You are on page 1of 5

CHAPTER 20: RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED with respect to cases cognizable by the MTCC, the prosecutor shall  The right

may be claimed not only by the person accused of an
take the appropriate action based on the affidavits & other offense but by any witness to whom an incriminating question is
 Criminal Due Process supporting documents submitted by the complainant. The addressed.
 Sec.14 (1) No Person shall be held to answer for a criminal  Right of the accused against self-incrimination may be invoked in
prosecutor may either dismiss the complaint if he does not see
offense without due process of law. administrative investigations that partake of the nature of or are
 This section is restricted to criminal cases only & purely to their sufficient reason to proceed with the case or file information if he
finds probable cause. analogous to criminal proceedings.
procedural requirements.  Scope:
 It requires the accused be tried by an impartial & competent court  When an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have
 As long as the question will tend to incriminate, the
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law & with proper waived the right to preliminary investigation & the right to
witness is entitled to the privilege. In all other cases the
observance of all the rights accorded to him under the question any irregularity that surrounds it.
 A mistrial is declared if it is shown that the proceedings were held witness:
Constitution & the applicable statutes. o May refuse to answer provided the question is
 Denial of the right to preliminary investigation in the absence of a under such circumstances as would prevent the accused from
relevant & otherwise allowed even if the answer may tend
valid waiver will constitute of denial to due process. freely making his defence or the judge from freely arriving at his
embarrass him or subject to him to civil liability.
 As Justice Ynares-Santiago put it in Sales vs Sandiganbayan: decision. o The right may not be invoked where the question
 While the right to preliminary investigation is statutory rather  Martelino v Alejandro, SC declared that the spate of publicity in
asked relates to a past criminality for which the witness can
than constitutional in-its fundament, it is a component part of this case did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on
no longer be prosecuted, as where the crime has already
due process in criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a
prescribed or he has already been acquitted or convicted
investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a massacre of Muslim trainees. If there was “trial by newspaper” at
criminal offense & hence formally at risk incarceration or some all, it was not of the petitioners but of the Government. Absent o May refuse to answer where he has been previously
other penalty is not a mere formal or technical right, it is here is a showing of failure of the court martial to protect the granted immunity under a validly enacted statute.
substantive right. To deny the accused’s claim to a preliminary accused from massive publicity encouraged by those connected  US v Tan Teng, where a person charge with rape was examined
investigation would be to deprive him of the full measure of his with the conduct of the trial either by a failure to control the for gonorrhoea which might have been transmitted to the
right to due process. release of information or to remove the trial to another venue or victim, the SC held the examination to be valid saying it was no
 On the other hand, SC has ruled that the Ombudsman need not different from examining his fingerprints or other parts or
to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have
conduct a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a complaint if features of his body for identification purposes.
subsided. Due process is also denied where a person is impleaded
it is found to be “utterly devoid of merit” by his investigating  Holt vs United States, The prohibition of compelling a man in a
for violation of a law, administrative regulation or municipal
officers. It has upheld the power of the Ombudsman to dismiss a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of
ordinance not previously published as he would not know what
complaint outright without a preliminary investigation. The the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
acts he must do or avoid preventing prosecution. Where appeal is
Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether a criminal communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as
permitted by the Constitution or by statute, denial thereof will also
case should be filed, including whether a preliminary investigation evidence when it may be material.
militate against due process.  Social Justice vs Dangerous Drugs Board, the court finds no
is warranted.  Self –Incrimination
 The conduct of preliminary investigation is like court proceedings,  Section 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons
subject to the requirements of both substantive & procedural. against himself. accused of crimes. The SC has considered as violative of this
 A preliminary investigation is considered as a judicial proceeding  Right against self-incrimination has its roots in the common law & right as well as the right to privacy, Sec. 36(f) of RA No. 9165,
wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer by nature of his is based on humanitarian & practical considerations. which requires all persons charged before the prosecutor’s
functions, acts as a quasi-judicial officer. The authority of the Humanitarian because it is intended to prevent the state, with office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of
prosecutor or investigating officer is no less than that of a all its coercive powers from extracting from the suspect testimony imprisonment of not less than 6 years & 1 day shall undergo a
municipal judge or even an RTC judge. that may convict him. Practical because a person subjected to mandatory drug test.
 Borlingan v Pena, decided on the basis of the 1985 Rules of  When available:
such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own protection.
Criminal Procedurem which authorized MTCC to conduct  Right is available in criminal prosecution & all government  As a rule, the privilege against self-incrimination may be
preliminary investigation, SC said that in cases cognizable by the proceedings including civil actions & administrative or legislative invoked only when & as the incriminating question is asked,
said courts, the conduct of a preliminary investigation is not investigations. since the witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature
mandatory. It ruled that upon the filing of the complaint & affidavit or effect of the question to be put to him.

If the  Landmark case of Miranda vs Arizona. Excessive bail shall not be required. solitary. before conviction. he must be declared among others that: the prosecution may not use admissible evidence. & the when for instance.  The person must be warned he has the right to remain silent. constitutional rights. threat. knowingly & intelligently. the counsel de oficio was present at the start of certain & unequivocal & intelligently. lack of or irregular preliminary investigation. where the intelligence was not only the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary plan to kill the victim. provided that a  Bail evidence against him. Secret detention places. the same accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the statements of the accused made without assistance of counsel disapprobation applies where a confession was signed by a person legality of the warrant issued therefor. he is asked to provide samples of his in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. the Court ruled that prosecution. or be released on recognizance as may their families. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the 1) Voluntary kind of counsel but effective & vigilant counsel. be bailable by rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices. — An unsolved crime & the investigation has started to focus on a advance by the police for persons of limited intelligence or application for or admission to bail shall not bar the particular person as a suspect. it is settled that he can refuse at deemed “critical stages” in the criminal process as held in People this is not considered part of the custodial investigation & the the outset & altogether to take the stand as a witness for the vs Sunga.” directly or by a failure to invoke it. confession.  In the case of accused himself. provided with one. although the accused was appraised of his sufficient sureties.” commission of an offense shall have the right to be 2) With assistance of counsel  People vs Cachuela. the right limited but impaired.  RA 7438 provides sanctions for erring arresting officers. the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial against him. The court shall that the right to counsel is not available during a police line-up as . he is deemed to have waived the same. or practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigated took Lucero & his signed confession to the lawyer’s house. provided the waiver is an administrative investigation & given voluntarily. on the reasonable assumption that the purpose of process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the the right to counsel may not be invoked by “resource persons” in his interrogation will be to incriminate him. a written statement made in the course of up. lawyer asked him if he had freely signed it. provided that he  De la Torre vs CA. retained or arbitrary or illegal detention or of violent crimes. it was held that “If confessions written in arrest. NBI. Restating the Court’s earlier ruling. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal  It begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an  People vs Capitin. interrogated & who gives a statement in the course of the line-  The right against self-incrimination may be waived. or any the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against self-incriminations.  Section 26.  RA 7309 provides relief for victims of unjust imprisonment. two CIS agents  When a person fails to invoke this right “at the right time”. prohibited. The right to bail shall not be impaired observed that appellant has only finished Grade VI which means even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his that he is not adequately educated to understand fully & fairly the suspended. or other similar forms of detention are him. The next morning. the US Supreme Court was conducting the investigation cannot be considered as person cannot afford the services of counsel. custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates that the lawyer be present & be able to advise & assist his client (2) No torture. the custodial investigation of the accused but left after a while to  According to RA 7438.” investigation of the charge against him. the lawyer also signed the same. accusatory & it is usually the witness or the complainant who is  Waiver: the public hearings conducted by the Congress. the Court considered as inadmissible the educational attainment have been outlawed.  Confessions made under physical. except those charged with (4) The law shall provide for penal & civil sanctions for waiver is made voluntarily. force. &  People vs Ramos. or from assailing during his preliminary investigation during which he mentioned his whose sanity was dubious. intimidation. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. mental & moral coercion are offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence violations of this section as well as compensation to & inadmissible. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of approved. freedom of action in any significant way. it reiterated the rule in the Gamboavs Cruz case to counsel applies in certain pre-trial proceedings that can be raises them before entering his plea. understandingly & intelligently. either  Tanenggeevs People. the  Philcomsat Holdings Corporation vs Senate. (People vs Buscato) of guilt is strong. would be admissible in evidence against him.”  Any statement he does make may be used as evidence against  Right to counsel is not unlimited. without prejudice to the liability of the “inviting” officer for any yes. which & independent counsel preferably of his own choice. These rights cannot be waived except statements. The Court rejected the violation of the law. attend the wake of a friend. violence.  Section 13. (Miranda vs Arizona) significance of his constitutional rights to silence & to counsel. the conviction was reversed as the Court  It is any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a be provided by law. stemming from  “An effective & vigilant counsel necessarily & logically requires in writing & in the presence of counsel. (People vs Serzo) incommunicado.  He has a right to the presence of an attorney. All persons. Court explained in People vs Lara that “during a police line-up. holding that the Constitution requires not just “any  Sec. “custodial investigation shall include the willingly made. shall.”  Custodial Investigation  For extrajudicial confession to be admissible must be: confession.  People vs Bokingo. this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in  He may waive the effectuations of these rights. knowingly &  People vs Lucero. an extrajudicial confession made with the 3) In writing informed of his right to remain silent & to have competent 4) Express assistance of a lawyer provided by the same agency. When the accused said signature.

the case was set aside after finding that they  Void-for-vagueness rule: 2) Where bail is a matter of discretion. In all criminal prosecutions. preserving the right to bail even if the privilege of the writ of (e) Age & health of the accused. including the course of the trial itself. be informed of the nature & case of the accusation against him. (g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial. the evidence of the prosecution must be strong crime should be filed in which all the elements thereof. circumstances that may be disclosed later. offense must be stated in ordinary & concise language  Conviction depend not on the weakness of his defence but on of right.Amount of bail. the following factors: because he does not know how to establish his innocence. defence. accusation against him so he can adequately prepare for his  Excessive bail shall not be required. Sec. never been considered subject to waiver. o The right to counsel does not cease after trial. resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later 4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong. Rule 114. & pronounce proper judgment. be appointed by the court to represent him. a person charged with rape. particularly in the rules of procedure. Sec. accused. purpose of bail is to secure their provisional release. he may be convicted not because he is guilty but 17. reasonable amount of bail considering primarily. or Municipal Circuit Trial Court.  The duties of a judge once an application for bail is filed: accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court)  People v Lumague.  Presumption of Innocence o The description & not the designation of the offense are (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense  According to Cooley. did not make the summary of evidence of the prosecution  The right of the accused to counsel in criminal proceedings has the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act invalid for vagueness. not necessarily in the terms of the statute the strength of the prosecution to bail as a matter of right. establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. — The judge who the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the law. guidelines. (Rule 114. despite the objection of such (b) Nature & circumstances of the offense. was asleep & unconscious would violate his constitutional right to or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18. the neglect or refusal of the accused shall not in under an Information charging with raping his daughter while she notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail any manner prejudice or be used against him.  It is to give emphasis where added emphasis is due. (c) Penalty for the offense charged.” “& “gross inexcusable 3) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on crime. exception. Even  It is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the  Section 9. o A counsel de officio should still.  Only persons under detention may petition for bail. there can be no fair hearing unless the otherwise the petition should be denied. &.  Section 13 of Article III reversed the Garcia-Padilla vs Enrile o The right to be silent & to the assistance of counsel may be (d) Character & reputation of the accused. even if a lesser penalty may be imposed upon conviction owing to mitigating accused is on bail. or life as long as there is “some rational connection between the fact  Nature & Cause of Accusation imprisonment. for the (a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail. . — All persons in custody shall be admitted without repetition. (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused. A separate hearing is not enough to pierce the shield of this presumptive innocence & to the virginity of the victim. a matter guilty beyond reasonable doubt. could not be convicted of qualified seduction. the accused  People v Holgado. indispensable. discharge the  Has to testify OR submit a position paper  Assistance of Counsel: than the start of the trial of the case. the use of the words “unwarranted. but in such form as is sufficient to on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after enable a person of common understanding to know that conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court. when arrested. Rules of Court) limited to.Bail. accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Section 9). without appearance before any court as may be required. waived during custodial investigation under Article III. & enable the court to Municipal Trial Court in Cities.  People v Abino. Section 4. not punishable by death.  People v Ramirez. but continue commission & at the time of the application for bail may be (i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice even where the case is appealed.”  People v Mirantes. should be alleged. determine the existence of probable cause. offense is intended to be charged.  Any offense which under the law existing at the time of its (h) Forfeiture of other bail. A charge of the latter satisfy due process which may be summary in nature or held in arbitrary mandate.” to exercise its sound discretion (Sections 7 & 8) custody & placed under investigation for the commission of a “manifest partiality. shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. habeas corpus was suspended. the constitutional presumption will not apply controlling.  Responsibility of the prosecution to establish the defendant’s  EXCEPTION: o The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the  Revised Rules of Court. but not counsel. convicting the appellant of rape by intimidation 1) In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion. conduct a hearing of the  It is where the statue itself is couched in such indefinite were denied due process because they had not been given a application for bail regardless of whether or not the language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence chance to testify & to present additional evidence on their behalf prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt  Right to be Heard to determine therefrom what acts or omissions are punished. furnished by him or a bondsman.” “evident bad faith.” which all have definite connotations. of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court  The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into  Gallego v Sandiganbayan. (j) Pendency of other cases where the o The defendant is entitled to know the nature & cause of the punished by reclusion perpetua or death. or released defining the offense. negligence.  People v Arciaga. reclusion perpetua. of which he was  Hearing on bail is separate & distinct from the initial hearing to proved & the ultimate fact presumed. & it is required to from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely which was not included in the information. 12(1). & the inference of one fact later absolved.  Section 14(a). conditioned upon his issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a science of law. with sufficient sureties. Municipal Trial Court.

. Any death penalty already disposed shall  One of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to information which did not allege that they committed the be reduced to reclusion perpetua. the information is dismissed  Up to the extent of direct examination because he is protected  Not applicable in the Court of Tax Appeals – not a criminal court on the ground that it is defective when it is not so in fact. the Supreme Court considered as meet him face to face at the trial. must take into committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant. the petitioner’s contention that the  Allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses  Penalty must be inhumane & barbarous & shocking to the  Enables the court to observe the demeanour of the witness under Plunder Law denied him the right to be informed of the nature & conscience oath & assess his credibility  Cruelty must be inherent in the penalty cause of accusation against him because of its ambiguity in  Testimony of the witness against the accused is subject to cross. quasi-judicial. prevent excessive &  It will call for no less than “the cold neutrality of an impartial  EXCEPTION discriminatory fines  “Requiring not necessarily an actual cross-examination but judge”.”  Other similar circumstances that will prevent him from with the filing of a corrected information.. The judge  Double Jeopardy merely an opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if  Section 21. it may validly renew  Right to Confrontation  “To meet the witness face to face. who give their testimony in shall the death penalty be imposed. for compelling the petitioners as not having been placed in danger of his presence. degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.  Speedy trial: for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witnesses & the insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution or denial of his  Requisites: production of evidence he may need for defence right to a speedy trial. Neither constitute double jeopardy. his direct testimony cannot be stricken off record. reasons involving heinous crimes. so far as  Section 19(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed. The test in determining whether a  May be done through counsel – accused need not have face-to- oppressive as to revolt the moral sense of the community criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language face confrontation  An unforeseeable accident adds to the suffering of the convict. because these dismissals are considered in 1) The accused has already been arraigned  Failure is punishable as contempt of court the nature of an acquittal 2) He has been duly notified of the trial  Defendant may ask for conditional examination PROVIDED the  Requisites: 3) His failure to appear is unjustifiable expected testimony is material: a) A valid complaint or information  Trial in Absentia  Witness is so sick & infirm as to afford reasonable ground for  It must be a valid complaint otherwise it can place the  Requisites: a) The accused has already been arraigned believing that he will not be able to attend the trial accused in jeopardy. nor another prosecution based on the same allegation will facts provable by witnesses are concerned. in determining the fine to be imposed. & give to the accused an opportunity of cross. witness by cross-examination. from self-incrimination  Prohibited Punishment  Intends to secure the accused in the right to be tried. psychological or offense specified therein “in relation to their office”. to insure that justice is done to the defendant. But if without the  Scope: attendance express consent of the accused. was based on or administrative bodies.  Torture is a cruel punishment – involves a deliberate design to failing to define with precision certain words & phrases in many examination by defence counsel increase the suffering of the prisoner in a manner so flagrant & of its provisions was rejected. the Congress hereafter convicted when they entered their plea of not guilty to the examination provides for it. conviction. a conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed  If a prosecution witness dies before cross-examination can be penalty otherwise does not become cruel or unusual conduct when measured by common understanding & practice. open court (Go v People) account the financial condition of the convict.  In Herrera v. the person facing criminal prosecution who should know his (2) The employment of physical. covered on cross  Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be  Examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in judge who. b) He has been duly notified of the trial  He reside more than 100km from the place of trial & has no  Where the original information is defective & the case is c) His failure to appear is unjustified means to attend the same dismissed on the motion of the accused. all persons shall have the right to a speedy act. conviction or acquittal under either  Intended to relive the accused of needless anxieties & shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same inconveniences before sentence is pronounced upon him  Section 16. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.  Available to the accused where the dismissal of the prosecution disposition of their cases before all judicial. completed.  Violative of the due process clause: requires an equivalence It merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the PROVIDED the material points of his direct testimony had been between the degree of the offense & the degree of the penalty  Prohibition is not only addressed to the legislature but also to the statute to be upheld.  Compulsory Process  Accused is entitled to issue a subpoena & subpoena duces tecum against him. b) Filed before a competent court (Competent Court) . capricious & oppressive delays a law & an ordinance.  Estrada v Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan. The accusers & given the chance to cross-examine degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or Court considered said complaint or information as  Chief purpose: to secure the opportunity for cross-examination: the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities “insufficient” as it could not have provided for their  Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.  The Trial desired” punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by  One free from vexatious. by only such witnesses cruel. even with his express consent. unless.

L-38443. they cannot be the subject  EXCEPT on exceptional & narrow grounds: of separate prosecutions trial. conviction or  Distinction: o In criminal cases: o Acquittal  Acquittal or dismissal can only be appealed by the acquittal under wither shall constitute a bar to another SolGen acting on behalf of the State prosecution for the same act . (People v. EXCEPTIONS: o A dismissal with the express consent of the accused will 1) The dismissal is made upon motion or with express facts arising from the same act or omission not bar another prosecution for the same offense. entered in the former complaint or information. L-12761 June 29. must be case. in violation of the accused’s right to speedy will put the accused in double jeopardy proceeds from the same act. can be appealed as he has not yet been placed in  The Constitution states: 1959) jeopardy  If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance. The accused is acquitted because the the civil liability of the accused is considered o The government cannot appeal from an acquittal or for the jeopardy when tried anew for the same offense by a evidence doesn’t show his guilt beyond reasonable purpose of increasing or modifying a penalty even if the competent court. upon  Private complainant may question such only insofar as hence. not appealable. & this excludes mere silence or failure of the 3) Question to be passed upon the appellate court is c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was accused to object to the dismissal. Ylagan GR purely legal (if dismissal is incorrect. 2002) . nor can it be subject of a petition information that doesn’t decide the merits of the issue as to whether o Doctrine of Supervening event for certiorari. The consent.  When the case is terminated otherwise upon the merits  Crimes Covered c) To which the defendant had pleaded (Valid Plea)  A defendant is never placed under jeopardy until after he o If the 4 elements of DJ are present. case will be made without the consent of the prosecutor & of No. or upon any ground therefore. a person charged before it cannot plead double the merits. information under any of the following instances: information) a) The graver offense developed due to supervening  General Rule: . as the first prosecution never placed him in doubt. any offense necessarily includes or matter or the territory. (People v. An order of dismissal of the first case will not bar subsequent development changes the character of the  The acquittal is executory upon rendition & entitles the first indictment he may have been charged another prosecution for the same offense.  Discharge after a trial. for any attempt that the court has no jurisdiction. o Dismissal decision be not in accordance with the law jeopardy. as when the dismissal is based on the allegation shall have pleaded to the charge against him during the prosecuted again for the original offense. (AFTER convict starts serving his sentence even before the expiration includes the offense charged in the former complaint or arraignment & plea of the defendant to a valid of this period. his plea. When a mistrial has occurred  However. the accused is or isn’t guilty of the offense charged. or that the complaint or  An order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory & included in the offense charged in the original complaint or information is not valid or sufficient. 2) Dismissal is NOT an acquittal or based upon b) The facts constituting the graver charge became said consent is considered a WAIVER of his right against consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the known or were discovered only after a plea was double jeopardy. it is possible for one act to give rise to several where the dismissal of the prosecution against him.  Accused may be prosecuted for another offense if a d) Of which he had previously acquitted/convicted (Termination of  General Rule: Case) . 134732 May 29. The judgment if conviction is  The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to or frustration thereof. When the court that absolved the accused gravely  Illegal sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes the o Juris:  Defence of double jeopardy will be available to the accused abused its discretion resulting in loss of jurisdiction crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs . (People v. provided the elements of the several crimes are DJ trial. defendant is stopped constituting the former charge. an attempt accused to immediate release. as the consent of the defendant. to be effective. files before defendant makes not identical  Act Violating Law & Ordinance of an acquittal. was based on insufficiency of crimes – separate prosecutions for each crime may be have waived or is stopped from invoking his right against evidence of the prosecution or denial of his right to speedy filed.  A court without jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment. or frustration thereof. because these dismissals are considered in the nature o Grant of a motion to quash. 1(f) of Rule 116. Nov 25 1933) remanded to the court of origin for further the offended party except as provided in section o EXCEPTIONS: a) When there is insufficiency of evidence to support the proceedings. Verra GR No. or one which necessarily appealable within fifteen days but becomes final if the another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes or is included in the previous offense.  Appeal of Prosecution o Inseparable offenses charge against him o A judgment of acquittal is final and no longer reviewable –  Where an offense is inseparable from another & b) Where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings. even o Prosecution can appeal where the accused is deemed to with his express consent. express. or an attempt to have one. accused may not be thereof. Robles GR No. either upon the subject arraignment.