I.

Criminal Procedure Outline-at-Large

Atty. Artemio Jay G. Torredes, R. Crim.
Ms. Medolyn L. Mendoza, PolSci., LlB
CMT TARGET TRAININGS & SEMINARS, INC.
2nd Flr. Melgo Bldg., Sanciangko St.
Pahina Central, Cebu City
(032) 515 0400

Introduction:
Etymology: Krimea [Greek]: meaning, to charge a wrongdoing
Criminal Procedure
The method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of persons
accused of any criminal offense, and their punishment, in case of conviction.
It is concerned with the procedural steps through which a criminal case passes,
commencing with the initial investigation of a crime and concluding with the
unconditional release of the offender.
It is a generic term used to describe the network of laws and rules which govern
the procedural administration of criminal justice.
Criminal Jurisdiction
The authority to hear and decide a particular offense and impose punishment for
it. It has three requisites, namely:
1. Subject matter cases of the general class where the proceedings in
question belong as determined by the Anature of the offense and Bthe penalty
imposed by law;
2. Territory the geographical limits of the territory over which the court
presides and where the offense was committed; and
3. Person of the accused acquired thru: a) arrest [with warrant or
warrantless] or b) voluntary surrender.
I. Prosecution of Offenses
How instituted?
By filing the: 1) Complaint, or 2) Information.
Complaint
A sworn written statement charging a person with an offense
Executed and Subscribed by the O.P.A.O. [Offended Party, Any peace officer,
or Other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated].
May be filed in the prosecutors office or directly to the court
Information
An accusation in writing
Subscribed by the Prosecutor
Filed with the court
Both are:

1. In writing
2. In the name of the People of the Philippines
3. Directed against all persons who appear to be responsible for the
offense involved.

Elements of a complaint or information:

1) Formal elements, and
2) Substantive elements.

It must be:

1) Sufficient in form, and

2) Sufficient in substance

Thus, under Section 14, of Rule 110, a complaint or information may be amended,
in form and in substance xxx.
A complaint or information is sufficient in form if it states: [N.D.A.N.A.P.]
1. The Name of the accused
2. The Designation of the offense given by the statute
3. The Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense
4. The Name of the offended party
5. The Approximate date of the commission of the offense
6. The Place where the offense was committed.
A complaint or information is sufficient in substance if it doesnt contain any
of the defects which is a ground for a motion to quash. (Section 3, Rule 117)
Note: A motion
acquittal).

to

quash,

once

granted,

is

equivalent

to

dismissal

(but

not

Remedy if a complaint or information is defective:

I. If defective in form a) court may dismiss the complaint or information
[amendment] 1motu propio or 2upon motion, or b) accused may move for a BILL OF
PARTICULARS
II. If defective in substance No obligation is imposed on the judge to point
out the duplicitousness or other defect in the indictment on which an accused is
being arraigned. It is for the accused to move for a motion to quash on the
ground that the complaint or information charges more than one offense, under
sanction of waiver and loss of ground of objection (Concurring opinion of CJ
Narvasa, People v. Bartulay, 192 SCRA 632)
Note: For certain classes of Actions, it is the tribunal having jurisdiction which
automatically determines whether or not the papers are in order before giving it
due course, meaning, it satisfies itself if the complaint or information is
sufficient in form and in substance.
Examples:
Articles of Impeachment in an impeachment proceedings
Presidential Election Protest
This is not so in criminal proceedings. It is incumbent upon the accused to
object on substantive defects (People v. Bartulay, supra).
Query:
JP was charged for indiscriminate firing. He claimed that he has to fire his gun
in self-defense because there was an actual threat on his person and the firing
of warning shots was reasonably necessary in order to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression directed against him. Despite this, the fiscal went on to
file the information in court. May JP claim that the information, though
sufficient in form, is defective in substance? Why?
No. JP cannot claim that the information is defective in substance. This is so
because self-defense is not a ground for a motion to quash but a matter of
defense. If proven, self-defense is a basis for acquittal, not dismissal.
Any explanation or defense which the defendant may want to invoke can be properly
raised during trial (Galvez v. CA, 237 SCRA 685).
Distinction between Acquittal and Dismissal:
1. Acquittal is based on MERITS of the case (substantive) ex: accused A was found
innocent of killing B.
2. Dismissal is based on TECHNICALITY (procedural) ex: the crime has already
prescribed.
Notes:
1.
There are certain classes of offenses that cannot be prosecuted de officio
1
private offenses, i.e. adultery, concubinage, etc. and 2private libels, i.e.
defamation imputing private offenses.

2.
For some offenses, there are conditions precedents before plaintiff can
repair to the courts for redress [i.e. those requiring mediation at the lupong
tagapamayapa]. However, non-compliance of this rule is not jurisdictional. The
failure of the plaintiff to comply with the conciliation requirement of Sec. 40
under the Local Government Code of 1991 does not affect the Courts jurisdiction
if no timely objection is made [San Miguel Village School v. Pundogar, 173 SCRA
704, Bejar v. CA, 169 SCRA 566].
3.
All criminal actions, whether commenced by filing of complaint or
information, are under the direct control of the prosecutor.
Queries:
I. A, B, C, D were charged with homicide. Preliminary investigation was conducted
by the fiscal who found sufficient evidence against all, but, according to his
determination, D was the least guilty. So the fiscal filed the information only
against A, B, and C leaving out D whom he would utilize as state witness. Is the
fiscal correct?
Under the Rules of Court, the fiscal cannot exclude D without court approval. It
would be a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court in not including D
in the information because of the prosecutors finding that there is sufficient
evidence against all. There was no more necessity to utilize D as a state
witness.
Exeption:
Under the Witness Protection Act, the prosecutor has the discretion
discharging an accused as a state witness and no court approval is necessary.

of

II. Is designation of the offense an essential element of the complaint or

information? Why? Give the exception, if any.
No. Because in case of conflict between the designation of the offense and the
allegations, the allegation prevails.
The exception is when the allegation is so ambiguous that it may be interpreted
to mean either one or another offense, then the designation of the offense is
controlling (Case of US v. Dixon, where the designation is for trespassing but
the allegations indicates either trespassing or a possible attempted rape).
II. Prosecution of Civil Action
Basis:
Art. 100, RPC - Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable
Generally, when a person commits a crime, he offends two entities, namely:
1) The State [whose laws he violated]; and
2) The individual [whose person, right, honor, chastity, or property was actually
or directly injured or damaged by the same acts or omissions].
Exception:
When the infraction falls under the class of offenses called victimless crimes
like gambling, betting on illegal cock fights, drug addiction, prostitution, etc.
etc. under the theory that the offender himself is his own victim.
Sec. 1, Rule 111 - When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless
the offended party:
1. Waives the civil action;
2. Reserves the right to institute it separately; or
3. Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action
Principle of proferrence of criminal action over civil action:
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising
therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the
criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been
instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found
before judgments on the merits xxx.

Reason for the rule:

Criminal action is based on an offense committed against the laws of the State
while civil action is based on an injury to individual rights. Public interest is
superior over private one.
Exception to the rule of proferrence of criminal action over civil action
1. When the independent Civil Action is based on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the Civil Code.
2. When there is a prejudicial question in the civil case that must be decided
first before the criminal action can proceed because the decision in the
civil action is vital to the judgment of the criminal case.
Elements of Prejudicial Question:
1. The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action,
and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.
Queries:
1. Nobern married Armie on 2005. On 2006, Nobern married X. On 2007, Armie filed
a criminal case for bigamy against Nobern. On 2008, X filed a civil case for
annulment against Nobern on the ground that their marriage was void ab initio for
having been contracted during the subsistence of Noberns prior marriage to Armie
without X knowing it.
Is there a prejudicial question? Why?
2. Nobern married Armie on 2005. On 2006, Nobern married X because X threatened
to kill him unless he marries X. On 2007, Nobern filed an annulment against X on
the ground of threat and intimidation. On 2008, Armie filed a criminal case for
bigamy against Nobern upon learning of Noberns marriage to X.
Is there a prejudicial question? Why?
Note:
Prejudicial question is subject to the principle that he who comes into court
must come with clean hands. The accused cannot be permitted to use the law in
order to frustrate the ends of justice. Good faith or bad faith is important.
III. Preliminary Investigation
Defined
It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent
is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
When required?
Before the filing of complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is imprisonment of at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day,
without regard to fine.
When NOT REQUIRED:
In cases where the penalty imposed by law is NOT at least 4 years, 2 month,
& 1 day
In case of a valid warantless arrest [shall proceed in inquest]
Officers authorized to conduct PI
1. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
2. National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
3. Other officers as may be authorized by law [COMELEC during Election Period,
Ombudsman, etc.]
Note: Effective 2004, judges of the lower court canno longer conduct Preliminary
Investigations.

Rules:
1. The complaint must be sufficient in form [See notes in Prosecution of
Offenses, supra]
2. Supported by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses
3. Numbers of copies are proportionate to the number of respondents plus 2
official copies
1. Within 10 days after the filing, fiscal determines if there is prima facie
case. If no dismiss. If yes issue subpoenas.
2. Within 10 days after receipt of subpoena with the complaint and supporting
affidavits and documents respondent submits counter affidavits.
3. In case respondent cannot be subpoenaed or does not submit counter affidavit
within 10 days investigating officer resolves the complaint on the basis of
evidence presented by complainant.
Clarificatory hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a
party or witness - within 10 days after submission of counter affidavit. No
direct examinations. Questions must be addressed to the fiscal.
Resolution within 10 days after the investigation.
Forwarding of fiscals resolution to superiors within 5 days
Superiors shall act on the resolution within 10 days
IV. Arrest
Defined:
1. [Based on Rules of Court] The taking of a person in custody in order that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense (Sec. 1, RRC)
2. [Based on Jurisprudence] A restraint on person, depriving one of his own will
and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law (Larraaga v.
CA, 92 SCAD 605)
How made:
As to the manner of enforcement, by:
1) Actual restraint, or
2) Submission to the custody of the person making arrest
As to the presence or absence of judicial order:
1) By virtue of a warrant, or
2) Warrantless arrest, in cases allowed by the Rules
As to the person arresting:
1) Arrest by peace officer, or
2) Citizens arrest
When warrantless arrests allowed:
1. Inflagrante Delicto arrest when in his presence, the person to be arrested
has:
Committed
Is actually committing
Is attempting to commit

an offense

Translation: In flagrante delicto [latin] Literally, caught in the act of

wrong.
2. Hot Pursuit arrest when an offense has Ajust been committed and Bhe has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person arrested has committed it.
Tests in determining probable cause based on personal knowledge:
Must be based on the senses, i.e.

1) Sight
2) Hearing
3) Smell

Notes:
A. The arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the commission of the
crime through his senses. He cannot fish for evidence first and afterward make
the arrest.
B. The term personal knowledge excludes hearsay as a basis for probable cause.
C. There must first be a lawful arrest before any search may be conducted. The
process cannot be reversed (Dissent of Chief Justice A. Narvasa, People v.
Malmstedt). Exception: in case of valid warantless searches (Majority opinion,
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401).
D. For purposes of arrest Officer may break into any building or enclosure
where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is
refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose (Sec. 11,
RRC).
E. For purposes of search and seizure he cannot break into any building or
enclosure without violating the right of privacy. Exceptions: 1) When there is
consent (Dissent of Justice I. Cruz, People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431). 2) When
there is a warrant.
3. Arrest of fugitives from justice persons who has escaped from a penal
establishment, place of confinement etc. while serving sentence, temporarily
confined, or case is still pending may be arrested under the theory that he is
engaged in the commission of a continuing offense (Parulan v. Director of
Prisons, 22 SCRA 639).
Methods of Arrest:
I. With warrant, by officer:
The officer shall inform the person of:

1) the cause of the arrest

2) fact that warrant exist

Exception: 1) When he flees or forcibly resist before 1 & 2 is completed

2) When the giving of info will imperil the arrest
II. Without warrant, by Aofficer and Bprivate persons:
Inform the person of 1) authority and cause of arrest [if person arresting is
police officer] or 2) intent to arrest and cause [if person arresting is private
person]
Unless when the person to be arrested is either:
1) Engaged in the commission of the offense
2) Is pursued immediately after its commission
3) Has escaped, flees or forcibly resist before the officer or the
private person making the arrest has the opportunity to inform him of
1 & 2, or
4) When the giving of info would imperil the arrest
Tests in determining lawfulness of USE OF LETHAL FORCE by the arresting officer:
1) Test of reasonability conduct of the arresting officer is examined.
Where the precipitate action of the arresting officer resulted in the loss of a
human life and there exists no circumstances whatsoever justifying the shooting
of a person who is asleep, even if he is a notorious criminal condemnation, and
not condonation should be the rule (People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257).
2) Test of necessity conduct of the person arrested is examined.
Where the arrested person attempts to flee, struck a policeman with his fists,
draw a mess knife and attacked another policeman, the arresting officer is not
required to afford him a fair opportunity for equal struggle. A police officer,
in the performance of his duty, must stand his ground and cannot, like private
individual, take refuge in flight. His duty requires him to overcome the offender
(US v. Mojica, 42 Phil 784).
V. Bail
Kinds of bail bonds:

1.
2.
3.
4.

cash bond
property bond
surety bond
recognizance

Defined:
The security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished
by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required
under the conditions of law.
Generally:
The right to bail only accrues when a person is under custody. Court must have
jurisdiction over the person of the accused either thru: 1) arrest, with or
without warrant, or 2) voluntary surrender.
Exception:
When the person under investigation cannot personally appear because he is
hospitalized but applies for bail through his counsel, he is deemed to be under
the constructive custody of the law (Dinapol v. Baldado, 225 SCRA 110, Paderanga
v. CA, 247 SCRA 741).
Where to apply?
In the court where the case is pending (if not yet filed, may be filed before any
court).
Conditions for bail:
See Sec. 2, Rule 114
Bail, a matter of right:
1. Before or after conviction by MTC, MTCC or MCTC
2. Before conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
temporal, or life imprisonment
Bail, a matter of discretion:
1. Upon conviction of RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment.
2. Before conviction for capital offenses [punishable by death], or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is
not strong. (Bail is neither a matter of right nor a matter of discretion only in
cases where the evidence of guilt is strong).
Bail granted in capital offenses despite findings that evidence of guilt is
strong (Cited in Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2003 Ed.):
De la Rama v. Peoples Court, 77 Phil. 461 accused was granted bail due to
tuberculosis that requires confinement to the hospital.
People v. Sison, GR 398, September 19, 1946 humanitarian reasons
considered by SC.
Notes:
1. The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence. This is so because
accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
2. In deportation proceedings, bail is not a matter of right but of discretion on
the part of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation (Harvey v. DefensorSantiago, 162 SCRA 398).
3. Bail is not available to military
(Commendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80).

facing

court

martial

proceedings

4. I extradition proceedings, bail may be granted provided the accused undertake

to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court and provided further that he
is not a flight risk (Govt. of Hong Kong v. Judge Olalia, 2007)
VI. Rights of the accused

Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law (Art. 6, NCC).
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following
rights:
Key: [PIPTEC CoSpA]
P resumed innocent
I nformed of the nature of the cause and accusation
P resent in person and by counsel
T estify in his own behalf
E xempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself
C onfront witnesses
C ompulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of other
evidence
S peedy, impartial and public trial
A ppeal
1) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Hierarchy of proof [according to degree of persuasiveness]:
1. Absolute certainty ultimate truth [not required in any legal proceeding]
2. Moral certainty passed the test of human experience [i.e., guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, conclusive presumptions]
3. Relative certainty so called because a higher degree of proof exists
[i.e., preponderance of evidence, probable cause, substantial evidence,
disputable or prima facie presumptions]
Notes:
The starting point is the presumption of innocence (See: Section 3, Par.
(a), Rule 131, RRC)
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate culpability. The burden
of proof lies in the prosecution. Unless guilt beyond reasonable doubt is
established, the accused need not prove his innocence.
Burden of proof the duty of the affirmative to prove what it alleges.
(Africa, The Art of Argumentation and Debate).
Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law to convict but only moral
certainty.
2) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Essential to avoid surprise and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his
defense accordingly.
Arraignment serves this purpose by informing him why the prosecuting arm of
the state is mobilized against him.
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in
the compliant or information. Basic rule you cannot prove what you did not
allege.
3) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment.
Express or Implied waiver is renunciation to be present on that particular
date only.
Escape of the accused is waiver by implication to be present on said date
and all subsequent trial dates. [Fact of escape made his failure unjustified
because he has, by escaping, placed himself beyond the pale and protection
of the law (People v. Salas 143 SCRA 163, cited in Cruz, Constitutional Law,
2003 Ed.)].
Right to counsel is right to effective counsel. It is not enough to simply
appoint a counsel de officio. Counsel must have no conflict of interest.
Thus, a fiscal cannot be appointed as counsel de officio.
When an accused is represented by a fake lawyer who pretended to be a member
of the bar, his right to counsel is violated, unless the accused voluntarily
chose him knowing him to be a non-lawyer.

4) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on

matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him.
5) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
Right to testify in his own behalf:
Once exercised, the accused is subject to limited cross-examination.
If not exercised, no inference of guilt can be derived from his silence
alone.
Right against self incrimination:
Intended to shield the guilty & imprudent as well as the innocent &
farsighted.
Based on public policy and humanity, otherwise, the accused will be placed
on the strongest temptation to commit perjury.
Notes:
A. Prohibition covers 1testimonial compulsion and 2the production of the accused
of incriminating documents and articles demanded from him.
B. Does not include compulsion to 1submit fingerprints, 2photograph, 3blood or
urine samples, and 4others requiring a mere mechanical act on the part of the
accused [Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 64, US v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145,
Schemerber v. California, US L.Ed. 2d 908, 89 S CT No. 658].
6) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
Reasons:
To meet the witness face to face (Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution)
To enable the court to judge the truthfulness, deportment, and
appearance of the witness while testifying (US v, Javier, 37 Phil 449).

the

Effect of absence of right to cross examine:

When there is express or implied waiver no effect
In the absence of waiver testimony of the witness cannot be considered as
complete and therefore cannot form part of the evidence against the accused.
Effect when witness dies:
Before he could take witness stand inadmissible
After giving his direct testimony but before cross examination Gen. rule:
inadmissible. Exception: where the adverse party was given adequate
opportunity but failed to cross examine due to his own fault
After the defense conducted cross examination admissible
7) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of other evidence in his behalf.
Compulsory process refers to the issuance of the court of:
1. Sub-poena for the attendance of witnesses
2. Sub-poena duces tecum for the production of documents
Notes:
A. If a sub-poena or sub-poena duces tecum is issued and the person named in the
sub-poena refuses to appear or refuses to produce the required documents without
justifiable reasons court has the power to declare that person in contempt and
may order his arrest. [People v. Montejo, 21 SCRA 722].
B. The coercive powers of the court must be employed in order to give meaning to
this right.
8) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
Speed:
Justice delayed is justice as denied
Impartiality:

 Every party litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of
an impartial court (Macalintal v. Judge Teh, 280 SCRA 623).
Public trial:
So that the public may see that he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly
condemned in case of conviction.
So the public may know of the fact or the basis of his innocence in case of
acquittal.
Note: Public trial and Trial by publicity are two different things. They are
not the same. There should be a public trial, not trial by publicity.
9) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
The right to appeal is a statutory right but withdrawal of this right, in
the absence of a valid waiver, constitutes a denial of due process
guaranteed by the Constitution (Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2003 Ed.).
It is not a natural right or inherent one. The party who seeks to avail of
the said right must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Otherwise,
the right to appeal is lost (People v. Sabellano, 198 SCRA 196)
VII. Arraignment and Plea
Arraignment:
The initial step in a criminal prosecution whereby the defendant
is brought before the court to hear the charges and to enter a plea (Blacks Law
Dictionary).
Venue for Arraignment and Plea:
Before the court where the complaint or information was filed or is assigned for
trial.
Purpose of arraignment [Key: FIG] (14 Am. Jur., p. 939, GV Jacinto, Crim. Proc.)
1) To fix the identity of the accused
2) To inform him of the charge
3) To give the accused an opportunity to plead
Note:
In order for the Court to acquire complete jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, arraignment is essential. Unless this procedure is completed, the court
cannot commence trial in absentia.
Procedure:
1. Arraignment must be made in open court by the judge or the clerk
2. Accused must be furnished with a copy of the complaint or information
3. Complaint or Information must be read in a language or dialect known to him
4. Accused must be present
5. Accused must personally enter his plea
I. If under preventive detention
1. Raffle of case and transmittal of records within 3 days
2. Arraignment within 10 days from the date of raffle
3. Pre trial conference within 10 days after arraignment
II. If not under preventive detention
1. General rule within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction
2. Exception a shorter period is provided by special law or SC Circular
Rules in entering a plea:
1. If accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea a plea of not
guilty shall be entered
2. If accused enters a plea but presents exculpatory evidence plea of guilty
is withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. Burden of
proof shifts.
3. If accused enters a plea to a capital offense court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his
guilt and the precise degree of culpability.

Pre-trial Conference:
Private offended party shall be required to appear for purposes of:
1) Plea-bargaining
2) Determination of civil liability
3) Other matters requiring his presence
In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice
conformity of prosecutor is sufficient for purposes of pleading guilty to a
lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
Bill of particulars:
The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him
properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged
defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.
Scope of the Bill of Particular:
Bill of Particulars is a remedy for formal defects and not substantive defects.
The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of the commission
of the offense with sufficient definition is a Motion for Bill of Particulars and
not a Motion to Quash (Rocaberte v. People, 192 SCRA 152).
[See discussion in: Elements of Complaint
complaint or information is defective, supra]

and

Information,

remedy

in

case

Modes of discovery:
Accused has a right against the suppression of evidence favorable to an accused
which is material as to 1) guilt, or 2) as to punishment (Webb v. De Leon, 247
SCRA 653).
Suppressed evidence must be of such nature as to affect the outcome of the trial
(US v. Agurs, US v. Bagley)
Notes:
1) Arraignment is important for notifying the accused of the cause he is required
to meet. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him (Borja v. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422).
2) The existence of a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy (People
v. Balicasan).

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another

Proverbs 27:17