Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crim Pro Summary
Crim Pro Summary
4.
Complaint
Information
A sworn statement
Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
1.
Vessel
6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not available, EXCEPT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
7.
a.
In RTC:
By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite preliminary investigation therein.
b. In Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts:
By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscals office
c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts
By filing the complaint ONLY with the office of the fiscal
In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged (Rule 110, 1)
d. Offenses subject to summary procedure
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of municipal or city ordinances; and (4) criminal cases where the
penalty does not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties and civil liabilities]
The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.
Zaldivia vs. Reyes since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in
court, then the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that.
Reodica vs. CA [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information. It does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only, or for an action
on the merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscals office should suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling
in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, since that particular case involved a violation of an
ordinance. Therefore, the applicable law therein was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for
Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run), 2 of which provides
that period of prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
a. Name of the accused
Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal
(People vs. Guevarra)
Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery
cannot be sustained if there is a variance between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the property stolen.
b. Designation of offense by statute (or of section/subsection of statute violated)
Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may be quashed; however, the prosecution is allowed to
amend the info to include the necessary facts (People vs. Purisima)
c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense
Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)
d. Name of offended party
e. Approximate time of commission
Approximation of time is sufficient; amendment as to time is only a formal amendment; no need to dismiss case (People vs. Molero)
A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since such would allow the prosecution to prove an offense distantly
removed from the alleged date, thus substantially impairing the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges against him (People vs.
Reyes)
f.
Place of commission
Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place alleged, provided that the place of actual
commission was within the courts jurisdiction and accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the information
Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral parts of the crime. If proved, but not alleged,
become only generic aggravating circumstances.
9. Amendment of information and Substitution of information, distinguished
Amendment
Substitution
Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
Continuing offenses
Piracy which is triable anywhere
Libel (residence; or where first published)
In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry
Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place (territorial jurisdiction)
1.
Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2.
Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be prejudicial to the accused and should be allowed (People vs.
CA)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper offense, court shall dismiss original info upon the filing
of a corrected one, provided that the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution)
Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the case; the motion to dismiss must be
addressed to the court which has discretion over the disposition of the case (Republic vs. Sunga)
Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the amendment is made; otherwise, deemed to have
consented thereto.
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally, a flaw in the info)
If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right to question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)
b. Motion to dismiss
May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash
16. Duplicity of Offense (in information or complaint)
Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same information/complaint
Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure is equivalent to a waiver
Exception: when existing laws prescribe a single punishment (complex crimes)
Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action
1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the criminal proceeding to recover damages from the offender.
Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to prove damages, the offended party is not
barred from filing a separate civil action
2. Civil action for recovery of civil liability impliedly instituted, EXCEPT
1.
Waiver
2.
Reservation of right to institute separate action
3.
Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding
civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111 that a reservation be made prior to the
institution of an independent civil action is an unauthorized amendment to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering
substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to prevent delays, to clear congested
dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT
1.
2.
3.
4.
The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action
The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not
The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action: and
The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from crime
Must be made before prosecution presents evidence
Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action
b. Petition to suspend the criminal action
May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a pending civil action
Filed at any time before the prosecution rests
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment
that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action
7.
Filing fees:
1.
2.
1.
5. Procedure
a. If conducted prior to arrest
i.
Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena complainant and respondent to submit affidavits and counteraffidavits
1.
If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he prepares an information and a resolution
i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused is probably guilty thereof
Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted, would be enough to merit a conviction of the
accused
iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint
If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that there is a need to place the accused under
custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest
Flores vs. Sumaling What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while before, it was mandatory for the investigating
judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judges power to order
the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
justice. It is therefore error for the investigating judge to order the issuance of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause,
without making any finding of a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of justice.
1.
Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1.
City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in court
Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge
vii. Records will not form records of the case proper
Court on its own or on motion may order production of record
If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the assistance of counsel, then the procedure for one
prior to arrest is followed
1.
Inquest conducted as follows
When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
When the accused is deprived of his rights
When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for an offense.
Invitations are not arrests and are usually not unconstitutional, but in some cases may be taken as commands (Babst vs. NBI); however,
the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is
considered as placing him under custodial investigation. (RA 7438)
Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
Arrest may be made at any time of the day or night
3. Warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a private person
a. When person to be arrested is committing, attempting or has committed an offense
b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge that the person to be arrested
committed it
Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest (Umil vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case pending)
1.
2.
3.
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
1.
2.
b. Without warrant:
1.
Person is arrested
1.
Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary investigation or inquest
Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
1.
Fiscal files info
5.
1.
Probable cause
2.
Signed by judge
3.
Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to be arrested
John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar)
6. Remedies
a. Petition for writ of habeas corpus
Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the person detained
Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was illegally arrested (void warrant or unlawful warrantless
arrest, or warrantless arrest beyond period with no information filed)
Habeas corpus is not allowed when:
1.
The person is in custody of an officer under process of law, and
2.
The court had jurisdiction to issue the process (Luna vs. Plaza)
If an arrest is improper, the remedy is a motion for quashal of the warrant of arrest and/or a motion to quash the information, not habeas
corpus (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed, the information being the judicial process required by law (Ilagan
vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is proper when a person is being restrained illegally, e.g., imprisoned past maximum penalty allowed by law (Gumabon vs.
Director of Prisons)
b. Quashal of warrant of arrest
Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed
c. Motion to quash information
Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
Must be made in a special appearance before the court questioning only its lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court would be deemed a submission to the
authority of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction it lacked over the person
Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs.
Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation
Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation
1.
When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)
1.
2.
3.
Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal subject to consent of bondsman
In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail or recognizance
5. Procedure
a.
i.
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
(4) Absent (3), with the MTC
1.
Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do some particular
act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance of the accused for trial
2.
Does not require signature of accused for trial
3.
Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the trial,except:
1.
Substitution of info (see R110, 14)
2.
Court believes that material witness may not appear at the trial
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal offense not higher that 6 month imprisonment and/or
P2000 fine, or both)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a. Caught in flagrante
Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and intimidation)
Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his recognizance)
Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to which the law or ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty
or for 2 or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty
Committed offense while on parole or under conditional pardon
Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2 times
Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light felony or criminal offense the imposable penalty to which does not exceed 6
months and or P2000 fine
Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the imposable principal penalty, without application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance
Accused has applied for probation and before the same has been resolved, but NO BAIL was filed or accused is incapable of filing
one
Youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish bail
b. Automatic cancellation
1.
Case is dismissed
1.
Accused is acquitted
2.
Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not more than 20 years, and:
1.
Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or guilty of the aggravating circumstance of reiteration;
2.
3.
4.
5.
Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear
15. Remedies
1.
2.
For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt
16. Circumstances to be considered in fixing amount of bail:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
17. Notes:
1.
2.
3.
Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person (Callanta vs. Villanueva). However, this
does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the articles seized incidentally to such illegal arrest.
Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation when he failed to do so before
entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior court permission (warrantless
arrest allowed).
Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when such informer was crucial in the operation itself; failure to present the
informer is a denial of the right to confront the witness which merits the reversal of the conviction (People vs. Bagano)
g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his behalf
h. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial, entitling the accused to mandamus to compel
dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained
i.
c.
1.
1.
The offense was made graver by supervening events
2.
The facts constituting the graver offense were only discovered after the filing of the earlier information
No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new charge arose only after arraignment and conviction (People vs. City Court)
No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there was no competent court (Galman vs. Sandiganbayan)
No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of the accused (Caes vs. IAC)
There is double jeopardy if a person is charged twice under different penal statutes for the same acts (People vs. Relova)
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party
5. Remedies
1.
2.
Motion to quash
Motion to dismiss
Both filed on the ground of violation of accuseds rights, thereby ousting the court of jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14
1.
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and that his
failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea
1. Procedure
1.
2.
Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of good repute for probity and ability to defend accused
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment
Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially complied with; if not, case may be remanded for rearraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
1.
Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
2.
Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3.
Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4.
Accused personally makes his plea
5.
Plea is entered into record
6.
If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
People vs. Agbayani the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only when so demanded does denial thereof constitute
reversible error and ground for new trial. Further, such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing Speedy Trial Act of 1997), accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare
for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
j.
Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the manner of statement of such fact is immaterial
(People vs. Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
3. Effects
a. Entry of plea will waive
1.
2.
3.
b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any time before judgment is rendered
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the prosecution of presenting evidence and still result in the
conviction of the accused.
4. Remedies
a. Motion for specification
May be filed any time before plea, even after a MTQ
Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill of Particulars is necessary to clarify the acts for which the
accused is being charged
b. Motion to quash
May be filed at anytime before plea is entered
Based on grounds provided by the rules
c. Motion to suspend arraignment
Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a pending civil case
d. Motion to withdraw an improvident plea of guilt
May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, when it can be shown that the accused was not aware of the
significance of pleading guilty to the charges
Rule 117 Motion to Quash
1. Motion to quash a hypothetical admission that even if all the facts alleged were true, the accused still cannot be convicted due to other
reasons
2. When to file Motion to Quash
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1.
No offense charged
2.
Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3.
Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4.
Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
a. Information does not conform to prescribed form
For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law, only that it alleges that one offense was necessary to
commit the other (People vs. Alagao)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
1.
2.
No territorial jurisdiction
No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver considered even upon failure to move to quash on
such ground
3.
No jurisdiction over person of the accused
The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for the pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs.
Rodriguez)
c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy
Bars another prosecution
No waiver
No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the consent of the accused (Que vs. Cosico), unless ground for dismissal is: (a) denial
of right to speedy trial; or (b) insufficiency of evidence.
If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no valid information and there could be no double jeopardy
(Caniza vs. People)
Cudia vs CA it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should prepare informations for offenses
committed within Pampanga but outside Angeles City. An information must be prepared and presented by the prosecuting attorney or
someone authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a motion to quash the information is a waiver
of all objections to it insofar as formal objections to pleadings are concerned, questions relating to want of jurisdiction may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. Moreover, since the complaint or information was insufficient because it was so defective in form or substance that
conviction upon it could not have been sustained, its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy, and
will not be a bar to a second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single punishment for various offenses
e. Facts alleged do not constitute an offense
May be raised at any time
No waiver
For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty existing at the time
f.
MTQ filed
If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded yet), EXCEPT when the ground is:
1.
Double jeopardy OR
2.
Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
1.
2.
If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial
Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if necessary; mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if
there is not other plain, simple and adequate remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such grounds,except:
1.
Failure to charge an offense
2.
Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3.
Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4.
Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the
case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendants pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only some of the counts of a multicount indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.
Under Speedy Trial Act of 1997, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC, RTC and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is
mandatory.
Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the Speedy Trial Act of 1997, an accused may plea guilty to a lesser offense only if said offense is
necessarily included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures; these facts need not be proved by evidence in
trial
Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned by either accused or counsel; a later memo of confirmation, signed only by counsel, cannot cure
defect (Fule vs. CA)
3. Pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls the course of action during the trial
4. Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
To assail the credibility of such evidence
To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and adding other evidence to cast reasonable
doubt
Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits; he must give the defendant the chance to crossexamine (Combate vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, 1)
HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days
from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Presentation
Testimonies: direct examination
Cross-examination
Re-cross
Offer
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Example: Charged with theft. At trial, appears that offense is estafa. The prosecution can ask for the dismissal of the info in order to file a
new one for estafa. No Double Jeopardy because no valid info in the first case.
4. Application for examination of witnesses for accused before trial
1.
2.
5.
Application (prosecution)
1.
2.
Sick or infirm
Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
Demurrer to evidence
1.
2.
If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and the case is
submitted for judgment
Case may also be dismissed motu proprio
g. Motion to reopen
Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered
To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before
Granted on discretion of the judge
The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his behalf when his failure to adduce them during the trial
was his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
Rule 120 Judgment
1. Judgment adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged, and the imposition of the proper penalty
and civil liability provided by law on the accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and the acquittal immediately becomes final and executory. If the
accused is found guilty, penalty and civil liability will be imposed on him.
3. Accused may be convicted of
1.
The offense charged
2.
A lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged
Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged (People vs. Guevarra)
4. Contents
1.
Written in official language
2.
Personally prepared and signed by the judge
3.
Contains facts proved
4.
Contains law upon which judgment is based
In case of conviction, judgment must state:
1.
Legal qualification of offense and aggravating and mitigating circumstances
2.
Level of participation
3.
Penalty imposed
4.
Civil liability for damages, unless right to separate civil action has been reserved
In case of acquittal, judgment must state:
1.
Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did not exist
2.
Basis of liability
5. Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
8. Remedies
a. Appeal
Filed within 15 days of promulgation of judgment
Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before and which could change the judgment
9. Procedure for new trial
1.
Hearing shall be set and held
2.
All evidence not alleged to be in error shall stand
3.
New evidence will be introduced
4.
Old judgment may be set aside and a new one rendered
10. Notes:
Suspension of sentence for youthful offenders after conviction, minor is committed to custody and care of DSWD or any training institution
until reaches 21 years of age, or a shorter period
Probation disposition under which a defendant after conviction and sentences, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and
to the supervision of a probation officer
Parole the conditional release of an offender from a penal or correctional institution after he has served the minimum period of his prison
sentence under the continued custody of the state and under conditions that permit his reincarceration if he violated the conditions of his
release
Rule 121 New Trial or Reconsideration
1. Reopening of the case
1.
2.
3.
Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of sound discretion
Does not require consent of accused
May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional evidence
Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon issue of credibility
Only corroborative evidence is offered
Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which such confession can be obtained and
fabricated)
Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be concocted
Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witness, due to unreliability of such recantations, EXCEPT if no other
evidence to sustain conviction aside from recanted testimony
With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall render judgment imposing said penalty, but refrain from
entering judgment and then certify the case and the entire record thereof to the SC for review (R124, 13)
CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or re-trial, or dismiss the case
If RTC decided case in appellate jurisdiction: Petition for Review
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or lesser penalty involving offenses committed on the same
occasion, or arising out of same occurrence where graver penalty of death is available but life imprisonment is imposed; all other cases, by
petition for review on certiorari
If death penalty, automatic review
iii. Withdrawal of appeal
May be made at any time before judgment on the appeal is rendered
Lower court judgment becomes final
Case remanded for execution of judgment
Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a Motion for Recon or a Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the
notice perfected the appeal, and the trial court loses its power to modify or set aside the judgment. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal is
where the accused decides to serve his sentence.
2. Effect of appeal by any of several accused
1.
2.
3.
Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and applicable to them
Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of judgment
Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result in double jeopardy
1.
2.
3.
Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a witness against himself (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure (US vs. Katz)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it is authorized by a search warrant. Evidence gathered from an illegal search
and seizure is inadmissible.
Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable character by which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de
Villa)
Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to it, and such is not an unconstitutional deprivation of
property (Villanueva vs. Querubin)
Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be effective:
1.
The right must exist
2.
Person must be aware of the right
3.
Person clearly shows the intent to relinquish such right
No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one compromises the criminal proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)
There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is present (Roan vs. Gonzales)
3. Requisites of a valid search warrant
a. Issued upon probable cause
Probable cause such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed
and the thing to be searched for and seized is in the place to be searched
b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing judge
Hence, signed by him
By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an offense which occurred anywhere in the country (Malaloan vs. CA)
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions, the appellant and his witness and took down their written
depositions
d. Search warrant particularly describes or identifies the property to be seized
Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a search warrant (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
e. Particularly describes the place to be searched
f.
Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs. Herrera)
Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination of probable cause (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto (search warrant becomes void after 10 days)
h. Indicates time, if to be served at night
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
1.
2.
3.
5. Procedure
a. Complainant files application, attaches affidavits
Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case (People vs. Sy Juco)
Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the person against whom the warrant is issued, that the objects to be
seized are fruits or means of committing a crime, and that they belong to the same person, thus, not affecting third persons (People vs. Sy
Juco)
When complainants knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are necessary (Alvarez vs. CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of complainant and witnesses under oath to determine probable cause
Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs. Gonzales)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality
Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same search for the same purpose and of the same place (Uy Khetin vs.
Villareal)
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in the proceeding.
3.
4.