
Petition dismissed. Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, that "it was
well-high impossible for the State, the aggrieved party, to have
17. Disini v. Sandiganbayan
known these crimes committed prior to the 1986 EDSA
Revolution, because of the alleged connivance and conspiracy
Disini v. Sandiganbayan
among involved public officials and the beneficiaries of the
G.R. Nos. 169823-24; September 11, 2013; First Division
loans." In yet another pronouncement, in the 2001 Presidential
J. Bersamin
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto (1) the period of prescription for the offense
(G.R. No. 130817), the Court held that during the Marcos charged;
regime, no person would have dared to question the legality of (2) the time when the period of prescription starts to
these transactions. run; and
(3) the time when the prescriptive period is
In Ingco v. Sandiganbayan and Sanrio Company Limited v.
Lim, which involved violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt interrupted.
Practices Act(R.A. No. 3019) and the Intellectual Property
Code (R.A. No. 8293),which are both special laws, the Court 19. Jadewell Parking v. Lidua Sr.
ruled that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution
of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the Jadewell Parking Sys. Corp. v. Lidua Sr.
accused. G.R. No 169588; October 7, 2013; Third Division
J. Leonen
In the more recent case of Securities and Exchange Commission
v. Interport Resources Corporation, the Court ruled that the FACTS: Jadewell, pursuant to a city ordinance, was authorized
nature and purpose of the investigation conducted by the to render any motor vehicle immobilized by placing its wheels
Securities and Exchange Commission on violations of the in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked. Balajadia and the
Revised Securities Act, another special law, is equivalent to the other respondents dismantled, took and carried away the clamps
preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal attached to the wheel of the vehicles, which took place on May
cases, and thus effectively interrupts the prescriptive period. 7, 2003. Jadewell filed a complaint for robbery against the
respondents with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May
The following disquisition in the Interport Resources case states 23,2003. However, the Informations were filed with the MTC
that while it may be observed that the term "judicial on October 2, 2003. Balajadia filed a motion to quash.
proceedings" in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 appears before"
investigation and punishment" in the old law, with the The MTC granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case
subsequent change in set-up whereby the investigation of the and Jadewell’s subsequent motion for reconsideration.
charge for purposes of prosecution has become the exclusive Jadewell’s petition for certiorari with RTC was denied. Their
function of the executive branch, the term "proceedings" should motion for reconsideration was also denied.
now be understood either executive or judicial in character:
executive when it involves the investigation phase and judicial Jadewell argued that the filing of the criminal complaint with
when it refers to the trial and judgment stage. With this the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City, not the filing
clarification, any kind of investigative proceeding instituted of the criminal information before the Court, is the reckoning
against the guilty person which may ultimately lead to his point in determining whether or not the criminal action had
prosecution should be sufficient to toll prescription. prescribed.
Indeed, to rule otherwise would deprive the injured party the Respondents argued that Zaldivia v. Reyes held that the
right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not proceedings mentioned in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as
under his control. amended, refer to judicial proceedings. The prescriptive period
The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of whether the commenced from the alleged date of the commission of the
offense charged is punishable by the Revised Penal Code or by crime on May 7, 2003 and ended two months after on July 7,
a special law, it is the filing of the complaint or information in 2003.
the office of the public prosecutor for purposes of the
preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of ISSUE: Did of the Complaint with the Office of the City
prescription. Consequently, prescription did not yet set in Prosecutor on May 23,2003 tolled the prescription period of the
because only five years elapsed from 1986, the time of the commission of the offense
discovery of the offenses charged, up to April 1991, the time of
the filing of the criminal complaints in the Office of the RULING: NO. Under the Revised Rules on Summary
Ombudsman. Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the
prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an
Petition dismissed. ordinance. The respondent judge was correct when he applied
the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. When the representatives of the
petitioner filed the Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor
18. What are the parameters of
of Baguio, the prescription period was running. It continued to
prescription? run until the filing of the Information. They had two months to
file the Information and institute the judicial proceedings by
In the case of Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, It was discussed filing the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. The
that: failure of the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is
unfortunate as it resulted in the dismissal of the case against the
In resolving the issue of prescription, the following private respondents.
must be considered, namely:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
It stands that the doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable to ordinances 1. seduction;
and their prescription period. It also upholds the necessity of 2. abduction; and
filing the Information in court in order to toll the period. 3. acts of lasciviousness
Zaldivia also has this to say concerning the effects of its ruling
that under the above interpretation, a crime may prescribe even shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by
if the complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor’s office the
if, intentionally or not, he delays the institution of the necessary
judicial proceedings until it is too late. However, that possibility 1. offended party; or
should not justify a misreading of the applicable rules beyond 2. her parents;
their obvious intent as reasonably deduced from their plain 3. her grandparents; or
language. The remedy is not a distortion of the meaning of the 4. guardian,
rules but a rewording thereof to prevent the problem here
sought to be corrected. nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly
pardoned by any of them.
Petition denied.
If the offended party
20. What is Sec. 5 Rule 110?  dies; or
 becomes incapacitated before she can file the
Paragraph 1:
complaint, and she has no known parents,
All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or grandparents or guardian,
by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf.
control of a public prosecutor. (Parens Patriae)
In case of: Paragraph 4:
1. Heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor; or GR: The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to
2. In the event of lack of public prosecutors. initiate the prosecution of the offenses of:
1. seduction;
A private prosecutor may be authorized
2. abduction; and
3. acts of lasciviousness
 in writing;
 by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional independently of her parents, grandparents, or guardian,
State Prosecutor to prosecute the case; and
ETR: unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so.
 subject to the approval of the court.
Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the
Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the complaint,
private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up
to end of the trial even in the absence of a public 1. her parents;
prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise 2. her grandparents; or
withdrawn. 3. guardian,
may file the same. The right to file the action granted to
Paragraph 2:
parents, grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive of all
GR: The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be other persons and shall be exercised successively in the
prosecuted. order herein provided, except as stated in the preceding
paragraph.
ETR: Except upon a complaint filed by the offended
spouse. Paragraph 5:
If so filed, the offended party cannot institute criminal No criminal action for defamation which consists in the
prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both imputation of the offenses mentioned above shall be
alive, nor, in any case, if the offended party has consented brought except at the instance of and upon complaint filed
to the offense or pardoned the offenders. by the offended party.
Paragraph 3: Paragraph 6:
The offenses of

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be right to control the prosecution at every stage of the
governed by the provisions thereof. proceedings to the end, and to intervene at any time he
sees fit. (US v. Despabiladeras)
23. Mr Manco was injured by Mr

21. How does a fiscal have control over Manalastas. Mr Manalastas was
the case? injured by Mr Manco. Suppose that the
fiscal refuses to prosecute on the
Having been vested by law with the control of the
ground of conflict of interest,
prosecution of criminal cases, the public prosecutor, in the
exercise of his functions, has the power and discretion to:
a. May the judge compel the fiscal
(a) determine whether a prima facie case exists; to prosecute?
(b) decide which of the conflicting testimonies
Yes. The filing of a complaint or information in Court
should be believed free from the interference or
initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby acquires
control of the offended party; and
jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear
(c) subject only to the right against self-
and determine the case. While it is true that the fiscal has
incrimination, determine which witnesses to
the quasi judicial discretion to determine whether or not
present in court.
a criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the
Given his discretionary powers, a public prosecutor case had already been brought to Court whatever
cannot be compelled to file an Information where he is not disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case
convinced that the evidence before him would warrant the thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the
filing of an action in court. For while he is bound by his Court, The only qualification is that the action of the
oath of office to prosecute persons who, according to Court must not impair the substantial rights of the
complainants evidence, are shown to be guilty of a crime, accused. or the right of the People to due process of law.
he is likewise duty-bound to protect innocent persons (Crespo v. Mogul)
from groundless, false, or malicious prosecution. A
criminal action is prosecuted under the direction and b. Who controls the prosecution?
control of the public prosecutor. It is under the control of
It is the fiscal who has the control and direction of the
the prosecutor for the rationale for this rule is that since a
criminal action under Section 5, Rule 110.
criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the
State, it necessarily follows that a representative of the
c. Who controls the case?
State shall direct and control the prosecution thereof.
(Chua v. Padillo) Another reason is that a crime is a At the time of investigation, it is the public prosecutor,
breach of security and peace of the public at large. through the exercise of quasi-judicial functions, who has
the control over the case. However, once it finds probable
22. If private prosecutor asks questions cause that the respondent is probably guilty of the offense
and the public fiscal asks likewise but and the information was filed to the court, then it is the
the judge prohibited the latter, was the court, when it successfully acquired jurisdiction over the
conduct of the judge correct? case, has the authority to hear and determine the case.
No. It is the duty of the public prosecutor to take an active d. Suppose that the judge
and direct part in the trial of a case. He is charged with the compelled the fiscal to
defense of the community aggrieved by the commission
prosecute, was the judge
of a crime and with the prosecution of the public action as
correct?
if he himself were the aggrieved party.(US v. Mamintud)
There is nothing in the rules of practice and procedure in Yes. The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as we all know is
criminal cases which denies the right of the fiscal, in the to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the
exercise of a sound discretion, to turn over the active conviction of the person accused before the Courts. Thus,
conduct of the trial to a competent assistant or to counsel in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty of the
for a private prosecutor, with the understanding, of fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the
course, that he does not thereby relieve himself of prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at
responsibility for the prosecution, and that he retains the its own independent judgment as to whether the accused

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
should be convicted or acquitted. The fiscal should not be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of
shirk from the responsibility of appearing for the People Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from
of the Philippines even under such circumstances much entertaining a petition for review or appeal from
less should he abandon the prosecution of the case leaving the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or
it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then the entire information has already been filed in Court.
proceedings will be null and void. The least that the fiscal 3. A writ of mandamus may be secured by the
should do is to continue to appear for the prosecution offended party to compel the prosecutor to file the
although he may turn over the presentation of the appropriate case to the court. However,
evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his mandamus would not lie if the prosecutor did not
direction and control. (Crespo v. Mogul) find probable cause over the other respondents.
While it is true that the prosecutor exercises
24. Mr Manco was a victim against Messrs discretionary powers in the investigation of the
Ang, Manalastas, Protacio, and case. Once that he finds probable cause to believe
Oquendo. The fiscal dismissed the that the respondent is probably guilty of the
case except on Mr Ang, which a case offense, the duty becomes mandatory on the part
was filed against the latter. of the fiscal.
a. May Mr Manco demand the 25. What are the instances where a
fiscal to include the three? private prosecutor may prosecute
under Sec. 5 Rule 110?
The general rule is no. A public prosecutor cannot be
compelled to file an Information where he is not A private prosecutor may be authorized by the public
convinced that the evidence before him would warrant the prosecutor to prosecute in case of:
filing of an action in court (Chua v. Padillo). Not even the
Supreme Court can order the prosecution of a person 1. Heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor; or
against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient 2. In the event of lack of public prosecutors.
evidence to support at least a prima facie case. (Sanchez
The authorization must be in writing, given by the Chief
v. Demetriou)
of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor
The only possible exception to this rule is where there is to prosecute the case, approved by the court.
an unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the prosecutor, as in this case. (Sanchez v.
26. Who prevails between the public and
Demetriou) the private prosecutor?
b. Suppose that there is sufficient It is the public prosecutor who must prevail. The interest
of the private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the
evidence, does Mr. Manco have
State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand
a remedy? inconsistent with that thereof. (Tan Jr. v. Gallardo)
Yes. Mr. Manco may avail of the following remedies.
27. Is the fiscal required to be present
1. Mr Manco may move for reinvestigation. The during the proceedings despite
fiscal may do reinvestigation. Should it be done authority?
when a case was already filed, it was held in
Crespo vs Mogul that: Should the fiscal find it With the present wording of section 5, it appears that the
proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at fiscal need not be present in the hearing despite authority.
such stage, the permission of the Court must be Moreover, it is sufficient to say that the written authority
secured. After such reinvestigation the finding to the private prosecutor to prosecute will not be given by
and recommendations of the fiscal should be the public prosecutor if the private prosecutor is not
submitted to the Court for appropriate action. competent enough to handle the prosecution. (Pamaran,
2. Likewise, Mr. Manco may seek the Secretary of M., Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure [2012],
Justice to review the case. As laid down in Crespo hereinafter as Pamaran)
v. Mogul, in order therefor to avoid such a
situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of
Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
28. Can the revocation be made verbally marriage as provided in Article 2 of the Family Code, the
or should it be in writing? legal capacity of the parties is absent.
The law is silent. But by statutory construction, it is 32. Crespo v Mogul

submitted that what is issued in writing may be revoked
by the same manner. (Judge Badillo) Crespo v. Mogul
G.R. No. L-53373; June 30, 1987; EN BANC
J. Gancayco
29. Can the offended party intervene in
the case? FACTS: Petitioner Crespo was accused for Estafa in the MTC
of Lucena. When the case was set for arraignment, the accused
Yes. Because first, in principle, the declaration of criminal filed a motion for defer arraignment on the ground that there
liability carries with it the declaration of the resulting civil was a pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of
obligation; and second, because there are crimes that Justice. However, Justice Mogul denied the motion, but the
cannot be prosecuted other than at the formal instance of arraignment was deferred in a much later date to afford time for
the person injured (US v. Malabon). the petitioner to elevate the mater to the appellate court.
The CA ordered the trial court to refrain from proceeding with

 However, that it is predicated only on his right to the arraignment until further orders of the Court. The
enforce the civil liability arising from that act and Undersecretary of Justice resolved the petition for review
not of demanding punishment to the accused reversed the resolution of the office of the Provincial Fiscal and
(People v. Orais). He may intervene personally or directed the Fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the
by counsel, except when the accused pleaded information filed against the accused. Judge Mogul denied the
guilty (Lao Gi v. CA), or when offended party motion for dismissal of the case and set the arraignment.
waived or reserves the right to institute it after ISSUE: Can the trial court refuse to grant a motion to dismiss
termination.(People v. Velez) filed by the Fiscal under orders from, the Secretary of Justice
and insists on arraignment and trial on the merits.
30. What are the offenses that cannot be
RULING: YES. It is a cardinal principle that all criminal
prosecuted de officio?
actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall
be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The
The following are the offenses that cannot be prosecuted
institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound
de officio: discretion of the fiscal. The reason for placing the criminal
1. Adultery; prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to
prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons.
2. Concubinage;
It cannot be controlled by the complainant.
3. Seduction;
4. Abduction; and However, the action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without
5. Acts of lasciviousness. any limitation or control. The same is subject to the approval of
the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor as the
case maybe and it may be elevated for review to the Secretary
of Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the
31. Suppose that you found your husband action or opinion of the fiscal. Consequently the Secretary of
in your bed with a woman in a Justice may direct that a motion to dismiss the case be filed in
scandalous manner. Court or otherwise, that an information be filed in Court.
The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a

a. Can your mother initiate the criminal action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over
concubinage case? the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case.
The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the
No. My mother cannot initiate a concubinage case. It is purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists
clear from the wordings of Section 5, Rule 110 that only warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon
the filing of the information in the proper court.
the offended spouse may initiate the case.
Petition dismissed.
b. What if you are incapacitated?
Still no. The wordings of section 5 is exclusive to the

offended spouse. Moreover, the parties cannot enter into
a contract of marriage if one of its essential elements of
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
33. How do you determine the sufficiency Section 11. Date of commission of the offense. — It
is not necessary to state in the complaint or
of the complaint?
information the precise date the offense was
committed except when it is a material ingredient of
Under Section 6, a complaint/information is sufficient if the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been
it states the: committed on a date as near as possible to the actual
date of its commission. (11a)
1. Name of the accused;
2. Designation of the offense charged; Section 12. Name of the offended party. — The
3. Acts or omissions constituting the offense; complaint or information must state the name and
surname of the person against whom or against
4. Name of the offended party;
whose property the offense was committed, or any
5. Approximate date of the commission of the appellation or nickname by which such person has
offense; and been or is known. If there is no better way of
6. Place where the offense was committed. identifying him, he must be described under a
fictitious name.
If it was committed by more than one person all of them
must be included in the complaint. The details on the (a) In offenses against property, if the name
requirements are explained in Sections 7 to 13. To wit: of the offended party is unknown, the
property must be described with such
particularity as to properly identify the
Section 7. Name of the accused. — The complaint or offense charged.
information must state the name and surname of the
accused or any appellation or nickname by which he
(b) If the true name of the person against
has been or is known. If his name cannot be
whom or against whose properly the offense
ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious
was committed is thereafter disclosed or
name with a statement that his true name is unknown.
ascertained, the court must cause the true
name to be inserted in the complaint or
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed information and the record.
by him or appears in some other manner to the court,
such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or
(c) If the offended party is a juridical person,
information and record. (7a)
it is sufficient to state its name, or any name
or designation by which it is known or by
Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The which it may be identified, without need of
complaint or information shall state the designation averring that it is a juridical person or that it
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or is organized in accordance with law. (12a)
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is
Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint
no designation of the offense, reference shall be made
or information must charge but one offense, except
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
when the law prescribes a single punishment for
(8a)
various offenses.
Section 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or

omissions complained of as constituting the offense 34. Why is the name of the accused
and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances important?
must be stated in ordinary and concise language and
not necessarily in the language used in the statute but It is important for the purpose of it is to make a specific
in terms sufficient to enable a person of common identification of the person to whom the commission of
understanding to know what offense is being charged
as well as its qualifying and aggravating
an offense is being imputed. It affords the accused an
circumstances and for the court to pronounce opportunity to prepare his defense fully and intelligently.
judgment. (9a) Lastly, no one would be tried and charged of an offense if
none is named to be liable for an offense.
Section 10. Place of commission of the offense. —
The complaint or information is sufficient if it can be 35. People v. Pailano
understood from its allegations that the offense was
committed or some of the essential ingredients People v. Pailano
occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the
G.R. No L-43602; January 31, 1989; First Division
court, unless the particular place where it was
committed constitutes an essential element of the J. Cruz
offense or is necessary for its identification. (10a) Facts: Accused was charged with rape by using force or
intimidation. During trial, it was found out that the victim was
deprived of reason having a mental age of 13.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Issue: Did the trial court erred in convicting the accused as consent, he nonetheless remains liable under par. (2) of Art.
defined in Art. 335 (1) and (2) of the RPC? 335, wherein consent of the offended party is not a defense, the
latter being considered to be legally incapable of giving her
Ruling: Yes. The criminal complaint in this case alleged the consent.
commission of the crime through the first method although the
prosecution sought to establish at the trial that the complainant Furthermore, and more importantly, as herein appellant was
was a mental retardate. Its purpose in doing so is not clear. But tried on an information charging him with rape committed thru
whatever it was, it has not succeeded. force and intimidation, his conviction for rape committed when
the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconcious
If the prosecution was seeking to convict the accused-appellant would be violative of his constitutional right as an accused to
on the ground that he violated Anita while she was deprived of be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
reason or unconscious, such conviction could not have been him.
possible under the criminal complaint as worded. This
described the offense as having been committed by “Antonio 37. People v. Elesterio
Pailano, being then provided with a scythe, by means of People v. Elesterio
violence and intimidation, (who) did, then and there, wilfully, G.R. No. L-63971; May 9, 1989; First Division
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the J. Cruz
complainant, Anita Ibañez, 15 years of age, against her will’.
No mention was made of the second circumstance. Facts: After a brief pursuit operation, policemen found a .32
caliber revolver and two rounds of live ammunition in the
Conviction of the accused-appellant on the finding that he had person of Ricardo Elesterio. They also recovered the holster
raped Anita while she was unconscious or otherwise deprived Elesterio dropped while attempting to escape. The Assistant
of reason — and not through force and intimidation, which was City Fiscal filed an information against him in the Court of First
the method alleged — would have violated his right to be Instance of Pasay City for violating General Order No. 6 in
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. relation to Presidential Decree No. 9.
Convicting him of a ground not alleged while he is
concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would Elesterio pleaded not guilty during arraignment. During the trial
plainly be unfair and underhanded. This right was, of course, on 14 August 1981, Patrolman Nepomuceno narrated the arrest
available to the herein accused-appellant. and search while Elesterio testified that the gun was passed to
him by one Ray Arong minutes before the patrol car passed by.
36. People v. Bugtong Judge Agana asked if the defense had any more witness. The
People v. Bugtong defense counsel said other witness would corroborate the
G.R. No. 75853; January 31, 1989; Third Division testimony that Elesterio had earlier gone to several
C.J. Fernan discotheques but the judge said such would only be cumulative
evidence. The defense rested their case. Judge Agana then
Facts: Irene Cutiam was a 15 year old girl with a mental IQ of dictated his decision in open court finding the accused guilty
47. She was raped by the accused. A charge for rape was filed. and sentencing him to life imprisonment. Elesterio appealed.
Accused was convicted by the lower court by rape by force and
intimidation and by deprivation of reason. Elesterio, after being committed in Bilibid prison, was able to
escape on October 1981. He was recaptured on March 1983. Fe
Issue: Cruz, his aunt, filed a petition for habeas corpus. The SC
Ruling: Yes. While the conviction of accused-appellant under dismissed the habeas corpus case.
paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code Issue: Should the accused be conviced with violation of G.O. 6
appears to be an innocuous error as these paragraphs refer without the second requisite present?
merely to the modes of commission of the same crime of rape
punishable by the same penalty of reclusion perpetua, the harm Ruling: The elements of the offense punished by General Order
inflicted upon accused-appellant gains considerable proportion No. 6 in relation to Par. 2, Presidential Decree No. 9, as
when we consider not only the no win situation in which amended, are first, the carrying of a firearm outside one's
appellant was placed by reason of such conviction, but more residence, and second, the motive for such act, which is "in
importantly, the surprise attendant to his conviction for a crime furtherance of or to abet, or in connection with subversion,
under a mode of commission different from that alleged in the rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos or
information. public disorder."
Having been charged with Rape allegedly committed thru force A reading of the information filed against the accused will
or intimidation, it is to be expected that appellant should focus readily show that the second element of the imputed crime is
his defense on showing that the sexual intercourse complained not alleged at all. All that is averred is that Elesterio on the date
of was the result of mutual consent, rather than of force or and place indicated, had in his possession and was carrying
intimidation. This defense, however, has been rendered futile outside his residence a firearm and two live bullets without the
and ineffective by the appellant's further conviction under par. proper permit or authorization. That is only the first element.
(2) of Art. 335, for even if he should succeed in convincing us There is no allegation in the information that the accused was
that the sexual act under consideration was born out of mutual

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
carrying the weapon outside his residence for the purposes Verily, the lower court acted without jurisdiction, thereby
mentioned in the laws supposedly violated. rendering all its proceedings null and void.
This omission was all too obvious, and it is a wonder that the 39. People v. Cuilao
trial judge did not see it at all. Perhaps he did not choose to see People v. Cuilao
it. In any event, it is clear that the accused could not have been G.R. No. 18035; February 28, 1964; EN BANC
convicted of a violation of General Order No. 6 in relation to J. J.B.L. Reyes
P.D. No. 9, par. 2, and so should not have been sentenced to the
severe penalty of life imprisonment. Facts: Cuilao was charged with robbery with homicide and
frustrated homicide for killing Co Too and injuring Chua Sam.
But all this notwithstanding, the accused-appellant is not The CFI convicted him of murder.
entirely guiltless. For, although his act is not punishable under
the laws invoked by the prosecution, it is undeniable that it Issue: Did the CFI erred in convicting Cuilao?
comes under the provision of Section 2692 of the Revised
Ruling: Yes. No attempted robbery in an inhabited house was
Administrative Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 4, for illegal
proven at all, although two separate crimes of murder and
possession of firearms.
frustrated murder, both qualified by treachery, were fully
38. People v. Gilo established. However, the appellants cannot be convicted and
People v. Gilo punished for murder and frustrated murder, since the
G.R. No. L-18202; April 30, 1964; EN BANC information filed against them is only for attempted robbery in
J. Bautista Angelo an inhabited house with homicide and frustrated homicide . The
appellants can thus be held guilty only of homicide and
Facts: Accused touched the breast of the victim. He was frustrated homicide, aggravated by treachery.
charged with acts of lasciviousness “with lewd designs”. The
CFI convicted him with unjust vexation. 40. People v. Pareja
People v. Pareja
Issue: Does the CFI have jurisdiction? G.R. No. 202122; January 15, 2014; First Division
J. De Castro
Ruling: No. The complaint filed before the Justice of the Peace
Court of Guimbal, Iloilo, by the offended party, which was Facts: Accused was charged with two counts of rape and one
labelled as "Acts of Lasciviousness", reads as follows: attempted rape. The victim was 13 years old. Pareja was
convicted. Upon appeal, Pareja is attacking the credibility of
That on or about December 11, 1957, in the
AAA for being inconsistent. He contended that the date is
Municipality of Guimbal, Province of Iloilo,
inconsistent.
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused Percival Gilo Issue: Did the trial court erred in convicting the accused?
taking advantage of his being drank with force and
intimidation did then and there intentionally, Ruling: No. The inconsistencies mentioned by Pareja are trivial
maliciously, feloniously, and criminally touch the and non-consequential matters that merely caused AAA
breast and face of Verna Genzola against her will and confusion when she was being questioned. The inconsistency
consent and as a result of which Verna Genzola regarding the year of the December incident is not even a matter
suffered shame, embarrassment, and lost her self- pertaining to AAA’s ordeal. The date and time of the
respect. commission of the crime of rape becomes important only when
it creates serious doubt as to the commission of the rape itself
or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction. In
other words, the "date of the commission of the rape becomes
Considering that in order that a crime constitution acts of
relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the
lasciviousness may be committed it is necessary that it be
complainant’s narration practically hinge on the date of the
alleged that it was committed with lewd design, the latter being
commission of the crime." Moreover, the date of the
an indispensable element of all crimes against chastity, such as
commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.
abduction, seduction and rape, including acts of lasciviousness,
the complaint copied above cannot really be considered as In this connection, Pareja repeatedly invokes our ruling in
charging a crime of acts of lasciviousness because of the People v. Ladrillo, implying that our rulings therein are
absence of such element, event if the complaint is labelled as applicable to his case. However, the factual circumstances in
"Acts of Lasciviousness." What characterizes a criminal charge Ladrillo are prominently missing in Pareja’s case. In particular,
is not the title but the body of the complaint or information. In the main factor for Ladrillo’s acquittal in that case was because
this sense, the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
case, even if the information filed by the provincial fiscal be of the accusation against him was violated when the
one of acts of lasciviousness, because the complaint that gave Information against him only stated that the crime was
initial life to the case is merely one of unjust vexation. This fatal committed "on or about the year 1992." The phrase "on or about
defect can only be cured by making the proper correction in the the year 1992" encompasses not only the twelve (12) months of
complaint filed by the offended party, which here was not done. 1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent to 1992, e.g.,

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1991 and 1993, for which accused-appellant has to virtually In short, amendments that do not charge another offense
account for his whereabouts. Hence, the failure of the different from that charged in the original one; or do not
prosecution to allege with particularity the date of the alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause
commission of the offense and, worse, its failure to prove surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he
during the trial the date of the commission of the offense as
has or will assume are considered merely as formal
alleged in the Information, deprived accused-appellant of his
right to intelligently prepare for his defense and convincingly
amendments. As to when the rights of an accused are
refute the charges against him. At most, accused-appellant prejudiced by an amendment made after he had pleaded
could only establish his place of residence in the year indicated to the original information, Montenegro ruled that
in the Information and not for the particular time he supposedly prejudice exists when a defense under the original
committed the rape. information would no longer be available after the
amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused
In this case, although the dates of the December 2003 and
might have, would be inapplicable to the Information as
February 2004 incidents were not specified, the period of time
Pareja had to account for was fairly short, unlike "on or about amended. (Mendez v. People (June 11, 2014))
the year 1992." Moreover, Ladrillo was able to prove that he
43. Formal amendments can be made
had only moved in the house where the rape supposedly
happened, in 1993, therefore negating the allegation that he when? How about Substantial?
raped the victim in that house in 1992. Formal amendments can be made either before or after or
after arraignment.
41. How do you amend an information?
Substantial amendments can only be made before the
An information may be amended formally or substantially accused enters his plea. Once an accused entered his plea,
without leave of court if it is done before arraignment. a substantial arraignment is proscribed except if the same
However, after arraignment, only formal amendments are is beneficial to the accused. (Ricarze v. CA (515 SCRA
allowed and must be filed with leave of court. 302))
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades 44. Suppose that an accused is charged
the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any with theft. The prosecution wishes to
accused from the complaint or information, can be made amend the date from January to
only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the February. What amendment would
offended party and with leave of court. The court shall happen?
state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its The amendment would be a formal. A mere change of
order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended date would not prejudice in any sense the right of the
party. accused as "it did not affect the essence of the crime
charged, but merely an accidental detail of the same" and
42. When is amendment in a complaint or "it did not deprive the accused of an opportunity to
information considered substantial or produce evidence for their defense, if they had desired, in
formal? relation to the said amendment; ...". Consequently, the
accused is not thereby denied any opportunity to present
An amendment to an information which does not change evidence in his defense, nor will the amendment or
the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect the correction cause any surprise on the accused. (People v.
essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the Borromeo (June 29, 1983))
accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had
However, an amendment on date with great disparity
each been held to be one of form and not of
between the years (ex. Jan 1, 1964 to Feb 1, 1969) is not
substance.(Ricarze v. CA)
allowed for the disparity is so great as to defy
The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced approximation in the commission of one and the same
by the amendment of a complaint or information is when offense. (People v. Reyes (108 SCRA 203))
a defense under the complaint or information, as it
originally stood, would no longer be available after the 45. Why is leave of court needed?
amendment is made, when any evidence the accused The purpose of leave of leave of court is to inform and to
might have would no longer be available after the fairly apprise the accused for him to be able to set up his
amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused defenses against the new amended
might have would be inapplicable to the complaint or complaint/information.
information, as amended. (Kummer v. People)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
46. What are the requisites when you does not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused,
amend after plea? such as his right to invoke prescription.
Once that the accused enters his plea, only formal Going now to the case at bar, it is evident that frustrated murder
amendments are allowed (except as provided in the is but a stage in the execution of the crime of murder, hence the
Ricarze doctrine) and it must be made under two former is necessarily included in the latter. It is indispensable
conditions: that the essential element of intent to kill, as well as qualifying
circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation, be
(a) Leave of court must be secured; and alleged in both an information for frustrated murder and for
(b) The amendment does not cause prejudice to the murder, thereby meaning and proving that the same material
rights of the accused. allegations are essential to the sufficiency of the informations
filed for both. This is because, except for the death of the victim,
47. Suppose that you have been the essential elements of consummated murder likewise
arraigned with homicide but the constitute the essential ingredients to convict herein petitioner
information was amended to murder. for the offense of frustrated murder.
As defense counsel, Ms. Dela Cruz, In the present case, therefore, there is an identity of offenses
would you object? charged in both the original and the amended information. What
Yes. I would object. The test as to when the rights of an is involved here is not a variance in the nature of different
accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint offenses charged, but only a change in the stage of execution of
or information is when a defense under the complaint or the same offense from frustrated to consummated murder. This
is being the case, we hold that an amendment of the original
information, as it originally stood, would no longer be
information will suffice and, consequent thereto, the filing of
available after the amendment is made, when any the amended information for murder is proper.
evidence the accused might have would no longer be
available after the amendment is made, and when any 49. Distinguish amendment from
evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to substitution.
the complaint or information, as amended. (Kummer v. It may accordingly be posited that both amendment and
People (2013)) substitution of the information may be made before or
after the defendant pleaded, but they differ in the
In this case, the amendment upgrading the charge from
following respects:
homicide to murder is a substantial amendment. The
amendment of the Information from homicide to murder 1. Amendment may involve either formal or
is “one of substance with very serious consequences”. substantial changes, while substitution
necessarily involves a substantial change from
48. Teehankee v. Madayag
the original charge;
Teehankee v. Madayag
G.R. No 103102; March 6, 1992; En Banc 2. Amendment before plea has been entered can
J. Regalado be effected without leave of court, but
Facts: Teehankee Jr. was the son of the former Chief Justice substitution of information must be with leave of
Teehankee. An Information for frustrated murder was filed court as the original information has to be
against him. Later, the victim died. The prosecution filed a dismissed;
motion of leave of court to amend the information from
frustrated murder to consummated murder. 3. Where the amendment is only as to form, there
is no need for another preliminary investigation
Issue: Is the amendment formal or substantial? and the retaking of the plea of the accused; in
Ruling: The amendment is a formal one. A substantial substitution of information, another preliminary
amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the investigation is entailed and the accused has to
offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the plead anew to the new information; and
court. All other matters are merely of form. Thus, the following
have been held to be merely formal amendments, viz: (1) new 4. An amended information refers to the same
allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the offense charged in the original information or to
court might impose in the event of conviction; (2) an an offense which necessarily includes or is
amendment which does not charge another offense different or necessarily included in the original charge, hence
distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional substantial amendments to the information after
allegations which do not alter the prosecution's theory of the the plea has been taken cannot be made over the
case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form objection of the accused, for if the original
of defense he has or will assume; and (4) an amendment which information would be withdrawn, the accused
could invoke double jeopardy. On the other hand,
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
substitution requires or presupposes that the new Ruling: No. A new preliminary investigation cannot be
information involves a different offense which demanded by Vivar. This is because the change made by the
does not include or is not necessarily included in public prosecutor was only a formal amendment.The filing of
the original charge, hence the accused cannot the Amended Information, without a new preliminary
investigation, did not violate the right of respondent to be
claim double jeopardy.
protected from a hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution;
In determining, therefore, whether there should be an an open and public accusation of a crime; or from the trouble,
amendment under the first paragraph of Section 14, the expenses and the anxiety of a public trial. The Amended
Information could not have come as a surprise to him for the
Rule 110, or a substitution of information under the
simple and obvious reason that it charged essentially the same
second paragraph thereof, the rule is that where the
offense as that under the original Information. Moreover, if the
second information involves the same offense, or an original charge was related to the amended one, such that an
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily inquiry would elicit substantially the same facts, then a new
included in the first information, and amendment of preliminary investigation was not necessary.
the information is sufficient; otherwise, where the
new information charges an offense which is distinct 52. Buhat v. CA
and different from that initially charged, a Buhat v. CA
substitution is in order. (Teehankee v. Madayag) G.R. No. 119601; December 17, 1996; First Division
J. Hermosisima Jr.
50. What are the factors on identity of the Facts: A homicide case with “abuse of superior strength” was
offense as given in the Teehankee filed in the RTC. After arraignment, the DOJ recommended that
case? the case should be Murder and the phrase “conspiring,
There is identity between the two offenses when: confederating” was added. The prosecution filed a motion to
leave to amend the information. The RTC denied the same. The
1. The evidence to support a conviction for one CA reversed the RTC.
offense would be sufficient to warrant a
conviction for the other; or Issue: Is the amendment a formal or a substantial one?
2. When the second offense is exactly the same as Ruling: It is a formal amendment. The original information
the first, or when the second offense is an attempt already contains the allegation that the killing was done with
to commit or a frustration of; or the “use of superior strength”. This allegation already qualified
3. When it necessarily includes or is necessarily the killing as murder regardless of how such killing is
included in, the offense charged in the first technically designated in the information filed by the public
information. prosecutor.
When the appellation of the crime charged as determined by the

In this connection, an offense may be said to
public prosecutor does not exactly correspond to the actual
necessarily include another when some of the
crime constituted by the criminal acts described in the
essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this information to have been committed by the accused, what
is alleged in the information, constitute the latter. controls is the description of the said criminal acts and not the
And, vice-versa, an offense may be said to be technical name of the crime supplied by the public prosecutor.
necessarily included in another when the essential In other words, the real nature of the criminal charge is
ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of determined not from the caption or preamble of the information
those constituting the latter. (Teehankee v. Madayag) nor from the specification of the provision of the law alleged to
have been violated, they being conclusions of law which in no
51. Villaflor v. Vivar way affect the legal aspects of the information, but from the
Villaflor v. Vivar y Gozon actual recital of facts as alleged in the body of the information.
G.R. No. 134744; January 16, 2001; Third Division
J. Panganiban Under these circumstances, the amendment of the Information
by merely changing its express designation from homicide to
Facts: Vivar mauled Villaflor. Vivar threatened him and uttered murder is only a formal amendment and no prejudice can be
"next time, I will use my gun on you". A preliminary made against the rights of the accused.
investigation for slight physical injuries was made by the
assistant city prosecutor. Vivar was later charged with the crime Likewise, a post-arraignment amendment to further allege
of slight physical injuries.When the injuries sustained by conspiracy is only a formal amendment not prejudicial to the
Villaflor turned out to be more serious than they had appeared rights of the accused and proper even after the accused has
at first, the charge of slight physical injuries was withdrawn and pleaded not guilty to the charge under the original information.
an Information for serious physical injuries was filed. Another
Information for grave threats was also filed against Vivar.
Issue: Is there a need for new preliminary investigation?

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
53. People v. Casey Ruling: The amendment was substantial. The proposed
People v. Casey amendments in the amended information, in the instant case,
G.R. No. L-30146; February 24, 1981; En Banc are clearly substantial and have the effect of changing the crime
J. Guerrero charged from "Robbery" punishable under Article 209 to
"Robbery in an Uninhabited Place" punishable under Art. 302
Facts: A case of murder against Casey was filed. Casey pleaded of the Revised Penal Code, thereby exposing the private
not guilty. After plea, an amended information was filed to respondents-accused to a higher penalty as compared to the
include Felix. penalty imposable for the offense charged in the original
information to which the accused had already entered a plea of
Issue: Does Casey need to be arraigned again after the
"not guilty" during their arraignment.
information was amended to include Felis?
Moreover, the change in the items, articles and jewelries
Ruling: No. The lack of arraignment under the amended
allegedly stolen into entirely different articles from those
information is objected to by accused-appellant Joseph Casey
originally complained of, affects the essense of the imputed
allegedly on the ground that there is a violation of his
crime, and would deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet
constitutional right to be informed of the charge against him.
all the allegations in the amended information, in the
There can be a violation of such right, however, only when the
preparation of their defenses to the charge filed against them. It
amendment pertains to matters of substance. In the case at bar,
will be observed that private respondents were accused as
the alterations introduced in the information refer to the
accessories-after-the-fact of the minor Ricardo Cabaloza who
inclusion of accused appellant Ricardo Felix to the same charge
had already been convicted of robbery of the items listed in the
of murder. They do not change the nature of the crime against
original information. To charge them now as accessories-after-
accused-appellant Casey. Conspiracy, evident premeditation,
the-fact for a crime different from that committed by the
treachery and taking advantage of superior strength are
principal, would be manifestly incongruous as to be allowed by
similarly alleged in both informations. No extenuating
the Court.
circumstance is likewise alleged in both. Thus the amendment
of the information as far as accused-appellant Casey is The allegation of conspiracy among all the private respondents-
concerned is one of form and not of substance as it is not accused, which was not previously included in the original
prejudicial to his rights. information, is likewise a substantial amendment saddling the
respondents with the need of a new defense in order to meet a
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the
different situation in the trial court.
amendment of an information has been said to be whether a
defense under the information as it originally stood would be To allow at this stage the proposed amendment alleging
available after the amendment is made, and whether any conspiracy among all the accused, will make all of the latter
evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to liable not only for their own individual transgressions or acts
the information in the one form as in the other. but also for the acts of their co-conspirators.
A look into Our jurisprudence on the matter shows that an 55. People v. Rivera
amendment to an information introduced after the accused has People v. Rivera
pleaded not guilty thereto, which does not change the nature of G.R. No. L-27825; June 30, 1970; En Banc
the crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused to a J. Teehankee
charge which could call for a higher penalty, does not affect the
essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused Facts: An information was filed charging Rivera for grave
of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held threats. The information read as follows:
to be one of form and not of substance — not prejudicial to the
accused and, therefore, not prohibited by Section 13, Rule 110 That on or about the 2nd day of March, 1965, in the
of the Revised Rules of Court. Municipality of Batangas, Province of Batangas,
Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this
54. People v. Montenegro Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
People v. Montenegro motivated by personal resentment which he
G.R. No. L-45572; March 25, 1988; Second Division entertained against one Ricardo Rivera, did then and
J. Padilla there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and, in a letter,
seriously threatened to kidnap the wife and the
Facts: An information for robbery was filed against Cimarra, daughter of said Ricardo Rivera if the latter would not
Villar, Catindig, and de Leon. They were arraigned and pleaded give him P25,000.00, the accused thus threatening to
not guilty. Later on, the prosecution filed a motion to leave to inflict upon the persons of the wife and daughter of
amend the information changing the offense from robbery to Ricardo Rivera of a wrong amounting to a crime, that
robbery in an uninhabited place, alleging conspiracy, and is, to kidnap them, although the said accused failed to
replacing the items listed with a new different set of items. The attain his purpose.
RTC denied the motion. The Motion for Reconsideration was
likewise denied. Rivera pleaded not guilty. The prosecution filed a motion to
leave to amend the date of the information from March 2, 1965
Issue: Is the amendment formal or substantial? to March 2, 1964.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Issue: Is the amendment formal or substantial?  Act 3326 would govern.
Ruling: The amendment was a formal one. The amendment  Rules of summary procedure would also
which sought the correction of an obviously typographical or govern.
clerical error in the last digit of the year alleged (from 1965 to  Prescription is interrupted once the complaint
1964, the month and day being left exactly the same) did not or information was directly to the court
affect the nature and essence of the crime as originally charged.
Neither did it involve any change in the basic theory of the
Rules of Summary Procedure
prosecution so as to cause surprise to respondent and require
him to effect any material change or modification in his  The MTC, MTCC, MCTC, MeTC have
defense.
jurisdiction over summary procedure cases.
56. We know that court’s jurisdiction over  The following cases are subject to summary
the territory is established by law. procedure:
Under Section 15, what are the 1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations;
exceptions?
2. Violations of rental law;
Under Section 15:
3. BP 22;
Section 15. Place where action is to be instituted. — 4. Violations of city or municipal
ordinances;
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall
be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality
5. All other criminal cases where the
or territory where the offense was committed or where penalty prescribed by law for the offense
any of its essential ingredients occurred. charged is imprisonment not exceeding
six months, or a fine not exceeding
(b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, 1000.00 or both, irrespective of other
or other public or private vehicle while in the course
imposable penalties, or of civil liability
of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and
arising therefrom; and
tried in the court of any municipality or territory where
such train, aircraft or other vehicle passed during such 6. Offenses involving damage to property
its trip, including the place of its departure and arrival. through criminal negligence where the
imposable fine does not exceed
(c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel 10,000.00.
in the course of its voyage, the criminal action shall be
 The filing of criminal cases falling within the
instituted and tried in the court of the first port of entry
or of any municipality or territory where the vessel
scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or
passed during such voyage, subject to the generally by information: Provided, however, that in
accepted principles of international law. Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities.
such cases shall be commenced only by
(d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but information, except when the offense cannot be
punishable under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
prosecuted de oficio. It shall be accompanied by
shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal
the affidavits of the compliant and of his
action is first filed.
witnesses in such number of copies as there are
accused plus two (2) copies for the court's files. If
this requirement is not complied with within five
(NOTES) (5) days from date of filing, the case may be
Current rules on prescription: dismissed. The affidavits required to be
submitted under this Rule shall state only facts of
If the crime is punishable under the RPC:
direct personal knowledge of the affiants which
 Art. 91 would govern.
are admissible in evidence, and shall show their
 Prescription is interrupted once the complaint
was filed to the prosecutor or once a complaint competence to testify to the matters stated
or information was directly to the court. therein. A violation of this requirement may
If the crime is punishable under a special law except subject the party or the counsel who submits the
ordinance: same to disciplinary action, and shall be cause to
 Act 3326 would govern. expunge the inadmissible affidavit or portion
 Prescription is interrupted once the complaint thereof from the record.
was filed to the prosecutor or once a complaint  Should the court finds no cause or ground to hold
or information was directly to the court. the accused for trial, it shall order the dismissal of
Violations of ordinance the case; otherwise, the court shall set the case for
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
arraignment and trial. If the accused is in custody (j) Reply;
for the crime charged, he shall be immediately (k) Third party complaints;
arraigned and if he enters a plea of guilty, he shall (l) Interventions.
forthwith be sentenced.
 Before conducting the trial, the court shall call the
parties to a preliminary conference during which RULE 111
a stipulation of facts may be entered into, or the
propriety of allowing the accused to enter a plea PROSECUTION OF CIVIL
of guilty to a lesser offense may be considered, or ACTION
such other matters may be taken up to clarify the
1. Why is there an intervention by the
issues and to ensure a speedy disposition of the
offended party?
case. However, no admission by the accused shall
Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is
be used against him unless reduced to writing and
the fundamental postulate of our law that “every person
signed by the accused and his counsel. A refusal
or failure to stipulate shall not prejudice the criminally liable is also civilly liable.”
accused. The sole purpose of the civil action is for the resolution,
 At the trial, the affidavits submitted by the parties reparation or indemnification of the private offended
shall constitute the direct testimonies of the party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of
witnesses who executed the same. Witnesses who the delictual or felonious act of the accused. (Ricarze v.
testified may be subjected to cross-examination, CA)
redirect or re-cross examination. Should the
affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall not be 2. What is the dual nature of a
considered as competent evidence for the party complaint/information?
presenting the affidavit, but the adverse party Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every
may utilize the same for any admissible purpose. person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
 The court shall not order the arrest of the accused A criminal case has two aspects, the criminal and the civil.
except for failure to appear whenever required.
Underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory
Release of the person arrested shall either be on
that when a person commits a crime, he offends two
bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen
entities, namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the
acceptable to the court.
political entity, called the State, whose law he has
 Where a trial has been conducted, the court shall violated; and (2) the individual member of that society
promulgate the judgment not later than thirty (30) whose person, right, honor, chastity or property was
days after the termination of trial. actually or directly injured or damaged by the same
 Prohibited pleadings, motions, and petitions in punishable act or omission.(Lee Pue Liong v. Chua Pue
summary procedure cases: Chin Lee (703 SCRA 240))
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash
the complaint or information except on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject 3. Mr Manco hit Mr Oquendo. Mr
matter, or failure to comply with the preceding Oquendo was severely injured. Mr
section; Manco was charged with serious
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars; physical injuries.
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of
a. Why is there criminal liability
a judgment, or for opening of trial;
There is criminal liability for the acts committed by the
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
offender created a social injury which is sought to be
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
repaired thru the imposition of the corresponding penalty.
affidavits or any other paper; chanrobles virtual
(see Ramos v. Gorong (72 SCRA 559))
law library
(f) Memoranda; b. Why is there civil liability
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or There is civil liability for the acts committed by the
prohibition against any interlocutory order issued offender caused a personal injury to the victim of the
by the court; crime which injury is sought to be compensated thru
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default; indemnity which is civil in nature. (see Ramos v. Gorong)
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
c. The actual damages suffered by Mr b. Can he recover from both?
Oquendo was 2,000,000.00. Do No. The aggrieved party is entitled to recover from the
you need to pay the filing fees for offender only once, regardless of the kind or nature of the
actual damages? action he chose to file against the latter. (Pamaran)
No. Under Sec. 1[a] of Rule 111, there are no filing fees As a technical rule of procedure, the purpose of the
required for actual damages claimed, unless required by doctrine of election of remedies is not to prevent recourse
the rules (ex. BP 22) to any remedy, but to prevent double redress for a single
Here, the claim by Mr Oquendo was actual damages wrong. It is regarded as an application of the law of
arising from the crime of serious physical injuries. Hence, estoppel, upon the theory that a party cannot, in the
Mr Oquendo need not to pay any amount as filing fees assertion of his right occupy inconsistent positions which
just to be indemnified for the injury. form the basis of his respective remedies. However, when
a certain state of facts under the law entitles a party to
4. What is waiver? And how you alternative remedies, both founded upon the identical
relinquish it? state of facts, these remedies are not considered
A waiver an act or instance of abandoning a right or claim inconsistent remedies. In such case, the invocation of one
voluntarily. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is remedy is not an election which will bar the other, unless
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or the suit upon the remedy first invoked shall reach the
good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right stage of final adjudication or unless by the invocation of
recognized by law.(Art. 6, NCC) the remedy first sought to be enforced, the plaintiff shall
have gained an advantage thereby or caused detriment or
The act of waiver must be: change of situation to the other. It must be pointed out that
1. Voluntary; ordinarily, election of remedies is not made until the
2. In writing; and judicial proceedings has gone to judgment on the merits.
3. At any time before the prosecution begins (Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Magsino (G.R. No. 71749))
presenting its evidence.(Judge Badillo)
8. What if you initially thought of filing a
5. At what point in time would you make collection of sum of money and you
reservation? filed the same. And then you filed a BP
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil 22 case, what happens to the civil
action shall be made before the prosecution starts action?
presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording The civil action would be consolidated with the criminal
the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such action. Under Section 1 of Rule 111, as amended by Cir.
reservation. (Section 1, Rule 111) 57-97, where the civil action has been filed separately and
trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
6. In BP 22, is the institution of separate consolidated with the criminal action upon application
civil action allowed? with the court trying the latter case. If the application is
No. No reservation to file such civil action separately granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in
shall be allowed. (Section 1, Rule 111) However, there is accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing
nothing that would prohibit an offended party from consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
waiving the civil action. (Riano, W., Criminal Procedure
(The Bar Lectures Series) [2016], hereinafter as Riano) 9. Suppose on that case Mr Manco on
that case was acquitted. The court
7. Suppose that Mr Manco issued a
ordered the victim to pay 100,000.00.
check and the same bounced. An
Is that allowed?
estafa case and a BP 22 case was No. The court cannot order the victim to pay such an
filed. amount. It is submitted that to order the victim to pay
a. Can you say that the civil action would become a dangerous precedent which, once
be dismissed in BP 22? opened, although would lessen the dockets of the courts
No. The civil action in BP 22 should not be dismissed for for the aggrieved party would think twice, would at the
the civil liability arising from BP 22, which the gravamen end cause injustice to the aggrieved party for he had lost
of the offense is knowingly issuing a worthless check, is thrice: first from the act of the offender, second from the
different from estafa which is founded on the other hand case, and third from the order of the court commanding
from deceit. him to pay for the costs of suit.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
10. Suppose that Mr Manco pleaded 14. Mr Manco was acquitted based on
guilty. The court convicted him. No reasonable doubt. Is Mr Oquendo
civil pronouncement was made. Is Mr allowed to file a civil action?
Oquendo allowed to file a civil action Yes. Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with
against Mr Manco? different effects on the civil liability of the accused.
Yes. The mere appearance of private counsel in
First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not
representation of the offended party did not constitute
the author of the act or omission complained of. This
such active intervention as could only import an intention
instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who
to press a claim for damages in the same action. It is as
has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or
reasonable to indulge the possibility that the private
omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act
prosecutors appeared precisely to be able to make a
or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto
reasonable reservation of the right to file a separate civil
is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which
action which, even if unnecessary at the time would
may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the
nevertheless have been the prudent and practical thing to
delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in
do for the purpose of better protecting the interest of their Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
clients. But as matters turned out, the accused pleaded
guilty upon arraignment and was immediately sentenced. The second instance is an acquittal based on
Thereafter there was no chance to enter such a reservation reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this
in the record. (Meneses v. Luat (12 SCRA 454)) case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been
In other words, the right to file a separate civil action is satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil
not foreclosed by the fact that the accused on arraignment liability which may be proved by preponderance of
entered a plea of guilty and sentenced where private evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in
prosecutor was not afforded a chance to present evidence Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil action for
or make a reservation. damages is for the same act or omission. Although the two
actions have different purposes, the matters discussed in
11. What is the doctrine of primacy of the civil case are similar to those discussed in the criminal
criminal action? case. However, the judgment in the criminal proceeding
The doctrine is understood as between the civil action and cannot be read in evidence in the civil action to establish
criminal action, the former cannot be instituted, and if any fact there determined, even though both actions
instituted, shall be suspended until a final judgment has involve the same act or omission. The reason for this rule
been entered in the criminal action.(Section 2, Rule 111) is that the parties are not the same and secondarily,
12. What is the exception on the rule? different rules of evidence are applicable. Stated
differently, it is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt
The exceptions are: (PICI)
and a suit to enforce civil liability for the same act or
1. Prejudicial Questions; omission lies. (Manantan v. CA (G.R. 107125; 2001))
2. Independent Civil Actions;
In application, Mr. Manco was acquitted due to
3. Consolidation of Civil and Criminal Actions; and
reasonable doubt. Applying the doctrine as held in
4. The Civil Action is not the one Intended to
Manantan, the offended party can still file a civil suit
enforce the civil liability arising from the offense.
arising from the offense against the accused. Hence, Mr
13. What is now the effect if the Oquendo is allowed to file a suit against Mr Manco.
complainant instituted independent
15. Suppose that the accused is
civil action?
acquitted, what would happen to the
It is explained in Section 3, Rule 111, that:
civil liability of the accused?
In the cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of General rule: The extinction of the penal action does not
the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil carry with it extinction of the civil action. (Sec. 2, Rule
action may be brought by the offended party. It shall 111) Thus, acquittal based on reasonable doubt would not
proceed independently of the criminal action and shall exempt the accused from being civilly liable.
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages twice Exception: If the accused was acquitted because:
for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
1. The accused is not the author of the crime
complained of; or

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. The criminal provision has been repealed by law. proper substitution or against said estate, as the case
may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted
The acquittal closes the door to civil liability for he can
for the deceased without requiring the appointment of
never being held liable for the same. There being no
an executor or administrator and the court may
crime, there cannot be civil liability arising from the
appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. (id)
crime.
18. What is prejudicial question?
16. Suppose that A injured B. An A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a
information for serious physical case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
injuries was filed. During the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
proceedings, A died. pertains to another tribunal. (Strategic Alliance Devt
a. Is the criminal liability of A Corporation v. Star Infrastructure Development
extinguished? Corporation, 647 SCRA 545 [2011])
Yes, Death of the accused prior to final judgment, as when It is said to come into play when a civil action and a
he dies pending appeal of his conviction, extinguishes his criminal action are both pending and there exists in the
criminal liability for the criminal action is extinguished former case an issue which must be preemptively resolved
inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the before the latter case may proceed since the resolution of
accused; (People v. Paras, 739 SCRA 179 [2014]) The the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of
criminal liability and only the civil liability directly the accused in the criminal case. (Id.)
arising from and based solely on the offense committed,
i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. (Regalado) The presence of prejudicial question warrants the
suspension of the criminal action. It shall be made upon
In this case, A died during trial. Therefore, the criminal the grant for petition for suspension.
liability of A is extinguished.
Note that the rule authorizing the suspension of the
b. How about the civil liability of criminal case by reason of prejudicial question does not
A? prescribe the dismissal of the criminal action. (See Yap v.
It would be extinguished. The death of the accused during Paras, 205 SCRA 625)
trial would have the civil action instituted therein for the
recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto Also note that the rule on prejudicial question makes no
extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal action. distinction as to who is allowed to raise the defense. Ubi
(People v Paras, id.) lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. When the
law makes no distinction, we ought not to distinguish.
In this case, A died after arraignment. Therefore, his civil (San Miguel Properties v. Perez, 705 SCRA 38 [2013])
liability is likewise extinguished.
19. What are the elements of prejudicial
17. What are the rules regarding on the question?
extinction of civil liability The elements of a prejudicial question are:
If the accused dies BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT
(a) The previously instituted civil action involves an
 The case shall be dismissed without prejudice to issue similar or intimately related to the issue
any civil action the offended party may file raised in the subsequent criminal action; and
against the estate of the deceased. (Section 4, Rule (b) The resolution of such issue determines whether
113) or not the criminal action may proceed. (Section
If the accused dies AFTER ARRAIGNMENT 7, Rule 111)
 The death of the accused after arraignment and

during the pendency of the criminal action shall
extinguish the civil liability arising from the
delict. (id.)
 Note that the above rule has no relation to
independent civil actions and civil liabilities arising
from sources of obligation not arising from the
offense charged. Such may be continued against the
estate or legal representative of the accused after
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
20. Suppose that A and B entered into a e. One administrative and one
contract of sale. A and C then entered criminal case?
into a contract of sale. B filed a It depends. If the case filed before the administrative body
petition for the nullification of the is civil in nature, it raises a prejudicial question.
second sale on the ground that A is no The concept of a prejudicial question involves a civil
longer the owner. B later filed an action and a criminal case. Yet, contrary to San Miguel
estafa case against A. A moved to Properties’ submission that there could be no prejudicial
suspend the proceedings on the question to speak of because no civil action where the
ground of prejudicial question prejudicial question arose was pending, the action for
arguing that A did not sign the specific performance in the HLURB raises a prejudicial
contract between him and C. Would question that sufficed to suspend the proceedings
you suspend the case? determining the charge for the criminal violation of
Yes I would suspend the criminal case for there is Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957. This is true
prejudicial question. A prejudicial question is one that simply because the action for specific performance was
arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical an action civil in nature but could not be instituted
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the elsewhere except in the HLURB, whose jurisdiction over
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a the action was exclusive and original. (San Miguel
question based on a fact distinct and separate from the Properties v. Perez, [id])
crime but so intimately connected with it that it 22. Prado v. People
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for Prado v. People
it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only G.R. No L-37652; December 26, 1984; Second Division
that said case involves facts intimately related to those J. Melencio-Herrera
upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but
Facts: On August 5, 1971, a bigamy case was filed against
also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in
Prado before the CFI of Manila. On January 21, 1973, petitioner
the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, an action for
necessarily be determined. (People v Arambulo, 2015) annulment of her Saigon marriage contending that her consent
In the case at hand, the civil case for the nullification of thereto was obtained by means of force and intimidation, and
that she never freely cohabited with her second husband, Julio
sale would constitute a prejudicial question which would
Manalansang. On July 23, 1973, a "Motion to Suspend Trial by
pre-determine the criminal liability of A. Suppose that the Reason of the Existence of Prejudicial Question" was filed by
sale is annulled and there it was found out that that the petitioner in the Bigamy Case. The prosecution opposed the
signature of A was forged, then A would not be criminally same maintaining that it was merely a device resorted to by
liable for estafa for there would be no deceit at the first petitioner to delay the disposition of said criminal case.
place. Thus, I would suspend the criminal case.
Issue: Is there a prejudicial question?
21. Can there be prejudicial question: Ruling: Yes. For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a
a. On both civil cases? criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal
No. A prejudicial question cannot be appreciated where proceedings until the final resolution of the civil, the following
the subject actions are all civil in nature. (Strategic requisites must be present: (1) the civil case involves facts
Alliance Devt Corporation v. Star Infrastructure intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution
Development Corporation, id) would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised
in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
b. On both administrative cases? necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said
No. The phraseology of Sec. 7 of Rule 111 presupposes question must be lodged in another tribunal. The foregoing
the existence of two actions – one civil and the other requisites being present in the case at bar, the suspensive effect
of a prejudicial question comes into play. Should petitioner be
criminal. (Riano)
able to establish that her consent to the second marriage was,
c. On both criminal cases? indeed, obtained by means of force and intimidation, her act of
No. Same. entering into marriage with Julio Manalansang would be
involuntary, and there can be no conviction for the crime of
d. One civil and one Bigamy. Petitioner cannot be deprived of her right to prove her
grounds for annulment, which could wen be determinative of
administrative?
her guilt or innocence. The State is not thereby deprived from
No. Same.
proceeding with the criminal case in the event that the Court
decrees against petitioner in the Annulment Case.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Petition granted. essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar
or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action;
IMPORTANT NOTE: This case was decided in 1984. and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not
The governing rules during that time was the 1964 Rules the criminal action may proceed. The pendency of the case for
of Court. But if the case would be filed under the 2000 declaration of nullity of petitioner's marriage is not a prejudicial
Rules of criminal procedure, the petition would be question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be
dismissed instead. Under the amendment, a prejudicial considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the
question is understood in law as that which must precede suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the
the criminal action and which requires a decision before a civil case, it must appear not only that the said civil case
involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution
final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with
would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or
which said question is closely connected. The civil action
issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence
must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal of the accused would necessarily be determined.
action. (Torres v. Garchitorena, 394 SCRA 454 [2002])
With regard to petitioner's argument that he could be acquitted
23. Beltran v. People of the charge of concubinage should his marriage be declared
Beltran v. People null and void, suffice it to state that even a subsequent
G.R. No. 137567; June 20, 2000; Second Division pronouncement that his marriage is void from the beginning is
J. Buena not a defense. Assuming that the first marriage was null and
void on the ground alleged by petitioner, that fact would not be
Facts: Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E.
material to the outcome of the criminal case. Parties to the
Felix were married on June 16, 1973 at the Immaculate
marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its
Concepcion Parish Church in Cubao, Quezon City. In February
nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the
1997, petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the
competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is
ground of psychological incapacity. In her Answer to the said
so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no
petition, petitioner's wife Charmaine Felix alleged that it was
such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists.
petitioner who abandoned the conjugal home and lived with a
Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the
certain woman named Milagros Salting. Charmaine filed a
judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the
criminal complaint for concubinage which, on September 16,
risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
1997, an information for the same was field against Beltran.
Petitioner moved to defer proceedings on the ground of Petition dismissed.
prejudicial question. The same was denied by the MeTC of
Makati. The RTC denied the petition for certiorari. Petitioner 24. Capili v. People
contends that the pendency of the petition for declaration of Capili v. People
nullity of his marriage based on psychological incapacity under G.R. No 183805; July 3, 2013; Third Division
Article 36 of the Family Code is a prejudicial question that J. Peralta
should merit the suspension of the criminal case for
Facts: Petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy before
concubinage filed against him by his wife.
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. Petitioner
thereafter filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings alleging that:
(1) there is a pending civil case for declaration of nullity of the
Petitioner also contends that there is a possibility that two second marriage before the RTC of Antipolo City filed by Karla
conflicting decisions might result from the civil case for Y. Medina-Capili; (2) in the event that the marriage is declared
annulment of marriage and the criminal case for concubinage. null and void, it would exculpate him from the charge of
In the civil case, the trial court might declare the marriage as bigamy; and (3) the pendency of the civil case for the
valid by dismissing petitioner's complaint but in the criminal declaration of nullity of the second marriage serves as a
case, the trial court might acquit petitioner because the evidence prejudicial question in the instant criminal case. During the
shows that his marriage is void on ground of psychological pendency of the criminal case, the RTC of Antipolo City
incapacity. Petitioner submits that the possible conflict of the rendered a decision declaring the voidness or incipient
courts' ruling regarding petitioner's marriage can be avoided, if invalidity of the second marriage between petitioner and private
the criminal case will be suspended, until the court rules on the respondent on the ground that a subsequent marriage contracted
validity of marriage; that if petitioner's marriage is declared by the husband during the lifetime of the legal wife is void from
void by reason of psychological incapacity then by reason of the beginning. Thereafter, the petitioner accused filed his
the arguments submitted in the subject petition, his marriage Manifestation and Motion (to Dismiss) praying for the
has never existed; and that, accordingly, petitioner could not be dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy filed against him on
convicted in the criminal case because he was never before a the ground that the second marriage between him and private
married man. respondent had already been declared void by the RTC. The CA
Issue: Was there prejudicial question? reversed the decision of the RTC.
Ruling: No. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial Issue: Was there prejudicial Question?
question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Ruling: No. The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, no evidence of their 1955 marriage so he and Zenaida remarried
are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage on January 10, 1989, upon the request of their son for the
has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is purpose of complying with the requirements for his commission
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead in the military. Salvador was convicted. The CA affirmed his
according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or conviction.
subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. In the Issue: Was there prejudicial question?
present case, it appears that all the elements of the crime of Ruling: No. A prejudicial question has been defined as one
bigamy were present when the Information was filed. It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so
undisputed that a second marriage between petitioner and intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or
private respondent was contracted during the subsistence of a innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal
valid first marriage between petitioner and Karla Y. Medina- action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts
Capili contracted on September 3, 1999. Notably, the RTC of intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution
Antipolo City itself declared the bigamous nature of the second would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or
marriage between petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the
subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for being accused would necessarily be determined. The rationale behind
bigamous in nature does not bar the prosecution of petitioner the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a
for the crime of bigamy. Jurisprudence is replete with cases prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. The
holding that the accused may still be charged with the crime of subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first
bigamy, even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of
of the second marriage, so long as the first marriage was still nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover,
subsisting when the second marriage was celebrated. The petitioners assertion would only delay the prosecution of
subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply file a
marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the
nullity, the crime had already been consummatedIn like pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal
manner, the Court recently upheld the ruling in the case. We cannot allow that. he outcome of the civil case for
aforementioned case and ruled that what makes a person annulment of petitioners marriage to Narcisa had no bearing
criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or upon the determination of petitioners innocence or guilt in the
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the
marriage. It further held that the parties to the marriage should charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be
not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. Thus,
must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable,
when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial
void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained
is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point
marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before
assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. the first marriage was annulled.
Petition Denied. Decision appealed from affirmed.
25. Sps Abunado v. People
Sps Abunado v People RULE 112
G.R. No. 159218; March 30, 2004, First Division
J. Ynares-Santiago
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
1. What is Preliminary Investigation (PI)?
Facts: On September 18, 1967, Salvador Abunado married
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to
Narcisa Arceo at the Manila City Hall. In 1988 Narcisa left for
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender
Japan to work but returned to the Philippines in 1992, when she
learned that her husband was having an extra-marital affair and a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and
has left their conjugal home. Narcisa found Salvador in Quezon the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
City cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato. She also discovered that held for trial. (Sec. 1, Rule 112)
on January 10, 1989, Salvador contracted a second marriage
It has been said that the preliminary investigation serves
with a certain Zenaida Bias before Judge Lilian Dinulos
Panontongan in San Mateo, Rizal. On January 19, 1995, an a three-fold purpose: "(1) To inquire concerning the
annulment case was filed by Salvador against Narcisa. On May commission of crime and the connection of accused with
18, 1995, a case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against it, in order that he may be informed of the nature and
Salvador and Zenaida. Salvador admitted that he first married character of the crime charged against him, and, if there
Zenaida on December 24, 1955 before a municipal trial court is probable cause for believing him guilty, that the state
judge in Concepcion, Iloilo and has four children with her prior may take the necessary steps to bring him to trial; (2) to
to their separation in 1966. It appeared however that there was preserve the evidence and keep the witnesses within the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
control of the state; and (3) to determine the amount of 3. Suppose that you filed a homicide
bail, if the offense is bailable." (Arula v Espino, G.R. No. case. The respondent learned of the
L-28949 [1969]) filing of the info when he was arrested.
The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to He was arraigned. Can he seek for PI?
free a respondent from the inconvenience, expense, No. The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation
ignominy and stress of defending himself/herself in the is waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at
course of a formal trial, until the reasonable probability of the time of entering a plea at arraignment. (Go v. CA, 206
his or her guilt has been passed upon in a more or less SCRA 138 [1992])
summary proceeding by a competent officer designated
4. In what cases do you require PI? How
by law for that purpose. Secondarily, such summary
about cases you do not require PI?
proceeding also protects the state from the burden of
A preliminary investigation is required to be conducted
unnecessary expense and effort in prosecuting alleged
before the filing of a complaint or information for an
offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous
offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least
or groundless charges. (Ledesma v. CA, 278 SCRA 656
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without
[1997])
regard to the fine. (Sec. 1, Rule 112)
Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is
A preliminary investigation is not required when:
often the only means of discovering the persons who may
be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to 1. If the complaint is filed directly with the
prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by
case on the merits and has no purpose except that of imprisonment of less four (4) years, two (2)
determining whether a crime has been committed and months and one (1) day; (Sec. 9, Rule 112)
whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused 2. If the complaint or information is filed directly
is guilty thereof, and it does not place the person against with the Municipal Trial Court involving an
whom it is taken in jeopardy. (Tandoc v. Resultan, G.R. offense punishable by imprisonment of less four
No. 59241 [1989]) (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day; (id.)
3. If the offense is covered under the rules of
Attention should also be called to the fact that the
summary procedure; and
Constitution does not require the holding of a preliminary
4. When a person was lawfully arrested without a
investigation. It is settled doctrine that the right hereto is
warrant. (Sec. 7, Rule 112)
of statutory character and may be invoked only when
specifically created by statute. (Marinas v. Siochi, G.R. 5. When do you determine the 4y 2m 1d
No. L-25707 [1981]) rule?
The right to preliminary investigation is not a mere formal The 4-2-1 rule is not determined by the penalty actually
right, it is a substantive right. To deny the accused of such imposed after trial but by the penalty imposable by law on
right would be to deprive him of due process. (Duterte v. the offense.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130191 [1998]) 6. What is the effect of the absence of
2. Do you require the testimonies of PI? Is the case dismissable?
witness in PI? No. The absence of preliminary investigations does not
No. A preliminary investigation is a mere inquiry or a affect the court’s jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they
proceeding. It is not therefore, a trial and so does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render
involve the examination of witness by way of direct or it defective; but, if there were no preliminary
cross examination. Its purpose is not to declare the investigations and the defendants, before entering their
respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt but only to plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the
determine first, whether or not a crime has been court, instead of dismissing the information, should
committed and second, whether or not the respondent is conduct it or remand the case so that the preliminary
probably guilty of the crime. (Riano)(See also: Estrada v. investigation may be conducted. (Enriquez v. Sarmiento
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140-41 [2015]) Jr., 498 SCRA 6)
The absence of a preliminary investigation will not justify
petitioner’s release because such defect did not nullify the
information and the warrant of arrest against him.
(Larranaga v. CA, GR No. 130644 [1998])

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
It has been consistently held that the absence of a Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of
preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the prosecution in support of the charge. (Sy Tiong Shiou
the criminal information or render it defective. Dismissal v. Sy Chim, 582 SCRA 517 [2009])
of the case is not the remedy. It is not a ground for the
Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it
quashal of a complaint or information. (Socrates v.
does not import absolute certainty. Probable cause need
Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773 [1996])
not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as
7. Suppose that Mr Manco lost his bag the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief.
on the room. During that time Mr Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires
Oquendo was alone. He left the room more than bare suspicion but less than evidence to justify
with a big bag. Mr Manalastas saw Mr a conviction. (Manebo v. Acosta, G.R. No. 169554
[2009])
Oquendo with a big bag. Mr Manco
returned and asked Mr Manalastas. A 9. Suppose that Mr Manco was charged
complaint was filed against Mr with slight physical injuries. The
Oquendo. When the fiscal asked Mr accused moved for PI. As the judge
Oquendo about who took the bag. He would you grant it?
answered in his counter-affidavit No. I would not grant it. The crime of slight physical
“Nobody. Nobody. Nobody.” If you are injuries is punishable by arresto menor and its procedure
the fiscal would you file the case? is governed by the rules of summary procedure. Thus, no
Yes. In the conduct of preliminary investigation, the preliminary investigation is needed in this case.
prosecutor does not decide whether there is evidence
10. Who are authorized to conduct PI?
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of respondent. A
Under Section 2 of Rule 111, the following are authorized
prosecutor merely determines the existence of probable
to conduct preliminary investigation:
cause, and to file the corresponding information if he
finds it to be so. (De Chavez v. Office of the Ombudsman,
Section 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary
G.R. No. 168830-31 [2007]) It is well-settled that in order investigations. — The following may conduct
to arrive at a finding of probable cause, the elements of preliminary investigations:
the crime charged should be present. In determining these
elements for purposes of preliminary investigation, only (a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their
facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the assistants;
respondent are required, not absolute certainty. Thus,
probable cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a (b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than
evidence that would justify a conviction. (Shu v. Dee,
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors;
G.R. No. 182573 [2014]) and
Thus, in this case, the Prosecutor merely finds that Mr
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by
Oquendo is probably guilty in stealing the bag of Mr
law.
Manco and he should be held in a full blown trial.
Therefore, I would file the case. Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations
shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court
8. How do you define probable cause in in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
PI?
Probable cause pertains to facts and circumstances The judges of first level courts are no longer authorized to
sufficient to support a well-founded belief that a crime has conduct preliminary investigation. This is pursuant to the
been committed and the accused is probably guilty amendment made by this Court on August 30, 2005 in
thereof. (Shu v. Dee, supra) A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and
114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by
The term probable cause does not mean actual and Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation from
positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is Judges of the First Level Courts, which took effect on
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus a October 3, 2005. (Sibulo v. Toledo-Mupas, A.M. No.
finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into MTJ-07-1686 [2008])
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or The following are also authorized to conduct PI:
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. The COMELEC, through its duly authorized The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses
legal officers, has the power, concurrent with the involving public officers or employees is not exclusive
other prosecuting arms of the government, to but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies
conduct preliminary investigation of all offenses of the government. Such investigatory agencies referred
punishable under the Omnibus Election Code and to include the PCGG and the provincial and city
to prosecute the same. (Sec. 265, BP 881 as prosecutors and their assistants, the state prosecutors and
amended)
the judges of the municipal trial courts and municipal
2. The Office of the Ombudsman has the authority
circuit trial court.
to investigate and prosecute on its own or on
complaint by any person, any act or omission of In summation, the Constitution, Section 15 of the
any public officer or employee, office, or agency, Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the
when such omission appears to be illegal, unjust, Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, do not give to the
improper or inefficient. It has the primary
Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, tin the exercise of this committed by public officers or employees. The authority
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving
stage, from any investigatory agency o the public officers or employees is concurrent with other
government, the investigation of such cases. (Sec. government investigating agencies such as provincial,
15[1], RA 6770) city and state prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman, in
3. The PCGG with the assistance of the OSG and the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases
other gov’t agencies is empowered to investigate, cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any
file, and prosecute cases investigated by it. stage, from any investigating agency of the government,
the investigation of such cases.
In other words, respondent DOJ Panel is not precluded
11. Gregorio Honasan was charged with from conducting any investigation of cases against public
coup d’état. The DOJ initiated PI. officers involving violations of penal laws but if the cases
Honasan opposed and argue that the fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
Ombudsman has jurisdiction. Is then respondent Ombudsman may, in the exercise of its
Honasan correct? primary jurisdiction take over at any stage.
No. For purposes of investigation and prosecution, Their authority to conduct preliminary investigation shall
Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses may be include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their
subdivided into two classes, to wit: (1) those cognizable respective territorial jurisdictions. Thus, the DOJ
by the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling under the prosecutors have to authority to conduct preliminary
jurisdiction of the regular courts. The difference between investigation of criminal complaints filed with them for
the two, aside from the category of the courts wherein offenses cognizable by the proper court within their
they are filed, is on the authority to investigate as respective territorial jurisdictions, including those
distinguished from the authority to prosecute, such cases. offenses which come within the original jurisdiction of
The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary the Sandiganbayan; but with the qualification that in
investigation on any Ombudsman case may be exercised offenses falling within the original jurisdiction of the
by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the Sandiganbayan, the prosecutor shall, after their
Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or investigation, transmit the records and their resolutions to
their assistance, either in their regular capacities or as the Ombudsman or his deputy for appropriate action.
deputized Ombudsman prosecutors. Also, the prosecutor cannot dismiss the complaint without
the prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his
The prosecution of cases cognizable by the deputy, nor can the prosecutor file an Information with the
Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct exclusive control Sandiganbayan without being deputized by, and without
and supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman. In cases prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy.
cognizable by the regular Courts, the control and (Honasan v. The Panel Of Investigating Prosecutors Of
supervision by the Office of the Ombudsman is only in The Department Of Justice, GR. No. 159747 [2004])
Ombudsman cases in the sense defined above. The law
recognizes a concurrence of jurisdiction between the 12. Suppose that the provincial
Office of the Ombudsman and other investigative prosecutor of Bulacan is in QC. Can
agencies of the government in the prosecution of cases he conduct PI in QC?
cognizable by regular courts. No. The power to conduct preliminary investigation is
jurisdictional. Thus, the provincial prosecutor of Bulacan
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
can only conduct preliminary investigation on offenses court issued the other order that admitted the Amended
committed in Bulacan only. Thus, he has no jurisdiction Information for murder and directed the issuance of a warrant
to investigate the complaints filed in Quezon City. of arrest. Petitioner questioned these two orders before the
appellate court.
13. Now, what is the difference between
Upon arraignment, the petitioner refused to plead. The trial
Preliminary Investigation and court entered the plea of "not guilty" for him. Prior to this, the
Preliminary Examination (PEx)? petitioner filed an Urgent Application for Admission to Bail Ex
PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY Abundanti Cautela, which the trial court granted on the ground
INVESTIGATION EXAMINATION that the evidence of guilt of the crime of murder is not strong.
Executive Function Judicial Function The trial court went on to try the petitioner under the Amended
It is a function that The judicial Information. Then, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of
properly pertains to the determination of probable homicide. From the trial court's decision, the petitioner filed an
public prosecutor who is cause, on the other hand, appeal to the CA. The appellate court confirmed the decision of
given a broad discretion to is one made by the judge the trial court. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
determine whether to ascertain whether a denied. Hence, this petition to the SC.
probable cause exists and warrant of arrest should Issue:
to charge those whom he be issued against the
believes to have accused. The judge must 1. Did Leviste waived his right?
committed the crime as satisfy himself that based
defined by law and thus on the evidence No. By applying for bail, petitioner did not waive his right to
challenge the regularity of the reinvestigation of the charge
should be held for submitted, there is
against him, the validity of the admission of the Amended
trial.(People v. Castillo necessity for placing the
Information, and the legality of his arrest under the Amended
and Mejia, 590 SCRA 95) accused under custody in
Information, as he vigorously raised them prior to his
order not to frustrate the
arraignment. The principle that the accused is precluded after
Otherwise stated, such ends of justice. If the
arraignment from questioning the illegal arrest or the lack of or
official has the quasi- judge finds no probable
irregular preliminary investigation applies only if he voluntarily
judicial authority to cause, the judge cannot be
enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously
determine whether or not forced to issue the arrest
invoking his objections thereto. There must be clear and
a criminal case must be warrant. (People v. convincing proof that petitioner had an actual intention to
filed in court. Whether or Castillo and Mejia, id.) relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause.
not that function has been When the only proof of intention rests on what a party does, his
correctly discharged by The judicial act should be so manifestly consistent with, and indicative of,
the public prosecutor, i.e., determination of probable an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the
whether or not he has cause, on the other hand, particular right that no other explanation of his conduct is
made a correct determines whether a possible. From the given circumstances, the Court cannot
ascertainment of the warrant of arrest should reasonably infer a valid waiver on the part of petitioner to
existence of probable be issued. (Mendoza v. preclude him from obtaining a definite resolution of the
cause in a case, is a matter People, id.) objections he so timely invoked. Other than its allegation of
that the trial court itself active participation, the OSG offered no clear and convincing
does not and may not be proof that petitioners participation in the trial was unconditional
compelled to pass with the intent to voluntarily and unequivocally abandon his
upon.(Mendoza v. People, petition. In fact, on January 26, 2010, petitioner still moved for
G.R. No. 197293 [2014]) the early resolution of the present petition.
2. Can a private party move for reinvestigation?

14. Leviste v Almeda
Yes. The Court holds that the private complainant can move for
Leviste v. Almeda
reinvestigation, subject to and in light of the ensuing
G.R. No. 182677; August 3, 2010; Third Division
disquisition. All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or
J. Carpio Morales
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control
Facts: On January 16, 2007, an Information was filed against of the public prosecutor. The private complainant in a criminal
Jose Antonio Leviste charging him with homicide for the death case is merely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot,
of Rafael de las Alas. The private complainants-heirs of de las by himself, ask for the reinvestigation of the case after the
Alas filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying for the deferment information had been filed in court, the proper party for that
of the proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-examine being the public prosecutor who has the control of the
the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to prosecution of the case. Thus, in cases where the private
determine the proper offense. The RTC thereafter issued the complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal
Order granting the motion by the complainants, thus, allowing action, and is granted the authority to prosecute, the private
the prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation. Later, the trial
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
complainant, by counsel and with the conformity of the public 15. Mr Oquendo filed charges for
prosecutor, can file a motion for reinvestigation. attempted homicide against Mr Manco
3. Is the respondent correct in arguing that the before the prosecutor. Finding
complainants should have appealed the reinvestigation probable cause, an information was
to the DOJ? filed. The court investigated the
No. A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of information and found less serious
a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty physical injuries instead. The case
prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day was dismissed.
without regard to fine. As an exception, the rules provide that
there is no need for a preliminary investigation in cases of a a. Was the court correct?
lawful arrest without a warrant involving such type of offense, No. The court erred in making an executive determination
so long as an inquest, where available, has been conducted. of probable cause when it overturned the prosecutor’s
Contrary to petitioners position that private complainant should own determination. And this is true even if the court was
have appealed to the DOJ Secretary, such remedy is not no longer satisfied with the evidence presented to sustain
immediately available in cases subject of inquest. Noteworthy the effectivity of the arrest warrants previously issued for
is the proviso that the appeal to the DOJ Secretary is by petition the original Information. The court could have just
by a proper party under such rules as the Department of Justice revoked the previously issued arrest warrants and
may prescribe. The rule referred to is the 2000 National
required the prosecution to submit additional evidence for
Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal, Section 1 of which
the purpose of issuing the arrest warrants based on the
provides that the Rule shall apply to appeals from resolutions x
x x in cases subject of preliminary investigation/ amended Information. (See People v. Castillo and Mejia,
reinvestigation. In cases subject of inquest, therefore, the id.)
private party should first avail of a preliminary investigation or
reinvestigation, if any, before elevating the matter to the DOJ
b. Suppose that instead of
Secretary. dismissing the case, the court
ordered to change the nature of
4. Whether or not the amendment of the Information
from homicide to murder is considered a substantial
crime. Same question.
amendment. No. The act of the judge would still be considered as an
encroachment to the executive functions. Thus, the court
Yes. A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts is not correct.
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. 16. People v. Castillo
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the People v. Castillo and Mejia
amendment is whether a defense under the information as it G.R. No. 171888; June 19, 2009; Second Division
originally stood would be available after the amendment is J. Quisumbing
made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would
be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in Facts: Sarino is an owner of the lot near SM. In September
the other. An amendment to an information which does not 1999, respondent Felicito R. Mejia, Municipal Building
change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect Official of Bacoor, sent to the stallholders Notices of Violation
the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the of the National Building Code on the grounds that the structures
accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each they were occupying were erected without building permits and
been held to be one of form and not of substance. here is no occupied by them without the necessary certificates of
substantial distinction between a preliminary investigation and occupancy having been first secured. On February 16, 2000, a
a reinvestigation since both are conducted in the same manner task force from the Bacoor Municipal Hall effected the closure
and for the same objective of determining whether there exists of the stalls through the installation of galvanized iron fences.
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime On September 6, 2001, Sarino filed a Complaint against
has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty respondents Castillo and Mejia before the Office of the
thereof and should be held for trial. What is essential is that Ombudsman charging them criminally for violation of Section
petitioner was placed on guard to defend himself from the 3(e) and (f) of Rep. Act No. 3019 and Rep. Act No. 6713, and
charge of murder after the claimed circumstances were made administratively for oppression, grave misconduct and for
known to him as early as the first motion. Petitioner did not, committing acts contrary to law. According to Sarino, the
however, make much of the opportunity to present construction of the galvanized fence in February 2000 is
countervailing evidence on the proposed amended charge. tantamount to an unlawful taking of their property causing them
Despite notice of hearing, petitioner opted to merely observe undue injury and that despite his verbal and written demands,
the proceedings and declined to actively participate, even with respondents refused to remove said fence. On May 7, 2003, the
extreme caution, in the reinvestigation. Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special
Prosecutor, filed an Information against respondents for
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 before the

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Sandiganbayan. On August 20, 2003, respondents voluntarily executive determination of probable cause when it overturned
surrendered to the Sandiganbayan and posted their respective the Ombudsman’s own determination. And this is true even if
bonds for their provisional liberty. Respondents moved for the the Sandiganbayan was no longer satisfied with the evidence
reinvestigation of the case which the Sandiganbayan gave due presented to sustain the effectivity of the arrest warrants
course. After the reinvestigation, the Office of the Special previously issued for the original Information. The
Prosecutor, upon approval of the Ombudsman, filed a Motion Sandiganbayan could have just revoked the previously issued
for Leave to Admit Attached Amended Information, which the arrest warrants and required the Ombudsman to submit
Sandiganbayan admitted the same. The respondents then filed additional evidence for the purpose of issuing the arrest
a Comment thereon with Motion for Judicial Determination of warrants based on the amended Information.
Probable Cause. The Sandiganbayan denied the respondents’
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. On Moreover, it was clearly premature on the part of the
October 10, 2005, the Sandiganbayan, upon motion for Sandiganbayan to make a determinative finding prior to the
reconsideration filed by respondents, reversed its May 9, 2005 parties’ presentation of their respective evidence that there was
Resolution and dismissed the case. The Sandiganbayan no bad faith and manifest partiality on the respondents’ part and
likewise set aside the arrest warrants it previously issued. It held undue injury on the part of the complainant. In Go v. Fifth
that the instant criminal case is a mere rehash of the previously Division, Sandiganbayan, we held that "it is well established
dismissed criminal case filed by complainant’s lessees against that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is
respondents. It also ruled that there was no evident bad faith, evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be best
manifest partiality or inexcusable negligence that can be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits." Also, it
attributed to respondents. Neither did complainant’s claim of would be unfair to expect the prosecution to present all the
undue injury have any leg to stand on. The Office of the Special evidence needed to secure the conviction of the accused upon
Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. the filing of the information against the latter. The reason is
found in the nature and objective of a preliminary investigation.
Issue: Did the Sandiganbayan acted in grave abuse of discretion Here, the public prosecutors do not decide whether there is
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction? evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person
charged; they merely determine whether there is sufficient
Ruling: Yes. Corollary to the principle that a judge cannot be ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
compelled to issue a warrant of arrest if he or she deems that committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
there is no probable cause for doing so, the judge in turn should should be held for trial.
not override the public prosecutor’s determination of probable
cause to hold an accused for trial on the ground that the 17. What are the instances when a court
evidence presented to substantiate the issuance of an arrest can overturn the investigation of the
warrant was insufficient. It must be stressed that in our criminal
justice system, the public prosecutor exercises a wide latitude
prosecutor?
of discretion in determining whether a criminal case should be It is well-settled that courts of law are precluded from
filed in court, and that courts must respect the exercise of such disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and the DOJ
discretion when the information filed against the person on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for
charged is valid on its face, and that no manifest error or grave the purpose of filing criminal informations. The rationale
abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor. behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation
of powers, dictating that the determination of probable
Thus, absent a finding that an information is invalid on its face
or that the prosecutor committed manifest error or grave abuse cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect is properly an
of discretion, a judge’s determination of probable cause is executive function. (Alberto v. CA, G.R. No. 182130
limited only to the judicial kind or for the purpose of deciding [2013])
whether the arrest warrants should be issued against the
accused.
The court can overturn the investigation of the prosecutor
in the following instances:
In the instant case, there is no question that both the original
and amended Informations were valid on their face. Also, a 1. When the prosecutor acted in grave abuse of
scrutiny of the resolution of the Ombudsman which precipitated discretion amounting to lack or excess of
the filing of the original Information and the subsequent jurisdiction (Lanier v. People, G.R. No. 189176
Memorandum recommending the amendment of the [2014];
Information would likewise show that the finding of probable 2. When the prosecutor grossly misapprehends the
cause against the respondents were sufficiently supported by law (Shu v. Dee, supra);
substantial evidence. As a matter of fact, in the Resolution, the 3. When the prosecutor acts in a manner so patent
Ombudsman took pains to mention each element of the crime
and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 and then one
by one adequately explained how and why those elements were
duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty of the
satisfied. Hence, as the amended Information was valid on its law; (id) or
face and there is no manifest error or arbitrariness on the part of 4. When the prosecutor acts outside the
the Ombudsman, the Sandiganbayan erred in making an contemplation of the law. (id.)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks 2 The There is no There is a
and balances, whereby the judiciary, through a special investigating ground. ground.
WITHIN offcer shall
civil action of certiorari, has been tasked by the present
10 determine if DISMISS ISSUE A
Constitution "to determine whether or not there has been Days there are grounds THE CASE. SUBPOENA
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of from to continue the TO
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality filing investigation. RESPONDE
of the Government. (Alberto v. CA, supra) NT
3 Examination by  The respondent shall
18. Distinguish executive determination respondent on have the right to examine
the evidence the evidence submitted
of probable cause from judicial submitted by the by the complainant
determination of probable cause? complainant. which he may not have
been furnished and to
copy them at his
EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL expense.
DETERMINATION DETERMINATION  If the evidence is
Determines whether a Determines whether there voluminous, the
crime has been committed is sufficient evidence, complainant may be
and whether the accused upon personal required to specify those
is probably guilty thereof examination by the judge, which he intends to
and should be held into to determine whether a present against the
respondent, and these
trial. warrant of arrest or a shall be made available
search warrant would be for examination or
issued against the copying by the
accused. respondent at his
expense.
 Objects as evidence need
19. Explain how the process of PI works not be furnished a party
1 A complaint is  The complaint shall state but shall be made
filed. the address of the available for
respondent; and examination, copying, or
 It shall be accompanied photographing at the
by: expense of the
1. The affidavits of the requesting party.
complainant; 4 The respondent shall If the respondent
2. The affidavits of his submit: 1. cannot be
witnesses; as well as WITHIN 1. his counter- subpoenaed, or
3. Other supporting 10 affidavit and that of 2. If subpoenaed,
documents to Days his witnesses; and does not submit
establish probable from 2. Other supporting counter-affidavits
cause. the documents relied within the ten (10)
 They shall be in such receipt upon for his day period,
number of copies as of defense
there are respondents, subpoena The counter-affidavits The investigating
plus two (2) copies for shall be subscribed and officer shall
the official file. sworn to and certified, RESOLVE the
 The affidavits shall be with copies thereof complaint based on
subscribed and sworn to furnished by him to the the evidence
before any prosecutor or complainant. presented by the
government official complainant.
authorized to administer The respondent shall
oath, or, in their absence not be allowed to file a
or unavailability, before motion to dismiss in
a notary public, each of lieu of a counter-
who must certify that he affidavit.
personally examined the
affiants and that he is
satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and
understood their
affidavits.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
4 The investigating officer may set a hearing if conducting
there are facts and issues to be clarified from a another
WITHIN party or a witness. The parties can be present at preliminary
10 the hearing but without the right to examine or investigation.
Days cross-examine. They may, however, submit to LEGEND ON #7
from the investigating officer questions which may be IP – Investigating Prosecutor
submis- asked to the party or witness. OF – Officer to whom the resolution is Forwarded
sion of D – Recommends the DISMISSAL
affidavits This shall be terminated WITHIN 5 DAYS F – Recommends the FILING
5 The prosecutor shall conduct his investigation. A – Approved
R – Rejected/Disapproved
THERE IS THERE IS NO
WITHIN PROBABLE CAUSE PROBABLE CAUSE 8
10 1. He shall prepare He shall
Days WITHIN
the RESOLUTION RECOMMEND 15
after and the THE DISMISSAL Days The aggrieved party is not precluded from filing
investi- INFORMATION; from
gation of the complaint. a motion for reconsideration.
2. He shall certify receipt
under oath in the of
information that: resolution
a. He, or as shown by
the record, an
authorized officer, 9
has personally
examined the WITHIN If the motion is DENIED, the aggrieved party is
complainant and 15 given another 15 days to appeal the case to the
his witnesses; Days
DOJ from the denial of the motion to
b. that there is from
notice of reconsideration
reasonable ground
to believe that a denial of
crime has been MR
committed and 9 The appropriate remedy is Petition to Certiorari
that the accused is under RULE 65 to the Court of Appeals.
probably guilty WITHIN
thereof; 15 The petition for review under Rule 43 is NOT
c. that the accused Days ALLOWED. (See Agrovan v. SMC, 702 SCRA
was informed of from the
the complaint and 191 [2013]; and Alcaraz v, Gonzalez, 502 SCRA
notice of
of the evidence resolution 518)
submitted against of the
him; and DOJ Sec.
that he was given an
opportunity to submit The aggrieved party may also APPEAL to the
controverting evidence. Office of the President if the following
6 The investigating officer shall forward the record circumstances are met: (ReNew – 6-30)
of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or 1. The offense involved is punishable by
WITHIN chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or WITHIN
30 Reclusion perpetua to death.
5 his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the 2. New and material issues are related which
Days Days
Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original from the were not previously presented before the
from jurisdiction. notice of DOJ and hence, not ruled upon;
the resolution 3. The prescription of the offense is not due to
resolution of the lapse within 6 months from notice of the
7 The officer forwarded shall act on the resolution DOJ questioned resolution; and
and shall immediately inform the parties of such
WITHIN 4. The appeal or petition for review is filed
action.
10 IP = D IP = D IP = F IP = F
within 30 days from notice.
Days OF = A OF = R OF = A OF = R 10 THIS APPLIES ONLY TO THE APPEALS
from Dismiss The OF may, The Dismiss BROUGHT TO THE OFFICE OF THE
receipt the by himself, information the case. WITHIN PRESIDENT.
case. FILE the shall be 15 days The aggrieved party may file a petition for review
thereof from
information FILED. under Rule 43 to the Court of Appeals.
against the notice of
respondent, or resolution
direct any of the
other assistant Office of
prosecutor or the Upon the decision of the CA, within 15 days from
state President the receipt of the resolution, the party aggrieved
prosecutor to may still avail of an appeal by certiorari to the
do so without Supreme Court under Rule 45
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
has already been arrested. (Section 6, Rule 112) The word
shall in statutory construction implies mandatory duty.
20. Is clarificatory hearing required/
demandable? Hence, the issuance of a warrant of arrest implies the
No. A clarificatory hearing is not indispensable during existence of a finding of probable cause by the court.
hearing. Thus, the respondent cannot demand a
24. What are the instances when a
clarificatory hearing.
warrant of arrest is not necessary?
Rather than being mandatory, a clarificatory hearing is A warrant of arrest is not necessary when:
optional on the part of the investigating officer. (Racho v.
1. The accused is lawfully arrested without a
Miro, G.R. No. 168578 [2008]
warrant – a commitment order will be issued in
lieu of the warrant; or
2. The penalty of the offense is fine only.
21. Five people were charged with
homicide. After arraignment, one 25. When the accused is lawfully arrested
alleged that he was denied to without warrant and no PI was
preliminary investigation. The court conducted, can an information be filed
denied. Is the denial correct? without the PI?
Yes. The denial is correct. Consequently, when they Yes. Under the rules of inquest proceedings, if a person
entered a plea, they thereby waived all objections that are was lawfully arrested without a warrant, an inquest would
grounds for a motion to quash, except lack of jurisdiction be conducted by the inquest officer in lieu of the PI
or failure of the information to charge an offense. Thus,
they waived the right to a preliminary investigation when
26. You say inquest proceeding. What is
they failed to invoke it prior to, or at least at, the time of it?
the entry of their plea in the RTC. (People v. Gomez, G.R. Inquest is an informal and summary investigation
No. L-29086 [1982]) conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases
involving persons arrested and detained without the
Inasmuch as the settled doctrine in this jurisdiction is that benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the
the right to the preliminary investigation itself must be purpose of deter-mining whether or not said persons
asserted or invoked before the plea, otherwise, it is should remain under custody and correspondingly be
deemed waived, it stands to reason, that the absence of the charged in court. (Section 1, Rules on Inquest Procedures
certification in question is also waived by failure to allege (RIP), DOJ Circ. 61-93)
it before the plea. (Estrella vs. Ruiz, 58 SCRA 779)
27. Explain the process of inquest
While the right to preliminary investigation is a proceeding.
substantive right and not a mere formal or technical right 1 A person has been arrested without warrant.
of the accused, nevertheless, the right to preliminary Commencement of inquest.
investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to  It shall be considered commenced upon receipt by
invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at the Inquest Officer from the law enforcement
arraignment.(People v. Buluran, 325 SCRA 476 [2000]) authorities of the complaint/referral documents
which should include:
Thus, in the case at hand, the accused entered his plea. a. the affidavit of arrest;
Upon his entry of plea, his right to preliminary b. the investigation report;
investigation has been deemed waived. c. the statement of the complainant and
witnesses; and
22. Can the respondent filed a motion to d. other supporting evidence gathered by the
2 police in the course of the latter’s investigation
dismiss in lieu of counter-affidavit in of the criminal incident involving the arrested
preliminary investigation? or detained person.
No. The respondent is not allowed to file a motion to  The inquest Officer shall, as far as practicable, cause
dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit. (Section 3, Rule 112) the affidavit of arrest and statements/affidavits of
the complainant and the witnesses to be subscribed
23. Is the issuance of a warrant and sworn to before him by the arresting officer and
the affiants. The inquest proceedings must be
mandatory if the judge finds probable terminated within the period prescribed under the
cause? provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
Yes. If the judge finds probable cause, he shall issue a as amended. (Section 3, RIP)
warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
There are cases where the submission of a particular reason of any of the
document is required. To wit: foregoing factors must be
noted by the Inquest
1. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (PD Officer and reflected in
1612) the record of the case.
a. a list/inventory of the articles and items (Sec. 6, RIP)
subject of the offense; and All charges and counter-
b. statement of their respective value charges arising from the
2. Illegal Possession of Explosives (PD 1866) same incident shall, as far
a. chemistry report duly signed by the as practicable, be
forensic chemist and consolidated and
b. photograph of the explosives, if readily inquested jointly to avoid
available. contradictory or
3. Violation of the Fisheries Law (PD inconsistent dispositions.
704)(now RA 8550) (Sec. 7, RIP)
a. photograph of the confiscated fish, if Initial Duty of the inquest officer: To Determine if the
readily available; and warrantless arrest was made in accordance with the
b. certification of the Bureau of Fisheries provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
and Aquatic Resources; Court.
4. Violation of the Forestry Law (PD 705) THE WARRANTLESS THE WARRANTLESS
a. scale sheets containing the volume and ARREST IS VALID ARREST IS INVALID
species of the forest products confiscated, The detained person should He shall:
number of pieces and other important be asked if he desires to a. RECOMMEND the
details such as estimated value of the avail himself of a RELEASE of the
preliminary investigation. person arrested or
products confiscated;
 if he does, he shall be detained;
b. certification of Department of made to execute a waiver b. note down the
Environment and Natural of the provisions of disposition of the
Resources/Bureau of Forest Article 125 of the referral document;
Management; and Revised Penal Code, as c. prepare a brief
c. seizure receipt. amended, with the memorandum
The submission of the foregoing documents shall no assistance of a lawyer indicating the reasons
absolutely be required if there are other forms of and, in case of non- for the action taken; and
evidence submitted which will sufficiently establish availability of a lawyer, d. forward the same,
a responsible person of together with the record
the facts sought to be proved by the foregoing
his choice. of the case, to the City
documents. (Sec. 4, RIP) or Provincial Prosecutor
THE DOCUMENTS THE DOCUMENTS The preliminary for appropriate action.
SUBMITTED WERE SUBMITTED WERE 4 investigation may be
COMPLETE INCOMPLETE conducted by the Inquest Where the recommendation
The inquest would The Inquest Officer shall Officer himself or by any for the release of the
continue. direct the law other Assistant Prosecutor detained person is approved
The presence of the enforcement agency to to whom the case may be by the City or Provincial
assigned by the City or Prosecutor but the evidence
detained person who is submit the required
Provincial Prosecutor, on hand warrant the conduct
under custody shall be evidence within the which investigation shall of a regular preliminary
ensured during the period prescribed under be terminated within investigation, the order of
proceedings. the provisions of Article fifteen(15) days from its release shall be served on
Exceptions: 125 of the Revised Penal inception.(Sec.10, RIP) the officer having custody
Code; of said detainee and shall
a. if he is confined in a direct the said officer to
hospital; If the law enforcement serve upon the detainee the
subpoena or notice of
3 b. if he is detained in a agency failed to do so,
preliminary investigation,
place under the Inquest Officer shall
together with the copies of
maximum security; ORDER THE the charge sheet or
c. if production of the RELEASE of the complaint, affidavits or
detained person detained person and, sworn statements of the
involve security where the inquest is complainant and his
risks; or conducted outside of witnesses and other
d. if the presence of office hours, direct the supporting evidence. (Sec.
the detained person law enforcement agency 9, RIP)
is not feasible by concerned to file the case
reason of age, with the City or
health, sex and other Provincial Prosecutor for
similar factors. appropriate action. (Sec.
The absence of the 5, RIP)
detained person by
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
INQUUEST PROPER Contents of information.
If the detained person did not opt for PI or refused The information shall, among others, contain:
to sign the required waiver, the Inquest Officer shall a. a certification by the filing Prosecutor that he is filing
proceed with the inquest by examining the sworn the same in accordance with the provisions of Section
statements/affidavits of the complainant and the 7, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
witnesses and other supporting evidence submitted to as amended, in cases cognizable by the Regional Trial
him. Court;
b. the full name and alias, if any, and address of the
If necessary, the Inquest Officer may require the accused;
presence of the complainant and witnesses and subject c. the place where the accused is actually detained;
them to an informal and summary investigation or d. the full names and addresses of the complainant and
examination for purposes of determining the witnesses;
existence of probable cause. (Sec. 11, RIP) e. a detailed description of the recovered item, if any;
f. the full name and address of the evidence custodian;
THERE IS PROBABLE THERE IS NO g. the age and date of birth of the complainant or the
CAUSE PROBABLE CAUSE accused, if eighteen (18)years of age or below; and
The inquest officer shall h. the full names and addresses of the parents, custodians
The Inquest Officer shall:
PREPARE for the or guardians of the minor complainant or accused, as
a. RECOMMEND the
corresponding complaint the case may be.
RELEASE of the
/information with the arrested or detained
RECOMMENDATION
that the same be filed in
person;
b. Note down his 28. Estrada v. Ombudsman
court.
disposition on the Estrada v. Ombudsman
It shall indicate the offense referral document; G.R. Nos. 212140-41; 21 January 2015; EN BANC
committed and the amount c. Prepare a brief J. Carpio
of bail recommended, if memorandum
bailable. Thereafter, the indicating the reasons Facts: Sometime in November and December 2013, the
record of the case, together for the action taken;
with the prepared com- Ombudsman served on Sen. Estrada two (2) criminal
and
plaint/information, shall be complaints for plunder, among others. Eighteen (18) of
5 d. Forward the record of
forwarded to the City or
the case to the City or Sen. Estrada’s co-respondents in the two complaints filed
Provincial Prosecutor for
appropriate action. Provincial Prosecutor their counter-affidavits between 9 December 2013 and 14
for appropriate March 2014. On 20 March 2014, Sen. Estrada filed his
The complaint/ information action. “Request to be Furnished with Copies of Counter-
may be filed by the Inquest
Officer himself or by any Affidavits of the Other Respondents, Affidavits of New
If the recommendation of
other Assistant Prosecutor the Inquest Officer for Witnesses and Other Filings” (the “Request”). Sen.
to whom the case may be the release of the arrested Estrada’s request was made “pursuant to the right of a
assigned by the City or
Provincial Prosecutor. (Sec.
or detained person is respondent ‘to examine the evidence submitted by the
13, RIP) approved, the order of complainant which he may not have been furnished’
release shall be served on (Section 3[b], Rule 112 of the Rules of Court) and to
the officer having
custody of the said
‘have access to the evidence on record’ (Section 4[c],
detainee. Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman).” The Ombudsman denied Sen. Estrada’s
Should the City or Request, which is not the subject of the present certiorari
Provincial Prosecutor case.
disapprove the
recommendation of Issue: Is Estrada allowed to ask for a copy of the counter-
release, the arrested or affidavits submitted by his co-respondents in preliminary
detained person shall
remain under custody,
investigation?
and the corresponding
Ruling: No. There is no law or rule which requires the
complaint/information
shall be filed by the City Ombudsman to furnish a respondent with copies of the
or Provincial Prosecutor counter-affidavits of his co-respondents.
or by any Assistant
Prosecutor to whom the First, Sen. Estrada claims that the denial of his Request
case may be assigned. for the counter affidavits of his co-respondents violates
(Sec. 15, RIP) his constitutional right to due process. Sen. Estrada,
however, fails to specify a law or rule which states that it
is a compulsory requirement of due process in a
preliminary investigation that the Ombudsman furnish a
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
respondent with the counter-affidavits of his co- evidence on record" in Section 4(c), Rule II of the
respondents. Neither Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure refers to the affidavits
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure nor Section 4(c), and supporting documents of "the complainant or
Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the supporting witnesses" in Section 4(a) of the same Rule II.
Ombudsman supports Sen. Estrada’s claim. What the
Third, Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
Criminal Procedure provides that "[t]he respondent shall
require is for the Ombudsman to furnish the respondent
have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the
with a copy of the complaint and the supporting affidavits
complainant which he may not have been furnished and
and documents at the time the order to submit the counter-
to copy them at his expense." A respondent’s right to
affidavit is issued to the respondent. This is clear from
examine refers only to "the evidence submitted by the
Section 4(b), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the
complainant."
Office of the Ombudsman when it states, "[a]fter such
affidavits [of the complainant and his witnesses] have Thus, whether under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
been secured, the investigating officer shall issue an Criminal Procedure or under Rule II of the Ombudsman’s
order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other Rules of Procedure, there is no requirement whatsoever
supporting documents, directing the respondent to submit, that the affidavits executed by the corespondents should
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his counter- be furnished to a respondent. Justice Velasco’s dissent
affidavits x x x." At this point, there is still no counter- relies on the ruling in Office of the Ombudsman v. Reyes
affidavit submitted by any respondent. Clearly, what (Reyes case), an administrative case, in which a different
Section 4(b) refers to are affidavits of the complainant and set of rules of procedure and standards apply. Sen.
his witnesses, not the affidavits of the co-respondents. Estrada’s Petition, in contrast, involves the preliminary
Obviously, the counter-affidavits of the co-respondents investigation stage in a criminal case. Rule III on the
are not part of the supporting affidavits of the Procedure in Administrative Cases of the Rules of
complainant. No grave abuse of discretion can thus be Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman applies in the
attributed to the Ombudsman for the issuance of the 27 Reyes case, while Rule II on the Procedure in Criminal
March 2014 Order which denied Sen. Estrada’s Request. Cases of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman applies in Sen. Estrada’s Petition. In both
Although Section 4(c), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure
cases, the Rules of Court apply in a suppletory character
of the Office of the Ombudsman provides that a
or by analogy.
respondent "shall have access to the evidence on record,"
this provision should be construed in relation to Section Petition dismissed.
4(a) and (b) of the same Rule, as well as to the Rules of
Criminal Procedure. First, Section 4(a) states that "the RULE 113
investigating officer shall require the complainant or
supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate ARREST
the complaint." The "supporting witnesses" are the 1. What is an arrest?
witnesses of the complainant, and do not refer to the co- Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that
respondents. he may be bound to answer for the commission of an
Second, Section 4(b) states that "the investigating officer offense. (Sec.1, Rule 113)
shall issue an order attaching thereto a copy of the 2. What are the types of arrest?
affidavits and all other supporting documents, directing An arrest could either be with a warrant or without a
the respondent" tosubmit his counter-affidavit. The warrant.
affidavits referred to in Section 4(b) are the affidavits
mentioned in Section 4(a). Clearly, the affidavits to be 3. Suppose that a warrant was issued
furnished to the respondent are the affidavits of the against Mr Manco for homicide. You
complainant and his supporting witnesses. The provision are directed by the judge. How do you
in the immediately succeeding Section 4(c) of the same arrest Mr Manco?
Rule II that a respondent shall have "access to the As the arresting officer, I have to execute the warrant to
evidence on record" does not stand alone, but should be arrest the accused and to deliver him to the nearest police
read in relation to the provisions of Section 4(a and b) of
station or jail without unnecessary delay. (Sec. 3, Rule
the same Rule II requiring the investigating officer to 113) I must cause the warrant to be executed within ten
furnish the respondent with the "affidavits and other (10) days from receipt. (Sec. 4, Rule 113) To arrest him, I
supporting documents" submitted by "the complainant or have to restrain Mr Manco of his liberty personally, or he
supporting witnesses." Thus, a respondent’s "access to has to submit under my custody. I am not allowed to use
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
unnecessary force in making an arrest. Mr Manco shall Unless the person to be arrested:
not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for
1. Escapes;
his detention. (Sec. 2, Rule 113)
2. Flees;
In effecting the arrest, I may orally summon as many 3. Forcibly resists;
persons as I deem necessary to assist me in effecting the 4. Engages in the commission of the offense; or
arrest. Every person I summoned has the duty to assist me 5. The giving of the information will imperil the
in effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance arrest.
without detriment to himself. (Sec. 10, Rule 113)
4. The warrant of arrest is headed to the
Upon arresting Mr Manco, I must inform him about: chief of police of the PNP Malolos
1. The cause of his arrest; and ordering the arrest of Mr Manco. How
2. The fact that a warrant was issued for his arrest. many days do you have to effect the
arrest against Mr. Manco?
However, such information need not be given if the Under the rules, the chief of police shall cause the warrant
person to be arrested: to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt.
1. Flees; Within ten (10) days after the expiration of the period, the
2. Forcibly resists; or officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make
3. The giving of the information will imperil the a report to the judge who issued the warrant. In case of his
arrest. failure to execute the warrant, he shall state the reasons
I need not to have the warrant in my possession at the time therefor. (Sec. 4, Rule 113)
of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so 5. Now Mr Pagkanlungan did not execute
requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as
the warrant. But suppose that Mr
practicable. (Sec. 7, Rule 113)
Manco was arrested beyond that 10
If I found Mr Manco inside his house and informed him day period, can you assail the arrest?
about his arrest and my authority, but he refused to admit Mr Manco cannot assail the arrest. Even if the ten day
me, I may break into any building or enclosure where the period had already lapsed, the warrant of arrest remains
person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be. valid unless revoked by the judge.
(Sec. 11, Rule 113) If I am trapped, I may break out
therefrom when necessary to liberate me. (Sec. 12, Rule 6. At what point in time can we render
113). the warrant ineffective?
Once the warrant is issued, it shall remain valid until the
NOTES TO REMEMBER: time it was revoked or cancelled by the judge.
IF THE ARREST IS WITHOUT WARRANT, please 7. When do you normally implement an
note that the arresting officer must instead inform him
arrest?
about:
Under the rules, an arrest may be made on any day and at
1. The cause of his arrest; and any time of the day or night. (Sec. 6, Rule 113)
2. His authority to cause the arrest.
8. Now what are the instances when
Unless the person to be arrested: there is a valid warrantless arrest as
provided in Section 5, Rule 113?
1. Escapes;
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A
2. Flees; peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
3. Forcibly resists; a person:
4. Engages in the commission of the offense; or
5. The giving of the information will imperil the (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
arrest. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
SAME, but if the arrest is committed by a private (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
individual, he must inform him about: probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
1. The cause of his arrest; and be arrested has committed it; and
2. His intention to arrest him. (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined to be arrested has committed it.(People v.
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being Villareal, supra)
transferred from one confinement to another.
This do not require the presence of the arresting officer in
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person the scene of the crime. However, upon having probable
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
cause, he must immediately arrest the person who had just
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
committed the offense. Any unnecessary delay would
invalidate such arrest.
NOTE: There are other instances of valid warrantless
arrest not given in Section 5 of Rule 113. Such instances 12. Now what do you mean by probable
are: cause on paragraph B of Section 5?
Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable
1. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds
any person may immediately pursue or retake of suspicion.
him without a warrant at any time and in any
place within the Philippines (Sec. 13, Rule 113); 13. What do you mean by reasonable
and grounds of suspicion?
2. An accused released on bail may be re-arrested The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the
without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
to depart from the Philippines without permission suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty
of the court where the case is pending. (Sec. 23, of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e.,
Rule 114) supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the
9. You say “inflagrante delicto”. What person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion, therefore,
does it mean? must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good
This is the first instance of warrantless arrest as provided faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
in Section 5, Rule 113. For it to be valid, two requisites (Abelita v. Doria, G.R. No. 170672 [2009])
must concur. To wit:
14. Suppose that you go to the police and
(a) That the person to be arrested must exercise an told them that Mr Manco took my bag
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
and the police went through and saw
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense; and
Mr Manco walking with the bag. They
(b) Such overt act is done in the presence or within arrested Mr Manco. Was the
the view of the arresting officer. (People v. warrantless arrest valid?
Collado, 698 SCRA 628 [2013]) Yes. The warrantless arrest is valid for it falls under
paragraph b of Section 5, Rule 113. It is noted here that
10. You say attempt to commit a crime. an offense has just been committed, i.e. the taking of the
Suppose that Mr Manco pulled a knife bag, and that the policemen causing the arrest had
and looked at Mr Oquendo angrily. probable cause (the facts supplied by the victim verified
Can you arrest Mr Manco? when they saw Mr Manco with the bag stolen) that Mr
Yes. I can arrest Mr Manco. The act of pulling a knife and Manco committed it. Thus, the arrest is valid.
looking angrily to Mr Oquendo seems that he might be
15. What if Mr Manco took Mr Oquendo’s
planning to injure/kill Mr Oquendo. Moreover, Mr Manco
has already consummated the crime of violation of BP Blg
bag at 8:00 am and instead, Mr
6. Thus, I can arrest Mr Manco. Oquendo ate lunch before he went to
the police. And upon report, the police
11. What is the hot pursuit exception? went through and arrested Mr Manco.
This is the second instance of warrantless arrest as Was the warrantless arrest valid?
provided in Section 5, Rule 113. For it to be valid, the No. The arrest was not valid for the first requisite is no
following requisites must concur: longer present in this case. Note that between 8 am and 12
(a) An offense has just been committed; and nn, the requirement of “immediacy” between the time of
(b) Tbe person making the arrest has personal the commission of the offense and up to the time of the
knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrest is absent.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
16. People v. Burgos Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the
People v. Burgos authorities to suspect that the accused had committed
G.R. No. L-68955; September 4, 1986; Second Division a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime
J. Gutierrez Jr. not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the
subject firearm on the basis of information from the
Facts: Due to an information given by a Masamlok, who lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful,
allegedly was being forcibly recruited by accused to the NPA, If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment
the members of the Constabulary went to the house of accused, it is made, generally nothing that happened or is
asked about his firearm and documents connected to subversive discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of
activities. Accused pointed to where his firearm was as well as a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted. More
his other documents allegedly. important, we find no compelling reason for the haste
with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the
Issues:
accused. We fail to see why they failed to first go
1. Was the warrantless arrest under Section 5-A, Rule through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if
113 valid? indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the
2. Would it cure the defect if the accuse was arrested accused had truly committed a crime. There is no
under Section 5-B, Rule 113? showing that there was a real apprehension that the
3. Was there a valid waiver? accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise,
there is no showing that the whereabouts of the
Ruling: accused were unknown. Thus, No.
3. No. To constitute a waiver, it must appear:
1. No. Under Section 5(a) of Rule 113, the officer
a. first that the right exists;
arresting a person who has just committed, is
b. secondly, that the person involved had
committing, or is about to commit an offense must
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the
have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense
existence of such a right; and
must also be committed in his presence or within his
c. lastly, that said person had an actual intention
view. There is no such personal knowledge in this
to relinquish the right.
case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the
The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry
arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the
into his house does not amount to a permission to make
information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The
a search therein. As the constitutional guaranty is not
location of the firearm was given by the appellant's
dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the
wife. At the time of the appellant's arrest, he was not
courts do not place the citizen in the position of either
in actual possession of any firearm or subversive
contesting an officer's authority by force, or waiving
document. Neither was he committing any act which
his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a
could be described as subversive. He was, in fact,
peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a
plowing his field at the time of the arrest. The right of
consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a
a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure
demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.
of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most
We apply the rule that: "courts indulge every
basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule which
reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental
allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of
constitutional rights and that we do not presume
arrest is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly
acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights."
fall within the situations when securing a warrant
would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as Accused Acquitted.
provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the
rule on arrests without warrant or extend its 17. Umil v. Ramos
application beyond the cases specifically provided by Umil v. Ramos
law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and G.R. No. 81567; October 3, 1991; EN BANC
set back a basic right so often violated and so
deserving of full protection. Facts: On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to
2. No. In arrests without a warrant under Section 5(b), the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to
however, it is not enough that there is reasonable verify a confidential information which was received by their
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been
committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. That the
have been committed first. That a crime has actually wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male
been committed is an essential precondition. It is not "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the
enough to suspect that a crime may have been day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon,
committed. The fact of the commission of the offense before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio,
must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground Caloocan City. The wounded man's name was listed by the
applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. In this hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22)
case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
however it was disclosed later that the true name of the 18. What are the instances when you
wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of this verification, cannot affect an arrest/there would be
Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical
Servicesof the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined
no arrest?
thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the The following are instances where you cannot affect an
one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols. arrest:
Issue: Was the arrest valid? 1. Against Senators or Members of the House of
Representatives in all offenses punishable by not
Ruling: Yes. Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member
more than 6 years imprisonment, while in
of the NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion
session. (Art VI, Section 11, 1987 Constitution)
being a continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is
justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense 2. Under principles of international law, heads of
when arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or states, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary,
proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses ministers resident, and charges d’ affairs are
committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the
constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature country of their assignment and thus immune
of continuing crimes. from arrest. The same applies to foreign
Viewed from another but related perspective, it may also be
ambassadors in the Philippines pursuant to RA
said, under the facts of the Umil case, that the arrest of Dural 75.
falls under Section 5, paragraph (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of 3. If the crime is punishable by fine only.
Court, which requires two (2) conditions for a valid arrestt
without warrant: first, that the person to be arrested has just 19. Can you waive the validity of the
committed an offense, and second, that the arresting peace arrest?
officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts Yes. If the accused failed to assail the legality of his arrest
indicating that the person to be arrested is the one who and to raise such issue before arraignment, he is deemed
committed the offense. Section 5(b), Rule 113, it will be noted, to be estopped from assailing it later for it constitutes a
refers to arrests without warrant, based on "personal knowledge waiver. (People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366 [2010])
of facts" acquired by the arresting officer or private person.
These requisites were complied with in the Umil case and in the 20. Suppose that you waive the validity of
other cases at bar. Said confidential information received by the the arrest, did it also constitute a
arresting officers, to the effect that an NPA member ("sparrow
waiver to the validity of the evidence
unit") was being treated for a gunshot wound in the named
hospital, is deemed reasonable and with cause as it was based seized from you?
on actual facts and supported by circumstances sufficient to No. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction
engender a belief that an NPA member was truly in the said of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of
hospital. The actual facts supported by circumstances are: first an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver
— the day before, or on 31 January 1988, two (2) CAPCOM of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal
soldiers were actually killed in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City by warrantless arrest. (id.)
five (5) "sparrows" including Dural; second — a wounded
person listed in the hospital records as "Ronnie Javellon" was 21. Larranaga v. CA
actually then being treated in St. Agnes Hospital for a gunshot Larranaga v. CA
wound; third — as the records of this case disclosed later, G.R. No. 130644; March 13, 1998; Second Division
"Ronnie Javellon" and his address entered in the hospital J. Puno
records were fictitious and the wounded man was in reality
Rolando Dural. As to the condition that "probable cause" must Facts: Petitioner Larranaga was charged with two counts of
also be coupled with acts done in good faith by the officers who kidnapping and serious illegal detention before the RTC of
make the arrest, the Court notes that the peace officers wno Cebu City. He was arrested and was detained without the filing
arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the same in good of the necessary Information and warrant of arrest. The
faith, considering that law enforcers are presumed to regularly petitioner alleged that he must be released and be subject to a
perform their official duties. The records show that the arresting preliminary investigation. However pending the resolution of
officers did not appear to have been ill-motivated in arresting the Court for the petition for certiorari, prohibition and
Dural. It is therefore clear that the arrest, without warrant, of mandamus with writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory
Dural was made in compliance with the requirements of injunction filed by the petitioner, RTC judge issued a warrant
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113. of arrest directed to the petitioner.
Motions denied. Issue:
1. Was petitioner validly arrested without warrant?

2. Is petitioner entitled to a regular preliminary
investigation?
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Ruling: Ruling: No. First. In view of Art. III, 2 of the Constitution, the
rule is that no arrest may be made except by virtue of a warrant
1. No. An arrest is defined as the taking of a person into issued by a judge after examining the complainant and the
custody in order that he may be bound to answer for witnesses he may produce and after finding probable cause to
the commission of an offense. It is made by an actual believe that the person to be arrested has committed the crime.
restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his The exceptions when an arrest may be made even without a
submission to the custody of the person making the warrant are provided in Rule 113, 5 of the Rules of Criminal
arrest. An arrest signifies restraint on person, Procedure. There is no question that this case does not fall under
depriving one of his own will and liberty, binding him paragraphs (a) and (c). The arresting officers in this case did not
to become obedient to the will of the law. To be sure, witness the crime being committed. Neither are the students
even if petitioner were arrested by the PNP CIG fugitives from justice nor prisoners who had escaped from
personnel, such arrest would still be illegal because of confinement. The question is whether paragraph (b) applies
the absence of a warrant. It does not appear in the case because a crime had just been committed and the NBI agents
at bar that petitioner has just committed, is actually had personal knowledge of facts indicating that Narag and
committing or is attempting to commit an offense Taparan were probably guilty. Respondents invoked the ruling
when the police officers tried to arrest him on in People v. Tonog. In that case, the accused voluntarily went
September 15, 1997. In fact, petitioner was attending upon invitation of the police officer who later noticed the
classes at the Center for Culinary Arts at that time. presence of blood stains on the pants of the accused. Upon
2. Yes. Section 7 of Rule 112 applies only to persons reaching the police station, the accused was asked to take off
lawfully arrested without a warrant. Petitioner in this his pants for examination at the crime laboratory. The question
case was, in the first place, not arrested either by a in that case involved the admissibility of the maong pants taken
peace officer or a private person. The facts show that from the accused. It is clear that Tonog does not apply to this
on September 15, 1997, some members of the case. First, the accused in that case voluntarily went with the
Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation police upon the latter's invitation. Second, the arresting officer
Group (PNP CIG) went to the Center for Culinary Arts found blood stains on the pants of the accused, on the basis of
in Quezon City to arrest petitioner, albeit without which he concluded that the accused probably committed the
warrant. Petitioner resisted the arrest and immediately crime for which reason the latter was taken into custody. Third,
phoned his sister and brother-in-law. Petitioners sister the arrest was made on the same day the crime was committed.
sought the aid of Atty. Raymundo A. Armovit. Atty. In the words of Rule 113, 5(b), the crime had "just been
Armovit, over the phone, dissuaded the police officers committed" and the arresting officer had "personal knowledge
from carrying out the warrantless arrest and proposed of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
to meet with them at the CIG headquarters in Camp committed it." In contrast, the NBI agents in the case at bar tried
Crame, Quezon City. The police officers yielded and to arrest Narag and Taparan four days after the commission of
returned to the CIG headquarters. Petitioner, together the crime. They had no personal knowledge of any fact which
with his sister and brother-in-law also went to the CIG might indicate that the two students were probably guilty of the
headquarters aboard their own vehicle. Atty. Armovit crime. What they had were the supposed positive identification
questioned the legality of the warrantless arrest before of two alleged eyewitnesses, which is insufficient to justify the
CIG Legal Officer Ruben Zacarias. After consulting arrest without a warrant by the NBI. Indeed, at the time Dennis
with his superiors, Legal Officer Zacarias ordered to Venturina was killed, these agents were nowhere near the scene
stop the arrest and allowed petitioner to go home. Atty. of the crime. When respondent Dizon and his men attempted to
Armovit made an undertaking in writing that he and arrest Taparan and Narag, the latter were not committing a
petitioner would appear before the Cebu City crime nor were they doing anything that would create the
Prosecutor on September 17, 1997 for preliminary suspicion that they were doing anything illegal. On the contrary,
investigation. The foregoing facts show no restraint Taparan and Narag, under the supervision of the U.P. police,
upon the person of petitioner. Neither do they show were taking part in a peace talk called to put an end to the
that petitioner was deprived of his own will and violence on the campus. To allow the arrest which the NBI
liberty. Hence, Section 7 of Rule 112 does not apply intended to make without warrant would in effect allow them to
to petitioner. supplant the courts. The determination of the existence of
probable cause that the persons to be arrested committed the
22. Posadas v. Ombudsman
crime was for the judge to make. The law authorizes a police
Posadas v. Ombudsman
officer or even an ordinary citizen to arrest criminal offenders
G.R. No. 131492; September 29, 2000; Second Division
only if the latter are committing or have just committed a crime.
J. Mendoza
Otherwise, we cannot leave to the police officers the
Facts: Upon the request of the University Chancellor, the NBI determination of whom to apprehend if we are to protect our
sent agents to the university and tried to arrest two members of civil liberties. For the failure of the NBI agents to comply with
a fraternity who were identified by two witnesses as responsible constitutional and procedural requirements, we hold that their
for the killing of a member of another fraternity. attempt to arrest Taparan and Narag without a warrant was
illegal.
Issue: Was the warrantless arrest valid?

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
23. People v. Del Rosario Virginia Bernas. Since the prosecution failed to
People v. Del Rosario establish that del Rosario had waived his right to
G.R. No. 127755; April 14, 1999; En Banc remain silent, his verbal admissions on his
J. Bellosillo participation in the crime even before his actual arrest
were inadmissible against him, as the same
Facts: The accused-appellant was convicted of the robbery with transgressed the safeguards provided by law and the
homicide and sentenced to death. The conviction of the accused Bill of Rights.
was based on the testimony of a tricycle driver who claimed that 2. No. Sec. 5, par. (b), Rule 113, necessitates two (2)
the accused was the one who drove the tricycle, which the stringent requirements before a warrantless arrest can
suspects used as their get-away vehicle. The accused was then be effected: (1) an offense has just been committed;
invited by the police for questioning and he pointed to the and (2) the person making the arrest has personal
location where he dropped off the suspects. When the police knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrived at the supposed hide-out, a shooting incident ensued, arrested had committed it. Hence, there must be a large
resulting to the death of some of the suspects. After the incident, measure of immediacy between the time the offense
the accused was brought back to the precint where his was committed and the time of the arrest, and if there
statements were taken on May 14, 1996. Such was subscribed was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest
6 days later. and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest
must be secured. Aside from the sense of immediacy,
Issue:
it is also mandatory that the person making the arrest
1. Was the Miranda rights of respondent violated? must have personal knowledge of certain facts
2. Was there a valid warrantless arrest under the hot indicating that the person to be taken into custody has
pursuit exception? committed the crime. Again, the arrest of del Rosario
does not comply with these requirements since, as
Ruling: earlier explained, the arrest came a day after the
consummation of the crime and not immediately
1. Yes. A further perusal of the transcript reveals that
thereafter. As such, the crime had not been "just
during the encounter at Brgy. Dicarma, del Rosario
committed" at the time the accused was arrested.
was handcuffed by the police because allegedly they
Likewise, the arresting officers had no personal
had already gathered enough evidence against him and
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
they were afraid that he might attempt to escape.
arrested had committed the offense since they were not
Custodial investigation is the stage where the police
present and were not actual eyewitnesses to the crime,
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
and they became aware of his identity as the driver of
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
the getaway tricycle only during the custodial
suspect taken into custody by the police who carry out
investigation. However the conspicuous illegality of
a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit
del Rosario's arrest cannot affect the jurisdiction of the
incriminating statements. It is well-settled that it
court a quo because even in instances not allowed by
encompasses any question initiated by law enforcers
law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
and any objection thereto is waived when the person
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
arrested submits to arraignment without any objection,
way. Under Section 2 of RA 7438, a ny public officer
as in this case. Accused acquitted.
or employee, or anyone acting under his order or in his
place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person 24. R.A. 7438
for the commission of an offense shall inform the
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON
latter, in a language known and understood by him of
ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
his right to remain silent and to have competent and
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
independent counsel, preferably of his own choice,
ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING
who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
with the person arrested, detained or under custodial
VIOLATIONS THEREOF
investigation. If such person cannot afford the services
of his own counsel, he must be provided with a Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate
competent and independent counsel by the to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full
investigating officer. From the foregoing, it is clear respect for human rights.
that del Rosario was deprived of his rights during
custodial investigation. From the time he was "invited" Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under
for questioning at the house of the barangay captain, Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
he was already under effective custodial investigation, (a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial
but he was not apprised nor made aware thereof by the investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
investigating officers. The police already knew the
name of the tricycle driver and the latter was already a (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting
suspect in the robbing and senseless slaying of under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
investigates any person for the commission of an Section 3. Assisting Counsel. – Assisting counsel is any lawyer,
offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to except those directly affected by the case, those charged with
and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the
and to have competent and independent counsel, prosecution of crimes.
preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall
detained or under custodial investigation. If such be entitled to the following fees;
person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, (a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00)
he must be provided with a competent and if the suspected person is chargeable with light
independent counsel by the investigating officer. felonies;
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced (b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00)
to writing by the investigating officer, provided that if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave or
before such report is signed, or thumb-marked if the grave felonies;
person arrested or detained does not know how to read
and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to (c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00)
him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided if the suspected person is chargeable with a capital
by the investigating officer in the language or dialect offense.
known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise,
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the
such investigation report shall be null and void and of
city or municipality where the custodial investigation
no effect whatsoever.
is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no
presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel
a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the before the province pays said fees.
parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school
conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by the
supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen
investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of
by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a) Any arresting public officer or
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under
employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any
the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his
Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
writing and signed by such person in the presence of
counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six
his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and
thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not
void and of no effect.
less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall
investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been
with any member of his immediate family, or any previously convicted of a similar offense.
medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen
The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public
by him or by any member of his immediate family or
officer or employee, or anyone acting upon orders of
by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental
such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to
organization duly accredited by the Commission on
provide a competent and independent counsel to a
Human Rights of by any international non-
person arrested, detained or under custodial
governmental organization duly accredited by the
investigation for the commission of an offense if the
Office of the President. The person's "immediate
latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.
family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or
fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent (b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits
or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a
guardian or ward. person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the
religious minister chosen by him or by any member of
practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is
his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
and conferring privately with him, or from examining
have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual
"inviting" officer for any violation of law.
needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the
night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence
a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00). or within the view of the arresting officer. Here, petitioners act
of looking around after getting off the bus was but natural as he
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any was finding his way to his destination. That he purportedly
security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee attempted to run away as the tanod approached him is irrelevant
or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be and cannot by itself be construed as adequate to charge the
necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape. tanod with personal knowledge that petitioner had just engaged
Section 5. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. No. 857, as in, was actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in
amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws, presidential decrees, criminal activity. More importantly, petitioner testified that he
executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof did not run away but in fact spoke with the barangay tanod when
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or they approached him. Even taking the prosecutions version
modified accordingly. generally as the truth, in line with our assumption from the start,
the conclusion will not be any different. It is not unreasonable
Section 6. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) to expect that petitioner, walking the street at night, after being
days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any closely observed and then later tailed by three unknown
daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. persons, would attempt to flee at their approach. Flight per se is
not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to
Approved: April 27, 1992.
ones consciousness of guilt. Indeed, the supposed acts of
25. Valdez v. People petitioner, even assuming that they appeared dubious, cannot be
viewed as sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity
Valdez v. People
enough to validate his warrantless arrest. If at all, the search
G.R. No. 170180; November 23, 2007; Second Division
most permissible for the tanod to conduct under the prevailing
J. Tinga
backdrop of the case was a stop-and-frisk to allay any suspicion
Facts: At around 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. of 17 March 2003, Tanod they have been harboring based on petitioners behavior.
Bautista, together with Aratas and Ordoo were conducting a However, a stop-and-frisk situation, following Terry v. Ohio,
routine patrol along the National Highway in Barangay San must precede a warrantless arrest, be limited to the persons
Benito Norte, Aringay, La Union when they noticed petitioner, outer clothing, and should be grounded upon a genuine reason,
lugging a bag, alighted from a mini-bus. The tanods observed in light of the police officers experience and surrounding
that petitioner, who appeared suspicious to them, seemed to be conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has
looking for something. They thus approached him but the latter weapons concealed about him. Accordingly, petitioners waiver
purportedly attempted to run away. They chased him, put him of his right to question his arrest notwithstanding, the marijuana
under arrest and thereafter brought him to the house of leaves allegedly taken during the search cannot be admitted in
Barangay Captain Orencio Mercado (Mercado) where he, as evidence against him as they were seized during a warrantless
averred by Bautista, was ordered by Mercado to open his bag. search which was not lawful. A waiver of an illegal warrantless
Petitioners bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of
eighteen pieces of eggplant and dried marijuana leaves wrapped evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. When
in newspaper and cellophane. It was then that petitioner was petitioner was arrested without a warrant, he was neither caught
taken to the police station for further investigation. Arsenio in flagrante delicto committing a crime nor was the arrest
Valdez was found guilty for violating Sec. 11 of RA 9165. In effected in hot pursuit. Verily, it cannot therefore be reasonably
this appeal, petitioner prays for his acquittal and asserts that his argued that the warrantless search conducted on petitioner was
guilt of the crime charged had not been proven beyond incidental to a lawful arrest.
reasonable doubt. He argues, albeit for the first time on appeal,
Accused acquitted.
that the warrantless arrest effected against him by the barangay
tanod was unlawful and that the warrantless search of his bag 26. People v. Cabacaba
that followed was likewise contrary to law.
People v. Cabacaba
Issue: Was the arrest valid? G.R. No. 171310; July 9, 2008; Second Division
J. Quisumbing
Ruling: No. It is obvious that based on the testimonies of the
arresting barangay tanod, not one of these circumstances as Facts: On October 18, 2002, according to PO2 Jaime Ocampos
provided in Section 5, Rule 113, was obtaining at the time testimony, his superior formed a team to conduct a buy-bust
petitioner was arrested. By their own admission, petitioner was operation at No. 138 Ermin Garcia Street, Barangay Rodriguez,
not committing an offense at the time he alighted from the bus, Cubao, Quezon City after an informant had reported that
nor did he appear to be then committing an offense. The tanod appellant Sanny Cabacaba had been selling drugs at said
did not have probable cause either to justify petitioners address. Ocampo was designated as poseur buyer, with PO2
warrantless arrest. Jerry Sanchez and PO1 Glyn Fallorin as back-up. The police
team and the informant left the police station and arrived at
For the exception in Section 5(a), Rule 113 to operate, this Ermin Garcia Street at 7:00 p.m. According to Ocampo, he and
Court has ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the the informant proceeded to a house at 138 Ermin Garcia Street.
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that They asked the appellant to sell to them shabu worth P300.
he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Appellant then handed over two sachets of shabu to Ocampo the arrest took place less than one hour from the time of the
who then gave appellant the marked money. Ocampo examined occurrence of the crime. To summarize, the arresting officers
the contents of the two sachets. After determining that they went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty.
contained shabu, he tapped the shoulder of appellant. This was Generoso of his alleged mauling; the police officers responded
a signal to his two companions on the look-out that the sale of to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the alleged
shabu had just been consummated. As his men rushed to the mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where
place of the transaction, Ocampo got hold of appellant. The Atty. Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso
latter was able to break free from him and run into the house in positively identified the petitioners as those responsible for his
front of which the sale took place. The police ran after appellant mauling and, notably, the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived
who was then collared by Ocampo inside the house. Two almost in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the
persons sitting on a sofa were searched like appellant. The petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did
search on one of them, who was identified as Elena Blancha, not deny their participation in the incident with Atty. Generoso,
yielded a sachet of shabu. The other male person yielded no although they narrated a different version of what transpired.
contraband. In the body search conducted on appellant, the With these facts and circumstances that the police officers
police recovered both the P200 and P100 bills earlier received gathered and which they have personally observed less than one
by him from Ocampo. Ocampo testified that the accused and hour from the time that they have arrived at the scene of the
Elena were live-in partners. crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we deem it
reasonable to conclude that the police officers had personal
Issue: Was there a valid warrantless arrest? knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners'
Ruling: Yes. This Court has already ruled repeatedly that a buy- warrantless arrests. These circumstances were well within the
bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly police officers' observation, perception and evaluation at the
been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the time of the arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police
Dangerous Drugs Law. An arrest made after entrapment does officers' personal observation, which are within their personal
not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid knowledge, prompting them to make the warrantless arrests.
warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a), of the Considering the circumstances of the stabbing, particularly the
Rules of Court. locality where it took place, its occasion, the personal
circumstances of the parties, and the immediate on-the-spot
27. Pestilos v Generoso investigation that took place, the immediate and warrantless
Pestilos v. Generoso arrests of the perpetrators were proper. Consequently, the
G.R. No. 182601; November 10, 2014; Second Division inquest proceeding that the City Prosecutor conducted was
J. Brion. appropriate under the circumstances.
Facts: An altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty.

Moreno Generoso. The latter called the Central Police District RULE 126
to report the incident and acting on this report, SPO1 Monsalve SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
dispatched SPO2 Javier to go to the scene of the crime and
render assistance. SPO2, together with augmentation personnel 1. Are searches prohibited in our
arrived at the scene of the crime less than one hour after the Constitution? What are the
alleged altercation and saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten. Atty. limitations?
Generoso then pointed the petitioners as those who mauled him Not really. What is prohibited by the Constitution are
which prompted the police officers to “invite” the petitioners to searches and seizures that are unreasonable. Thus, it must
go to the police station for investigation. At the inquest
comply with the constitutional limitations.
proceeding, the City Prosecutor found that the petitioners
stabbed Atty. Generoso with a bladed weapon who fortunately Thus, Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, it
survived the attack. provides:
Issue: Were the petitioners validly arrested without a warrant? SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
Ruling: Yes. There was a valid warrantless arrest based on persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
Section 5(b), Rule 113. From a review of the records, the police searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
officers had personal knowledge of facts or circumstances upon purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
which they had properly determined probable cause in effecting warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
a warrantless arrest against the petitioners. Based on the police to be determined personally by the judge after examination
blotter entry taken at 4:15 a.m. on February 20, 2005, the date under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
that the alleged crime was committed, the petitioners were witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
brought in for investigation at the Batasan Hills Police Station. place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The police blotter stated that the alleged crime was committed
Thus, a search is invalid if it is made without a
at 3:15 a.m. on February 20, 2005, along Kasiyahan St., Brgy.
Holy Spirit, Quezon City. The time of the entry of the complaint warrant or the same was invalidly issued.
in the police blotter at 4:15 a.m., with Atty. Generoso and the
petitioners already inside the police station, would connote that
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. Suppose that a policeman knocks at 6. Suppose that you file an application
your door asking to enter in your for SW to the judge. Do you need to
living room looking for some notify the person to be searched?
dangerous weapons, what will you No. An application for search warrant is heard ex-parte. It
do? is neither a trial nor a part of the trial. Action on these
I would refuse. First, the policeman has no search warrant. applications must be expedited for time is of the essence.
As a rule, there must be a search warrant issued by the Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to the
judge. Second, even if I would allow him to enter in my testimonies under oath of the complainant and the
house and conducted a search, that would amount to a witnesses. (214 Phil. 332 1984]).
consented search which would be used against me.
7. What court do you apply for SW?
Therefore I would refuse.
Section 2 of Rule 126 provides where to file the
3. What makes a search warrant application for search warrant. To wit:
unreasonable? Section 2. Court where application for search warrant
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a shall be filed. — An application for search warrant
search and seizure must be carried out through or on the shall be filed with the following:
strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the
a) Any court within whose territorial
existence of probable cause; in the absence of such
jurisdiction a crime was committed.
warrant, such search and seizure becomes, as a general
rule, "unreasonable" within the meaning of said b) For compelling reasons stated in the
constitutional provision. (Commerciante v. People, G.R. application, any court within the judicial
No. 205926 [2014]) region where the crime was committed if the
place of the commission of the crime is
4. What is a search warrant (SW)? known, or any court within the judicial
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name region where the warrant shall be enforced.
of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and However, if the criminal action has already been filed,
directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for the application shall only be made in the court where
personal property described therein and bring it before the the criminal action is pending.
court. (Sec.1, Rule 126)
However, A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC, in cases involving
5. What do you mean by particularity?
As a rule, only the personal properties described in the 1. heinous crimes;
search warrant may be seized by the authorities. By the 2. illegal gambling;
principle of ejusdem generis, where a statute describes 3. dangerous drugs; and
things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words 4. illegal possession of firearms:
of a generic character, the generic word will usually be The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the
limited to things of a similar nature with those particularly Regional Trial Courts, Manila and Quezon City, filed by
enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the National Bureau
the statement which would repel such inference. The of Investigation (NBI), The Presidential Anti-Organized
purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles Crime task Force (PAOC-TF) and the Reaction Against
to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is to Crime Task Force (REACT-TF) with the Regional Trial
limit the things to be taken to those, and only those Courts of Manila and Quezon City.
particularly described in the search warrant -- to leave the
officers of the law with no discretion regarding what The applications shall be personally endorsed by the
articles they should seize. A search warrant is not a heads of the said agencies, for the search of places to be
sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to particularly described therein, and the seizure of property
undertake a fishing expedition to confiscate any and all of things as prescribed in the Rules of Court, and to issue
kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. (People the warrants, if justified, which may be served in places
v. Nuñez, G.R. No. 177148 [2009]) outside the territorial jurisdiction of said courts.
Warrants that do not describe the things to be seized with The authorized judges shall keep a special docket book
particularity are called general warrants. They are listing the details of the applications and the result of the
prohibited and the things seized pursuant to it would not searches and seizures made pursuant to the warrants
be appreciated by the court for they are “fruits of the issued.
poisonous tree”. (see Stonehill v. Diokno, infra.)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Note that the jurisdiction is concurrent. Thus, if the 9. Suppose that I hate Mr Manco. I
supposed illegal gambling was conducted in Pampanga, opened his bag. I found a gun. Is the
either the RTC of Pampanga, Manila, or Quezon City may search valid?
entertain an application for search warrant in the given Yes. The Bill of Rights operates only against the
place. government and its agents. It cannot be invoked against
8. Suppose that an application for private individuals. Thus, since a professor is a private
individual, the search is not an intrusion against the
search for Dangerous Drugs case was
constitutional proscription. (see Sesbreno v. CA, G.R. No.
filed to the MTC of Bocaue, the judge 160689 [2014])
denied the application. Is the denial
correct? 10. What if you go to Robinsons Mall and
Yes. It is the RTC of Malolos which has jurisdiction over the guard told you that they’ll search
dangerous drugs cases. Thus, having no jurisdiction, the the contents of your bag. You refused
MTC of Bocaue did it correctly on denying the but you demanded entry to the mall. Is
application for search warrant. that allowed?
But what if it was filed in the No. As a rule, an owner of a private establishment may
provide conditions for the use of his property, included
RTC of Pampanga and the same
therein is the right to conduct searches. Thus, an
denied the application on the individual may refuse to be searched but he would
ground of “improper venue”? Is likewise be denied the right to the use of the property
the denial valid? concerned.
No. The denial was not valid. Under paragraph (b) of
Section 2 of Rule 126, any court within the judicial region But what if you consented to
where the crime was committed if the place of the their search and they found
commission of the crime is known, or any court within the dangerous weapons and they
judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced, seize it. Can you challenge the
PROVIDED, that compelling reasons must be given. seizure?
In the case at hand, the reason of denial is improper venue. Still no. I consented to the search conducted by these
The court did not resolve whether there is sufficient individuals. Moreover, I cannot invoke the Bill of Rights
compelling reasons which the same would be authorized against a private entity.
to issue a search warrant. Thus, the denial was not valid. 11. Suppose that the search warrant was
Now assume that the search issued directing you to seize grams of
warrant was granted. Suppose shabu. But upon entering the house,
that there was a backpack, and you found a gun on the table. You
firearms were found upon seized it together with the shabu. Is
opening. They seized it. You the seizure valid?
questioned the acts of the No. The seizure is invalid. Anything not included in the
policemen, but they responded warrant cannot be seized except if it is mala prohibita, in
which case, the seizure is justified under the plain view
that the presumption of
doctrine. Although the warrant directed the officers to
regularity would govern. Was seize illegal drugs, the seizure of the firearms would not
the act of the policeman fall under the plain view doctrine.
correct?
No. First, the search was unreasonable. The policemen Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain
were ordered to seize illegal drugs and not firearms. view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to
Second, the seizure was not even in plain view. Note that have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented
the backpack was closed at the time the search was as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the
conducted. Moreover, the presumption of regularity following requisites concur:
would not prevail over the constitutional rights of
(1) the law enforcement officer in search of the
individuals.
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion
or is in a position from which he can view a
particular area;

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all
inadvertent; and others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it,
(3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the satisfies the constitutional requirement. (Uy v. BIR, G.R.
item he observes may be evidence of a crime, No. 129651 [2000])
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
Suppose that the warrant is
Thus, in this case, since the firearm was in the table and now valid. Now, you have two
within the view of the officers, but the police officers siblings. However, the
cannot conclude if the same is licensed or not. Therefore, policemen still gathered two
the seizure of the same would be invalid.
barangay tanods as witnesses.
12. What are the personal properties that Is the act of the policemen
can be seized? correct?
Under Section 3 of Rule 126, a search warrant may be No. The search of the house must be done in the presence
issued for the search and seizure of personal property: of the lawful occupants and it is only in the absence of the
former that two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
(a) Subject of the offense; residing in the same locality may be called upon to
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits witness the search. (People v. Del Castillo, G.R. No.
of the offense; or 153254 [2004]) Thus, the siblings should be the ones that
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of should have accompanied the policemen while the search
committing an offense. was being done and not substituted by the barangay
Only personal property can be seized. Common sense tanods in their stead.
dictates that it is impossible to seize real property and 15. Is the duty of the judge in issuance of
bring it to the court.
a search warrant ministerial?
13. What are the requisites for the No. He must determine whether or not there is probable
issuance of the search warrant? cause in issuing the warrant by examining under oath or
Section 4 of Rule 126 provides the requisites. A search affirmation the complainant and the witnesses that he may
warrant shall not issue except: (POD-EP) produce.
1. upon Probable cause; In conducting personal examination, he must examine in

2. in connection with One specific offense; the form of searching questions and answers, in writing
3. to be Determined personally by the judge; and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may
4. after Examination under oath or affirmation of produce on facts personally known to them and attach to
the complainant and the witnesses he may the record their sworn statements, together with the
produce; and affidavits submitted. (Sec. 5, Rule 126)
5. Particularly describing the place to be searched Thus, a petition for mandamus would not lie against the
and the things to be seized which may be judge for not issuing a search warrant.
anywhere in the Philippines.
16. Suppose that the search was effected,
14. Ms Ucol, You live in Lot 2, Kaingin, and they made a receipt and they
Bocaue. Suppose that a search compelled you to sign the same. Do
warrant was issued against you with you have the right to refuse?
the address in the warrant stating that Yes. They cannot compel me to sign the receipt for that
you are residing in Lot 1. But the would constitute a violation of my right against self-
policeman knows that you live in Lot incrimination. It is a confession without the
2. Is the warrant defective? assistance of counsel.
No. The Constitution requires, for the validity of a search
Note that under Section 11, Rule 126, the officer seizing
warrant, that there be a particular description of the place
property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for
to be searched and the persons of things to be seized. The
the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose
rule is that a description of a place to be searched is
presence the search and seizure were made, or in the
sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in
intended and distinguish it from other places in the
community. Any designation or description known to the
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he 23. Can the police officer break into the
found the seized property. establishment while enforcing the
Nowhere in the section does it state that peace officers are warrant?
required to compel a person to sign the receipt. Yes. The officer, if refused admittance to the place of
directed search after giving notice of his purpose and
17. Do you need to own the thing seized? authority, may break open any outer or inner door or
No. The law does not require that the property to be seized window of a house or any part of a house or anything
should be owned by the person against whom the search therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any
warrants is directed. Ownership, therefore, is of no person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against therein. (Section 7, Rule 126)
whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of
the property sought to be seized. (Yao v. People, G.R. No. 24. What will the officer do once that he
168306 [2007]) seized the thing as provided by the
warrant? Should the inventory be
18. When is the time on conducting made under oath?
search? The officer seizing property under the warrant must give
Under the Rules, the warrant must direct that it be served a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of
in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the the premises in whose presence the search and seizure
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in
searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and
be served at any time of the day or night. (Section 9, Rule discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in
126) the place in which he found the seized property. (Section
11, Rule 126)
19. What if it is not written that the search
be conducted at night. But the search The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to
was conducted at night. Was the the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true
search valid? inventory thereof duly verified under oath. Ten (10) days
No. The search must be conducted only at the time after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge
specified in the warrant. shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none,
shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued
However, if the search warrant contained the word and require him to explain why no return was made. If the
“anytime” instead of specifically fixing the time, the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether
search would be valid. the issuance of receipt has been complied with and shall
require that the property seized be delivered to him. The
20. How long can a search warrant be
judge shall see to it that the inventory thereof has been
valid?
complied with. The return on the search warrant shall be
A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its
filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search
date. Thereafter it shall be void. (Section 10, Rule 126)
warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the
21. Suppose that you’re a policeman. You result, and other actions of the judge. (Section 12, Rule
failed to enforce the search warrant on 126)
that day. Can you enforce it again the Note: Violation of Section 12, Rule 126 constitutes
next day? contempt of court.
No. Since the purpose for which it was issued has already
been carried out, the warrant cannot be used anymore. 25. Suppose that you filed a Motion to
Quash the search at Branch 3 of RTC
Note that a warrant can only be enforced ONCE. Malolos. You filed a motion for TRO in
ETR: if the search wasn’t finished within 1 day, the Branch 1. But the issuing court is
warrant can still be used the next day, provided it is Branch 2. Can you do that at the same
still within the 10-day period. time?
No. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion
22. Can the police officer detain the thing may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the
in custody? search warrant. (Section 14, Rule 126) Thus, you must file
Yes, provided that the judge authorized him to keep the the motion to quash and the motion for TRO to the branch
thing in custody. The reason is practicality. where the application for search warrant was filed.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Suppose that the information 27. Stonehill v. Diokno.
was filed in Branch 4. The Stonehill v. Diokno
quashal by Branch 2 was not G.R. No. L-19550; June 19, 1967; EN BANC
C.J. Concepcion
yet resolved. Branch 2 ordered
that the motion be transferred Facts: Respondents-Judges — issued, on different dates a total
to Branch 4. Is the transfer of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein and/or the
corporations of which they were officers, directed to the any
valid? peace officer, to search the persons above-named and/or the
Yes. A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to
suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and seize and take possession of the following personal property to
acted upon only by the court where the action has been wit:
instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the
motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios,
issued the search warrant. However, if such court failed
credit journals, typewriters, and other documents
to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequent and/or papers showing all business transactions
filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and
latter court (Section 14, Rule 126) profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette
wrappers).
In this case, it is Branch 4 who has now jurisdiction over
the offense charged. Thus, the transfer would not only as "the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds
allow the consolidation of the issues related to such case, or fruits of the offense," or "used or intended to be used as the
but likewise harmonizes the machineries of justice. means of committing the offense," which is described in the
applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank
NB: SUPPOSE THAT THE MOTION TO QUASH IS Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and
GRANTED: the Revised Penal Code."
Note that where the search warrant is issued as an incident Issues:

in a PENDING criminal case, the quashal of such warrant 1. Are searches by general warrants allowed?
is merely interlocutory. 2. Can a corporation invoke the right against search and
seizure?
But if the search warrant is applied for and the issued in
3. What is the “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine
an anticipation of a criminal case YET TO BE FILED, the
quashal of a warrant ends the judicial process. Ruling:
26. When can there be a valid warrantless 1. No. Two points must be stressed in connection with
search? this constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no
warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
The following searches and seizures are deemed
determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said
permissible by jurisprudence: provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly
(1) search of moving vehicles; describe the things to be seized. Under the Revised
Rules of Court, "a search warrant shall not issue but
(2) seizure in plain view;
upon probable cause in connection with one specific
(3) customs searches;
offense." Not satisfied with this qualification, the
(4) waiver or consent searches; Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that "no
(5) stop and frisk situations (Terry Search); search warrant shall issue for more than one specific
(6) search incidental to a lawful arrest; offense." Thus, the warrants authorized the search for
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances; and seizure of records pertaining to all business
(8) Search of vessels and aircraft; and transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of
(9) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The
enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the
regulations. (See People v. Vasquez, G.R. petitioners and the aforementioned corporations,
whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the
No.200304 [2014]; Valdez v. People, G.R. No.
explicit command of our Bill of Rights — that the
170180, [2007])
things to be seized be particularly described — as well
Details would be discussed in the succeeding cases. as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination
of general warrants.
2. No. Corporations have no cause of action to assail the
legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures
made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
said corporations have their respective personalities, Ruling: Yes. It is to be noted that what the above constitutional
separate and distinct from the personality of herein provisions prohibit are unreasonable searches and seizures. For
petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock a search to be reasonable under the law, there must, as a rule,
or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, be a search warrant validly issued by an appropriate judicial
and whatever the offices they hold therein may be. officer. Yet, the rule that searches and seizures must be
Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a seizure supported by a valid search warrant is not an absolute and
can be contested only by the party whose rights have inflexible rule, for jurisprudence has recognized several
been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Among these
unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and exceptions is the seizure of evidence in plain view. Thus, it is
cannot be availed of by third parties. Consequently, recognized that objects inadvertently falling in the plain view
petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that
evidence against them of the documents, papers and view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.
things seized from the offices and premises of the The records in this case show that Sgt. Romerosa was granted
corporations adverted to above, since the right to permission by the appellant Evaristo to enter his house. The
object to the admission of said papers in evidence officer's purpose was to apprehend Rosillo whom he saw had
belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the sought refuge therein. Therefore, it is clear that the search for
seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the firearms was not Romerosa's purpose in entering the house,
corporate officers in proceedings against them in their thereby rendering his discovery of the subject firearms as
individual capacity. inadvertent and even accidental.
3. Under the said doctrine, all pieces of evidence
obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the With respect to the firearms seized from the appellant Carillo,
Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in the Court sustains the validly of the firearm's seizure and
a State. admissibility in evidence, based on the rule on authorized
warrantless arrests. Again, reference to the records resolves said
Moncado doctrine abandoned. query. Giving chase to Rosillo, the peace officers came upon
the two (2) appellants who were then asked concerning Rosillo's
28. People v. Evaristo. whereabouts. At that point, Sgt. Vallarta discerned the bulge on
People v. Evaristo the waist of Carillo. This visual observation along with the
G.R. 93828; December 11, 1992; First Division earlier report of gunfire, as well as the peace officer's
J. Padilla professional instincts, are more than sufficient to pass the test
of the Rules. Consequently, under the facts, the firearm taken
Facts: Sgt. Eladio Romeroso and CIC Edgardo Vallarta of the
from Carillo can be said to have been seized incidental to a
Philippine Constabulary, indicates that a contingent composed
lawful and valid arrest.
of Romeroso and Vallarta, together with a Sgt. Daniel
Maligaya, also of the Philippine Constabulary, and two (2) Decision appealed from affirmed.
members of the Integrated National Police, were on routine
patrol duty in Barangay III, Mendez, Cavite. At or about 5:50 29. People v. Encinada.
in the afternoon, successive bursts of gunfire were heard in the People v. Encinada
vicinity. Proceeding to the approximate source of the same, they G.R. No. 116720; October 2, 1997; Third Division
came upon one Barequiel Rosillo who was firing a gun into the J. Panganiban
air. Rosillo ran to the nearby house of appellant Evaristo
prompting the lawmen to pursue him. Upon approaching the Facts: At around 4 p.m. of May 20, 1992, SPO4 Nicolas
immediate perimeter of the house, the patrol chanced upon the Bolonia was in his house when he received a tip from an
slightly inebriated appellants, Evaristo and Carillo. Inquiring as informant that Roel Encinada would be arriving in Surigao City
to the whereabouts of Rosillo, the police patrol members were from Cebu City in the morning of May 21, 1992 on board the
told that he had already escaped through a window of the house. M/V Sweet Pearl bringing with him "marijuana". Bolonia was
Sgt. Vallarta immediately observed a noticeable bulge around then Chief of the Vice Control Squad of the Surigao City Police.
the waist of Carillo who, upon being frisked, admitted the same Bolonia already knew Encinada because the latter previously
to be a .38 revolver. After ascertaining that Carillo was neither was engaged in illegal gambling known as "buloy-buloy." After
a member of the military nor had a valid license to possess the receiving the tip, Bolonia notified the members of his team of
said firearm, the gun was confiscated and Carillo invited for the information he received. Because the information came late,
questioning. As the patrol was still in pursuit of Rosillo, Sgt. there was no more time to secure a search warrant. In the early
Romeroso sought Evaristo's permission to scour through the morning of May 21, 1992, Bolonia, Iligan and other police
house, which was granted. In the sala, he found, not Rosillo, but officers deployed themselves in different strategic points at the
a number of firearms and paraphernalia supposedly used in the city wharf to intercept Encinada. At about 8:15 a.m. of the same
repair and manufacture of firearms, all of which, thereafter, day, the M/V Sweet Pearl finally docked. The police officers
became the basis for the present indictment against Evaristo. saw Encinada walk briskly down the gangplank, carrying two
small colored plastic baby chairs in his hand. From their various
Issue: Was the search valid? positions, the police officers followed Encinada immediately
boarded a tricycle at Borromeo Street, still holding the plastic
chairs. As the tricycle slowly moved forward, Bolonia chased it
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
and ordered the driver to stop after identifying himself as a secure a warrant of arrest, as the M/V Sweet Pearl was not
police officer. When the vehicle stopped, Bolinia identified expected to dock until 7.00 a.m. the following day. While in
himself to Encinada and ordered him to alight from the tricycle. principle we agree that consent will validate an otherwise illegal
Bolonia asked Encinada to hand over the plastic chairs, to search, we believe that appellant — based on the transcript
which the latter complied. Bolonia noticed that there were two quoted above — did not voluntarily consent to Bolonia's search
small chairs, one green and the other blue, stacked together and of his belongings. Appellant's silence should not be lightly
tied with a piece of string. Between the stack of chairs, there taken as consent to such search. The implied acquiescence to
was a bulky package. Bolonia examined it closely and smelled the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere
the peculiar scent of marijuana. Making a small tear in the passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive
cellophane cover, Bolonia could see and smell the what circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within
appeared to be "marijuana," a prohibited drug. Encinada was the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Furthermore,
brought to the central police station. Bolonia, in the presence of considering that the search was conducted irregularly, i.e,
one Nonoy Lerio who is a member of the local media and a without a warrant, we cannot appreciate consent based merely
friend of Encinada, opened the package. It was discovered that on the presumption of regularity of the performance of duty.
indeed, the contents consisted of dried leaves known as Without the illegally seized prohibited drug, the appellant's
marijuana. In the course of the investigation, Encinada conviction cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence
surrendered to Bolonia his passenger ticket issued by M/V remaining to convict him. That the search disclosed a prohibited
Sweet Pearl. A dangerous drugs case was filed. The RTC substance in appellant's possession, and thus confirmed the
convicted him. police officers' initial information and suspicion, did not cure
its patent illegality. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and
Issue: Was the evidence seized valid? then an arrest effected on the strength of the evidence yielded
Ruling: No. Generally, a search and seizure must be validated by the search.
by a previously secured warrant; otherwise, such search and Accused acquitted.
seizure is subject to challenge. Any evidence obtained in
violation of this provision is legally inadmissible in evidence as 30. Malacat v. CA.
a "fruit of the poisonous tree." The plain import of the foregoing Malacat v. CA
provision is that a search and seizure is normally unlawful G.R. No. 123595. December 12, 1997; EN BANC
unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant J. Davide, Jr.
of arrest. This protection is based on the principle that, between
a citizen and the police, the magistrate stands as a mediator, nay, Facts: Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District, Metropolitan
an authority clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue Police Force of the Integrated National Police, Police Station
search warrants or warrants or arrest. The right against No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, testified that on 27 August 1990, at
warrantless searches, however, is subject to legal and judicial about 6:30 p.m., in response to bomb threats reported seven
exceptions but such search and seizure may be made only upon days earlier, he was on foot patrol with three other police
probable cause as the essential requirement. Although the term officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard,
eludes exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda.
ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that the each group, comprised of three to four men, posted at opposite
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug
or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could Store. These men were acting suspiciously with their eyes
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an moving very fast. When the policemen approached the group of
offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or men, they scattered in all directions which prompted the police
object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to to give chase and petitioner was then apprehended and a search
seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched. was made on his person. Petitioner was arrested for having in
The Trial Court concluded that the warrantless search his possession a hand grenade after he was searched. He was
conducted after his "lawful arrest" was valid and that the then convicted under PD 1866 in the lower court.
marijuana was admissible in evidence. But the appellant was
Issue: Was the seizure valid?
not committing a crime in the presence of the Surigao City
policemen. Moreover, the lawmen did not have personal Ruling: No. The general rule as regards arrests, searches and
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the
committed an offense. The search cannot be said to be merely same. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable
incidental to a lawful arrest. Raw intelligence information is not arrests, searches and seizures refers to those effected without a
a sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest. The prosecution's validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions.
evidence did not show any suspicious behavior when the
appellant disembarked from the ship or while he rode the The search was neither in consonance with the search
motorela. No act or fact demonstrating a felonious enterprise incidental to a lawful arrest nor in a stop and frisk.
could be ascribed to appellant under such bare circumstances.
In the instant petition, the trial court validated the warrantless
Even if the information was received by Bolonia about 4:00
search as a stop and frisk with the seizure of the grenade from
p.m. of May 20, 1992 at his house, there was sufficient time to
the accused [as] an appropriate incident to his arrest, hence
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
necessitating a brief discussion on the nature of these Here, here are at least three (3) reasons why the stop-and-frisk
exceptions to the warrant requirement. At the outset, the trial was invalid. First, we have grave doubts as to Yu;s claim that
court confused the concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a petitioner was a member of the group which attempted to bomb
search incidental to a lawful arrest. These two types of Plaza Miranda two days earlier. This claim is neither supported
warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other
proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable police officer who allegedly chased that group. Aside from
scope. impairing Yu’s credibility as a witness, this likewise diminishes
the probability that a genuine reason existed so as to arrest and
search petitioner. Second, there was nothing in petitioners
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO behaviour or conduct which could have reasonably elicited
A LAWFUL ARREST
STOP AND FRISK even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were moving very
The precedent arrest Probable cause is not fast an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and
determines the validity of the required to conduct a “stop his teammates were nowhere near petitioner and it was already
incidental search. and frisk”. 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. Third, there was at all no
1. The law requires that Mere suspicion or a hunch ground, probable or otherwise, to believe that petitioner was
there first be a lawful will not validate a “stop and armed with a deadly weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he
arrest before a search frisk.” A genuine reason admitted, the alleged grenade was discovered inside the front
can be made – the must exist, in light of the waistline of petitioner, and from all indications as to the
process cannot be police officer’s experience
distance between Yu and petitioner, any telltale bulge,
reversed. and surrounding conditions,
2. The arresting officer to warrant the belief that the assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a grenade, could not
may: person detained has weapons have been visible to Yu.
a. search the person of concealed about him.
Accused acquitted.
the arrestee; Finally, a “stop-and-frisk”
b. the area within which serves a two-fold interest: 31. Paper Industries Corp v. Judge
the latter may reach 1. the general interest of
for a weapon or for effective crime Asuncion.
evidence to destroy, prevention and Paper Industries Corp of the Philippines v. Asuncion
and detection, which G.R. No. 122092; May 19, 1999; Third Division
c. seize any money or underlies the J. Panganiban
property found which recognition that a police
was used in: officer may, under Facts: On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon
i. the commission of appropriate B. Pascua applied for a search warrant before the RTC of
the crime; or circumstances and in an Quezon City, stating that the management of Paper Industries
ii. the fruit of the appropriate manner, Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP compound, is
crime; or approach a person for in possession or has in its control high powered firearms,
iii. that which may be purposes of
ammunitions, explosives, which are the subject of the offense,
used as evidence; investigating possible
or used or intended to be used in committing the offense, and
iv. or which might criminal behaviour even
furnish the arrestee without probable cause; which are being kept and concealed in the premises described;
with the means of and and that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent
escaping or 2. the more pressing of the law to take possession and bring to the described
committing interest of safety and properties. After propounding several questions to Bacolod,
violence. self-preservation which Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion issued the contested search
permit the police officer warrant. On February 4, 1995, the police enforced the search
to take steps to assure warrant at the PICOP compound and seized a number of
himself that the person firearms and explosives. Believing that the warrant was invalid
with whom he deals is and the search unreasonable, the petitioners filed a “Motion to
not armed with a deadly Quash” before the trial court. Subsequently, they also filed a
weapon that could “Supplemental Pleading to the Motion to Quash” and a “Motion
unexpectedly and fatally
to SuppressEvidence.” On March 23, 1995, the RTC issued the
be used against the
police officer. first contested Order which denied petitioners’ motions. On
Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot August 3, 1995, the trial court rendered its second contested
pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of Order denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or Issue: Was the search warrant issued valid?
an overt physical act, on the part of petitioner, indicating that a
crime had just been committed, was being committed or was Ruling: No. Under the Rules, more simply stated, the requisites
going to be committed. Having thus shown the invalidity of the for a valid search warrant are:
warrantless arrest in this case, plainly, the search conducted on
1. probable cause is present;
petitioner could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest.
2. such presence is determined personally by the judge;

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3. the complainant and the witnesses he or she may accused-appellant which they suspected to be marijuana plants.
produce are personally examined by the judge, in SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Sarong reported the result of their
writing and under oath or affirmation; surveillance to SPO4 Ranulfo T. Villamor, Jr., Chief of
4. the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts NARCOM, Bacolod City, who immediately formed a team. On
personally known to them; and July 12, 1995, the team applied for a search warrant with the
5. the warrant specifically describes the place to be office of Executive Judge Bernardo Ponferrada in Bacolod City.
searched and the things to be seized. However, Judge Ponferrada informed them that he did not have
territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The team then left
In the present case, the search warrant is invalid because (1) the Bacolod City for San Carlos City. They arrived there around
trial court failed to examine personally the complainant and the six-thirty in the evening, then went to the house of Executive
other deponents; (2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who appeared Judge Roberto S. Javellana to secure a search warrant. They
during the hearing for the issuance of the search warrant, had were not able to do so because it was nighttime and office hours
no personal knowledge that petitioners were not licensed to were obviously over. They were told by the judge to go back in
possess the subject firearms; and (3) the place to be searched the morning. Nonetheless, the team proceeded to barangay
was not described with particularity. It is axiomatic that the Bagonbon and arrived at the residence of accused-appellant in
examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely the early morning of July 13, 1995. SPO4 Villamor knocked at
routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be the gate and called out for the accused-appellant. He was
established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash immediately asked by SPO4 Villamor about the suspected
the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on marijuana plants and he admitted that he planted and cultivated
the intent and justification of the application. The facts and the same for the use of his wife who was suffering from
circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best migraine. SPO4 Villamor then told him that he would be
evidence that could be obtained under the circumstances. The charged for violation of Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425 and
introduction of such evidence is necessary in cases where the informed him of his constitutional rights. The operatives then
issue is the existence of the negative ingredient of the offense uprooted the suspected marijuana plants, which was later
charged for instance, the absence of a license required by law, confirmed. Armando S. Compacion was charged with violating
as in the present case and such evidence is within the knowledge Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The RTC convicted
and control of the applicant who could easily produce the same. the accused.
But if the best evidence could not be secured at the time of the
application, the applicant must show a justifiable reason Issue: Was the seizure valid?
therefor during the examination by the judge. In the present
case, the assailed search warrant failed to describe the place Ruling: No. A search and seizure, therefore, must be carried out
with particularity. It simply authorizes a search of the through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and
aforementioned premises, but it did not specify such premises. seizure becomes unreasonable within the meaning of the
The warrant identifies only one place, and that is the Paper constitutional provision. Evidence secured thereby, i.e., the
Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP fruits of the search and seizure, will be inadmissible in evidence
Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig[,] Surigao del Sur. The for any purpose in any proceeding. The requirement that a
PICOP compound, however, is made up of 200 warrant must be obtained from the proper judicial authority
offices/buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3 prior to the conduct of a search and seizure is, however, not
piers/wharves, 23 warehouses, 6 POL depots/quick service absolute. There are several instances when the law recognizes
outlets and some 800 miscellaneous structures, all of which are exceptions. In the instant case, the search and seizure conducted
spread out over some one hundred fifty-five hectares. by the composite team in the house of accused-appellant was
Obviously, the warrant gives the police officers unbridled and not authorized by a search warrant. It does not appear either that
thus illegal authority to search all the structures found inside the the situation falls under any of the exceptions. Consequently,
PICOP compound. accused-appellants right against unreasonable search and
seizure was clearly violated.
Petition granted.
There is no consented search.
32. People v. Compacion. It is extant from the records that accused-appellant did not
People v. Compacion
consent to the warrantless search and seizure conducted. While
G.R. No. 124442; July 20, 2001; First Division
the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure
J. Kapunan
may, like every right, be waived either expressly or impliedly,
Facts: Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police such waiver must constitute a valid waiver made voluntarily,
informant that accused-appellant was growing and cultivating knowingly and intelligently. The act of the accused-appellant in
marijuana plants, SPO1 Gilbert L. Linda and SPO2 Basilio allowing the members of the military to enter his premises and
Sarong of the 6th Narcotic Regional Field Unit of the Narcotics his consequent silence during the unreasonable search and
Command (NARCOM) of the Bacolod City Detachment seizure could not be construed as voluntary submission or an
conducted a surveillance of the residence of accused-appellant implied acquiescence to warrantless search and seizure
who was then the barangay captain of barangay Bagonbon, San especially so when members of the raiding team were
Carlos City, Negros Occidental on July 9, 1995. During the said intimidatingly numerous and heavily armed. His implied
surveillance, they saw two (2) tall plants in the backyard of the acquiescence, if any, could not have been more than mere
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating composite team whether the plants involved herein were indeed
circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at all within marijuana plants. After said plants were uprooted, SPO1 Linda
the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Consequently, had to conduct a field test on said plants by using a Narcotics
herein accused-appellants lack of objection to the search and Drug Identification Kit to determine if the same were indeed
seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right marijuana plants.
or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure.
Since the evidence was secured on the occasion of an
The search did not arouse from an emergency nor exigent unreasonable search and seizure, the same is tainted and illegal
circumstance. and should therefore be excluded for being the proverbial fruit
of a poisonous tree.
Neither could the members of the composite team have justified
their search of accused-appellants premises by invoking the Accused acquitted.
necessity and urgency of the situation. It was admitted by the
members of the arresting team that the residence of accused- 33. People v. Bagista.
appellant had already been put under surveillance following a People v. Bagista
tip from a confidential informant. The surveillance was G.R. No. 86218; September 18, 1992; Second Division
conducted on July 9, 1995 while the alleged marijuana plants J. Nocon
were seized four (4) days later or on July 13, 1995. Surely, the
Facts: On July 4, 1988, at around 8:00 o’clock in the morning,
raiding team had all the opportunity to have first secured a
the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) Detachment Office
search warrant before forcing their way into accused-appellants
located at the Arix Building, Bokawkan Road, Baguio City,
premises.
received information from one of its regular informants that a
The plain view doctrine is inapplicable. certain woman, 23 years of age, with naturally curly hair, and
with a height of 5’2″ or 5’3″, would be transporting marijuana
As a general rule, objects in the plain view of an officer who from up north. Acting upon this piece of information, they
has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject established a checkpoint and flagged down all vehicles, both
to seizure without a warrant. It is usually applied where a police private and public, coming from the north to check if any of
officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but these vehicles were carrying marijuana leaves on board. After
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. about 4 1/2 hours, the NARCOM agents stopped a Dangwa
Tranco bus with Plate No. AVD 938 and body number 428,
REQUISITES FOR PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE:
which came from Lepanto, Benguet. Sgts. Parajas and Fider
1. a prior valid intention based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally boarded the bus and thereupon Sgt. Parajas announced to the
present in the pursuit of their official duties; passengers that they were NARCOM agents and that they were
2. the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the going to search their baggages. At the back, Sgt. Parajas noticed
police who have the right to be where they are; a woman with curly hair seated at the right side (as one is facing
3. the evidence must be immediately apparent; and the driver) of the last seat of the bus, with a travelling bag with
4. plain view justified were seizure of evidence black and orange stripes 4 on her lap. Sgt. Parajas inspected the
without further search. bag and discovered three (3) bundles of marijuana leaves
Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest. They forced their covered by assorted clothing. The bag and the contents thereof
way into accused-appellants premises without the latters were confiscated and the woman arrested; she was later brought
consent. The plain view doctrine may not, however, be used to to the NARCOM office in Baguio City where she was booked
launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to and investigated. The trial court convicted the accused.
extend a general exploratory search made solely to find
evidence of defendants guilt. The plain view doctrine is usually Issue: Was the search valid?
applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence Ruling: Yes. The constitutional proscription against warrantless
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions.
an incriminating object. What the plain view cases have in
common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior This is a valid search of a moving vehicle.
justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been
accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles
justification whether it be a warrant for another object, hot makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of
pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search This in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited
directed against the accused and permits the warrantless discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the
seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and
legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has
that they have evidence before them; the plain view doctrine been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the
may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the
one object to another until something incriminating at last search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence
emerges. It was not even apparent to the members of the pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. The

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
NARCOM officers in the case at bar had probable cause to stop provided that the license had not been cancelled or revoked.
and search all vehicles coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Republic Act No. 8294, providing that possession of a firearm
Benguet in view of the confidential information they received with an expired license was unlawful took effect only on July
from their regular informant that a woman having the same 7, 1997. It could not be given retroactive effect.
appearance as that of accused-appellant would be bringing
marijuana from up north. They likewise have probable cause to Now on the issue, the seizure of items not mentioned in the
search accused-appellant’s belongings since she fits the search warrant was illegal.
description given by the NARCOM informant. With respect to the .22 caliber revolver with Serial No. 48673
Likewise, there is a waiver. that the police raiding team found in a drawer at the kitchen of
petitioners house suffice it to say that the firearm was not
At any rate, no objection was raised by the accused-appellant in mentioned in the search warrant applied for and issued for the
the court below on the inadmissibility of the evidence against search of petitioners house. Section 2, Article III of the
her on the ground that the same was obtained in a warrantless Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure
search. This amounts to a waiver of the objection on the legality must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial
of the search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained warrant, absent which such search and seizure becomes
therefrom. Amid a waiver, the court is duty bound to admit the unreasonable within the meaning of said constitutional
evidence. provision. Supporting jurisprudence thus outlined the following
requisites for a search warrants validity, the absence of even one
Decision appealed from affirmed. will cause its downright nullification: (1) it must be issued upon
probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by
34. Del Rosario v. People.
the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person;
Del Rosario v. People
(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must
G.R. No. 142295. May 31, 2001; First Division
examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such
J. Pardo
witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued
Facts: Sometime in May 1996, the police received a report that must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons
accused-appellant Vicente del Rosario was in possession of or things to be seized. Seizure is limited to those items
certain firearms without the necessary licenses. Acting upon the particularly described in a valid search warrant. Searching
report, P/Sr. Insp. Jerito Adique of the PNP Criminal officers are without discretion regarding what articles they shall
Investigation Group at Camp Olivas, Pampanga inquired from seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of such an unreasonable
the PNP Firearms and Explosive Division whether or not the search and seizure is tainted and excluded for being the
report was true. On May 10, 1996, P/Sr. Insp. Edwin C. Roque proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In the language of the
of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Division issued a fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
certification stating that per records in his office, the appellant purpose in any proceeding.
is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and
The firearm was not found in plain view.
caliber. Armed with the said certification, P/Sr. Insp. Adique
applied for a search warrant to enable his team to search the In this case, the firearm was not found inadvertently and in plain
house of appellant. On June 13, 1996, a search warrant was view. It was found as a result of a meticulous search in the
issued authorizing the search of the residence of appellant. kitchen of petitioners house. This firearm, to emphasize, was
Upon arrival at the house of appellant, the police officers not mentioned in the search warrant. Hence, the seizure was
introduced themselves to the wife of appellant. When the illegal. The seizure without the requisite search warrant was in
appellant came out, informed him that they had a search warrant plain violation of the law and the Constitution. True that as an
and that they were authorized to search his house. After exception, the police may seize without warrant illegally
appellant gave his permission, the police officers conducted a possessed firearm or any contraband for that matter,
search of the house. The search yielded the following items: (a) inadvertently found in plain view. However, the seizure of
a caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 703792 with five magazines evidence in plain view applies only where the police officer is
of caliber .45 found at the masters bedroom; (b) five magazines not searching for evidence against the accused, but
of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios found in the room of inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Hence, the
appellants daughter; and (c) a caliber .22 revolver with Serial petitioner rightly rejected the firearm as planted and not
No. 48673 containing 8 pieces of live ammunition found in the belonging to him. The prosecution was not able to prove that
kitchen of the house. When asked about his license to possess the firearm was in the effective possession or control of the
the firearms, the appellant failed to produce any. This prompted petitioner without a license. The same is true with respect to the
the police officers to seize the subject firearms. The accused 5.56 cal. magazine found in the bedroom of petitioners
was convicted by the lower court. The CA affirmed the decision daughter. The seizure was invalid and the seized items were
with modification. inadmissible in evidence. With particular reference to the two
2-way radios that the raiding policemen also seized in the
Issue: Was the search and seizure valid?
bedroom of petitioners daughter, there was absolutely no reason
Ruling: No. On an unrelated issue, on June 15, 1996, at the time for the seizure. The radios were not contraband per se.
of the seizure of the .45 calibre pistol, possession of firearm Consequently, the confiscation of the two 2-way radios was
with an expired license was not considered unlawful,
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
clearly illegal. The possession of such radios is not even arrest at the outset of the search. In this case, Nuevas, Din and
included in the charge of illegal possession of firearms. Inocencio were not committing a crime in the presence of the
police officers. Moreover, police officers Fami and Cabling did
Accused acquitted. not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the
persons to be arrested had committed an offense. The searches
35. People v. Nuevas.
conducted on the plastic bag then cannot be said to be merely
People v. Nuevas
incidental to a lawful arrest. Reliable information alone is not
G.R. No. 170233; February 22, 2007; Second Division
sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule
J. Tinga
113. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform
Facts: On the morning of 27 September 1997, he and SPO3 some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is
Cesar B. Cabling (Cabling) conducted a stationary surveillance actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking along Perimeter
The searches conducted likewise did not fall under the plain
Street, Barangay Pag-asa, Olongapo City. They had received
view doctrine.
information that a certain male person, more or less 54 in
height, 25 to 30 years old, with a tattoo mark on the upper right An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where
hand, and usually wearing a sando and maong pants, would the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself
make a delivery of marijuana dried leaves. While stationed is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a
thereat, they saw a male person who fit the description, carrying warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents,
a plastic bag, later identified as Jesus Nuevas (Nuevas), alight whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if
from a motor vehicle. They accosted Nuevas and informed him its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in
that they are police officers. Fami asked Nuevas where he was plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the package is
going. Nuevas answered arrogantly but afterwards, calmed such that an experienced observer could infer from its
down. Nuevas informed him that there were other stuff in the appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article
possession of a certain Vangie, an associate, and two other male is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the
persons. Later on, Nuevas voluntarily pointed to the police police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a
officers a plastic bag which, when opened, contained marijuana crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. Records
dried leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. Shortly, in his show that the dried marijuana leaves were inside the plastic
bid to escape charges, Nuevas disclosed where the two (2) other bags that Nuevas and Din were carrying and were not readily
male persons would make the delivery of marijuana weighing apparent or transparent to the police officers. In Nuevass case,
more or less five (5) kilos. Fami and Cabling, together with the dried marijuana leaves found inside the plastic bag were
Nuevas, then proceeded to Purok 12, Old Cabalan, Olongapo wrapped inside a blue cloth. In Dins case, the marijuana found
City, which according to Nuevas was where his two (2) upon inspection of the plastic bag was packed in newspaper and
companions, Din and Inocencio, could be located. From there, wrapped therein. It cannot be therefore said the items were in
they saw and approached two (2) persons along the National plain view which could have justified mere seizure of the
Highway, introducing themselves as police officers. Din was articles without further search.
carrying a light blue plastic bag. When asked, Din disclosed that
the bag belonged to Nuevas. Fami then took the bag and upon  With respect to Nuevas, the search was VALID.
inspection found inside it marijuana packed in newspaper and
Nuevas consented to the search conducted.
wrapped therein. After confiscating the items, Fami and
Cabling brought Nuevas, Din and Inocencio to the police office On the other hand, the Court finds that the search conducted in
at Purok III for proper documentation. The trial court convicted Nuevass case was made with his consent. Indeed, the
the three. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and
court. seizures is a personal right which may be waived. However, it
must be seen that the consent to the search was voluntary in
Issue: Was the search against Din and Inocencio valid? How
order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search. The
about with respect to Nuevas.?
consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be
Ruling: shown by clear and convincing evidence. The question whether
a consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact
 With respect to Din and Inocencio, the search was to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances.
INVALID.
CHARACTERISTICS TO BE DETERMINED FOR A
The searches conducted do not fall under the warrantless VALID CONSENT
searches incidental to lawful arrest. 1. the age of the defendant;
2. whether he was in a public or secluded location;
A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules 3. whether he objected to the search or passively
of Court. Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must looked on;
precede the search; the process cannot be reversed as in this 4. the education and intelligence of the defendant;
case where the search preceded the arrest. Nevertheless, a 5. the presence of coercive police procedures;
search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can 6. the defendant's belief that no incriminating
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the evidence will be found;

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
7. the nature of the police questioning; Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent
8. the environment in which the questioning took mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its
place; and transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
9. the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
person consenting. committed a criminal activity. Thus, the rules governing search
and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized
It is the State which has the burden of proving, by clear and whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the
positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant
that it was freely and voluntarily given. In Nuevas’ case, he could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched
indeed voluntarily surrendered the incriminating bag to the must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge a
police officers. There is reason to believe that Nuevas indeed requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of
willingly submitted the plastic bag with the incriminating smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can
contents to the police officers. It can be seen that in his transport contraband from one place to another with impunity.
desperate attempt to exculpate himself from any criminal We might add that a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
liability, Nuevas cooperated with the police, gave them the justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a
plastic bag and even revealed his associates, offering himself as warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
an informant. His actuations were consistent with the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
lamentable human inclination to find excuses, blame others and HOWEVER, the mere mobility of these vehicles, however,
save oneself even at the cost of others lives. Thus, the Court does not give the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct
would have affirmed Nuevass conviction had he not withdrawn indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the
his appeal. interior of the territory and in the absence of probable cause.
Still and all, the important thing is that there was probable cause
Din and Inocencio acquitted. to conduct the warrantless search, which must still be present in
such a case. The required probable cause that will justify a
36. Caballes v. CA. warrantless search and seizure is not determined by a fixed
Caballes v. CA formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case.
G.R. No. 136292. January 15, 2002; First Division
J. Puno When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search,
such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible
Facts: At about 9:15 p.m. of June 28, 1989, Sgt. Victorino only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or
Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro, while on a routine patrol in probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the
Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, spotted a passenger motorist is a law-offender or they will find the instrumentality
jeep unusually covered with "kakawati" leaves. Suspecting that or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched.
the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the two police In the case at bar, the vehicle of the petitioner was flagged down
officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by because the police officers who were on routine patrol became
appellant. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not suspicious when they saw that the back of the vehicle was
answer; he appeared pale and nervous. With appellant's covered with kakawati leaves which, according to them, was
consent, the police officers checked the cargo and they unusual and uncommon. We hold that the fact that the vehicle
discovered bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized looked suspicious simply because it is not common for such to
conductor wires exclusively owned by National Power be covered with kakawati leaves does not constitute "probable
Corporation (NPC). The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and cause" as would justify the conduct of a search without a
valued at P55, 244.45. Noceja asked appellant where the wires warrant.
came from and appellant answered that they came from Cavinti,
a town approximately 8 kilometers away from Sampalucan. The Checkpoint principle is likewise inapplicable.
Thereafter, appellant and the vehicle with the high-voltage
Stop-and-search without warrant at military or police
wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo
checkpoints which has been declared to be not illegal per se, for
Cabale took pictures of the appellant and the jeep loaded with
as long as it is warranted by the exigencies of public order and
the wires which were turned over to the Police Station
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. A checkpoint
Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna. Appellant was incarcerated
may either be a mere routine inspection or it may involve an
for 7 days in the Municipal jail. The lower court convicted the
extensive search. Routine inspections are not regarded as
accused. The CA affirmed the decision.
violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search.
Issue: Was the search and seizure valid?
INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS A VALID
Ruling: No. The constitutional proscription against warrantless ROUTINE/CHECKPOINT INSPECTION
searches and seizures is not absolute but admits of certain 1. where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of
exceptions. a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair
grounds;
The search of a moving vehicle principle is not applicable in 2. simply looks into a vehicle;
this case. 3. flashes a light therein without opening the car's
doors;

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
4. where the occupants are not subjected to a physical petitioner. For all intents and purposes, they were informing,
or body search; nay, imposing upon herein petitioner that they will search his
5. where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a vehicle. The "consent" given under intimidating or coercive
visual search or visual inspection; and circumstances is no consent within the purview of the
6. where the routine check is conducted in a fixed constitutional guaranty. In the case of herein petitioner, the
area. statements of the police officers were not asking for his consent;
None of the foregoing circumstances is obtaining in the case at they were declaring to him that they will look inside his vehicle.
bar. The police officers did not merely conduct a visual search Besides, it is doubtful whether permission was actually
or visual inspection of herein petitioner's vehicle. They had to requested and granted because when Sgt. Noceja was asked
reach inside the vehicle, lift the kakawati leaves and look inside during his direct examination what he did when the vehicle of
the sacks before they were able to see the cable wires. It cannot petitioner stopped, he answered that he removed the cover of
be considered a simple routine check. the vehicle and saw the aluminum wires. It was only after he
The plain view doctrine is likewise inapplicable. was asked a clarificatory question that he added that he told
petitioner he will inspect the vehicle. Neither can petitioner's
It cannot likewise be said that the cable wires found in passive submission be construed as an implied acquiescence to
petitioner's vehicle were in plain view, making its warrantless the warrantless search.
seizure valid. Jurisprudence is to the effect that an object is in
plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Where Accused acquitted.
the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself
is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a
37. Luz v. People.
Luz v. People
warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents,
G.R. No. 197788; February 29, 2012, Second Division
whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if
J. Sereno
its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in
plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the package is Facts: PO3 Emmanuel L. Alteza testified that he saw the
such that an experienced observer could infer from its accused driving a motorcycle without a helmet and so he
appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article flagged him down. He invited the accused to come inside their
is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the sub-station since the place where he flagged down the accused
police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a is almost in front of the sub-station to where he is assigned as a
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. It is clear traffic enforcer. The accused violated a municipal ordinance
from the records of this case that the cable wires were not which requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet while
exposed to sight because they were placed in sacks and covered driving said motor vehicle. While the officers were issuing a
with leaves. The articles were neither transparent nor citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, PO3 Alteza
immediately apparent to the police authorities. They had no noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on reaching
clue as to what was hidden underneath the leaves and branches. something from his jacket. He was alerted and told the accused
As a matter of fact, they had to ask petitioner what was loaded to take out the contents of his jacket’s pocket as the latter may
in his vehicle. In such a case, it has been held that the object is have a weapon inside it. The accused obliged, slowly put out
not in plain view which could have justified mere seizure of the the contents of his jacket’s pocket which included two plastic
articles without further search. sachets of suspected shabu. The RTC convicted petitioner of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs as the substances are
Neither there was consented search.
positive of methampethamine hydrochloride. Upon appeal, the
In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.
guarantee against obtrusive searches, it is fundamental that to
Issue:
constitute a waiver, it must first appear that:
1. Was the arrest valid?
1. the right exists;
2. Was the search and seizure valid?
2. that the person involved had knowledge, either actual
or constructive, of the existence of such right; and Ruling:
3. the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the
right.(People v. Burgos) 1. No. When he was flagged down for committing a
traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for
In the case at bar, the evidence is lacking that the petitioner this reason, arrested. Arrest is the taking of a person
intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable into custody in order that he or she may be bound to
searches. The manner by which the two police officers answer for the commission of an offense. Under R.A.
allegedly obtained the consent of petitioner for them to conduct 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the
the search leaves much to be desired. When petitioner's vehicle general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation
was flagged down, Sgt. Noceja approached petitioner and "told is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of
him I will look at the contents of his vehicle and he answered the drivers license of the latter. At the time that he was
in the positive." We are hard put to believe that by uttering those waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket,
words, the police officers were asking or requesting for petitioner could not be said to have been under arrest.
permission that they be allowed to search the vehicle of There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him into 38. People v. Aminnudin.
custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period People v. Aminnudin
during which petitioner was at the police station may G.R.No. 74869; July 6, 1988;FIRST DIVISION
be characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as J. Cruz
found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified
that the only reason they went to the police sub-station Facts: The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer received a tip
was that petitioner had been flagged down almost in from one of their informers that the accused was on board a
front of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. He was
convenience that they were waiting there. There was identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in
no intention to take petitioner into custody. It also the evening and approached him as he descended from the
appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, gangplank after the informer pointed at him. They detained him
which was violated by petitioner, the failure to wear a and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contained
crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by
a fine only. Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of the NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of the finding, the
arrest need not be issued if the information or charge corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin. The
was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It trial court convicted the accused.
may be stated as a corollary that neither can a
Issues:
warrantless arrest be made for such an offense. In this
case, however, the officers issuance (or intent to issue) 1. Was there a valid warrantless arrest?
a traffic citation ticket negates the possibility of an 2. Was the seizure valid and admissible?
arrest for the same violation.
 NOTE: This ruling does not imply that there can be no Ruling:
arrest for a traffic violation. Certainly, when there is 1. No. In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest
an intent on the part of the police officer to deprive the or search warrant issued by a judge after personal
motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into custody, determination by him of the existence of probable
the former may be deemed to have arrested the cause. Contrary to the averments of the government,
motorist. the accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor
2. No. There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search was a crime about to be committed or had just been
that resulted from it was likewise illegal. None of the committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed
instances for a valid warrantless arrest, especially a under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The present case
search incident to a lawful arrest, are applicable to this presented no such urgency. From the conflicting
case. It must be noted that the evidence seized, declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they
although alleged to be inadvertently discovered, was had at least two days within which they could have
not in plain view. It was actually concealed inside a obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin
metal container inside petitioners pocket. Clearly, the who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His
evidence was not immediately apparent. Neither was name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date
there a consented warrantless search. Consent to a of its arrival was certain. And from the information
search is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear they had received, they could have persuaded a judge
and convincing evidence. While the prosecution that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the
claims that petitioner acceded to the instruction of PO3 issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort
Alteza, this alleged accession does not suffice to prove was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights
valid and intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC found was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who
that petitioner was merely told to take out the contents was the head of the arresting team, had determined on
of his pocket. Neither does the search qualify under the his own authority that a "search warrant was not
stop and frisk rule. While the rule normally applies necessary." In the case at bar, the accused-appellant
when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a
conduct, which may lead him to believe that a criminal crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or
act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a limited that he had just done so. What he was doing was
protective search of outer clothing for weapons. descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and
 NOTE: While he may have failed to object to the there was no outward indication that called for his
illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other
waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not, passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel.
however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of It was only when the informer pointed to him as the
evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became
Accused acquitted. suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the
furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The
Identification by the informer was the probable cause
as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and NBI clearance; seaman’s book; other personal items; and four
immediately arrest him. (4) live ammunitions placed inside the cylinder. When asked
2. No. Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly whether he had the proper documents for the firearms, Dela
seized from Aminnudin, the case of the prosecution Cruz answered in the negative. Dela Cruz was then arrested and
must fall. That evidence cannot be admitted, and informed of his violation of a crime punishable by law. He was
should never have been considered by the trial court also informed of his constitutional rights. An information was
for the simple fact is that the marijuana was seized filed for violation of RA No. 8294. Dela Cruz was also charged
illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree. The search with violating the Gun Ban under Commission on Elections
was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there Resolution No. 7764. The trial court dismissed the 8294 case
was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did but convicted the accused on the 7764 case in relation to Section
not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of 261 of BP 881. The CA affirmed the decision.
Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal
and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible. Issue: Was the search and seizure of firearms detected by an X-
RAY scanner valid?
Accused acquitted.
Ruling: Yes. For a full understanding of the nature of the
DISSENTING VIEW: constitutional rights involved, we will examine three (3) points
of alleged intrusion into the right to privacy of petitioner: first,
The unauthorized transportation of marijuana (Indian when petitioner gave his bag for x-ray scanning to port
hemp), which is a prohibited drug, is a crime. Since he was authorities; second, when the baggage inspector opened
committing a crime, his arrest could be lawfully effected petitioner’s bag and called the Port Authority Police; and third,
without a warrant (Sec. 5a, Rule 113, Rules of Court), and when the police officer opened the bag to search, retrieve, and
the search of his bag (which yielded the marijuana leaves) seize the firearms and ammunition.
without a search warrant was also lawful.
ON THE FIRST POINT OF INTRUSION
(The compiler adheres to this view. Being mala prohibita,
mere possession of marijuana would be sufficient to The first point of intrusion occurred when petitioner presented
consummate the commission of the offense. Thus, he was his bag for inspection to port personnel—the x-ray machine
committing an offense in the presence of an officer at the operator and baggage inspector manning the x-ray machine
time he alighted from the vessel.) station. With regard to searches and seizures, the standard
imposed on private persons is different from that imposed on
39. De la Cruz v. People. state agents or authorized government authorities. If the search
Erwin Libo-on Dela Cruz v. People is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must
G.R. No. 209387; January 11, 2016; Second Division generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of
J. Leonen constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest
or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its
Facts: Dela Cruz was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-island
own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the
vessel. He frequently traveled, "coming back and forth taking a
intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable
vessel." At around 12:00 noon of May 11, 2007, Dela Cruz was
search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private
at a pier of the Cebu Domestic Port to go home to Iloilo. While
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the
buying a ticket, he allegedly left his bag on the floor with a
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be
porter. It took him around 15 minutes to purchase a ticket. Dela
extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring
Cruz then proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and placed
it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
his bag on the x-ray scanning machine for inspection. The
government. Thus, with port security personnel’s functions
operator of the x-ray machine saw firearms inside Dela Cruz’s
having the color of state-related functions and deemed agents
bag. Cutie Pie Flores (Flores) was the x-ray machine operator-
of government, Marti1 is inapplicable in the present case.
on-duty on May 11, 2007. She saw the impression of what
Nevertheless, searches pursuant to port security measures are
appeared to be three (3) firearms inside Dela Cruz’s bag. Upon
not unreasonable per se. The security measures of x-ray
seeing the suspected firearms, she called the attention of port
scanning and inspection in domestic ports are akin to routine
personnel Archie Igot (Igot) who was the baggage inspector
security procedures in airports. It is axiomatic that a reasonable
then. Igot asked Dela Cruz whether he was the owner of the bag.
search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be
Dela Cruz answered Igot in the affirmative and consented to
resolved according to the facts of each case. Given the
Igot’s manual inspection of the bag. The bag was then inspected
circumstances obtaining here, we find the search conducted by
and the following items were found inside: three (3) revolvers;
the airport authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of
1 guilty of violating Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
In People v. Marti, the private forwarding and shipping company, following
standard operating procedure, opened packages sent by accused Andre Marti Drugs Act. The Court held that there was no unreasonable search or seizure.
for shipment to Zurich, Switzerland and detected a peculiar odor from the The evidence obtained against the accused was not procured by the state acting
packages. The representative from the company found dried marijuana leaves through its police officers or authorized government agencies. The Bill of
in the packages. He reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation Rights does not govern relationships between individuals; it cannot be invoked
and brought the samples to the Narcotics Section of the Bureau for laboratory against the acts of private individuals:
examination. Agents from the National Bureau of Investigation subsequently
took custody of the illegal drugs. Andre Marti was charged with and was found
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
his constitutional rights. Hence, when the search of the box of effects for port security measures is a permissible intrusion to
piaya revealed several marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is privacy when measured against the possible harm to society
deemed to have been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his caused by lawless persons.
arrest even without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The packs of marijuana THIRD POINT OF INTRUSION
obtained in the course of such valid search are thus admissible There is no violation. After detection of the firearms through
as evidence against appellant. The reason behind it is that there the x-ray scanning machine and inspection by the baggage
is a reasonable reduced expectation of privacy when coming inspector, Officer Abregana was called to inspect petitioner’s
into airports or ports of travel. bag. Petitioner anchors his case on the claim that he did not
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause validly consent to the search conducted by the port authorities.
by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a He argues that he did not have an actual intention to relinquish
manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, his right against a warrantless search. There was probable cause
which expectation society is prepared to recognize as that petitioner was committing a crime leading to the search of
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security his personal effects. Hence, when the search of the bag of the
procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and accused revealed the firearms and ammunitions, accused is
terrorism has come increased security at the nation’s airports. deemed to have been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his
Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass arrest even without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of
through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The firearms and
checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should ammunitions obtained in the course of such valid search are
these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, thus admissible as evidence against [the] accused. Again,
physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects petitioner voluntarily submitted himself to port security
are. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, measures and, as he claimed during trial, he was familiar with
given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety the security measures since he had been traveling back and forth
interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations through the sea port. Consequently, we find respondent’s
associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often argument that the present petition falls under a valid consented
notified through airport public address systems, signs and search and during routine port security procedures meritorious.
notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, The search conducted on petitioner’s bag is valid.
if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would THE CUSTOMS SEARCH DOCTRINE IS NOT
be subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.
on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against
warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport CUSTOMS SEARCH
procedures. Customs searches are allowed when persons exercising
police authority under the customs law effect search and
 (Compiler’s note: now relate this to the dissenting seizure in the enforcement of customs laws.
opinion in Aminnudin).
The Tariff and Customs Code provides the authority for such
Port authorities were acting within their duties and functions warrantless search.
when it used x-ray scanning machines for inspection of
passengers’ bags. When the results of the x-ray scan revealed Hence, to be a valid customs search, the requirements are:
the existence of firearms in the bag, the port authorities had 1. the person/s conducting the search was/were
probable cause to conduct a search of petitioner’s bag. Notably, exercising police authority under customs law;
petitioner did not contest the results of the x-ray scan. 2. the search was for the enforcement of customs law;
and
ON THE SECOND POINT OF INTRUSION 3. the place searched is not a dwelling place or house.
There is no violation. The port personnel’s actions proceed Here, the facts reveal that the search was part of routine port
from the authority and policy to ensure the safety of travelers security measures. The search was not conducted by persons
and vehicles within the port. At this point, petitioner already authorized under customs law. It was also not motivated by the
submitted himself and his belongings to inspection by placing provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code or other customs
his bag in the x-ray scanning machine. The presentation of laws. Although customs searches usually occur within ports or
petitioner’s bag for x-ray scanning was voluntary. Petitioner terminals, it is important that the search must be for the
had the choice of whether to present the bag or not. He had the enforcement of customs laws.
option not to travel if he did not want his bag scanned or
inspected. X-ray machine scanning and actual inspection upon Petition denied. Decision appealed from affirmed with
showing of probable cause that a crime is being or has been modifications.
committed are part of reasonable security regulations to It is not
too burdensome to be considered as an affront to an ordinary
person’s right to travel if weighed against the safety of all
passengers and the security in the port facility. Any perceived
curtailment of liberty due to the presentation of person and

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
RULE 114 1. Corporate Surety – any domestic or foreign

corporation, licensed as a surety in accordance
BAIL with law and currently authorized to act as such,
1. Ms Bituin, a case for direct assault may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by
was filed against Mr Manco. Can he the accused and an officer of the corporation duly
apply for bail even if he was not authorized by its board of directors. (Sec. 10, Rule
114);
detained?
2. Property Bond – A property bond is an
No. As bail is intended to obtain or secure one's
undertaking constituted as lien on the real
provisional liberty, the same cannot be posted before
property given as security for the amount of the
custody over him has been acquired by the judicial
bail. (Sec. 11, Rule 114);
authorities, either by his lawful arrest or voluntary
3. Cash Bond; or
surrender. It would be incongruous to grant bail to one
4. Recognizance. (See the Recognizance Act of
who is free. (Paderanga v. CA, 247 SCRA 741) Since Mr
2012)
Manco was not under custody, he cannot post bail.
What if he voluntarily 5. What’s the constitutional basis for

surrendered? bail?
All persons, except those charged with offenses
Yes. By surrendering, he is placing himself under the
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
custody of law. Being in the custody of the law signifies
is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may
will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the
be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired
will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
the body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to,
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. (Section
detention. (David v. Agbay, G.R. No 199113 [2015])
13, Article III, 1987 Constitution)
What if he’s in the hospital?
 The suspension of the privilege of the writ of
Can he post bail?
habeas corupus does not impair the right to bail.
Yes. Provided that he clearly communicates his
 Excessive bail is not required.
submission to the court while confined in hospital. (see
 An accused is presumed innocent unless proven
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 99289-90
otherwise. Thus, bail is a matter of right unless
[1993])
when the accused is charged with an offense
2. Define Bail. having the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua,
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in or life imprisonment, which makes bail a matter
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to of discretion.
guarantee his appearance before any court as required
6. Mr Manco was accused of statutory
under conditions specified. (Sec. 1, Rule 114)
rape. He applied for bail. The court
3. Under our rules, the objective of bail denied. Is the denial correct?
is what? No. Since the penalty of statutory rape is a capital offense,
The objectives of bail is to guarantee the appearance of bail is a matter of discretion. The court may only deny
the accused at the trial. (Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. such application when after hearing, the prosecution had
No. 213847 [2015]) proved that the evidence of guilt against Mr Manco was
strong.
The following are NOT the objectives of bail:
Here, the judge did not conduct a hearing, depriving both
1. To prevent the accused from committing the prosecution and the accused due process of law. Thus,
additional crimes. the denial is incorrect.
2. To cover the civil liability of the accused. (Note
that bail may be used to cover fines and costs.) 7. What are the conditions of bail?
Section 2, Rule 114 provides the conditions of bail. – All
4. What are the things that can be used kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:
as securtity?
Under Section 1, Rule 114, Bail may be given in the form a. The undertaking shall be effective upon
of: approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in
force at all stages of the case until promulgation
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, 9. Mr Manco was charged with homicide.
irrespective of whether the case was originally He posted bail. He was arraigned. He
filed in or appealed to it; jumped bail during pre-trial. The
b. The accused shall appear before the proper court prosecution moved to forfeit the bail.
whenever required by the court of these Rules;
The court denied. Is the court correct?
c. The failure of the accused to appear at the trial
Yes. The denial is correct. The following are the instances
without justification and despite due notice shall
required when the accused is required to be present:
be deemed a waiver of his right to be present
thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in 1. In Arraignment;
absentia; and 2. In Presentation for identification purposes –
d. The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the PROVIDED that he must be given subpoena and
court for execution of the final judgment. notice; and
3. In Judgment.
8. You say RTC. Can you apply bail in
cases appealed to the CA? Thus since the identification of the accused is not
It depends. necessary in pre-trial, he need not be present. It is
sufficient that his counsel be present on that event since
If bail is a matter of right when he was charged before the under the rules, if the counsel for the accused or the
lower courts, then the accused may apply for bail while prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and
the case was pending before the CA. Here, bail becomes does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of
a matter of discretion save for some exceptions which cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or
would warrant denial. penalties. (Sec. 3, Rule 118)
If bail is a matter of discretion when he was charged Mr Manco posted bail. While the
before the RTC, then the accused is no longer allowed to
prosecution is presenting
apply for bail while the case was pending before the CA.
evidence for identification
Here, the prosecution had already proven the case beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused. Thus, bail must be purposes, Mr Manco jumped
denial. bail. The bail was forfeited and
a warrant was issued. Later on,
NOTE: Mr Manco was re-arrested. He
 If the case is NOT YET FINAL AND seeks to file another bail. The
EXECUTORY, court denied the bail arguing
o and the accused appealed the case: that Mr Manco was a flight risk.
 The penalty imposed is Death, Is the court correct?
Reclusion Perpetua, or Life No. The court cannot deny bail when it is a matter of right
Imprisonment – BAIL MUST even if the accused jumped bail. The only thing that the
BE DENIED. court may do is to increase the amount of bail. (Pamaran)
 The penalty imposed is neither Recall that the objective of bail is to guarantee the
of the given above – he CAN appearance of the accused at the trial. The amount of bail
APPLY FOR BAIL. must be reasonably high to assure the presence of the
 IF THE case is already FINAL AND accused when required, but it should not be higher than is
EXECUTORY, reasonably calculated to fulfil this purpose.
o and the accused applied for
Here, the offense committed by Mr Manco was homicide.
PROBATION – he CAN APPLY FOR
It is incorrect for the court to deny bail. The judge should
BAIL
increase the amount of bail, which Mr Manco must pay
o The accused did not apply for probation
within a reasonable period.
– BAIL MUST BE DENIED.
NOTE:
The court may, upon good cause, either increase or reduce
its amount. When increased, the accused may be
committed to custody if he does not give bail in the
increased amount within a reasonable period. An accused
held to answer a criminal charge, who is released without
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
bail upon filing of the complaint or information, may, at law are limited only to states was dramatically eroded
any subsequent stage of the proceedings and whenever a towards the second half of the past century. On a more
strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required positive note, also after World War II, both
to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu thereof, international organizations and states gave recognition
and importance to human rights. Thus, on December
committed to custody. (Section 20, Rule 114)
10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly
The order fixing the amount of bail is NOT adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
APPEALABLE. (Sec. 4, AM No. 12-11-12 SC) which the right to life, liberty and all the other
fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed.
Suppose that the court added a While not a treaty, the principles contained in the
condition for bail. The condition said Declaration are now recognized as customarily
binding upon the members of the international
states that “Mr Manco shall community. Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons,
plant 10 trees and shall clean a this Court, in granting bail to a prospective
segment of McArthur highway deportee, held that under the Constitution, the
every week”. Is that allowed? principles set forth in that Declaration are part of the
No. The requirements provided in Section 2, Rule 114 are law of the land.
exclusive. Courts are not allowed to add, reduce, or The Philippines, along with the other members of the
modify the conditions of bail as provided. (Pamaran) family of nations, committed to uphold the
fundamental human rights as well as value the worth
Suppose that Mr Manco was and dignity of every person. The Philippines,
convicted with homicide. Can therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and
he apply for bail while on promoting the right of every person to liberty and due
appeal? process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can
Yes. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable
it to decide without delay on the legality of the
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
detention and order their release if justified. In other
life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The words, the Philippine authorities are under obligation
application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the to make available to every person under detention such
trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to
it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate liberty. These remedies include the right to be
court. (Section 5, Rule 114) admitted to bail.
Thus, since I was convicted with homicide and the penalty First, the exercise of the State’s power to
is reclusion temporal and I appealed my case. I may apply deprive an individual of his liberty is not
for bail before the CA since bail then becomes a matter of necessarily limited to criminal proceedings.
discretion. Respondents in administrative proceedings,
such as deportation and quarantine, have
What if Mr Manco was likewise been detained.
convicted of statutory rape Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings
rather than homicide? Will your would be to close our eyes to our
answer remain the same? jurisprudential history. Philippine
No. Jurisprudence tells us that when an accused is jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of
convicted with an offense punishable by death, reclusion the right to bail to criminal proceedings only.
This Court has admitted to bail persons who
perpetua, or life imprisonment, bail must be denied for the
are not involved in criminal proceedings. In
prosecution had already proven the evidence against the fact, bail has been allowed in this jurisdiction
accused beyond reasonable doubt. to persons in detention during the pendency
of administrative proceedings, taking into
10. Now Ms de Arce, are extradites
cognizance the obligation of the Philippines
entitled to bail? under international conventions to uphold
Yes. As held in Government of Hongkong v. Olalia: human rights.
The modern trend in public international law is the If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no
primacy placed on the worth of the individual justification why it should not also be allowed in
person and the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the
recognition that the individual person may properly be Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to
a subject of international law is now taking root. The deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be
vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
administrative proceedings where the innocence or charge him with a crime and his right to bail. (Lavides v.
guilt of the person detained is not in issue. CA, G.R. No. 129670 [2000])
Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply EXCEPTION TO THE RULE:
for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light
of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines If the person is to be released on recognizance under the
concerning respect for the promotion and protection of Recognizance Act of 2012. (see notes below)
human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption
lies in favor of human liberty. Thus, the Philippines 13. Mr Manco has plenty of property.
should see to it that the right to liberty of every Suppose that he wanted to post
individual is not impaired. (Government of Hongkong property bond as bail. But the court
v. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675 [2007])
ordered him to pay in cash. Is the
11. Suppose that Mr Manco was court correct?
arraigned. He did not appear anymore. No. The court cannot dictate what it must be paid as
His lawyer likewise failed to appear security for bail. The court can only order the
multiple times. The court did not give amount/value that the accused must give in order that he
notice to Mr Manco. Instead, the court may be released on bail. It is the accused who must be
given the discretion to choose among the options provided
appointed a counsel de oficio. Did the
by law what he may give as security for bail. (Pamaran)
court committed any error? Is Mr Thus, the court is incorrect.
Manco entitled to right to counsel in
his absence? Now suppose that the same is
No. The absence of the accused at the trial would warrant granted. An eyewitness would
a waiver on his right to appear in such trial. However, this testify the court. Mr Manco
does not waive his right to be defended adequately by a waived all his rights, including
counsel for it is a constitutional requirement that every the right to be notified. The
accused in a criminal proceeding must be defended either court ordered his re-arrest. Is
by the counsel of his own choice, or if he cannot afford
the court correct?
one, an able and competent counsel named by the court.
Yes. The court is correct. Recall the instances required
Thus, the court did not commit any error.
when the accused is required to be present. One of them
12. Mr Manco, you are accused of is that when the accused is required to be present for
homicide. You wanted to post bail. identification purposes.
The court denied and ordered your In the case at hand, the accused is required to be present
arraignment first. Is the court correct? when an eyewitness would give testimony against him for
What’s the consequence? if when he is absent, the eyewitness would not be able
No. The court is not correct. Bail should be granted before identify or ascertain the accused, rendering the
arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded proceedings futile. Moreover, the accused failed to
from filing a motion to quash. For if the information is comply in the conditions for bail. Therefore, the accused
quashed and the case is dismissed, there would then be no may be re-arrested.
need for the arraignment of the accused. In the second
place, the trial court could ensure the presence of 14. Mr Manco is suffering from an illness.
petitioner at the arraignment precisely by granting bail He wanted to go out for medical
and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings, treatment. The warden allowed him to
such as arraignment. go out for two hours. Is the act of the
warden correct?
On the other hand, to condition the grant of bail to an
No, Under Section 3, Rule 114, no person under detention
accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a
by legal process shall be released or transferred except:
position where he has to choose between (1) filing a
motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because 1. Upon order of the court; or
until his motion to quash can be resolved, his arraignment 2. When he is admitted to bail.
cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to
quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter Thus, regardless of the reasons interposed by the accused,
be released on bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the act of the warden releasing the accused without an
the accused’s constitutional right not to be put on trial order by the court or notice that he had been admitted in
except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to bail is incorrect.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
15. Mrs Ang, when is bail a matter of right be sound, and exercised within reasonable bounds.
and when it is a matter of discretion? Judicial discretion, by its very nature involves the
BAIL IS A MATTER OF RIGHT: exercise of the judge's individual opinion and the law has
wisely provided that its exercise be guided by well-known
1. BEFORE OR AFTER conviction by the METC, rules which, while allowing the judge rational latitude for
MTC, MTCC, or MTC; and the operation of his own individual views, prevent them
2. BEFORE conviction by the RTC of an offense from getting out of control. An uncontrolled or
NOT punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or uncontrollable discretion on the part of a judge is a
life imprisonment. misnomer. It is a fallacy. Lord Mansfield, speaking of the
BAIL IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION discretion to be exercised in granting or denying bail said:
"But discretion when applied to a court of justice, means
1. Conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and
imprisonment. fanciful; but legal and regular." (Basco v. Rapatalo, 241
2. BEFORE conviction by the RTC of an offense SCRA 84, [1995])
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment. Thus, if the accused is charged with an offense punishable
by life imprisonment, the judge must not rely on the
16. Suppose that Mr Manco was charged recommendation of the prosecutor but he must determine,
with direct assault before the MTCC of after notice and hearing, whether or not the evidence
Malolos. Is it bailable? submitted by the prosecutor is strong. Thus, the duties of
Yes. The penalty of direct assault is prision correctional. a trial judge are as follows:
Moreover, bail is a matter of right before the conviction 1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
of the accused in the MTCC. Thus, it is bailable. application for bail or require him to submit his
Suppose that he was convicted recommendation;
and he appealed to the RTC. Is 2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail
regardless of whether or not the prosecution
it still bailable?
refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt
Yes. Bail is a matter of right after the conviction of the
of the accused is strong for the purpose of
accused in the MTCC. Thus, it is bailable.
enabling the court to exercise its sound
Suppose that the RTC affirmed discretion;
the MTC. He appealed to CA. Is 3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the
it still bailable? accused is strong based on the summary of
Yes. However, Bail is a matter of discretion after the evidence of the prosecution;
conviction of the accused in the RTC. Thus, it is bailable. 4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge
the accused upon the approval of the bailbond.
(id.)
17. You say matter of discretion. What is Note that the discretion required would be different if the
that matter and who would determine offense punishable is not death, life imprisonment, or
such discretion? reclusion perpetua. (see Leviste v. CA, infra at 32)
However, the determination of whether or not the
18. If Mr Manco was convicted of
evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial
homicide. He wanted to appeal to the
discretion, remains with the judge. "This discretion by the
very nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after CA. What are the grounds that the CA
the evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since would warrant the denial of bail.
the discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and Under Section 5, Rule 114, if the penalty imposed by the
since evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the
exhibited or produced before the court, it is obvious that accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled
a proper exercise of judicial discretion requires that the upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the
evidence of guilt be submitted to the court, the petitioner accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
having the right of cross examination and to introduce his (RPC-FU)
own evidence in rebuttal." To be sure, the discretion of
the trial court, "is not absolute nor beyond control. It must
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
a. That he is a Recidivist, quasi-recidivist, sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as to
or habitual delinquent, or has committed the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or
the crime aggravated by the circumstance against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome
of reiteration; of the trial or on what further evidence may be therein
b. That he has Previously escaped from offered and admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to
legal confinement, evaded sentence, or the discretion of the court which may confine itself to
violated the conditions of his bail without receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial
valid justification; matters, avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the
c. That he Committed the offense while examination and cross examination." If a party is denied
under probation, parole, or conditional the opportunity to be heard, there would be a violation of
pardon; procedural due process. Since the determination of
d. That the circumstances of his case whether or not the evidence of guilt against the accused is
indicate the probability of Flight if strong is a matter of judicial discretion, the judge is
released on bail; or mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where the
e. That there is Undue risk that he may prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the
commit another crime during the application for bail to the discretion of the court. (Basco
pendency of the appeal. v. Rapatalo, 241 SCRA 84, [1995])
19. Mr Manco was charged with murder. NOTE:

The RTC charged him with homicide.
 Another reason why hearing of a petition for bail
Can he file an application for bail? At is required is for the court to take into
what court? consideration the guidelines in fixing the amount
Yes. Under the rules, the general rule is that the of bail.
application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the  A hearing is required in bail, regardless if it is a
trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided matter of right or a matter of discretion. However,
it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate if bail is a matter of right, and the prosecution
court. However, if the decision of the trial court provided a recommendation on the amount, the
convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense hearing requirement can be dispensed with.
from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can  Even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence
only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. in opposition to an application for bail of an
Thus, Mr Manco should file his application to the CA. accused, the court may still require that it answer
questions in order to ascertain not only the
20. Who has the burden of proving that strength of the state's evidence but also the
the evidence of guilt is strong? adequacy of the amount of bail. (Basco v.
When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution Rapatalo, supra)
has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt  After hearing, the court's order granting or
against the accused is strong. refusing bail must contain a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution. On the basis
21. Mr Manco was charged with statutory thereof, the judge should then formulate his own
bail. The prosecutor, in its affidavit, conclusion as to whether the evidence so
stated “No objection. Bail is set to presented is strong enough as to indicate the guilt
P50,000.00”. The court imposed the of the accused. Otherwise, the order granting or
bail without any hearing. Is it allowed? denying the application for bail may be
No. Consequently, in the application for bail of a person invalidated because the summary of evidence for
charged with a capital offense punishable by death, the prosecution which contains the judge's
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing, evaluation of the evidence may be considered as
whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the an aspect of procedural due process for both the
court, must actually be conducted to determine whether or prosecution and the defense. (id.)
not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. "A
summary hearing means such brief and speedy method of 22. What is recognizance?
receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is RA. 10389 (RECOGNIZANCE ACT OF 2012) –
practicable and consistent with the purpose of hearing IMPORTANT NOTES
which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for DEFINITION OF RECOGNIZANCE
the purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court does not
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Recognizance is a mode of securing the release of any recognizance to a qualified custodian: Provided, That all
person in custody or detention for the commission of an of the following requirements are complied with:
offense who is unable to post bail due to abject poverty.
a. A sworn declaration by the person in custody of
The court where the case of such person has been filed
his/her indigency or incapacity either to post a
shall allow the release of the accused on recognizance as
cash bail or proffer any personal or real property
provided herein, to the custody of a qualified member of
acceptable as sufficient sureties for a bail bond;
the barangay, city or municipality where the accused
b. A certification issued by the head of the social
resides. (Sec.2 RA 10389)
welfare and development office of the
DUTIES OF THE COURTS municipality or city where the accused actually
resides, that the accused is indigent;
For purposes of stability and uniformity, the courts shall
c. The person in custody has been arraigned;
use their discretion:
d. The court has notified the city or municipal
1. In determining whether an accused should be sanggunian where the accused resides of the
deemed an indigent even if the salary and application for recognizance. The sanggunian
property requirements are not met. shall include in its agenda the notice from the
2. In determining the capacity of the accused to court upon receipt and act on the request for
support not just himself/herself but also his/her comments or opposition to the application within
family or other people who are dependent on ten (10) days from receipt of the notice. The
him/her for support and subsistence. action of the sanggunian shall be in the form of a
resolution, and shall be duly approved by the
Other relevant factors and conditions demonstrating the mayor, and subject to the following conditions:
financial incapacity of the accused at the time that he/she a. Any motion for the adoption of a
is facing charges in court may also be considered by the resolution for the purpose of this Act
courts for the purpose of covering as many individuals duly made before the sanggunian shall he
belonging to the marginalized and poor sectors of society. considered as an urgent matter and shall
(Sec. 4, supra) take precedence over any other business
RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE AS A MATTER thereof: Provided, That a special session
OF RIGHT shall be called to consider such proposed
resolution if necessary;
The release on recognizance of any person in custody or The resolution of the sanggunian shall
detention for the commission of an offense is a matter of include in its resolution a list of
right when the offense is not punishable by death, recommended organizations from whose
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment: Provided, that members the court may appoint a
the ACCUSED or ANY PERSON ON HIS BEHALF files custodian.
the application for such: b. The presiding officer of the sanggunian
shall ensure that its secretary shall submit
a. Before or after conviction by the Metropolitan
any resolution adopted under this Act
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal
within twenty-four (24) hours from its
Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial
passage to the mayor who shall act on it
Court; and
within the same period of time from
b. Before conviction by the Regional Trial Court:
receipt thereof;
Provided, further, That a person in custody for a
c. If the mayor or any person acting as such,
period equal to or more than the minimum of the
pursuant to law, fails to act on the said
principal penalty prescribed for the offense
resolution within twenty-four (24) hours
charged, without application of the Indeterminate
from receipt thereof, the same shall be
Sentence Law, or any modifying circumstance,
deemed to have been acted upon
shall be released on the person’s recognizance.
favorably by the mayor;
(Sec. 5, supra)
d. If the mayor or any person acting as such,
REQUIREMENTS pursuant to law, disapproves the
resolution, the resolution shall be
The competent court where a criminal case has been filed returned within twenty-four (24) hours
against a person covered under this Act shall, upon from disapproval thereof to the
motion, order the release of the detained person on sanggunian presiding officer or secretary
who shall be responsible in informing
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
every member thereof that the 5. The personal circumstances of the accused or
sanggunian shall meet in special session nature of the facts surrounding his/her case
within twenty-four (24) hours from indicate the probability of flight if released on
receipt of the veto for the sole purpose of recognizance;
considering to override the veto made by 6. There is a great risk that the accused may commit
the mayor. another crime during the pendency of the case;
For the purpose of this Act, the resolution and
of the sanggunian of the municipality or 7. The accused has a pending criminal case which
city shall be considered final and not has the same or higher penalty to the new crime
subject to the review of the Sangguniang he/she is being accused of. (Section 7, supra)
Panlalawigan, a copy of which shall be
THE CUSTODIAN OF THE PERSON RELEASED
forwarded to the trial court within three
ON RECOGNIZANCE
(3) days from date of resolution.
e. The accused shall be properly documented, The custodian of the person released on recognizance
through such processes as, but not limited to, must have the following qualifications:
photographic image reproduction of all sides of
the face and fingerprinting: Provided, That the a. A person of good repute and probity;
costs involved for the purpose of this subsection b. A resident of the barangay where the applicant
shall be shouldered by the municipality or city resides;
that sought the release of the accused as provided c. Must not be a relative of the applicant within the
herein, chargeable to the mandatory five percent fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity; and
(5%) calamity fund in its budget or to any other d. Must belong to any of the following sectors and
available fund in its treasury; and institutions: church, academe, social welfare,
f. The court shall notify the public prosecutor of the health sector, cause-oriented groups, charitable
date of hearing therefor within twenty-four (24) organizations or organizations engaged in the
hours from the filing of the application for release rehabilitation of offenders duly accredited by the
on recognizance in favor of the accused: local social welfare and development officer.
Provided, That such hearing shall be held not If no person in the barangay where the applicant resides
earlier than twenty-four (24) hours nor later than belongs to any of the sectors and institutions listed under
forty-eight (48) hours from the receipt of notice paragraph (d) above, the custodian of the person released
by the prosecutor: Provided, further, That during on recognizance may be from the qualified residents of
said hearing, the prosecutor shall be ready to the city or municipality where the applicant resides.
submit the recommendations regarding the (Section 8, supra)
application made under this Act, wherein no
motion for postponement shall be entertained.  This would not apply in cases of children in
(Section 6, supra) conflict with the law.
DISQUALIFICATIONS Duties:
Any of the following circumstances shall be a valid 1. He shall undertake to guarantee the appearance of
ground for the court to disqualify an accused from the accused whenever required by the court
availing of the benefits: 2. He shall be required to execute an undertaking
before the court to produce the accused whenever
1. The accused bad made untruthful statements in
required.
his/her sworn affidavit prescribed; a. The said undertaking shall be part of the
2. The accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
application for recognizance.
habitual delinquent, or has committed a crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; The court shall duly notify, within a reasonable period of
3. The accused had been found to have previously time, the custodian whenever the presence of the accussed
escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence is required.
or has violated the conditions of bail or release on
A penalty of six (6) months to two (2) years imprisonment
recognizance without valid justification;
shall be imposed upon the custodian who failed to deliver
4. The accused had previously committed a crime
or produce the accused before the court, upon due notice,
while on probation, parole or under conditional
without justifiable reason. (Section 9, supra)
pardon;

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ARREST OF A PERSON RELEASED ON 2. A person in custody for a period equal to or more
RECOGNIZANCE than the minimum of the principal penalty
prescribed for the offense charged, without
The court shall order the arrest of the accused, who shall
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or
forthwith be placed under detention, due to any of the
any modifying circumstance, shall be released on
following circumstances:
a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the
a. If it finds meritorious a manifestation made under discretion of the court. (Sec. 16, Rule 114)
oath by any person after a summary healing, 3. When the accused applied for probation, pending
giving the accused an opportunity to be heard; finality of the judgnment, but no bail was filed or
b. If the accused fails to appear at the trial or the accused is incapable of filing one. (sec. 7, PD
whenever required by the abovementioned court 968; Sec. 24, Rule 114)
or any other competent court without 4. Youthful offender;
justification, despite due notice; 5. In offenses falling under the rules of summary
c. If the accused is the subject of a complaint for the procedure, when the accused failed to appear
commission of another offense involving moral before the court, the court shall order the arrest of
turpitude and the public prosecutor or the mayor the accused. Release of the person arrested shall
in the area where the offense is committed either be on bail or on recognizance by a
recommends the arrest to the court; or responsible citizen acceptable to the court. (sec.
d. If it is shown that the accused committed an act 16, Rules on Summary Procedure)
of harassment such as, but not limited to, stalking,
The accused must file his application to be released on
intimidating or otherwise vexing private
recognizance only in the court where the case is pending,
complainant, prosecutor or witnesses in the case
whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal.
pending against the accused: Provided, That upon
the issuance by the court of such order, the 23. Mr Manco was charged with homicide.
accused shall likewise become the proper subject The case was filed in RTC Branch 1 of
of a citizen’s arrest pursuant to the Rules of Malolos. Where should he file for bail?
Court. Under the Rules, bail in the amount fixed may be filed
The benefits provided shall not be allowed in favor of an with:
accused after the judgment has become final or when the  The court where the case is pending; or
accused has started serving the sentence: Provided, That  In the absence or unavailability of the judge
this prohibition shall not apply to an accused who is thereof, with any regional trial judge,
entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law if the metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or
application for probation is made before the convict starts municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city,
serving the sentence imposed, in which case, the court or municipality. (sec. 17, Rule 114)
shall allow the release on recognizance of the convict to
the custody of a qualified member of the barangay, city or Thus, he should file for bail in the Branch 1 of RTC
municipality where the accused actually resides. Malolos. In the absence of such judge, he may file in any
RTC or MTCC judge in Malolos.
NOTES ON RECOGNIZANCE
But suppose that he was
Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may arrested in San Fernando
release a person in custody to his own recognizance or
Pampanga. Where should he
that of a responsible person.
file for bail?
Instances where there may be a release on recognizance: Under the Rules, if the accused is arrested in a province,
city, or municipality other than where the case is pending,
1. When an offense charged is for: bail may also be filed with:
a. Violation of an ordinance;
b. A light felony; or  Any regional trial court of said place, or
c. A criminal offense  If no judge thereof is available, with any
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or
where the imposable penalty does not exceed six
municipal circuit trial judge therein.
months imprisonment and/or P2,000 fine, under
the circumstances provided in RA 6036; Thus he may file for bail in the RTC of Pampanga.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Can he apply in MTC of San to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of
Fernando, Pampanga? suitable age and discretion.
Yes. He may file in the MTCC of San Fernando,
26. Rules on Hold Departure Order (HDO).
Pampanga. Provided that there must be an absence of
OCA CIRCULAR 39-97
judges before the RTC of Pampanga. (id)
RULES ON HDO
24. Suppose that Mr Manco was arrested In order to avoid the indiscriminate issuance of Hold-
without warrant. The homicide case is Departure Orders resulting in inconvenience to the parties
still pending before the prosecutor for affected, the same being tantamount to an infringement on
PI since he demanded it. He was the right and liberty of an individual to travel and to
detained in San Fernando, Pampanga. ensure that the Hold-Departure Orders which are issued
Can he file bail? contain complete and accurate information, the following
Yes. Under the rules, any person in custody who is not yet guidelines are hereby promulgated:
charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the
1. Hold-Departure Orders shall be issued only in
province, city, or municipality where he is held. (id).
criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Thus, if the accused was lawfully arrested without warrant
the Regional Trial Courts;
and was in custody of law, he may demand for bail.
2. The Regional Trial Courts issuing the Hold-
25. Now let’s go to bondsman. When Mr Departure Order shall furnish the Department of
Manco failed to appear at the Foreign Affairs [DFA] and the Bureau of
judgment day. The court ordered the Immigration [BI] of the Department of Justice
with a copy each of the Hold-Departure Order
bondsman to arrest him. What should
issued within twenty-four (24) hours from the
the bondsman do so the court would
time of issuance and through the fastest available
set aside the forfeiture of the bond? means of transmittal;
Under the rules, when the presence of the accused is
3. The Hold-Departure Order shall contain the
required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall
following information:
be notified to produce him before the court on a given date
a. The complete name (including the middle
and time. If the accused fails to appear in person as
name), the date and place of birth and the
required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the
place of last residence of the person against
bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to produce
whom a Hold-Departure Order has been
their principal and to show cause why no judgment should
issued or whose departure from the country
be rendered against them for the amount of their bail.
has been enjoined;
Within the said period, the bondsmen must: b. The complete title and the docket number of
the case in which the Hold-Departure Order
a. produce the body of their principal or was issued;
give the reason for his non-production; c. The specific nature of the case; and
and d. The date of the Hold-Departure Order.
b. explain why the accused did not appear
before the court when first required to do If available, a recent photograph of the person
so. (Section 21, Rule 114) against whom a Hold-Departure Order has been
issued or whose departure from the country has
NOTE: been enjoined should also be included.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be 4. Whenever [a] the accused has been acquitted; or
rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for [b] the case has been dismissed, the judgment of
the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or acquittal or the order of dismissal shall include
otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless: therein the cancellation of the Hold-Departure
1. The accused has been surrendered; or Order issued. The Court concerned shall furnish
2. The accused was acquitted. the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Bureau
of Immigration with a copy each of the judgment
For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the of acquittal promulgated or the order of dismissal
bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority issued within twenty-four [24] hours from the
endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him time of promulgation/issuance and likewise
through the fastest available means of transmittal.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
27. Rules on Precautionary Hold
Departure Order (PHDO).
Brief History:
DOJ issued DOJ Circ. No. 41, which created a watchlist
order and required individuals falling under such order to
secure approval to the DOJ Secretary before leaving the
Philippines. Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
challenged the said circular. The Supreme Court in April
2018 held that the DOJ Circular is unconstitutional for it
encroached the powers of the judiciary. In replacement for
the unconstitutional Circular, the Supreme Court created
the Rules on Precautionary Hold Departure Order. Voting
11-1, the rules were adopted in August 2018. Justice
Leonen dissented.
A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC
RULE ON PRECAUTIONARY HOLD
DEPARTURE ORDER
28. HDO vs. PHDO

HDO PHDO
Not ex-parte Ex-parte
There must be an existing The prosecutor for PHDO
criminal case filed. even if there is no criminal
case filed yet.
Would not apply to
frequent travellers for
they are not purposely
evasive.
29. Silverio v. CA
Silverio v. CA
G.R. No. 94284; April 8, 1991; Second Division
J. Melencio-Herrera
Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 20 (4)

of the Revised Securities Act in Criminal Case No. CBU-6304
of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. In due time, he posted bail
for his provisional liberty. On 26 January 1988, or more than
two (2) years after the filing of the Information, respondent
People of the Philippines filed an Urgent ex parte Motion to
cancel the passport of and to issue a hold-departure Order
against accused-petitioner on the ground that he had gone
abroad several times without the necessary Court approval
resulting in postponements of the arraignment and scheduled

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
hearings. Overruling opposition, the Regional Trial Court, on 4 Decision appealed from affirmed.
April 1988, issued an Order directing the Department of
Foreign Affairs to cancel Petitioner's passport or to deny his 30. Basco v. Rapatalo
application therefor, and the Commission on Immigration to Basco v. Rapatalo
prevent Petitioner from leaving the country. This order was A.M. No. RTJ-96-1335; March 5, 1997; Second Division
based primarily on the Trial Court's finding that since the filing J. Romero
of the Information on 14 October 1985, "the accused has not yet
Facts: Complainant, who is the father of the victim, alleged that
been arraigned because he has never appeared in Court on the
an information for murder was filed against a certain Roger
dates scheduled for his arraignment and there is evidence to
Morente, one of three accused. The accused Morente filed a
show that accused Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. has left the country
petition for bail. The hearing for said petition was set for May
and has gone abroad without the knowledge and permission of
31, 1995 by petitioner but was not heard since the respondent
this Court". Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied
Judge was then on leave. It was reset to June 8, 1995 but on said
on 28 July 1988. Petitioner's Certiorari Petition before the
date, respondent Judge reset it to June 22, 1995. The hearing for
Court of Appeals met a similar fate on 31 January 1990.
June 22, 1995, however, did not materialize. Instead, the
Issue: Did the lower court erred in ordering the DFA in accused was arraigned and trial was set. Again, the petition for
cancelling petitioner’s passport and the Immigration Bureau in bail was not heard on said date as the prosecution's witnesses in
preventing petitioner from leaving the country? connection with said petition were not notified. Another attempt
was made to reset the hearing to July 17, 1995. In the meantime,
Ruling: No. Petitioner's contended that the CA "glaringly erred" complainant allegedly saw the accused in Rosario, La Union on
in finding that the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful July 3, 1995. He later learned that the accused was out on bail
order of the Court, even on grounds other than the "interest of despite the fact that the petition had not been heard at all. Upon
national security, public safety or public health." The bail bond investigation, complainant discovered that bail had been
he had posted had been cancelled and Warrants of Arrest had granted and a release order dated June 29, 1995 was issued on
been issued against him by reason, in both instances, of his the basis of a marginal note, at the bottom of the bail petition
failure to appear at scheduled arraignments. Warrants of Arrest by Assistant Prosecutor Manuel Oliva which stated: "No
having been issued against him for violation of the conditions objection: P80,000.00," signed and approved by the assistant
of his bail bond, he should be taken into custody. "Bail is the prosecutor and eventually by respondent Judge. Note that there
security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, was already a release order dated June 29, 1995 on the basis of
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his the marginal note of the Assistant Prosecutor dated June 22,
appearance before any court when so required by the Court or 1995 (when the hearing of the petition for bail was aborted and
the Rules. The foregoing condition imposed upon an accused to instead arraignment took place) when another hearing was
make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires scheduled for July 17, 1995. Respondent Judge alleged that he
his presence operates as a valid restriction of his right to travel. granted the petition based on the prosecutor's option not to
A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the oppose the petition as well as the latter's recommendation
Court from leaving the country or, if abroad, compelled to setting the bailbond in the amount of P80,000.00. He averred
return. So it is also that "An accused released on bail may be re- that when the prosecution chose not to oppose the petition for
arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to bail, he had the discretion on whether to approve it or not. He
depart from the Philippines without prior permission of the further declared that when he approved the petition, he had a
Court where the case is pending. right to presume that the prosecutor knew what he was doing
since he was more familiar with the case, having conducted the
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should by no
preliminary investigation. Furthermore, the private prosecutor
means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the
was not around at the time the public prosecutor recommended
Courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into
bail.
effect in criminal cases pending before them. Petitioner is
facing a criminal charge. He has posted bail but has violated the Issue: Did the respondent judge acted in grave abuse of
conditions thereof by failing to appear before the Court when discretion when he did not conduct a hearing on the application
required. Warrants for his arrest have been issued. Those orders for bail by an accused charged with murder?
and processes would be rendered nugatory if an accused were
to be allowed to leave or to remain, at his pleasure, outside the Ruling: Yes. Bail is the security required by the court and given
territorial confines of the country. Holding an accused in a by the accused to ensure that the accused appears before the
criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his proper court at the scheduled time and place to answer the
departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid charges brought against him or her. In theory, the only function
restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in of bail is to ensure the appearance of the defendant at the time
accordance with law. The offended party in any criminal set for trial. The sole purpose of confining the accused in jail
proceeding is the People of the Philippines. It is to their best before conviction, it has been observed, is to assure his presence
interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and at the trial. In other words, if the denial of bail is authorized in
proceed to finality without undue delay, with an accused capital offenses, it is only in theory that the proof being strong,
holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than
processes. face the verdict of the court. Hence the exception to the

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
fundamental right to be bailed should be applied in direct ratio Respondent judge admittedly granted the petition for bail based
to the extent of probability of evasion of the prosecution. on the prosecution's declaration not to oppose the petition.
Respondent's assertion, however, that he has a right to presume
When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the that the prosecutor knows what he is doing on account of the
burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused latter's familiarity with the case due to his having conducted the
is strong. However, the determination of whether or not the preliminary investigation is faulty. Said reasoning is
evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion, tantamount to ceding to the prosecutor the duty of exercising
remains with the judge. "This discretion by the very nature of judicial discretion to determine whether the guilt of the accused
things, may rightly be exercised only after the evidence is is strong. Judicial discretion is the domain of the judge before
submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the discretion is whom the petition for provisional liberty will be decided. The
directed to the weight of the evidence and since evidence cannot mandated duty to exercise discretion has never been reposed
properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or produced before upon the prosecutor.
the court, it is obvious that a proper exercise of judicial
discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be submitted to the Respondent reprimanded.
court, the petitioner having the right of cross examination and
to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal. Consequently, in the 31. Villanueva v. Buaya
application for bail of a person charged with a capital offense Villanueva v. Buaya
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a AM No. RTJ-08-2131; November 22, 2010; Third Division
hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the J. Brion
court, must actually be conducted to determine whether or not
Facts: In an affidavit-complaint executed on June 5, 2004,
the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. "A summary
Villanueva accused then Vice-Mayor Constantino S. Tupa of
hearing means such brief and speedy method of receiving and
Palompon, Leyte, (of the crime of Qualified Seduction. She
considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent
later filed another complaint against the same accused for
with the purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the
violation of Section 5, paragraph (b), Article III of Republic Act
weight of evidence for the purposes of bail. On such hearing,
(R.A.) No. 7610 (otherwise known as the Special Protection of
the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence
with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Palompon, Leyte.
for or against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome
MTC Judge Delia Noel-Bertulfo allowed Tupa to post bail in
of the trial or on what further evidence may be therein offered
the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) for
and admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to the discretion
each case. On September 27, 2004, Assistant Provincial
of the court which may confine itself to receiving such evidence
Prosecutor Prudencio O. Borgueta, Jr. issued a Joint Resolution
as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary
on Review, recommending the cancellation of the bail bond
thoroughness in the examination and cross examination." If a
posted by Tupa as, under Section 31, Article XII of R.A. No.
party is denied the opportunity to be heard, there would be a
7610, if the offender is a public officer or employee, the penalty
violation of procedural due process.
provided in Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 is imposed
Since the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt in the maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua. Thus, bail is
against the accused is strong is a matter of judicial discretion, not a matter of right. He also added that the cancellation of the
the judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where bail bond was all the more appropriate since there was strong
the prosecution chooses to just file a comment or leave the evidence of guilt against the accused based on Villanuevas
application for bail to the discretion of the court. A hearing is affidavit-complaint and her material declarations during the
likewise required if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence preliminary investigation. Tupa allegedly surrendered
in opposition to the application to grant and fix bail. "The voluntarily to SPO2 Charito Daau of the Ormoc City Police
importance of a hearing has been emphasized in not a few cases Station and filed with the RTC, Branch 17 an Urgent Ex-Parte
wherein the court ruled that even if the prosecution refuses to Motion to Grant Bail (ex-parte motion). In an Order issued on
adduce evidence or fails to interpose an objection to the motion the same day the ex-parte motion was filed, without hearing and
for bail, it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing without notice to the prosecution, Judge Buaya granted the ex-
or ask searching questions from which it may infer the strength parte motion and ordered the release of Tupa on bail. Judge
of the evidence of guilt, or the lack of it, against the accused." Buaya vehemently denied the charges against him. He argued
After hearing, the court's order granting or refusing bail must that the crime charged against Tupa was a bailable offense;
contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. On the when bail is a matter of right, no hearing of the motion to grant
basis thereof, the judge should then formulate his own bail is required. Thus, he stood by his order granting the accused
conclusion as to whether the evidence so presented is strong temporary liberty, through bail, without a hearing. His assailed
enough as to indicate the guilt of the accused. Otherwise, the order, reiterated in his comment, held that a hearing would be
order granting or denying the application for bail may be superfluous and unnecessary given the peculiar and special
invalidated because the summary of evidence for the circumstances attendant to the case. During the preliminary
prosecution which contains the judge's evaluation of the examination, the investigating judge already passed upon and
evidence may be considered as an aspect of procedural due fixed the amount of bail for the temporary liberty of the
process for both the prosecution and the defense. accused. In fact, the accused had availed of and exercised his
constitutional right to bail by posting the necessary bond. In his

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
view, the prosecution, in canceling the bail bond in its joint Facts: Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas, petitioner
resolution for review, acted to the prejudice of the accuseds Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the Regional Trial Court
paramount right to liberty. Judge Buaya, therefore, asked for the of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced
dismissal of the present administrative complaint for lack of to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of
merit. prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion
temporal as maximum. He appealed his conviction to the Court
Issue: Did Judge Buaya acted in grave abuse of discretion on of Appeals. Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application for
releasing Tupa on bail? admission to bail pending appeal, citing his advanced age and
Ruling: Yes. Basco v. Rapatalo laid down the rules outlining health condition, and claiming the absence of any risk or
the duties of a judge in case an application for bail is filed: possibility of flight on his part. The Court of Appeals denied
petitioners application for bail. It invoked the bedrock principle
1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application in the matter of bail pending appeal, that the discretion to extend
for bail or require him to submit his recommendation bail during the course of appeal should be exercised with grave
x x x; caution and only for strong reasons. Citing well-established
2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless jurisprudence, it ruled that bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or
of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present aged detainee or a prisoner needing medical care outside the
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong prison facility. For purposes of determining whether petitioners
for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its application for bail could be allowed pending appeal, the Court
discretion x x x; of Appeals also considered the fact of petitioners conviction. It
3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is made a preliminary evaluation of petitioners case and made a
strong based on the summary of evidence of the prima facie determination that there was no reason substantial
prosecution x x x; [and] enough to overturn the evidence of petitioners guilt. Petitioners
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the theory is that, where the penalty imposed by the trial court is
accused upon the approval of the [bail bond]. x x x more than six years but not more than 20 years and the
Otherwise, petition should be denied. circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5 are
absent, bail must be granted to an appellant pending appeal.
In the present case, Judge Buaya granted the ex-parte motion to
grant bail on the same day that it was filed by the accused. He Issue: In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant
did this without the required notice and hearing. He justified his sentenced by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment for
action on the ex-parte motion by arguing that the offense more than six years, does the discretionary nature of the grant
charged against the accused was a bailable offense; a hearing of bail pending appeal mean that bail should automatically be
was no longer required since bail was a matter of right. Under granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third
the present Rules of Court, however, notice and hearing are paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court?
required whether bail is a matter of right or discretion. Where
bail is a matter of discretion, the grant or the denial of bail Ruling: No. Petitioner claims that, in the absence of any of the
hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence on the guilt circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5,
of the accused is strong and the determination of whether or not Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, an application for bail by an
the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which appellant sentenced by the Regional Trial Court to a penalty of
remains with the judge. In order for the judge to properly more than six years imprisonment should automatically be
exercise this discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to granted. The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to
determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. This two scenarios where the penalty imposed on the appellant
discretion lies not in the determination of whether or not a applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years. The first
hearing should be held, but in the appreciation and evaluation scenario deals with the circumstances enumerated in the said
of the weight of the prosecution’s evidence of guilt against the paragraph (namely, recidivism, quasi-recidivism, habitual
accused. In any event, whether bail is a matter of right or delinquency or commission of the crime aggravated by the
discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is required in order circumstance of reiteration; previous escape from legal
for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in Section 9, confinement, evasion of sentence or violation of the conditions
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. This of his bail without a valid justification; commission of the
Court has repeatedly held in past cases that even if the offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon;
prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an circumstances indicating the probability of flight if released on
application for bail of an accused, the court may still require the bail; undue risk of committing another crime during the
prosecution to answer questions in order to ascertain, not only pendency of the appeal; or other similar circumstances) not
the strength of the State's evidence, but also the adequacy of the present. The second scenario contemplates the existence of at
amount of bail. least one of the said circumstances. In the first situation, bail is
a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, if none
32. Leviste v. CA of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
Leviste v. CA Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has the
G.R. No. 189122; March 17, 2010; Third Division discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for bail pending
J. Corona appeal may be denied even if the bail-negating circumstances
in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. In other

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
words, the appellate courts denial of bail pending appeal where circumstances, the accused will be present to abide by
none of the said circumstances exists does not, by and of itself, his punishment if his conviction is affirmed.
constitute abuse of discretion. On the other hand, in the second  It should also give due regard to any other pertinent
situation, the appellate court exercises a more stringent matters beyond the record of the particular case, such
discretion, that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the as the record, character and reputation of the applicant,
enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it among other things.
has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending  More importantly, the discretion to determine
appeal. Conversely, if the appellate court grants bail pending allowance or disallowance of bail pending appeal
appeal, grave abuse of discretion will thereby be committed. necessarily includes, at the very least, an initial
determination that the appeal is not frivolous but raises
Given these two distinct scenarios, therefore, any application
a substantial question of law or fact which must be
for bail pending appeal should be viewed from the perspective
determined by the appellate court.
of two stages: (1) the determination of discretion stage, where
the appellate court must determine whether any of the This must be so; otherwise, the appellate courts will be deluged
circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is with frivolous and time-wasting appeals made for the purpose
present; this will establish whether or not the appellate court of taking advantage of a lenient attitude on bail pending appeal.
will exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in Even more significantly, this comports with the very strong
resolving the application for bail pending appeal and (2) the presumption on appeal that the lower courts exercise of
exercise of discretion stage where, assuming the appellants case discretionary power was sound, specially since the rules on
falls within the first scenario allowing the exercise of sound criminal procedure require that no judgment shall be reversed
discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant or modified by the Court of Appeals except for substantial error.
circumstances, other than those mentioned in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including the demands of Moreover, to limit the bail-negating circumstances to the five
equity and justice; on the basis thereof, it may either allow or situations mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule
disallow bail. On the other hand, if the appellants case falls 114 is wrong. By restricting the bail-negating circumstances to
within the second scenario, the appellate courts stringent those expressly mentioned, petitioner applies the expressio
discretion requires that the exercise thereof be primarily unius est exclusio alterius rule in statutory construction.
focused on the determination of the proof of the presence of any
Petition dismissed.
of the circumstances that are prejudicial to the allowance of
bail. This is so because the existence of any of those 33. People v. Sandiganbayan and Estrada
circumstances is by itself sufficient to deny or revoke bail. People v. Sandiganbayan and Estrada
Nonetheless, a finding that none of the said circumstances is G.R. No. 158754; August 10, 2007; EN BANC
present will not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such J. Garcia
finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent
sound discretion approach. Facts: Senator Estrada, together with former President Estrada
and several others, were charged with plunder, defined and
In particular, a careful reading of petitioners arguments reveals penalized under RA No. 7080. On April 30, 2001, [Jinggoy]
that it interprets the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 to filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that: (1) no
cover all situations where the penalty imposed by the trial court probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for
on the appellant is imprisonment exceeding six years. plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in
Petitioners theory therefore reduces the appellate court into a illegal gambling and not in a series or combination of overt or
mere fact-finding body whose authority is limited to criminal acts as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled
determining whether any of the five circumstances mentioned to bail as a matter of right. [He] prayed that he be excluded from
in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 exists. This unduly the Amended Information . In the alternative, [he] also prayed
constricts its discretion into merely filling out the checklist of that he be allowed to post bail On July 9, 2001, respondent
circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 in Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying [Jinggoys] Motion
all instances where the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial to Quash and Suspend and Very Urgent Omnibus Motion. [His]
Court on the appellant is imprisonment exceeding six years. In alternative prayer to post bail was set for hearing after
short, petitioners interpretation severely curbs the discretion of arraignment of all accused. From the denial action of the
the appellate court by requiring it to determine a singular factual Sandiganbayan immediately adverted to, Jinggoy interposed a
issue whether any of the five bail-negating circumstances is petition for certiorari before this Court claiming that the
present. respondent Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion
in, inter alia, (a) sustaining the charge against him for alleged
JUDICIAL DISCRETION ON APPEALS TO CA
offenses and with alleged conspirators with whom he is not
 The court must be allowed reasonable latitude to even connected, and (b) in not fixing bail for him. For three (3)
express its own view of the case, its appreciation of the days in September 2001, the Sandiganbayan conducted
facts and its understanding of the applicable law on the hearings on the motion for bail, with one Dr. Roberto Anastacio
matter. of the Makati Medical Center appearing as sole witness for
 In view of the grave caution required of it, the court Jinggoy. On December 18, 2001, Jinggoy filed with the Court
should consider whether or not, under all an Urgent Motion praying for early resolution of his Petition for
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Bail on Medical/Humanitarian Considerations. He reiterated Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his guilt
his earlier plea for bail filed with the Sandiganbayan. The report was strong; (b) although he was charged with plunder, the
was submitted as directed. Attached to the Report was a copy penalty as to him would only be reclusion temporal, not
of the Sandiganbayans Resolution dated December 20, 2001 reclusion perpetua; and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his age
denying Jinggoys motion for bail for lack of factual basis. On and physical condition must further be seriously considered.
March 6, 2003, the Sandiganbayan granted the omnibus The Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s motion to fix bail.
application for bail by Senator Estrada.
Issue: Is Enrile entitled to bail?
Issue: Did the Sandiganbayan acted in grave abuse of
discretion? Ruling: Yes. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The
Ruling: No. Even if the capital offense charged is bailable presumption of innocence is rooted in the guarantee of due
owing to the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail process, and is safeguarded by the constitutional right to be
may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape is released on bail, and further binds the court to wait until after
great. Here, ever since the promulgation of the assailed trial to impose any punishment on the accused. The general rule
Resolutions a little more than four (4) years ago, Jinggoy does is, therefore, that any person, before being convicted of any
not, as determined by Sandiganbayan, seem to be a flight risk. criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a
It is not open to serious doubt that the movant [Jinggoy] has, in capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion
general, been consistently respectful of the Court and its perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is
processes. He has not ominously shown, by word or by deed, strong. Hence, from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is
that he is of such a flight risk that would necessitate his detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim
continued incarceration. Bearing in mind his conduct, social the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights,
standing and his other personal circumstances, the possibility of and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a capital
his escape in this case seems remote if not nil. The likelihood offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua
of escape on the part individual respondent is now almost nil, or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong.
given his election on May 10, 2004, as Senator of the Republic Once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong,
of the Philippines. The Court takes stock of the fact that those no right to bail shall be recognized. For purposes of admission
who usually jump bail are shadowy characters mindless of their to bail, the determination of whether or not evidence of guilt is
reputation in the eyes of the people for as long as they can flee strong in criminal cases involving capital offenses, or offenses
from the retribution of justice. On the other hand, those with a punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies
reputation and a respectable name to protect and preserve are within the discretion of the trial court.
very unlikely to jump bail. The Court, to be sure, cannot accept
any suggestion that someone who has a popular mandate to Nonetheless, in now granting Enrile’s petition for certiorari, the
serve as Senator is harboring any plan to give up his Senate seat Court is guided by the earlier mentioned principal purpose of
in exchange for becoming a fugitive from justice. bail, which is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the
trial, or whenever so required by the court. The Court is further
Petition dismissed. mindful of the Philippines’ responsibility in the international
community arising from the national commitment under the
34. Enrile v. Sandiganbayan Universal Declaration of Human Rights to uphold the
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and
G.R. No. 213847; August 18, 2015; EN BANC dignity of every person. This commitment is enshrined in
J. Bersamin Section II, Article II of our Constitution which provides: "The
State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
Facts: On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman charged
full respect for human rights." The Philippines, therefore, has
Enrile and several others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on
the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every
the basis of their purported involvement in the diversion and
person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained
misuse of appropriations under the Priority Development
or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to
Assistance Fund (PDAF). On June 10, 2014 and June 16, 2014,
enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention
Enrile respectively filed his Omnibus Motion and Supplemental
and order their release if justified. In other words, the Philippine
Opposition, praying, among others, that he be allowed to post
authorities are under obligation to make available to every
bail should probable cause be found against him. The motions
person under detention such remedies which safeguard their
were heard by the Sandiganbayan after the Prosecution filed its
fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right
Consolidated Opposition. On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan
to be admitted to bail. This national commitment to uphold the
issued its resolution denying Enrile’s motion, particularly on
fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and
the matter of bail, on the ground of its prematurity considering
dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not only
that Enrile had not yet then voluntarily surrendered or been
to those charged in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees
placed under the custody of the law. Accordingly, the
upon a clear and convincing showing: (1 ) that the detainee will
Sandiganbayan ordered the arrest of Enrile. Thereafter, Enrile
not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2 ) that
filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital and
there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.
his Motion to Fix Bail. In support of the motions, Enrile argued
In our view, his social and political standing and his having
that he should be allowed to post bail because: (a) the
immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape 10. Pendency of other cases where the accused is on
from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal bail.
disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal
or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal Excessive bail shall not be required. The principle of
processes of this country. We also do not ignore that at an ejusdem generis would apply.
earlier time many years ago when he had been charged with
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he PROPERTY BOND
already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the
RULES ON PROPERTY BOND
legal processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his
trial because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his solid Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bond, the
reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the
of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds if
he should be granted bail. The currently fragile state of Enrile’s the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the
health presents another compelling justification for his Registration Book on the space provided therefor, in
admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not the Registry of Deeds for the province or city where the
recognize. It is relevant to observe that granting provisional land lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in
liberty to Enrile will then enable him to have his medical the office of the provincial, city and municipal assessor
condition be properly addressed and better attended to by concerned.
competent physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the
not only aid in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more court his compliance and his failure to do so shall be
importantly , will guarantee his appearance in court for the trial. sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property
bond and his re-arrest and detention.(Sec. 11, Rule 114)
CAVEAT:
Qualifications:
This is a very unique case. Apply this if the facts of the a. Each must be a resident owner of real estate
question given falls squarely with the case. Otherwise, do within the Philippines;
not apply this case b. Where there is only one surety, his real estate
must be worth at least the amount of the
(the compiler believes that such would open a dangerous
undertaking;
precedent in our jurisprudence)
c. If there are two or more sureties, each may
justify in an amount less than that expressed in
NOTES ON BAIL the undertaking but the aggregate of the
RIGHT TO BAIL NOT APPLICABLE ON justified sums must be equivalent to the whole
MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY. amount of bail demanded.(Sec. 12, Rule 114)
The right to bail does not apply to the members of the
military. In lieu of such right, the right to speedy trial is SURETY BONDS
more emphasized with respect to the members of the
armed forces facing trial. On surety bonds, every surety shall:
GUIDELINES ON BAIL. 1. Justify by affidavit taken before the judge that he

possesses the qualifications prescribed in the
Section 9, Rule 114 provided the guidelines for the preceding section.
amount of bail. The judge who issued the warrant or 2. Describe the property given as security, stating
granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of the nature of his title, its encumbrances, the
bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the number and amount of other bails entered into by
following factors: him and still undischarged, and his other
1. Financial ability of the accused to give bail; liabilities.
2. Nature and circumstances of the offense; The court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning
3. Penalty for the offense charged; their sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper.
4. Character and reputation of the accused; No bail shall be approved unless the surety is
5. Age and health of the accused; qualified.(Sec. 13, Rule 114)
6. Weight of the evidence against the accused;
7. Probability of the accused appearing at the trial; CASH BONDS
8. Forfeiture of other bail;
On cash bonds, the accused or any person acting in his
9. The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice
behalf may deposit in cash with the:
when arrested; and
1. Nearest collector or internal revenue;
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. Clerk of court; or c. When he is found to have previously escaped
3. Provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
amount of bail fixed by the court, or jumped bail;
recommended by the prosecutor who investigated d. When he is found to have previously violated
or filed the case; (Sec. 14, Rule 114) the provisions of Section 2 hereof;
e. When he is found to be a recidivist or a
Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a
habitual delinquent or has been previously
written undertaking showing compliance with the
convicted for an offense to which the law or
requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall
ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty
be discharged from custody. (id.)
or for two or more offenses to which it
The money deposited shall be considered as bail and attaches a lighter penalty;
applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, f. When he commits the offense while on parole
if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever or under conditional pardon; and
made the deposit.(id.) g. When the accused has previously been
pardoned by the municipal or city mayor for
INSTANCES WHEN BAIL IS NOT REQUIRED: violation of municipal or city ordinance for at
1. When the law or the Rules so provide. (Sec. 16, least two times.
Rule 114); Instead of bail, the person charged shall be
2. When a person has been in custody for a period required to sign in the presence of two witnesses
equal to or more than the possible maximum of good standing in the community a sworn
imprisonment prescribe for the offense charged, statement binding himself, pending final decision
he shall be released immediately, without of his case, to report to the Clerk of the Court
prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the hearing his case periodically every two weeks.
proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty The Court may, in its discretion and with the
to which the accused may be sentenced is consent of the person charged, require further that
destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) he be placed under the custody and subject to the
days of preventive imprisonment. (id); authority of a responsible citizen in the
3. If the complaint or information is filed directly community who may be willing to accept the
with the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal responsibility. In such a case the affidavit herein
Circuit Trial Court for an offense punishable by mentioned shall include a statement of the person
imprisonment of less four (4) years, two (2) charged that he binds himself to accept the
months and one (1) day, and the judge is satisfied authority of the citizen so appointed by the Court.
that there is no necessity for placing the accused The Clerk of Court shall immediately report the
under custody, he may issue summons instead of presence of the accused person to the Court.
a warrant of arrest. (Sec. 8[b], Rule 112). No Except when his failure to report is for justifiable
arrest, no bail. reasons including circumstances beyond his
4. Bail shall not be required of a person charged control to be determined by the Court, any
with violation of a municipal or city ordinance, a violation of this sworn statement shall justify the
light felony and/or a criminal offense the Court to order his immediate arrest unless he files
prescribed penalty for which is not higher than six bail in the amount forthwith fixed by the Court.
months imprisonment and/or a fine of two
thousand pesos, or both, where said person has
established to the satisfaction of the court or any
CANCELLATION OF BAIL
other appropriate authority hearing his case that
he is unable to post the required cash or bail bond, Upon application of the bondsmen, with notice to the
except in the following cases: prosecutor, upon:
a. When he is caught committing the offense in
1. Surrender of the accused;
flagranti;
2. Proof of his death
b. When he confesses to the commission of the
offense unless the confession is later Instances where bail is AUTOMATICALLY cancelled:
repudiated by him in a sworn statement or in
open court as having been extracted through 1. Conviction;
force or intimidation; 2. Acquittal; or
3. Dismissal of the case.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
BENCH WARRANT WHEN ATTEMPTING TO d. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but
LEAVE subject to cross-examination on matters covered
by direct examination. His silence shall not in any
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without
manner prejudice him.
the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the
e. To be exempt from being compelled to be a
Philippines without permission of the court where the
witness against himself.
case is pending.(Sec. 23, Rule 114)
f. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses
WHEN IS APPLICATION FOR BAIL A WAIVER, against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as
WHEN IT IS NOT part of its evidence the testimony of a witness
who is deceased, out of or can not with due
When the accused filed an application for bail, diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable
jurisdiction over the person would be deemed waived. He or otherwise unable to testify, given in another
cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the court upon the case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
application for bail. involving the same parties and subject matter, the
An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-
accused from challenging: examine him.
g. To have compulsory process issued to secure the
1. The validity of his arrest; or attendance of witnesses and production of other
2. The legality of the warrant issued therefor, or evidence in his behalf.
3. From assailing the regularity or questioning the h. To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
absence of a preliminary investigation of the i. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner
charge against him. prescribed by law.
Provided that he raises them before entering his plea. (Sec. This is discussed in Constitutional Law II/Bill of Rights
26, Rule 114) in political law.
RULE 115 RULE 116

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled
to the following rights:
NOTES
a. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of
proved beyond reasonable doubt. implementing the constitutional right of an accused to be
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of the informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
accusation against him. him. The purpose of arraignment is, thus, to apprise the
c. To be present and defend in person and by accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life,
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him, or
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. at the very least to inform him of why the prosecuting arm
The accused may, however, waive his presence at of the State is mobilized against him. (Taglay v. Daray,
the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his 678 SCRA 649 [2012])
bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by
the court for purposes of identification. The The importance of arraignment is based on the
absence of the accused without justifiable cause constitutional right of the accused to be informed.
at the trial of which he had notice shall be Procedural due process requires that the accused be
considered a waiver of his right to be present arraigned so that he may be informed of the reason for his
thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face, and
he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be the corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted
present on all subsequent trial dates until custody against him. It is at this stage that the accused, for the first
over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused time, is given the opportunity to know the precise charge
may be allowed to defend himself in person when that confronts him. It is only imperative that he is thus
it sufficiently appears to the court that he can made fully aware of the possible loss of freedom, even of
properly protect his right without the assistance his life, depending on the nature of the imputed crime.
of counsel. (Kummer v. People, 705 SCRA 490 [2013])

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
As an indispensable requirement of due process, an particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the
arraignment cannot be regarded lightly or brushed aside arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period.
peremptorily. Otherwise, absence of arraignment results (Sec. 1, Rule 116)
in the nullity of the proceedings before the trial court.
Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of
(Taglay v. Daray, id.)
his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have one.
Arraignment is an indispensable requisite in criminal Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person
procedure. Note that if the accused has not been arraigned, or has employed a counsel of his choice, the court must
he cannot be tried in absentia. (Riano) assign a counsel de oficio to defend him. (Sec. 6, Rule
116) Section 6 of Rule 116 means that: [W]hen a
The accused must be arraigned before the court where the
defendant appears [at the arraignment] without [an]
complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial.
attorney, the court has four important duties to comply
The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge
with: 1—It must inform the defendant that it is his right
or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the
to have [an] attorney before being arraigned; 2—After
complaint or information, reading the same in the
giving him such information the court must ask him if he
language or dialect known to him, and asking him
desires the aid of attorney; 3—If he desires and is unable
whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution
to employ attorney, the court must assign [an] attorney de
may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in
oficio to defend him; and 4—If the accused desires to
the complaint or information. (Sec. 1, Rule 116)
procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a
The accused must be present at the arraignment and must reasonable time therefor. Compliance with these four
PERSONALLY enter his plea. Both arraignment and duties is mandatory. The only instance when the court can
plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall not arraign an accused without the benefit of counsel is if the
affect the validity of the proceedings. (id.) accused waives such right and the court, finding the
accused capable, allows him to represent himself in
When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional person. However, to be a valid waiver, the accused must
plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. When make the waiver voluntarily, knowingly, and
the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory intelligently. In determining whether the accused can
evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea make a valid waiver, the court must take into account all
of not guilty shall be entered for him. (id.) the relevant circumstances, including the educational
A plea of guilty for a lesser penalty is not a plea of guilty attainment of the accused. In the present case, however,
to a lesser offense. (see People v. Magat, 332 SCRA 517 respondent judge contends that complainants waived their
[2000]) right to counsel and insisted on their immediate
arraignment. (Gamas v. Oco, 425 SCRA 588 [2004])
When the accused is under preventive detention, his case
shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to Once the accused informs the judge that he cannot afford
whom the case was raffled within three (3) days from the a lawyer and the court has not allowed the accused to
filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall represent himself, or the accused is incapable of
be arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of the representing himself, the judge has the duty to appoint a
raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held counsel de oficio to give meaning and substance to the
within ten (10) days after arraignment. (Sec. 1, Rule 116) constitutional right of the accused to counsel. (Gamas v.
Oco, id.)
The private offended party shall be required to appear at
the arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining, The court, considering the gravity of the offense and the
determination of civil liability, and other matters difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as
requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in good
party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow the standing who, by reason of their experience and ability,
accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which can competently defend the accused. But in localities
is necessarily included in the offense charged with the where such members of the bar are not available, the court
conformity of the trial prosecutor alone. (Sec. 1, Rule 116) may appoint any person, resident of the province and of
good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused.
Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or (Sec. 7, Rule 116) Whenever a counsel de oficio is
Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall be held appointed by the court to defend the accused at the
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable time to
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of consult with the accused as to his plea before proceeding
the pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill of with the arraignment. (Sec. 8, Rule 116)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Before an accused be arraigned, he may avail of the However, a plea of guilty to a capital offense cannot
following remedies: constitute admission of aggravating circumstances which
were not shown to exist from the evidence adduced. (see
1. Motion for Bill of Particulars - The accused may,
People v. Commendador, 100 SCRA 155 [1980])
before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars
to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the
trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects accused and the prosecution work out a mutually
of the complaint or information and the details satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
desired. (Sec. 9, Rule 116) approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading
2. Motion for Suspension of Arraignment – Upon guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the
motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter
be suspended in the following cases: sentence than that for the graver charge. (Daan v.
a. The accused appears to be suffering from Sandiganbayan, 550 SCRA 233 [2008])
an unsound mental condition which
Requisites for plea of guilty of the lesser offense:
effective renders him unable to fully
understand the charge against him and to 1. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the
plead intelligently thereto. In such case, offense charged; and
the court shall order his mental 2. The plea must be with the consent of both the
examination and, if necessary, his offended party and the prosecutor. (Sec. 2, Rule
confinement for such purpose; 116)
b. There exists a prejudicial question; and
c. A petition for review of the resolution of The consent of the offended party is not required if he
the prosecutor is pending at either the fails to appear during the arraignment.(Sec. 1, Rule
Department of Justice, or the Office of 116)
the President; provided, that the period of After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still
suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after
days counted from the filing of the withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
petition with the reviewing office. (Sec. complaint or information is necessary. (Sec. 2, Rule 116)
11, Rule 116)
3. Motion to quash – See notes on Rule 117 In People of the Philippines v. Villarama, 210 SCRA 246
4. Challenge the Validity of an Arrest; (1992), the Court ruled that the acceptance of an offer to
5. Assail the regularity or question the absence of plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the
preliminary investigation. accused as a matter of right but is a matter that is
addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial
The arraignment of an accused shall be held within thirty court.
(30) days from the filing of the information, or from the
date the accused has appeared before the justice, judge or Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of
court in which the charge is pending, whichever date last guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is
occurs. Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or
the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare compromise for the convenience of the accused. (Daan v.
for trial. Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days Sandiganbayan, supra)
from arraignment as fixed by the court. (Sec. 7, RA 8493)
When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense,
If the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, the court may receive evidence from the parties to
he/she shall state whether he/she interposes a negative or determine the penalty to be imposed. (Sec. 4, Rule 116)
affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
court is bound to do the following acts:
reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may
modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove 1. To conduct a searching inquiry into the:
such defense by clear and convincing evidence. (id.) a. Voluntariness; and
b. Full comprehension of the consequences
A plea of guilty, as a rule, is a judicial confession of guilt
of his plea;
– an admission of all the material facts alleged in the
2. To require the prosecution to prove his guilt and
information, including the aggravating circumstances
the precise degree of culpability; and
therein. (People v. Gravino, 122 SCRA 123)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3. To ask the accused if he wanted to present 2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as
evidence in his behalf and to allow if he wishes to whether he had conferred with, and completely
to. (Sec. 3, Rule 116) explained to, the accused the meaning and
consequences of a plea of guilty.
The process is mandatory and absent any showing that it
3. Elicit information about the personality profile of
has been duly observed, a searching inquiry cannot be
the accused, such as his age, socio-economic
said to have been aptly undertaken. The trial court must
status, and educational background, which may
be extra solicitous to see to it that the accused fully
serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to
understands the meaning and importance of his plea. In
give a free and informed plea of guilty.
capital offenses particularly, life being at stake, one
4. Inform the accused of the exact length of
cannot just lean on the presumption that the accused has
imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the
understood his plea. (People v. Oden, 427 SCRA 634
law and the certainty that he will serve such
[2004])
sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads
Indeed, as noted in People vs. Nadera, a mere warning guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon
that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is bad advice or because of promises of the
insufficient. More often than not, an accused pleads guilty authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should
because he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of
penalty. (People v. Principe, 381 SCRA 642 [2002]) the judge to ensure that the accused does not labor
under these mistaken impressions because a plea
To breathe life into this rule, [it is] mandatory for trial of guilty carries with it not only the admission of
courts to do the following: (1) conduct a searching authorship of the crime proper but also of the
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension aggravating circumstances attending it, that
of the consequences of the accused’s plea; (2) require increase punishment.
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the 5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with
precise degree of his culpability; and (3) inquire whether which he is charged and to fully explain to him
or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his the elements of the crime which is the basis of his
behalf and allow him to do so if he so desires. (People v. indictment. Failure of the court to do so would
Mangila, 325 SCRA 586 [2000]) constitute a violation of his fundamental right to
“A ‘searching inquiry,’ under the Rules, means more than be informed of the precise nature of the
informing cursorily the accused that he faces a jail term accusation against him and a denial of his right to
but so also, the exact length of imprisonment under the due process.
law and the certainty that he will serve time at the national 6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a
penitentiary or a penal colony.” (People v. Bello, 316 language known and understood by the latter.
SCRA 804, [1999]) 7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the
accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The
In People v. Mira, 535 SCRA 543, the court had provided accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or
guidelines to be observed by the trial court in the proper reenact the crime or furnish its missing de-tails.
conduct of a searching inquiry:
1. Ascertain from the accused himself
a. how he was brought into the custody of At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes
the law; final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty
b. whether he had the assistance of a to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
competent counsel during the custodial (Section 5, Rule 116)
and preliminary investigations; and Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilty are set
c. under what conditions he was detained aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If
and interrogated during the the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to
investigations. convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained
This is intended to rule out the possibility that the because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea
accused has been coerced or placed under a state of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of
of duress either by actual threats of physical harm the offense charged. (People v. Salamillo, 404 SCRA 211
coming from malevolent quarters or simply [2003])
because of the judge’s intimidating robes. Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with
notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise,
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
produce and permit the inspection and copying or was not violated.
photographing of any written statement given by the Decision appealed from affirmed with modifications.
complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of
the offense conducted by the prosecution or other 2. People v. Mira
investigating officers, as well as any designated People v. Mira
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, G.R. No. 175324; October 10, 2007; Second Division
objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which J. Tinga
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter Facts: Appellant was charged with rape. On arraignment,
involved in the case and which are in the possession or appellant entered a guilty plea to the offense charged.
under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law Thereafter, the trial court proceeded with the reception of
investigating agencies. (Section 10, Rule 116) Section 10 evidence for the prosecution which presented five witnesses.
allows a mode of discovery aside from those allowed in The defense did not present evidence to counter the charges
other parts of the Rules of Court. (Riano) against appellant, considering his earlier plea of guilt. On 23
May 1997, the trial court rendered a decision finding appellant
CASES guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death.
The trial court relied heavily on the testimonies of the victim
1. People v. Pangilinan and her younger sister in establishing the identity of appellant
People v. Pangilinan and the act of rape committed against AAA. The CA affirmed
G.R. No. 171020; March 14, 2007; En Banc the trial court. Hence, this appeal. Appellant contends that the
J. Chico-Nazario trial court erred in not conducting a searching inquiry into the
Facts: Two informations were filed charging appellant with voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
rape. Appellant was only arraigned after trial but before the his plea and in failing to inform him if he desires to present
promulgation of the decision. The trial court convicted evidence in his behalf.
appellant of two counts of rape and imposed on him the capital Issue:
punishment for each count. Appellant now assail the decision
of the trial court on that that he was not properly arraigned. 1. Did the trial court erred in not conducting the
searching inquiry?
Issue: Was the arraignment invalid? 2. Is the guilt by the accused improvident that would
Ruling: No. Appellant is mistaken. When the hearings for his warrant the remanding of the case to the trial court?
petition for bail were conducted, the trial court had already Ruling:
acquired jurisdiction over his person. Settled is the rule that
jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his 1. No. (See guidelines given above.) There is no hard and
arrest or voluntary appearance. In the case at bar, the trial court fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a "searching
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the appellant when he inquiry," or as to the number and character of
was arrested on 19 March 1997. His arrest, not his arraignment, questions he may ask the accused, or as to the
conferred on the trial court jurisdiction over his person. earnestness with which he may conduct it, since each
Appellant’s belated arraignment did not prejudice him. This case must be measured according to its individual
procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in merit. However, the logic behind the rule is that courts
the trial without raising any objection that his client had yet to must proceed with caution where the imposable
be arraigned. In fact, his counsel even cross-examined the penalty is death for the reason that the execution of
prosecution witnesses. His counsel’s active participation in the such a sentence is irrevocable and experience has
hearings is a clear indication that he was fully aware of the shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded
charges against him; otherwise, his counsel would have guilty. An improvident plea of guilty on the part of the
objected and informed the court of this blunder. Moreover, no accused when capital crimes are involved should be
protest was made when appellant was subsequently arraigned. avoided since he might be admitting his guilt before
The parties did not question the procedure undertaken by the the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without
trial court. It is only now, after being convicted and sentenced having fully comprehended the meaning and import
to two death sentences, that appellant cries that his and consequences of his plea. Moreover, the
constitutional right has been violated. It is already too late to requirement of taking further evidence would aid this
raise this procedural defect. In People v. Cabale and People v. Court on appellate review in determining the propriety
Atienza where the same issue was raised under similar or impropriety of the plea.
circumstances, we held that while the arraignment of appellant The searching inquiry conducted by the trial court falls
was conducted after the cases had been submitted for decision, short of these requirements. The inquiry consisted of
the error is non-prejudicial and has been fully cured. Since only two simple questions. The questions propounded
appellant’s rights and interests were not prejudiced by this lapse by the trial court judge to appellant were clearly
in procedure, it only follows that his constitutional right to be inadequate. The appellant was not fully apprised of the
consequences of his guilty plea. In fact, as argued by
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
appellant, he was led to believe that the penalty for his the voluntariness of the plea; the court must explain fully to the
crime could still be reduced upon his plea of guilty, accused that once convicted, he could be meted the death
especially when the trial court informed him that he penalty. Death is a single and indivisible penalty and will be
could be meted the supreme penalty of death or life imposed regardless of the presence of a mitigating
imprisonment. Moreover, the trial court judge failed to circumstance. The importance of the court's obligation cannot
inform appellant of his right to adduce evidence be overemphasized for one cannot dispel the possibility that the
despite the guilty plea. Verily, appellant was deprived accused may have been led to believe that due to his voluntary
of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. plea of guilt, he may be imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion
2. No. Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt perpetua and not death. Moreover, the record also does not
are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the show whether the accused was asked whether or not he wished
judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and to present evidence in his behalf and that if desired, he was
credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the allowed to do so.
judgment must be sustained, because then it is
predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused Decision appealed from affirmed with modification.
but also on evidence proving his commission of the
4. Braza v. Sandiganbayan
offense charged. The RTC and the Court of Appeals
Braza v. Sandiganbayan
are unanimous in sustaining the credibility of the
G.R. No. 195032; February 20, 2013; Third Division
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has
J. Mendoza
successfully proven the elements of simple rape.
Facts: The Philippines was assigned the hosting rights for the
Decision appealed from affirmed with modifications.
12th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Leaders
3. People v. Galas Summit scheduled in December 2006. After the summit, a
People v. Galas letter-complaint was filed before the Public Assistance and
G.R. Nos. 139413-15; March 20, 2001; En Banc Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO), Ombudsman –
J. Gonzaga-Reyes Visayas, alleging that the ASEAN Summit street lighting
projects were overpriced. Braza, being the president of
Facts: Endrico Galas was charged with three counts of rape FABMIK, was impleaded as one of the respondents. On March
(Criminal Cases No. 333, 334, and 335) upon the complaint of 16, 2007, the Ombudsman directed the Department of Budget
his 15-year old daughter Sharon. The accused pleaded not and Management (DBM) and the DPWH to cease and desist
guilty when arraigned on April 28, 1998. At the hearing on May from releasing or disbursing funds for the projects in question.
7, 1999, accused manifested through counsel his desire to Subsequently, the OMB-Visayas filed several informations
change his plea of not guilty in the three cases to a plea of guilty before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A.
only in Criminal Case No. 0334, which referred to the rape 3019 against the officials of DPWH Region VII, the officials of
incident on February 28, 1997. His desire to change his plea the cities of Mandaue and Lapu-lapu and private contractors,
was reiterated at the hearing on June 3, 1999. Re-arraigned on FABMIK President Braza and GAMPIK Board Chairman
February 28, 1997, the accused, assisted by counsel, entered a Gerardo S. Surla (Surla). On June 6, 2008, Braza was arraigned
plea of guilty in Criminal Case No. 0334. The accused was as a precondition to his authorization to travel abroad. He
found guilty in Criminal Case No. 0334. Criminal Cases Nos. entered a plea of "not guilty." On August 14, 2008, the motions
0333 and 0335 were ordered dismissed. Accused-appellant for reinvestigation filed by Arturo Radaza (Radaza), the Mayor
claims that his plea of guilt was improvidently made as he was of Lapu-lapu City, and the DPWH officials were denied by the
not fully appraised of the consequences of his change of plea of Sandiganbayan for lack of merit. Consequently, they moved for
not guilty to guilty, and that the trial court failed to inform the the reconsideration of said resolution. On August 27, 2008,
accused that the imposable penalty is still death despite his Braza filed a motion for reinvestigation anchored on the
change of plea. following grounds: (1) the import documents relied upon by the
OMB-Visayas were spurious and falsified; (2) constituted new
Issue: Was the plea by the accused improvident? evidence, if considered, would overturn the finding of probable
Ruling: Yes. Nowhere in the proceedings was it explained to cause; and (3) the finding of overpricing was bereft of factual
the accused that the penalty imposable is death even if he pleads and legal basis as the same was not substantiated by any
guilty. We are inclined to agree with the accused-appellant that independent canvass of prevailing market prices of the subject
had he been so informed, he would not have changed his plea lampposts. He prayed for the suspension of the proceedings of
and voluntarily accept the imposition of a death penalty. This the case pending such reinvestigation. The Sandiganbayan
Court has held that it is mandatory for the trial court to treated Braza's motion as his motion for reconsideration of its
accomplish three things to avoid an improvident plea of guilt, August 14, 2008 Resolution. On November 13, 2008, Braza
namely: 1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness filed a manifestation to make of record that he was maintaining
and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused's his previous plea of "not guilty" without any condition. During
plea; 2) require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused the proceedings held on November 3, 2008, the Sandiganbayan
and the precise decree of his culpability and 3) inquire whether reconsidered its August 14, 2008 resolution and directed a
or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and reinvestigation of the case. Braza filed his Manifestation
allow him to do so if he desires. It is not enough to inquire as to informing the Sandiganbayan of his intention to abandon his

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
previous motion for reinvestigation. On March 23, 2009, Braza arraigned on the amended information without losing his right
filed a motion in support of the abandonment of reinvestigation to question the same. It appeared that these conditions were
with a plea to vacate Information, insisting that the further duly explained to Braza and his lawyer by the anti-graft court.
reinvestigation of the case would only afford the prosecution a He was afforded time to confer and consult his lawyer.
second round of preliminary investigation which would be Thereafter, he voluntarily submitted himself to such conditional
vexatious, oppressive and violative of his constitutional right to arraignment and entered a plea of "not guilty" to the offense of
a speedy disposition of his case, warranting its dismissal with violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
prejudice. After concluding its reinvestigation of the case, the
OMB-Visayas issued its Resolution, which upheld the finding Verily, the relinquishment of his right to invoke double
of probable cause but modified the charge from violation of jeopardy had been convincingly laid out. Such waiver was
Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 to violation of Sec. 3(e) of the same clear, categorical and intelligent. It may not be amiss to state
law. The same was admitted. On November 6, 2009, Braza that on the day of said arraignment, one of the incidents pending
moved for reconsideration with alternative motion to quash the for the consideration of the Sandiganbayan was an omnibus
information reiterating his arguments that his right against motion for determination of probable cause and for quashal of
double jeopardy and his right to a speedy disposition of the case information or for reinvestigation filed by accused Radaza.
were violated warranting the dismissal of the criminal case with Accordingly, there was a real possibility that the first
prejudice. The same was denied. information would be amended if said motion was granted.
Although the omnibus motion was initially denied, it was
Issue: Did the Sandiganbayan acted in GADALEJ in sustaining subsequently granted upon motion for reconsideration, and a
the withdrawal of the Information in violation of the reinvestigation was ordered to be conducted in the criminal
constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the petitioner case.
having entered a valid plea and vigorously objected to any
further conduct of reinvestigation and amendment of Petition denied.
Information.
5. People v. Magat
Ruling: No. The Court is not persuaded. The June 6, 2008 Order People v. Magat
of the Sandiganbayan provided that accused Isabelo A. Braza G.R. No. 130026; May 31, 2000; EN BANC
was summoned to arraignment as a precondition in PER CURIAM
authorizing his travel. The arraignment of the accused was
Facts: Accused was charged with 2 counts of rape. Upon
conditional in the sense that if the present Information will
arraignment on January 10, 1997, accused-appellant pleaded
be amended as a result of the pending incidents herein, he
guilty but bargained for a lesser penalty for each case. After
cannot invoke his right against double jeopardy and he shall
three months, the cases were revived at the instance of the
submit himself to arraignment anew under such Amended
complainant on the ground that the penalty imposed was "too
Information. On the other hand, his conditional arraignment
light." As a consequence, accused-appellant was re-arraigned
shall not prejudice his right to question such Amended
on both Informations on April 15, 1997 where he entered a plea
Information, if one shall be filed. These conditions were
of not guilty. On July 3, 1997 accused-appellant entered anew
thoroughly explained to the accused and his counsel. After
a plea of guilty. The court read to him the Informations in
consultation with his counsel, the accused willingly submitted
English and Tagalog and repeatedly asked whether he
himself to such conditional arraignment. Thereafter, the
understood his change of plea and propounded questions as to
accused, with the assistance of counsel, was arraigned by
his understanding of the consequences of his plea. Convinced
reading the Information to him in English, a language
of accused-appellant's voluntariness of his plea of guilty, the
understood by him. Thereafter, he pleaded Not Guilty to the
court required the taking of complainant's testimony. The
charge against him.
accused-appellant did not present any evidence. Accused-
While it is true that the practice of the Sandiganbayan of appellant contends that the trial court erred in re-arraigning and
conducting "provisional" or "conditional" arraignment of the proceeding into trial despite the fact that he was already
accused is not specifically sanctioned by the Revised Internal convicted per Order of the trial court dated January 10, 1997
Rules of the Procedure of the Sandiganbayan or by the regular based on his plea of guilt.
Rules of Procedure, this Court had tangentially recognized such
Issue:
practice in People v. Espinosa, provided that the alleged
conditions attached to the arraignment should be 1. Is the act of the trial court re-arraigning the accused
"unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened." The Court correct?
further required that the conditions must be expressly stated in 2. Was the re-arraignment violated his right against
the order disposing of arraignment, otherwise, it should be double jeopardy?
deemed simple and unconditional.
Ruling:
The Sandiganbayan's June 6, 2008 Order clearly and
unequivocally states that the conditions for Braza's arraignment 1. Yes. The January 10, 1997 order of the trial court
as well as his travel abroad, that is, that if the Information would convicting the accused-appellant on his own plea of
be amended, he shall waive his constitutional right to be guilt is void ab initio on the ground that accused-
protected against double jeopardy and shall allow himself to be appellant's plea is not the plea bargaining

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
contemplated and allowed by law and the rules of Ilonggo dialect, which was the language known to him. The two
procedure. The only instance where a plea bargaining informations, to which Besonia pleaded guilty, allege that the
is allowed under the Rules is when an accused pleads killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of evident
guilty to a lesser offense. Here, the reduction of the premeditation and the aggravating circumstance of use of an
penalty is only a consequence of the plea of guilt to a unlicensed firearm, which if proved would warrant the penalty
lesser penalty. of death. A searching inquiry must focus on the voluntariness
of the plea and the full comprehension by the accused of the
It must be emphasized that accused-appellant did not consequences of the plea so that the plea of guilty can truly be
plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape said to be based on a free and informed judgment. Clearly, the
charges and only bargained for a lesser penalty. In trial court has substantially followed the aforementioned
short, as aptly observed by the Solicitor General, he parameters for the conduct of a searching inquiry.
did not plea bargain but made conditions on the
penalty to be imposed. This is erroneous because by We cannot subscribe to Besonia’s claim that his confession and
pleading guilty to the offense charged, accused- admissions during the searching inquiry were elicited in
appellant should be sentenced to the penalty to which violation of his constitutional right not to be compelled to
he pleaded. testify against himself. It does not apply where, as in these
cases, the testimony was freely and voluntarily given by the
It is the essence of a plea of guilty that the accused accused himself without any compulsion from the agents of the
admits absolutely and unconditionally his guilt and State. There is nothing in the records that would indicate that
responsibility for the offense imputed to him. Besonia was forced, intimidated, or compelled by the trial court
In effect, the judgment rendered by the trial court or by anybody into admitting the crimes. At any rate, his plea
which was based on a void plea bargaining is also void of guilty and confession or admissions during the searching
ab initio and can not be considered to have attained inquiry cannot be the sole basis for his conviction.
finality for the simple reason that a void judgment has It must be stressed that a plea of guilty is only a supporting
no legality from its inception. evidence or secondary basis for a finding of culpability, the
2. Thus, since the judgment of conviction rendered main proof being the evidence presented by the prosecution to
against accused-appellant is void, double jeopardy will prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Once an
not lie. accused charged with a capital offense enters a plea of guilty, a
Decision appealed from affirmed with modifications. regular trial shall be conducted just the same as if no such plea
was entered.
6. People v. Besonia Csse remanded.
People v. Besonia
G.R. No. 151284-85: February 5, 2004; EN BANC 7. Estipona v. Lobrigo
C.J. Davide, Jr. Estipona v. Lobrigo
Facts: Besonia was charged with murder in two separate G.R. No. 226679; August 15, 2017; En Banc
informations. Besonia entered a plea of not guilty in each case. J. Peralta
Pre-trial was then held. On 6 March 2001, before the start of the Facts: Petitioner Estipona, Jr. was charged with violation of
trial, Besonia, through his counsel Atty. Calixto Perez, Section 11 of RA 9165.
manifested that he would enter a plea of guilty to the lesser
offense of homicide after a medical operation on his gall
bladder. Thereafter, the trial court ordered the prosecution to
On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the
begin presenting its evidence. On 29 May 2001, Besonia
Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to
manifested his desire to enter a plea of guilty to murder. Re-
withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of
arraignment was then scheduled on 5 June 2001. On his re-
guilty for violation of Section 12 (NOTE: should have been
arraignment, Besonia pleaded guilty to the two charges of
Section 15?) of the same law, with a penalty of rehabilitation in
murder. The trial court forthwith conducted a searching inquiry
view of his being a first-time offender and the minimal quantity
to determine the voluntariness and full comprehension of his
of the dangerous drug seized in his possession.
plea. After the prosecution had rested its case, the defense
manifested that it would not present any evidence. On 26 June Petitioner argues that Section 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits
2001, the trial court promulgated judgment which is now the plea bargaining in all violations of said law violates:
subject of this automatic review. Besonia argues that the finding
of guilt by the trial court was based mainly on his confession, 1. The intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section
which is inadmissible for having been obtained in gross 2 thereof;
violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. 2. The rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution;
Issue: Was the re-arraignment irregular? and
3. The principle of separation of powers among the three
Ruling: No. Before Besonia pleaded guilty to both charges, the
equal branches of the government.
two informations for murder were first read and translated to

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Issue: Is the provision unconstitutional? Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules
on plea bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested
Ruling: Yes. The power to promulgate rules of pleading, right. Instead, it operates as a means to implement an existing
practice and procedure is now the Judiciary’s exclusive domain right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and
and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative duties recognized by substantive law and for justly
departments. While the power to define, prescribe, and administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts is, by of them.
constitutional design, vested unto Congress, the power to
promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all RULE 117
courts belongs exclusively to this Court. In Echegaray v. MOTION TO QUASH
Secretary of Justice (Echegaray), the Court traced the evolution
of its rule-making authority, which, under the 1935 and 1973 NOTES
Constitutions, had been priorly subjected to a power-sharing As defined in Antone, 637 SCRA 615 (2010), “a motion
scheme with Congress. As it now stands, the 1987 Constitution to quash information is the mode by which an accused
textually altered the old provisions by deleting the assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information
concurrent power of Congress to amend the rules, thus
filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of
solidifying in one body the Court's rule-making powers, in
line with the Framers' vision of institutionalizing a " [ s]
law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the
tronger and more independent judiciary." information.” It is a hypothetical admission of the facts
alleged in the information. The fundamental test in
The Supreme Court's sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal determining the sufficiency of the material averments in
procedural rules is limited to the preservation of substantive an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein,
rights, i.e., the former should not diminish, increase or modify
which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the
the latter. It will be noted that no definitive line can be drawn
essential elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence
between those rules or statutes which are procedural, hence
within the scope of this Court's rule-making power, and those aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information are not to
which are substantive. In fact, a particular rule may be be considered. To be sure, a motion to quash should be
procedural in one context and substantive in another. It is based on a defect in the information which is evident on
admitted that what is procedural and what is substantive is its fact. Thus, if the defect can be cured by amendment or
frequently a question of great difficulty. It is not, however, an if it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not
insurmountable problem if a rational and pragmatic approach is constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the court
taken within the context of our own procedural and the opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. If the
jurisdictional system. motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that
Petition granted. another complaint or information be filed except when the
information is quashed on the ground of extinction of
OTHER DISCUSSIONS IN THIS CASE: criminal liability or double jeopardy.
Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. In determining whether
a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and CASES
procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies
any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates
procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and
duties recognized by substantive law and for justly
administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction
of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not
procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal,
it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as
a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals
merely with procedure. In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has
been defined as “a process whereby the accused and the
prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the
case subject to court approval.” There is give-and-take
negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the
agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make
concessions to avoid potential losses. Properly administered,
plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of
the system – speed, economy, and finality – can benefit the
accused, the offended party, the prosecution, and the court.


Remedial Crimpro

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Remedial Crimpro

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RECITS, NOTES, CASES

PRELIMINARY 1. What is jurisdiction over subject

1| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

2| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

3| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

However, if the value of the stolen goods exist

There is exclusive jurisdiction when one court has the

There is concurrent jurisdiction where two or more

4| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

5| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

7| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

8| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

11. Why the court in Olarte did abandoned ISSUES:

No. The court cannot convict the accused for simple

10| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

12| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

13| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

23. Mr Manco was injured by Mr

14| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

The law is silent. But by statutory construction, it is 32. Crespo v Mogul

The CA ordered the trial court to refrain from proceeding with

The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a

Still no. The wordings of section 5 is exclusive to the

Section 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or

18| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

19| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

20| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

When the appellation of the crime charged as determined by the

Issue: Is there a need for new preliminary investigation?

25| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

26| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

27| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

 The death of the accused after arraignment and

29| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

32| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

2. Can a private party move for reinvestigation?

36| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

38| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

44| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

45| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

46| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

Motions denied. Issue:

1. Was petitioner validly arrested without warrant?

48| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

49| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

Facts: An altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty.

54| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

1. upon Probable cause; In conducting personal examination, he must examine in

Note that where the search warrant is issued as an incident Issues:

60| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

62| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

64| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

65| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

67| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

69| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

RULE 114 1. Corporate Surety – any domestic or foreign

What if he voluntarily 5. What’s the constitutional basis for

19. Mr Manco was charged with murder. NOTE:

77| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

78| LEX PAEDAGOGUS - Bulacan State University – College of Law

28. HDO vs. PHDO

Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 20 (4)