CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Lectures
General Principles
Pinote vs. Ayco, 477 SCRA 409
The trial prosecutor may, at any time, in the exercise
of his discretion, take over from the private prosecutor
the actual conduct of the trial.
Torres vs. Aguinaldo 461 SCRA 599
Baltazar vs. Pantig G.R. No. 149111, Aug. 9, 2005
Once a case has already been filed in court, a trial
prosecutor may be compelled to prosecute the case
notwithstanding his personal convictions or opinions.
He should present the case to the best of his ability
and let the court decide the merits of the case on the
basis of the evidence adduced by both parties.
Effect of institution of criminal action
It interrupts the running of the prescriptive periods of
violations of special laws or offenses other than those
penalized by the RPC
Zaldivia vs. Reyes G.R. No. L-102342, July 3, 1992
The filing of complaint for purposes of preliminary
investigation starts the prosecution process.
Sec. 412 of RA 7160, Local Government Code of 1990
REMEDIES OF OFFENDED PARTY IF NPS
REFUSES TO FILE INFO
File an action for mandamus, in case of grave abuse of
discretion
Lodge a new complaint before court having jurisdiction
over offense where there is no double jeopardy
Take up matter with Secretary of Justice
Institute admin charges against prosecutor
File criminal action against prosec
File civil action for damages
Ask for a special prosecutor
May injunction issue to restrain criminal
prosecution?
NO - public interest requires that criminal acts be
immediately investigated and prosecuted for the
protection of the society. (Domingo vs.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 103276, April 14, 1996).
EXCEPT
Hernandez vs. Albano, GR No. L-19272 January 25,
1967
When there is a prejudicial question which is
subjudice;
Planas vs. Gil, GR No. L-46440, Jan. 18, 1939
Lopez vs. City Judge, GR No. L-25795, Oct. 29, 1966
When it is a case of persecution rather thatn
prosecution
EXCEPT
When the charges are manifestly false and motivated
by vengeance
Salonga vs. Pano, GR No. L-59524, Feb. 18, 1985
Brocka vs. Enrile, GR No. 69863-65, Dec. 10, 1990
Young vs. Rafferty, GR No. L-10951, Feb. 14, 1916
COMPLAINT (filed before NPS)
Referral letter from the law enforcement agency
Affidavit of the offended party
Letter (sworn or not) from the offended party
Referral letter from a committee of the Senate of
House of Rep. or any gov’t agencies
Formal complaint
POLICY ON FORMS
As a general rule, a complaint filed with the prosecutor
must be sworn by the complainant, to discourage
harassment charges.
However, referral letter-complaints from law
enforcement agencies or institutions need not be
sworn.
People vs. Sangil 4 SCRA 722
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO FILE
The offended party
Any person or persons authorized by law to file a
complaint
Any law enforcement officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated
Salazar vs. Pp G.R. No. 149472, Oct. 15, 2002
Perez vs. Monetary Board 20 SCRA 592
Under the Rule on Summary Procedure
A complaint may be directly filed in the MTC,
provided that in Metro Manila and chartered cities,
the criminal action may only be commenced by the
filing of the information, which means, only by the
prosecutor, except when the offense cannot be
prosecuted de oficio.
Prosecution in the RTC is always commenced by
information.
An error in the name of the accused is not reversible
as long as his identity is sufficiently established. This
defect is curable at any stage of the proceedings as
insertion of the real name of accused is merely a
matter of form. (Pp vs. Padica, GR No. 102645, April 7,
1993).
The qualifying and aggravating circumstances cannot
be appreciated even if proved unless alleged in the
information. (Pp vs. Perreras, GR No. 139622, 31 July
2001).
It is not the designation of the offense that is
controlling, the facts alleged therein and not its title
determine the nature of crime. (Pp vs. Magdowa, GR
No. L-48457, Dec. 13, 1941).
The accused may be convicted of a crime more serious
than that named in the title or preliminary part if such
crime is covered by the facts alleged in the body of the
information and its commission is established by
evidence. (buhat vs. CA, GR No. 119601, Dec. 17, 1996.
People v. Mabuyo, 63 SCRA 532 (1975) -Unless place of
commission is an essential element of the crime, the
accused may be convicted of a crime committed in a
place other than the place alleged in the information,
as long as such other place is still within the
jurisdiction of the court. 
Rocaberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152 (1991)
Should there be duplicity of offense in the
information, the accused must move for the quashal of
the same BEFORE arraignment. Otherwise, he is
deemed to have waived the objection and may be
found guilty of as many offenses as those charged and
proved during the trial.
Splitting of case is NOT allowed
Amendments
KINDS -
A. before accused enters his plea
as to anything which does not downgrade the charge or
exclude any accused – without leave of court
downgrade the charge or excludes an accused
- upon motion by the prosecutor
- with notice to the offended party
- with leave of court
Amendments
B. after arraignment but before judgment
only as to form – with leave of court and when it can be
done without causing prejudice to the rights of the
accused.
wrong offense charged (amendment by substitution)
Note: the court shall dismiss the original case upon the filing of a new
one charging the proper offense, provided the accused would not be
placed in double jeopardy.
Except: when a fact supervenes which changes the nature of the crime
charged in the information or upgrades it to a higher crime; but
there is a need to arraign the accused.
Amendment is only in FORM -

Where it neither affects nor alters the nature of the

offense charged; or
Where the change does not deprive the accused of a
fair opportunity to present his defense; or
Where it does not involve a change in the basic theory
of the prosecution.
Amendment is in substance-

Almeda vs. Villaluz, GR No. L-31665, August 6, 1975 –

where it covers matters involving the recital of facts
constituting the offense charged and determinative of
the jurisdiction of the court.
Requisites for substitution of a defective
information
It involves a substantial change from the original
charge;
The substitution must be with leave of court as the
original info is to be dismissed
Another preliminary investigation must be conducted
and the accused to plead anew
Substitution presupposes that the new information
involves a different offense which does not include or is
not necessarily included in the original charge
Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 695 – where
second information involves the same offense, or an
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the first information, an amendment of
the info is sufficient; otherwise, where the new info
charges an offense which is distinct and different from
that initially, a substitution is in order.
Sec. 19, R. 119 – when it becomes manifest at anytime
before judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be
convicted of the offense charged or any other offense
necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be
discharged if there appears good cause to detain him.
In such case, the court shall commit the accused to
answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original
case upon the filing of the proper information.
In criminal procedure, venue is jurisdictional. In civil
procedure, venue is procedural and may be waived.
Larranaga vs. CA, 287 SCRA 581 – a petition for a
change of venue of the PI should be addressed to the
Secretary of Justice who has control and supervision
over the conduct of PI which is a function of the
Executive Department and not the Judiciary.
Prosecution of Civil Actions
Criminal action = civil action (deemed instituted)
Except -
When offended party waives the civil action
When offended party reserves his right to institute
separate civil action
When offended party institutes a civil action prior to
the criminal action
Exception to the Exceptions
No reservation to file a separate civil action for -
violations of BP 22 shall be allowed. The criminal
action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action
cases before the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 4, RA 8249) 
The same is intended to prevent double recovery.
(Yakult Phils. Vs. CA, GR No. 91856, Oct. 5, 1990)
Only the civil liability arising from the crime charged
(cause of action arising from delict) as a felony is now
deemed instituted.
Counterclaims, cross-claims, third party complaints
are no longer allowed in a criminal proceeding. Any
claim which could have the subject thereof may be
litigated in a separate civil action.
Compromise on civil aspect
The offended party may compromise the civil aspect
of the crime, provided that it must be entered before
or during the litigation, and not after final judgment.
A compromise on the civil aspect is valid even if it
turns out to be unsatisfactorily either to one or both of
the parties.
Primacy of criminal action
After criminal action is filed, civil action not reserved
cannot be instituted until final judgment
If civil action is instituted before criminal action, the
pending civil action shall be suspended until final judgment
Except –
-independent civil actions
-prejudicial questions
-consolidation
-civil action is not intended to enforce civil liability
arising from offense
Where the criminal case was dismissed before trial
because offended party executed an affidavit of
desistance, the civil action thereof is similarly
dismissed.
Prejudicial question
Is one which arises in a case, the resolution of which is
a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein and
the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal
PQ may be raised during the PI or in court before the
prosecution rests its case
Suspension of the criminal case due to a PQ is only a
procedural matter, and is subject to a waiver by virtue
of prior acts of the accused
There is no PQ where one is administrative and the
other is civil
A PQ is based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused
The petition to suspend shall be filed in the same
criminal action at any time before prosecution rests
Elements
The civil action must be instituted PRIOR to criminal
action
Civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action
The resolution of such issue determines whether or
not the criminal action may proceed
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (RULE 112) 
- 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. 
Gen. Rule: Preliminary investigation is required
Exceptions:
Penalty is at most 4 years, 2 months
when accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant
(Sec. 7, Rule 112) - INQUEST
Purposes
To determine if a crime has been committed (Mercado
vs. CA, GR No. 109036, July 5, 1995)
To protect accused from the inconvenience of
defending himself unnecessarily when probability of
his guilt can be ascertained summarily
To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and
expensive pubic trial (Rodis vs Sandiganbayan, GR Nos.
71404-09 Oct. 26, 1988)
To protect the state from having to conduct useless and
expensive trials (Tandoc vs. Resultan, GR No. L-69210,
July 5, 1989.
PI: Personal statutory right
The right to p.i. is a personal right covered by statute
and may be waived expressly or by implication. It is
not merely procedural but a substantive right included
in the due process law. (Go vs. CA, GR No. 101837, Feb.
11, 1992)
P.I. deemed waived:
Failure to claim it before accused pleaded
His silence
Failure to request it within 5 days from the time he
learns of the filing of complaint or information (in
inquest cases)
Probable cause
Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan , GR No. 108251, Jan. 31,
1996 – the term does not mean “actual and positive
cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a
finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry
into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that an act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense
charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of
evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.
Webb vs. De Leon (247 SCRA 652)
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not a crime
has been committed and was committed by the
suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear
and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and
definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely
binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a
pronouncement of guilt.
No fixed formula for p.c.
Fernando vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 96182, Aug. 19,
1992 – there is no general formula or fixed rue for the
determination of probable cause, since the same must
be decided in light of conditions obtaining in given
situations and its existence depends to a large degree
upon the finding or opinion of the investigating
prosecutor conducting the investigation. However,
such a finding should not disregard the facts before
the investigating prosecutor nor run counter to the
clear dictates of reason.
Sound discretion of prosecutor
The institution of a criminal action depends upon the
sound discretion of the prosecutor. He may or may not
file the complaint or information, follow or not follow
that presented by the offended party, according to
whether the evidence, in his opinion, is sufficient or
not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
Sound discretion of prosecutor
Venus vs. Desierto, 198 SCRA 196 – the approach of
the courts to the quashing of criminal charges
necessarily differs from the way a prosecutor would
handle exactly the same question – a court faced with a
50/50 proposition of guilt or innocence always decides
in favor of innocence, while a prosecutor, conscious
that he represents the offended party, may decide to
eave the problem to the discretion of the court.
Procedure of p.i.
Filing of complaint accompanied by the affidavits and
supporting documents which must be executed
underoath
Within 10 days after the filing, the investigating
officer shall either dismiss or issue subpoena
If subpoena is issued, respondent shall submit
counter-affidavit within 10 days from receipt
Clarificatory hearing (optional), within 10 days where
issues are joined
Resolution
Respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to
dismiss in lieu of counter-affidavit. The respondent
has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the
complainant may present.
Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review
General rule:
A memorandum, manifestation or motion to
dismiss signed by counsel of the respondent and
filed before the prosecution office is a prohibitive
pleading (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.
CA, 257 SCRA 200) and cannot take the place of a
counter-affidavit. It should be ignored. Only a
counter-affidavit subscribed and sworn to by the
respondent before the public prosecutor can
dispute or put at issue the allegations in the
complaint. However if such memorandum,
manifestation or motion to dismiss is verified by
the respondent himself, the same may be
considered as his counter-affidavit.
Exception to general rule:
 the circumstances specified in par. b (2) above;
 the fact that the complaint, or one similar thereto or
identical therewith, has previously been filed with the
Office and has been fully adjudicated upon on the merits
after due preliminary investigation, or
 the extinction of respondent’s criminal liability by reason
of death, pardon, amnesty, repeal of the law under which
prosecution is sought, or any other legal causes.
Determination of investigating prosecutor
Determination of investigating prosecutor is
RECOMMENDATORY, which may be reversed or
modified
Where the recommendation is dismissal but his
findings is reversed on the ground that a probable
cause exists, the city/provincial prosecutor himself
may file or direct another assistant to file the
corresponding information, without need of another
preliminary investigation.
WRITTEN APPROVAL REQUIRED IN THE
DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT OR FILING OF
INFORMATION IN COURT
No Complaint or Information may be filed or
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the
prior written authority or approval of the
Provincial/City Prosecutor concerned within five (5)
days from the date of his resolution.
ACTION ON A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
A motion for reconsideration filed within 15 days from
receipt of the resolution shall be acted upon within 30
days from receipt of the motion by the assigned
prosecutor. The motion must be verified and
accompanied by a proof of service to the opposing
party and must state clearly and distinctly the grounds
relied upon in support of the motion.
ACTION ON A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Where the Information has already been filed in
court, the Provincial/City Prosecutor may not give due
course to the motion for reconsideration until there is
showing that the movant has filed a motion with the
court for the suspension of the proceedings and the
court has granted such motion to suspend hearings.
ACTION ON A REINVESTIGATION

Before the filing of information in court, a motion for

reinvestigation of the case may be filed with the
Provincial/City Prosecutor or Regional State Prosecutor,
provided that when the case has been appealed to the
Secretary of Justice or the Regional State Prosecutor, such
motion may be filed in such offices.
After the court has acquired jurisdiction over the case, any
motion for reinvestigation shall be addressed to the court
and not to the public prosecutor or secretary of Justice. It is
the trial judge who has sole authority to grant or deny the
motion for reinvestigation (Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA
469; Velasquez vs. Tuquero, 182 SCRA 388).
APPEAL/PETITION FOR REVIEW

 What may be appealed – the resolutions of Chief

State/Regional State/Provincial/City Prosecutor in
criminal cases may be subject of appeal or petition
for review
Venue for the filing of appeal/petition
for review
 in cases which fall under the RTC jurisdiction
appeals/petition for review shall be filed with the Office of
the Secretary of Justice
In cases cognizable in the lower courts shall be filed with
the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, and the
resolution of the RSP is final.
However, in the interest of justice and pursuant to his
residual authority of supervision and control over the
prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice may, order the review
by his office of the resolutions of the Chief State and the
Regional State Prosecutors in the cases appealed to them.
Period to file the appeal/petition for
review
 must be filed within 15 days from receipt of the
questioned resolution by the party or his counsel or
if a motion for reconsideration has been filed,
within 15 days from receipt denying the motion for
reconsideration. Only one (1) motion for
reconsideration is entertained.
Motion for reinvestigation pending
appeal
 on the ground that new and material evidence has
been newly discovered which appellant could not,
with reasonable diligence, have discovered during
the preliminary investigation ad which, if produced
and admitted, would probably change the
resolution.
Motion for reconsideration
 aggrieved party may file a motion for
reconsideration within a non-extendible period of 15
days from receipt of the resolution on the petition
for appeal.
Effect of filing of appeal/petition for
review
 the filing of appeal or petition for review shall not
prevent the filing of the Information in court unless
the Secretary of Justice/Chief State/Regional State
Prosecutor as the case may be, directs otherwise.
INQUEST
- is an informal and summary investigation conducted
by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving
persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a
warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of
determining whether or not said persons should
remain under custody and correspondingly be charged
in court.
COMMENCEMENT
Upon receipt of inquest prosecutor of the following
documents:
Affidavit of arrest
Investigation report
Sworn statements of complainants or witnesses
Other supporting evidence gathered by police in the
course of investigation
Determination of the arrest
The inquest prosecutor shall first determine if the
arrest of the detained person was made in accordance
with sec. 5 R. 113 which provide that arrests without a
warrant may be effected.
For this purpose, the inquest prosecutor may
summarily examine the arresting officers on the
circumstances surrounding the arrest or apprehension
of the detained person.
Probable cause in inquest
People vs. Tudtud, GR No. 144037, Sept. 26, 2003 –
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion that the person to be arrested is about to
commit or is attempting to commit a crime, or is in the
act of committing a crime, or has committed a crime,
either in the presence or without the presence of the
arresting officer.
Where arrest of detained person not
properly effected
Recommend release of arrested person
Prepare a resolution indicating the reasons for action
taken; and
Forward to the prosecutor general/city/provincial
prosecutor together with record of case
If release is approved but evidence warrants
the conduct of p.i.
Serve the order of rlease on l.e.o. having custody
Direct said officer to serve to detainee subpoena or
notice of p.i., together with copies of complaint,
affidavits and other supporting evidence
Where arrest was properly effected
Detainee shall be asked if he desires to avail of p.i.,
and if he does, with assistance of counsel, shall
execute a waiver of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code
The p.i. may be conducted by the inquest prosecutor
or by any other prosecutor to whom the case may be
assigned, which investigation shall be terminated
within 15 days from its inception
Inquest proper
Where detainee does not opt for p.i. or otherwise
refuses to execute a waiver, the inquest prosecutor
shall proceed with the conduct of inquest,
notwithstanding the absence of counsel, by examining
the sworn statements of complainant and witnesses
If there exists probable cause, prepare resolution with
information.
If inquest falls on RSP, where no bail is required,
inquest prosecutor shall recommend release of
arrested person and prepare information for filing.
Inquest proper
If no probable cause, recommend release of detainee
and prepare resolution indicating the reasons for the
action taken
Inquest must be terminated within the period
prescribed under Art. 125 of the RPC, however –
 the means of communication
Hour of arrest
Other circumstances, i.e. availability of clerk of court,
availability of judge, the fact that govt offices close at 5
pm
Important matters -
Pp vs. Figueroa 27 SCRA 1239 – after filing of the info
in court without p.i., the accused, may, within 5 days
from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a p.i. with
the same right to adduce evidence in his defense
The conduct of an inquest should never be initiated in
the absence of an affidavit of arrest
Rule 113 - Arrest
Is the taking of a person into custody in order that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of a
crime;
Since arrest involves a curtailment of a basic natural
right, it is generally necessary that a warrant of arrest
for the seizure of an individual be issued by the proper
authority.
Protected by the Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2, Bill of
Rights
Pp vs. Joson 46 Phil 381 – when accused voluntarily
appears after a complaint in a criminal action is filed
against him, and gives bond for his appearance at any
time he may be called, no arrest is necessary.
Voluntary appearance relieves the necessity for an
actual arrest.
Warrant of arrest
Issued by a judge upon a probable cause determined
by him, after examining under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing a person to be seized.
BAIL
purpose is to entitle the accused provisional liberty
pending trial. The right to bail is guaranteed by the
Constitution. It is not required of a person charged
with an offense the penalty is not higher than 6
months imprisonment and/or fine of P2,000.00 or
both
Except
-when he is caught in flagrante,
-when he confesses to the commission of the offense,
-when he is an escaped prisoner, evaded sentence or
jumped bail
-when he violated sec. 2 of R.A. 6036 (release on
recognizance)
-when he is a recidivist or habitual delinquent
-when he commits the offense while on parole or under
conditional pardon
-when accused has already been pardoned by the
municipal/city mayor for violation of municipal/city
ordinances for at least two times