Rule 111: Prosecution of Civil Action
evidence by the prosecution. Will A’s contention prosper?
Article 100 RPC
 Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable
General Rule:
 When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense shall be deemed instituted with
the criminal action.
Exceptions: RWP
1. When the offended party reserves the right to institute a separate
action
WHEN TO INSTITUTE?
 At anytime before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence but
always under such circumstances that afford the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make such reasonable opportunity to make
such reservation (Rule 111 Section 1).
*This rule is added to address a situation where the accused
pleads guilty to a non-capital offense in order to escape civil
liability (as shown by some cases that have reached the
Supreme Court). In such instance, no trial shall be made and the
prosecution cannot present its evidence. Nonetheless, a
reasonable opportunity s hall be given for the offended party to
make the reservation of his right to file a separate action. In
other words, pleading guilty to a non-capital offense in order to
escape civil liability arising from the offense is not allowed.
2. When the offended party waives the civil action
3. When the offended party institutes civil action prior to the institution
of a criminal action
Case: A makes a valid plea of guilty for the crime of Homicide. The
prosecution no longer presents evidence to prove A’s guilt. B, the offended
party, chooses to reserve the right to institute a separate civil action. A objected
on the ground that he may not do so because there will be no presentation of
A: No, A is incorrect. B must be afforded reasonable opportunity to
reserve his right to institute a separate civil action. (Menses v. Luat 12 SCRA
454: Reyes v. Simpio 141 SCRA 208)
What if the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense?
The prosecution still needs to prove the guilt of the accused along with
his civil liability. There is no rule requiring automatic conviction for a capital
offense upon a valid guilty plea.
Are there cases where the offended party cannot reserve his right to
institute a separate civil action?
Yes. These are criminal actions for:
a) violation of BP 22= the liability is essentially civil.
b) those that fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan=
in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandigandbayan, the
offended party is the State.
In criminal actions for violation of BP 22, may the offended party still
waive the civil liability arising from the offense or institute a prior civil
action to recover it?
Yes. Only reservation of the right to file a separate civil action is
prohibited by the rules.
Case:
A killed her spouse, B. A was subsequently charged with parricide for
which she was found guilty. A and B had common children who are still
minors. Prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, B’s heirs
never made any reservation to file a separate civil action to enforce the civil
liability arising from the offense. Considering that the children are still minor,
the judge ordered a reservation of their right to institute a separate action until
a guardian for them has been appointed. Nonetheless, despite its prior order,
the trial court awarded damages in favor of A and B’s common children. A
assailed the award on the ground that the right to institute a separate civil action
has been reserved.
Is A correct?
No, A is incorrect. The reservation to institute a separate action is
personal. It may only be done by the offended party. Not even the court can
make such reservation on behalf of the offended party. (People v. Samson, 7
SCRA 478)
What is an independent civil action? (Rule 111 Sec. 3, Art. 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code)
They are civil actions that may proceed independently of the criminal
action. They are totally distinct and separate from the civil liability arising from
the criminal action. They are characterized by the separability of their juridical
cause/cause of action. As a consequence, the right to bring these actions need
not be reserved, and the institution of a prior civil action or waiver of the civil
liability does not extinguish the right to file an independent civil action.
What are the different independent civil actions?
The different independent civil actions are those mentioned in Art. 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.
A) Civil actions arising from Art. 32 of the Civil Code -
Violation of Political and Civil Liberties.
B) Civil actions arising from Art. 33 of the Civil Code -
Defamation, Fraud (including estafa as fraud is used in its
generic sense) and Physical Injuries (still in generic sense-
includes all offenses resulting to physical injuries)
C) Civil actions arising from Art. 34 of the Civil Code – Failure
to render aid by a Peace Officer (principally), city or
municipality (subsidiarily)
D) Civil Actions arising from Art. 2176 of the Civil Code –
Quasi-delicts
What is needed to make a valid waiver?
A waiver of the civil liability arising from the offense charged needs a
positive action and must also be personal.
Institution of a Prior Civil Action:
General Rule:
Criminal action takes precedence over civil actions. This means that all
earlier instituted civil actions will have to be suspended to await judgment in
the criminal actions.
Exceptions:
1) Independent civil actions;
2) Civil Actions that involve prejudicial questions;
3) Consolidation of the prior instituted civil action with the criminal action;
4) Civil Actions that do not enforce liability arising from the offense charged.
Independent Civil Actions:
Independent civil actions and civil actions that do not enforce liability
arising from the offense charged shall proceed unaffected by the criminal
action.
Civil Actions that involve prejudicial questions:
The existence of a prejudicial question in an earlier instituted civil
action will suspend the criminal action. In this case, it is the civil action that
truly takes precedence over the criminal action.
Consolidation of the prior instituted civil action with the criminal action:
If there is a consolidation of the prior instituted civil action with the
criminal action, there shall be a joint trial on the civil and criminal aspects of
the criminal case.
Civil Actions that do not enforce liability arising from the offense charged:
Independent civil actions and civil actions that do not enforce liability
arising from the offense charged shall proceed unaffected by the criminal
action.
If a civil action has been instituted prior to the criminal action, what
happens now to the civil aspect of the criminal action?
The criminal action no longer has a civil aspect. It becomes a purely
criminal case.
What happens to the prior instituted civil action upon the commencement
of the criminal action?
It shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found until
judgment on the merits or to await final judgment to be rendered in the criminal
action (Rule 111, Sec.2)
What happens if there is consolidation?
Upon a motion for consolidation, there shall be a joint trial for the civil
and criminal action for a joint judgment. The civil action shall be consolidated
in the same criminal action. It may happen that the civil action is in a different
court. Upon consolidation, the civil action shall be transferred to where the
criminal action is.
Is a consolidation of the prior instituted civil action and the criminal action
mandatory?
No. It is not a ministerial duty of the court trying the criminal action to
grant application for consolidation of an earlier instituted civil action.
Rule on failure to consolidate:
Is the earlier instituted civil action deemed abandoned for failure to
consolidate it with the criminal action?
Yes, IF the civil action is one to recover civil liability arising from a
criminal action committed by government officials in relation to their office
NOTE: For all other cases, there is no abandonment of the civil action by
reason of failure to consolidate it with the criminal action.
Prejudicial Question:
What is a prejudicial question?
A prejudicial question is an issue involved in a previously filed
civil case which is similar or intimately related to the issue raised in
the criminal action, the resolution of which determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.
What are the elements of a prejudicial question?
The following are the elements of a prejudicial question:
1) The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar to or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action.
2) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed. (Rule 111 Sec. 5)
In what cases does a prejudicial question apply?
A prejudicial question applies only to a criminal action and not to civil
or administrative cases. For it to apply, it is a strict requisite that there must be
a prior instituted civil action and a criminal action filed thereafter.
TAKE NOTE:
RICARDO QUIAMBAO vs. HON. ADRIANO OSORIO, ZENAIDA
GAZA BUENSUCERO, JUSTINA GAZA BERNARDO, and FELIPE
GAZA, LAND AUTHORITY, G.R. No. L-48157 March 16, 1988
The actions involved in the case at bar being respectively civil and
administrative in character, it is obvious that technically, there is no prejudicial
question to speak of. Equally apparent, however, is the intimate correlation
between said two [2] proceedings, stemming from the fact that the right of
private respondents to eject petitioner from the disputed portion depends
primarily on the resolution of the pending administrative case. For while it may
be true that private respondents had prior possession of the lot in question, at
the time of the institution of the ejectment case, such right of possession had
been terminated, or at the very least, suspended by the cancellation by the Land
Authority of the Agreement to Sell executed in their favor. Whether or not
private respondents can continue to exercise their right of possession is but a
necessary, logical consequence of the issue involved in the pending
administrative case assailing the validity of the cancellation of the Agreement
to Sell and the subsequent award of the disputed portion to petitioner. If the
cancellation of the Agreement to Sell and the subsequent award to petitioner
are voided, then private respondents would have every right to eject petitioner
from the disputed area. Otherwise, private respondent's right of possession is
lost and so would their right to eject petitioner from said portion.
Faced with these distinct possibilities, the more prudent course for the
trial court to have taken is to hold the ejectment proceedings in abeyance until
after a determination of the administrative case. Indeed, logic and pragmatism,
if not jurisprudence, dictate such move. To allow the parties to undergo trial
notwithstanding the possibility of petitioner's right of possession being upheld
in the pending administrative case is to needlessly require not only the parties
but the court as well to expend time, effort and money in what may turn out to
be a sheer exercise in futility.
While this rule is properly applicable to instances involving two [2]
court actions, the existence in the instant case of the same considerations of
Identity of parties and issues, economy of time and effort for the court, the
counsels and the parties as well as the need to resolve the parties' right of
possession before the ejectment case may be properly determined, justifies the
rule's analogous application to the case at bar.
Fortich-Celdran, et al. vs. Celdran, et al., 19 SCRA 502, provides
another analogous situation. In sustaining the assailed order of the then Court
of First Instance of Misamis Oriental ordering the suspension of the criminal
case for falsification of public document against several persons, among them
the subscribing officer Santiago Catane until the civil case involving the issue
of the genuineness of the alleged forged document shall have been decided,
this Court cited as a reason therefor its own action on the administrative
charges against said Santiago Catane, as follows:
"As it appears that the genuineness of the document allegedly forged
by respondent attorneys in Administrative Case No. 77 [Richard Ignacio
Celdran vs. Santiago Catane, etc., et al.] is necessarily involved in Civil Case
No. R-3397 of the Cebu Court of First Instance, action on the herein complaint
is withheld until that litigation has finally been decided. Complainant Celdran
shall inform the Court about such decision."
If a pending civil case may be considered to be in the nature of a
prejudicial question to an administrative case, we see no reason why the
reverse may not be so considered in the proper case, such as in the petition at
bar. Finally, events occuring during the pendency of this petition attest to the
wisdom of the conclusion herein reached. For in the Manifestation filed by
counsel for petitioner, it was stated that the intervenor Land Authority which
later became the Department of Agrarian Reform had promulgated a decision
in the administrative case, L.A. Case No. 968 affirming the cancellation of
Agreement to Sell No. 3482 issued in favor of private respondents. With this
development, the folly of allowing the ejectment case to proceed is too evident
to need further elaboration.
x x x.”
Note:
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, The Revised Guideline for Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases that took effect on September 1, 2017:
Among the prohibited pleadings under this guideline is: Motion to suspend the
criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question, when no civil case has
been filed, pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 111.
Note further that under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, a prohibited motion shall be
DENIED OUTRIGHT before the scheduled arraignment without the need of
comment and/or opposition.
What is the effect of a prejudicial question? (Rule 111 Sec. 6)
When a prejudicial question exists in an earlier instituted civil action, the
criminal action shall be suspended until judgment in the civil action.
What must be done in order to suspend the proceedings in a criminal case
due to a prejudicial question? (Rule 111 Sec. 6)
The accused must file a motion to suspend before preliminary
investigation and if the criminal action is on trial, the motion to suspend must
be filed anytime before the prosecution rests. The court or the investigating
prosecutor cannot suspend the proceedings of criminal action or the
preliminary investigation on their own.
What kind of issue is needed for prejudicial question? (Rule 111 Sec. 5
For prejudicial question to exist, the issues involved in a prior instituted
civil action and the criminal action must be so intimately related as to
determine whether the criminal action may proceed or whether the accused is
guilty or not.
Case:
A and B are husband and wife, respectively. B filed a case for
concubinage against A. Thereafter, A filed a petition to declare his marriage
with B as void ab initio. B now files a motion to suspend the proceedings of
the criminal action on the grounds of the existence of a prejudicial question.
Is there a prejudicial question in this case?
None. There is no prejudicial question. Foremost, for prejudicial
question to exist, there must be a prior instituted civil action and a criminal
case filed thereafter. In this case, it is the reverse. The civil case is filed after
the commencement of the criminal action.
What if in the above case, the petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage was filed earlier prior to the institution of the criminal action for
concubinage. Will there be a prejudicial question?
There is still no prejudicial question even if the civil case has been filed
earlier. The outcome of a civil case for annulment of marriage or declaration
of a marriage as void ab initio does not determine the guilt of the accused in
concubinage.
Suppose the petition for declaration of nullity was filed prior to the
institution of a criminal case for bigamy. Will there be a prejudicial
question?
There is still no prejudicial question. As a rule, the validity of either the
first and second marriage is not a prejudicial question in the case of bigamy.
But if the validity of the second marriage is in question due to vitiation of or
absence of consent, such as when the accused was made to contract the second
marriage against his will by force, threat, or duress, it now becomes a
prejudicial question. (Merced v. Diez GR No. L-15315, August 26, 1960;
Zapanta v. Mendoza GR No. L-14534, February 28, 1962)
General Rule: Dismissal of the criminal action does not bar the civil
action/The extinction of the criminal action does not carry with it the extinction
of the civil action unless (exception clause) the civil action is based on the
delict and there is a finding in the criminal action that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Such finding may not be
exactly worded as such, but it could be impliedly stated. (Rule 111 Sec. 2)
When is the dismissal of the criminal action not a bar to the Civil Action?
Dismissal of the criminal action is still not a bar to the Civil Action in the
following cases:
1) Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.
2) Finding by the court that the accused’s liability is civil
3) If the civil liability is not based on the crime that is the subject matter of the
criminal action.
What is the effect of Death of the Accused?
Before Arraignment:
The criminal action must be dismissed but the offended party may file
the proper civil action against the estate of the deceased.
After Arraignment and During the Pendency of the Criminal Action.
The criminal liability and its corresponding civil liability are extinguished.
However, the civil liability arising from independent civil actions and other
sources of obligation aside from the delict may proceed against the estate, legal
representative or heirs of the accused.
After Conviction but During the Pendency of an Appeal
The criminal liability is extinguished.
The civil action based on the delict is also extinguished
Note: if the civil action is not based on delict, it is not extinguished.
RULE 112: Preliminary Investigation
Nature of preliminary investigation
• It is not a judicial function but an executive one. It is generally
inquisitorial.
• While it is an executive function, it is considered a judicial inquiry, a
judicial proceeding, as it involves opportunity to be heard for both
parties, the production and weighing of evidence and decision thereon
and the prosecutor, in the discharge of this function, acts as a quasi-
judicial officer. (Arula v. Espino, 28 SCRA 226 (1990) As such, he must
exhibit the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.(Cruz v. People, 52
SCAD 516, 233 SCRA 439 (1994).
Purpose of preliminary investigation
• The principal purpose is to determine whether a crime has been
committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the
accused is guilty thereof.(Drilon v. CA, 256 SCRA 280 (1996).
• Salonga v. Cruz Pano, 134 SCRA 438 (1985), sums up the purpose and
nature of PI and the duty of the prosecutor in connection therewith,
thus:
“The purpose of a PI is to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open
and public accusation of crime, from trouble, expense and anxiety of a
public trial, and also to protect the state from useless and expensive
trials.
Right to preliminary investigation:
• The right to a PI is not a constitutional but merely a statutory right.
Nonetheless it is a component part of due process in criminal justice. It
is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. (Go v.
CA, 206 SCRA 138 (1992).
Can the right be waived?
• It being a personal right, it can be waived expressly or by implication.
(People v. Lazo, 198 SCRA 274 (1991) Nonetheless, lack of PI is not
a ground to quash or dismiss an information, nor does it affect the
court’s jurisdiction. Where there is no PI, the accused must invoke it
before or at the time of entering a plea or arraignment.
• An accused who after his arrest filed bail and proceeded to trial without
previously raising the issue or claiming lack of PI waived the same;
however, it is not waived if he also asked for PI before the bail is
approved. (Go. V. CA, 206 SCRA 138 (1992).
• The refusal of the court to remand the case for PI can be controlled by
certiorari and prohibition to prevent trial. (Romualdez v.
Sandiganbayan, 244 SCRA 152 (1995).
Who are not entitled to PI?
• General rule:
a person accused of a crime punishable by at least 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day is entitled to PI.
• Exceptions:
1) Those with lower penalty;
2) Special laws provide otherwise;
3) Cities whose charter require PI;
4) Person arrested lawfully without warrant.
• Procedure when a person is arrested lawfully without warrant:
Inquest or a summary investigation is conducted to determine whether he
should remain under custody and then be charged in court if there is probable
cause. The person arrested may ask for PI, but he has to sign a waiver of Art.
125 of RPC. This, however, does not preclude him from applying for bail.
1) If prosecutors says that arrest was not lawful:
a). Recommend release;
b). Note down the disposition;
c). Prepare brief memorandum of the reasons for the action taken; and
d). Forward to city or provincial prosecutor for action.
2) If recommendation for release is approved but the evidence warrants
conduct of PI, release order shall be served by officer having custody and shall
direct the officer to serve upon detainee the subpoena or notice of PI.
Who may conduct PI and determine probable cause: (PNO-COP)
1)Provincial or city prosecutors and their assistants;
2)National and Regional State Prosecutors;
3)Other officers as maybe authorized by law.
4)COMELEC-legal officers have concurrent (by virtue of RA 9369) powers
with other prosecuting arms of the gov’t re: election offenses under the
Omnibus Election Code; (Art. IX, Sec. 20, Constitution)
5)Ombudsman-on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission
of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction
over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
6)PCGG with the assistance of the Sol Gen and other gov’t agencies may
investigate, file and prosecute cases investigated by it. (EO No. 14, May 7,
1986)
How about judges of the 1st level courts?
NOTE: Judges of the 1st level courts are no longer allowed to conduct PI
(Sibulo v. Toledo-Mupas, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1686, June 12, 2008)
Procedure of PI must be strictly followed:
1)Filing of complaint with prosecutor;
2)Hierarchy before whom affidavits may be subscribed:
(a) Prosecutor;
(b) Government official;
(c) Notary public;
3) Dismissal or issuance of subpoena;
 (a) Dismiss if no ground to conduct investigation;
 (b) Issue subpoena if there is ground

4) Filing of counter-affidavit
5) Not in the rules but REPLY and REJOINDER may be filed;
6)If no counter-affidavit, pros to resolve
7) Clarificatory hearing, if necessary; no right of cross-examination (NOT
INDISPENSABLE). Questions should be coursed through the prosecutor.
8) Determination by prosecutor-within 10 days from termination of
investigation-whether there is ground to hold respondent for trial.
9) Resolution:
(a) there is ground for trial- prepare both the resolution and information with
certification that: a) he has examined the complainant and witnesses b) there is
ground to say that a crime was committed; c) accused probably guilty; accused
informed; d) given opportunity to controvert
(b) there is no ground-recommend dismissal.
NOTE:BUT the absence of certification does not invalidate the information as
it is not an essential part of the it.
10) Forwarding of records for action/approval before filing or dismissal;
(a) 10 days to approve or reverse SINCE no complaint or information may be
filed or dismissed by investigating prosecutor without the prior written
authority of the provincial or city prosecutor.
Note:
• A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, The Revised Guideline for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases that took effect on
September 1, 2017:
 • Among the prohibited pleadings under this guideline are:
 a) Motion for preliminary investigation filed beyond the
five (5) day reglementary period in inquest proceedings
under Sec. 6, Rule 112, or
 when preliminary investigation is required under Sec. 8,
Rule 112, or allowed in inquest proceedings and the
accused failed to participate in the preliminary
investigation despite due notice.
b) Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor ‘s resolution recommending the
filing of information once the information has been filed before the court (1) if
the motion is filed without prior leave of court; (2) when preliminary
investigation is not required under Sec. 8, Rule 112; and (3) the regular
preliminary investigation is required and has been actually conducted, and the
grounds relied upon in the motion are not meritorious. Such as issues of
credibility, admissibility of evidence, innocence of the accused, or lack of due
process when the accused was actually notified.
Note: Prohibited motions SHALL be DENIED OUTRIGHT before the
scheduled arraignment without need of comment and/or opposition.
Rule 113: Arrest
• What is arrest?
 Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of an offense(Rule 113,
Sec. 1).
• How is arrest made?
 An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be
arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest.(Rule 113, Sec. 2)
• Can violence or force be employed?
 No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
arrest. The person arrested shall not be subjected to a greater
restraint than is necessary for his detention.
 In the issuance of a warrant of arrest, is a judge required to
personally examine the complainant and witnesses he may produce?
 No. He only has to personally evaluate the resolution (from the
prosecutor) and the supporting evidence.
 What is the lifetime of a warrant of arrest?
 There is no definite lifetime of a warrant of arrest. It remains
valid and effective until it has been executed or otherwise
recalled by the court issuing it.
 What is the lifetime of a search warrant?
 A search warrant has a definite 10-day lifetime from its date of
issue.
 What is the remedy of a peace office if the warrant of arrest was lost?
 An arresting officer shall apply for an alias warrant if the
warrant of arrest is lost.
 What are the duties of an Arresting Officer?
1) Duty to execute warrant of arrest within 10 days from receipt;
2) Duty to make a report to the judge within 10 days from the
expiry of the 10 day period to execute the warrant;
3) (a) In case of arrest by virtue of a warrant – duty by the
arresting officer to inform the accused of his authority and the
fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest.
(b) In case of warrantless arrest - duty by the arresting
officer to inform the accused of his authority and the cause for
the arrest.
4) Duty to apprise the accused of his Constitutional Rights.
5) Duty to deliver the accused to the nearest police station or
jail without necessary delay.
 Rights of an Arresting Officer:
1) Summon assistance in effecting arrest.
2) Right to break into a building or enclosure.
3) Right to break out from a building or enclosure.
 What is the duty of an officer executing a warrant?
 It shall be the duty of the officer executing the warrant to arrest
the accused and deliver him to the nearest police station or jail
without unnecessary delay. This is also the same duty of a
 person making a valid warrantless arrest in case of under Sec.
5, of this rule, paragraphs a and b. (Rule 113, Sec. 3)
 NOTE:
 If a question asks for the duty of an officer executing a warrant,
simply state this. But if it is asking for the duties of an arresting
officer in a generic sense, enumerate the list above.
 Is there a duty by the arresting officer not included by the Rules?
 Yes. It is the duty to apprise/inform the accused of his
Constitutional Rights.
 Note: Expanded Miranda Rights under the Mahinay
Doctrine.
 What must an arresting officer inform the accused upon his arrest?
(People v Mahinay, 1999)
• Under the Mahinay doctrine, an arresting officer must
inform the accused of his expanded Miranda rights as
follows:
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial
investigation must be informed in a language known to and
understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown
the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information
or communication must be in a language known to and
understood by said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any
statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times
and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer,
preferably of his own choice;
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the
services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer
may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be
appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one
acting in his behalf;
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be
informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be
conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid
waiver has been made;
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the
right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means –
telephone, radio, letter or messenger – with his lawyer (either
retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any
medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from
his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with
duly accredited national or international non-government
organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure
that this is accomplished;
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights
provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and
ensure that he understood the same;
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he
must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the
presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver
is void even if he insists on his waiver and chooses to speak;
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in
any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish
to be questioned with warning that once he makes such indication,
the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet
commenced, or the interrogation must cease if it has already begun;
10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his
right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does
not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process,
 regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or
volunteered some statements;
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the
case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether
inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
12. RA 9745, Anti Torture Act of 2009. Sec. 12 – Right to physical,
medical and psychological examination.- Before and after
interrogation, one arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be informed of this right.
Examination by an independent and competent doctor of his choice,
including that of his immediate family.
NOTE: Waiver of this right MUST be in WRITING & IN
THE PRESENCE & ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
• NOTE: (RELATED CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION)
1) Art. III, Sec. 12 (1)-right to counsel of any person under investigation for
an offense.
2)Sec. 12(2)- no torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other
means which vitiate free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
3)Sec. 12(3)- Any confession obtained in violation of this or Sec. 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Warrantless Arrests
N.B. Never forget Rule 113 Sec. 5.
• Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.
• NOTE: In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest
police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with
section 7 of Rule 112
Remedies:
1) If no case has been filed against the arrested person and he remains detained,
his remedy is to file a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that his arrest
and detention is illegal. Bail may also be posted.
2) If a case has been filed against the arrested person, his remedy is to file a
motion to quash the complaint or information on the ground that the court has
no jurisdiction over his person.
3) If a person has not yet been arrested or detained, but there is a standing
warrant for his arrest, his remedy is to file a motion to quash the warrant of
arrest on the ground that it was improperly issued.
4) If a person has already been arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest yet he
claims that the warrant was improperly issued, his remedy is to file a motion
to quash the complaint or information on the ground that the court has not
acquired jurisdiction over his person.
NOTE: In all these cases, the accused must claim that the arrest and
detention is illegal.
When must the accused assail the validity of his arrest?
 Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the
court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must
be made before he enters his plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed
waived.
RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Note: This topic is a better scope for Political law. The presumption for
students taking criminal procedure is that they were able to pass criminal law
1 and 2 and Constitutional law 1 and 2. For Criminal Procedure, the focus is
on the remedies such as motion to quash, and the remedies for denial of a
motion to quash. The requisites as to probable cause, examination of witnesses,
instances of lawful warrantless searches, and others are better covered by the
subjects on Political law.
What is a search warrant? (Rule 126 Section 1)
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People
of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring
it before the court.
Where is the application for a search warrant filed? (Rule 126, Section 2)
An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:
a)Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
b)For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the
judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission
of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant
shall be enforced.
c)However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall
only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.
d) In cases involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and
illegal possession of firearms, the application may be filed with the Regional
Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City if the application is filed by the
Philippine National Police (PNP), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF), and the
Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF). The applications shall be
personally endorsed by the Heads of the said agencies, for the search of places
to be particularly described therein, and the seizure of property or things as
described in the Rules of Court, and to issue the arrest warrant, if justified,
which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of said courts.
(AM No. 99-20-09 SC)
Note: Search and Arrest warrants issued pursuant to AM No. 99-20-09 SC may
be served outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Manila or Quezon
City.
Under AM No. 99-20-09-SC, who acts upon the application?
The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial
Courts in Manila and Quezon City shall act upon all applications for search
warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and
illegal possession of firearms.
Is it necessary that the heads of the offices mentioned under AM No. 99-20-
09-SC be the ones to personally endorse the application for search warrants?
No, nothing in AM No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits the head of NBI and of
other law enforcement agencies mentioned from delegating their ministerial
duty of endorsing the application to their assistant heads. Besides, under
Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, an
assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau may perform such duties as
may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is not inconsistent with
law. (Sps. Marimla v People GR No. 158467, October 16, 2009)
Does an application for a search warrant partake of a criminal action or at
least in the nature of a criminal action?
No. A search warrant is not a criminal action nor does it represent a
commencement of a criminal prosecution even if it is entitled like a criminal
action. It is not a proceeding against a person but is solely for the discovery
and to get possession of personal property. It is a special and peculiar remedy,
drastic in nature, and made necessary because of public necessity. It
resembles in some respects with what is commonly known as John Doe
proceedings. (United Laboratories, Inc. V. Isip, 461 SCRA 574)
Note:
The proceedings for the application for a search warrant need not be initiated
by the state prosecutor, and the court may not quash the application for a search
warrant or the search warrant itself due to the fact that it does not bear the
conformity of the public prosecutor.
Although it is a criminal process, it is not a criminal action that needs the
conformity of the state prosecutor.(Worldwide Web Corporation et al. v.
People of the Philippines et al., G.R. No. 161106, Jan. 13, 2014)
Is it necessary to furnish a notice or copy of the application for a search
warrant to the party against whom, properties will be seized?
No. An application for a search warrant is heard ex-parte. It is neither
a trial nor a part of the trial. Action on these applications must be expedited
for time is of the essence. Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to the
testimonies under oath of the complainant and the witnesses. (Chemise
Lacoste, S.A. v Fernandez, 214 Phil. 332; Santos v Pryce Gases, Inc., GR No.
165122, November 23, 2007)
Does an application for a search warrant need to have a certification of non-
forum shopping?
No, there is no rule requiring that it bears a certification of non-forum
shopping.
What property may be seized? (Rule 126, Section 3)
The property subject of a search warrant is personal property, not real
property. A search warrant may be issued not only for the search but also for
the seizure of the following:
a)Personal property subject of the offense
b)Personal property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the
offense; or
c)Personal property used or intended to be used as a means of committing an
offense.
Requisites for a search warrant under the Rules of Court: (Rule 126, Section
4) The following are the requisites for a search warrant under the Rules of
Court.
a)There must be probable cause in connection with one specific offense.
b)The presence of probable cause is to be determined by the judge personally.
c)The determination by the judge must be made after an examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
d)The warrant must specifically describe the place to be searched and the
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
Note:
 Roving or scattershot warrants are void. They are issued for more than
one offense.
 Adherence to the above requisites is necessary to prevent a fishing
expedition.
 Note: The topics under this section are better discussed in
Constitutional Law or Political Law.
What must a judge do before issuing a search warrant? (Rule 126 Sec. 4)
The judge must, before issuing the warrant personally examine in the
form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the
complainant, and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to
them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted.
Are witnesses needed during the conduct of the search and seizure? (Rule
126 Section)
Yes, at least two witnesses are needed. The Rules provide that no
search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in
the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality.
How long is a search warrant valid? (Rule 126, Section 10)
A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter,
it shall be void.
What time must the search be made? (Rule 126 Section 9)
The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit
asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched,
in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the
day or night.
What is the remedy of an accused should he want to question a search
warrant?
The accused must file a motion to quash the search warrant on the ground
that it is improperly issued or that it is void.
What is the issue in a motion to quash a search warrant?
In a motion to quash a search warrant, what is assailed is the validity of
the issuance of the warrant. The manner of serving the warrant and of
effecting the search are not an issue to be resolved in said motion. (People v
CFI of Rizal, 101 SCRA 86, [1980])
Who may question a search warrant?
Any party whose interests may be adversely affected may question the
search warrant. It is settled rule that the legality of a seizure can be contested
only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the
objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot
be availed by third parties. (Nasiad v. CTA, 61 SCRA 238 [1974]; Santos v
Pryce Gases, Inc. GR No. 165122, November 23, 2007)
When must one file a motion to quash the search warrant?
The motion to quash must be filed before arraignment and entry of plea.
An accused may be estopped from questioning the defects in the issuance or
enforcement of the search warrant by failing to move to quash the search
warrant or by entering a plea and participating in trial. (People v. Guillermo,
291 SCRA 761 [1998])
What is the remedy available as against the items seized by virtue of an illegal
or void warrant?
The following are the remedies available in relation to the items that
were seized by virtue of an illegal or void search warrant.
1)Motion to suppress illegally obtained or seized evidence.
2)Replevin
3)Petition for Certiorari
Note:
 Motion to suppress illegally obtained or seized evidence will prevent
the presentation of these pieces of evidence before the court.
 Replevin is a remedy to regain or take possession over personal
properties.
 Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is available only in instances of
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Again, what is assailed is the validity of the search warrant, and nothing
else.
Where must one file his motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress
evidence? (Rule 126, Section 14)
a) A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained by
virtue of the warrant may be filed and acted upon only by the court where the
action has been instituted.
b) If no criminal action has been instituted the motion may be filed in and
resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court
failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another
court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court.
Otherwise stated, the preceding question may be answered this way.
The motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence may be filed
as follows:
a)In the court where the criminal case has been filed.
This presupposes that a criminal case has been filed. It also contemplates a
situation where the court that issued the search warrant and the court where the
information was filed are different.
b)If no case has yet been filed, the motion is filed with the court that issued the
search warrant.
c)But if the motion to quash a search warrant filed with a court that issued the If the application is filed not within the circumstances mentioned above, it
search warrant has not yet been resolved, and subsequently, a criminal case has is said to be independent from/of a criminal action. The application is
been filed, the court where the criminal case has been filed will resolve the independent from/of a criminal action, if it is not incidental thereto. (by
motion. analogy. Hehe)

Case: A search warrant was obtained leading to search and seizure of some
items under X’s custody. X filed a motion to quash the search warrant, which
was subsequently denied.
Q: May X still file a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence?
Answer: No, X may no longer file a motion to suppress illegally obtained
evidence. It will simply be a rehash of the issues in the earlier filed motion to
quash the warrant. In order to resolve X’s motion to suppress, the court will
dwell once more on the issue of legality of the search, which has already been
duly tackled in denying the motion to quash.
What then is the remedy of an accused whose motion to quash the search
warrant has been denied?
It depends. It is either a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or an ordinary
appeal. A petition for certiorari is the remedy when the application for a search
warrant is filed incidental to a criminal action, or in anticipation of a criminal
action. In this case, the denial of the motion to quash the search warrant is
merely an interlocutory order, which cannot be appealed. Appeal is the remedy
when the application for a search warrant is filed independently from/of a
criminal action. In such instance, the denial of the motion to quash is a final
order, which is the proper subject of an appeal. (Worldwide Web Corporation
et al. v. People of the Philippines et al., G.R. No. 161106, Jan. 13, 2014)
2014 Bar Essay Type Question in Remedial Law.
A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed
firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious gun for hire. When the police
served the warrant, they also sought the assistance of the barangay tanods who
were assigned to look at other portions of the premises around the house. In a
Nipa hut, thirty (30) meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a baranggay
tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was wrapped in news print. Ass-asin
objected to the introduction of such evidence claiming that it was illegally
seized. Is the objection valid?
So if I were to answer the above question in an essay form, I will do it this
way.
Yes, Ass-asin’s objection is valid. Foremost, the search warrant is for the
house, and not the nipa hut. The place described in the warrant is controlling,
and the searching party does not have any authority to search for places not
included in it. Further, under the facts of the case, there was no compliance
with the two-witness rule.

When is an application for a search warrant filed incidental to a criminal

action? When is it filed independently from/of a criminal action?
An application for search warrant may be filed as an incident in a main
criminal case already filed in court. Or, such an application may be filed in
court in anticipation of one yet to be filed (here, the application for search
warrant is instituted as a principal proceeding prior to the filing of the criminal
action). (Wordlwide Web Corporation et al. v. People. Supra)
 • The prosecution and accused will present evidence.
• In deciding, the court cannot consider evidence not formally offered.

Criminal Procedure: Interpretation of the Rules

BASIC CONCEPTS • The rules on criminal procedure shall be “LIBERALLY construed in

What is criminal procedure?
-treats of the rules and processes by which the criminal laws are
enforced and by which the State prosecutes those who violate such laws.
-In People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267, the court defined procedural law,
as applied in criminal law, as one that “provides or regulates the steps by which
one who committed a crime is to be punished.”
Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial system
ADVERSARIAL
1. Contemplates two contending parties before the court.
2. The judge cannot act as an inquisitor who pursues his own investigation.
3. The court has a passive role and relies largely on the evidence presented by
both sides.
• NOTE: A.M. 15-06-10-SC,4-25-17; A.M. 12-8-8-SC.
INQUISITORIAL
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.”(Sec. 6,
Rule 1, Rules of Court: )
•
Cariaga v. People, 626 SCRA 231
• Accused’s counsel erroneously appealed her conviction to the CA
instead of to the Sandiganbayan.
• Should the rules on appeal be strictly followed, the appeal shall be
dismissed for having been filed with the wrong court.
• How should the court rule?
Ruling:
• The SC held that since the appeal involved a criminal case and the
possibility of a person being deprived of liberty due to a procedural
lapse is great, a relaxation of the rule was warranted.

1. the court plays an active role as it participates in gathering facts and Requisites for the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction
evidence.
2.the court is not limited to the evidence presented as it may utilize evidence • Basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over a criminal
gathered outside the court. case are:
3.the court directs and supervises the gathering of evidence and questioning of a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
witnesses. b) Jurisdiction over the Territory; and
c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
What is our system of procedure? (Cruz v. CA, 388 SCRA 72)

• It is accusatorial or adversarial. Criminal Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

• It is a two-sided structure consisting of the PROSECUTION &
ACCUSED.
 • This refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a
particular criminal case.
• In short, it is jurisdiction over the offense charged.
• In Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551, the court described
such jurisdiction as the authority to hear and try a particular offense
and impose the punishment for it or that the offense is one which
the court is, by law, authorized to take cognizance of.
How is it conferred?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is CONFERRED by LAW and any
judgment, order or resolution issued without it is void and cannot be given
effect. (Magno vs. People, 647 SCRA 362,371).
(Apo Cement Corp. vs. Mingson Minging Industries Corp., G.R. No. 206728,
November 12, 2014.)
Where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are
ousted from their jurisdiction. Where the denial of the fundamental right of
due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void
for lack of jurisdiction.
Can it be acquired or waived by omission?
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through a
waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the
acquiescence of the court. (Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694,
February 12, 2014)
What law determines it?
• Jurisdiction to try criminal cases is DETERMINED by the law in effect
at the time of the commencement/institution/filing of the
action/complaint or information. (People v. Magallanes, 249 SCRA
212,227; Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296,302; Asistio v. People, G.R.
No. 200465, April 20, 2015)
Can it be presumed?
NO. When the law confers jurisdiction, it must be clear.
• It cannot be presumed.
• It must appear from the statute or will not be held to exist. (De Jesus v.
Garcia, 19 SCRA 554)
How is it determined?
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information and not by the findings based on the
evidence after trial. (Mobilia Products v. Umezawa, 452 SCRA 736).
• It is not determined by the defenses set up by the accused. (Rapsing
v. Ables, 684 SCRA 195)
What penalty determines such jurisdiction?
• It is the penalty imposable by law on the offense charged and not by
the penalty actually imposed after trial.
• It is the penalty imposable by law on the basis of the facts as recited
in the complaint or information. (People v. Buissan, 105 SCRA 547)
Principle of adherence of jurisdiction or continuing jurisdiction?
• Under this principle, the jurisdiction of the court is referred to as
“continuing” since once a court acquires jurisdiction, that
jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in
the exercise of that jurisdiction.
• Hence, once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may be not be ousted
by subsequent events, such as a new law placing it to another court.
Is there any exception to the principle of continuing jurisdiction or
principle of adherence?
Exceptions:
• 1. When there is an express provision in the new statute, OR
• 2. The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before
its enactment. (People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, Palana v. People,
534 SCRA 303)
When may objections on jurisdictional grounds be raised?
• At any stage of the proceedings.
• It may even be raised for the first time on appeal.
• The court may even consider it motu proprio at any stage of the
proceedings or on appeal. (Fukuzume v. People, 474 SCRA 570; Foz v.
People, 603 SCRA 124; Atienza v. People, February 12, 2014)
Is there any limitation to one’s right to raise the issue of jurisdiction?
• YES. By way of EXCEPTION, In Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321
SCRA 551, the court held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.
• This is known as BAR BY LACHES or ESTOPPEL, an exception
for reasons of public policy.(Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29;
Pangilinan v. CA, 321 SCRA 51).
Criminal Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
• This refers to the authority of the court, not over the subject matter of
the criminal litigation, but over the person charged. This requires that
the person charged must have been brought into the court for trial.
(Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551)
How is it acquired?
• Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired as follows
a) upon his arrest, with or without warrant; or
b)upon his voluntary appearance/ surrender or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. (Valdepenas v. People, 16 SCRA 871)
Instances of voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court:
• 1. Filing of a pleading seeking for affirmative relief like a motion to
dismiss (Jimenez v. Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151);
• 2. Filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of
the court's jurisdiction (Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633);
• 3. Appearance for arraignment (Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 4)
• 4. The filing of a motion for determination of probable cause (David v.
Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015)
• 5. Active participation in the trial and presentation of evidence (Peope
v. Rivera, 597 SCRA 299)
Exceptions to voluntary submission:
• Not all acts seeking affirmative relief constitute voluntary submission
to the jurisdiction of the court. The exceptions are:
• 1) Making a special appearance to question the jurisdiction of the
court;
• 2) Filing a motion to quash precisely assailing the jurisdiction over his
person;
• 3) Filing a motion to quash warrant of arrest since it is the very legality
of the court process forcing submission of the person of the accused
that is the very issue. (Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377)
Custody of the law vs. jurisdiction over the person
Notes:
• 1) One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person.
 Illustration: the adjudication of reliefs EXCEPT in application for bail. (David
v. Agbay, March 18, 2015)
• A person arrested by virtue of a warrant who files a motion •
before arraignment to quash the warrant. Can the court enjoin the criminal prosecution of an accused?

2. One can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and • General rule: NO, Injunction will not be granted to stop a criminal
yet not be in the custody of the law. prosecution SINCE public interest requires that criminal acts be
. immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of the
Ilustration: society. (Reyes v. Camilon, 192 SCRA 445)
A person who was initially arrested but who escapes custody after his trial • Are there exceptions to the above rule?
has commenced. •
Exceptions:(10)
In what instance is custody of the law required?
• 1. when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the
• 3. Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the constitutional rights of the accused;
application for bail, but is not required for adjudication of other reliefs • 2. when it is necessry for the orderly administration of justice or to
sought by the accused where the mere application constitutes a waiver avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person. • 3. when there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice;
• • 4. when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
What does custody of law signify? • 5. where the prosecution is under an invalid law;
• 6. when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
• 4. Custody of the law signifies restraint on the person. Literally, it is • 7. where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
custody over the body of the accused. It includes detention. (Miranda • 8.where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377) • 9. where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance;
• Problem: Before his arrest, A filed a motion for re-determination of • 10. when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
probable cause. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it motion to quash on that ground has been denied. (Brocka v. Enrile, 192
had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused. SCRA 183; Samson v. Guingona, Jr., 348 SCRA 32)
• Is the court correct?
Does mandamus lie to compel criminal prosecution?
Answer:
• Answer: NO, in our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor
• NO. The court is wrong in saying that it had no jurisdiction over the exercises a wide latitude of DISCRETION in determining whether a
accused since the filing of the motion signified his submission to its criminal case shall be filed in court, and the courts must respect that
jurisdiction. The court obviously confused custody of the law with discretion.
jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is not required for • Mandamus therefore, will, as a rule, NOT LIE to compel criminal
prosecution.(People v. Yecyec, 739 SCRA 719)
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Reynaldo, 627 SCRA 88)
• Mandamus is a remedial measure issued when “any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust or station.”
• Mandamus is not available to control discretion.
• Neither may it be issued to compel exercise of discretion.
• It is a matter of discretion for the prosecutor to determine which
persons appear responsible for the crime.
• HOWEVER, once he finds one to be so liable, it becomes his
inescapable duty to charge and prosecute him for the same. In such
situation, his role loses its discretionary character and becomes
mandatory. And, if he refuses to file the case, his acts is tantamount to
a deliberate refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF MTC
• Except in cases under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC
and the Sandiganbayan, the MTC shall exercise the following
criminal jurisdiction:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or
municipal ordinances committed within their territorial jurisdiction (Sec.
32(1),B.P 129, as amended by R.A 7691);
2.Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine, and
other imposable or accessory penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offenses irrespective of kind, nature, value or
amount (Sec. 32(2), BP 129, as amended by RA 7691);
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to
property through negligence (Sec. 32(2), BP 129, as amended by RA 7691).
(2013);
• 4. Violations of BP 22 which, as per A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC, effective
April 5, 2003, shall be under the Rules on Summary Procedure;
• 5. Summary procedure in certain cases such as:
– a.Violation of traffic laws;
– b.Violation of rental law;
– c.BP 22 cases;
– d.Violations of municipal or city ordinances
e.criminal cases where the penalty prescribed is imprisonment not exceeding
6 months, or a fine not more than 1,000, or both, irrespective of other
imposable penalties;
f. offenses involving damage to property through negligence where the
imposable fine does not exceed 10,000 (Sec. 1(B), 1991 Rule on Summary
Procedure)
6. Special jurisdiction to decide on application for bail in the absence of all
RTC judges in a province. (Sec. 35, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691)
“Except in cases within the exclusive jurisidiction of the RTC and of the
Sandiganbayan”
• Significance:
– This simply indicates that the MTC does not at all times have
jurisdiction over offenses punishable by not more than 6 years
like when jurisdiction is vested by law either in the RTC or
Sandiganbayan.
– Ex. Libel under Art. 355 of the RPC-Penalty is prision correccional in its
min. and med. periods BUT Art. 360 says RTC has jurisdiction over it not
MTC.
– Other Illustration
• Bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC is punishable by prision
correccional in its med. period BUT within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of PD 1606, as amended.
• Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 is punishable by prision correccional
in its med. and max. periods, BUT is, likewise, under jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Criminal Jurisidiction of the RTC
• 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the
exclusive jurisidiciton of any court, or body except those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent jurisidiction of the Sandiganbayan.
(Sec. 20,BP 129, as amended by RA 7691);
• 2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction enforceable in
their regions (Sec. 21(1),BP 129, as amended)
• 3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC within its
territorial jurisdiction(Sec. 22, BP 129, as amended);
• 4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to handle excusively criminal
cases as may be determined by the SC (Sec. 23, BP 129, as amended)
• 5. Jurisidiction over criminal cases under specific laws such as:
• a. over criminal and civil aspects of written defamation (Art. 360,
RPC);
• b. jurisdiction over designated special courts over cases in Violation of
RA 9165 as provided in Sec. 90 thereof;
• c. Jurisdiction of designated RTC branches for vioaltions of IP rights
(AM No. 03-03-03-SC, July 1, 2003, Implementing the IP Code of the
Philippines (RA 8293);
• d. Jurisdiction to try all cases on money laundering. However, those
committed by public officers and private persons, who are in
conspiracy with such public officers, shall be under the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 5, RA 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of
2001)
Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (PD 1606, as amended by RA
7975 & RA 8249)
 NOTE:In Serana v. Sandiganbayan, 542 SCRA 224, the SC held that
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. 1606 as
amended, and NOT by R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, as amended.
 RA 8249: An Act defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
amending PD 1606, as amended...
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in ALL cases
involving: (Sec. 4, RA 8249,2-5-97)
• A. 1) Violations of RA 3019, as amended;
2. Violations of RA 1379, An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the
State any Property Found To have Been Unlawfully Acquired by
Public Officer or Employee;
3. Violation of Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the RPC (Bribery in
all its forms including corruption of public officials, Art. 210-212,RPC)
*PROVIDED that:
-PROVIDED one or more of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade “27” and higher of the
Compensation and Position Calssification Act of 1989 (RA 6758),
INCLUDING:
– a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;
– b. City Mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang
panlungsod, city treasurer, assessors, engineers, and other city
department heads;
– c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of
consul and higher;
– d. Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and
all officers of higher rank;
– e. officers of the PNP while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent or higher;
– f. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and
officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and
special prosecutor;
 – g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-
owned or controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations (People v. Morales, 649
SCRA 182)
– (2) Members of congress and officials thereof classified as Grade
“27” and up; (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
– (4)Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
– (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and
higher;
• B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection “A” in relations to their office;
– NOTE: As a rule, to make an offense one committed in
relation People v. Montejo, 108 Phil. 613.
– Accused city mayor was charged of murder.
– The court ruled that the information sufficiently indicated the
existence of acts and events intimately connected to the public
office of the accused. It alleged that the murder was a
consequence of his act as a mayor; that he organized armed
patrols and civilian commandos and provided them with arms;
that he ordered the arrest and maltreatment of the victim. While
office is not an element of murder, the offense was committed
while the accused was in the performance of his functions.
– to the office, “the relation has to be such that, in the legal sense,
the offense cannot exist without the office” (Montilla v. Hilario,
90 Phil. 49) In other words, the office must be a constituent
element of the crime as defined by statute. Ex. bribery, frauds
committed by public treasury, malversation of public funds,
etc.-Art. 204-245, RPC)
– NOTE FURTHER:
• Even if the position is not an essential element
or ingredient of the offense charged, if the
information avers the intimate connection
between the office and the offense, this would
bring the offense within the definition of an
offense “committed in relation to the public
office” (Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627)
Example:
Examples:”offense committed in relation to the public office”:
• Consigna v. People, G.R. No. 175750, April 2, 2014
• *The SC held that when it is alleged and subsequently
proven that a municipal treasurer capitalized on the
functions of the office to commit estafa, the crime is
said to have been perpetrated in relation to one's official
functions even if public office is not an element of
estafa.
Esteban v. Sandiganbayan, 453 SCRA 236.
• Accused moved to quash 2 informations for acts of
lasciviousness committed against a casual employee in
his office, saying the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction
• Motion DENIED. Certiorari under Rule 65 to the SC.
• Ruling: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction since the
information alleged with clarity that the accused used
his official position to commit the acts charged.
• People v. Montejo, 108 Phil. 613.
– Accused city mayor was charged of murder.
– The court ruled that the information sufficiently indicated the
existence of acts and events intimately connected to the public
office of the accused. It alleged that the murder was a
consequence of his act as a mayor; that he organized armed
patrols and civilian commandos and provided them with arms;
that he ordered the arrest and maltreatment of the victim. While
office is not an element of murder, the offense was committed
while the accused was in the performance of his functions.
• NOTE: In all the cited cases, it is required that the information must
contain the specific FACTUAL allegations that would indicate the
 close intimacy between the discharge of official functions by the
accused and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify
the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.
• Question:
• *Would a mere allegation that the offense was committed “in relation
to the discharge of one's official functions” sufficient to comply with
the above requirement?
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298.
• NO. While the amended information for murder was alleged to have
been committed “IN RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES AS
POLICE OFFICERS”, it contained no specific allegations of facts that
the shooting of the victim was intimately related to the discharge of the
official functions of the accused.
**The mere allegation that the offense was committedxxx in relation to his
office is not sufficient. The phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual
averment that would show close intimacy between the offense charged and the
discharge of accused's duties.
• C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO
Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. Note: Civil jurisdiction is also
exercised by the Sandiganbayan (Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 321
SCRA 551)
• Note: OTHER cases falling under jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan:
• A. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or
orders of RTCs whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or
appellate jurisdiction;
• B. Exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for issuance of the
writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions,
and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed under EO Nos. 1,2,14
and 14-A:provided, that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not
be exclusive of the SC.
• EO No. 1-Creating the PCGG, Feb. 1, 1986 (recovery of ill-gotten
wealth of the Marcos Family,relatives,dummies, subordinates,agents,
w/o distinction as to their private or public status & investigation of
graft cases as the President may assign)
• EO No. 2- Freeze order against all assets and properties in the
Philippines in which the Marcos family, their relatives, dummies,
subordinates, agents, etc., have any interest or participation.
• EO Nos. 14 & 14-A-vesting in the Sandiganbayn original and exclusive
JURISDICTION over criminal & civil suits filed by the
PCGG/Granting the PCGG authority to grant immunity from criminal
prosecution.
•
Example of case covered by EO No. 1
• PCGG v. Dumayas, G.R. No. 209447, August 11, 2015.
– The SC held that the RTC has no jurisdiction over suits
involving the sequestered coco levy assets and coco levy funds.
It is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
• C. Violation of RA 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001;
• D. Violation of RA 7080, An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime
of Plunder;
Does salary grade alone determine jurisidiction of the Sandiganbayan?
• NO. While the first part of Sec. 4(a) of PD 1606, as amended, covers
only officials with salary grade 27 and higher, the second part thereof
specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not
be with salary grade 27 and higher but who are by EXPRESS provision
of the law under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.(Geduspan v.
People,51 SCRA 187)
Effect of death of a public officer charged in conspiracy with a private
person.
**The controlling doctrine is that private persons may be charged in
conspiracy with public officers. Hence, it is a settled rule that private persons,
when acting in conspiracy with public officers. may be indicted and, if found
guilty, held liable for violations of the anti-graft law.(Uyboco v. People, G.R.
No. 211703, December 10, 2014)
**The death of the public officer will not extinguish the crime nor will it
remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and the private
person.(People v. Go,G.R. No. 168359, March 25 2014)
• Rule 110: I. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Who are the parties in a criminal action?
• The parties are the People of the Philippines and the accused.
The offended party is regarded merely as a witness for the state.
– Why is the offended party regarded as a mere witness?
• Reason:
– The purpose of criminal action is to determine the penal liability
of the accused for having outraged the state with his crime.
(Heirs of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos v. CA, 169711, February
8, 2010)
How are criminal actions instituted?
• It generally depends on whether or not the offense is one which
requires preliminary investigation (Sec. 1, Rule 110)
• 1) Where PI is required- instituted by filing the complaint with the
proper officer for the requisite PI.
• 2) Where PI is NOT required- instituted in either 2 ways:
• a) by filing directly with the MTC; or
• b) by filing with the prosecutor's office (Sec. 1,
Rule 110)
How about in Manila & other chartered cities?
• *Special rule: by filing with the prosecutor's office unless
otherwise provided in the charter (Sec. 1, Rule 110)
Is there direct filing with the RTC? Why?
• NONE because its jurisdiction covers offenses which require
Preliminary Investigation.
Is there direct filing in Manila/other chartered cities?
• NONE, because as a rule, the complaint shall be filed with the
prosecutor's office.
• Exception:
– If the charter provides otherwise.(Sec. 1, Rule 110)
In what offenses is PI required/not required?
• *Preliminary investigation is required for offenses where the
penalty is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day(Sec. 1, Rule 112)
Is it correct to say that ALL offenses under the jurisdiction of the MTC do not
require Preliminary Investigation? Why?
• NO. Take note of the following:
– RTC jurisdiction: over offenses punishable by imprisonment
of more than 6 years, way above the minimum penalty for
offenses that require PI.
– MTC jurisdiction: over offenses punishable by not more than
6 years. (Sec. 32(2), BP 129, Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980).
– P.I. is required in offenses punishable by 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day, which is well within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
What is the effect of the filing of the criminal action on the prescriptive
period?
*Sec. 1 categorically says that it shall interrupt the period of prescription of the
offense charged UNLESS otherwise provided in special laws.

• NOTE: Since Rule 110 provides that one of the ways of instituting the
criminal action is by filing with the proper officer for the conduct of PI
for offenses that require it, such filing with the proper officer for the
requisite PI shall interrupt the prescriptive period.
• NOTES:
• *For offenses where PI is not required, the filing with the MTC or with
the prosecutor's office shall interrupt the period.
• *In Manila and other chartered cities, the filing with the prosecutor
interrupts the period.
Until when is the prescriptive period suspended?
• *Until such time that the accused is either convicted or acquitted by the
proper court. (People v. Bautista, GR No. 168641, April 27, 2007)
Rule on prescription for violations of special laws and municipal ordinances:
• Act 3326, as amended, governs the period for prescription for
violations of special laws and municipal ordinances.
• Section 1. Violations penalized by special Acts shall, unless otherwise
provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules:
– (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by
imprisonment for not more than one month, or both;
– b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for
more than one month, but less than two years;
– (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for
two years or more, but less than six years; and
– (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by
imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason,
which shall prescribe after twenty years.
– (e)Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe
after two months.
• Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission
of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time,
from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for
its investigation and punishment.
• The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings
are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
• Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts defining
and penalizing violations of the law not included in the Penal Code.
Notable cases
re Act 3326:
• 1) Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277, a case involving an offense
punishable by a municipal ordinance.
– It held that Act 3326 says that the period of prescription shall
be suspended when proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, the proceedings being “judicial proceedings and not
administrative.”
–
Recent cases seemingly abandoned the Zaldivia ruling:
• 1) Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim, GR No. 168662, February 19,
2008-Violation of Intellectual property Code.
– A complaint was filed with the Task force on Anti-Intellectual
Property Piracy (TAPP) of the DOJ.
– The complaint was dismissed by TAPP for insufficiency of
evidence. It was appealed up to the CA which affirmed the
dismissal on the ground of prescription since no complaint was
filed in court pursuant to Act 3326.
• Ruling:
– The prescriptive period for violation of special laws starts on
the day such offense was committed and IS INTERRUPTED
BY THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE RESPONDENT. The prescriptive period for the
 prosecution of violation of the IPC was tolled by the petitioner's
timely filing of the complaint before the TAPP.
• 2) Panaguiton Jr v. DOJ, GR. No.- 167571, 11-25-08-Violation of BP
22.
– QC Prosecutor dismissed the complaint on the ground of
prescription (4 years). The DOJ affirmed the dismissal. The CA
dismissed certiorari petition on technical grounds.
– Before the SC, the respondent invoked the Zaldivia ruling to
support the dismissal of the complaint.
• Ruling:
– The filing of the complaint with the prosecutor signified the
commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the
accused and thus, EFFECTIVELY INTERRUPTED THE
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD.
– The court explained that when Act 3326 was passed, PI could
be conducted by justices of the peace, thus, the phraseology in
the law, “INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
FOR ITS INVESTIGATION AND PUNISHMENT xxx”.
• 3) SEC v. Interport Resources Corp., GR No. 135808, 10-6-08-
Violation of Revised Securities Act.
• Ruling:
– It is established doctrine that a preliminary investigation
interrupts the prescriptive period. The investigation
commenced by SEC, pursuant to its powers under the securities
Act, effectively interrupted the prescriptive period.
• NOTE:
Sanrio, Panaguiton and SEC cases cited above uniformly held that the filing
of the affidavit complaint for PI interrupted the running of the
prescriptive period for violations of special laws.
People v. Pangilinan, 672 SCRA 105, June 13, 2012.
• In this more recent case where the issue of whether or not the filing of
the criminal action for violation of BP 22 has already prescribed, the
court held:
– “There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and
those under special laws with respect to the interruption of the
period of prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. is not
controlling in special laws. In Llenes v. Dicdican, Ingco,et.al.,
v. Sandiganbayan, Brillante v. CA, and Sanrio Company Ltd. v.
Lim, cases involving special laws, this court
• held that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation
against the accused interrupts the period of prescription. In SEC v.
Interport Resources Corp, et.al., the court even ruled that
investigations conducted by the SEC for violations of the Revised
Security Act and the Securities Regulation Code effectively interrupts
the prescriptive period because it is equivalent to the preliminary
investigation conducted by the DOC in criminal cases.
How about filing of a case with the Ombudsman?
• This also effectively interrupts the prescriptive period.
• In Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24, 9-11-13, it was held
that:
– “The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of whether
the offense charged is punishable by the RPC or by a special
law, it is the filing of the complaint or information in the office
of the public prosecutor for purposes of preliminary
investigation that interrupts the period of prescription”.
How about crimes required to be referred to the barangay?
• Sec. 410, RA 7160, Local Government Code of 1991, provides the
Procedure for Amicable Settlement. Under par. (c) on suspension of
prescriptive period of offenses, the prescriptive period is suspended
temporarily once the complaint is filed with the Punong Barangay,
but such suspension shall last for 60 days only from the filing of the
complaint.
The prescriptive period shall resume upon receipt by the complainant
of the certificate of repudiation or certificate to file action.
Does the rule on interruption of prescription still apply if the court is -All criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direct
without jurisdiction? supervision and control of the public prosecutor.
- Even if there is a private prosecutor, the criminal action is
• YES. The running of the period of prescription is interrupted with the still under the direction and control of the public prosecutor.
filing of the action even if the court in which the action was first filed
is without jurisdiction.
• Notable cases: Can a private prosecutor appear?
1)In People v. Galano, an information was filed with the Batangas RTC
even though the evidence of both parties shows that the crime was committed • YES. The appearance of a private prosecutor is allowed ONLY
in Manila. when the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is filed with the
Ruling: Applying People v. Olarte, the court held that it was only when criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 (Sec. 16, Rule 110).
the trial court dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction The engagement or appointment of a private prosecutor is done by the
offended party and it is the mode by which he intervenes in the prosecution of
the offense.
• that “the proceedings therein terminated without conviction and
acquittal and it was only then that the prescriptive period (which was • Note: A.M. No. 10-06-15-SC, Revised Guideline For Continuous
interrupted during the pendency of the case in the Batangay RTC) Trial of Criminal Cases:
commenced to run again.”  Private Prosecutor: In cases where only the civil liability is
• 2) In People v. Enrile, where informations were filed against civilians being prosecuted by a private prosecutor, the head of the
with the military tribunal which had no jurisdiction over them, the prosecution office must issue in favor of the private prosecutor
court, applying the Olarte case, threw out the defense of prescription a written authority to try the case even in the absence of the
when the cases were filed before the civil courts. At the very least, the public prosecutor. The written authority must be submitted to
filing of the first charges interrupted the prescriptive period the court prior
notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the military tribunal.
 to the presentation of evidence by the private
• 3) Reodica v. CA, an information for reckless imprudence resulting in prosecutor in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 110.
damage to property was filed with the RTC.  With this authority on record, the court may set the trial in the
Ruling: The court, citing Olarte and other subsequent cases, ruled that case and in other cases tried by private prosecutors with
“the prescriptive period for the quasi-offenses in question was interrupted by delegated authority on separate days when the presence of the
the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office 3 days after the accident and public prosecutors may be dispensed with.
remained tolled pending termination of the case.”
NOTE: All the above cases were cited in Arambulo v. Laqui, Sr., 342 SCRA When is a private prosecutor NOT allowed?
740) • When the offended party:
1) WAIVES the civil action;
II. PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION 2) RESERVES the right to file the civil action; and
3) institutes the civil action PRIOR to the criminal action.
WHO must prosecute the criminal action?
What is the effect of an independent civil action on the right of the
offended party to intervene through a private prosecutor?
The filing of an independent civil action does not deprive the offended
party the right to intervene through a private prosecutor.
NOTE that under Sec. 1, Rule 111, what is deemed instituted with the criminal
action is the civil action to recover civil liability arising from the offense
charged.
• Take Note: Those not arising from the offense charged like
independent civil actions under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code are not deemed instituted with the criminal action.
• These independent civil actions, according to Sec. 3, Rule 111,
shall proceed independently of the criminal action. No need for
reservation under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure because they
can proceed separately from the criminal action.
• THUS, as a consequence of the independent character of actions
brought under Arts. 32(civil & political rights), 33
(defamation/fraud/physical injuries), 34 (failure to render aid by peace
officer) and 2176 (quasi-delict caused by fault/negligence) of the Civil
Code, even if a civil action based on these is filed, the ex-delicto civil
liability in the criminal prosecution remains. Hence, the offended party
may still intervene through a private prosecutor.
WHO must prosecute criminal actions in the MTC or MCTC?
• The public prosecutor MUST prosecute criminal actions in the MTC.
• Is there any exemption to this rule?
• EXCEPTION:
• When the public prosecutor is NOT available, the following may be
allowed to prosecute:(Sec. 5, Rule 110, as amended by AM 02-2-7-SC
& clarified in OCA Circular No. 39, August 21, 2002)
• a. Private prosecutor
• b. offended
• c. peace officer
• d.public officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated.
A.M. No. 02-2-7-SC, May 1, 2002, amending Sec. 5, Rule 110)
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal actions either
commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of
the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private
prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval
of the court.
• Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial
even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is
revoked or otherwise withdrawn. x x x ."
OCA CIRCULAR 39-2002, AUGUST 21, 2002
• The Supreme Court En Banc in its Resolution dated 10 April 2002, in
A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, RE: Proposed Amendments to Section 5, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Resolved to approve
the amendment to Sec. 5, Rule 110 to read as follows:
• "Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — (as quoted above)
• Take Note:
• The aforequoted resolution did not state the entire first (1st) paragraph
of Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
resulting to confusion on the right of the offended party, any peace
officer or public officer to prosecute the criminal cases before the
Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the
public prosecutor is not available. Despite such omission, such right
on the part of the offended party, peace officer or public officer to
prosecute the criminal case in the aforementioned courts is still in
effect and not withdrawn.
 • It is therefore necessary to state in toto the first (1st) paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 110, as amended by the Supreme Court Resolution
dated 10 April 2002 in A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC as follows:
• "Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All
criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control
of a public prosecutor.In case of heavy work schedule of the
public prosecutor, or in the event of lack of public prosecutors,
• the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the
case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to
prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to
prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of a
public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn.
• However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available,
the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority
shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation
of the case to the Regional Trial Court.
• How are offenses in violation of special laws prosecuted?
• -They shall be prosecuted pursuant to the provisions of said
(special) law (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
III. PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE CRIMES
How are private crimes prosecuted?
1) Adultery & concubinage:
- ONLY upon the complaint of offended spouse (Sec. 5, Rule
110).
-MUST be filed against BOTH guilty parties, unless one is dead
(Sec. 5, Rule 110)
• Rule 110)
• -may not be filed if the offended spouse has consented to
the offense or has pardoned the offenders.- express or
implied (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
• -Prosecutor cannot prosecute where no complaint is filed by
the offended spouse.
• 2) Seduction, abduction & acts of lasciviousness:
• ONLY upon complaint by the offended party OR her parents,
grandparents or guardian.
• Effect of EXPRESS pardon by any of the above: serves as a
BAR to criminal prosecution for any of these crimes.
• a minor offended party can file the complaint independently of
her parents, grandparents or guardian. (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
• if minor dies or is incapacitated before she can file and no
known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State may file
(Sec. 5, Rule 110).
• 3) Defamation for imputing the offenses of adultery, concubinnage,
seduction, or acts of lasciviousness:
• ONLY upon the complaint of the offended party.
IV. THE COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION
• What is a Complaint?
– It is a sworn written statement charging a person with an
offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or
other public officer charged with the enforcement of law
violated. (Sec. 3, Rule 110)
Complaint:
1) It is filed in the name of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
against all who appear responsible for the offense.
2) The private offended parties are only witnesses for the prosecution.
3) They cannot appeal the criminal aspect BUT only as to the civil aspect.
• What is an Information?
– It is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. (Sec. 4,
 – It is filed in the name of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
and against all who appear responsible. What is the test for sufficiency of the complaint or information?

•
Complaint vs. Information The test is whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such
particularity as to apprise the accused with reasonable certainty, of the
It must be It requires NO OATH offense charged to enable him to suitably prepare for his defense (Lazarte, Jr.
sworn,hence, under (since the pros. is v. Sandiganbayan, 581 SCRA 431).
OATH acting under the oath
of his office)
• NOTE:
Subscribed by the (a) Subscribed by the • 1) Whether an information charges an offense depends on whether the
offended party (b) any prosecutor material facts alleged shall establish the essential elements of the
peace officer (c) or
offense charged. Thus, for an information to be sufficient, it must
other public officer
validly charge an offense. (Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, 675 SCRA 560)
charged with the
• 2)An Information is fatally defective when it is clear that it does not
enforcement of the law
violated
charge an offense or when an essential element of the crime has not
been sufficiently alleged(People v. Posada, 667 SCRA 790).

• When can one raise any question as to the sufficiency of the

What is the effect of infirmity in the signature in the information?
An infirmity, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it cannot be cured
by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.
Sufficiency of the complaint/information
• It is deemed sufficient if it contains the followings:
a) name of the accused;
b)designation of the offense given by statute;
c) acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
d) name of the offended party;
e) approximate date of commission; and
f) place of commission (Sec. 6, Rule 110; Enrile v. Manalastas, 739 SCRA 49)
What determines the nature and character of the offense charged?
complaint or information?
• -Upon arraignment or during trial. Failure to do so is
deemed a waiver, such as when accused voluntarily entered a plea and
participated in the trial. (Frias v. People, G.R. No. 171437, 10-4-07).
• How about as to form?
• -objections as to form, such as when the information does not
conform to prescribed form, must likewise be made before arraignment
and cannot be made for the first time on appeal (People v. Teodoro,607
SCRA 307; People v. runcas, 664 SCRA 182).
• NOTE:
– However, where the objection is based on lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter, the same may be raised or considered
motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on
appeal (Fuluzume v. People, 474 SCRA 570)

**It is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, or from
the specification of the provision of law violated, which are mere conclusions
of law, but by the recitals of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the
information (People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272).
**Even if the designation of the crime is defective, what is controlling is the
allegation of the facts in the information that comprises a crime and adequately
describes the nature and cause of the accusation(People v. Anguac, 588 SCRA
716).
Date of commission of the offense
• Is it necessary to state the precise date of commission?
– NO. Sec. 11, Rule 110 provides that it is not necessary
EXCEPT when the date of commission is a material element
of the offense. Thus, the offense may be alleged to have been
committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of
commission (People v. Canares, 579 SCRA 588).
• In crimes where the date of commission is not a material element, like
murder, rape, or qualified theft, it is not necessary to allege such date
with absolute certainty in the information. The Rules of Court merely
requires, for the sake of properly informing an accused, that the date of
commission be approximated (People v. Teodoro, 607 SCRA 307;
People v. Zapanta, 694 SCRA 25; People v. Delfin, G.R. No.
201572,July 9,2014). In these cases, the terms used were: “in the first
week of July 1995”; “sometime in the month of October 2001”; “on
or about the 27th day of November 2000”.
People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 202122, 01-15-14
• The phrase “on or about the year 1992” was held to encompass not
only the twelve months of 1992 but includes the years prior and
subsequent to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for which accused has to
virtually account for his whereabouts. Hence, the failure of the
prosecution to allege with particularity the date of commission of the
offense and, worse, its failure to prove during the trial the date of
commission as alleged in the information, deprived accused of his right
to intelligently prepare for his defense.
How to state Name of the accused:
• Section 7, Rule 110 gives the rules:
a) state the name and surname of the accused, or any appellation or
nickname by which he has been or is known;
b) if first name cannot be ascertained, describe him under a fictitious
name, BUT such description must be accompanied by a statement that his true
name is unknown;
c) Once his name is diclosed by him or becomes known, his true name
shall be inserted in the information and in the records of the case.
• NOTES:
• 1)Positive identification pertains essentially to the proof of identity. A
mistake in the name is not equivalent to mistake in the identity of the
accused especially when sufficient evidence is adduced to show that
the accused is pointed to as one of the perpetrators (People v. Amodia,
584 SCRA 518);
• 2)What matters in convicting an accused is his identification as the
person who committed the crime, not the name under which he was
arrested or charged(People v. Bonito, 342 SCRA 405)
• 3)The identity of the accused must, however, be proven. Where in
identifying the accused who allegedly raped her, the victim showed
reluctance in identifying the accused then eventually pointed to the
accused that “it might be him,” the identification is uncertain (People
v. Tumambing, 644 SCRA 482)
How to state Name of the offended party:
• Who is the offended party?
*The person against whom or whose property the offense was
committed.(Sec. 12, Rule 110)
How to state his name?
a) State the name and surname, or any appellation or nickname by
which he is known;
b)If not known, describe him under a fictitious name;
c)If true name is later known, cause it to be inserted. (Sec. 12, Rule
110)
How to state a Juridical person as offended party:
• It is sufficient to state its name, or any name or designation by which it
is known or by which it may be identified, WITHOUT need of averring
that it is a juridical person or that it is organized in accordance with law
(Sec. 12(c), Rule 110)
Rule if name of offended party is unknown in crimes against property:
In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is not
known, the property MUST be described with such particularity as to properly
identify the offense charged (Sec. 12(a), Rule 110)
NOTE: If the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, such
as xxx money unlawfully takenxxx, an error in the designation of the offended
party is FATAL and would result to the acquittal of the accused.
b) Include in the complete designation of the offense an averment of
the acts or omissions constituting the offense;
c) the information shall specify the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
• What is the effect of failure to designate the offense given by statute
or to mention the provision violated?
**It does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged clearly recite
the facts constituting the crime charged. What determines the crime charged in
the information is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the
nomenclature of the offense.(Malto v. People, 533 SCRA 642)
**There is no rule which requires that the information must state the
particular law under which the accused is charged in order for it to be sufficient
and valid (Licyayo v. People, 547 SCRA 598).
• NOTE:
• All qualifying or aggravating circumstances must be alleged IN THE
INFORMATION.
• If NOT, the court cannot take them into consideration in the
imposition of the penalty even if proven during the trial. (Sec. 8,9, Rule
110; People v. Tampus, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009)

However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific and

identifiable, such as a jewelry with a specific designation, an error in the
designation of the offended party is immaterial and is not violative of the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against her (Seandor v. People, 692 SCRA 669)

How to state Designation of the offense:

• Sec. 8, Rule 110 gives the rules:

a) the name given to the offense by statute shall be stated in the
information or complaint.
If the statute gives no designation, then reference shall be made to the
section or subsection punishing it;