CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RAMONCITA O. SENADOR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 201620, March 6, 2013

If the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, an error in the designation of the offended party is fatal and would
result in the acquittal of the accused. However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, an error in the
designation of the offended party is immaterial.

Mary Rose A. Boto vs. Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Villena, A.C. No. 9684, September 18, 2013

The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneous or separately with the Regional
Trial Court of the province or city where the libellous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

Bureau of Customs v. Peter Sherman, et al, G.R. No. 190487, April 13, 2011.

It is well-settled that prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department of the government whose principal power and
responsibility is to insure that laws are faithfully executed. Corollary to this power is the right to prosecute violators. Thus, all criminal
actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors. In the
prosecution of special laws, however, the exigencies of public service sometimes require the designation of special prosecutors from
different government agencies to assist the public prosecutor; but this designation does not detract from the public prosecutor having
control and supervision over the case.

LETICIA I. KUMMER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013

Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits a formal amendment of a complaint even after the plea but only if it is made with
leave of court and provided that it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. It is clear that consistent with the
rule on amendments and the jurisprudence, the change in the date of the commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment
– it does not change the nature of the crime, does not affect the essence of the offense nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to
meet the new averment, and is not prejudicial to the accused.

1. JOEL C. MENDEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF TAX APPEALS G.R. No. 179962, June
11, 2014

Dr. Joel Mendez was charged with tax evasion. However, the prosecutor filed amended complaint which changed the date of the
commission of the offense. The court ruled that amendments that do not charge another offense different from that charged in the
original one; or do not alter the prosecution’s theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he
has or will assume are considered merely as formal amendments.

People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Feliciano Jr., et. al, G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014

It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an
aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution
to state the aggravating circumstance of “wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise” in the information in order for all the
evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.

People v. Oso, 62 Phil 271

In case of variance between the complaint filed by the offended party and the information in crimes against chastity, the complaint
controls

PEOPLE vs. GULLERMO LOMAQUE, GR 189297, June 5, 2013

A variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that the
crime was committed in a different manner than what was alleged. While the information clearly states that the crime was committed
by appellant’s insertion of his penis inside AAA’s vagina, the latter solemnly testified on the witness stand that appellant merely put
his penis in her mouth. Nevertheless, appellant failed to register any objection that the Information alleged a different mode of the
commission of the crime of rape. Thus, appellant’s conviction for rape by sexual assault must be sustained, the variance
notwithstanding.
Honesto General vs. Hon. Graduacion Reyes Claravall, et al., 195 SCRA 623

In any event, the Court now makes that intent plainer, and in the interest of clarity and certainty, categorically declares for the
guidance of all concerned that when the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal in accordance with Section 1,
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court — because the offended party has not waived the civil action, or reserved the right to institute it
separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action — the rule is as follows: (1) when the amount of the damages, other
than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information filed in court, then the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended
party upon filing thereof in court for trial; and (2) in any other case, however — i.e., when the amount of damages is not so alleged in
the complaint or information filed in court the corresponding filing fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the
judgment, except in an award for actual damages.

RAFAEL JOSE CONSING, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NO. 161075. JULY 15, 2013

An independent civil action based on fraud initiated by the defrauded party does not raise a prejudicial question to stop the
proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution of the defendant for estafa through falsification. This is because the result of the
independent civil action is irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused.

SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL. G.R. No. 166836, September 4, 2013

The pendency of an administrative case for specific performance brought by the buyer of residential subdivision lots in the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to compel the seller to deliver the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) of the fully paid lots
is properly considered a ground to suspend a criminal prosecution for violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 on the
ground of a prejudicial question. The administrative determination is a logical antecedent of the resolution of the criminal charges
based on non-delivery of the TCTs.

Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013

It is well settled that a civil action based on defamation, fraud and physical injuries may be independently instituted pursuant to Article
33 of the Civil Code, and does not operate as a prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of a criminal case. This was
precisely the Court’s thrust in G.R. No. 148193, thus: Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question of the civil and the criminal
action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, iun the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by
the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. xxx In the
instant case, Civil Case No. 99-95381, for Damages and Attachment on account of alleged fraud committed by respondent and his
mother in selling the disputed lot to PBI is an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. As such, it will not operate
as a prejudicial question that will justify the suspension of the criminal case at bar.

GODOFREDO ENRILE AND DR. FREDERICK ENRILE, vs. HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS G.R. No. 166414, October
22, 2014

The preliminary investigation is not yet a trial on the merits, for its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed
and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. The scope of the investigation does not approximate
that of a trial before the court; hence, what is required is only that the evidence be sufficient to establish probable cause that the
accused committed the crime charged, not that all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused be removed. As the MTC and RTC
rightly held, the presentation of the medical certificates to prove the duration of the victims’ need for medical attendance or of their
incapacity should take place only at the trial, not before or during the preliminary investigation.

P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero v. Orlando C. Casimiro, etc., et al, G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2012

There is no provision in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court that gives the Complainant or requires the prosecutor to observe the right to
file a Reply to the accused’s counter-affidavit. To illustrate the non-mandatory nature of filing a Reply in preliminary investigations,
Section 3 (d) of Rule 112 gives the prosecutor, in certain instances, the right to resolve the Complaint even without a counter-affidavit,
viz: “(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, of if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period,
the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.” On the other hand,
petitioner was entitled to receive a copy of the Counter- affidavit filed by Aguillon.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ENGR. RODOLFO YECYEC ET AL. G.R. No. 183551, November 12, 2014
It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system, the public prosecutor exercises a wide latitude of discretion in determining
whether a criminal case should be filed in court, and the courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when the information filed
against the person charged is valid on its face, and that no manifest error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public
prosecutor. In this case, there is no question that the Information filed against the respondents was sufficient to hold them liable for the
crime of Theft because it was compliant with Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, a review of the resolutions of the
MCTC, the Provincial Prosecutor, the RTC, and the CA shows that there is substantial basis to support finding of probable cause
against the respondents. Hence, as the Information was valid on its face and there was no manifest error or arbitrariness on the part of
the MCTC and the Provincial Prosecutor, the RTC and the CA erred when they overturned the finding of probable cause against the
respondents.

Iris Kristine Balois Alberto vs. CA, GR No. 182130, June 19, 2013

Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor
does it import absolute certainty. Rather, it is based merely on opinion and reasonable belief. Accordingly, probable cause does not
require an inquiry whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction; it is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged.

Manila Electric Company, represented by Manolo C. Fernando v. Vicente Atilano, et al., G.R. No. 166758, June 27, 2012

The determination of probable cause for the filing of an information in court is an executive function which pertains at the first
instance to the public prosecutor and then to the Secretary of Justice. As a rule, in the absence of any grave abuse of discretion, courts
are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch; the public prosecutor alone determines the
sufficiency of evidence that will establish probable cause in filing a criminal information and courts will not interfere with his findings
unless grave abuse of discretion can be shown. In this case, the Supreme Court found no error in the public prosecutor’s determination
that no probable cause existed to justify the filing of a criminal complaint.

Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego vs. Office of the Ombudsman, GR No. 196842, October 9, 2013

The Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction, albeit concurrent with the DOJ, to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes involving
public officers, without regard to its commission in relation to office, had long been settled in Sen. Honasan II vs. The Panel of
Investigating Prosecutors of DOJ, and affirmed in subsequent cases: The Constitution, Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and
Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as amended, do not give the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses
committed by public officers and employees. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or
employees is concurrent with other government investigating agencies such as provincial, city and state prosecutors, however, the
Ombudsman, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan may take over, at any stage, from
any investigating agency of the government, the investigation of such cases.

People vs. Mabuyo, 63 SCRA 532; People vs. Lazo; 198 SCRA 274

The accused who is denied the mandatory preliminary investigation may refuse to enter a plea upon arraignment and to object to the
continuation of further proceedings based on lack of preliminary investigation. If he pleads without objection, he cannot raise the issue
on appeal.

Imelda S. Enriquez vs. Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-06-2011, August 7, 2006

A preliminary investigation is a proceeding distinct from an inquest. A “preliminary investigation” is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. “An inquest” is a summary inquiry conducted by a prosecutor for the purpose of
determining whether the warrantless arrest of a person was based on probable cause.”

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Hon, Rosabella M. Tormis, AM No. MTJ-12-1817, March 12, 2013

Whenever a criminal case falls under the Summary Procedure, the general rule is that the court shall not order the arrest of the accused
unless he fails to appear whenever required. In this case, Judge Tormis claimed that the issuance of the warrant of arrest against the
accused in the Librando case was justified because of the accused’s failure to appear during her arraignment despite notice. However,
as clearly found by the OCA, Judge Tormis’ order requiring the accused to appear and submit her counter-affidavit and those of her
witnesses within ten days from receipt of the order was not yet served upon the accused when she issued the warrant. In doing so,
Judge Tormis issued the warrant of arrest in violation of the Rule on Summary Procedure that the accused should first be notified of
the charges against him and given the opportunity to file his counter-affidavits and other countervailing evidence.
People of the Philippines vs. Ng Yik bun, et al, G.R. No. 180452. January 10, 2010.

An arrest made during the commission of a crime does not require a warrant. Such warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and
valid under Rule 113, section 5(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the instant case, contrary to accused-appellants’
contention, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances immediately prior to and
surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants: (1) the police officers received information from an operative about an ongoing shipment
of contraband; (2) the police officers, with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon;
(3) they observed the goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50 meters; and (4) they spotted the six accused-appellants
loading transparent bags containing a white substance into a white L-300 van. Evidently, the arresting police officers had probable
cause to suspect that accused-appellants were loading and transporting contraband, more so when Hwan, upon being accosted, readily
mentioned that they were loading shabu and pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus, the arrest of accused- appellants – who were caught
in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in the act of loading into a white L-300 van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA 6425, as
amended – is valid.

People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Velasco, G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013

Jurisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move
for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment, thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or
the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise,
the objection is deemed waived. Nevertheless, even if appellant’s warrantless arrest were proven to be indeed invalid, such a scenario
would still not provide salvation to appellant’s cause because jurisprudence also instructs us that the illegal arrest of an accused is not
sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.

LEVISTE v. CA

A finding that none of the bail negating circumstances is present will not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding will
simply authorize the court to use the less stringent sound discretion approach. However, if the appellate court determines the existence
of any of the bail negating circumstances, it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Conversely, if the
appellate court grants bail pending appeal, grave abuse of discretion will thereby be committed

TRINIDAD LACHICA v. JUDGE ROSABELLATORMIS

It is undisputed that respondent judge personally received the cash bail bond for the accused. For this act alone, respondent is already
administratively liable. Section 14, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies the persons with whom a cash bail
bond may be deposited, namely: the collector of internal revenue or the provincial, city or municipal treasurer. A judge is not
authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail nor should such cash be kept in his office.

Yap v. CA and the People, G.R. No. 141529 (2001)

Although an increase in the amount of bail while the case is on appeal may be meritorious, the SC found that the setting of the amount
at P5.5M is unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of A’s right to bail.

People v. Ortega, 276 SCRA 166 (2003)


An accused may not be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. To convict him of an
offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this constitutional right.

WILLIAM CO a.k.a. XU QUING HE vs. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS, represented by ELIZABETH UY
G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014

Speedy trial is a relative term and necessarily a flexible concept. In determining whether the accused’s right to speedy trial was
violated, the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings. The factors to balance are the following: (a)
duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such
delay. Surely, mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of everyday life must be regarded in
judicial proceedings which, after all, do not exist in a vacuum, and that particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case. While the Court recognizes the accused’s right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration
of justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. Unjustified postponements which
prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial.
Anna Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012

Sec. 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is understandably not the only rule that explains why testimony that is hearsay should be
excluded from consideration. Excluding hearsay also aims to preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the original
declarant claiming to have a direct knowledge of the transaction or occurrence. If hearsay is allowed, the right stands to be denied
because the declarant is not in court. It is then to be stressed that the right to cross-examine the adverse party’s witness, being the only
means of testing the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, is essential to the administration of justice.

People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014

There are instances when searches are reasonable even when warrantless. In the Rules of Court, searches incidental to lawful arrests
are allowed even without a separate warrant. This court has taken into account the “uniqueness of circumstances involved including
the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made,
the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.”

RETIRED SP04 BIENVENIDO LAUD vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES et al, G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014

Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC allows the Manila and Quezon City RTCs to issue warrants to be served in places
outside their territorial jurisdiction for as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied with, as in this case. As in
ordinary search warrant applications, they “shall particularly describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to
be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court.” “The Executive Judges of these RTCs and, whenever they are on official leave of
absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges” are authorized to act on such applications and “shall
issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.” The Court observes
that all the above-stated requirements were complied with in this case. As the records would show, the search warrant application was
filed before the Manila-RTC by the PNP and was endorsed by its head, PNP Chief Jesus Ame Versosa, particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized in connection with the heinous crime of Murder. Finding probable cause therefor,
Judge Peralta, in his capacity as 2nd Vice-Executive Judge, issued Search Warrant which, as the rules state, may be served in places
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said RTC.

FELILIBETH AGUINALDO and BENJAMIN PEREZ vs. REYNALDO P. VENTUS and JOJO B. JOSON, G.R. No. 176033,
March 11, 2015

Arraignment was suspended pending the resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration before the DOJ. However, the lapse of almost 1
year and 7 months warranted the application of the limitation of the period for suspending arraignment. While the pendency of a
petition for review is a ground for suspension of the arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the deferment of the arraignment to a
period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It follows, therefore, that after the expiration of
said period, the trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HALIL GAMBAO y ESMAIL, EDDIEKARIM y USO, EDWIN DUKILMAN y
SUBOH, TONY ABAO y SULA, RAUL UDAL y KAGUI, THENG DILANGALEN y NANDING, JAMAN MACALINBOL y
KATOL, MONETTE RONAS y AMPIL, NORA EVAD y MULOK, THIAN PERPENIAN y RAFON a.k.a LARINA
PERPENIAN and JOHNDOES, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013

The manner by which the plea of guilty is made, whether improvidently or not, loses legal significance where the conviction can be
based on independent evidence proving the commission of the crime by the accused.

People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453. April 1, 2003

In the new rule in question, as now construed by the Court, it has fixed a time-bar of one year or two years for the revival of criminal
cases provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused and with a priori notice to the offended party. The time-bar may
appear, on first impression, unreasonable compared to the periods under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. However, in fixing the
time-bar, the Court balanced the societal interests and those of the accused for the orderly and speedy disposition of criminal cases
with minimum prejudice to the State and the accused. It took into account the substantial rights of both the State and of the accused to
due process. The Court believed that the time limit is a reasonable period for the State to revive provisionally dismissed cases with the
consent of the accused and notice to the offended parties. The time-bar fixed by the Court must be respected unless it is shown that the
period is manifestly short or insufficient that the rule becomes a denial of justice. The petitioners failed to show a manifest shortness
or insufficiency of the time-bar.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PABLO L. ESTACIO, JR. and MARITESS ANG
The conditions for the discharge of an accused as a state witness are as follows:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said
accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and (e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude.

ESTHER P. MAGLEO vs. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN and BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
ATTY. ADONIS LAURE, BOTH OF BRANCH 166, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2336,
November 12, 2014

Accused’s Demurrer to Evidence, the ruling is an adjudication on the merits of the case which is tantamount to an acquittal and may
no longer be appealed. The current scenario, however, is an exception to the general rule. The demurrer to evidence was premature
because it was filed before the prosecution rested its case. The RTC had not yet ruled on the admissibility of the formal offer of
evidence of the prosecution when Magleo filed her demurrer to evidence. Hence, Judge Quinagoran had legal basis to overturn the
order granting the demurrer to evidence as there was no proper acquittal.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUDGE RAFAEL R. LAGOS, et al. G.R. No. 184658, March 6, 2013.

A motion to file a demurrer was granted after the prosecution’s presentation of the testimonies of the apprehending officers because
the prosecution failed to present the testimony of the confidential informant. It has long been settled that the grant of a demurrer is
tantamount to an acquittal. An acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the finality of his
acquittal. This rule, however, is not without exception. The rule on double jeopardy is subject to the exercise of judicial review by way
of the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court finds and so holds that the grant of the
demurrer for this reason alone was not supported by prevailing jurisprudence and constituted grave abuse of discretion.

MERENCILLO V. PEOPLE (2007)

Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or reflect on the
witnesses’ honesty. The test is whether the testimonies agree on essential facts and whether the respective versions corroborate and
substantially coincide with each other so as to make a consistent and coherent whole. Thus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in
details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be successfully invoked as grounds for acquittal.

Marino B. Icdang v. Sandiganbayan, et al, G.R. No. 185960, January 25, 2012

Petitioner claims that his right to due process was violated when his counsel failed to assist him during the promulgation of the
judgment. He faults the Sandiganbayan for proceeding with the promulgation despite the petitioner not then being assisted by his
counsel, and being a layman he is not familiar with court processes and procedure. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides: The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of
the court in which it was rendered.However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence
of his counsel or representative.” There is nothing in the rules that requires the presence of counsel for the promulgation of the
judgment of conviction to be valid. While notice must be served on accused and his counsel, the latter’s absence during the
promulgation of judgment would not affect the validity of the promulgation. Indeed, no substantial right of the accused on the merits
was prejudiced by such absence of his counsel when the sentence was pronounced.

People of the Philippines vs. Val Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 130714 & 139634, October 16, 2012

At the outset, the Court notes that these cases were elevated to Us on automatic review in view of the RTC’s imposition of the death
penalty upon appellant in its June 25, 1997 Decision. However, with the Court’s pronouncement in the 2004 case of People vs. Mateo,
providing for and making mandatory the intermediate review by the CA of cases involving the death penalty, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the proper course of action would be to remand these cases to the appellate court for the conduct of an intermediate
review.

DENNIS T. VILLAREAL v. CONSUELO C. ALIGA. G.R. NO 166995, JANUARY 13, 2014

A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing
the accused in double jeopardy. However, in such case, the People is burdened to establish that the court a quo, acted without
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to
a court simply because of its alleged misapplication of facts and evidence, and erroneous conclusions based on said evidence.
Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, and not errors or mistakes in the findings and conclusions of the trial court.

CHAN v. HONDA MOTORS

The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must issued upon probable cause; (2) the
probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of
probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
(4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.

Roan vs. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 686

The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge himself in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and
under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, on facts personally known to them.

Luz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012

It is the State that has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained, and was freely
and voluntarily given. In this case, all that was alleged was that petitioner was alone at the police station at three in the morning,
accompanied by several police officers. These circumstances weigh heavily against a finding of valid consent to a warrantless search.

Elenita C. Fajardo vs. People of the Philippines., G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the “plain view” of an officer, who has a right to be in the position to have that view,
are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. It applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement
officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes
may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial
intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand, and its discovery
inadvertent.