Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CrimPro Herrera PDF
CrimPro Herrera PDF
INTRODUCTION
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure is the method prescribed by law for the
apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of any criminal
offense, and for their punishment, in case of conviction.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
3.
b.
The fact that the offense has been committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
VALID
EXERCISE
OF
CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION
COMPLAINT
ALLEGATIONS
OF
a.
b.
c.
d.
f.
PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION
HELD: Republic Act No. 7975 (amended by R.A. No. 8249) as regards the
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, mode of appeal and other proce- dural
matters, was held as a procedural law and may validly be given
retroactive effect, there being no impairment of contractual or vested
rights.
BY
The information was filed on 28 July 1995 when accused was already a
private citizen. He claimed that under the law at the time of the
commencement of the action, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over
him for the offense charged.
DETERMINED
otherwise.
Jurisdiction over criminal cases cannot be conferred by
consent.
Even if a party fails to file a motion to quash, he may still
question the jurisdiction of the court later on.
case allegedly committed by public officers who at the time of the filing of
the information falls below Grade 27.
g.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
h.
a.
b.
g.
d.
e.
If the facts recited in the complaint and the punishment provided for
by law are sufficient to show that the court in which the complaint is
presented has jurisdiction, that court must assume jurisdiction
However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the
offense was committed somewhere else, the court should
dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
In criminal proceedings, the rule is that one can not be held to
JURISDICTION OF
CRIMINAL CASES
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL
COURTS
IN
Republic Act No. 7691 which took effect on April 15, 1994
amended B.P. Big. 129, otherwise known as "The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980" by Expanding the Jurisdiction of the
aforementioned courts as follows:
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
xxx SEC. 2. Section 32 of the same law is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"SEC. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases.
Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal
ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated
thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof:
Provided, however. That in offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof."
For the guidance of the Bench and the Bar, the following
guidelines are to be followed in the implementation of Republic
Act No. 7691, entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa
Big. 129, otherwise known as the 'Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980'":
(3) The criminal jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
under Section 32(2) ofB.P. Big. 129, as amended by R.A.
No. 7691, has been increased to cover offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective
SEC. 268. Jurisdiction of courts. The regional trial court shall have the
exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or
proceedings for violation of this Code, except those relating to the offense
of failure to register or failure to vote which shall be under the jurisdiction
of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts.
From the decision of the courts, appeal will lie as in other criminal cases.
4)
1)
5)
For example:
a.
Criminal case where one or more of the accused is below eighteen
(18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age, or where one or
more of the victim is a minor at the time of the commission of the
offense;
Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate
sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have
incurred.
The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child
and Youth Welfare Code."
i.
j.
k)
2)
naval
CONSEQUENCE OF AMENDMENTS
As a consequence of these amendments, the Sandiganbayan
partly lost its exclusive original jurisdiction in cases involving:
a.
b.
c.
OF
SANDIGANBAYAN
OVER
PUBLIC
of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions,
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27"
and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases
involving crimes and felonies under the first classification:
"a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic
Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of
the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused
are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense.
The exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over those
public officers holding positions classified as Grade 27 refers
to Violations ofR.A. No. 3019, Act No. 1379 and Chapter II,
Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code
referring to Malfeasance and Misfeasance in office
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
not sufficient.
a.
b.
position.
The difference between Montilla and Montejo is that, whereas in
the former (Montilla), the murder was committed outside office
hours and for personal or political motives, the victim in the
latter case (Montejo) was killed while he was undergoing
custodial investigation in the police substation.
The crime in Montejo would not have been committed were it not
for the fact that the accused were actually discharging official
functions at the time.
"Thus, the informations do not indicate that the accused arrested and
investigated the victims and then killed the latter in the course of the
investigation but merely allege that the accused, for the purpose of
extracting or extorting the sum of P353,000.00 abducted, kidnapped and
detained the two victims, and failing in their common purpose, they shot
and killed the said victims.
3.
5.
6.
office.
NOT
DETERMINED
BY
ALLEGATIONS
10
The Supreme Court thru the First Division speaking thru Justice
Davide, Jr., also the ponente in the Asuncion case stated: "For
the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is these allegations
that shall control, and not the evidence presented by the
prosecution at the trial." (Italics Supplied)
The foregoing pronouncements is not in accord with the wellsettled rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of
the complaint and not by the finding of the court after trial.
The Asuncion case did not hold that the absence of an allegation
of the offense having been committed "in relation to his office"
as immaterial, but justified the absence thereof as having been
caused by the erroneous ruling in the case of Deloso v.
Domingo.
The court did not fashion the rule directing the conduct of a
preliminary or separate hearing to determine the absence or
presence of that jurisdictional element.
PCGG
11
c.
But where the PCGG is not a party to the case, and the
complaint is solely between PAGCOR and PCOC, the RTC has
jurisdiction under Sec. 19 ofB.P. Big. 129 over PAGCOR's
action for recovery of personal property, even if said
property was under sequestration by the PCGG.
with
the
Settled is the rule that when a law confers jurisdiction upon a court,
it is deemed to have all the incidental powers necessary to render
the exercise of such jurisdiction effective
This Court is of the view that its jurisdiction refers to acts of the
PCGG acting as such whether alone or with other persons, natural or
juridical, and not generally where PCGG representatives act as part
of another juridical person or entity.
12
"Under R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan is vested with exclusive original
jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No.
1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,
where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time
a.
SEC.
b.
13
b.
is
the
authority
is
concurrent
with
other
similarly
authorized agencies.
However, the Ombudsman may take over the investigation
of such case at any stage from any investigative agency of
the Government.
This is only directory.
SANDIGANBAYAN
JURISDICTION
NOW
WITH
CERTIORARI
AS
MERE
14
"Only in particular cases where the convicted person or the State shows
that there was a serious denial of the Constitutional rights of the accused,
should the nullity of the sentence be declared and retrial be ordered based
on the violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, and not on
Olaguer doctrine.
law's
MILITARY COURTS
CIVILIANS
VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE
HAVE
NO
JURISDICTION
OVER
be
of
of
of
15
SEC. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular
preliminary investigation. An application for or admission to bail shall
not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the
legality of the warrant issued thereof, or from assailing the regularity or
questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge
against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea.
The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later
than the start of the trial of the case.
the person.
The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very legality
of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the
accused that is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of
arrest.
The outright dismissal of the case even aefore the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused s authorized under
Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of criminal
Procedure and the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
In Allado v. Diokno, the case was dismissed on motion of the
iccused for lack of probable cause without the accused having
been arrested.
16
preliminary investigation.
trial courts.
courts were those where the penalty provided by law did not
First: The removal of cases governed by the Rule on Sum-
and
yet
no
preliminary
investigation
was
In Zaidivia u. Reyes, the court held that the interruption of
required.
17
punishment.
Begin To Run."
secretary:
court.
EVEN
IF
COURT
IS
sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong
barangay
filing of complaint with the fiscal's office three days after the
vehicular mishap and remained tolled pending the termination of
the case."
This ruling was confirmed in the case of Reodica v. Court
chartered cities, the complaint may be filed only with the fiscal.
interrupts prescription.
It may, however also be noted that under the Katarungan
Hence, the phrase "unless otherwise provided in special
Pambarangay
Law
while
the
dispute
is
under
charged.
18
mediation
computation
of
prescription
of
offenses
defined
and
court
in
determining
the
reckoning
period
for
Since
the
law
alleged
to
have
been
violated,
i.e.,
which provides:
are instituted against the guilty person and shall begin to run
again
if
the
proceedings
are
dismissed
for
reasons
not
SEC.
for
Amicable
Settlement;
(c) Conciliation
January 1, 1992, expressly repealed Presidential Decree No.
Matter
statute of limitations.
Subject
408.
among
members
of
indigenous
cultural
19
an appropriate lupon;
any person.
in
the
interest
of
justice
or
upon
1)
the
2)
e.
f.
SEC. 2.
g.
3)
SEC. 3.
a.
b.
c.
h.
Complaint Defined
Who May File Complaint
d.
But One who is not the offended party file a complaint for
preliminary investigation.
MAY INJUNCTION
PROSECUTION
ISSUE
TO
RESTRAIN
CRIMINAL
20
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
to
prevent
the
threatened
unlawful
arrest
of
petitioners.
21
SEC. 4.
Information defined
guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf. This is
based on the doctrine of parens patriae."
offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case.
party.
a.
b.
c.
This
[A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC. April 10, 2002]
authority
shall
cease
upon
actual
intervention
of
the
This does not, however, mean that the persons mentioned therein
may no longer prosecute the case under the conditions mentioned in the
old rule.
SEC. 5.
Who must prosecute criminal actions
Under the 1985 amendments, the following sentences were added to the
first paragraph of Sec. 4 of the old Rule 110, to wit:
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial
proceedings
This amendment to Rule 110 shall take effect on the first day of
of
the
examination
private
of
the
prosecutor
witnesses
therein
because
to
the
conduct
the
government
22
to
present
the
evidence
for
the
prosecution,
a.
c.
The decision appealed from was set aside and the case
remanded to the trial court for another arraignment and trial.
prosecutor.
23
prosecutor.
is
petition
for
mandamus,
not
certiorari
or
prohibition.
The manner by which the prosecution of a case is handled
is within the sound discretion of the prosecutor and the noninclusion if other guilty persons is irrelevant to the case against
the accused.
vested upon the filing of the information and, once acquired, its
The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case
before it.
24
the arraignment, and allowed the accused to post bail in the sum
of P20,000 each.
secured.
the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the
investigation.
the acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court.
the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
the
finding
and
reinvestigation,
to the court, who has the option to grant or deny the same.
such
After
The Supreme Court clarified that while the fiscal has the
quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal
case should be filed in court, once the case had already been
THE
PRINCIPLE
WAS
FURTHER
STRESSED
IN
DIMATULAC V. VILLON
and
should be murder.
Otherwise,
In this case, the accused were charged with murder before
the Municipal Court which found a probable cause for murder
the
arraignment
may
be
set
aside,
and issued warrants for the arrest of the accused without bond,
after which the records were forwarded to the Provincial Fiscal.
BY
FISCAL
over the case, be addressed to the trial judge and to him alone.
The complaint cannot be withdrawn by the Fiscal without
the fiscal may interfere with the judge's disposition of the case,
much less impose upon the court their opinion regarding the
guilt or innocence of the accused, for the Court is the sole judge
of that.
25
filed in court."
presiding judge.
See however, Galvez v. Court of Appeals, upholding the
right of the prosecution to withdraw the information for
homicide, the evident purpose was to refile a case of murder
against the same accused before arraignment even without
notice and hearing.
Fiscal Entitled to be Heard on Motion to Dismiss
However, while the trial court is the sole judge on whether
a criminal case should be dismissed (after the complaint or
information has been filed in court) still, any move on the part of
the complainant or offended party to dismiss the criminal case,
even if without objection of the accused should first be referred
to the prosecuting fiscal for his own view on the matter.
Thus,
where
reinvestigation
and
the
judge
directed
granted
the
Office
the
of
motion
the
for
Provincial
filing
of
the
motions
to
suspend
proceedings
and
defer
sole and only valid basis of the judge's final action (not that of
the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor).
26
servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall
I.
Control by Prosecution
1.
2.
Whom to prosecute;
3.
4.
Right
before
Prosecution
arraignment
to
Withdraw
even
without
information
notice
and
facie case exists, he simply cannot move for the dismissal of the
In the absence of a finding of grave abuse of discretion,
of
1.
Suspension of Arraignment;
2.
Reinvestigation;
3.
Prosecution by Fiscal;
4.
Dismissal; and
5.
control.
1.
2.
3.
the civil liability instituted with the criminal action if it was not
filed separately, reserved or there is no private prosecutor who
be respected by court;
intervened.
is
so
because
"the
prosecuting
is
4.
the
a.
27
Review)
Purpose of Rule
however,
Sec.
ll(c),
Rule
116,
by
death
or
reclusion
perpetua.
6.
Code) was not enacted for the specific purpose of benefitting the
offenses
the offended women and her family who might prefer to suffer
the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of
a public trial.
and protect.
7.
and
finding
of
grave
abuse
of
discretion.
Alcala
took
the
witness
stand
for
the
Pernando
prosecution.
The
brother's
testimony
shows
that
consent
and
categories:
a.
b.
unavailing.
ness;
c.
Criminal
actions
for defamation
which
consist
in
the
28
offended spouse.
Unlike the offenses of seduction, abduction, rape and acts
It has since long been established, with unwavering
consistency, that compliance with this rule is a Jurisdictional, and
not merely a formal requirement.
While in point of strict law, the jurisdiction of the court
over the offense is vested in it by the Judiciary Law, the
for
requirement
sworn
written
complaint
is
just
as
of
adultery
and
concubinage
by
the
parents,
The
so-called
exclusive
and
successive
rule
in
the
29
a party bringing suit at the very time when he is without the legal
bring his wife and the alleged paramour to justice being too
capacity to do
evident.
FILING OF
SUFFICIENT
VERIFIED
STATEMENT
BEFORE
COURT
action.
Sangalang, a man not her husband,' and Fausta Bravo did not
Where, however, the victim who was also of age is
incapacitated by reason of insanity or physical incapacity, the
subscribe to the complaint, the Supreme Court held that the trial
court had no jurisdiction over the case.
jurisdiction is invoked or which gives the court the occasion for exercising
its jurisdiction.
party
to
seek
judicial
redress
for
the
affront
committed.
INITIATION OF COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE
IN
FISCAL'S
OFFICE
IS
prompted
the
Fiscal
to
con-duct
preliminary
that the complaint filed by the offended woman and her mother
before the Justice of the Peace Court and forwarded to the CFI of
30
gation is sufficient.
The right and power of the court to try the accused for
party or the failure to adhere to the rules is not fatal and does
not oust the court of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
AND
COMPLAINT
a.
c.
d.
simply
because
it
charges
the
accused
with
Other Cases
having
31
a.
b.
lasciviousness,
attempted
rape
includes
acts
of
lasciviousness.
While
the
court
Fiscal
should
have
prepared
another
corresponding
preliminary
investigation
and
the
records
its jurisdiction.
e.
the trial court, such circumstance does not deprive the court of
d.
SEC. 6.
information
with
having
described
the
former
as
wife.
offense.
origin.
32
Austria, the
exist.
crime suffices.
All that is required is that the charge be set forth with such
offense.
In an information for rape (committed before R.A. No.
7659) without alleging the age or complainant, the accused was
or minority.
Thus, even if the information did not allege that the victim
was a mental retardate which is an essential element of the
the
accused
carried
the
firearms
and
prove
may
be informed is violated.
33
constituting conspiracy.
(1)
by the use of the word "conspire" or its
derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive,
collude, etc. or
(2)
by allegations of basic facts constituting the
conspiracy in a manner that a person of common
understanding would know what is intended, and with such
precision as would enable the accused to competently enter
a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts
accused.
The
information
must
state
that
the
accused
have
of Criminal Procedure.
accused can only be made liable for the acts committed by him
34
35
accordingly.
SEC. 7.
b.
the information must set forth the facts and circumstances that
that the accused can properly prepare for and undertake his
defense.
c.
Purpose of Rule
controlling.
One such fact or circumstance in a complaint against two
d.
court.
clearly proven that he was part of the group that killed the
e.
36
victim and did not raise the question of his identity at the
SEC. 8.
Designation of the offense
SEC. 9.
When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.
When the victim is under the custody of the police or miliHence, penalty should only be reclusion perpetual
tary authorities.
c.
degree of consangguinity.
Amendment
d.
The former rule did not require qualifying and aggravating
years old.
special
qualifying
circumstances
they
must
be
enough
to
satisfy
the
special
qualifying
circumstance
of
relationship.
enforcement agency.
considered as aggravating.
HISTORY OF AMENDMENT.
37
Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent these must be set
forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place, names
recital of facts.
circumstance that the accused was the "common law spouse of the parent
of the victim" and the death penalty imposed by the trial court was once
Otherwise, We shall continue to fail both the law and the victims
The life and liberty of the accused should not be left to the
alleged.
The Court in People u. Mendez, cited the 1935 case of
Third to inform the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction if one should be
had in order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated,
Purpose of Rule
38
between the victim and the accused because as phrased, they unduly lay
considered as an aggravating.
The Court further explained that:
daughter was less than 18 years of age at the time the crime of rape was
committed."
that the victim is the daughter of the accused when the evidence
the crime he had been charged with, especially considering that the
generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength
superior strength."
the Court spared the life of the accused, despite the mention of the
age of the victim and the word "daughter" in said informations, on the
ground that the quoted informations failed to duly allege the special
rape in its simple form and then be tried and convicted of rape in
39
damages.
state the exact age of the victim at the time of the commission
of the crime.
To warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the
qualifying circumstance of the rape victim being below seven
years of age should be aptly alleged in the information.
COMPARE:
Thus,
the
use
of
qualifying
circumstance.
deadly
weapon
is
accusation,"
exemplary damages.
or
in
the
narration
of
the
act
or
omission
perpetua
shall
be
imposed
regardless
of
the
aggravating circumstance.
PLEA OF GUILTY
INFORMATION
the informations.
Exemplary damages was, however, awarded.
TO
ALLEGATIONS
IN
BODY
OF
40
the information.
age when any of the crimes was committed cannot make up for
complaint that charges only simple rape under Art. 335, for
which the penalty is only reclusion perpetua, and not for rape
under R.A. No. 7659, qualified by the circumstance that the
offender is the father of the victim who is a minor, for which the
penalty is death.
as
to
the
minority
of
the
victim,
the
qualifying
NOT
INVOLVING
of
aggravating
circumstance
even
if
proved
is
inapplicable for the crime of robbery, the same not involving the
imposition of the death penalty.
the
proper
imposable
penalty,
even
if
such
crime, the allegation in the information that the victim was four
years old at the time of the killing is sufficient compliance with
41
proof but may be inferred from shown acts and conduct of the
accused.
declared:
The ruling was reiterated in People v. Paulina and People
These
circumstances
need
not
be
preceded
by
the
words
CURED:
THE
qualifying circumstances.
The information must state that the accused have confedIt is sufficient that these circumstances be specified in the
him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises during the
(1)
by the use of the word "conspire" or its
derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive,
collude, etc. or
(2)
by allegations of basic facts constituting the
conspiracy in a manner that a person of common
understanding would know what is intended, and with such
precision as would enable the accused to competently enter
a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts.
In the absence of conspiracy, so averred and proved an
accused can only be made liable for the acts committed by him
trial.
collective.
conspiring and all the elements of said crime must be set forth in
42
CRIME
b.
information.
offense charged.
c.
controlling.
a.
a.
murder
or what it is named.
they
are
mistakenly
called
although
b.
murder,
the
information
sufficiently
charged
the
commission of murder.
This is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and
to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense
accordingly.
e.
43
c.
thereby.
B.
complaint
the
Revised
Administrative
Code
punishable
c.
abuse
of
information
or information.
5.
This is so because from a legal point of view, and in a
by the offender.
prohibitum.
Checks Law.
which
those
acts
the
C.
constitute."
"Grave
denominates
as
law
such
by
conclusions
and
2)
3)
44
of force or intimidation.
offeree or intimidation.
Where the law distinguishes between two cases of
It can be quashed.
No. 7659.
information.
to
qualifying
circumstances
but
also
Information.
statutory
included
aggravating circumstances.
charged
with
rape
through
one
mode
of
45
Failure
to
object
to
evidence
of
the
mode
of
more valuable than any property that a person could ever inherit
objection.
presumed.
allowed.
consequences."
b.
the
victim
by
means
offeree,
violence
and
because it was not clearly and convincingly shown that the heir
death.
corrected
when
the
prosecution
introduced
46
daughter.
no offense.
on
the
contradictions
and
insufficiency
of the
b.
awareness
of
the
relevant
circumstances
and
likely
basis, manifest to the trial court the waiver of his own right.
As things stand, both this Court and the trial court being
c.
asked hook, line and sinker to take the word of counsel de oficio
whose own concern in that particular phase of the proceedings a
commitments.
a.
47
be alleged.
upon it.
A mere statement of habitual delinquency is a conclusion
For instance, the Opium Law provides that "save upon the
prescription
of
duly
licensed
and
practicing
physician,
not necessary to allege that the person charged is not under the
exception contained in the statute, i.e., that he did not use the
prohibited drug upon the prescription of a physician, veterinarian
or dentist, nor is it necessary to prove such allegation if made
unnecessarily, because said exception is a matter of defense
which the accused must prove.
48
charges
him
with
rape
by
means
offeree,
violence
and
intimidation.
committed the crime "on or about the month of June 1978" and
at the time.
affidavit of the complainant that she was abused before the start
of classes in June 1978 which may thus be considered as part of
Whenever
possible,
the
place
where
the
written
That
SEC. 10.
Place of commission of the offense
allegation
would
be
sine
qua
non
if
the
SEC. 11.
b.
c.
Trespass to dwelling;
d.
BUT in U.S. v. Smith it was held that the proof need not
correspond to the allegation, unless the time and place is
material and of the essence of the offense as a necessary
"DATE."
The evidence is admissible and sufficient if it shows:
Crimes Where Time is Essential
a.
(1) that the crime was committed at any time within the
period of limitation and
a.
Infanticide;'
b.
c.
Abortion.
The complaint must allege a specific time and place when
and where the offense was committed, but when the time so
49
January 1903.
In U.S. v. Kepner, the Court laid down the rule that when
an offense shall have been described in the complaint with
indefiniteness is not cured by setting out the date when a child was born
as a result of such crime.
SEC. 12.
accused to an acquittal."
was the subject matter of the offense, was described with such
that it was established during the trial that the offended party
property under the Revised Penal Code, since the check, which
50
as offended parties.
setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each case.
offenses.
b.
c.
defense.
than
one
offense
and
makes
no
objection
to
commission of each and all offenses charged and the court may
properly enter judgment for each and every offense proved and
defective.
the
f.
e.
slander.
d.
a.
g.
h.
the offenses
charged
committed
51
e.
b.
Treason
having
offense.
been
charged
by
the
number
of
counts
or
son for the sake of clearness, this does not justify the
however,
with
four
the
petitioner
prosecution
offenses,
with
charged
each
each
Information
f.
d.
Falsification
that they showed the receipt of the lawful amount only, and
proved.
52
Robbery in Band
a.
1)
2)
3)
4)
j.
simply sets out the same fact in different aspects and is not
Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious acts
b.
2)
3)
dates.
4)
Robbery and fencing are two separate crimes. Principle of Delito Continuado is not applicable.
32 aliens.
5)
several
acts
were
considered
by
the
court
sentenced
as
Theft of 13 cows;
theft of six roosters;
illegal charging of fees by lawyer from revenue victims;
Illegal approval of the application for the legalization of
stay of 32 aliens, constitutes only one crime
6)
to
three
separate
penalties
ofreclusion
perpetrua.
In People v. Ducay several victims dying from
separate shots constitute separate offenses and if there
gun
that
determines
the
number
of
felonies
perpetrator.
53
attempted murder.
Exceptions to Rule on Duplicity
information
alleges
each
the other.
Homicide,
denned by law.
element
of
the
malversation.
OTHER CASES:
1)
2)
with rape.
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to
be applied in its maximum period.
a.
b.
54
conspiracy with each other, every one of the seven accused may
reason of the sale, and that the sale agreed upon was
2)
owned
by
the
Hometrust
Corporation
which
were
is
further
apprehended
in
possession
of
another
felonies.
1)
Drugs Cases
Where complainant was forcibly taken away for the
In People v. Salamat, the illegal possession of 137 cans
in themselves.
c.
Senator Enrile had already been charged and can not therefore
55
rebellion cases."
jurisprudence
national,
as
well
overwhelmingly
as
favor
international
the
laws
and
proposition
that
This deed or physical activity may be, and often is, in itself
a criminal offense under another penal statute or provision.
crimes in themselves.
treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and can not
be the subject of a separate punishment, or used in combination
with treason to increase the penalty is Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code provides.
This does not detract, however, from the rule that the
ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and hence,
separately therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code.
inherent
in
smoking
and
in
robbery
trespass
INDEPENDENT
and
of reason.
law while the rebellion case is based on the Revised Penal Code;
56
R.A.
8294
amended
P.D.
No.
1866
abandoned
separate offenses.
AND
UNLAWFUL
No.
Abandonment of Doctrine
LAW
ON
ILLEGAL
POSSESSION
OF
proven.
In case homicide or murder is committed with the use of
Both purpose and overt acts are essential components of
THE PRESENT
FIREARMS
57
separate
informations,
under
existing
law,
the
provisions
process.
against
accused-appellant
merely
as
an
Should the Court appreciate the use of an unlicensed firearm, the higher penalty of death shall be imposed.
aggravating
circumstance.
1)
Thus, while it is true that under R.A. No. 8294, the use of
an unlicensed firearm aggravates the crimes of homicide or
retroactive effect.
2)
murder, the provisions of the said law cannot apply to the case
at bar because the crime was committed prior to the effectivity
of the said law on July 6, 1997.
illegal possession.
R.A. No. 8294 is given retroactive effect in the sense that
The same may only done where no other crime is committed.
separate crime.
58
Instance.
People v. Buan
The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof.
determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense.
SEC. 14.
Amendment or Substitution
injuries and another for the damage to property, for both the
injuries and the damages committed were caused by one single
before two different courts, the municipal court and the Court of First
Example:
59
information is filed the trial judge may grant or deny it, not out
Court.
information,
can
be
made
only
upon
motion
by
the
indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this conThe only qualification is that the action of the Court must
not impair the substantial rights of the accused, or the right of
court."
Vilon.
punishing the offense may not be amended after the law had
come into effect.
60
Time to Amend
Amendment of an information may be made at any time
defendant.
Change of Dates of Commission of Crime
crime of Grave Coercion from June 24, 1981 to August 28, 1981
rights of the accused, as the said proposed amendment would
which
disparity
is
amply
comprehended
within
the
stood,
would
no
longer
be
available
after
made, and when any evidence the accused might have would be
The amendment of the complaint for rape changing the
days was only a matter of form and did not prejudice the rights
of the appellant.
which
neither
amendment
An
months was merely a matter of form and does not prejudice the
Ramos, where the Fiscal was permitted to amend the date of the
the
in the last digit of the year, the difference of one year or twelve
rights of the accused, reiterating the ruling in the case of U.S. v.
adversely
affects
the
substantial right of the accused, e.g., does not deprive him of his
61
an
The
prosecution
precise date need not be stated but it does not mean that it can
prove
any date
is
remote
given
or
far
the
chance
to
removed from
allege
the given
allegations
of
habitual
delinquency
and
revolver and C, the knife, instead ofC carrying the revolver and
B, the knife.
Habitual Delinquency
Additional
in the information.
error because the difference is not only in the year but also in
after
the month and the last two digits of the year, and the difference
In
People
v.
Joseph
Casey,
the
amendment
assume
After
the
plea,
the
fiscal
presented
an
amended
accused.
There was the further allegation that the accused and his
co-defendants had conspired and confederated together and
mutually aided one another to commit the offense charged.
that it did not prejudice in any sense the right of the accused as
"it did not affect the essence of the crime charge, but merely an
accidental detail of the same" and it did not deprive the accused
62
form.
After a reinvestigation, the prosecution moved to amend
In People v. Zulueta, an information for Malversation of
public property was amended with the additional assertion that
in
permitting
the
misappropriation,
the
accused
acted
in
The
Supreme
Court,
citing
Regala,
not
prejudice
held
that
the
amendments
same court.
would
the
accused
whose
1)
2)
3)
63
Article
209
to
"Robbery
in
an
Uninhabited
Place"
AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION
has been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall
by
PNP
officer
was
transferred
by
the
RTC
to
the
necessarily
of robbery
of
the
items
listed
in
the
original
information.
originally charged.
shall
not
be
The rule, therefore, does not apply where the accused may
be convicted of any other offense necessarily included in the
accused
offense charged.
the
substantive rights.
grave threats to conform to the evidence is merely a formal
therein,
included
is necessary.
same year, there was no need for the court to dismiss the
64
complaint.
The trial judge could have simply granted the motion for
of the accused.
2)
Scope of Rule
Justice
circumstances
of
treachery,
taking
advantage
of
victim.
amendments
by
discussed
information and order the filing of a new one charging the proper
extensively
Regalado
superior
Under the second paragraph, the court can order the filing of
another information to charge the proper offense, provided, the accused
would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy and that could only be
for there is nothing in the rule to show that the nature of the amendment
should only be limited to matters of specification.
The change may also be made even if it may result in altering the
proprio order the dismissal of the case and direct the filing
65
provision,
therefore,
is
more
directly
and
mean as follows:
In determining, therefore, whether there should be an
respects:
a.
b.
c.
information,
another
preliminary
investigation
is
information; and
substitution is in order."
d.
66
Whether the new charge for direct assault with less serious
Both rules were clarified so that the dismissal of the
offenses.
v. Cariaso. Thus:
The converse is no less obvious, that is, the charge of direct assault
upon a person in authority with physical injuries as set out in the informa-
quoted provision.
the complaint, the physical injuries inflicted are alleged to have required
consequence.
other ingredients of the crime charged in said information are not proved.
been rendered.
murder after the accused had pleaded not guilty, not allowed.
67
c.
e.
waiver.
amendment.
SEC. 15.
Place Where Action is to be Instituted.
Improper Venue
WHERE
WITHDRAWAL
MADE
proceedings,
improper
venue
is
lack
of
Such order is void for having been issued with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
a.
jurisdiction.
criminal
jurisdiction.
In
jurisdiction.
possession is fatal.
Said rule is based on the legal provision which prescribes
yet attached.
68
was had, and the accused was not arrested in that province and
believe that the crime has been committed, the accused should
a.
b.
amounted
to
conviction
without
informing
the
or
to
decide
where
the
balance
of
convenience
justice.
of justice.
c.
taking jurisdiction.
69
Where the crime for violation of P.D. No. 532 known as the
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 was
committed aboard a jeepney, the criminal action may be
instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or
territory where the vehicle passed during the trip including
d.
another, in which case, the rule is settled that the court of either
g.
passed
parking place in Port Area the fact that said automobile was
during
such
voyage
subject
to
the
generally
Hence,
this
circumstance
cannot
be
made
e.
f.
in
Gapan,
Nueva
Ecija,
and
took them
to
criminal action.
70
penal provision are united in one and the same intent leading to
found.
understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case will
it.
AND
CONTINUING
OFFENSES
such as estafa,
continuing
offense
ESSENTIAL
ADULTERY
REQUISITES
OF
CONTINUOUS
CRIME;
malversation and
is
one
which
is
province.
place to another.
has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been
actually
or
by
legal
presumption,
when
the
that when the petitioner married his first wife, he did so with
definite locus.
71
c.
principal in Manila.
Venue in Estafa
a.
d.
executed.
However, if all the acts material and essential to the crime and
requisite of its consummation occurred in one municipality or province,
mitted.
The venue of the offense lies at the place where the check
in separate places.
wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients
72
estafa.
Maria, Bulacan.
Malolos, Bulacan, from where the tire and gas purchases were
another.
Said supervisor was not the person who could take the check as a
place, her business and residence were also located, the criminal
holder, that is, as a payee or indorsee thereof, with the intent to transfer
title thereto.
Pampanga, where the check was legally issued and delivered so that
jurisdiction could properly be laid upon the court in that locality."
73
would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
payment.
dishonored.
occurred
in
Manila,
which
are
esssential
elements
The mere fact that the court has jurisdiction over an estafa
The girl being taken with her consent from Manila to Pasig,
same check.
Thus, where the records clearly indicate that business
The crime of estafa and violation of B.P. Big. 22 have to be
treated as separate offenses having different elements and,
necessarily for a court to acquire jurisdiction each of the
74
Kidnapping
province.
consent.
for ransom with murder, the victim was kidnapped within Lucena
that the accused wanted to detain him for ransom, the Court
thereat has jurisdiction to try the case of murder filed against
the accused, although the killing was committed outside the city
limits.
Libel
be stated thus:
a.
b.
defense contended that the Court of First Instance of Manila, in which the
where
the
deprivation
of
liberty
is
persistent
and
case was heard, had no jurisdiction as the offense was committed outside
the city limits.
Perjury
d.
jurisdiction.
For the guidance, of both the bench and the bar, the Court
It is immaterial where the affidavit was subscribed and
sworn, so long as it appears from the information that
75
wherein it was said that disorders which disturb only the peace
the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb
Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was
printed and first published should likewise be alleged.
proceeding with the case in the regular way the consul has no
right to interfere with it.
merchant vessels:
conditions existed during the time the ship was within territorial
shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
a.
when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was on
b.
number;
c.
d.
aboard
foreign
merchant
vessels
anchored
in
Philippine soil.
e.
the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
76
offended party, the Court stated that under Section 5, Rule 110
WITHIN
THE
impliedly instituted and the offended party has not waived the
Restitution;
Reparation of the damage caused;
Indemnification for consequential damages.
National Penitentiary.
With the implied institution of the civil action in the crimiSEC. 16.
nal action, the two actions are merged into one composite
proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil.
77
official.
untenable.
accused.
The
public
function
of
prosecuting
offenses
can
lawyers are officers of the court and assume public and official
responsibilities.
him to recourse under the substantive law, to recourse if the evidence is sufficient or that he has the legal right to the demand
the
violation
of the
public
faith
and
the
and
document
78
the
An
offended
party
loses
right
to
intervene
in
It was, however, held that the offended party has the right
The witnesses, even if they are the complaining witnesses,
cannot act for the prosecutor in the handling of the case.
Although they may ask for the filing of the case, they have
79
accused.
d.
involved.
the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from
actual damages.
History of Amendment
SECTION 1.
c.
liability.
80
2)
action.
3)
offender, that is, civil liability arising from the crime under
under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party
intervenes.
c.
following words:
action.
all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent
b.
Modes of Enforcement
and
the
responsibility
for
quasi-delict
or
culpa
extra-
contractual.
has
thus
brought
enforcement.
about
dual
mode
of
Consequently, when a criminal action is filed, what
was deemed impliedly instituted thereunder was only the
liability arising from a crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
81
f.
civil
liability
that
is
deemed
d.
other.
also
is
This
Early Rulings
any reservation.
82
the injured party cannot recover twice for the same act or
extinction
g.
The Amendments
of
the
civil,
unless
the
extinction
that the fact from which the civil might arise did
The other school of thought is of the view that the
1)
not exist.
First Amendment
so-called
Supreme Court.
independent
civil
actions,
the
rule
was
Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the
action.
be observed,
Some legal writers are of the view that in accordance with
a.
stage
it
may be
found,
until
final
dered;
Article 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proceed
c.
83
Third Amendment
within
the
power of
the
Supreme
Court
to
2.
Second Amendment
action.
prosecution
and
shall
require
only
preponderance of evidence."
Philippines.
84
criminal action).
there is no reservation.
the
action
for
quasi-delict
against
the
Fourth Amendment
(supra) and San Ildefonso lines (supra) and the pro hac
The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is a virtual
return to the 1940 Rules of Court (and the 1985
amendment) which deemed as instituted with the
company.
The rule has also done away with third party complaints
civil action.
107
of
the
Rules
amendment.
of
Court
and
the
1985
85
simultaneously;
covers
crimes
committed
civil action.
civil liability ex delito, under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, and
1)
thru
criminal
negligence.
2)
declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. Big. 22 cases as
criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and some times, upon
being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof
the
offender
(separately
and
simultaneously)
cases.
and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried.
Civil Actions in Cases of Negligence
are entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action that
86
exists.
plaintiff is the State with Ligon only as a complaining witness. In the case
at bar, Ligon himself is the plaintiff.
ofB.P. Big. 22, Article 31 of the Civil Code cited by the trial court
will not apply to the case at bar.
The pendency of the civil action before the court trying the
criminal case bars the filing of another civil action in another
criminal liability.
87
action.
deemed abandoned."
Extent of Damages Awarded in Civil Liability Arising from Crimes
amended.
Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the
the
being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and
with,
and
jointly
determined
in,
the
same
proceeding
by
no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized:
Provided, however. That where the civil action had heretofore been
filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the
appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint
case pending with the Malabon trial court for the return of the
case filed with the Malabon Trial Court, praying for the return of
its payment made to the Navotas Industrial Corporation (NIC)
the ground that B.P. Big. 22 does not provide for any civil
Sandiganbayan.
pending in the
duties.
determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action
88
(2)
action is made.
When Reservation May Be Made
The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil
action arising from the offenses charged shall be made before
the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under
circumstances
affording
the
offended
party
reasonable
act or omission.
punishment of the guilty party; and also to civil action for the
Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what
gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and the
liable.
to press her claim for damages in said criminal case and waiver
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
sentenced.
punishable by law.
and claim them, the offender is still liable for them, and the
action
offended has the right to prove and claim for them in the
89
The Court held that the dismissal was improper and ruled thus:
informed thereof, then the actual filing of the civil action is even
far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express
In
the
Vintola
case,
the
fact
that
plaintiff
appellants made of record their claim for damages against the driver or
his employer; much less does it appear that they had attempted to prove
not entitled to recover damages twice for the same criminal act
actively
such damages.
concerning the civil liability of the driver and I or of his employer must
therefore be due to the fact that the criminal action did not involve at all
any claim for civil indemnity."
Effect of Reservation
Later, in Jarantilla, the Court ruled that the failure of the
or
prescribe for the civil action that have been reserved in the
criminal action.
trial
court
to
make
any
pronouncement,
favorable
the Court would not have dwelt on a civil liability that it had intended to
petitioners.
The civil liability arising from a crime may be waived.
90
the criminal case, to file any cause of action which could have
This
paragraph
addresses
the
lacuna
mentioned
in
91
is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the
very beginning.
Malabon
Trial
Court
must
be
suspended
until
after
the
that can remain valid even if its violation may constitute a crime,
Criminal
Cases
Nos.
16889-16900
filed
with
the
Sandiganbayan.
Code.
Subsidiary Liability
employer.
92
93
a)
stated:
liability.
b)
instituted with the criminal action had to be paid first to the Clerk of the
premature.
Under the 1985 Rules, the filing fees for the civil action impliedly
whether the claim for such damages was set out in the information or not.
that the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon
the filing thereof in court for trial.
the civil action "to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of
moral,
nominal,
temperate
or
In any other case i.e., when the amount of damages other than
exemplary
damages
shall
(merely)
where
the
litigant
specifies
some
amounts
or
provides that filing fees in estafa cases are also required where
constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an award for actual dam-
ages."
different
the filing of the information that the civil liability arising from the
crime has been or would be separately prosecuted.
the
complaint
or
information,
the
not
separately or
civil actions under Section 1, Rule 111 only when "the amount of
fees, and would not serve to attain the purpose of the revised
amendatory provisions."
be
sought
is
of damages
actual,
types
individually quantified.
94
SEC. 2.
When Separate Civil Action is Suspended
where the Civil action does not also fall under Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code.
and 2176 of the Civil Code, the civil action which has been
111 where the action is not to enforce civil liability from the
crime charged.
contracts.
Consolidation of Civil with Criminal Action Even if not Arising from Crime
from a crime.
If the Sandiganbayan declares the dredging contracts
then NIC's civil case for collection of sum of money will have no
action.
dredging
However,
if
the
Sandiganbayan
finds
the
contract to sell.
Article 31 speaks of a civil action "based on an obligation
not arising from the act x x x complained of as a felony."
No suspension if civil action does not arise from Crime
of Section 2 of Rule 111 which states that "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 judgment on the merits."
The Supreme Court held that the civil actions that may be
An action for legal separation is not to recover civil liability
consolidated under Section 3(a), Rule 111 is one for civil liability
civil action in this case is not one, but which is based on the
Trial
Court
must
be
suspended
until
after
the
95
therein
arising
from
such
offenses
or
predicated
the action for specific performance with the criminal action for
be
instituted
separately
or
whose
proceeding
has
been
crime that has not been reserved or when it is filed ahead of the
However, the civil action based on delict may be extinThe civil arising from a quasi-delict is not suspended but
may proceed simultaneously.
arising from the crime especially where the latter action had
early termination of the two (2) cases, and will redound to the
since this is the only civil liability that is deemed instituted with
the criminal action.
employer.
jurisdictional constraints.
criminal
cases
which
is
jurisdiction
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
would only refer to the civil liability arising from the offense
on
omission from which the civil might arise did not exist, this
counsel may act as counsel for the plaintiff in the civil case and
rule
The
administration of justice.
criminal action.
judgment of conviction.
suspended shall not run, refer to the civil action arising from a
that the court may award civil liability in the same proceedings
96
pronouncement on the civil liability of the accused and the complainant could file a petition for mandamus to compel the trial
Even
before
the
1985
amendments,
the
settled
accused unless the fact from which the civil might arise does not
exist.
showing that the act from which the civil liability might arise did
not exist, the judgment shall make a finding on the civil liability
of the accused in favor of the offended party."
2)
3)
doubt.
will not necessarily extinguish the civil liability unless the Court
declares in the judgment that the fact from which the civil
supply what had been omitted, the trial judge could have set the
from which the civil liability might arise did not exists."
the said case remanded to the court of origin, for the purpose of
determining the civil liability of the accused.
97
attorney
refuses
or
fails
to
institute
of Court.
In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been
satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability
criminal
omission.
the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil
action.
of the criminal
proceedings.
The reason most often given for this holding is that the
Kinds of Acquittal
The reason for this rule is that the parties are not the
same and secondarily, different rules of evidence are applicable.
98
Illustrative Case:
delict.
In
criminal proceeding.
prosecution
for
estafa
or
swindling
through
arising from crime; whereas, the civil liability for the same act
the finding that the facts upon which civil liability did not exist,
the accused was acquitted on the ground that the accused has not
where the accused was acquitted on the ground that the accused
act from which the civil liability arises is declared to be non-existent in the
final judgment, the extinction of the criminal liability will not carry with it
Acquittal
COMPARE
criminal
action
bars
the
civil
arising
proceedings and regardless of the result of the other (under Article 31)
On the other hand, if his acquittal is, for instance, due to the fact
and its filing after the dismissal of the criminal case for estafa and maybe
that he was not sufficiently identified to be the assailant, a civil action for
prosecuted without violating the rule against forum shopping, since they
the crime from which civil liability might arise, but because he was not, in
the eyes of the court, sufficiently identified as the perpetrator.
The dismissal of the criminal case is not res judicata even if the
civil is alleged to arise from delict, since the nature of the cause of action
Where the court states that the evidence throws no light on the
cause of fire and that it was an unfortunate accident for which the
of action.
accused cannot be held responsible, this declaration fits well into the
exception of the rule which exempts the accused from civil liability.
in
33
basis of claimant's action did not exist, the latter's action for civil liability
damage suffered.
99
the obligation but was held to refer to Article 29 of the Civil Code
criminal action.
is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved
On the issue of whether or not an action for damages
case (delict) and the civil case for damages based on quasi-
action.
delict, but not recover twice for the same act, the court wrote:
found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed,
if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both sides,
and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the
delict or crime.
Code.
was not based upon reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages
can no longer be instituted.
was based on culpa criminal for which reason "we held the suit
him.
Criminal Actions To Recover Civil Liability Arising From Delict and Civil
Actions Based on Quasi-Delict may Proceed Simultaneously
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been established
application of the exception in Sec. 3(c) of Rule 111 and the fact
that it can be inferred from the criminal case that accused was
100
SEC. 3.
the trial court, or in short, attain justice with the least expense
to
the
parties
consolidation,
litigant,
thereby
would
preventing
have
the
easily
sustained
unseeming,
if
a
not
respective
orientation,
perception
and
perhaps
even
The
court
underscored
the
statement
in
Tayag
v.
Alcantara, that the civil liability for the same act considered as a
quasi delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by
It
includes
consummated,
frustrated
and
attempted
SEC. 4.
would even have the same witnesses; and thus avoid multiplicity
investigation stage.
trial court.
Jurisdiction of Court to Pass upon Motion for Reconsideration of Offended Party in Connection with Civil Liability
101
appellant.)
based thereon.
instituted.
The
Supreme
Court
continues
to
exercise
2.
Corollarily,
the
claim
for
civil
liability
survives
action for the punishment of the guilty party, and also to a civil
action for the restitution of the thing, repair of the damage and
held
that
while
the
criminal
liability
of
an
appellant
is
criminal liability which is the basis of the civil liability for which
3.
Law
Contracts;
Quasi-contracts; xx x; and
Quasi-delicts.
ABANDOMENT
Though the death of an accused-appellant during the
a.
b.
c.
d.
OF
SENDAYDIEGO;
DEATH
OF
BASED ON CRIME
amended.
liability survives.
it was held that despite the death of the accused during the
4.
102
proposal was for the Court to continue in the same proceedings vith the
other civil actions that were deemed impliedly instituted vith the criminal,
criminal action to the civil liability aris-ng from the offense, there is no
more need for the proposal since with the death to the accused, the civil
liability arising from the offense is also extinguished. The rule was,
on
possible
deprivation
of
right
by
prescription.
however, retained by the Court to apply to the separate civil actions under
Section 3 of the same Rule. This would, however, only apply if these
a.
actions are consolidated with the criminal. Otherwise, since these are
purely civil actions, the effects of death should be governed by the Rules
on Civil procedure.16
b.
SEC. 5.
his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act
complained
of,
i.e.,
rape.
Consequently,
the
appeal
was
dismissed."
COMMENT:
defendant from the civil liability is no bar to a criminal action unless the
The ruling in Bayotas and its progeny which require the fil-
SEC. 6.
Suspension by Reason of Prejudicial Question
103
that indeed the alleged prior deed of sale was a forgery and
spurious.
separate from the estafa, as both actions arose from the same
fact or transaction, the former does not constitute ,a prejudicial
b.
Sale
may be undertaken.
responsibility
for
theft
of
the
d.
mortgagee.
accused.
respondents
not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon
private
of
c.
filed by alleged lessee against a person claiming co-ownership rights with the lessor, for illegal harvest of sugarcane
on land leased.
As the two cases are based on the same facts, and the
entitlement to damages being predicated on the unlawful
taking treated of in the Criminal Action, no necessity arises
for that civil case to be determined ahead of the Criminal
Action.
104
e.
c.
cases arising from the same fraudulent act, the doctrine of the prejudicial
question cannot be invoked as both cases may proceed independently of
each other, i.e., in the same way that the civil suit can be tried, so must
informations for estafa were filed against her before the municipal court.
private
what
HELD:
specifically,
a.
More
respondents
The issue in the criminal case is whether her failure to account for
marriage.
accused.
105
The
rule
does
not,
however,
apply
where
the
marriages.
The Court held that the mere fact that there are actions
to annul the marriage entered into by the accused in a
bigamy case does not mean that "prejudicial questions"
are automatically raised in civil actions to warrant the
suspension of the criminal case.
action.
b.
c.
and
intimidation
allegedly
accused
and
because
its
of
employed
allegedly
by
character.
d)
Code.
bigamous
the
nullity
crime of bigamy.
106
of the
second
marriage
is
not
through deceit.
a valid marriage.
exists.
with Paz as husband and wife for more than five years
Thus,
Leonilo's
averments
that
his
consent
was
marriage
is
null
and
void
on
the
ground
of
that
1)
ab
initio
completely
regardless
of
petitioner's
107
complaint.
be considered legitimate.
case.
ejectment case.
women
with
the
promise
of
futurity
OTHER CASES
and
commitment.
SECTION 1.
Preliminary Investigation Defined; When Required
The
determination
of
the
administrative
liability
for
The
dismissal
of
the
administrative
case
does
not
a.
108
b.
c.
d.
to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and
public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expenses and
anxiety of a public trial; and
Since the right belongs to the accused, he alone may waive its
denial.
The purpose is, however, satisfied if the accused is given all the
109
COMPARE:
110
ANOTHER
c.
e.
f.
g.
h.
111
SEC. 2.
Officers Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigations
a.
b.
112
a.
b.
to
prosecute
cases
outside
the
Sandi-ganbayan's
113
xxx
xxx
(4) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall, under the supervision and
control and upon authority of the Ombudsman, have the following
powers:
It has been held that the clause "any illegal act or omission of
any public official" is broad enough to embrace any crime
committed by a public officer or employee.
"Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. The Office of the Ombudsman
shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
114
c.
The PCGG would not have jurisdiction over an ordinary case falling
under Rep. Act Nos. 3019 and 1379.
The PCGG may, however, investigate and cause the prosecution of
active and retired members of the AFP for violations ofR.A. Nos.
3019 and 1379 only in relation to E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-a, i.e.,
insofar as they involve the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of former
President Marcos and his family and his cronies.
d.
e.
The law underwent several changes. Under R.A. No. 6770 the
Ombudsman was granted the authority to investigate and initiate
the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or
(c)
(d)
Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank;
the Court will not interfere nor pass upon the findings of the
Ombudsman to avoid its being hampered by innumerable
petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to
complaints filed before it, and that it will not review the exercise
of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys
each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a
complaint by a private complainant.
The court, however, stressed that while it is the Ombudsman
who has full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal
case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has
been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer
the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so much so
that the informations may not be dismissed without the approval
of said court.
No Injunction Against Ombudsman to Delay Investigation
(e)
(f)
City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g)
115
a.
SEC.
b.
2)
3)
1.
Amendment in paragraph (a) requires that the complaint should
be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as
well as other supporting papers relied upon by him (the complainant)
to establish probable cause.
The Rule does not provide for civil forfeiture before the
Sandiganbayan.
COMMENT:
c.
SEC. 3.
Procedure
116
2.
innocent
against
hasty,
malicious
and
oppressive
prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public
accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety
of a public trial, and to protect the state from useless and
expensive trials.
The right to a preliminary investigation is a statutory grant,
and to withhold it would be to transgress constitutional due
process."
4.
The clarificatory hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from
submission of the counter-affidavit and other documents, or from
expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be terminated
within five (5) days.
5.
c.
117
requirements
process.
of both
substantive
and
procedural
due
The term does not mean "actual or positive cause"; nor does it
import absolute certainty.
It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.
Determination of Probable Cause
As summed up in Webb u. de Leon, 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.
As well put in Brinegar v. United States, while probable cause
demands more than "bare suspicion," it requires "less than
evidence which would justify x x x a conviction."
A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to
stand trial.
It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
The preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and
exhaustive display of the parties evidence.
118
propositions, namely:
(1) that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is "not a
judicial function x x x (but) part of the prosecution's
job, a function of the executive,"
(2) that wherever "there are enough fiscals or prosecutors
to conduct preliminary investigations, courts are
counseled to leave this job which is essentially
executive to them," and the fact "that a certain power is
granted does not necessarily mean that it should be
indiscriminately exercised."
The 1988 Amendments to the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
declared effective on October 1, 1988, did not restore that
authority to Judges of Regional Trial Courts; said amendments
did not in fact deal at all with the officers or courts having
authority to conduct preliminary investigations.
This is not to say, however, that somewhere along the line, RTC
Judges also lost the power to make a preliminary examination
for the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists to
justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest (or search warrant).
Such a power indeed, it is as much a duty as it is a power
has been and remains vested in every judge by the provision in
the Bill of Rights in the 1935, the 1973 and the present 1987
Constitutions securing the people against unreasonable searches
and seizures, thereby placing it beyond the competence of mere
Court rule or statute to revoke.
The distinction must, therefore, be made clear.
While an RTC Judge may no longer conduct preliminary
investigations to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for
the filing of a criminal complaint or information, he retains the
authority when such a pleading is filed with his Court, to
determine whether there is probable cause justifying the
issuance of a warrant of arrest.
It might be added that this distinction accords, rather than
conflicts, with the rationale of Salta because both law and rule,
in restricting to judges the authority to order arrest, recognize
that function to be judicial in nature.
No Right of Cross-Examination
It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary
investigation has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which
the complainant may present.
119
When so raised, the trial court is called upon not to dismiss the
information but hold the case in abeyance and conduct its own
investigation or require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.
This is the proper procedure since the absence of such
investigation did not impair the validity of the information or
otherwise render it defective.
Much less did it affect the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The right to a preliminary investigation, being waivable does not
argue against the validity of the proceedings.
The most that should be done is to remand the case in order
that such investigation could be conducted.
No Right to Counsel During Preliminary Investigation
It has been held that there is nothing in the rules which renders
a preliminary investigation invalid because defendant was
without counsel.
See, however, People v. Abano, where the confession obtained
during preliminary investigation without the assistance of
counsel was held as inadmissible.
The Right of Accused to Discovery Procedures
In Webb u. de Leon, the court held that an accused is entitled
during preliminary investigation to discovery procedure.
While recognizing the absence of any provision in the Rules on
Criminal Procedure for discovery proceedings during preliminary
investigation, the Court held that such failure does not, however,
negate its use by a person under investigation when
indispensable to protect his constitutional right to life, liberty and
property.
Preliminary investigation is not too early a stage to guard
against significant erosion of the constitutional right to due
process of a potential accused; x x x and upheld the legal basis
of the right of petitioners to demand from their prosecutor, the
NBI, the original copy of the sworn statement and the FBI report
considering
their
exculpatory
character,
and
hence,
unquestionable materiality to the issue of their probable guilt.
Under the present rule, the respondent shall have the right to
examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he
may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense.
If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required
to specify those which he intends to present against the
respondent, and these shall be made available for examination
or copying by the respondent at his expense.
Preliminary Designation of Offense Not Conclusive
120
2.
3.
121
Discretion of Prosecutor
The investigating fiscal has discretion to determine the specificity
and adequacy of averments of the offense charged.
The failure to state therein that the accused was informed of the
complaint and was given an opportunity to submit controverting
evidence is fatal and untenable.
The officer who review a case on appeal should not be the same
person whose decision is under review.
122
'IN
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW,
SUPERVISION
MEANS
OVERSEEING OR THE POWER OR AUTHORITY OF AN
OFFICER TO SEE THAT SUBORDINATE OFFICERS PERFORM
THEIR DUTIES.
If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action
or step as prescribed by law to make them perform such duties.
Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or
modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for
that of the latter.'
123
It merely advised the DOJ to, "as far as practicable, refrain from
entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action of the
fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed
in Court."
Where the DOJ had already given due course to the petitioner's
petition for review, it was premature for respondent judge to
deny the motions to suspend proceedings and to defer
arraignment on the ground that "since the case is already
pending for trial, to follow whatever opinion the Secretary of
124
undermine
the
The Supreme Court stressed that the real and ultimate test of the
independence and integrity of the court is not the filing of the motion to
suspend at that stage of the proceedings but the filing of a motion to
dismiss or to withdraw the information on the basis of a resolution of the
petition for review reversing the Joint Resolution of the investigating
prosecutor.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
125
h.
i.
j.
k.
126
127
posting bail;
ask provincial fiscal for reinvestigation;
petition for review;
motion to quash information;
(5) if denied appeal, the judgment after trial.104
Exception When Certiorari as a Remedy Allowed
However, certiorari was allowed as a remedy to annul dismissal
of the petition for review by the Secretary of Justice for lack of
jurisdiction since the dispute involves an intra-corporate one
which (then) falls under the jurisdiction of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Certiorari was allowed also to annul the Order of the ETC Judge
for the issuance of warrant of arrest on the ground that there
was no probable cause.
compliance with the time limitation prescribed by the law for the
resolution of the case by the prosecutor, is part of the procedural
due process constitutionally guaranteed by the fundamental law.
Not only under the broad umbrella of the due process clause, but
under the constitutional guarantee of "speedy disposition" of
cases as embodied in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (both in the
1973 and the 1987 Constitution), the inordinate delay is violative
of the accused's constitutional rights.
A delay of close to three (3) years cannot be deemed reasonable
or justifiable in the light of the circumstances obtaining in the
case.
The suggestion that the long delay in terminating the preliminary
investigation should not be deemed fatal, for even the complete
absence of a preliminary investigation does not warrant
dismissal of the information, is without merit.
The absence of a preliminary investigation can only be corrected
by giving the accused such investigation.
But an undue delay in the conduct of preliminary investigation
cannot be corrected, for until now, man has not yet invented a
device for setting back the time.
The principle is not, however, applicable where the delay in the
termination of the preliminary investigation cannot be imputed
solely to the prosecution but because of incidents which are
attributable to the accused and his counsel.
In the same manner, just as the Court may resolve to overrule the finding
of probable cause as in Allado v. Diokno, the Court may also overrule the
decision of the judge reversing a finding of probable cause, also on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion.
SEC. 5.
When Warrant of Arrest may Issue
COMMENT:
a.
b.
Under the 1973 not only the Judge but also by any responsible
128
Under this rule, the judge must determine the existence of probable
cause within ten (10) days from the filing of the information.
If the accused had already been arrested, the judge must within the
same period often (10) days determine the existence of probable
cause and issue an order of commitment.
The judge may, on the other hand, disregard the prosecutor's report
and require the submission of additional evidence to determine the
existence of probable cause. If the judge still finds no probable
cause, he shall dismiss the case.
c.
2)
The earlier rulings of the Supreme Court which allows the Judge
in the exercise of its discretion, whether or not to determine the
existence of probable cause and issue a warrant of arrest on the
basis of the Fiscal's Certification which were capsulized in
Circular No. 12, dated November 30, 1987 have in effect been
abandoned by the Supreme Court in the light of the 1987
Constitution which provides that no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.
a.
b.
The Judge has to exercise sound discretion for, after all, the
personal determination is vested in the Judge by the
Constitution.
129
Outright Dismissal
The absence of probable cause for the immediate issuance of a
warrant of arrest is not a ground for the quashal of the
information but is a ground for the dismissal of the case under
Section 5[6], Rule 112 which is without prejudice.
The trial court is mandated to immediately dismiss the case upon
finding that no probable cause exists to issue a warrant of arrest
and after having evaluated the resolution of the fiscal and
supporting information.
The Need for Personal Evaluation of Documents Not Merely Resolution
The fact that it took the judges a few hours to review and
affirm the probable cause determination of the DOJ panel
does not mean they made no personal evaluation of the
evidence attached to the records of the case.
Explaining its ruling in Allado u. Diokno, which reversed
trial court's finding of probable cause and ordered
outright dismissal of the case, the Court stated that
Allado ruling is predicated on the utter failure of
evidence to show the existence of probable cause.
the
the
the
the
130
The most probable explanation for such delay could be that the
respondent Judge had actually wanted to wait for a little while
for the DOJ to resolve the petition for review.
All told, it would seem from the foregoing discourse of the court
that there is need to issue an order finding probable cause prior
to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Dissent on Need to Issue Separate Order
The foregoing statements would appear to negate the
pronouncement in Webb that there is no need for the court to
first issue an order of arrest before issuing a warrant of arrest,
and the presumption of regularity resorted to in justifying the
issuance of a warrant of arrest from the mere availability of the
records before the court in Enrile v. Salazar (supra), even in the
absence of a separate finding of probable cause.
In his dissent with the concurrence of Justice Mendoza, Justice
Reynato Puno found as sufficent basis to justify a finding of
probable cause the 17-page Joint Resolution of the Investigating
Prosecutor, and pointed out that Soliven and other related cases
did not establish the absolute rule that unless a judge has the
complete records of the preliminary investigation before him, he
cannot lawfully determine probable cause and issue a warrant of
arrest.
Soliven only held that it is the personal responsibility of the
judge to determine probable cause on the basis of the report and
supporting documents submitted by the fiscal; that he must
independently evaluate the report and supporting documents if
he finds no probable cause on the basis thereof, he can require
submission of additional supporting affidavits of witnesses.
There is nothing in Soliven that requires prosecutors to
physically submit to the judge the complete records of the
preliminary investigation especially if they are voluminous.
Nor is there anything in Soliven that holds the
physically submit the complete records of the
constitutionally infirm a finding of probable cause
even if it was made on the basis of an exhaustive
report or resolution.
omission to
case would
by a judge
prosecutor's
131
on hand as to enable His honoi to make his personal and separate judicial
finding on whether tc issue a warrant of arrest.
Lastly, it is not required that the complete or entire records oi the case
during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the
judge.
We do not intend to unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to
examine the complete records of every case all the time simply for the
purpose of ordering the arrest of an accused.
What is required, rather that the judge must have sufficient supporting
documents (such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn
statements of witnesses or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon
which to make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon which
to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable
cause.
The point is: he cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor's
recommendation.
Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the
performance of his official duties and functions, which in turn gives his
report the presumption of accuracy, the Constitution, we repeat,
commands the judge to personally determine probable cause in the
issuance of warrants of arrest.
This Court has consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty if
he relies merely on the certification or the report of the investigating
officer.
Thus, a warrant of arrest is void where the court did not personally
determine the existence of probable cause but based the same merely on:
(1) the resolution of the Panel of Investigators of the Ombudsman
recommending the filing of the information, and (2) memorandum of the
office of the Special Prosecutor denying the existence of a prejudicial
question.
The court, however clarified that: "It is not required that the issuing judge
categorically state in his resolution that he personally determined the
existence of probable cause.
It is enough that it may easily be gleaned from the resolution directing
the issuance of the warrant that he performed his duty in accordance with
the constitutional mandate on the matter.
Findings of Probable Cause as Prosecutors Entitled to Highest Respect
132
(2)
The Court held that the trial court may disregard the Fiscal's
report and require submission of supporting affidavits of
witnesses.
The failure or refusal of the petitioner to present further
evidence, although a good ground for the respondent Judge not
to issue a warrant of arrest, is not a legal cause for dismissal.
The judge was directed to proceed with the case, it being
understood that, if within ten (10) days after notice by the
judge, the petitioner fails or refuses to present other evidence,
the dismissal will stand for lack of prosecution.
However, va.Alla.do v. Diokno, it was held that the Judge may
dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause.
It has been held that the absence of probable cause for the
immediate issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ground for the
quashal of the information but is a ground for the dismissal of
the case under Section 6 (now Sec. 5), Rule 112 which is
without prejudice.
The trial court is mandated to immediately dismiss the case upon
finding that no probable cause exists to issue a warrant of arrest
and after having evaluated the resolution of the fiscal and
supporting information.
If the Court may motu propio dismiss the case for lack of
probable cause then it could do so when a motion to dismiss on
such ground is filed as was done va.Allado u. Diokno.
In cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, the court
may likewise dismiss the case outright, for patently being
without basis or merit and order the release of the accused if in
custody.
SEC. 6.
When accused lawfully arrested without warrant
COMMENT:
NOTES
The rule was originally taken from section 15 of Rule 112,
"where the accused is detained without a warrant for his arrest"
which in turn was taken from Republic Act No. 409, as amended
by Republic Act No. 1201, which reads:
"In all cases brought to the Office of the City Fiscal involving crimes
cognizable by the Court of First Instance, where the accused is not
133
134
by the court.
In People v. Figueroa, the Supreme Court applied a substantially
similar rule held that as the accused in that case did no exercise
his right within the five-day period, his motion for reinvestigation
was denied.
The case should be distinguished from Rolito Go v. Court o,
Appeals (supra).
In said case, Go not only asked for preliminary investigation on
the very day the information was filed, but he is also clearly
entitled to a preliminary investigation.
Section 7, Rule 112 is clearly not applicable because Go was not
lawfully arrested, the right to demand preliminary investigation
was subject to the condition that he should claim it seasonably.
He did not do so.
Accordingly, he effectively waived his right to a preliminary
investigation
The Right To Bail Pending Preliminary Investigation
A.
B.
C.
135
custody.
136
SEC. 4.
Execution of Warrant
The rule does not require a return of the warrant of arrest but
only a report to the judge who issued the warrant and, in case of
the officer's failure to execute the same, shall state the reasons
therefor.
Held: A police officer, in the performance of his duty, must stand his
ground and cannot, like a private individual, take refuge in flight, his duty
requires him to overcome his opponent. The force requires him to
overcome his opponent.
The force which he may exert therefore differ somewhat from that which
may ordinarily be offered in self-defense.
Bearing this in mind, we do not think that the appellant in using his
revolver against the deceased can be said to have employed unnecessary
force.
The deceased attacked him with a deadly weapon; he might perhaps,
have saved himself by running away, but this his duty forbade.
Was he to allow himself to be stabbed before using his arms?
It may, perhaps, be argued that the appellant might have used his club,
but a policeman's club is not a very effective weapon as against a drawn
knife and a police officer is not required to afford a person attacking him
the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.
SEC. 3.
Duty of Arresting Officer
COMMENT:
a.
b.
1985 AMENDMENT
b)
137
a.
"It has been ruled that 'personal knowledge of facts,' in arrests without
warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual
belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
c.
138
depraved of
instances.
criminals,
facilitating
their
escape
in
many
b.
c.
d.
d.
e.
The bases of the rulings are Rules 27 and 28, Provisional Rules
for Application of Penal Code, Revised Administrative Code and
Section 37 Charter of Manila which allows warrantless arrest
based on reasonable ground of belief.
The following cases are illustrative:
f.
Earlier Rulings (Before 1940): Arrest Based on Suspicion, Were Held Valid
a.
g.
h.
139
Sec. 5(a), Rule 113, Sec. 12, Rule 126 arrest for crimes In
Presence of arresting officer. WHEN IN HIS PRESENCE, THE
PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED, IS ACTUALLY
COMMITTING, IS OR ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT A CRIME.
Essential Requisites
Reliable information alone, absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious enterprise in the presence of and within the view of the
arresting officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause
that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
To constitute probable cause, two requisites must concur:
(a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the
view of the arresting officer
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity
or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime,
more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out
to its complete termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen
into a concrete offense.
A warrantless arrest is not justified by the mere fact that a crime
140
to apprehension."
The reliance of the prosecution in People v. Tangliben, to justify
the police's actions is misplaced.
In the said case, based on the information supplied by informers,
police officers conducted a surveillance at the Victory Liner
Terminal compound in San Fernando, Pampanga against persons
who may commit misdemeanors and also on those who may be
engaged in the traffic of dangerous drugs. At 9:30 in the
evening, the policemen noticed a person carrying a red travelling
bag who was acting suspiciously.
They confronted him and requested him to open his bag but he
refused. He acceded latel on when the policemen identified
themselves. Inside the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a
plastic wrapper. The police officers only knew of the activities of
Tangliben on the night ol his arrest.
In the instant case, the apprehending policemen already hac
prior knowledge from the very same informant of accusedappellant's activities.
The police operatives cannot feign ignorance of the alleged ille
gal activities of accused-appellant. Considering that the identity
address and activities of the suspected culprit was already
ascertained two years previous to the actual arrest, there was
indeed no reason why the police officers could not have obtained
a judicial warrant before arresting accused-appellant and
searching his person Whatever information their civilian asset
relayed to them hours be fore accused-appellant's arrest was not
a product of an "on-the-spot tip which may excuse them from
obtaining a warrant of arrest
Accordingly, the arresting team's contention that their arrest of
accused-appellant was a product of an "on-the-spot" tip is
untenable
In Randolph David v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court
stressed:
The Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secured in
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search
and seizure of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized."
The plain import of the language of the Constitution is that searches,
seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a
validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest.
141
bottom of the woven bag and smelt marijuana. The plastic woven bag
appearing to contain camote tops on the top has a big bundle of plastic
marijuana at the bottom. He could recognize the smell of marijuana
because he was assigned at that time at the ANTI-NARCOTICS UNIT. He
did not, however, do anything after he discovered that there was
marijuana inside the plastic bag of the accused until they reached
Olongapo City and the accused alighted from the bus in front of the Caltex
Gasoline Station in Sta. Rita. Right after the accused alighted from the
bus, policeman Obina intercepted her and showed her his ID identifying
himself as a policeman and told her he will search her bag because of the
suspicion that she was carrying marijuana inside said bag. In reply,
accused told him, "Please go with me, let us settle this at home."
HELD: Appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat.
Daniel Obina did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was
caught inflagrante delicto. The warrantless search being an incident to a
lawful arrest is in itself lawful.
PEOPLE V. BURGOS
Strict Interpretation
Personal Knowledge Interpreted. The need to strictly adhere to the rule
was stressed by Justice Hugo Gutierrez, Jr., in no uncertain terms in
People v. Burgos In this case Cesar Masamlok surrendered to the PC on
May 12, 1982 stating that, he was forcibly recruited by Ruben Burgos a
member of the NPA, threatening him with the use of firearm against his
life, if he refused.
A joint team of members of the PC-INP was dispatched the following day
to arrest Ruben Burgos and they were able to locate and arrest him while
he was plowing his field. Interrogation was made in the house of the
accused. He first denied possession of the firearm but later, upon further
questioning, the team with the wife of the accused, the latter pointed to a
place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground.
After the recovery of the firearm, the accused likewise pointed to the
subversive documents which the PC found kept in a stock pile ofcogon, at
a distance of three meters apart from his house.
Accused when confronted with the firearm readily admitted the same as
issued to him by the team leader of a sparrow unit. The lower court
justified the arrest, search and seizure without warrant under Section 6-A,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court held the arrest as unlawful.
Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has
just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must
have personal knowledge of that fact.
The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view."
There is no such personal knowledge in this case.
Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in
its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok.
The location of the firearm was given by the appellant's wife.
At the time he was arrested, he was not committing a crime but was
plowing his field.
If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made,
generally, nothing that is discovered afterwards cannot make it lawful
ARREST UNLAWFUL WHERE WAS
OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN WARRANT
NO
URGENCY
AND
THERE
by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon
Aminnudin and immediately arrest him. Even expediency could not be
invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant.
apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they did not know that
he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions.
Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained
thereby was inadmissible.
They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag.
IS
In People v. Aminnudin, the PC officers had earlier received a tip from one
of their informers that the accused was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo
City and was carrying marijuana. He was identified by name. Acting on
this tip, they waited for him in the evening of June 25, 1984, and
approached him as he descended from the gangplank after the informer
had pointed to him. They detained him and inspected the bag he was
carrying. It was found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed
as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner, who testified that she
conducted microscopic, chemical and chromatographic tests on them. On
the basis of this finding, the corresponding charge was then filed against
Aminnudin.
HELD: Contrary to the averments of the government, the accusedappellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be
committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest
allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
The present case presented no urgency. From the conflicting declarations
of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within
which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin
who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known.
The vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain.
And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a
judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a
warrant. Yet they did nothing.
No effort was made to comply with the law.
The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC Lieutenant who
was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority
that a "search warrant was not necessary."
The accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a
crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just
done so.
What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9
and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all
appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently
disembarking from the vessel.
It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the
marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension.
It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest.
The identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined
142
They did not know what its contents were. The said circumstances did not
justify an arrest without a warrant.
Thus, to justify the arrest without warrant, under Section 6 (a), it is not
enough that a crime is actually being committed in his presence.
The person or peace officer making the arrest must be personally aware
of the commission of such crime."
People v. Mengote
The police received a telephone call that there were three suspicious
looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard at
Tondo. The police responded and saw two men "looking from side to
side," one of whom was holding his abdomen. The police approached
them and identified themselves as policemen whereupon the two tried to
ran away. The other lawmen surrounded them and searched them and
one of them was found with an unlicensed firearm and live ammunition.
Was the search and seizure legal?
Held: It is illegal. At the time of the arrest, the appellant was merely
looking from side to side and holding his abdomen. This is not a crime.
The police did not know then what offense if at all had been committed
and neither were they aware of the participation therein of the appellant,
xxx
As for the illegal possession of firearm, the police discovered this only
after he had been searched and investigated.
The Supreme Court cited the cases of Burgos, Alih Castro and Aminnudin
holding that it would be a sad day, indeed, if any person could be
summarily arrested and searched just because he is holding his abdomen,
even if it be possibly because of a stomachache or if a peace officer could
clamp handcuffs on any person with a shifty look on suspicion that he
may have committed a criminal act or is actually committing or
attempting to commit it.
People v. Rodriguez
The arrest, search and seizure was held illegal in view of the admission by
the police that he did not actually see the appellants transacting but only
saw them acting suspiciously. The court held that the cardinal rule is that
no person may be subjected by the police to a search of his house, body
or personal belonging except by virtue of a search warrant or on the
occasion of a lawful arrest.
If a person is searched without a warrant, or under circumstances other
than those justifying an arrest without warrant in accordance with law,
merely on suspicion that he is engaged in some felonious enterprise, and
in order to discover if he has indeed committed a crime, it is not only the
arrest which is illegal but also, the search on the occasion thereof as being
the fruit of the poisonous tree.
COMPARE:
accused by the said police officers were not violative of their constitutional
rights since Marquez and the accused voluntarily surrendered them to the
police officers.
But even for the sake of argument that the recovery of the marijuana and
peso bills were against the consent of Marquez and accused, still, the
search on their persons were incidental to their valid warrantless arrest."
Compare
Still and all, the important thing is that there was probable cause to
conduct the warrantless search, which must still be present in such a
case.
In People v. Montilla, the opportunity to obtain a warrant was not
considered as sufficient to invalidate the legality of the warrantless arrest.
c.
The informant did not know to whom the drugs would be delivered and at
which particular part of the barangay there could be such delivery or the
precise time of the suspect's arrival, or of his means of transportation, the
container or contrivance wherein the drugs were concealed and whether
the same were arriving with, or being brought by someone separately
from the courier.
143
For, under the circumstances, the information relayed was too sketchy
and not detailed enough for the obtention of the corresponding arrest or
search warrant.
a.
d.
1)
Nor was he arrested just after the commission of the offense for his
arrest came a day after the shooting incident. He was arrested in the
hospital. Seemingly, his arrest without warrant is unjustified.
The Court, however, justified the arrest of Rolando Dural for being a
member of the New People's Army (NPA) an outlawed subversive
organization.
(c)
(d)
2)
"The record shows that Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple were
carrying unlicensed firearms and ammunition in their persons when
they were apprehended."
4)
Clearly then, the arrest of the herein detainees was well within the
bounds of the law and existing jurisdiction in our jurisdiction."
"From the facts as above narrated, the claim of the petitioners that
they were initially arrested illegally is, therefore, without basis in law
and in fact.
The record of these two (2) cases shows that at about 7:30 o'clock in
the evening of August 13,1988, Domingo T. Anonuevo and Ramon
Casiple arrived at the house of Renato Constantino at Marikina
Heights, Marikina, which was still under surveillance by military
agents. The military agents noticed bulging objects on their waistlines.
The Supreme Court found that he was not arrested while in the act
of shooting the two soldiers. He was charged with the crime of
Double Murder with Assault upon Agents of Persons in Authority.
The Umil u. Ramos, and seven other petitions for habeas corpus
were all based on the ground that the arrests of the petitioners
were made without warrant and that no preliminary investigation
was first conducted so that the information filed against them
are void.
144
145
the travelling bag and carton box which appellant was carrying
at the time.
In People v. Malmstedt
The court held that the officers thus realized that he was their
man even if he was simply carrying a seemingly innocent pair of
luggage for personal effects.
COMPARE:
d.
146
Yet the arresting team directly zeroed in on the accused and his
companions who were only eating halo-halo at a small
restaurant, surely not a crime in itself.
While SP04 Clemente claims that accused had a "bulging
waistline," this alone, in the light of the availing circumstances,
is insufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest of the
accused.
In another case, the police officers were informed that accused
were repacking drugs.
Accompanied by an informer, they peeped first through the
window before they saw the activities of the suspects inside the
room and entered the house and arrested the suspects.
The court held that the arrest, search and seizure were illegal.
They should have first conducted a surveillance considering that
the activities and identities of the suspects were already known
and if there was probable cause, they should have applied for a
search warrant.
The court reiterated the 7 situations of a warrantless search and
held that the arrest, search and seizure do not fall on any of
them.
In another case, the court noted that the ETC never took the
pains of pointing to such facts, (constituting probable cause) but
predicated mainly its decision on the finding that "accused was
caught red-handed carrying the bag-full of [s]habu when
apprehended."
In short, there is no probable cause.
At least in People v. Tangliben, the Court agreed with the lower
court's finding that compelling reasons (e.g., accused was acting
suspiciously, on the spot identification by an informant that
accused was transporting prohibitive drug, and the urgency of
the situation) constitute of probable cause impelled.
In another case, the Solicitor General proposes that the following
details are suggestive of probable cause persistent reports of
rampant smuggling of firearm and other contraband articles,
CHUA's watercraft differing in appearance from the usual fishing
boats that commonly cruise over the Bacnotan seas, CHUA's
illegal entry into the Philippines (he lacked the necessary travel
documents or visa), CHUA's suspicious behavior, i.e., he
attempted to flee when he saw the police authorities, and the
apparent ease by which CHUA can return to and navigate his
speedboat with immediate dispatch towards the high seas,
beyond the reach of Philippine laws.
147
and
Search
Rejected
for
Not
Being
148
Certainly, the arrest was not made in the course of a "hot pursuit" of
Cruz, because he was not in Marikina during the "buy-bust" operation. In
such a case, the police should have first secured a warrant of arrest and a
search warrant before they arrested and bodily searched Cruz.
a.
returned
with
149
2)
People v. Nazareno Arrest made 14 days after commission of the crime is valid.
3)
People v. Sucro
Neither could the arrest effected six (6) days after the
shooting be reasonably regarded as effected when [the
shooting had] ii fact just been committed within the
meaning of Section 5(b).
3)
4)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
1)
6)
2)
7)
8)
5)
150
"It has been ruled that 'personal knowledge of facts,' in arrests without
warrant must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual
belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. (Subjective)
But if they do not strictly comply with the said conditions, the
arresting officers can be held liable for the crime of arbitrary
detention, for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code and/or
for other administrative sanctions.
The same principle was stated in People u. Aruta.
Probable cause in these cases, must only be based on
reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been
committed or is about to be committed.
The foregoing standards were also adopted in warrantless "hot
pursuit" arrest.
Thus, in the 1999 case of People u. Doria, the Court en bane
151
Third, the arrest was made on the same day the crime was
committed.
In the words of Rule 113, Sec. 5(b), the crime had "just been
committed" and the arresting officer had "personal knowledge of
the facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
committed it."
The court reiterated the rule in People v. Doria (supra), that:
'"Personal knowledge' of facts in arrests without a warrant under Section
5(b) of Rule 113 must be based upon 'probable cause' which means an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
The grounds of suspension are reasonable when, the absence of actual
belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested
is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e.,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause,
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the
arrest."
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Caution:
"It is important to note that unlike in the case of crimes like, e.g.,
homicide, murder, physical injuries, robbery or rape which by their nature
involve physical, optically perceptible, overt acts, the defense of
possessing or delivering or transporting some prohibited or regulated drug
is customarily carried out without any external signs or indication visible
to police officers and the rest of the outside world.
152
The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him
free.
Rule on Escapees
The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his
lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient
means by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
SEC. 6.
Time of Making Arrest
SEC. 7.
Method of Arrest by Officer by Virtue of Warrant
SEC. 8.
Method of Arrest by Officer Without Warrant
c.
153
k.
154
b.
155