Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
INTRODUCTION the public officer has already died, the private person
may be indicted alone.
1. SERANA vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 162059 | 2008
It is not only the salary grade that determines the 5. RAMISCAL vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 140576-99 | 2004
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan—the Sandiganbayan In finding of probable cause, it is the Ombudsman who
also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in has the full discretion to determine whether or not a
P.D. No. 1606. criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once
the case has been filed with the said court, it is the
2. GARCIA vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 165835 | 2005 Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman which
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over actions for has full control of the case.
forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379, albeit the
proceeding thereunder is civil in nature—the civil liability 6. RAMISCAL vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 140576-99 | 2004
for forfeiture cases does not arise from the commission I
of a criminal offense. Jurisdiction in libel cases belong to the RTC to the
exclusion of all other courts
3. ESCOBAL vs GARCHITORENA | 124644 | 2004 II
The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is The rule is well settled that the act of an accused in
determined by the allegations in the Information or the posting bail or in filing motions seeking affirmative relief
Complaint and the statute in effect at the time of the is tantamount to submission of his person to the
commencement of the action, unless such statute jurisdiction of the court.
provides for a retroactive application thereof. III
The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving
under Section 4(a) of PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861 violations of RA 3019 committed by certain public
over crimes committed by public officers in relation to officers, as enumerated in PD 1606 as amended by RA
their office, it is essential that the facts showing the 8249.
intimate relation between the office and the offender
and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the This includes private individuals who are charged as co-
Information. principals, accomplices or accessories with the said
public officers.
It is not enough to merely allege in the Information that
the crime charged was committed by the offender in 7. LACSON vs EXEC. SECRETARY | 128096 | 1999
relation to his office because that would be a conclusion I
of law. Under Section 4, par. b of Republic Act 8249, what
determines the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is the
4. PEOPLE vs HENRY GO | 168539 | 2014 official position or rank of the offender.
The Sandiganbayan is a special criminal court which has
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving In enacting RA 8249, Congress simply restored the
violations of RA 3019 committed by certain public original provisions of PD 1606 which does not mention
officers, as enumerated in PD 1606 as amended by R.A. the criminal participation of the public officer as a
8249. requisite to determine the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
The requirement before a private person may be indicted II
for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, RA 8249 is not a penal law. It is a substantive law on
is that such private person must be alleged to have acted jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Not being a
in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, penal law, the retroactive application of RA 8249 cannot
does not require that such person must, in all instances, be challenged as unconstitutional.
be indicted together with the public officer. If III
circumstances exist where the public officer may no An offense is said to have been committed in relation to
longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the office if it is intimately connected with the office of
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 1
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
the offender and perpetrated while he was in the description of only one offense and the information is
performance of his official functions. not thereby rendered defective on the ground of
multifariousness.
Such intimate relation must be alleged in the information
which is essential in determining the jurisdiction of the 16. UNION BANK vs PEOPLE | 192565 | 2012
Sandiganbayan. The venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed
IV sufficiently alleged where the Information states that the
The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution offense was committed or some of its essential
or statute. The elements of that definition must appear ingredients occurred at a place within the territorial
in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which jurisdiction of the court.
court has jurisdiction over a case.
RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Hence the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a court
is determined by the allegations in the complaint or 17. SOLIDUM vs PEOPLE | 192123 | 2014
information, and not by the evidence presented by the I
parties at the trial. Civil liability must not rest on speculation but on
competent evidence.
8. SANCHEZ vs DEMETRIOU | 111771-77 | 1993 II
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not The civil action for the recovery of civil liability that is
impair the validity of the information or otherwise deemed instituted with the criminal action refers only to
render the same defective and neither does it affect the that arising from the offense charged.
jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a
ground for quashing the information. 18. CASTILLO vs SALVADOR | 191240 | 2014
An acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of
11. DISINI JR vs SEC. OF JUSTICE | 203335 | 2014 the accused is not exempt from civil liability, which may
It is well-settled that the power to issue subpoenas is not be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
exclusively a judicial function. Executive agencies have
the power to issue subpoena as an adjunct of their 19. LIM vs KOU CO PING | 175256 | 2012
investigatory powers. If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted
prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action,
RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of
the criminal action. Because of the distinct and
12. JIMENEZ vs SORONGON | 178607 | 2012 independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities,
The People is the real party in interest in a criminal case jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue
and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or
proceedings pending in the CA or in the SC. cumulatively, without of ending the rules on forum
shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
13. PEOPLE vs VALDEZ | 175602 | 2012
The nature of the criminal charge is determined by the 20. CASUPANAN vs LAROYA | 145391 | 2002
actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information. The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the
same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal
14. MIGUEL vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 172035 | 2012 case. This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1
The test of the information’s sufficiency is whether the of the present Rule 111 which states that the
crime is described in intelligible terms and with such counterclaim of the accused “may be litigated in a
particularity with reasonable certainty so that the separate civil action.”
accused is duly informed of the offense charged.
21. PEOPLE vs ROMERO | 112985 | 1999
15. PEOPLE VS SORIA | 172035 | 2012 The death of the accused pending appeal of his
The allegation in the information of the various ways of conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the
committing the offense should be regarded as a civil liability ex delicto.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 2
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
24. JM DOMINGUEZ vs LICLICAN | 208587 | 2015 It is not disputed that decisions or resolutions of
As jurisprudence elucidates, a prejudicial question prosecutors are subject to appeal to the Secretary of
generally exists in a situation where a civil action and a Justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code,
criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the exercises the power of direct control and supervision
former an issue that must be preemptively resolved over said prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify,
before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the reverse or modify their rulings. Review as an act of
issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be supervision and control by the justice secretary over the
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of fiscals and prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of
the accused in the criminal case. The rationale behind exhaustion of administrative remedies which holds that
the principle is to avoid two conflicting decisions, and its mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the initial
existence rests on the concurrence of two essential steps of an administrative activity or by an administrative
elements: agency should be corrected by higher administrative
(i) The civil action involves an issue similar or authorities, and not directly by courts.
intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action; and This Court need not overemphasize that in a preliminary
(ii) The resolution of such issue determines whether investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines
or not the criminal action may proceed. whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.
25. FENEQUITO vs VERGARA, JR. | 172829 | 2012
It does not call for the application of rules and standards
It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG
of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial
which has authority to file an appeal with the RTC.
on the merits. The complainant need not present at this
Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive
stage proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative
Code of 1987, mandates the OSG to represent “the
A preliminary investigation does not require a full and
Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of
exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence.
Appeals in all criminal proceedings.” On the other hand,
Precisely, there is a trial to allow the reception of
Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled
evidence for both parties to substantiate their respective
“Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department
claims.
of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 3
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
30. PEOPLE vs VALENCIA | 94511-13 | 1992 Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is
often the only means of discovering the persons who
I
may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable
Information can be filed without a preliminary
the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information.
investigation against an accused arrested without
warrant.
It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no
II
purpose except that of determining whether a crime has
Preliminary investigation; deemed waived when not
been committed and whether there is probable cause to
invoked.
believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While the fiscal
makes that determination, he cannot be said to be acting
31. PCGG vs NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ | 194159 | 2015
as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass
I judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.
Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal
information, has been defined as such facts as are RULE 113 – ARREST
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that respondent is probably 33. SARAUM vs PEOPLE | 205472 | 2016
guilty thereof.
The valid warrantless arrest gave the officers the right to
search the shanty for objects relating to the crime and
The term does not mean "actual or positive cause" nor
seize the drug paraphernalia they found. In the course of
does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on
their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various
opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not
drug paraphernalia. As these items were plainly visible,
require an inquiry whether there is sufficient evidence to
the police officers were justified in seizing them.
procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 4
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
Considering that Saraum’s arrest was legal, the search RULE 114 – BAIL
and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.
38. FLORESTA vs UBIADAS | AM RTJ-03-1774 | 2004
The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers Judges owe it the public and the legal profession to know
found and seized in the shanty are, therefore, admissible the very law they are supposed to apply to a given
in evidence for having proceeded from a valid search and controversy.
seizure.
39. ZUNO vs CABEBE | AM OCA 03-1800-RTJ | 2004
Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia are the very The importance of a bail hearing and a summary of
corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no evidence cannot be downplayed, these are considered
choice but to sustain the judgment of conviction. aspects of procedural due process for both the
prosecution and the defense; its absence will invalidate
34. COMERCIANTE vs PEOPLE | 205926 | 2015 the grant or denial of bail.
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness"
present where the police officer finds himself or herself 40. GOV’T OF HONGKONG vs OLALIA | 153675 | 2004*
in. The modern trend in public international law is the
primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and
This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the the sanctity of human rights.
police officer. Experienced police officers have personal
experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, the Court sees
Hence, they should have the ability to discern - based on no justification why it should not also be allowed in
facts that they themselves observe - whether an extradition cases—clearly, the right of a prospective
individual is acting in a suspicious manner. extraditee to apply for bail must be viewed in the light of
the various treaty obligations of the Philippines
Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, concerning respect for the promotion and protection of
with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the human rights.
facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.
41. PEOPLE vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 158754 | 2007
35. LUZ vs PEOPLE | 197788 | 2012
Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to
At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail
the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for may justifiably still be denied if the probability of escape
the arrest and must show that person the warrant of is great. A grant of bail does not prevent the trier of facts,
arrest, if any. the same Anti-Graft Court, from making a final
assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits.
Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to
remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement 42. OKABE vs GUTIERREZ | 150185 | 2004
they might make could be used against them.
Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure is a new one, intended to modify previous
36. ANTIQUERA vs PEOPLE | 180661 | 2013
rulings of the Court that an application for bail or the
The failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of admission to bail by the accused shall be considered as a
his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his conviction. waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for his
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry arrest on the legalities or irregularities thereon; Curative
with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized statutes are by their essence retroactive in application.
during the illegal warrantless arrest.
43. LEVISTE vs CA | 189122 | 2010
37. PEOPLE vs VASQUEZ | 200304 | 2014
Under Sec 5 of Rule 114, bail is discretionary upon
Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
must be made before the accused enters his plea on death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
arraignment.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 5
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
Under par. 3 of the same rule if the penalty impose is human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of
more than 6 years the accused shall be denied bail, or his every person.
bail be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution,
with notice to the accused, of the following or other In the Courts view, his social and political standing and
circumstances: his having immediately surrendered to the authorities
a. That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of
delinquent, or has committed the crime his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely.
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
b. That he has previously escaped from legal Factors in this case:
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the Voluntary surrender;
conditions of his bail without a valid justification; Social and political standing;
c. That he committed the offense while under Clear showing of fragile health and advanced age;
probation, parole, or conditional pardon; and
d. That the circumstances of his case indicate the Responsibility being a signatory of the UDHR.
probability of flight if released on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that he may commit RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
45. DEL CASTILLO vs PEOPLE | 185128| 2012
That bail is expressly declared to be discretionary While it is not necessary that the property to be searched
pending appeal and it cannot be said that CA committed or seized should be owned by the person against whom
grave abuse of discretion. After conviction by the trial the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient
court, the presumption of innocence terminates and, showing that the property is under appellants control or
accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends, from possession.
then on the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.
46. MIGUEL vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 172035 | 2012
44. ENRILE vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 213847 | 2015
To be heard does not only mean oral arguments in court;
The primary objective of bail is to ensure that the one may be heard also through pleadings. Where
accused appears at trial. opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments
or pleadings, has been accorded, no denial of procedural
Bail is a right and a matter of discretion – Right to bail is due process exists.
afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and
repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal 47. PEOPLE vs LARA | 199877 | 2012
Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital
The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
precise moment custodial investigation begins and being
or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when
made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
or a part of custodial investigation.
criminal prosecution.”
48. SANICO vs PEOPLE | 198753 | 2015
The Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of
bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the
trial; and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing error committed as a result was so serious that the client
of the fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the
litigation ought to be reopened to give to the client
As such, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion another chance to present his case.
in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail.
49. PEOPLE vs AYSON | 85215 | 1989
The Court is further mindful of the Philippines’ The rights guaranteed a person under Art. III, Sec. 12 of
responsibility in the international community arising the Constitution are not available when he is not under
from the national commitment under the Universal custodial investigation. Thus, a statement or confession
Declaration of Human Rights to uphold the fundamental voluntarily given by an employee during an
administrative investigation that he had malversed his
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 6
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 7
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
As usual in matters of discretion, the ruling of the trial 59. PEOPLE vs DUMLAO | 168918 | 2009
court will not be reversed unless grave abuse of Insufficiency of evidence is not one of the grounds of a
discretion or a manifestly erroneous order amounting to Motion to Quash. Insufficiency of evidence is a ground
grave abuse of discretion is shown. for dismissal of an action only after the prosecution rests
its case.
The rule requires the information to describe the offense
with sufficient particularity to apprise the accused of the Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
crime charged with and to enable the court to pronounce Procedure provides – Demurrer to evidence. After the
judgment. The particularity must be such that persons of prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the
ordinary intelligence may immediately know what the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on
Information means. The general function of a bill of its own initiative after giving the prosecution the
particulars, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to
guard against surprises during trial. It is not the function evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of
of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the court.
prosecution. Thus, the prosecutor shall not be required
to include in the bill of particulars matters of evidence 60. SORIANO vs PEOPLE | 159517-18 | 2009
relating to how the people intend to prove the elements The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash
of the offense charged or how the people intend to prove anchored on Section 3 (a), 19 Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules
any item of factual information included in the bill of on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the
particulars. averments in the information; that is, whether the facts
alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the
RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH essential elements of the offense charged as defined by
law. The trial court may not consider a situation contrary
57. PEOPLE vs LACSON | 149453 | 2003 to that set forth in the criminal complaint or information.
The interpretation of Sec. 8 of Rule 117 to the effect that Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners
in the event that the accused is prosecuted anew with against the charge under the information must be
the same offense, albeit under an identical information, proved by them during trial. Such facts or circumstances
the new proceedings being conducted as if the accused do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash
has been charged afresh has in its favor the soundest the information on the ground that the material
policy considerations based no less on the fundamental averments do not constitute the offense.
objectives of procedural rules.
Section 1 (g) of Rule 116—Unless a shorter period is 61. CEREZO vs PEOPLE | 185230 | 2011
provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with
arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound
date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of discretion of the court. In thus resolving a motion to
the accused. The time of the pendency or a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial
quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of
suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice.
computing the period.
It is the court’s bounden duty to assess independently
58. PANAGUITON vs DOJ | 167571 | 2008 the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be
The prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution embodied in a written order disposing of the motion.
of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the While the recommendation of the prosecutor or the
accused. Petitioner’s filing of his complaint-affidavit ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not
before the office of the City Prosecutor on 24 August binding on courts.
1995 signified the commencement of the proceedings
for the prosecution of the accused and thus effectively 62. CO vs NEW PROSPERITY | 183994 | 2014
interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy
had been charged under BP 22. trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 8
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable 65. PEOPLE vs JIMENEZ | 209195 | 2014
opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. The requirement is that a state witness does not need to
be found to be the least guilty; he or she should not only
Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an "appear to be the most guilty."
unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of
the accused to speedy trial. 66. PEOPLE vs DE GRANO | 167710 | 2009
Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing
RULE 119 – TRIAL trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the
trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit:
63. SALVANERA vs PEOPLE | 143093 | 2007 (a) At arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or
In the discharge of an accused in order that he may be a of guilt;
state witness, the following conditions must be present, (b) During trial, whenever necessary for identification
namely: purposes; and
1) Two or more accused are jointly charged with the (c) At the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a
commission of an offense; light offense, in which case, the accused may
2) The motion for discharge is filed by the appear by counsel or representative.
prosecution before it rests its case; At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is
3) The prosecution is required to present evidence required and cannot be waived.
and the sworn statement of each proposed state
witness at a hearing in support of the discharge; 67. ASISTIO vs PEOPLE | 200465 | 2015
4) The accused gives his consent to be a state Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the
witness; and defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not
5) The trial court is satisfied that: show that the defendant's guilt is beyond reasonable
a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the
of the accused whose discharge is requested; merits or that the defendant is not guilty.
b) There is no other direct evidence available for
the proper prosecution of the offense Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the
committed, except the testimony of said court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the
accused; evidence does not show that the offense was committed
c) The testimony of said accused can be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the
substantially corroborated in its material complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form
points; and substance, etc."
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most
guilty; and, 68. CABADOR vs PEOPLE | 186001 | 2009
e) Said accused has not at any time been
One can avail of a demurrer to evidence only after the
convicted of any offense involving moral
plaintiff or the prosecution has rested its case. Resting
turpitude.
one’s case requires a formal offer of evidence which has
been commented on or has been opposed and the court
64. VDA DE MANGUERRA vs RISOS | 152643 | 2008
has already ruled on the formal offer of evidence
It is thus required that the conditional examination be together with the opposition or comment thereto.
made before the court where the case is pending.
69. PEOPLE vs TAN | 167526 | 2010
It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so that
The elements of double jeopardy are:
he can attend the examination, subject to his right to
(1) The complaint or information was sufficient in
waive the same after reasonable notice.
form and substance to sustain a conviction;
(2) The court had jurisdiction;
As to the manner of examination, the Rules mandate that
(3) The accused had been arraigned and had pleaded;
it be conducted in the same manner as an examination
and
during trial, that is, through question and answer.
(4) The accused was convicted or acquitted, or the
case was dismissed without his express consent.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 9
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
73. PEOPLE vs JOSE GO | 191015 | 2014 At any rate, the appellants' respective convictions in this
case were based on an independent in-court
The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence
identification made by Edward and Jocelyn, and not on
raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain
the out-of-court identification during the police lineup.
whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to
sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
RULE 120 – JUDGMENT
Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a
75. LLAMAS vs CA | 149588 | 2009
demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight
or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed
action demanded according to the circumstances. of in criminal cases.
To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must 76. PEOPLE vs MONTECLAROS | 181084 | 2009
prove: When a crime is committed by many, each one has a
(a) The commission of the crime; and distinct part in the commission of crime and though all
(b) The precise degree of participation therein by the the persons who took part in commission of the crime
accused. are liable, the liability is not equally shared among them.
Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must It becomes relevant to determine the particular amount
evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient for which each accused is liable when they have different
enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond degrees of responsibility in the commission of crime and
reasonable doubt. consequently, differing degrees of liability.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 10
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 11
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
solely conferred by law and not by express or implied will court from performing its ministerial duty in issuing the
of the parties. commitment order, unless a special order has been
issued by the Court in specific cases — to the effect that
Nonetheless, jurisprudence is replete with a number of the convicted accused shall remain under detention in
exceptions wherein the Court, on meritorious grounds, the provincial jail or city jail while the motion is being
allowed execution of judgment despite nonobservance heard or resolved.
of the time bar. In Lancita, et al. v. Magbanua, et al., 7
SCRA 42 (1963), it was held: In computing the time 83. MORILLO VS. PEOPLE | 198270 | 2015
limited for suing out an execution, although there is I
authority to the contrary, the general rule is that there Basic is the rule that a dismissal of a case is different from
should not be included the time when execution is an acquittal of the accused therein. Except in a dismissal
stayed, either by agreement of the parties for a definite based on a Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused, or
time, by injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ of for violation of the right of the accused to a speedy trial,
error so as to operate as a supersedeas, by the death of the dismissal of a criminal case against the accused will
a party, or otherwise. not result in his acquittal.
Any interruption or delay occasioned by the debtor will This argument or reasoning is predicated on a confusion
extend the time within which the writ may be issued of the legal concepts of dismissal and acquittal. Acquittal
without scire facias. is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is
III acquitted because the evidence does not show that
It is opportune to remind judges that once a judgment of defendant’s guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but
conviction becomes final and executory, the trial court dismissal does tint decide the case on the merits or that
has the ministerial duty to immediately execute the the defendant is not guilty.
penalty of imprisonment and/or pecuniary penalty (fine).
A motion to execute judgment of conviction is not Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the
necessary. court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the
evidence does not show that the offense was committed
With respect to the penalty of imprisonment, the trial within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the
court should cancel the bail bond and issue a warrant of complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form
arrest, if the accused is not yet under detention. If the and substance, etc.
convicted accused is already under detention by virtue of
the warrant of arrest issued, the trial court should The only case in which the word dismissal is commonly
immediately issue the corresponding mittimus or but not correctly used, instead of the proper term
commitment order for the immediate transfer of the acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented
accused to the National Penitentiary to serve his all its: evidence, the defendant moves for me dismissal
sentence, if the penalty imposed requires the service of and the court dismisses the ease on the ground that the
sentence in the National Penitentiary. The commitment evidence tails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that
order should state that an appeal had been filed, but the the defendant is guilty; for in such case the dismissal is in
same had been withdrawn/dismissed/decided with reality an acquittal because the case is decided on the
finality. merits. If the prosecution fails to prove that the
IV II
In cases where the accused is a detention prisoner, i.e., Thus, when there exists meritorious grounds to overlook
those convicted of capital offenses or convicted of strict procedural matters, the Court cannot turn a blind
noncapital offenses where bail is denied, or refused to eye thereto lest the administration of justice be derailed
post bail, a mittimus or commitment order should be by an overly stringent application of the rules. Rules of
immediately issued after the promulgation of judgment procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and
by the trial court as long as the penalty imposed requires orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto
the service of sentence in the National Penitentiary. must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice.
As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no
The filing of a motion for reconsideration, motion for violation of due process and fair play takes place, the
new trial, or notice of appeal should not stop the lower
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 12
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
rules should be liberally construed. Dismissal of appeals (c) That it is material, not merely cumulative,
purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight
policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on that, if admitted, will probably change the
their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be judgment.
applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure
are used only to help secure, not override substantial 87. LUMANOG vs PEOPLE | 182555 | 2011
justice. To justify a new trial or setting aside of the judgment of
conviction on the basis of such evidence, it must be
It is a far better and more prudent course of action for shown that the evidence was "newly discovered."
the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the Evidence, to be considered newly discovered, must be
parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends one that could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have
of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality been discovered before the trial in the court.
and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually 88. PAYUMO vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 182555 | 2011
resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. Rule 121, Section 2 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure enumerates the grounds for a new trial, to
RULE 121 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION wit:
Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a
84. ESTINO vs PEOPLE | 163957-58 | 2009 new trial on any of the following grounds:
Rule 121 of the Rules of Court allows the conduct of a (a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the
new trial before a judgment of conviction becomes final substantial rights of the accused have been
when new and material evidence has been discovered committed during trial;
which the accused could not with reasonable diligence (b) That new and material evidence has been
have discovered and produced at the trial and which if discovered which the accused could not with
introduced and admitted would probably change the reasonable diligence have discovered and
judgment. produced at the trial and which if introduced and
admitted would probably change the judgment.
85. BRIONES vs PEOPLE | 156009 | 2009
For new trial to be granted on the ground of newly RULE 122-125 - APPEALS
discovered evidence, the concurrence of the following
conditions must obtain: 89. MACAPAGAL vs PEOPLE | 193217 | 2014
(a) The evidence must have been discovered after A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
trial; Rules of Court must contain a certified true copy or
(b) The evidence could not have been discovered at duplicate original of the assailed decision, final order or
the trial even with the exercise of reasonable judgment. Failure to comply with such requirement shall
diligence; be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
(c) The evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative, or impeaching; and 90. PEOPLE vs SALDAA | 148518 | 2004
(d) The evidence must affect the merits of the case For this Court to allow a motion for new trial on grounds
and produce a different result if admitted. other than those provided in Section 2, Rule 121 of the
Rules of Court, the movant must cite peculiar
86. SALUDAGA vs SANDIGANBAYAN | 184537 | 2010 circumstances obtaining in the case sufficient to warrant
The Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered a new trial, if only to give the accused an opportunity to
evidence are: establish his innocence of the crime charged. In this case
(a) The evidence was discovered after trial (in this no such citation of exceptional circumstance happened.
case, after investigation);
(b) Such evidence could not have been discovered and 91. QUIDET vs PEOPLE | 170289 | 2010
produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; Rules of Court, Rule 122, Section 11 – The rule is that an
and appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not
affect those who did not appeal except insofar as the
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 13
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
95. PEOPLE vs TARUC | 185202 | 2009 98. VILLAREAL vs PEOPLE | 151258 | 2012
Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or The finality of a CA decision will not bar the state from
jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his seeking the annulment of the judgment via a Rule 65
standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to petition; finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of Rule
the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived 120 does not confer blanket invincibility on criminal
any right to seek relief from the court. judgments.
96. TIU vs PEOPLE | 162370 | 2009 99. DUNGO vs PEOPLE | 209464 | 2015
Settled is the rule that only the Solicitor General may The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a
bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the component of due process. It is a mere statutory
Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and
proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals. in accordance with the provisions of law.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 14
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 15
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
6) Stop and Frisk; and 105. MARIMLA VS. PEOPLE | 158467 | 2009
7) Exigent and emergency circumstances. I
Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the
102. PEOPLE vs MARIACOS | 188611 | 2010 Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for
search, such a warrantless search has been held to be search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal
valid only as long as the officers conducting the search gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of
have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF,
search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence and REACT-TF.
pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
On the other hand, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on
RATIO: It is impracticable to secure a judicial warrant Criminal Procedure provides that the application for
before searching a vehicle since it can be quickly moved search warrant shall be filed with: (a) any court within
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed, and
may be sought. (b) for compelling reasons, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed if the place of the
103. PEOPLE vs TUAN | 176066 | 2010 commission of the crime is known, or any court within
A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provides that the guidelines on the
distinguish it from other places in the community. enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall
continue until further orders from the Supreme Court. In
A designation or description that points out the place to fact, the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC are
be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC entitled Guidelines On
unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the The Selection And Designation Of Executive Judges And
constitutional requirement of definiteness. Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives And Duties, which
explicitly stated that the guidelines in the issuance of
104. ESQUILLO VS. PEOPLE | 182010 | 2010 search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of
In a “stop-and-frisk,” it is essential is that a genuine Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to Section
reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the two
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the provisions are in harmony thus no violation in the
belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious enforcement of the search warrant.
conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about II
him. As a rule, search warrants should be filed with the court
within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was
Such a “stop-and-frisk” practice serves a dual purpose: committed (Sec. 2 (a), Rule 126, Rules of Court). The
(1) The general interest of effective crime prevention exceptions to the general rule are:
and detection, which underlies the recognition (a) For compelling reasons, it can be filed with the
that a police officer may, under appropriate court within whose judicial region the offense was
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, committed or where the warrant is to be served;
approach a person for purposes of investigating (b) But if the criminal action has already been filed, the
possible criminal behavior even without probable application for a search warrant can only be made
cause; and in the court where the criminal action is pending;
(2) The more pressing interest of safety and self- and
preservation which permit the police officer to (c) In case of search warrants involving heinous
take steps to assure himself that the person with crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of
whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of
that could unexpectedly and fatally be used the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
against the police officer. the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti- Money
Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 16
2017 ATTY. BRONDIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURES DOCTRINES
Code, the Executive Judges and, whenever they must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but
are on official leave of absence or are not must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification
physically present in the station, the Vice- of the application.
Executive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon IV
City shall have authority to act on applications filed This Court has time and again adopted the chain of
by the NBI, PNP and the Anti- Crime Task Force custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which
(ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
Force (PAOC-TF), and the Reaction Against Crime evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter
Task Force (REACT-TF). in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This
would include testimony about every link in the chain,
106. PEOPLE vs PUNZALAN | 199087 | 2015 from the moment the item was picked up to the time it
I is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person
Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
Procedure provides that no search of a house, room, or whom it was received, where it was and what happened
any other premises shall be made except in the presence to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in
of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his which it was received and the condition in which it was
family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. would then describe the precautions taken to ensure
that there had been no change in the condition of the
As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
were not present during the initial search, the search was have possession of the same.
witnessed by accused-appellants themselves, hence, the
search was valid since the rule that "two witnesses of It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the
locality" must be present applies only in the absence of suspect is the very same substance offered in court as
either the lawful occupant of the premises or any exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering
member of his family. exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.
II
Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly
authorizes the Executive Judges and the Vice Executive
Judges of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila and
Quezon City to issue search warrants to be served in
places outside their territorial jurisdiction in special
criminal cases such as those involving heinous crimes,
illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for as long as the
parameters under the said section have been complied
with.
III
There is no exact test for the determination of probable
cause in the issuance of search warrants. It is a matter
wholly dependent on the finding of trial judges in the
process of exercising their judicial function.
ELLIS LAGASCA | READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. READ THE FULL TEXT FIRST. READ ALONGSIDE SORIANO NOTES 17