Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 106

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

By Atty. Chato Olivas-Gallo


Lecturer on Criminal Procedure, University of the Philippines

c
Constitutional Protections
 Bill of Rights, Article III
Ô ëec. 2 ± Right against unreasonable searches and
seizures
Ô ëec. 3 ± Right to privacy of communication and
correspondence
Ô ëec. 12 - Right of persons under investigation
Ô ëec. 19 ± Prohibition against cruel and inhuman
punishment

°
Revised Penal Code
 Art. 124 ± Arbitrary detention
Ô Public officer is liable for imprisonment: arresto
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal minimum
 Art. 125 ± Delay in delivery of detained persons
Ô 12 hours ± light penalties
Ô 18 hours ± correctional penalties
Ô 36 hours ± afflictive or capital penalties

G
Rights of persons arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation (RA 7438)
 Assistance of counsel ± competent and independent
 Information about his rights
 Written custodial investigation report
 Visitation rights
Ô Lawyer
Ô Doctor
Ô Family member
Ô Priest, religious minister
Ô NGO m
POLICE INVEë IGA ION ë AGE

ë
When does an investigation begin?
 People vs. Andan (3 March 1997)
 An investigation begins when it is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to
focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when
the police investigator starts interrogating or
exacting a confession from the suspect in connection
with an alleged offense.

§
ëpontaneous confession made before
custodial investigation
 People vs. Baloloy (April 2002)
 Crime: Rape with homicide
 Victim: 11-year-old girl
 Accused verbally confessed to Barangay Captain
that he intended only to frighten the girl but when
she tried to run away, he chased her, raped her and
threw her body into the ravine
 No counsel when confession was made to Barangay
Captain

ëpontaneous confession before
custodial investigation
 Accused's confession was free, voluntary and
spontaneous; made before he was placed under
custodial investigation. - Admissible
 What the Constitution bars is compulsory disclosure
of incriminating facts.

w
Does accused need counsel
during a police line-up?
 People vs. Escordial (16 January 2002)
Ô Robbery with rape
Ô As a general rule, counsel is not required when a
person is presented in a police line-up for
identification purposes.
Ô However, in this case, accused was already the
focus of attention when the police line-up was
conducted because he had already been identified
as possible perpetrator of the crime. In that sense,
he was already under custodial investigation.
^
Does accused need counsel during
re-enactment?
 People vs. eves (2 April 2001)
Ô Charge: Parricide
Ô In convicting accused, trial court relied upon
identification by witness during custodial
investigation
Ô How identification was made: police ordered
accused to board jeepney, position himself a
certain way and wave his hand; only then did the
witness say that she saw him near the crime scene

c
Is accused entitled to counsel during
re-enactment?
 [es, in this case
 Mode of identification was pointedly suggestive
 Accused was already a suspect when the re-
enactment was made
 Counsel not present
 ainted as an uncounseled confession, violative of
Constitutional protection

cc
When is extrajudicial confession valid?
 People vs. Porio (13 February 2002)
 4 requisites
Ô Voluntary
Ô Competent and independent counsel preferably of
the confessant's choice
Ô Express
Ô Written


Is confession to the media admissible?
 People vs. Andan (3 March 1997)
 Rape with homicide
 Accused repeatedly confessed his guilt to news
reporters.
 Confession admissible
Ô Given free from any undue influence from the
police authorities.
Ô News reporters did not act under the direction and
control of the police.
cG
Is confession to the media admissible?
 Reporters did not force accused; even asked for his
permission before interview
 Interviews were on separate days; not once did
accused insist on innocence. Instead, he repeatedly
confessed his guilt and supplied all details in the
commission of the crime, and consented to its
reenactment.
 All confessions to reporters were witnessed by his
family and other relatives.
cm
Is confession to the media admissible?
 ï    
      
          
      !"# 
           
         #  
          
         
     #  


Is confession to the mayor admissible?
 ëame case: People vs. Andan
 In this case, the mayor did not ask accused any
question; instead, accused voluntarily confessed to
the mayor
 His uncounseled confession did not violate any
constitutional right


ARREë WI H WARRAN

c
Rules on arrest
 General rule:
Ô Arrest can only be made pursuant to a warrant
 Exception:
Ô Warrantless arrest based on Rule 113, ëec. 5, ëec.
13
Ô Note: Inquest procedure

cw
Personal examination by judge
 Art. III, ëection 2, Constitution:
« [N]o « warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.

c^
When should an arrest warrant be
executed?
 Within 10 days from receipt by the head of office to
whom the warrant of arrest was delivered (Rule 113,
ëec. 4)
 After expiration of ten-day period, the officer shall
report to the judge who issued the warrant (Rule
113, ëec. 4)
 May be executed any day, and any time of day or
night
 Although execution period is 10 days, an arrest
warrant does not expire, not like search°warrant
Method of making arrest
 Officer must inform the person of:
Ô Cause of arrest and fact that warrant was issued
 Except:
Ô When person flees, forcibly resists, or when giving
of info would imperil arrest
 Officer need not have warrant in his possession but
must be shown to person arrested as soon as
practicable when requested
Ô Rule 113, ëec. 7
°c
After person is arrested, what is the duty
of the arresting officer?
 Arresting authority takes person into custody
through actual restraint or submission (Rule 113,
ëec. 1)
 No violence or unnecessary force shall be used;
person arrested shall not be subject to greater
restraint than is necessary (Rule 113, sec. 2)

°°
Rights of officer
 o summon assistance (Rule 113, ëec. 10)
 o break into building or enclosure, if refused
admittance, after announcing authority and purpose
(ëec. 11)
 o break out of building or enclosure when
necessary to liberate himself (ëec. 12)

°G
Rights of persons arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation (RA 7438)
 Assistance of counsel ± competent and independent
 Information about his rights
 Written custodial investigation report
 Visitation rights
Ô Lawyer
Ô Doctor
Ô Family member
Ô Priest, religious minister
Ô NGO °m
WARRAN LEëë ARREë

°ë
By a peace officer or private person
 Rule 113, ëec. 5
Ô (a) When in the presence of the peace officer or
private person, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing or is attempting
to commit an offense
Ô (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;
    $        
         
% &  °§
By a peace officer or private person
 Rule 113, ëec. 5
Ô (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
 ëec. 13
Ô If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued,
any person may immediately pursue or retake him
without a warrant at any time and place
° in the
Philippines.
Inquest
 Inquest ± informal and summary investigation
conducted by public prosecutor involving persons
arrested and detained without a warrant of arrest
 Purpose ± to determine if they should remain under
custody and charged in court
(ëource: DOJ Dept. Circular No. 61, New Rules on
Inquest)

°w
Inquest
Inquest proceedings are considered commenced upon
receipt by the Inquest Office from the law
enforcement authorities of the complaint / referral
documents which include´
a) Affidavit of arrest
b) Investigation report
c) ëtatement of complainant and witnesses
d) Other supporting evidence gathered by police during
investigation
°^
Inquest
Initial duty of inquest officer: determine if the
warrantless arrest is valid

If not valid, he must recommend the release of the


detained / arrested person

If valid, the inquest officer asks if the arrested person


would like to have preliminary investigation and
therefore waive Art. 125
G
Inquest
If arrested person does not want to waive Art. 125, the
inquest officer conducts an inquest by examining the
sworn statements of complainant and witnesses, and
may require their presence in an informal and
summary investigation to determine probable cause

If he finds probable cause, inquest officer prepares


information and recommends filing thereof in court.
Otherwise, he will recommend the release of the
detained / arrested person. Gc
Inquest
Whenever a dead body is found, and there is reason to
believe that the death resulted from foul play or from
unlawful acts of other persons, the inquest oficer
shall
a) proceed to the crime scene / place of discovery of
the dead person
b) cause an immediate autopsy to be conducted
c) direct the police investigator to cause photo-taking
d) supervise investigation by police and recovery of

articles and evidence
e) submit written report to City / Prov. prosecutor
ëUPREME COUR DECIëIONë
ON ARREë

GG
Probable cause test
 å he probable cause test is an objective one, for in
order that there be probable cause the facts and
circumstances must be such as would warrant a
belief by a reasonable prudent man that the accused
is guilty of the crime which has just been
committed.´
Ô People vs. Allado, 4 May 1994

Gm
How does a judge determine
probable cause?
 AAA vs. Carbonell (8 June 2007)
 he judge may rely on the report of the investigating
prosecutor provided he also evaluates the
documentary evidence in support thereof.
 What the law requires as personal determination of
the part of the judge is that he should not rely solely
on the report of the investigating prosecutor.


Warrant against 50 John Does
 Pangandaman vs. Casar (14 April 1988)
 ëhooting incident on 27 July 985 leaving at least 5
persons dead and 2 wounded
 On 10 August, a ëaturday, the judge received a
criminal complaint for multiple murder. On same
day, he personally examined three witnesses under
oath, reduced his questions and their answers into
writing, approved the complaint and issued a
warrant of arrest against 14 persons and 50 John
Does. G§
Warrant against 50 John Does
 HELD: Warrant of arrest against the 14 named
persons was validly issued, having been identified
by the witnesses
 BU the warrant against the 50 John Does is VOID
for being a general warrant. he witnesses could not
identify any of them. his type of warrant is
unconstitutional and was once anathemized as
totally subversive of liberty. It violates the
requirement that persons should be particularly
described.
G
Evidence inadmissible because of
invalid in flagrante delicto arrest
 People vs. Nasario Molina (19 February 2001)
 Mula and Molina were on board a trisikad when
police officers approached with their vehicle and
ordered the trisikad to stop. Mula then handed over a
black bag to Molina. Molina told the police: åBoss if
possible we will settle this.´
 he police insisted that the bag be opened, revealing
dried marijuana leaves. hey arrested Mula and
Molina.
Gw
Evidence inadmissible because of
invalid in flagrante delicto arrest
 he accused insisted during trial that the evidence is
inadmissible for violating their constitutional right
against unreasonable search and seizure.
 ëentenced to death.
 ëupreme Court held:
Ô å O ëANC ION DIëREëPEC AND
DIëREGARD FOR HE CONë I U ION IN
HE NAME OF PRO EC ING HE ëOCIE [
FROM LAWBREAKERë Ië O MAKE HE
GOVERNMEN I ëELF LAWLEëë...´
G^
Evidence inadmissible because of
invalid in flagrante delicto arrest
 In in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that
åreliable information´ alone, without any OVER
AC indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
presence and within the view of the arresting
officers are not sufficient to constitute probable
cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
 All efforts for the achievement of a drug-free society
must not encroach on the fundamental rights and
liberties of individuals, which protection extends
even to the basest of criminals.
m
Invalid warrantless arrest after leaving a
vessel, without overt act
 People vs. Aminnudin, 6 July 1988
 Amminudin had just left the vessel when PC officers
accosted him, inspected his bag and found what
looked like marijuana leaves. He was arrested and
detained.
 PC officers admitted they had no warrant. Claimed
they received a tip about his arrival two days before.
 Lt. Querol testified that their procedure is not to
apply for search warrant when their operation will
yield a positive result. mc
Invalid warrantless arrest after leaving a
vessel, without overt act
         
      $    
      '    
             
#       
 Accused was not caught in flagrante as required by
the Rules of Court. Officers had two days to secure a
warrant.
 Marijuana ± inadmissible, åfruit of the poisonous
tree´ m°
here must be an overt act in addition to
an informer's tip
 People vs. udtud and Bolong (2003)
 Informer told police that udtud was arriving that
day with new marijuana stocks
 eam of 3 policemen ± posted along highway. At 6
pm, 2 men got off the bus with a carton marked
åKing Flakes´. he policemen asked to see the box'
contents which udtud opened and revealed several
items including a package with marijuana leaves
 Police arrested udtud, who did not resist
mG
here must be an overt act in addition to
an informer's tip
 he search preceded the arrest in this case.
 Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must
precede the search; the process cannot be reversed.
Nonetheless, a search that is substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the
arrest if the police have probable cause to make the
arrest at the outset of the search.
 In this case, the accused did not perform any overt
act nor did they act in a suspicious manner that
would hint that a crime has been, is being
mm
or about to
be committed. hey were merely carrying a box.
here must be an overt act in addition to
an informer's tip
 udtud opened the box at gunpoint; it was not a
consented search.
 he marijuana leaves are inadmissible.
 å he Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional
government. If people are stripped naked of their
rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive
and government becomes meaningless.´


Consequences of unlawful arrest
 RPC, Art. 269 ± Unlawful arrest ± he penalty of
arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case
other than those authorized by law, or without
reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain
another for the purpose of delivering him to the
proper authorities.


Consequences of unlawful arrest
 Article 32, Civil Code - Any public officer or
employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
manner impedes or impairs any of the following
rights and liberties of another person shall be liable
to the latter for damages:
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention

m
Consequences of unlawful arrest
 Administrative sanctions
 60 days to 6 months suspension (minimum)
 One rank demotion (medium)
 Dismissal from service (maximum)
 ëerious irregularity in the performance of duty
(Rule 21, ëec. C of Memorandum Circular No.
2007-001 of the DILG entitled åUniform Rules of
Procedure before the Administrative Authorities and
the Internal Affairs ëervice of the PNP, letter år' ±
Commit any act or omission that constitutes a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal mw
Code or special
laws´
Consequences of unlawful arrest
 Accused can question legality / validity of his arrest
or of the warrant
Ô Pursuant to Rule 114, ëection 25, Rules of
Criminal Procedure

m^
ëEARCH AND ëEIZURE

ë
ëearch warrant defined
 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 (Rule 126, ëec. 1)

ëc
Where must an application for search
warrant be filed?
1. In any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
crime was committed
2. 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 whee the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed,
the application shall only be made in the court where
the criminal action is pending. (Rule 126,
ë°
ëec. 2)
What personal property may be seized?
(a) ëubject of the offense;
(b) ëtolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of
the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of
committing an offense.
(Rule 126, ëec. 3)

ëG
What are the requisites
for issuance of a warrant?
 Probable cause in connection with one specific
offense
 o be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witness he may produce
 Particularly describing the place to be searched and
the things to be seized which may be anywhere in
the Philippines.
(Rule 126, ëec. 4)
ëm
What are the requisites
for issuance of a warrant?
he 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.
(Rule 126, ëec. 5)

ëë
What are the rights of an
officer effecting the search?
he officer, if refused admittance to the place of
directed search after giving notice of his purpose and
authority, may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein to execute the warrant to liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained therein. (Rule 126, ëec. 7)

ë§
Who must be present when the
search is conducted?
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.
(Rule 126, ëec. 8)

ë
When must the warrant be served?
he 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. (Rule 126,
ëec. 9)

ëw
What is the validity period
of a search warrant?
Validity of search warrant. A search warrant shall be
valid for ten (10) days from its date. hereafter, it
shall be void. (Rule 126, ëec. 10)

ë^
What is the duty of the officer after
seizing the property?
he officer seizing the property under the warrant must
give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful
occupant of the premises in whose presence the
search and seizure were made, or in the absence of
such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in
the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in
which he found the seized property. (Rule 126, ëec.
11)

§
What must an officer do
with the seized property?
a) he officer must forthwith deliver the property
seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together
with a true inventory thereof duly verified under
oath.
(b) en (10) days after issuance of the search warrant,
the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has
been made, and if none, shall summon the person to
whom the warrant was issued and require him to
explain why
§c
What must an officer do
with the seized property?
no return was made. If the return has been made, the
judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule
has been complied with and shall require that the
property seized be delivered to him. he judge shall
see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied
with.
(c) he return on the search warrant shall be filed and
kept by the custodian of the log book on search
warrants who shall enter therein the date of the
return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
§°
Rule 126, ëec. 12
ëearch incident to a lawful arrest
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have
been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.
(Rule 126, ëec. 13)

§G
Motion to quash search warrant or
suppress evidence
A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress
evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted
upon only by the court where the action has been
instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted,
the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court
that issued 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. (Rule 126, ëec. 14)

§m
ëUPREME COUR DECIëIONë
ON ëEARCH AND ëEIZURE

§ë
Particularity of description of items
 Warrant is invalid when items are described
generally:
åBooks of accounts, financial records, vouchers,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals,
portfolios, credit journals, typewriters and other
documents and/or papers showing all business
transactions including disbursement receipts,
balance sheets and profit and loss statements and
Bobbins (cigarette wrappers´)
Ô ëtonehill vs. Diokno (19 June 1967)
§§
Particularity of description of place
People vs. ëalanguit (2001)
Address in the search warrant: åBinhagan ët., ëan Jose,
Quezon City´. In addition, several documents
identified the place, thus sufficient:
a) application for search warrant ± premises located
between 7 and 11 Binhagan ët.
b) deposition of witness described the place as a
åhouse without a number located at Binhagan ët.´
c) Pencil sketch of premises
§
Particularity of description of place
 People vs. Al-Ghoul (2001)
 2 search warrants for certain items in Apartment No.
2 at 154 Obiniana Compound, Deparo Road,
Kalookan City
 Police searched Apartment No. 2 and found one .45
caliber pistol
 Police searched Apartment No. 8 and found several
firearms and ammunitions including 2 M16 rifles, a
demolition charge bar, 2 pieces fragmentation
grenade and many others §w
Particularity of description of place
 Issue: Admissibility
 Held: Item seized from Apartment 2 admissible;
those seized from Apartment 8 inadmissible because
it was not the place described in the search warrant

§^
Particularity of description of person
 Nala vs. Barroso (7 August 2003)
 he search warrant did not correctly state the name
of the accused. Instead of åBernard´ which is the
correct name, the warrant referred to him as
åRomulo´ or åRumolo´ åalias Lolong Nala who is
said to be residing at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaitao,
Bukidnon´
 Held: his does not invalidate the warrant because
the additional description åalias Lolong Nala´
sufficiently enabled the police to identify

him
Personal examination by judge
 Bache vs. Ruiz (GR : 32409)
he judge must personally make a determination of
probable cause. He cannot delegate this duty to
someone else.

c
In illegal possession of firearm, lack of
license must be shown
Nala vs. Barroso (7 August 2003)
 ëearch warrant was issued for illegal possession of
firearm
 Affidavit and testimony of witness, and the police's
application for search warrant DID NO mention
that accused has no license to possess a firearm.
While the witness verbally told the judge, they did
not secure any certification from the appropriate
government agency that accused was not licensed to
possess the firearm which is an essential

element of
the offense
Warrantless searches, when valid
1. Incident to a lawful arrest
2. Consented search
3. ëearches of vessels and aircraft for violation of
immigration, customs and drug laws
4. ëearches of moving vehicles
5. ëearches of automobiles at borders
6. Plain view exception; check point search
7. Regulatory search
G
8. ëtop and frisk
Plain view exception
People vs. Musa (1993)
Plastic bag of marijuana in this case was not in plain
view of the NARCOM agents. hey had to go from
room to room until they saw it in the kitchen.
Contents are inadmissible.
Requirements for plain view doctrine to apply:
1. Prior justification for intrusion
2. Inadvertent discovery
3. Immediately apparent m
Check point search
People vs. Exala (1993)
Police checkpoint regarding unlicensed firearms.
Police discovered a bag which, when opened,
contained marijuana.
Held: Admissible. Valid checkpoint search. he
accused became visibly apprehensive prompting
further search that led to the discovery of the
marijuana inside the bag.


ëtop and frisk
People vs. Posadas (1990)
wo police officers were in the premises of Rizal
Memorial Colleges when they spotted a man
carrying a buri bag and acting suspiciously. When
they approached him, he attempted to flee.
Upon checking the bag, they found a .38 caliber
revolver, two rounds of ammunition, a smoke
grenade and two live ammunitions for a .22 caliber
firearm. At the police station, accused cannot show
any license to possess firearms and ammunition.

Valid arrest and search.
ëtop and frisk
Held: Evidence admissible; search valid.
As between a warrantless search and seizure at military
or police checkpoints and the search in this case,
there is no question that this search is more
reasonable because there was probable cause. he
probable cause is that accused acted suspiciously and
tried to flee with the buri bag, probable cause that he
has hiding something illegal in the bag, and it was
the right and duty of the police to inspect the same.

PRELIMINAR[ INVEë IGA ION

w
What can the Ombudsman
investigate?
George Uy vs. ëandiganbayan (2001 March 20)
‡ Conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute
ALL criminal cases involving public officers and
employees, NO JUë those within jurisdiction of
ëandiganbayan

^
When can PI be conducted even though
trial on the merits has begun?
Rolito Go vs. CA (11 Feb. 1992)
‡ Go was arrested without a warrant when he went to
the police station to verify news that he was being
hunted by the police
‡ Refused to waive RPC 125; murder case was filed;
arraigned over his objection; trial ensued; filed
petition with ëC; four prosecution witnesses
presented already
‡ HELD: No waiver of right to PI
w
When can PI be conducted even though
trial on the merits has begun?
Rolito Go vs. CA (11 Feb. 1992)
‡ åPetitioner was not accorded what he was entitled to
by way of due process. Petitioner was forced to
undergo arraignment and literally pushed to trial
without preliminary investigation, with extraordinary
haste...´
‡ ëC ordered the conduct of PI

wc
WEBB Vë. DE LEON highlights
‡ PROBABLE CAUëE ± standard of an ordinary
person
‡ WARRAN OF ARREë Vë. ëEARCH
WARRAN ± distinctions
± Arrest: person, crime
± ëearch: object, found in the place
± Procedure: Arrest ± independent evaluation by judge
± Procedure: ëearch ± personal examination by judge
‡ DIëCOVER[ PROCEDUREë; ëuppression
‡ PREJUDICIAL PUBLICI [ - requisitew°
JURIëDIC ION

wG
Where can a BP 22 case be filed
People vs. Grospe (20 Jan. 1988)
‡ BP 22 ± transitory crime
‡ Can be filed where any of the elements took place
‡ his case
± Issuance of check ± Guiginto, Bulacan
± Delivery of check ± ëan Fernando, Pampanga
± Knowledge of insufficiency of funds ± a continuing
eventuality

wm
When is one estopped from questioning
jurisdiction?
People vs. Munar (1973)
‡ Case pending for almost 10 years
‡ Party invoked and relied on the court¶s jurisdiction
all this time
‡ On appeal, questioned jurisdiction for the first time
after an adverse decision was rendered
‡ Party not allowed to speculate on the fortunes of
litigation


COMPLAIN / INFORMA ION


When is one estopped from questioning
jurisdiction?
People vs. Munar (1973)
‡ Case pending for almost 10 years
‡ Party invoked and relied on the court¶s jurisdiction
all this time
‡ On appeal, questioned jurisdiction for the first time
after an adverse decision was rendered
‡ Party not allowed to speculate on the fortunes of
litigation

w
Key points
1. he allegations of fact are determinative

2. he following allegation is insufficient:


åwillfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual
abuse on his daughter ... either by raping her or
committing acts of lasciviousness on her´ (People vs.
Danilo dela Cruz, 21 June 2007)

ww
Key points
3. Court must make independent assessment when
prosecutor moves to dismiss the information; cannot
just rely on the prosecutor¶s recommendation
(Crespo vs. Mogul, ëantos vs. Orda)

4. One who is not an offended party is not allowed to


intervene in a criminal case (Ramiscal vs.
ëandiganbayan)

w^
Key points
4. In an Information for rape, it is not enough to state
that the private complaint was the accused¶s
ådaughter who is a minor.´ Exact age must be stated
to alert the accused to the exact nature of the charge.
Liable for simple rape only. (People vs. Mascarinas,
2002)
5. Facts must show that accused is being charged of
qualified rape. his Information is defective: åtaking
advantage of superior strength over the person of his
13-year-old daughter, by means of force, violence,
and intimidation... have repeated carnal^knowledge.
(People vs. Godofredo eves, 20 July 1999)
Key points
5. (cont.) he qualifying circumstance should have
been pleaded in the information: åvictim is under 18
years of age and the offender is a parent´. Held:
Liable for simple rape only. (People vs. Godofredo
eves, 20 July 1999)

^c
BAIL


Key points
1. Arraignment is not required first before posting bail
(Lavides vs. CA, 12 Feb. 2000)

2. Voluntary submission to court¶s custody allows


accused to post bail (Paderanga vs. CA, 1995)

3. Bail is allowed in extradition proceedings (Govt. of


HK ëAR vs. Olalia)
^G
ARRAIGNMEN AND PLEA

^m
Key points
1. åGross inexcusable negligence´ is a mere modality
in committing RA 3019 ëec. 3(e) . herefore, to
amend an Information by replacing ågross neglect of
duty´ with ågross inexcusable negligence´ is merely
an amendment in form, and can be made after
arraignment. (Albert vs. ëandiganbayan, 2009 Feb.)

2. Invalid arraignment = invalid judgment. Improvident


plea; accused did not understand the consequencesof
his guilty plea (People vs. Estomaca)

Key points
3. rial court must consider several aspects in
determining if accused understands the consequences
of his plea. ëee this case: People vs. Alberto Chua, 1
October 2001


QUAëHAL

^
Key points
1. Insufficiency of evidence is NO a ground for
motion to quash. In this instance, the case was
dismissed before evidence was presented. Hence,
jeopardy has not set in. (People vs. Dumlao, 2009)

2. Judge cannot motu proprio dismiss a criminal


information without any motion filed by the accused,
on the ground of alleged violation of the latter¶s right
against ex post facto law and double jeopardy.
(People vs. Nitafan, 1999)
^w
Key points
3. No double jeopardy when accused are being
prosecuted under four national statutes that penalize
different offenses (Loney vs. People, 2006)

4. No double jeopardy when sham trial deprived the


state of due process (Galman vs. ëandiganbayan,
1986)

^^
PRE- RIAL AND RIAL

c
Key points
1. he requisites for discharge of accused as state
witness were present in this case, particularly
absolute necessity, because there was no other direct
evidence to prove the identity of the malefactors
except through his testimony (People vs. Verceles,
2002)

2. he requisites of a valid trial in absentia are present


in this case: arraignment, notice of trial, unjustifiable
failure to appear (Bernardo vs. People, 2007)
cc
JUDGMEN

c°
Key points
1. he court cannot render judgment against the bond
of an accused who had been acquitted (Belfast vs.
People)
2. Minute resolutions are not looked upon with favor
([ao vs. Court of Appeals)
3. Judge of R C must render decision within 90 days
from submission of the case for resolution (Duque
vs. Garrido)
4. When offense proven has prescribed, accused must
be acquitted (Emiliano Francisco vs. People)
cG
5. Imprudence = mere modality (ëamson vs. CA)
NEW RIAL; APPEAL

cm
Key points
1. New trial will be allowed only if evidence is newly
discovered and will probably alter the result
(Custodio vs. ëanduganbayan, 2005)
2. In exceptional cases, new trial may be granted, as
when a person claiming to be a military agent and
therefore licensed to carry firearm, seeks to present
evidence thereon, although evidence is not newly-
discovered (Jose vs. CA, 1976)
3. Only accused may file motion for new trial or
reconsideration. Impermissible for private
complainant to do so (Potot vs. People 2002)
cë
c§