You are on page 1of 315

2016 NOTES ON THE REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE
PART I

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This “Notes on the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure” is a compilation
of relevant and important rulings of the Supreme Court and commentaries of
various experts. Said jurisprudence and annotations come mainly from the
following sources:

1. Ciminal Procedure, A Lawyer’s Companion, 2006 ed. Suarez and dela
Banda;

2. Notes on Criminal Procedure, Dean Hildegardo F. Inigo;

3. Rules on Criminal Procedure 2007 ed., Herrera;

4. Handbook on Criminal Procedure 2008 ed., Tan

5. Criminal Procedure (The Bar Lecture Series) 2011 ed. Riano and

6. Criminal Procedure (Benchbook), J. Diosdado Peralta

7. Criminal Procedure (A Comprehensive Approach for the Bench and
the Bar), Ferdinand Tan, 2015 Ed.

This is a project intended to benefit the Center for Legal Aid Work of the
University of San Carlos School of Law and students enrolled in Criminal
Procedure handled by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles of the Court of
Appeals of the Philippines.

Reproduction for commercial purpose is strictly prohibited.

THE PROFESSOR

Personal Circumstances

Parents:

Aurelio M. Ingles (+) NAWASA employee
Cresenciana L. Torero (+) elementary public school teacher

Siblings:
Victoria Ingles Olmedo
Linda Ingles Durias

Place of Birth: City of Tagbilaran
Date of Birth: February 27, 1952
Residence: Second St. Seaview Heights Subdivision, Lawaan I Talisay City,
Cebu

Present Position: Executive Justice – Court of Appeals, Visayas Station
appointed by the Supreme Court effective April 1, 2014 but was appointed
as Associate Justice on February 24, 2011 by President Benigno Simeon C.
Aquino III

Wife: Atty. Maria Alice Corominas Lim (Associate Prosecution Attorney,
Talisay City Prosecutor’s Office)
Child: Annika Caelyn Gabrielle L. Ingles

Educational Attainment and Awards

Level School Award

Elementary College of the Holy Spirit Salutatorian
(Tagbilaran City)

Secondary
First Year University of San Carlos First Honor
(Cebu City)
Second Year University of San Carlos 3rd Honor
Fourth Year Christ the King Mission 2ndHonorable
Seminary (Quezon City) Mention

College
First and Second Years Christ the King Mission Sem.
3rd and 4th Years Divine Word College Tagbilaran

Graduated with Bachelor of Arts Degree Major in Political
Science

Postgraduate:
Completed all academic units except thesis for MA in
Philosophy degree
Bachelor of Laws, University of San Carlos, Cum Laude
(1981)

Passed the 1981 Bar with a rating of 80.40.

Post Graduate:
Completed almost all academic requirements leading to LLM
degree ( San Beda Graduate School of Law)

Affiliations:
As a college student:

Member of the Kilusang Khi Rho ng Pilipinas a student and
youth movement advocating principally for social justice and
promotion of farmers’ rights

As a lawyer:

Children’s Legal Bureau as member of the Board then
Chairperson; advocacy- Protection of children and promotion
and protection of children’s rights;

Cebu Provincial Women’s Commission as representative at
large; advocacy- protection of women and promotion and
protection of women’s rights;

Cebu Uniting for Sustainable Water as legal adviser;
Advocacy- environmental protection and preservation

Young Lawyers Association of Cebu Inc.

Columnist: Sun Star Cebu and Cebu Daily News;

Cebu-Citizens Involvement and Maturation in People’s
Empowerment and Liberation as core-group member;
advocacy- clean, honest, peaceful elections and people’s
political education and empowerment.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cebu City Chapter.

Honorary member, Cebu Lady Lawyers Association.

Other Qualifications:

*Past Dean, College of Law, University of San Carlos (1994
– 2000) and during his tenure included in the curriculum
environmental laws and rights of the child and with the
assistance of the Ateneo Human Rights Center; created and
institutionalized the Center for Legal Aid of the college aside
from improving its performance in the Bar;

*Past Chairman, IBP Visayas Regional Committee on Bar
Discipline (1997-1999);

*Past President, IBP Cebu City Chapter (1997-1999);

*Founding Member, Philosophical Association of the Visayas
and Mindanao;

*Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 58
from October 2001 to February 2011;

*During his stint as trial court judge, declined to receive
allowances from the City and Province of Cebu which totalled
to not less than P48,000.00 a month, in order to preserve
not only actual but also the appearance of independence and
impartiality of his court.

*He continues to waive such allowances which amounted to
not less than P60,000.00 per month as an Associate Justice
of the Court of Appeals.

*Intentionally did not solicit for any indorsement from
anybody to support his appointment as judge and justice.

*His probity, independence and judicial excellence was
recognized by his peers from the bar as he topped the last
Profile Taking of Judges covering all RTC and MTC Judges in
the Cities and province of Cebu conducted by the IBP Cebu
Province Chapter (the only time he was included as subject
since appointment) garnering a general average of 91.78%
for integrity, competence, performance and decorum.

*Was one of ten finalists for the Supreme Court Judicial
Excellence Awards, and a finalist in the Best Decision in Civil
Category Award during the search in 2004.

*Prior to his appointment to the Judiciary in October 2001,
has had almost twenty (20) years of diverse law practice. He
worked as personnel and legal officer for Metropolitan Cebu
Water District, and Aboitiz and Company, Inc.. He was also
an associate of the late Atty. Jose D. Palma, then was law
partner at Monteclar Ingles Divinagracia Sibi & Trinidad Law
Office.

*As an active member of the IBP Cebu City Chapter, served
under various positions including director, secretary, vice
president and ultimately as chapter president for the years
1997 – 1999.

*During his term, as President, led IBP Cebu City Chapter
through its golden years, steering his chapter to win multiple
national awards including: Most Outstanding Chapter Award,
Outstanding Achievement in Legal Aid,
Outstanding Achievement in Continuing Legal Education and
Outstanding Achievement in Publication.

*As steward of IBP Cebu City Chapter he was awarded Most
Outstanding Chapter President for the term 1997 – 1999.

*Most Outstanding USC Alumnus in the Field of Law (2001);

*Most Outstanding Boholano in the Field of Law (2009);

*Outstanding Public Servant Award (2014) from the City of
Tagbilaran

* Outstanding Individual Awardee (Judiciary) given by the
City of Cebu on February 24, 2016 “in recognition of his
unquestioned probity, competence, independence and
judicial excellence.”

*Faculty Member, Philosophy Department, USC (1975-1981)

*Faculty Member, College of Law, USC from 1982 up to
present and handled thru the years subjects like, Persons
and Family Relations, Public International Law, Political and
Constitutional Law, Political Law Review. Civil Procedure,
Criminal Procedure, Provisional Remedies and Special Civil
Actions, Special Proceedings, Evidence and Remedial Law
Review.

*Lecturer, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in
the fields of Legal and Judicial ethics;

*Lecturer of the Philippine Judicial Academy (Philja) in the
field of Remedial Law.

*On May 26,1999 delivered a lecture on "The Legal Systems
in the Pacific Rim Area - The Philippine Perspective" at
Stockholm University, Sweden.

*During the Asian Justices Workshop on the Environment
held on April 26-27,2006 at the United Nations Conference

respect for the truth is the highest. thru the rule of law. there is inherent honor in the legal profession. Of all legal virtues and qualities of a good lawyer. we are the defenders of the Constitution. . “We need to understand that. an excellent trial lawyer said: “Justice is the greatest concern of man on earth. as advocates of the law.Center in Bangkok. this is our destiny. this is our commitment. we must. have respect for the truth.” Paschal Njoku also reminds us that. Daniel Webster. he presented a country paper entitled "Philippine Environmental Crime Litigation-An Overview". the guardians of liberty. And I say that without any fear of contradiction because the public good it inherently serves is to assist in the administration of justice. A Most Important Quality of a Good Lawyer- However. And we are privileged to share in that honor. Thailand. the protectors of rights and the advocates of just causes. More importantly. at all times. For without respect for truth there can be no justice.” This is our role. it is not enough that we have been admitted to the Bar. to deserve and continue to be deserving of that privilege. In fine. a noble profession- Law is a noble profession. THE CHALLENGE OF A CAROLINIAN LEGAL PROFESSIONAL Law. making the practice of law become meaningless.

It is not a money-making venture (Canlas v. priority must always be given to the weightier responsibilities and burdens that attach to our role as lawyers. and 2.” Basic Characteristics of the Practice of Law What then are the basic characteristics of the practice of law. the Court held: “A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. This is the reason why in our codes of ethics and professional conduct the main premise and predicate is reverence for the truth. It is reserved only to those who are academically trained in law . (Metrobank v. Monsod as not being limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court but embracing any activity that involves knowledge and/or application of the law? 1. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at a correct conclusion. This is not to say that financial concerns are not important to a lawyer. CA 181 SCRA 377). while we do not ignore such concern. However. In fact in our lawyer’s oath. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will ‘do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court’ and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. Law advocacy is not capital that yields profits. Thus. defined in Cayetano v. in the case of Young v. CA 164 SCRA 160). The returns it births are simple rewards for a job well done or service rendered. Batuegas. it comes immediately after our allegiance to the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

there is a joke going around about lawyers being no more virtuous than prostitutes – they will do (or say) anything for a client if the price is right! Addressing the IBP. the more “respect” he gets. thereafter to remain in the practice of law. It is no different from any dog-eat-dog business. In the Opinion page of the July 24. Decena 176 SCRA 662) The bad reputation of the legal profession- But while law is truly a noble profession. (People v.and possessed of good moral character not only at the time of his admission to the Bar but even more so. it asks these questions: “Has the IBP failed miserably to ‘police its ranks? Has it really gone that bad? Touted . It states in part: “Already. principles don’t count much. 2015 issue of the Inquirer we can find a comment about lawyers entitled “Law practice: reduced to a ‘game of one-upmanship’ ”. Esteem is often measured by the kind of client a lawyer represents: The bigger the crook (with millions stashed away to buy the “smartest” defense lawyer).and the bigger his bragging rights if he gets him off the hook! That really sucks! In the same page of the July 1. Melendrez v. It’s a game of one- upmanship. Let me cite some of these negative views. 2015 issue of the same paper another comment can be found titled “Best that money can buy”. it is regrettable how society has come to perceive lawyers negatively. The writer writes: “I have studied legal ethics and it pains me to know that in the real world of law practice. Tuanda 181 SCRA 692.

”! Unfortunately. its cause- But why is there a gap between society’s perception and the inherent nobility of the law profession? . In 1985 the majority or 55% were inclined to believe that none or only a few lawyers were trustworthy.as an organization to promote the nobility of the law profession. 57% said many or most of them could be bought while. The SWS 1985 and 1993 National Public Opinion Surveys on the Legal Profession show the following statistics: The respondents in both surveys were asked to estimate the number of lawyers who could be bought or bribed. they are “the best that money can buy. In 1985. while in 1993 it likewise showed a similar result. The disconnect between public perception and inherent nobility of the law profession. 39% said that none or only a few were corrupt. the IBP may have instead become a breeding ground of the world’s oldest profession! In most cases involving grand larceny or plunder. The respondents were also asked to estimate the number of lawyers who were trustworthy. that is. 61% said none or only a few could be trusted. we are frequently treated to the droll spectacle of ‘abogados de campanilla’ making fools of themselves by raising defenses that insult even a non-lawyer’s intelligence! How do they ever find the gall to say the most stupid things with a straight face? Truly the sheer magnitude of their client’s thievery. there was a total negative score of 58% or practically the same as the 57% of 1985. nothing is new. In 1993 or after eight years.

However. “Son don’t belittle your father’s ability. at the expense of other values. And second. ‘A good lawyer knows the law. The first is illustrated by the anecdote where a son asked his father saying “ Dad you must not be a good lawyer. xxx Attorneys nowadays face an intense pressure to serve clients’ short-term interests.” “The environment in which lawyers have practiced their profession have become too commercial to a fault. I intentionally finished the case in ten years because it enabled me to pay for your education. why did it take you ten years to finish your case?” And the father answered. regardless of what it takes. Lawyers blindly adhere to their client’s cause as they have to keep winning cases to achieve or maintain a good ‘reputation’ and in turn attract more clients. underlying in that same story is the toll that the financial aspect of the profession is taking in the legal system. As another one of the lawyer jokes goes. “ironically the purpose of the anecdote is to breed inspiration to the son.According to Justice Tijam in an article entitled “The Ethical Lawyer” there are two interrelated causes behind our bad reputation or why lawyers succumb to unethical practice- “First is the treatment of the legal profession as a business more than a profession – or when money becomes the compelling reason.” “xxx he further asserts. wherein the tendency to manipulate the legal system without regard to right or wrong becomes second nature”. According to Justice Tijam. It has been ruled by a . A great lawyer knows the judge’. is the lawyer’s blind loyalty to his client’s cause.

In other words. as members of the Bar. In sum. translate what you have in your heart into action. the reason why only a few lawyers outside of the Public Attorney’s Office. involve themselves with legal aid for the poor. old and new and Carolinian students of law. it is the lack of integrity..culture of pride over principle. bring back the honor and nobility intrinsic to our profession? What can we do to change the current situation we are in – where perception of corruption is as malevolent as the fact of corruption itself. The Importance of Legal Ethics How then. If the cause is lack of integrity then the solution is to adhere to integrity at all times. money over cause.” This is. Then put to heart what you know. not merely . And note what is needed is our commitment to. Finally. xxx As our beloved Pope Francis has exhorted us during his visit to the Philippines last year relative to our Christian values: Be wise! First know. In a 1994-1995 SWS Survey of Lawyers it inquired how often lawyers handle pro-bono cases and the most frequent response is rarely or never.I think. but more importantly as lawyers. do we. defined as the uncompromising adherence to ethical principles that brings dishonor and disrespect and causes damage to the nobility of the legal profession. we should be committed to them and practice them. we should not stop at merely learning the ethical principles underlying our profession during our college of law and bar examination days or paying them lip service.

the hen that lays the egg is merely involved in giving you food.maker Innovative problem-solver Effective and articulate communicator Virtus: A VIRTUOUS EXEMPLAR Incorruptible servant leader . the challenge we lawyers and students of law face today is to be committed to and put to action integrity in everything we do as lawyers or while studying law. To be so he/she must develop and practice the12 ATTRIBUTES OF A CAROLINIAN LAW GRADUATE. while the fish is committed.” We declared that a Carolinian law graduate must be a witness to the word.involvement in integrity in the practice of law because there is a whale of difference between the two as illustrated thus: When you have a breakfast of buwad and itlog. And this is more compelling for us formed and trained in an educational institution run by the Society of the Divine Word because our common mission is to “Witness to the Word. namely: Scientia: A COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL Critical thinker Lifelong learner Skilled researcher Sound decision. Thus.

we cannot be witnesses to the Word unless we integrate the Word in our practice of law.Ethical and values-driven practitioner Devotio: A DEDICATED ADVOCATE Committed peacemaker Culture. The only way is to live by and be faithful to the ethics of our profession at all times. as Carolinian lawyers. becoming true witnesses to the Word. according to an American Supreme Court Associate Justice. THE SUBJECT.sensitive patriot Socially.CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Major divisions in law: . humility – that is. freedom from arrogance. legal professionals or law students. especially we. if we want change in our reputation as lawyers. in a large measure.” So to end.engaged citizen Passionate worker for the marginalized In fine. the urgent call and challenge for all of us. Arnold Jansen. Equally important is to be constantly reminded. the legal professionals and students of law of St. that: “neither a judge nor a lawyer can properly discharge the great responsibilities that are his unless he displays. is to advance the cause of integrity in our profession thus. xxx CHAPTER II.

640. Ocampo 49 OG 2230) b) Procedural/Adjective/Remedial Law – prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their violation.a) Substantive law – a part of law which creates. 4) Criminal Procedure defined . (Bustos v. c) Provisional Remedies (Rules 57 to 61). Lucero 81 Phil. or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. d) Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 to 71) e) Special Proceedings (Rules 72 to 109) f) Criminal Procedure (Rules 110 to 127) g) Evidence (Rules 128 to 133) h) Katarungang Pambarangay Law (RA 7160) and Implementing rules i) Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. (Primicias vs. administrative orders. defines or regulates rights concerning life.650) 2) Sources of remedial law: a) The Constitution b) Laws creating the judiciary c) Laws defining and allocating jurisdiction to different courts d) Rules promulgated by the SC e) circulars. internal rules and SC decisions 3) Scope of Remedial Law: a) Constitution b) Civil Procedure (Rules 1 to 56 and other related laws). liberty or property.

1 (17) 1935 Constitution). means proceedings before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of judgment. Dalanta. treats of their nature and provides for their punishment. III. 1. RA 8349. 6) Distinction between Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Criminal law is substantive because it defines crimes. Sec. 1988. 1974) 5) Sources of Criminal Procedure a) Rules 110 to 127 of the Rules of Court which took effect on Jan. On October 3. and for their punishment. 1974. August 12. RA 8249. III) c) Laws passed by Congress like BP 129 as amended by RA 7691. . IV. 2000 (AM No. creating the Sandiganbayan. The rules were revised in 1985 and in turn amended on October 1. 11618-CR. 00-5- 03-SC) b) The 1987 Constitution particularly the Bill of Rights (Art. This doctrine has become part of the law of the land under the 1973 Constitution (Art. The Speedy Trial Act of 1998 d) PDs like PD 911 e) Executive Orders f) judicial decisions applying and interpreting our laws which form part of our legal system. 20). (Clark”s Crim. the Supreme Court in an en banc resolution approved the revision which took effect on Dec. 1.It is a method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of any criminal offense. 2000. Sec. in case of conviction. Procedure) Criminal proceedings – the phrase “in all criminal proceedings” where the accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel (Art. (People vs.

b) Accusatorial when it requires that all crimes. accused enjoys presumption of innocence which lasts until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. which must be commenced by the complaint of the offended party. (US vs. 14 Phil. The former declares what acts are punishable while the latter provides the method of how the act is punished. presence of accused before the magistrate is not a requirement. procedure is characterized by secrecy.)Public and Private Crimes Distinguished The vital and essential distinction is the control which in private crimes the injured person has over the criminal liability and the responsibility of the offending person. it provides for the method by which a person is accused of a crime. tried and punished. arrested. Resort is made to secret inquiry to discover the culprit and violence and torture were often employed to extract a confession. The Judge was not limited to the evidence brought before him but could proceed with his own inquiry which was not confrontative.) Systems of Criminal Procedure a) Inquisitorial when the prosecution of crimes is fully in the hands of the prosecuting officer and the court. the accused has the right to be present at any stage of the proceedings and to be heard personally or by counsel. judgment does not become final until it has been ratified and confirmed by the court of last resort (US vs Samio 3 Phil 691). though the judgment of the trial . be prosecuted by the public prosecutor. the detection and prosecution of offenders are not left to the initiative of private parties but to the officials and agents of the law. except private crimes. right to appeal is a characteristic feature. 640) 8. In other words. Hernandez. trial is conducted publicly and the right of the accused against self-incrimination is guaranteed.Criminal Procedure is remedial.

that a judgment of the trial court can be final without any imprimatur from the Supreme Court are features of the accusatorial system. This is a combination of the inquisitorial and the accusatorial systems. That the preliminary examination be conducted by the judge before he issues a warrant of arrest. 2008 . to be present. 31SCRA 52 [1970]). Thus. It contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears them impartially and renders judgment only after trial. 177931.court does not require the imprimatur of the court of last resort before it may attain finality. This is our system.” PNB vs. Deang marketing Corporation. however. etc. the accused has the right to confront and cross-examine his accuser. which is a commixture of both systems. It has. a criminal action may be instituted by complaint of the offended party or by information filed by the Fiscal and once the criminal action is filed in court. Padilla.) Construction of the Rules As provided for in Sec. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. the examination of defendants and other persons before the filing of the complaint or information may be inquisitorial (People vs. Catolico. the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent. a court proceeding in our judicial set-up is accusatorial or adversarial and not inquisitorial in nature. c) Mixed system. that the prosecution is under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor are features of the inquisitorial system. This is particularly true in the preliminary examination for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. speedy. and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. 48 Phil. December 8. 9.” (Questo vs.GR No. against self-incrimination. However. 6 Rule 1 “These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just. 718). been held that : “As a general rule.

caprice. as much as possible. Litigations should. Hence. that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the convenience of a party. This does not mean. Doctrines It is a basic rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. there was no more period to extend. or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Rules of procedure. especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done. thus passing of which renders the court powerless to entrtain or grant it. namely. The bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this court to suspend procedural rules.Rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons. they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness. despotism. The answer was thus deemed filed out of time and thus not admitted. have often been held as absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business. Facts: Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension to file an Answer via a private courier 9 days beyond the reglementary period and received by the trial court ten days late. however. Petitioner tried to justify its delay by cunningly providing fictitious dates for its filing. it is a mistake to . be decided on their merits and not on technicalities. Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice. Since the motion for extension was filed after the lapse of the prescribed period. The court's discretion to grant a motion for extension is conditioned upon such motion's timeliness.

) Retroactive Application Although the crime was committed before the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. III) e) Right To Be Presumed Innocent and to Due Process of Law. 13. Art. that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it would result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants. III) d) Right To Bail (Sec. Escote. 12 Art. 2003) 11) Constitutional Provisions Relative to Criminal Procedure a) Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of Laws (Sec. 14. Antonio Reyes. or as often suggested. 140756. 2 Art. 17) . Art. 2004. 1 Art III) b) Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures (Sec. April 13. GR No.suppose that substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of proceduree should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules. citing People vs. Rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. 153119. April 4. III) f) Right to Speedy Trial (Sec. the said rule should be applied retroactively as it is favourable to the appellant. 16) g) Right Against Self-Incrimination (Sec. etc. 10. GR No. III) c) Miranda Rights (Sec. (People vs. (Sec.

21) m) Right Against Ex-Post Facto Law or Bill of Attainder (Sec. and punished if found guilty. essentially. 20) l) Right Against Double Jeopardy (Sec. THE PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Concept- The Criminal Justice System (CJS). etc. provision being made for their correction and rehabilitation. interview persons with knowledge of facts directly or indirectly connected with the offense. NBI and other agencies.h) Right Against Detention By Reason of Political Beliefs and Aspirations (Sec.Right Against Involuntary Servitude (Sec. or discover them. INVESTIGATE THE CRIME They may conduct surveillance. the educational system. the economic system. When these law enforcers learn of crimes. 18(1) i. and the persons suspected thereof are taken into custody. 19) k) Right Against Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debt (Sec. prosecuted in court. 22) 12. Law Enforcement Process The law enforcers are the officers and men of the PNP. is the system or process in the community by which crimes are investigated. Five Components of the Criminal Justice System known as the five pillars of the CJS. 18 [2]) j) Right Against Excessive Fine and Cruel Punishment (Sec. The CJS is only one of various systems operating in the community. A. such as the political system. take . their duty is to: 1.

like texted threats sent before the commission of homicide. other weapons used in the commission of the crime. ARREST suspects: a) By virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge on the basis of the evidence submitted to them. etc.. This may consist of: a) The TESTIMONY of witnesses – including “invited” suspects – which are invariably taken down in question-and-answer form. arrange for entrapment when feasible. examine public and other available records pertaining to the persons involved and get copies of pertinent entries. 3. knives. collect evidence for use in the prosecution of the suspects in court. Prosecution Process . c) OBJECTS: guns. 2. The police officers. b) WRITINGS. the clothing of the victim. photographs (surreptitiously or otherwise). etc. search premises and persons subject to constitutional and statutory safeguards. B. or b) Under circumstances justifying warrantless arrest and effected before a case is filed in court. etc. REFER the case and the suspects to the office of the public prosecutor or other authorized agencies for determination of whether there is sufficient basis (probable cause) for the filing of a criminal case in court. or directly to the MTCs for trial and judgment. and presented to prove the content thereof. Evidence is the means of establishing a fact or proving the truth or falsity of an assertion or allegation. in other words.

is done by the Judicial Component (the courts). and 3.g. In the context of the Criminal Justice System. Attorneys in private practice should be deemed a part of this CJS component (Prosecution). The Judicial Process The final determination of the innocence or guilt of persons accused of crimes by the Prosecution Component. PROSECUTE the alleged offenders in court. EVALUATE the police findings referred to them. or have knowledge of crimes. made up of the Provincial and City Prosecutors. he is acquitted. a free man. government officers in charge of enforcement of the law violated). 2. it sentences him to the corresponding penalty. or he is innocent. or other complaints filed directly with them by individual persons (e. If the trial court finds that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. private citizens who are victims. and there is an end to the matter. finds that his guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.The prosecution service. (described in the preceding discussion). he is sent to the proper Trial Court which then passes upon his innocence or guilt. If the judgment becomes final the suspect is . If the Court. C. The accused returns to society. They: 1. however. in the name of the People of the Philippines. So also public defenders – such as members of the PAO and other legal aid lawyers- should be considered part of this Prosecution component. FILE CORRESPONDING INFORMATIONS OR CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS in the proper courts on the basis of their evaluation of the proofs at hand. etc. They represent the parties (complainant or respondent) in proceedings before the Public Prosecutors. after a suspect has gone through the Prosecution Component. State Prosecutors.

or represent. they give advice to. their execution by the methods prescribed by law – and correction and rehabilitation. are functions undertaken by the institutions set up by law. e. In particular. are expected to cooperate with law enforcers and investigators. – develops and exacts conformity with acceptable moral and ethical values.g. and fosters respect for and observance of the Rule of Law. religious organizations. civic associations. the Bureau of Jail Management. passed on to the next component. The Community After the convicts have passed through the Correction Component – either unconditionally (as by full service of the imprisonment imposed). or. the PENAL or CORRECTIONAL component. the community. Attorneys in private practice. or in extreme cases. members of the community having knowledge of facts relevant to the investigation or prosecution of crimes. churches. Penal or Correctional Process Punishment – the isolation of the convicts by imprisonment for the periods laid down by the courts. or by parole or pardon – they go back to the COMMUNITY and either lead normal lives as law abiding citizens in their barangays. parents and guardians. E. D. the Parole and Probation Administration. public and private educational institutions. . creates the environment for the development of civic-spirited citizens.. should be reckoned as part of the fifth component of the CJS. etc. They participate directly or indirectly in the CJS. or pertaining to associations committed to giving legal aid to indigent or otherwise deserving individuals. The community at large – through the appropriate legislative agencies. regrettably commit other crimes and thus go back through the same processes and stages of the CJS. persons involved in criminal actions before the proper authorities. by reporting crimes and giving evidence against the offenders.

Private institutions and civic organizations should also be deemed part of. 2. etc. the government hospitals and medical centers – which furnish experts who may enlighten the courts on issues involving medical or other sciences. or radio. Trial. 3. 7. warrantless arrest (Section 5. Inquest (R 112). Barangay conciliation and mediation and issuance of Barangay Protection Order (RA 9262). BRIEF OUTLINE ON THE STAGES IN THE LIFE OF A CRIMINAL ACTION TWO MAIN STAGES A. B. Application of an accused before the DOJ to become a state witness (RA 6981) 8. since they may also have roles to play in the CJS. 3. Search and seizure (R 126). The NON-JUDICIAL Stage OR PROCEEDINGS OR REMEDIES BEFORE THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IN COURT 1. the Commission of Immigration & Deportation – which may prevent the departure of suspects from the country. 2. such as the Bureau of Posts – which delivers court notices. Filing of complaint or information in court. telegram. The JUDICIAL STAGE 1. custodial investigation (RA 7438). CHAPTER III. . 4.The Community Component should also include government institutions that play a role of the CJS. 4. Application for and posting of bail (R 114). Pre-Trial Conference. 6. Preliminary Investigation (R 112). the Bureau of Telecommunications – which transmits communications by telephone. R 113). 5. Arraignment and Plea.

Judgment and Execution THE JUDICIAL STAGE FILING OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IN COURT RULE 110 Determination of Probable Cause Issuance of Warrant of Arrest or Commitment Order Motion to Posting / Motion for Motion to Conduct Motion to Quash Prosecution of Suspend Application Bill PI / Reinvestigation Information Civil Action (R111). of Provisional Remedies . 5.

ARRAIGNMENT and PLEA (Rule 116) PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE (Rule 118) Mediation and Conciliation TRIAL PROPER Presentation of Prosecution's Presentation of Evidence Evidence (R119) by Accused (R119) Demurrer to Evidence If granted – Acquittal If denied Double jeopardy with leave of court - Certiorari under R65 Evidence for Accused .

R 116). 42 (PD 908 as EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT Criminal Aspect Civil Aspect 1. unless a shorter period is required by law (Section 1. 24 R119) (R 122.Arraignment – The judge shall set the case for arraignment within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. or a motion to suspend proceedings due to the pendency of the petition for review before the DOJ. If a motion to suspend arraignment is filed. and the judge will issue a corresponding warrant of arrest (R 113) unless it falls under Summary Procedure. and if granted it shall suspend the proceeding for 60 days . 124. R 117).Filing of the complaint or Information in court- The investigating prosecutor shall file the corresponding information before the court despite the pendency of the Petition for Review before the Secretary of Justice. in which case the accused may either avail the remedy of posting of bail (R114). R 116). or a motion to quash the complaint or information (Section 3. 2. 125. or a motion for bill of particulars (Section 9. the court may grant or deny the same. JUDGMENT (R120) New Trial Reconsideration Reopening Appeal Probation (R121) (R121) (Sec.

After the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence and witnesses. the court shall refer the case to the proper Mediation and Conciliation Board. R 117). if the case is mediatable. The trial court shall issue a corresponding Pre-trial Order narrating what transpired during the conference. R 132). if denied or the 60 day period has lapsed without the petition being resolved. but failure to present its evidence would result to the provisional dismissal of the action with the express conformity of the accused. R 116). with the right to cross-examine said witnesses on the part of the accused (Section 5. R 132).Pre-Trial Conference- During the pre-trial conference. 3. otherwise the court shall set the case for pre- trial conference. R 119). Parties are required to submit their respective judicial affidavits of witnesses 5 days be fore the scheduled pre-trial conference (R 18). If the accused pleaded guilty to the offense charged. R 119). The court may also refer the case for proper Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) for possible settlement if the parties agree. the prosecution shall present its evidence and witnesses with its corresponding judicial affidavit unless in case of inverted trial (Section 10. otherwise it shall proceed with the pre-trial conference and schedule the case for trial. and which shall be signed by the accused and the counsel if there are admissions. the court shall render its decision and impose the proper penalty and shall issue a Commitment Order. If the demurrer to . they shall offer their evidence and rest their case (Section 34. and in which the accused may file a demurrer to evidence with or without leave of court (Section 23.(Section 11. the court shall proceed with the arraignment and the accused shall enter his plea. subject to its revival within the period prescribed by the rules (Section 8.Trial- On the scheduled trial. 4.

In case no demurrer to evidence is filed. accused may tender the same for purposes of appeal (Section 40. and the accused will be acquitted. If the demurrer to evidence is granted then the case will be dismissed. the criminal and civil liability deemed impliedly instituted in the former shall be executed . R 119). the accused will have the right to present sur-rebuttal evidence (Section 10. 6. or the same has been denied by the court if one is filed with leave of court. unless in case of a judgment of acquittal. and in the same way. After its presentation it shall be offered which the court may either admit or exclude. the accused may present its evidence and if it is without leave of court. then he loses the right to present evidence. Both parties may be required by the court to submit their respective memoranda within 30 days.Execution- Once the judgment becomes final and executor. then accused may present his defense evidence. R 132). the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration or new trial within 15 days from notice of the judgment (R 121). Parties may file an appeal within 15 days from notice of the order of denying the motion for reconsideration or new trial to the appellate court observing the “fresh period to appeal” (R 122-125) until it reaches the Supreme Court by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari under R 45 in relation to R 125. in which case the prosecution may avail the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge or deprivation of the right of the prosecution to due process of law. Rebuttal evidence may be presented by the prosecution to refute the evidence in chief presented by the accused (Section 10. In case of excluded evidence.evidence is denied and it is with leave of court. R 119). 5.Judgment- In case of adverse decision.

WHEN REFERRAL TO THE BARANGAY FOR CONCILIATION IS REQUIRED crime or offense committed Filing of a complaint and referral with barangay Compromise Agreement No Compromise . THE NON-JUDICIAL STAGE A. and the accused shall serve his sentence in accordance with the penalty imposed. (R 39).

2.A crime or offense is committed.Barangay Conciliation- A written complaint is filed before the barangay for conciliation. The Resolution can be either (a) an amicable settlement.Direct filing or Preliminary Investigation- If the penalty is less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day the aggrieved party may file the complaint before the proper first level court otherwise an Affidavit Complaint is filed before the proper Prosecutor’s Office for purposes of preliminary investigation (Sec. R 110) B. Certification to File Action Execution 1. if it falls under its jurisdiction as required by the Local Government Code (Section 408. RA 7160). WHEN THE CRIME COMMITTED REQUIRES A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION . 1. then a compromise agreement shall be executed which shall be binding between the parties and which can be executed within 6 months from its date. otherwise (b) a Certificate to File Action shall be issued by the Lupon Chairman in order for the aggrieved party to file an action before the court. 3.

crime or offense committed Filing of affidavit-complaint for preliminary investigation Dismissal Issuance of Subpoena Submission of Counter-Affidavit by Respondent Resolution .

2.Preliminary Investigation- The aggrieved party may file an Affidavit-Complaint before the proper Office for purposes of preliminary investigation (Section 1. Filing of MR Filing of Petition for Review with Secretary of Justice Filing of MR Certiorari / R65 Judicial Stage 1. R .A crime is committed and penalty imposable is not less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day.

A resolution may be issued by the Investigating prosecutor. or a motion to quash the complaint or information (Section 3. otherwise he shall dismiss the complaint. . to the Secretary of Justice. and the judge will issue a corresponding warrant of arrest (Rule 113) unless it falls under the rules of Summary Procedure. Aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration of the adverse resolution within 15 days from receipt of the adverse resolution. and a subpoena may be issued by the investigating prosecutor if there are grounds to believe that an investigation shall be conducted. The respondent shall submit his Counter-Affidavit together with his evidence and affidavit of witnesses within 10 days after receipt of the subpoena. and if there is a probable cause he shall file the corresponding information before the court of proper jurisdiction. and in case of denial. or a motion for bill of particulars (R 116). which shall hear the case. otherwise it shall dismiss the case (Section 3 R 112). if one is filed.110). a petition for review within 15 days from receipt of the Order denying the motion for reconsideration. or motion to suspend proceeding due to the pendency of the petition for review before the DOJ which shall be limited for a period of 60 days from the filing of the petition (Section 11. and his failure to do so may result to the submission of the case for resolution (Section 3. in which case accused may either avail the remedy of posting of or application for bail (Rule 114).Filing of the complaint or Information in court- The investigating prosecutor shall file the corresponding information before the court despite the filing of the petition for review before the Secretary of Justice or the Office of the President. Aggrieved party may resort to the remedy of petition for certiorari under R 65 in case of bailable offense or appeal to the Office of the President by way of Petition for Review within 15 days in case of non-bailable offense until it reaches the Supreme Court. R 117). R 112). R 116). 3.

C.A crime is committed and is punishable by less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day. 2. WHEN THE CRIME COMMITTED DOES NOT REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION crime or offense committed Metro-Manila / Chartered City Filing thru File with Prosecutor's Office Filing in Court Prosecutor's Office 1. exception- The aggrieved party or the officers in charge with the enforcement of the law files directly a Criminal Complaint before the proper first level court.Direct filing. .

An offense or a crime is committed.D. WHEN THE SUSPECT OR SUSPECT/S IS/ARE ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT crime / offense committed Warrantless Arrest (Section 5 R113) Custodial Investigation RA 7438 Inquest Motion to Conduct Resolution Recommending PI either for Filing or Release for Judicial Stage 1. .

the respondent shall undergo the normal preliminary investigation as prescribed under Section 3 R 112 but will remain in detention without prejudice to his right to bail. 3. or he may opt to post the necessary bail if it is a bailable offense (r 114). or a petition for bail in case the offense is a non-bailable one. or he may cause the release of the person for further proceeding. During the inquest proceeding and before the filing of a criminal complaint or information. the person arrested shall be brought to the proper prosecutor’s office for the conduct of inquest proceeding (Section 7. In case the motion is granted. the accused may file a motion to conduct preliminary investigation before the court where the case is pending within 5 days from knowledge of the filing of said information or complaint before the court where the case is pending (Section 7. proceedings and remedies- In case the criminal information was already filed before the court. the person arrested through his counsel may file a motion to conduct preliminary investigation before the prosecutor’s office and sign a waiver as required by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. 3rd par. Resolution-The inquest prosecutor shall determine whether there was a valid warrantless arrest or not.An arrest in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit is effected- The person arrested shall be brought to the proper police station for the conduct of custodial investigation and affording him his rights during the conduct of said investigation (RA 7438). 1st par. if not valid. R 112) if the penalty is not less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day. The court shall conduct a summary hearing on the petition and shall require the prosecution to present evidence to prove that the guilt of the . R 112) in order for the arresting officers to avoid criminal liability for arbitrary detention.2. 4. R 112). if valid he may order the filing of information before the court if there is sufficient ground to indict the person arrested.. as amended (Section 7.Inquest- After the custodial investigation.Filing of information in court.

WHEN A SEARCH WARRANT IS ISSUED AND IMPLEMENTED crime or offense committed Filing of Application for Search Warrant Personal Examination to Determine Probable Cause Issuance and Implementation Of Search Warrant Motion to Quash Arrest of Owner If there is no Arrest Search Warrant Custodial Investigation Direct Filing Filing for PI Inquest . Accused may also file a motion to quash the information before he enters his plea (Section 3. R 117). accused is strong. E.

Implementation- The search warrant issued will be implemented by the officers in charge with the enforcement of the law. in the presence of the lawful owner or at least 2 witnesses. and shall cause the seizure of all personal properties enumerated in the warrant. he shall file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. 2.Application for and issuance of a search warrant- A verified application for the issuance of a search warrant may be filed before any court. All personal properties shall be inventoried and returned to the court which issued the warrant (section 11. and in which case. R 112). R 126). The court may issue a search warrant particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. he may either order the filing of information before the court if there is sufficient ground to indict the person arrested.Custodial Investigation and Inquest-If the owner of the seized property was arrested.1. The person against whom the search warrant was issued may file a motion to quash the search warrant (Section 14. 4.A crime is committed and the suspect is in illegal possession of personal properties. and a preliminary examination under oath of the applicants and the witnesses which shall be personally done by the judge in the form of a searching inquiry to establish probable cause (Section 4. The owner may be arrested. 3. The inquest prosecutor shall determine whether there was a valid warrantless arrest. R 126). or in case he is not present a complaint may be filed against him. After the custodial investigation. he shall undergo the usual custodial investigation and afforded his rights during the conduct of such investigation (R 7438). or he may cause the release of the person for . R 126) and in case of denial of the motion. the person arrested shall be brought to the proper prosecutor’s office for the conduct of inquest proceeding (Section 7.

In case the criminal information was already filed before the court. R 112). During the inquest proceeding and before the filing of a criminal complaint or information. if it is required. the respondent shall 8ndergo the normal preliminary investigation as prescribed under Section 3 R 112.further proceeding. Accused may also file a motion to quash the information before he enters his plea (Section 3.. R 112). 1st par. and his failure to do so may result to the submission of the case for resolution (Section 3. and if there is a probable cause he shall file the corresponding information before the court of proper . The respondent shall submit his Counter-Affidavit together with his evidence and affidavit of witnesses within 10 days after receipt of the subpoena. R 117). If the owner of the property seized was not arrested a complaint may be filed by the aggrieved party or the seizing officer before the proper Prosecutor’s Office for purposes of preliminary investigation (section 1. otherwise it shall dismiss the case (Section 3. In case the motion is granted. The court shall conduct a summary hearing on the petition and shall require the prosecution to present evidence to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. as amended (Section 7. R 112). R 110). R 112) in order for the arresting officers to avoid criminal liability for arbitrary detention. which shall hear the case. the accused may file a motion to conduct preliminary investigation before the court where the case is pending within 5 days from knowledge of the filing of said information or complaint before the court where the case is pending (Section 7. or he may opt to post the necessary bail if it is a bailable offense (r 114). A resolution may be issued by the Investigating prosecutor. or a petition for bail in case the offense is a non-bailable one. and a subpoena shall be issued by the investigating prosecutor if there are grounds to believe that an investigation shall be conducted. 3rd par. the person arrested through his counsel may file a motion to conduct preliminary investigation before the prosecutor’s office and sign a waiver as required by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES A. Criminal jurisdiction defined Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it (People v. Secretary of Justice. if one is filed. and in case of denial. In criminal cases. 142 SCRA 504). Jr. Aggrieved party may resort to the remedy of petitkon for certiorari under R 65 in case of bailable offense or appeal to the Office of the President by way of Petition for Review within 15 days in case of non-bailable offense until it reaches the Supreme Court. Conde v. . if conviction results. a petition for review within 15 days from receipt of the Order denying the motion for reconsideration. Mariano 71 SCRA 600. venue is jurisdictional. Venue defined It is the geographical location where the case shall be instituted. Aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration of the adverse resolution within 15 days from receipt of the adverse resolution. to the Secretary of Justice..JURISDICTION Jurisdiction defined It is the power of the court to hear. heard and tried. try and decides cases (Herrera v. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an offense committed outside its limited territory. 25 Phil. Mamento. CHAPTER IV. otherwise he shall dismiss the case. 33) and to execute the judgment thereon (Echegaray v. jurisdiction. 301 SCRA 96). Barreto.

It extends to all controversies which may be brought before a court within the legal bounds of rights and remedies. It is confined to particular causes. whether of the same or different ranks or levels. Original.is the power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage. Concurrent or coordinate or confluent. Appellate.is the doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated role in an effective and efficient manner.is the power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case for the first time under the conditions provided by law. Limited or Special.Classification of Jurisdiction General – the power of the court to adjudicate all controversies except those expressly withheld from its plenary powers. the cognizance which a superior court takes of a case removed to it. or which can be exercised only under the limitations and circumstances prescribed by the statute.is the power conferred upon different courts. by appeal or writ of error.where the authority to try and decide is limited to particular cases only and subject to such limitations as may be provided by the governing law. Trial courts do not only . Doctrine of hierarchy of courts. or the review by a superior court of the final judgment or order of some lower courts.the power and authority conferred upon a superior court to rehear and determine causes which have been tried in lower courts. to take cognizance at the same stage of the same case in the same or different judicial territories. from the decision of the lower court. Exclusive.

however. Comelec. Its enforcement is particularly vested in the SEC (Pua and Pua v. public ministers and consuls.determine facts from the evaluation of the evidence presented before them. the facts occur within their territorial jurisdiction. To effectively perform these functions. Citibank. concurrent original jurisdiction over the subject matter may now be said to exist only between the SC and the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors. they mostly perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from the evidence as these are physically presented before them. The Securities Regulation Code is a special law. statute or even an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. January 21. . i. etc. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction. 180064. (The Diocese of Bacolod. 2013). Concurrent jurisdiction in criminal cases: (1) In criminal cases. They are likewise competent to determine issues of law which may include the validity of an ordinance. 16. courts will not determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the specialized knowledge and expertise of said administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. some cases where resort to courts at their level would not be practical considering their decisions could still be appealed before the higher courts. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. GR No. it must first be referred to an administrative agency of special competence. they are territorially organized into regions and then into branches.A criminal charge for violation of the Securities Regulation Code is a specialized dispute. In many instances. Hence. such as the Court of Appeals. Sept. There are. GR No. v.. Their writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries.e. 2015). which properly present the ‘actual case’ that makes ripe a determination of the constitutionality of such action. 205728. Necessarily. The consequences or course are national in scope. the SEC.

2. .is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. crimes committed on a railroad train.1 Jurisdiction over the subject matter determined by: (a) Penalty attached.Jurisdiction over subject matter. This refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal case. etc. Jurisdiction over the subject matter. The offense is one. (3) Finally branches of the same court in the same geographical territory are possessed of concurrent jurisdiction. which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of.(2) In the matter of territorial jurisdiction. concurrent jurisdiction between courts of equal rank may result in continuing crimes. MEANINGS OF REQUISITES OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 1.

The jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the penalty imposable. (b) Nature of the offense charged (Id. and not by the penalty ultimately imposed. Pueblo de Filipinas v. Almodovar. People v. and ex: Crimes committed by public officers fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is determined not by the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense. San Juan). 169 SCRA 476. 160 SCRA 838). 129. 347). San Juan. but by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action (De la Cruz v. Determination of criminal jurisdiction over the subject matter- 1) Determined by the allegations in the complaint or information not by the results of proof or by the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence presented. 185 SCRA 446-447). El Pueblo de Filipinas v. The additional penalty for habitual delinquency is not considered in determining which court shall have jurisdiction over a criminal case because such delinquency is not a crime (BP Blg. (Guevara v. Moya. . 69 Phil. Lagon. 2) Determined by the nature of the offense and/or penalty attached thereto and not what may be meted out after trial.

Hence. Petitioners alleged that the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it transferred the criminal case filed against the respondents to the jurisdiction of the military tribunal. Fe V. by means of treachery and evident premeditation. hitting them on different parts of their bodies. as elements of the Philippine Army. of RTC-Branch 47. October 15. 249 SCRA 212. irrespective of whether the killing was actually justified or not. the information states that respondents. represented by Edgar Aparejado v. Edison Rural. In the case at bar. taking advantage of their superior strength. “conspiring together and mutually helping with one another. 165 SCRA 477). unlawfully and feloniously attack. Hon. SSGT.R. or over the place) is determined by allegations of Complaint or Information The averments in the complaint or information identify the crime charged and determine the court before which it must be tried (People v.  No. did then and there willfully. jurisdiction to try the crime charged against the respondents is vested upon the RTC by law. et al. 2012. armed with their government-issued firearms with intent to kill.. Jurisdiction over the subject matter. Masbate City. 171855.” Murder is a crime punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”). . Villanueva and Annie F. Rapsing. Aparejado. CA. Magallanes. Ables.3) Determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the criminal action and not at the time of its commission. Judge Maximino R. Tita C. assault and shoot the victims. thereby inflicting upon them multiple gunshot wounds which caused their deaths. Olivarez v. Jurisdiction (over the subject matter. G.

Jurisdiction cannot be ousted by any subsequent event. as well as to enforce its decision and resolutions appurtenant thereto. it cannot be withdrawn by: a. . Subsequent statutory amendment of the rules of jurisdiction. That power and authority shall remain with the appellate court until it finally disposes of the case. 2014). try and decide the case before it. 2. The court of origin then loses jurisdiction over the entire case the moment the other party’s time to appeal has expired. 1. Any residual jurisdiction of the court of origin shall cease – including the authority to order execution pending appeal – the moment the complete records of the case are transmitted to the appellate court. in which case. Dec. unless the amendatory law expressly provides otherwise or is construed that it is intended to operate to actions pending before its amendment. jurisdiction is transferred to the appellate court. The execution of the decision is thus stayed insofar as the appealing party is concerned. it is the appellate court that shall have the authority to wield the power to hear. Subsequent amendment or stipulation b.Once vested. People. Jurisdiction over a case is lodged with the court in which the criminal action has been properly instituted. the court where the action is pending is ousted of jurisdiction and the pending action will have to be transferred to the court having jurisdiction by virtue of the amendatory law. Consequently. Jurisdiction over territory where offense was committed. even if the nature of the incident would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first place (Artemio Villareal v. If a party appeals the trial court’s judgment or final order.

The offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction. 17. or any of its elements. venue in a criminal case is an essential element of jurisdiction. Rules of Court). 136994.   The prosecution must not only prove that the offense was committed. It is in that court where the criminal action shall be instituted (Sec. In criminal cases. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. GR No. 474 SCRA 580). Abalos v. territorial jurisdiction of trial court. 15[a]. R 110. CA. Fukuzume v.1. venue is  jurisdictional. 2.  In this case. Sept. Thus. Jurisdiction.  315 of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) was committed within the  jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. it  must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the offense  was committed within the jurisdiction of the court. It is that court which has the authority to try and decide that particular case. People. there is nothing in the prosecution evidence  which even mentions that any of the elements of the offense were committed in Makati. the  prosecution failed to show that the offense of estafa under sec. was committed. and there is  nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution that points  to where the offense. The Affidavit of Complaint executed by Elizabeth does not  contain any allegation as to where the offense was committed. 313 SCRA 477. 1(b) of Art. General Rule A criminal case should be instituted and tried in the place where the offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place (Barrameda v. People. Although the  prosecution alleged that the check issued by petitioner was dishonored in a  . 2002. Other than the lone  allegation in the information.

9372 Human Security Act of 2007 (R.(1) Sandiganbayan in Quezon City has jurisdiction over crimes committed elsewhere or (2) those enumerated under Art.2. . Rules of Court). For this purpose. Sec. People of the  Philippines. 195002. Offenses committed under R. that under Sec. No. G. 5[4]. 9372. outise the territorial boundaries of the Philippines. VIII. 15 [d].g. 2. the Regional Trial Court of that city  has no jurisdiction over the case. Change of venue by Supreme Court Order to avoid a miscarriage of justice (Sec. 2 of RA No.. Hector Trenas v. There being no showing that the  offense was committed within Makati. in which case it shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed (Sec. Courts even if committed outside of the territory of the Philippines.A. When the law provides otherwise – e. 1987 Constitution). par. (3)Note also. Art. 2. or other compelling considerations so require. 1(b) of the RPC.1.2.2. No. such dishonor is not an element of the offense of estafa  under Article 315. 2 of the Revised Penal Code where the offense is cognizable before Phil. 58). 2.2.R. a case originating from one geographical region may be heard in another geographical region.A. 2. Exceptions: 2. 2012.2. the presiding justice shall authorize any division of the court to hold sessions at any time and place outise Metero Manila and. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan).bank in Makati.4. Rule 110. Continuing crimes committed during a voyage.2. it is provided that when the greater convenience of the accused and of the witnesses.3. January 25. where the interest of justice so requires.

Sobusa [2010]). 300 SCRA 367). The following requisites should likewise be present: (1) the offender had not actually been arrested. Cojuangco v. does not qualitfy as a mitigating circumstance (People v. In this case. forcibly or by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court. (3) the surrender was voluntary. therefore. Jurisdiction over or authority to bind the person of the accused- The person charged with the offense must have been brought into its forum for trial. (4) and there is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed. He even denied the said charge upon his purported surrender. 321 SCRA 551. Surrender as mitigating circumstance- Jurisprudence requires that a surrender.4. the accused surrendered only after having been informed of the charge of rape against him or about two months from the commission of the alleged crime. must be spontaneous and must clearly indicate the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture. Garchitorena. to be voluntary. 388 SCRA 72. (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person n authority or to the latter’s agent. Sandignbayan. CA. How acquired- Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by his/her arrest or voluntary appearance in or sumission to the court (Antiporda v. The alleged surrender. Cruz v. .

GR No. since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused.  Thus. October 12. respondent Alamil voluntarily  submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused and bail- On the matter of bail. Tuliao. Furthermore. As a rule. Filing  pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance. as a rule. 3) entering trial. Sandiganbayan. and  the consequent jurisdiction of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court.The voluntary appearance of the accused is accomplished either by his: 1) pleading to the merits such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction. or 4) by filing bail. voluntary submission. 486 SCRA 377. custody of the law is  not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for  . A special appearance before the court to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over the person is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver of the objection and is not a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court (Garcia v. Jurisdiction. the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities. 170122. 387-388). one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. either by his arrest or voluntary surrender (Miranda v. 2009). by filing several motions before the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”)  seeking the dismissal of the criminal case. 2) appearing for arraignment.

Failing to comply with anyone of them. to do that which. by exercising due diligence. . v.  178607. Jimenez. 20 Phil.. US v.R. etc. Exception: Where there has been estoppel by laches on the party who raised the question. 90). Attorney General. No. 24 Phil. et al.bail. 523. the resulting judgment of conviction is null and void (Manila Railroad Co.. Jayme. Dante LA. December 5. Edwin Sorongon. General Rule: The question of jurisdiction over the subject matter and territorial jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. When estoppel by laches to question jurisdiction over the subject matter applies- Laches is defined as the “failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time. v. G. Raising objection to jurisdiction Period to challenge The absence of any of these elements may be challenged by an accused at any stage of the proceedings in the court below or on appeal. 2012. Hon. While the question of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be raised before arraignment otherwise it is waived. etc.

it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time. Kemper Insurance Company. Sibonghanoy on the matter of jurisdiction by estoppel is the exception rather than the rule. the Surety invoked the jurisdiction of the said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for final adjudication on the merits. v.. 179488. the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed by the Surety almost 15 years after the questioned ruling had been rendered. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to that in the cited case. that is. laches should have been clearly present. In Sibonghanoy. in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals. In such controversies. Regalario that was based on the landmark doctrine enunciated in Tijam v. GR No. April 23.could or should have been done earlier. At several staged of the proceedings. warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert. lack of jurisdiction must have been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it. 2012). JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE . It was only when the adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction (Cosco Philippines Shipping Inc.” The ruling in People v.

prohibition. injunction and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature. prohibition and mandamus against CA and Sandiganbayan CONCURRENT JURISDICTION a) With the CA and RTC: petitions for certiorari. arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same occasion. b) Automatic review where death penalty is imposed. although not so punished. . including quo warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed. prohibition and mandamus against the RTC c) with Sandiganbayan: petitions for mandamus. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL CASES EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions for certiorari. certiorari. prohibition and mandamus against the MTC b) With the CA: petitions for certiorari. habeas corpus. and those involving other offenses which. APPELLATE JURISDICTION a) by ordinary appeal-from the RTC in all criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

(b) refrain from entering judgment and (c) elevate the entire records of the case to the SC for final disposition. life imprisonment or death. particularly. nowhere however. the SC held that while the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the SC of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (69 Justices) . life imprisonment or death. the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case is elevated to the SC. the factual issues. would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. has it proscribed an intermediate review.  If the CA should affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua. A prior determination by the CA on. (a) it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so warrant. Mateo (2004). life imprisonment or death is imposed. c) By petition for review on Certiorari from the CA. If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Sandiganbayan and from the RTC where only error or question of law is involved  Note: In PP vs.

3. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed (Sec.  Automatic Review (i. Rule 122 as amended by AM No. 00-5-03-SC).e. except those appealable to the Sandiganbayan b) From the RTC where penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death. no notice of appeal is necessary) from the RTC in cases wherein the death penalty is imposed. prohibition and mandamus against the RTC b) With the SC and RTC: petitions for certiorari. . CRIMINAL CASES EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION a) Actions for annulment of judgment of the RTCs b) Crimes of Terrorism under Human Security Act of 2007 CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION a) With the SC: petitions for certiorari. prohibition and mandamus against the MTC APPELLATE JURISDICTION  Notice of Appeal or ordinary appeal a) From the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

1997). The Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of an Ombudsman case. “The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders. SANDIGANBAYAN A. Sec. 20. Violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. (RA 3019) 2. Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan This depends upon the nature of the offense and the position of the accused (Subido v. Petition for Review from the RTC in cases appealed thereto from the lower courts and not appealable to the Sandiganbayan. Jan. Title VII. . GR No. Book II of the Revised Penal Code. Violations of Chapter II. 122641. 2. Sandiganbayan. directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only (Duyon v. The Sandiganbayan has exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases involving: (Nature of the offense) 1. CA [2014]).

vice-governors. d) Philippine army and air force colonels. acting or interim capacity. and other city department heads. e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher.(Position or rank) where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government. state universities or educational institutions or foundations. assessors. 4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions. engineers. and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor. b) City mayors. 2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and higher. whether in a permanent. or managers of government owned or controlled corporations. without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution. and all officers of higher rank. vice-mayors. without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution. and . naval captains. members of the sangguniang panlalawigan. engineers. c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher. and other provincial department heads. at the time of the commission of the offense: 1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher. directors or trustees. f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants. and provincial treasurers. specifically including: a) Provincial governors. g) Presidents. assessors. city treasurers. otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher. 3) Members of the judiciary. members of the sangguniang panlungsod.

must be those committed by officials “in relation to their office. its second part specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be with salary grade 27 or higher but who are by express provision of the law placed under the jurisdiction of said court (Geduspan v. 5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27' and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. 162059. like murder. February 11. Sandiganbayan GR No. 2010). The Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in PD 1606 as amended. Note that the terms “offenses or felonies” in par. 169004. Note: Salary grade alone does not determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza GR No. (or other than those mentioned above) whether simple or complexed with other crimes. 6) Other offenses or felonies. 3 are so broad in meaning and are not restricted to the laws earlier mentioned. . 2008 People v. homicide. While the first part of Sec. rape. Sept. Serana v. 15. January 22. 158187.” Therefore. and b) whether or not it was committed in relation to office. determinative of whether the regular courts or the Sandiganbayan have/has jurisdiction over the case are: a) the position or rank of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime. GR No. 4(A) of the law covers only officials with salary grade 27 and higher. These offenses however. when a public official commits a crime. committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsec. 2005. People. a of this Section in relation to their office.

 Aquino. Moneys. influence.  P. issued in 1986. authority. 14 and 14­A. 7)Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. as discussed above.000. 7975 and R. and 14-A (Amending Executive Order No.A. or (b) alleges damage to the  government or bribery arising from the same or closely related  transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos  (P1. their relatives. or even if covered but not committed in relation to office. even if committed in relation to office.D.  8249. Executive Order 2 states that the ill­gotten wealth  . Marcos xxx). issued in 1986 by then  President Corazon C. 8249) Provided that the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original  jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to  the government or any bribery.00) Sandiganbayan. 1606.14). 2. the crime will be triable either by the first or second level (regular) court depending on the imposable penalty. and Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by Former President Ferdinand E. as amended by R. 14 (Defining the Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving the Illgotten Wealth of Former President Ferdinand E.000. Executive Order 1 refers to cases of  recovery and sequestration of ill­gotten wealth amassed by the  Marcoses. 1 (Creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government). original and exclusive jurisdiction of the  Sandiganbayan.If the position is not covered or lower than those enumerated above. directly  or through nominees.A. connections or  relationships. (RA No. subordinates. Assets. 2 (Regarding the Funds. Marcos xxx). and close associates.vests the Sandiganbayan with original exclusive jurisdiction  over civil and criminal cases instituted pursuant to and in connection  with Executive Orders 1. by taking undue advantage of their public office  and/or by using their powers.

includes assets and properties in the form of estates and real properties
in the Philippines and abroad. Executive Orders 14 and 14­A pertain 
to the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases 
relative to the ill­gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their cronies. 

The amended complaint filed by the Republic to implead Asian Bank 
prays for reversion, reconveyance, reconstitution, accounting and 
damages. In other words, the Republic would recover ill­gotten 
wealth, by virtue of which the properties in question came under 
sequestration and are now, for that reason, in custodia legis. Although 
the Republic has not imputed any responsibility to Asian Bank for the 
illegal accumulation of wealth by the original defendants, or has not 
averred that Asian Bank was a business associate, dummy, nominee, 
or agent of the Marcoses, the allegation in its amended complaint in 
Civil Case No. 0004 that Asian Bank acted with bad faith for ignoring
the sequestration of the properties as ill­gotten wealth has made the 
cause of action against Asian Bank incidental or necessarily 
connected to the cause of action against the original defendants. 
Consequently, the Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction 
over the claim against Asian Bank, for the Supreme Court has ruled 
in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, 
that “the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction 
not only over principal causes of action involving recovery of ill­
gotten wealth, but also over all incidents arising from, incidental 
to, or related to such cases.” Metropolitan Bank and Trust 
Company, as successor­in­interest of Asian Bank Corporation v. Hon.
Edilberto G. Sandoval, et al, G.R. No. 169677, February 18, 2013.

8)Violation of Anti-Money Laundering Act.(RA 9160 as amended by
RA 9194) when committed by public officers and private persons who
are in conspiracy with such public officers.

9) Over petitions for the issuance of writs of mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of

similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in
cases filed or which may be filed under EXECUTIVE ORDER Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, that the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

B. Original/Concurrent Jurisdiction

Concurrent with the SC and CA

1) Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, habeas corpus, and injunction and other ancillary
writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto
arising in cases falling under said EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-A
2) Petition for issuance of writ of amparo
3) Over petition for habeas data.

Concurrent with the SC, CA and RTC

1) Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data when action
concerns public data files of government offices;
2) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, relating to an act
or omission of a Municipal Trial Court, corporation, board, officer, or
person.

Appellate jurisdiction

Over decisions and final orders of Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of
their original or appellate jurisdiction under PD 1606 as amended.

E. Jurisprudence involving crimes committed by public officials and
employees:

1.Meaning of crime committed in relation to their office.

The Offense need not be connected with official duties. It is enough that it
is in relation to office. (Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 324.

Ex: As mayor, the accused Lecaroz ordered policemen to take over the
gasoline station of the complainant. It was held that the police would not
have obeyed his orders were he not the mayor. Or the questionable act of
the mayor is not part of his official duties but was committed by him as
mayor.

2. What should be alleged in the information?

A public official and employee commits a crime in relation to their
office if the offense was intimately connected with the office of the
offender and perpetuated while he is in the performance of his
official function. Mere allegation in the Information that the offense
was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office is
not sufficient. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in
the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the
discharge of the accused’s official duties and the commission of the
offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been
committed in relation to public office. (Lacson v. Executive Secretary

301 SCRA 298; Soller, et al., v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 357 SCRA 685-
686).

Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan.

People of the Philippines v. Luis J. Morales, G.R. No. 166355, May
30, 2011

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that since respondent
stands charged for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in his
capacity as president of ExpoCorp — a private corporation and
not a government-owned or controlled corporation –he
(respondent) is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts

1. Regular cases

1.1. Offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to
their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the
penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, or a
fine exceeding P4,000.00, when the offender’s position carries a salary
scale lower than grade 27.

1.2. All other offenses where the imposable penalty prescribed by law is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the fine, regardless of

other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offense or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind,
nature, value, or amount thereof (Sec. 32, BP 129).

2. Special cases

2.1. Libel is punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and
maximum periods or fine or both.(RPC, Art. 354) Libel committed by public
officers in relation to their office is within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of RTC.(People et al., v. Benipayo, 586 SCRA 420). This would be
normally under the exclusive jurisdiction of MTCs. However, by law this was
expressly placed under the jurisdiction of the RTCs.(Id., Art. 360, RA 1289
and RA 4363).

2.2. Dangerous Drugs cases

Sec. 90. Jurisdiction. – The Supreme Court shall designate special courts
from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to
exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act.

The number of courts designated in each judicial region shall be based on
the population and the number of cases pending in their respective
jurisdictions. Xxx(Pursuant to BP 129, Sec. 23 and in the interest of speedy
and efficient administration of justice, certain RTCs are designated to
exclusively try and decide criminal cases committed within their respective
territotial jurisdictions, as set forth in AO No. 51-96, dated May 3, 1996).

2.3. Violations of the Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293)
regardless of the imposable penalty.

2.4 The public prosecutor has the authority to file a criminal information for
violation of PD 957 and the RTC has the power to hear and adjudicate the
action, the penalty being a P20,000.00 fine and imprisonment of not
exceeding 10 years or both such fine and imprisonment. This penalty brings
the offense within the jurisdiction of the RTC (Victoria P. Cabral v. Jacinto Uy,
et al., GR No. 174584, January 22, 2010).

2.5. Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases- The RTC shall have jurisdiction
to try all cases on money laundering. Those committed by public officers
and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers shall
be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 5, RA 9160, Anti
Money Laundering Act of 2001).

2.6. illegal recruitment cases as penalized under RA 8042 as amended by RA
10022.

2.7 Violation of Environmental laws, rules and regulations (Sec. 2, R 9, Part
IV of Rules of Procedure of Environmental Cases, AM No. 09-6-8-SC, April
29, 2010).

Jurisdiction over Complex Crimes

Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must logically be lodged with the
trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable on an offense forming the complex crime. A comple
crime must be prosecuted integrally, as it were, and not split into its
component offenses and the latter made the subject of multiple
informations possible brought in different courts (Alfredo Cuyos y Tulor v.
Hon. Nicolas P. Garcia, GR No. L-46934, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 302)

Where penalty is fine only- Where the only penalty provided for by law is a fine. unless there is a Family Court in the residence of Petitioner.00. CA and Sandiganbayan) With first level courts Application for Protection Order under Section 10. The RTC may take cognizance of the cases enumerated in areas where there are no designated Family Courts) Family courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases: . the amount thereof shall determine the jurisdiction of the court under the original provisions of BP 129 (Sec. Thus. where the imposable fine is more than such amount the RTC has original jurisdiction. Exclusive Appellate jurisdiction To review judgment. final orders of first level courts in their respective territorial jurisdiction. Concurrent (refer to concurrent jurisdiction of the SC. Jurisdiction of Family Courts (RA No.000. 8369. 32[2]) which provided that the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with a fine of not more than P4. RA 9282.

Against minors charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Rep. 2 amending BP 129. 1 of said law provides that the law shall cover the different stages involving children at risk and children in conflict with the law from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration). 4. 32). Sec. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years.(a) irrespective of the amount of the fine. Involving violations of Rep. and (b) regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004). or amount thereof (Id. 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Act). Act No. including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon. Act No. Where an accused or victim is a minor (RA 9344) at the time of the commission of the offense. Act No. 3. 5. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Expanded Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts (RA 7691) 1. irrespective of kind. Sec. nature. as amended by Rep. Act No. Act No. Involving domestic violence against women and children under Rep.1. Rep. Violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions (RA 7691 amending BP 129). Involving child pornography (Rep. 9775 [2009]). 7658 [1993]. . value. 2. Act No. 2. 9165). (Sec. and 6. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003).

regardless of the civil liability.Where the imposable penalty is destierro. even if the civil liability (such as actual. considering that in the hierarchy of penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. 4.2. 2. punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years with a salary grade of less than 27.(Id) 5. A municipal trial court has jurisdiction over a case of simple seduction. accomplices or accessories. All offenses (except violations of RA 3019. etc. (2) arresto menor prescribed in Article 44. 2. . it shall have jurisdiction to try and decide the case. penalized under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code. 334 imposes destierro as the penalty for concubinage) the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.) claimed exceeds its civil jurisdiction.). 2. Revised Penal Code) committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office. as amended. with arresto mayor. 3. and by private individuals charged as co-principals. Imposable accessory penalties that should not be considered in determining jurisdiction of MTCs refer to the accessory penalties accompanying (1) prision correccional prescribed in Article 43. Where the offense charged is within the exclusive competence of the Municipal Trial Court by reason of the penalty (imprisonment. etc. destierro follows arresto mayor which involves imprisonment. and (3) confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds and instruments of the crime prescribed in Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code. including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations.1. (RPC Art. such as support and acknowledgment of the offspring that may be imposed under Article 345 of the same Code. RA 1379 and Articles 210 – 212.3. regardless of the value of the property. compensatory.

Violations of BP 22. and Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit (BP 129. and in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable penalty does not exceed P10. and 4. Municipal Trial Judge. . 3. Note: Note that the jurisdiction of the MTC above. 00-11-01-SC. Cases falling under the Rules on Summary Procedure- 1. any Metropolitan Trial Judge. Sec. violations of city or municpal ordinances.6.000. 2003. traffic violations. all other offenses where the penalty does not exceed 6 months liabilities arising therefrom. March 25. violations of the rental law. Special jurisdiction. 5. is qualified by the phrase “Except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan.Violations of BP 22 pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 35). 2.” This indicates that the MTC does not at all times have jurisdiction ovef offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years if jurisdiction is vested by law either in the RTC or Sandiganbayan. 6.In the absence of all Regional Trial Court Judges in a province or city.

SHARI’AH CIRCUIT COURTS (PD 1083) .000 pesos. 360 of the RPC. offenses which even if punishable by the maximum of prision correccional are not cognizable by the MTC because of an express provision of law like: a) libel as defined in Article 335 of the RPC. the MTC has jurisdiction over offenses punishable by up to the maximum of prision correccional which shall not exceed six (6) years. under Art. Under this provision. the criminal action as well as the civil action for such offense shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the CFI (now RTC). 4(A) of PD 1606 as amended. b) Also. 27 of the RPC.Based on Art. Nevertheless. libel by means of writings or similar means shall be punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from P200 to P600. There are however. some forms of direct bribery under Art. a felony punishable by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods under Art. c) Indirect bribery. 211 of the RPC are likewise cognizable by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 4(A) of PD 1606 as amended. 210 of the RPC are punishable by either prision correccional in its medium period or prision correccional in its maximum period but such felonies are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec.

offenses relative to a subsequent marriage. 4. 181). and revocation of divorce (Art.neglect of duty of registrars Non-applicability of the Revised Penal Code on Bigamy- Art. Thus. under Muslim law B. 5. 3. 182. Xxxx Offenses falling under such jurisdiction: 1. for territorial jurisdiction to attach. 2. before its effectivity. 155 PD 1083 The Shari’ah Circuit Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over: (1) All cases involving offenses defined and punished under this Code.illegal solemnization of marriage (Art. the criminal action must be .The provisions of the Revised Penal Code relative to the crime of bigamy shall not apply to a person married in accordance with the provisions of this Code or. VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. 184).failure to report for registration (Art.marriage before the expiration of ‘idda (Art. Law applicable. The right venue must exist as a matter of law.Art. divorce. 180. It can neither be waived nor subjected to stipulation. 183).

it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court. Where an offense is committed in a train. GR No. the criminal action shall be instituted and tried either in the court of: a. January 25. SEC. Venue – Where the Action is to be Instituted 1. Other alternative venues for institution of an action: 1. Taroy [2011]). the place of its departure. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. where any of its essential ingredients occurred [for transitory or continuing offenses] 2. . or 2. In this case the prosecution failed to show that the offense of estafa under Section 1(b) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code was committed within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. where the offense was committed [for local offenses].instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality. aircraft. (Hector Trenas v. Place where action is to be instituted. 2012). or other public or private vehicle in the course of its trip. The prosecution must not only prove that the offense was committed. city or province where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took place (People v. 15 Rule 110. People. Rule – The criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory: 1. 195002.

2 of the Revised Penal Code: It shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed 4.Piracy – the venue of piracy. unlike all other crimes. of any municipality or territory where the vessel passed during such voyage 2. aircraft. the place of its arrival 2. Subject to generally accepted principles of international law 3. or b. When the crime is committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Art. has no territorial limits.Libel – the action may be instituted at the election of the offended or suing party in the province or city: 1.If one of the offended parties is a private individual. or c. Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage. 5. The criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of: a. or other vehicle passed during its trip. Where the libellous article is printed and first published. the first port of entry.a. any municipality or territory where such train. b. It may be tried anywhere. or 2. where said .

or (2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. where the latter holds office at the time of the commission of the offense. is either (1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. as amended by RA No. the private complainant has the option to file the case in his/her place of residence. 360 of the RPC.If the offended party is a public official. libel cases. as this will open the flood gates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where the website is also accessed or capable of being accessed. 2. Thus. 4363. the information must specifically state where the libelous article was printed and first published. which will not necessitate finding out exctly . If the private complainant opts for the second. If the libelous article appears on a website. It is not enough for the complainant to lay the venue where the article was accessed. Venue of libel on a website- Under Arrt. and spawn the very ills the amendment sought to prevent. in cases where the libellous article appears on a website. individual actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. where the complainant is a private individual.b. there is no way of finding out the location of its printing and first publication.

or is necessary for its identification. 10. Exception: Where the particular place where the offense was committed is however. In exceptional cases – to ensure a fair and impartial inquiry. How to state the place of the commission of the offense General rule: Not necessary to be specific- The statement of the place of the commission of an offense is sufficient if it can be understood from the allegations of the complaint or information that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court (Sec. 7. an essential ingredient of the offense like trespass to dwelling. [2010]). R. 110). RTC of Makati. 129. in the place of depository. In cases filed under BP 22 – the criminal action shall be filed in the place where the check was issued and bounced. In case of crossed-check. 6.where the libellous matter was printed and first published (Bonifacio v. Br. the description of the place of . The SC shall have the power to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid the miscarriage of justice.

20 Phil. 523). . vs. General. to secure the best results and effects in the punishment of crimes. Violation of anti-fencing decree People v. 149) Cases: 1. As to the interest of the accused. 1. Reasons why the law prescribe that the case be filed or tried in the place where the crime was committed.the interest of the public requires that. Rule 110). 227 SCRA 64.commission of the offense must be specific (Sec. Deterrence . Ramos. 96 Phil. it is necessary to prosecute and punish the criminal in the very place. 10. as near as may be where he committed his crime (MRR Co. it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for witnesses and other evidence in another place. 1993 Issue: Is the crime of “fencing” a continuing offense that could allow the filing of an information thereof in the place where the robbery or theft is committed and not necessarily where the property unlawfully taken is found to have later been bought or acquired? Held: Fencing is not a continuing offense. Atty. (Beltran vs. October 5. 2. De Guzman.

Venue in criminal cases under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995- There is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in Congress fixing an alternative venue for violations of Section 6 of RA 8042 or otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (Allowing the filing of criminal actions at the place of residence of the offended parties) that differs from the venue established by the Rules on Criminal Procedure (Ho. Patricia A. COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL ACTION FILING OF INFORMATION/COMPLAINT (RULE 110) SECTION 1. Sto. Tomas v. 157 SCRA 154. may be a transitory or continuing offense. Estafa through issuance of check People v. In this case. therefore. Grospe. January 20.2. 1988 Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check. Jurisdiction may. while the damage was inflicted in Bulacan where the check was dishonored by the drawee bank in that place. Its basic elements of deceit and damage may arise independently in separate places. Salac [2012]). be entertained by either the Bulacan Court or the Pampanga Court. How Criminal Cases are Instituted · For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required: By filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation · For all other offenses: · In Manila and other Chartered Cities: . deceit took place in Pampanga.

As a rule. General Rule – By filing the complaint with the office of the prosecutor Exception – If their charters provide otherwise. Whether or not the Filing of the Complaint Interrupts the Running of the Prescriptive Period of the Crime · General rule Yes · Exception If provided otherwise in special laws Difference between commencement of criminal action and institution of criminal action When you say “commencement”. by filing the complaint with the office provided therein · In all other places: · By filing the complaint or information directly with the MTC. it is already an institution of the criminal action. or · By filing the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. When you file a complaint with the fiscal’s office. . generally it is already in the court or it is filed in court. for preliminary investigation. there is no direct filing of a ciminal case in the RTC because a prior preliminary investigation or inquest is required when the penalty is over 4 years and 2 months. for example. But “institution” is earlier.

If punished under a Special law.” (last paragraph. 211 SCRA 277 (Violation falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure but pushed under a special law) FACTS: It was a violation of a municipal ordinance and Arresto Menor is the imposable penalty. REYES SR.As regards the first level courts a criminal case may be directly filed except those which require preliminary investigation. After being filed at the fiscal’s office the fiscal took his time because according to him the filing of the case with the . Effect of the institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period - “The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws. being a substantive law. In other words. Illustration: ZALDIVIA vs. Rule 110) "Unless provided otherwise in special laws"/ Rule on prescription for violations of special laws and municipal ordinances Offenses under the Rules on Summary Procedure- Distinguish between an offense punishable by the Revised Penal Code and one punished under the Special law. Section 1. shall prevail. in case of a conflict between a city charter and this provision of the Rules of Court. the law provided therein on interruption applies. the former. There is also no direct filing with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila and other chartered cities unless otherwise provided in the charter.

this is a felony under the Penal Code. The information was filed in court only after 3 months.fiscal’s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. it is covered by the Summary Procedure. The filing of this case before its office did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. the running of prescriptive period is interrupted!” HELD: The fiscal (now prosecutor) is wrong. the filing with the fiscal’s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescriptive period even if it is covered by the Summary Rules. Article 90 of the RPC refers to prescription of felonies under the Penal Code.292 SCRA 87 (Offense falls under Summary Procedure but is punished under the Revised Penal Code) FACTS: The charge here was slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence which is actually punishable by arresto menor. it is very clear that the prescription period . So the accused filed a motion to quash on ground of prescription. The Fiscal opposed arguing that when the case is filed with the fiscal’s office. So why the distinction in the rulings when both are covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure? The SC cited Act 3326 which is the law governing prescription of crimes punished by special laws. It was filed with the fiscal’s office within 2 months but it was filed in court beyond 2 months. under Act 3326. He should have filed that on time before the court. COURT OF APPEALS. And definitely. HELD: In the case at bar. If it is a felony. REODICA vs. Whereas.

Section 2 thereof. February 19. what could have tolled the prescriptive period there was only the filing of the information in the proper court. is not allowed to diminish. Lim GR No. Pursuant to Section 5(5). Cases: Sanrio Company Limited vs. Some cases. The SC said: The revised rules of Summary Procedure “cannot be taken to mean that the prescriptive period is interrupted only by the filing of a complaint or information directly with said courts. therefore. We cannot. appear not to strictly follow the line toed by Zaldivia in cases involving violations of special laws. Accordingly. Article VIII of the Constitution. this Court held that the prescriptive period was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. this Court. Hence. as such did not constitute a judicial proceeding. the period of prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party. CA. in the exercise of its rule-making power. supra) “xxx. supra). however.for the crime (punished by a special law) is interrupted only upon judicial proceeding – filing in court. as the offenses involved are covered by the Revised Penal Code. in case of conflict between the Rule on Summary Procedure promulgated by this Court and the Revised Penal Code. increase or modify substantive rights. 168662. It must be stressed that prescription in criminal cases is a matter of substantive law.” (Reodica vs. Thus. In the instant case. 2008 . uphold petitioner's defense of prescription of the offenses charged in the information in this case” (Reodica vs. Under. CA. Article 91 thereof the rulings in Francisco and Cuaresma apply. the prescriptive period for the quasi offenses in question was interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office three days after the vehicular mishap and remained tolled pending the termination of this case. the latter prevails.

November 25. The Court categorically ruled that the prescriptive period for the prosecution of the alleged violation of the IPC was tolled by petitioner's timely filing of the complaint-affidavit before the TAPP. 217 (in relation to Secs. hence under Act 3326. a violation of BP 22 prescribes in 4 years from the commission of the offense or. we cannot uphold the position that only the filing of a case in court can toll the running of the prescriptive period. v. 22. 2008 The Court ruled that the prosecution of offenses punishable under the Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulations Code is initiated by the filing of a complaint with the SEC or by an investigation conducted by . GR No. An offense under BP 22 merits the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine. In SEC vs.This involves a violation of the Intellectual Property Code. Interport Resources Corporation GR No. 3326 applies to offenses under BP Blg. 177 and 178) of the Intellectual Property Code. 135808 Oct. In Panaguiton. Sanrio filed a complaint affidavit with the Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Piracy (TAPP) of the DOJ against Lim for violation of Sec. from the discovery thereof. DOJ. 2008. 6. Jr. a special law. if the same be not known at the time. 167571. The SC declared: "We agree that Act No. effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under BP 22.xxxx We rule and so hold that the offense has not yet prescribed. Petitioner's filing of his complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor x x signified the commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused and thus. the issue raised was whether or not the filing of a complaint for violation of BP 22 before the Office of the Prosecutor interrupts the running of the prescriptive period for the offense. Nevertheless.

Only after a finding of probable cause is made by the SEC can the DOJ instigate a preliminary investigation. After conducting preliminary investigation and finding probable cause. Panaguiton and SEC. which is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases. such investigation would surely interrupt the prescription period. 2000 Facts: A complaint for written libel was filed with the City Prosecution Office. all involved violations of special laws. October 12. effectively interrupted the prescription period. the prosecutor erroneously filed the information before the MTC. Laqui. Arambulo v. 342 SCRA 740. prescriptive period is still tolled. After a demurrer to evidence filed by accused. the MTC dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Given the nature and purpose of the investigation conducted by the SEC.the SEC motu proprio. cited above. soon after it discovered the questionable acts of the respondents. instead of the RTC. the Court had declared that the filing of the affidavit-complaint for preliminary investigation interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. Where information or complaint is filed before court with no jurisdiction. Uniformly in these cases. Note: In the cases of Sanrio. Issues: Did the period of prescription continue to run while the case was pending with the MTC which has no jurisdiction over the offense? Held: . Thus the investigation that was commenced by the SEC.

It was prosecutor who committed an error when he filed the complaint with the MTC. As such. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (Rule 1150 Section 1 – Rights of accused at the trial – In all criminal prosecutions. xxxxx Why is it that in criminal cases an accused enjoys this presumption? Why does the law give the accused the presumption of innocence? . the period of prescription for the crime was still suspended. when the information for libel was filed with the MTC. the only thing that the victim of the offense may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite complaint. CHAPTER V. The resolution of the city prosecutor actually directed the continuation of the proceedings by the filing of the appropriate information against her and by the holding of trial on the merits. In this case. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. No. complainants were not remiss in their right to seek redress against accused as they filed their complaint before the city prosecutor 42 days after the alleged crime of libel occurred. Not the injured party’s fault- It is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control. When the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of libel charges against accused. the proceedings against her were not terminated. This is because in criminal prosecutions. a. the accused shall be entitled to the following rights. precisely because a prima facie case for libel was found against her.

the accused is accorded the presumption of innocence to lighten and even reverse the heavy odds against him. 178778. so to speak. it is for the accused to take the offense and ward off the attack. Mere accusation is not enough to convict him. In so doing. 2010)So the accused cannot rely forever in the presumption of innocence. And if the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof. excluding possibility of error. This is a disputable presumption. Moral . he is entitled to be freed. the prosecution must rest on the strength of its own evidence and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. In such cases the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted (People vs. and neither is the weakness of his defense. SEQUERRA October 12. Otherwise. It is now your duty to present evidence that you are innocent. "x x x Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof as.PEOPLE vs. Paragraph [a] emphasizes the degree of proof in criminal cases. The prosecution can destroy that presumption by presenting evidence that you are guilty and once the prosecution has presented that you cannot anymore rely on this presumption. Angus GR No. it then becomes the outlook of the accused to adduce evidence that will at least raise that inkling of doubt that he is guilty.” The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. If the prosecution succeeds in refuting the presumption. strong enough to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. produces absolute certainty.” “But as solicitous as the Bill of Rights is of the accused. the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. Aug. 3. It is at best only an initial protection. the presumption of innocence is not an automatic or blanket exoneration. 1987 HELD: “Confronted by the full panoply of state authority. The evidence for the prosecution must be strong per se. Once the armor of the presumption is pierced.

People. As such. ruled the Court. Jan. this constitutional mandate prevails (Re: Conviction of Judge Angeles. 2008. Since the convictions are currently on appeal before the CA. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty relied upon by the lower courts cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.. the respondent still enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence. 31. when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities such presumption is effectively destroyed (People vs. describes reasonable doubt as " that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Frondoso. 177164. the testimony of public officers who apprehended the accused is accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. 363 SCRA 672 Question: What are the elements of due process in judicial proceedings? . 2008). 6. Elements of due process Aguirre v..Until the accused's guilt is shown (beyond reasonable doubt). 2 R 133. the presumption continues and until a promulgation of final conviction is made. Rules of Court) The Court in Mupas vs. As a rule.certainty only is required. 172834. People. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind: (Sec. GR No. GR No. Feb. 2009). 06-9-545-RTC. Regularity in the performance of official duties and presumption of innocence- Finally. AM No. June 30. However. the same have not yet attained finality." Presumption continues even on appeal from a judgment of conviction- The fact of respondent's conviction by the RTC does not necessarily warrant the suspension.

Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. 704. 265 SCRA 517 Facts: Hizon challenges the provision of P. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or property which is the subject of the proceeding. CA. as a violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence.D. To avoid any constitutional infirmity. and 4. . Issue: Is there a violation of the right to be presumed innocent? Held: No. The legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain facts can constitute a prima facie evidence of guilt provided there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed. which provides that the discovery of explosives or obnoxious substance in any fishing boat shall constitute a presumption that the owner or operator was fishing with the use of explosives or poisonous substance. the Fisheries Decree. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial authority to hear and determine the matter before it.Answer: The essential requirements of due process are: 1. 2. the inference of one from proof of the other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard. Validity of Prima facie presumption of guilt in law- Hizon v. 3.

It cannot. which side shall prevail? Held: Under the equipoise rule. operate to preclude accused from presenting his defense to rebut the fact presumed. 392 SCRA 46 Issue: When the evidence presented by the prosecution and the accused are of equal weight. the statutory presumption can only be prima facie. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations. Briefly stated. The rule is that the prosecution can only prove what are alleged in the information and the accused can only be convicted of the crime charged if proven. People.D. for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty. one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt. . the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is lacking.) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. b. The equipoise rule Dado v. under the guise of regulating the presentation of evidence. 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts proved and hence is not constitutionally impermissible. However. the party having the burden of proof loses. and does not suffice to produce a conviction. where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates.P.

How to allege certain qualifying circumstances in rape- “Half-sister” People v. Waiver When the counsel of the accused actively participated in the proceedings this indicates that the accused was fully aware of the charges against him. Jan. 2010). otherwise. In other words. nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty. Sandiganbayan 413 SCRA 385). Pangilinan. so that even if a discrepancy exists. but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein (People vs. he is duly informed not only of such specific crime. his counsel would have objected and informed the court of the blunder (People vs. a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense. 175319. 518 SCRA 318) But the failure to file a motion to quash the information cannot amount to a waiver of the constitutional right to be informed (Burgos vs. a regulated drug? "x x x At a glance. Sajolga. his right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime. GR No. Noque. 387 SCRA 519 . 15. this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal.Rule when there is a Minor variance between the information and the evidence- Does conviction for the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) violate the accused's constitutional right to be informed if the fact that was established and proven during the trial was the sale and possession of ephedrine.

A. 421 SCRA 354 Facts: Accused was charged with the rape of his own 14-year old step- daughter. 7659. The information did not allege the qualifying circumstance of minority of complainant and the fact that accused is the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother. can accused be sentenced to death? Held: No. not having been legally married. Under R. without specifying her age or the fact that accused was the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother. Blancaflor.Issue: Is the allegation in the information that the victim is a “half-sister” of the accused sufficient to qualify a charge of rape? Held: No. as the case may be.” Mere allegation and the stipulation that accused is the brother of the victim because they have a common mother are not enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. Not only should “relationship by consanguinity or affinity” be alleged. “Step-daughter” People v. where the victim is less than 18 years of age and the accused is the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. It must be alleged in the information that he is a relative by consanguinity or affinity. within the third civil degree. The correct . it is also necessary to specify that such relationship is “within the third civil degree. Issue: Considering that the information merely alleged that the victim is the “step-daughter” of accused. the imposable penalty is death.

but the information merely alleged that she was a “minor” without stating the precise age. Issue: Can accused be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death? Held: No. 7659 introduced 7 new attendant circumstances. These new attendant circumstances must be properly pleaded in the information to justify the imposition of the . For failure to properly allege in the information the qualifying circumstance that the victim is under 18 years of age and that the offender is a common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. which when present. which constitute only one special qualifying circumstance. Age/mental retardation “Minor” People v. Gaudia. Upon its passage. R.A. 7659 (Death Penalty Law). so that accused may be fully apprised of the exact charge against him. must be alleged in the information and proved with certainty. as amended by R. as contemplated by law. will transform the crime to qualified rape. punishable by death. The victim was below 7 years old at the time of the incident.allegation should have been that accused is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Since the information did not allege that the victim was below 7 years old when she was violated. under Sec.A. the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship could not be taken into consideration and accused could only be found guilty of simple rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. 423 SCRA 520 Facts: Accused was charged with rape. accused was therefore charged with simple rape. The minority of the victim and the offender’s relationship to the victim.

Accused has waived his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. Atienza. There was no objection from the defense. The records show that accused did not object to the manifestation made by the prosecution that the victim should first be examined to determine her mental condition. consequently. 326 SCRA 802 .death penalty. The main purpose of requiring all the elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. The accused likewise did not oppose the prosecution’s presentation and offer of evidence that would prove the victim’s mental condition. Orbita. a denial of due process. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and. the public prosecutor asked permission from the judge and was allowed to propound leading questions in view of the victim’s mental condition. 384 SCRA 393 Issue: May an accused be convicted of rape of a mental retardate under an information which failed to allege the victim’s mental state and where accused failed to object to evidence of her mental retardation? Held: Yes. He neither moved for reconsideration nor appealed the Order of the trial court directing the National Center for Mental Health to conduct the mental examination of the victim. if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form punishable with death. During the direct examination of the victim. When accused fails to object- People v. Mode or manner of commission As to mode of commission People v.

Thus.Question: May an accused charged in the information with rape committed through force and intimidation as defined in Art. he has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this constitutional right. accused . 335 [2] i. 335 [1] of the Revised Penal Code. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense. rape of a woman who was deprived of reason. the victim died of drowning. People v. An accused charged with rape through one mode of commission may still be convicted of the crime if the evidence shows another mode of commission provided that the accused did not object to such evidence.. Ortega. including those with the mental capacity of a child below 12 years old? Answer: Yes. be convicted of rape under Art. As a consequence.. Issue: May accused be convicted of murder in an information charging him with the offense through stabbing when the evidence showed that the death was caused by drowning? Held: No. unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Constitutionally. Jr. 276 SCRA 166 Facts: Accused assisted in concealing the body of a person stabbed by someone else by dumping it in a well not knowing that the victim was still alive. Accused was thus charged as a principal in the crime of murder committed through the stabbing.e.

but is merely a conclusion of law by the one who drafted the complaint. otherwise we would be violating the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. i. acts of lasciviousness. 7610 which alleges that he committed sexual abuse on his daughter “either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness on her.cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning in an information that charges murder by means of stabbing. Neither does it constitute sufficient allegation of elements for crimes other than rape..e. People v.A. Specific acts and/or omission must be alleged not mere conclusions- People v. For a complaint to be sufficient. 383 SCRA 410 Facts: Accused was charged with violation of R. The complaint in this case fails to allege specific acts or omission constituting the elements of the crime of rape. This insufficiency therefore prevents this Court from rendering a judgment of conviction. 469 SCRA 14 Issue: Is the complaint sufficient if it merely states that accused did “try and attempt to rape” the victim? Held: No. The allegation therein that the accused “tried and attempted to rape” the complainant not only does not satisfy the test of sufficiency of a complaint or information. it must state the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense.” Issue: Is the information sufficient to convict accused of the crime? . Dimaano. Dela Cruz.

. unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter [Jeannie Ann] either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness on her” is not a sufficient averment of the acts constituting the offense as required under Sec. Rule 110. Although accused failed to call the attention of both the trial court and this Court regarding the defects of the information the Court may motu proprio dismiss said information at this stage. The information is therefore void for being violative of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 523 of the Civil Code. Accused cannot be convicted of possession of the “shabu” contained in a canister and allegedly seized at his house.. while “possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right” as defined by Art. not facts. . Art. 1458 of the Civil Code defines sale as a contract whereby “one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing. for the charge against him was for selling “shabu” with the information alleging that the “accused. sell to a poseur buyer an aluminium foil containing Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride. 234 SCRA 246 Issue: May a person charged with sale of “shabu” be convicted of possession of the same instead? Held: No. . 8.” Sale is totally different from possession. Accused cannot be convicted of a crime which .Held: No. The allegation in the information that accused “wilfully. and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent”. for these are conclusions of law. without legal authority did . Del Rosario. As to crime committed People v.

1 of B. 445 SCRA 624 Facts: The information against accused for violation of B. Date of commission In violation of BP Blg. and the date thereof involves its second element. 22 date of commission and check number are essential allegations- Alonto v. 831258 in the amount of P25. As to check number Dico v.P. draws or issues a check on account or for value.P. that at the time of issue the maker. Since the identity of the check enters into the first essential elements of the offense under Sec. there is a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense charged in view of the variance. 22 charged her of issuing the postdated check on May 14. 452 SCRA 441 Issue: May accused be convicted of violation of B.is not charged in the information for to do so would deny him the due process of law. the documentary evidence presented and duly marked was BPI Check No. People. namely. 1992. CA. that is. Issue: Can accused be convicted of the offense? Held: No. that a person makes. However. 22 where the information charges him of issuing FEBTC Check No. 364903 but the . drawer or issuer knew that he or she did not have sufficient funds to cover the same. 1992.000 dated April 5.P. 22.

26. even if it appears that the crime was not committed at the precise time or place alleged. be convicted of rape committed on Nov. who failed to object to the testimony of the victim. (U. Where time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential element of the crime charged. 369403? Held: No. 1 of B.evidence of the prosecution showed that he in fact issued FEBTC Check No. The identity of the check enters into the first element of the offense under Sec. Smith. 1983 when the information charges him of rape committed on Nov. and at a place within the jurisdiction of the court. or if the proof fails to sustain the existence of some immaterial fact set out in the complaint.S. the constitutional right of accused to be informed of the nature of the offense charged will be violated if his conviction is upheld. Lucas. There being a discrepancy in the identity of the checks described in the information and that presented in court. 232 SCRA 537 Issue: May an accused. vs. 1982? Held: Yes. conviction may be had on proof of the commission of the crime. provided it appears that the specific crime charged was in fact committed prior to the date of the filing of the complaint or information within the period of the statute of the limitations. 22 – that a person draws or issues a check on account or for value.P. The variance in the identity of the check nullifies the conviction of accused. Failure to object to evidence offered for non-essential allegations- Rape People v. 26. 2 PHIL 20) .

he cannot be held liable for other acts of rape. 246 SCRA 206 . while the information failed to specifically allege that the sexual intercourse was committed through force or intimidation. Legaspi. Besides. Antido. no objection to which was interposed by accused. may he be convicted of 2 counts where he failed to object to the testimony of the victim that she was raped twice? Held: No. even if the evidence shows that more than one was in fact committed. The right of a person to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him cannot be waived for reasons of public policy.People v. In this case. There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense. Conviction of constituent crimes People v. that they committed rape through force. 278 SCRA 425 Issue: When the information charges an accused with one count of rape. 414 SCRA 395 Issue: May the accused be convicted of rape in an information which failed to alleged use of force and intimidation? Held: Yes. then consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. Number of offenses People v. Narawi. the prosecution presented evidence. Since the information specifically charges the accused with only one act of rape committed on a specific date. the information alleged that the sexual intercourse was against the victim’s will.

the need of an interpreter- People v. Where accused is a deaf-mute. Their conviction can only be limited to the crime alleged or necessarily included in the allegations in the separate informations. and with low IQ of 60 only. it cannot convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of the various crimes alleged in the 2 informations. whose mental age is only 7 years and 9 months. What controls is the description of the offense. 310 SCRA 146 Facts: Accused was charged with rape. Issue: Is the conviction valid? . During trial. the accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Issue: May accused be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with double homicide? Held: No.Facts: Accused were charged in 2 separate informations. Thus. While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases and can render a consolidated decision. one for double murder and the other for carnapping under RA No. The results of medical examinations conducted on him indicate that he is a deaf-mute and a mental retardate. Parazo. 6539. as alleged in the information. he was not assisted by a sign language interpreter and he was convicted and sentenced to death. The two cases arose out of one incident and they were jointly tried in the same RTC branch.

Palisoc. It is not waivable because public interest is involved in this right. (U. 4 Phil. The absence of a qualified interpreter in sign language and of any other means. Sec 1(c) Right of the Accused to be Present at his Trial 1. from arraignment to promulgation of judgment: 1. It’s not only a question of enumerate the rights of the accused but segregate those which can be waived and those which cannot be waived. there are certain rights that cannot be waived. 207) There are certain rights of the accused that are waivable. vs.” So practically you have to know [a] – [i]. and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in the proceedings where his life and liberty were at stake. The accused could not be said to have enjoyed the right to be heard by himself and counsel.S. For example: to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved – can you waive that? There was a bar examination in the past. The accuracy and fairness of the factual process by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined was not safeguarded. the public having an interest in seeing to it that no person is unlawfully deprived of his life or liberty.Held: No. General Rule – the accused may waive his right to be present at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail . where the examiner asked this question – “among the rights of the accused outline those which can be waived and cannot be waived. whether in writing or otherwise. to inform the accused of the charges against him denied the accused his fundamental right to due process of law. Right of the accused to be present at every stage of the proceedings. Can you waive the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him? NO.

Effect of absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice: It shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat 3. and so the trial may continue. and 3. when his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. during arraignment. Exceptions – the accused has to appear: 1. during promulgation of judgment Trial in absentia- 2. the accused is absent without justifiable cause during the particular trial date. the court already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. he has been duly notified. and 4. he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained”? In the first sentence. it assumes that: 1. 2. But he can still appear in the next trial. He only waived his right to be present on that date but he . accused been arraigned and entered a plea. What is the difference between these two sentences in [c]: “The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat” and “when an accused under custody escapes. Effect when an accused under custody escapes: He shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained But take note that in trial in absentia. 3. he failed to appear without justifiable cause. 2. 2.

we will have to hear the accused. Trial in absentia means the prosecution can present its evidence . This trial in absentia was explained by the SC in the case of PEOPLE vs. who has escaped. operate to his disadvantage as he will be unable to attend his trial. AGBULOS. legally speaking. there can be a judgment against you when the prosecution rests. you escaped or you jumped bail. then he escaped from jail. The prosecution moved for the trial to proceed without him – trial in absentia. The judge said “NO. and then it rested and submitted the case for decision based on the prosecution’s evidence alone – parang ex-parte ba. In the second sentence. His escape will. But how can the prosecution establish that the accused. 222 SCRA 196 (1993) HELD: The prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possibly eventual conviction provided that: 1. he has been duly notified of the trial. So the prosecution presented all its witnesses.has not waived his right to be present on subsequent trial dates. which will continue even in his absence and most likely result in his conviction. He has not waived his right to present evidence. You are not only waiving your right to be present on this date but on all subsequent dates. And therefore. Escape can never be a legal justification.” GIMENEZ vs. has been duly notified of the trial? How can you notify a person who is hiding? And how can you say that his failure to appear is unjustified? “The fugitive is deemed to have waived such notice precisely because he has escaped. NAZARENO. he has been arraigned. 160 SCRA 1 (1988) FACTS: The accused is arraigned. and 3. 2. his failure to appear is unjustified. and it is also this escape that makes his failure to appear at his trial unjustified.

ISSUE #3: If judgment is rendered as to the said accused and chances are you would be convicted. the court has the duty to rule upon the evidence presented in court.” The prosecution went to the SC. Definitely. This Court has consistently held that the right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses is a personal right and may be waived. Does an accused. “Upon the termination of a trial in absentia. would it not violate his right to be presumed innocent and right to due process? HELD: NO. who has been duly tried in absentia retain his rights to present evidence on his behalf and to confront and cross- examine witnesses who testified against him? The court said that. a right given to him for his own benefit and protection. may be waived by him. Also. To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in absentia. his right to present evidence on his behalf.” So an escape can be considered a waiver. there can be no . ISSUE #1: Is the court’s interpretation of trial in absentia correct? HELD: NO.without him but the case will not be decided until we catch him because we have to hear him. Pagtapos na. there are questions. he is still presumed innocent. he virtually waived these rights. Such evidence must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. that is not the meaning of trial in absentia.” ISSUE #2: Why is it that an escapee who has been tried in absentia does not retain his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence? How come those rights are lost? HELD: “By his failure to appear during the trial of which he had notice. The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape from custody finally decides to appear in court to present his evidence and cross-examine the witnesses against him. eh di tapos na! why wait for the accused? However. In the same vein. “A judgment of conviction must still be based upon the evidence presented in court.

violation of due process since the accused was given the opportunity to
be heard.” If the prosecution does not present anything, he would be
acquitted.

Presence during trial

Validity of a waiver of appearance

Carredo v. People, 183 SCRA 273

Facts:

After accused was arraigned, he filed a written manifestation which
reads:

“(T)he undersigned accused hereby waives his appearance during the
trial or any stage thereof and he agrees that in case he fails to appear for
trial despite due notice, his absence will be deemed as express waiver of his
right to be present, and the Honorable Court may proceed with the trial of
his case as if he were present. In this connection, he admits that he could
be identified by witnesses who are testifying at the time that said accused
was not present.”

Issue:

May accused be ordered arrested by the court for non-appearance
upon summons to appear for purposes of identification?

Held:

Yes. While it has been stated in People v. Presiding Judge [125 SCRA
269] that as an exception accused may not be compelled to appear even for
identification, it applies only when the accused “unqualifiedly admits in
open court after his arraignment that he is the person named as
defendant in the case on trial,” no more no less. In this case accused only
admits that he can be identified by the prosecution witnesses in his
absence. He did not admit that he is the very person named as defendant in
the case on trial. His admission is vague and far from unqualified. He cannot

therefore seek the benefit of the exception recognized in People v. Presiding
Judge.

Effect of failure to appear in one trial date

Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45

Issue:

When accused who is on bail fails to appear for a particular trial date,
does it amount to a waiver of appearance for the subsequent trial dates?

Held:

No. Under Sec. 2(c), Rule 114 and Sec. 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of
Court, the non-appearance of the accused on a particular trial date is
merely a waiver of his right to be present for trial on such date only and not
for the succeeding trial dates. It states that “the absence of the accused
without any justifiable cause at the trial on a particular date of which he
had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present during
that trial.” It is only when an accused under custody had been notified of
the date of the trial and escapes that he shall be deemed to have waived his
right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial dates until
custody is regained.

Invalid trial in absentia

Parada v. Veneracion, 269 SCRA 371

Facts:

Accused was charged with estafa and was out on bail. While trial was
going on, accused changed his address notifying the court through his
counsel as well as the bonding company. When accused failed to appear
during a hearing because notice was sent to his old address, the judge
issued a warrant for his arrest, appointed a counsel de oficio for him,
ordered a trial in absentia, and convicted him on the theory that he waived
his right to present evidence.

Issue:

Was there a valid trial in absentia?

Held:

No. Under Sec. 14[2] of the Bill of Rights, the following are the
requisites of a valid trial in absentia: [1] accused had already been
arraigned; [2] he has been duly notified of the trial; and [3] his failure to
appear is unjustifiable. In this case accused had not been duly notified of
the trial because notice of hearing was sent to his former address despite
the fact that he notified the court of his change of address.

Valid trial in absentia

Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1

Issues:

When may trial in absentia proceed? Where an accused who has
been arraigned escapes, should the court suspend proceedings until
accused is rearrested?

Held:

Under the Constitution, a “trial in absentia” may be had when the
following requisites are present: 1] that there has been an arraignment; 2]
that the accused has been notified; and 3] that he fails to appear and his
failure to do so is unjustified.

The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape
from custody finally decides to appear in court to present his evidence and
cross-examine the witnesses against him. To allow the delay of proceedings
for this purpose is to render ineffective the constitutional provision on trial
in absentia. This is buttressed by Sec. 1 [c] of Rule 115 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, which states that when an accused under custody had
been notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be deemed to

have waived his right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial
dates until custody is regained.

Sec. 1 [c] – Right to Counsel during Trial

1. Right of the accused:

To be defended by counsel at every stage of the proceeding from
arraignment to promulgation of judgment

2. Waiver of said right:

The accused, upon motion, may be allowed to defend himself in
person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect
his rights without the assistance of counsel.

Right to Counsel is right to efficient counsel-

People v. Ferrer, 406 SCRA 658

Question:

What does the right to counsel mean in a criminal case?

Answer:

The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer
in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and
objections. It means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance
extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense
and acts accordingly. It assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the
proceedings, particularly at the trial, his bearing constantly in mind of the
basic rights of accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing
the fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence. The
right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the performance by the

lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his client. It means an efficient and
truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory
representation.

Defense by fake lawyer

People v. Santoclides, 321 SCRA 310

Facts:

Accused was charged and convicted of the crime of rape and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. During trial, he was represented by a
certain Gualberto C. Ompong, who turned out to be a non-lawyer. On
appeal, he argues that his right to counsel was violated.

Issue:

Is accused correct?

Held:

Yes. The right of accused to counsel was violated, no matter that the
person who represented him had the ability of a seasoned lawyer and
handled the case in a professional and skilful manner. This is so because an
accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar in a
criminal case filed against him. Unless he is represented by a lawyer, there is
a great danger that any defense presented will be inadequate considering
the legal skills needed in court proceedings.

Waiver of right

People v. Tulin, 364 SCRA 10

Facts:

Accused were tried for piracy. They were represented by Tomas
Posadas who presented and examined 7 witnesses before the court
discovered that he was a non-lawyer. Their new lawyer, however,
manifested that accused were adopting the evidence adduced when they

were represented by a non-lawyer. Convicted by the trial court, they now
claim that their right to counsel was violated.

Issue:

Should the conviction be reversed?

Held:

No. The law entitles the accused to be present and to defend himself
in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. However, it is
also provided that rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to
law, public order, public policy, etc. The Rules also states that “upon motion,
the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the
assistance of counsel. By analogy, it is amply shown that the rights of
accused were sufficiently and properly protected by Tomas Posadas. He
knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, there was a valid waiver of
the right to sufficient representation during the trial, considering that it was
unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently made with the full assistance of
their new bona fide lawyer.

Non-appearance of counsel is not waiver of right to present evidence-

People v. Diaz, 311 SCRA 585

Facts:

Accused was convicted of raping his own daughter and sentenced to
death. It appears that after the prosecution rested, the case was set for
reception of defense evidence. However, in all 4 settings counsel for the
accused failed to appear despite notice. This was treated by the RTC as a
waiver by the accused of his right to present evidence, and it considered
the case submitted for decision.

Issue:

the RTC should have been more circumspect in denying accused his opportunity to present his side. He has also the right to present evidence. accused requested for 3 weeks to one month . Here. such presence is a strong indication that accused was interested in defending himself. denial of due process can be successfully invoked where no valid waiver of rights has been made. filed by their lawyers. Apppointment of counsel de oficio People v. particularly since he himself was present during the four hearings. Larranaga. Accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel. or motions to withdraw as counsel. who are members of prominent families in Cebu. were represented by counsel de parte during the trial for kidnapping with rape. we find that under the circumstances. pursuant to the court’s desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system. the judge directed the Public Attorney’s Office to act as counsel de oficio for them. In this case. 421 SCRA 530 Facts: Accused. Does the absence of counsel amount to waiver of the right of accused to be heard? Held: No. There is no denial of the right where a counsel de oficio was appointed during the absence of the counsel de parte of accused. Clearly. On account of the dilatory motions for postponement. Since the imposable penalty may be death. the accused was denied due process when the successive non-appearance of his counsel was construed as a waiver of his right to present evidence. Accordingly. Issue: Did the judge violate the right of the accused to counsel? Held: No.

166 SCRA 680 Issue: Where an accused who is represented by a counsel de parte appears for trial without his lawyer. the pace of criminal prosecution will be entirely dictated by the accused to the detriment of the eventual resolution of the case.to look for new counsel. the appointment of a counsel de oficio in situations like the present case is discretionary with the trial court. Bermas. 6. Accused could have hired new lawyers at a shorter time had they wanted to. The constitutional guarantee of right to counsel does not mean that accused may avoid trial by neglecting or refusing to secure assistance of counsel and by refusing to participate in trial. Ineffective counsel People v. Appointment of counsel de oficio during trial is not a duty of the judge during trial- Sayson v. Revised Rules of Court. The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio when the accused has no counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one is mandatory only at the time of arraignment [Rule 116. At the most. he appears by himself alone and the absence was inexcusable. Such period is unreasonable. which discretion will not be interfered with in the absence of abuse. People.] This is no longer so where the accused has proceeded with the arraignment and the trial with a counsel of his choice but when the time for the presentation of the evidence for the defense has arrived. Sec. Otherwise. 306 SCRA 135 Facts: . is it incumbent upon the trial judge to appoint a counsel de oficio for him? Held: No.

The right assumes an active involvement by a lawyer in the proceedings. The third de oficio lawyer also wanted to withdraw but was prevailed upon by the court and he presented the accused as witness. The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause of the defense and acts accordingly. he retained the services of counsel de parte. his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused. an indigent. The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections. but later also ceased to appear for unknown reasons. essential laws and existing jurisprudence. Before the SC he was represented by another counsel de . Accused was not properly and effectively accorded the right to counsel. Issue: Was the right to counsel of accused violated? Held: Yes. In the middle of the trial. The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a person must be heard before being condemned. Accused. After he was convicted by the RTC. another lawyer filed the notice of appeal but failed to file the appellant’s brief. 363 SCRA 62 Facts: Accused was convicted of highway robbery with multiple rape. Liwanag. was charged with rape. convicted and sentenced to death. During trial he was assisted by counsel de oficio. a PAO lawyer. his being well-versed on the case and his knowing the fundamental procedures. “Intelligent counsel” not covered in the guaranteed right to counsel- People v. His first lawyer withdrew after the direct examination of the victim and cross-examination was done by another de oficio lawyer who only prepared for 10 minutes.

. and failed to impeach the testimony of complainant through the use of contradictory evidence. In the Philippine setting. He now claims that his right to counsel was violated because his counsel made insufficient cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. 14 (2) of the Constitution. Sec. a counsel assisting an accused is presumed to be providing all the necessary legal defences which are reasonable under the circumstances in accordance with said norms. Issue: Does the right to counsel include the guarantee of an intelligent counsel? Held: No. as long as the trial was fair in that accused was accorded due process by means of an effective assistance of counsel. The “right to be assisted by counsel” does not presuppose “the right to an intelligent counsel. Sesbreno. 314 SCRA 87 Facts: Accused was charged with murder. III. Defending one’s self People v. Being a practicing lawyer.” The requirement is not for counsel to be intelligent. then the constitutional requirement that an accused shall have the right to be heard by himself and counsel is satisfied. While fairness is the object of Art. he handled his own defense and was convicted. the assistance afforded by counsel to an accused need only be in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Coupled with the presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable under the circumstances. Despite prodding by the court and an offer of the possibility of assistance from the PAO. he insisted on representing himself.oficio. but to be effective.

even if there were others available. Condition for the exercise of such right: He can be cross-examined on matters covered by his direct examination [deemed a waiver of his right against self-incrimination] 3. 1 (d) Right to Testify in his own Behalf 1. namely himself. Accused acted as his own counsel. Right guaranteed The accused has the right to testify as a witness in his own behalf 2. stated US v. The constitutional right of the accused to counsel is not violated where he was represented by a prominent and competent member of the Bar.Issue: Was the right to counsel of accused violated? Held: No. Effect of silence on the part of the accused: It shall not in any manner prejudice him Right available only to natural individuals- This right applies only to natural individuals. He is now stopped from claiming that the trial court violated his right to be represented by counsel of his own. White 322 US 694. He cannot invoke the privilege against self-incrimination by . Hence. a labor union official cannot refuse to produce books and records of the union in his custody and required by the court to be produced. Sec. To allege now that his right to be assisted by counsel was violated is to bend the truth too far.

Later accused was convicted. Thereafter. He cannot say. He claims that he was never asked to give his statement and was never given a chance to testify in court. If you connect this to the next right – [e] to be exempt to be a witness against himself (that is why you cannot compel him to testify) – once he testifies on his own behalf. counsel for the accused rested.contending that the production of the books and records would tend to incriminate himself and the organization. He was properly represented by his counsel of choice . 424 SCRA 620 Facts: Accused. During trial. he sent a handwritten letter to the Presidential Action Center seeking help to reopen his case which was duly indorsed to the Court. But he has no obligation to testify. Tagana. he waives the privilege against self-incrimination and he can be cross-examined like any other witness. Accused had all the right and opportunity to do so. While accused decries his alleged frustrated desire to testify in court. his counsel manifested to the court that he is invoking the defense of alibi and denial and was adopting the arguments of one of his co-accused. This is the right of the accused to testify on his own behalf.While his conviction was pending review by the Supreme Court. together with several others. was charged with murder. Issue: Was accused deprived of his right to testify in his own behalf? Held: No.” That would be unfair no? Waiver of right to testify People v. this is now water under the bridge. “I will testify but I refuse to be cross-examined.

Rondero. Issue: Was his right against self-incrimination violated? Held: No. it sent a fax message to the police that hair strands be pulled. he could have easily moved for new trial or reconsideration. What is proscribed by the right against self-incrimination is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused. he cannot now be heard to complain for his failure to avail of his right to be a witness in his own behalf. substance emitted from the body of the accused . He did not. tightly gripped in her right hand were hair strands. If accused felt that he was deprived of his rights. By then Rondero was detained and he now claims that his hair strands were taken by the police without his consent. from Rondero. When the corpse of the 9-year old victim was found. While his silence will not in any manner prejudice him. 320 SCRA 383 Facts: Rondero was charged with rape with homicide. [e] To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. This is the right against self-incrimination Mechanical acts Taking of hair strands People v. no cut. and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. To enable the NBI to conduct an examination on the hair strands. For instance. from the 4 regions of his head for comparison with the specimen.and there was no hindrance to his testifying except his own volition.

Examination of sperm specimen People v. but against testimonial compulsion. Among the evidence presented was the testing of the DNA of the sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim. photographing. The kernel of the right against self-incrimination is not against all compulsion. as there is no testimonial compulsion involved. Searching inquiry and self-incrimination . paraffin.may be received as evidence in prosecution for rape. Issue: Was the right of accused not to be a witness against himself violated? Held: No. blood and DNA tests. a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting. the hair samples may be admitted in evidence against him for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired from him under duress. although Rondero insists that hair samples were forcibly taken from him and submitted to the NBI for forensic examination. Accused contends that the blood sample taken from him as well as the DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right against self- incrimination. 428 SCRA 504 Facts: Accused was convicted of rape with homicide. Consequently. Yatar. It must also be noted that the accused in this case submitted himself for blood sampling that was conducted in open court in the presence of counsel. The right against self- incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. and morphine forced out of his mouth may also be used as evidence against him. Hence. which was identified to be that of the gene type of the accused.

Summers. The RTC conducted a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his guilty plea.People v.38 caliber because they were planning to kill him. Take note that the right of the accused against self-incrimination is not limited to testimonial evidence. On automatic review of the death sentences. Issue: Is the contention correct? Held: No. intimidated. accused claims that his admissions and confessions violated his right not to testify against himself. accused admitted that he shot the victims with a . In the course of the questioning. (Villaflor vs. 422 SCRA 210 Facts: Accused pleaded guilty to 2 counts of murder. There is nothing in the records that would indicate that accused was forced. or compelled by the trial court or by anybody into admitting the crimes. as in these cases. his plea of guilty and confession or admissions during the searching inquiry cannot be the sole basis for his conviction. it refers not only to testimonial compulsion but also to production by the accused of incriminating documents and things. The right against self-incrimination is intended to prevent the State. 62) So you cannot subpoena his personal documents. It does not apply where. with all its coercive powers. At any rate. There was a tricky question in the Bar exam in the past: . Besonia. According to the SC. 41 Phil. from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him and to avoid a person subjected to such compulsion to perjure himself for his own protection. the testimony was freely and voluntarily given by the accused himself without any compulsion from the agents of the State.

because if the accused were required to testify. He can be compelled because he testified that it is not his handwriting. The prosecution presented it as evidence that this letter was written by the accused. Grant. The accused said. (U. . vs. From that moment he waived his right against self-incrimination.PROBLEM: The accused is charged with falsification for writing a falsified letter. U. the accused taking the stand and testifying as a witness or by freely answering the incriminating questions put to him. and of humanity. 143) (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.” On cross- examination. (U. ANSWER: The objection should be overruled. that is not my handwriting. because it would prevent the extortion of confession by duress. 426) or. What is the reason for the right of an accused against self-incrimination? The rule was established on the ground of public policy.S. The case is not covered by the right against self-incrimination. vs. Rule on the objection. “No. by not objecting to the incriminating question. It is unfair that you say it is not your signature and I have no way of telling you to give me a specimen. vs. 9 Phil.S. 122. he would be placed under the strongest temptation to commit perjury. How is the right against self-incrimination waived? The privilege is waived by: 1.S. 3 Phil. Rota. he was asked to write on a piece of paper as dictated. Navarro. 18 Phil. 2. The defense object on the ground of violation of the right to self-incrimination.

The adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine said witness Purposes of Right to confrontation People v. Additional benefit granted by Sec. Deceased. 279 SCRA 180 Question: What are the purposes of the right to confrontation? Answer: The right to confrontation has two purposes: . involving the same parties or subject matter. 2. or 4. provided: 1. and 3. Unavailable.1. out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines. judicial or administrative. 1[f] – Either party may use as evidence testimony of a witness who is not present during trial. and 2. Otherwise unable to testify. 3. Said testimony was given by the witness in another case or proceeding: 1. and 2. Right guaranteed: The accused has the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial 2. Ortiz-Miyake. Said witness is: 1.

first. and. Issue: Must her testimony on direct examination be expunged from the records? Held: No. Before the scheduled date of her cross- examination. the witness died. Death of witness. Recalling witness for cross-examination Burden of recalling witness of the prosecution for cross-examination rests on the accused- People v. it seems a harsh measure to strike out all that has obtained in the direct examination. Besides. Where death prevents the cross-examination under such circumstances that no responsibility of any sort can be ascribed to the plaintiff or the witness. to secure the opportunity of cross-examination. 275 SCRA 696 Facts: After the prosecution witness testified. to allow the judge to observe the deportment and appearance of the witness while testifying. Accused lost such opportunity when he sought the deferment of his cross- examination of the witness. failure to cross-examine by accused due to his/her fault- People v.. 250 SCRA 237 . second. and he only has himself to blame in forever losing that right by reason of her demise. accused moved for deferment of her cross-examination. Narca. mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is the essence of the right to cross-examine. Digno. Jr.

Discretion of the judge to recall. Thereafter. who has the burden of ensuring that she is cross- examined at another time? Held: It should be the counsel for the opposing party who should move to cross-examine plaintiff’s [prosecution] witnesses. counsel withdrew and the witness was never subpoenaed nor presented for cross-examination until the defense rested.Issue: Where a witness for the prosecution has not been cross-examined after her testimony. Ortillas. Issue: Does the judgment unduly deprive accused of his right to cross- examine the witness? Held: . Having presented his witnesses the burden shifts to his opponent who must now make the appropriate move. the judge convicted accused based mainly on the testimony of the witness. It is absurd for the plaintiff [prosecutor] himself to ask the court to schedule the cross- examination of his own witnesses because it is not his obligation to ensure that his deponents are cross-examined. Eventually. In fact. counsel for the accused moved for postponement. there is valid ground to recall for cross- examination if failure to do so is without fault of the accused- People v. a motion by the new counsel of accused to cross-examine the witness was denied by the trial court. 428 SCRA 659 Facts: After the only prosecution eye-witness to the murder testified on direct examination.

150 SCRA 617 Issue: Did the court abuse its discretion in denying a motion of new counsel to recall private complainant in a rape case for further cross-examination? Held: No. To allow her to be recalled to the witness stand in spite of a previous extensive cross-examination would be tantamount to harassment. 1(e) of the Revised Rules of Court. There was no manifest abuse of discretion in refusing to allow or recall complainant to the witness stand for additional cross-examination on account of a newly retained counsel. Under Rule 115. While it is well within the trial court’s discretion to allow the recall of witness. The complainant had already experienced great embarrassment in narrating the sexual abuses on her. Sec.” The refusal of the judge to give opportunity to the new counsel of accused to cross-examine prosecution witness on the ground that prosecution had already rested its case. as it was not his fault that the witness had not been cross-examined. While a petition for certiorari could have been duly availed of by counsel for accused to rectify the judge’s grave abuse of discretion. is patently a grave abuse of discretion on his part. as a layman. he could not have known better as to what must be done under the circumstances. Yes. Recalling complainant for additional cross-examination in a rape case- People v. Dela Cruz. accused should not be made to suffer for the failure of his counsel to do so. the judge should have known that the interest of justice required that accused should have been given the opportunity to cross-examine. Testimony in preliminary investigation under the old rules- Testimony of witness who died . the accused has the right “to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. under the foregoing circumstances.

The absence of counsel when she . 145 SCRA 555 Issue: May the testimony of accused given in the course of a preliminary investigation without the assistance of counsel be used as evidence against her during the trial? Held: No.De Leon v. By the express provision of Sec. The rule against self-incrimination positively intends to avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person “to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction. 1(f) Rule 115 of the Rules of Court. For then.” The rule may apply even to a co-accused in a joint trial. People. and there was an opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the witness who is dead or incapacitated to testify or cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines. she could have availed herself of legal advice on when to refrain from answering incriminating questions. The situation would have been different had accused been assisted by counsel during the preliminary investigation. 210 SCRA 151 Issue: May the testimony of a witness taken during the preliminary investigation be used in evidence against the accused where said witness died before he could testify at the trial? Held: Yes. the testimonies given by witnesses during the preliminary investigation of the case on trial should be admitted into evidence when such testimony was taken by question and answer in the presence of defendant or his attorney. Testimony of accused given without counsel People v. Abano.

Issue: Was the right of the accused to cross-examine the witness violated? Held: Yes. Counsel of accused must cross-examine despite personal belief in the testimony of the prosecution witness- People v. Atty. Nadera. is convinced that she is telling the truth. he had the bounden duty to scrutinize victim’s testimony to ensure that the constitutional right of the accused to confront and examine the witnesses against him was not rendered for naught. Brotonel: If Your Honor please. Brotonel’s decision not to cross-examine the victim is a glaring example of his manifest lack of enthusiasm for his client’s cause. 324 SCRA 490 Facts: After the rape victim testified. Second portion of paragraph [f]: . the following dialogue occurred: Court: Any cross? Atty. What are the EXCEPTIONS to the right of the accused to confront and examine witnesses against him? The following: 1. It may be that defense counsel personally found the testimony to be believable.appeared as witness during the preliminary investigation is an irreparable damage which rendered inadmissible accused’s alleged confession. because this representation. we are not conducting any cross-examination. from the demeanor of the witness. Nevertheless.

In criminal procedure. they were cross-examined by the lawyer of the defendant who is also the accused in the criminal case. these witnesses have to testify again in the criminal case. unavailable. out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines. involving the same parties and subject matter. practically they will have to repeat their testimony. Assuming that the trial of the civil case is ahead. one good example where the testimony of a witness is admissible even if he does not appear in the trial is when the witness is about to die so you need to take his testimony in advance. the prosecution witnesses in the criminal case are also the witnesses for the plaintiff in the civil case. when the criminal case is tried. these witnesses testified during the trial of the civil case. deposition is called conditional examination of a witness. given in another case or proceeding. Now. “Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased. Sometimes there is no choice. and 15. Now. Can the testimony recorded in the civil case be now admissible in the criminal case when there is no more confrontation there? . some of these witnesses died. 2. under the law. or otherwise unable to testify. judicial or administrative. in the meantime. 13. when there is a separate civil action filed against the accused by the offended party- Normally. That is governed by Rule 119 Sections 12. the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him”. The trouble is. In civil cases we call it deposition.

you confront them during the trial. involving the same parties and subject matter. how can you cross-examine a dead person. That is the last exception – testimony or deposition at a former trial or proceeding. How many exceptions are there to the Hearsay Rule? eleven (11) – starting from dying declaration. judicial or administrative. 530) If there are 11 exceptions to the hearsay rule. Chua. (People vs. “when the testimony of the witness who is now deceased. include your right to know their names and addresses in advance? NO. this is also considered as one of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. L-13933. vs. the adverse party having the opportunity to cross examine him. May 25.Yes. It is the 11th exception to the Hearsay Rule. Try to connect this with Rule 130 on Evidence. for known witnesses might be subjected to pressure or cowered not to testify. because that is the exception. 13 Phil.” As a matter of fact. One last point. Gil. (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. The exceptions to the hearsay rule are likewise exceptions to this right of the accused. Palacio.S. not now. the accused has no such right because the case of the prosecution might be endangered if the accused were to know the prosecution witnesses in advance. all of them are also exceptions to this. 1960) So. That is considered as an exception to the right against confrontation. 356 SCRA 225 Question: . Requisites People v. (U. does the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against you. Like dying declaration. 1. given in another case or proceeding.

That right cannot be precluded by provisions in the Rules of Court. Suppose my witness is somewhere there in Cagayan de Oro. What are the requisites before an accused may be allowed to avail of the right to compulsory process? Answer: The 1973 and 1987 Constitutions expanded the right to compulsory process which now includes the right to secure the production of evidence in one’s behalf. can I secure a subpoena to compel him when under the rules on subpoena a witness is not bound if he resides more than 100 kilometers? That has already been answered in the cases of PEOPLE VS.) does not apply when you are talking of witnesses for the defense in a criminal case because of the Constitutional right to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. [b] that he is not guilty of neglect in previously obtaining the production of such evidence. MONTEJO and MILLORCA VS. the right to a speedy trial. the movant must show: [a] that the evidence is really material. impartial and public trial. and [d] that no similar evidence could be obtained. [c] that the evidence will be available at the time desired. There are actually three rights here: 1. QUITAIN. the right to a public trial. Speedy trial . the right to an impartial trial. The SC said that the 100-km limitation (formerly 50 kms. Thus. (h) To have speedy. and 3. 2.

Speedy Trial Act) 2. now incorporated in Section 3. Hon. 8493). The factors. due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution or otherwise. G. among others. Presiding Judge. Southern Leyte and PO1 Rudyard Paloma y Torres. or result in a miscarriage of justice. Right of accused to speedy trial/ delay of the trial in the subject criminal case to await the outcome of petitioners’ petition for transfer of venue is a violation- Churchille V. No continuance shall be granted because of general congestion of the court's calendar. 2011. Rule 119 of the Rules of Court which provides that “[a]ny period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused” such as “delays resulting from orders of inhibition. Gonzales. despite the provision in Section 10 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. Sogo. which should be considered in determining whether to grant a continuance are as follows: (a) whether the failure to grant such continunace in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible. 11. the Supreme Court debunked petitioners’ argument that the RTC dismissed the criminal case against private respondent too hurriedly. RTC. 187728. September 12. that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the periods of time established by this Act (Sec.R. (b) whether the case taken as a whole is so novel. In this case. Br. or proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts” shall “be . Rolando L. so unusual and so complex. or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the public prosecutor (ibid).1. 39. No. Mari and People of the Philippines v.

when he was incarcerated from November 18. or a period of over 6 months. it must be emphasized that private respondent had already been deprived of his liberty on two occasions. the factors to consider and balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay. he was imprisoned beginning June 27. An accused’s right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious. First. in this case. there can be no cavil that deprivation of liberty for any duration of time is quite oppressive. (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it. Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. capricious. any delay in trying the case . The time involved in the proceedings in a petition for transfer of venue can only be excluded from said time limit if it was the accused who instituted the same. Hence. then again. Verily. Because of private respondent’s continued incarceration.” A careful reading of the above rule would show that the only delays that may be excluded from the time limit within which trial must commence are those resulting from proceedings concerning the accused. 2008 until the case was dismissed on January 16. and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. during the preliminary investigation before the MCTC. the time during which the petition for transfer of venue filed by the private complainant is pending cannot be excluded from the time limit of thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order imposed in Section 1. when an Information had already been issued and since rape is a non- bailable offense. and oppressive delays. 2009. In determining whether petitioner was deprived of the right to speedy trial. Here. 2004 to March 16. or a period of almost four months. (b) reason therefor.excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence. 2005.

When your case will not move. Please connect this provision on Speedy Trial with Rule 119 Section 9 which is a new provision taken from the Speedy Trial Act. the accused may question the delay why his case has not been set for trial. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for . Factors to determine violation right to speedy trial- Yulo v. it was absolutely vexatious and oppressive to delay the trial in the subject criminal case to await the outcome of petitioners’ petition for transfer of venue. Thus.would cause him great prejudice. 452 SCRA 705 Issue: When is the right to speedy trial deemed violated? Answer: The right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious. What is the heading of Section 9 Rule 119? Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within time limits. So there is such a provision. That is a new provision taken from the Speedy Trial Act. Remedy of the prosecution if accused causes unnecessary delay- Have the accused tried in absentia or to have waived his right to present evidence. and oppressive delays. People. capricious. especially in this case where there is no temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction issued by a higher court against herein public respondent from further proceeding in the case.

[3] the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused. from the time Sumbang’s motion to dismiss was filed in 1991. To determine whether the right has been violated. Thus. 1988. Sumbang moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of violation of the right to speedy trial.A. [2] the reasons for such delay. the supervening delay seems to have been . 337 SCRA 227 Facts: Sumbang was a member of the Philippine Constabulary accused before a court martial of killing a civilian on May 29. 29. Although it is unfortunate that it took about 8 years from 1991 before the trial resumed in 1999. and [4] the prejudice caused by the delay. Court Martial. the following factors may be considered: [1] the length of the delay. the composition of the court martial was changed so that the case remained pending for years. 1999. Issue: Was the right of Sumbang to speedy trial violated? Held: No. he did not take action to assert his right. Gen. Justifiable delays Sumbang v. the delay does not amount to violation of the right considering that it could not be attributable to the prosecution. On Sep. and secured. In view of the enactment of R. or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to lapse without the party having his case tried. The determination of whether an accused has been denied the right to speedy trial must have to depend on the surrounding circumstances of each case. The delay was due to the changes in the composition of the court martial. Notably. 6975 otherwise known as the Philippine National Police Law.

Santos. The right to speedy trial may be waived. 299. the latter’s remedy is mandamus to compel dismissal of the case. (Mercado vs. 66 Phil. 45 Phil. his remedy is habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. 452. (People vs. If the court grants the postponement everytime the fiscal asks for it. over the protest of the accused. People vs. 650) . 66 Phil. 714) 2. 94 Phil. If the court denies the postponement and directs the prosecution to proceed and cannot do so because he does not have the evidence. 714) The dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal and there is no way for that case to be brought back because it will amount to double jeopardy. Rivera. Gandicela vs. without his objection hence impliedly with his acquiescence. Diaz. Blanco. the accused should move for dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute or insufficiency of evidence. 88 Phil. Conde vs. Diaz. How do you invoke this right to speedy trial? What are the remedies of an accused whose rights to a speedy trial is being violated because the prosecution keeps on postponing the case? How do you invoke this right to speedy trial? A: There are three (3) possible remedies: 1. 215) 3. Santos. (Mercado vs. 215. Remedies of an accused whose rights to a speedy trial is being violated because the prosecution keeps on postponing the case. 86 Phil. If the accused is restrained of his liberty. (Jaca vs. 94 Phil. Lutero. The accused should OPPOSE the postponement and insist on trial.

Accused must discharge this burden. The right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible with a free press.Impartial trial Widespread media publicity People v. At best accused can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity. On appeal. In this case. But the test is not the possibility of prejudice but actual prejudice. Sanchez. It does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. Sanchez claims that his right to a fair trial was violated due to the intense publicity. Issue: Does intensive publicity of a trial violate the right to a fair trial? Held: No. 302 SCRA 21 Facts: Mayor Sanchez was convicted of 7 counts of rape with homicide. Estrada v. the trial was accompanied by widespread media coverage. or actual bias as a consequence of extensive media coverage. there is no proof that the judge acquired a fixed opinion. there must be allegation and proof that judges have been unduly influenced. Desierto. Considering the position of accused. Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity. 356 SCRA 109 Facts: . not simply that they might be.

For this reason. he contends that his right to an impartial trial has been affected by the prejudicial pre-trial publicity of the proceedings before the Ombudsman. he may be prosecuted for Plunder. He urges the Court to apply the rule on res ipsa loquitor. Such a rule will overturn our case law that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. not simply that they might be. The test of actual prejudice cannot be replaced with the rule of res ipsa loquitur. In this case. we continue to hold that it is not enough for the former President to conjure possibility of prejudice but must prove actual prejudice on the part of his investigators for the Court to sustain his plea. The latter rule assumes that an injury has been suffered and then shifts the burden to the panel of investigators to prove that the impartiality of its members has not been affected by said publicity. Issue: Has the former President’s right to fair trial been violated? Held: No. To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity. Live coverage of trial . the former President has failed to adduce any proof of actual prejudice developed by the members of the Panel of Investigators of the Ombudsman. He also points to the alleged hate campaign launched by some newspapers so that the prosecution and the judiciary can no longer assure him of a sporting chance. there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced. Former President Estrada seeks a reconsideration of the decision of the Supreme Court declaring that having resigned from the presidency. The mere fact that the proceeding was given a day to day coverage does not prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the tribunal and impaired his impartiality. Among others.

The issue involves the weighing out of constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. to protect the parties’ right to due process.. Issue: Should live media coverage of court trials be allowed? Held: No. the right of the accused must be preferred. it must be ensured that accused receives a verdict decreed by an unprejudiced judge. In effect. to avoid miscarriage of justice. Accordingly.. Re: Request for Live. the request seeks reconsideration of the 1991 resolution of the Court which barred live media coverage of all court proceedings. 360 SCRA 248 Facts: The Kapisanan ng mga Broadkaster ng Pilipinas. and can destroy the case of the accused in the eyes of the public. Television coverage. can affect the performance of the judge.. and the fundamental rights of the accused. The request was anchored on the need to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings. can impair the testimony in criminal trials. on the other hand.. the request is denied.Re: Request Radio-TV . When these rights race against each other. to prevent the distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis.. on the one hand. 365 SCRA 62 Facts: . however. With the possibility of losing his life or liberty.. an association representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks. requested the Supreme Court to allow live media coverage of the trial of former President Estrada.

The recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for documentary purposes. What is the reason for public trial? The requirement of public trial is for the benefit of the accused. and that the presence of spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of . Issue: Should the previous order be reconsidered? Held: No. as repository of democracy are entitled to information. Only later will they be available for public showing. The Secretary of Justice seeks a reconsideration of the resolution denying permission to televise and broadcast live the trial of former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. because of the significance of the trial and the importance of preserving the records. on the one hand. that the public may see that he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned. Among others. it should be resolved in favour of the right of the people. after the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its decision. and that live media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interest. there should be an audio visual recording of the proceedings. and the right of the accused to fair trial. The audio-visual recording shall be made under the supervision and control of the Sandiganbayan. because the people. Right to a public trial – this is one of the features of the accusatorial system. The master film shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical preservation and exhibition pursuant to law. he argues that if there is a clash between the rights of the people to public information and the freedom of the press. However.

Constitutional Limitations. the prosecutor. the defense counsel. These are all Constitutional rights except the last – [i]. from [a] to [h]. Look at what happened in the impeachment trial. There is something you will notice here – all the rights of the accused in this Rule. The right to appeal is purely statutory which may be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the State. imagine how many millions of people are watching you there on T. everybody is on their toes. 647) Meaning. These rules are designed to facilitate an orderly disposition of cases before the appellate courts. and the party who seeks to avail of it must faithfully comply with the rules.responsibility and to the importance of their functions. The judge. p. the witnesses. Ang Gioc. You don't want to commit a mistake because the public is watching. everybody wanted to be careful there because. 388 SCRA 280 Question: What is the nature of the right to appeal? Answer: The right to appeal is but a statutory right. 73 Phil. 366) . [i] To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law Nature of the right to appeal People v. everybody is careful because they are watched by the public. (1 Cooley. they provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner at the prescribed time in an orderly confrontation before a magistrate. (People vs. de la Concha. are also found in the Constitution.V.

6 is discussed under Pre-Arraignment remedies of the accused) CHAPTER VI. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.SEC 6. WHEN REFERRAL TO THE BARANGAY FOR CONCILIATION IS REQUIRED crime or offense committed Filing of a complaint and referral with barangay . BRIEF OUTLINE AND DISCUSSION ON THE STAGES IN THE LIFE OF A CRIMINAL ACTION THE NON-JUDICIAL STAGE A. the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial. – A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. (6a) (sec.

the arrested person will be subjected to an inquest proceeding to determine whether or not he should be charged before the proper court. by virtue of a search warrant issued by the competent court and implemented by the officers of the law for the search of places and seizure of goods or articles of a person for acts or omissions in . 2) Second. by the arrest of the person caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime. 3) Third. by the filing of a written complaint before the barangay falling within its jurisdiction. as discussed below. by the filing of the necessary complaint before the Office of the Prosecutor for the conduct of PI. for he purpose of amicable settlement. Compromise Agreement No Compromise Certification to File Action Execution (5) instances that may cause the commencement of a criminal action/proceeding: 1) First. and after custodial investigation is conducted. and in case of failure to arrive at an amicable settlement.

which has been brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts.(Avelina Zamora. or action shall be filed directly or indirectly in court or any government office for adjudication without first referring the same . by the filing of the information or complaint directly before the MTC for those cases not requiring a PI nor covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure under Sec. Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor or the Office of the Ombudsman for the conduct of the required preliminary investigation. vs.. et al. for acts or omission in violation of the penal laws not falling under the jurisdiction of the barangay under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. 18. To attain this objective. 5) Fifth. 9(b) of Rule 112. now included under RA 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991). 146195. 412(a) of RA 7160 requires the parties to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a precondition to filing a complaint in court. 4) Fourth. and the subsequent filing of a criminal complaint for such violation before the Department of Justice. RSP. is to reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice. violation of the provision of law. by filing a complaint or sworn statement directly with the DOJ. Nov. GR No. petition. Sec. Office of the Prosecutor. for the conduct of the required preliminary investigation. THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW – RA 7160 Purpose of the law: The primordial objective of PD 1508 (the Katarungang Pambarangay Law). Heirs of Carmen Izquierdo.2004) General rule: It is clearly mandated by Section 412(a) of RA 7160 that no complaint.

Lumbuan vs. Title I. Guidelines on the Katarungang Pambarangay Conciliation Proceedings pursuant to Adm. It is . Duty of the Judge to Monitor Compliance All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch of the RTC. Book IV. 399-422. 14-93 General rule: All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly PD 1508. Chapter VII. Alfredo A. the Lupon/Pangkat Chairman and Lupon/Pangkat Secretary signed the Certificate To File Action stating that no settlement was reached by the parties. there was substantial compliance with the law. While admittedly no pangkat was constituted. otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 19910. No. 515.with the Lupon falling within its authority for purposes of conciliation. particularly whether the certification to file action attached to the records of the case comply with the requirements. proved futile as no agreement was reached. or MTC shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has been a compliance with prior Barangay conciliation procedure under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its IRR. Title I. 155713. May 5. Although no pangkat was formed. Book III. as a pre-condition to judicial action. AND PRIOR RECOURSE THERETO IS A PRE-CONDITION BEFORE FILING a complaint in court or any government offices. The efforts of the Barangay Chairman.2006 Here. GR No. MeTC. repealed and now replaced by Secs. however. and Sec. RA 7160. in our mind. Substantial Compliance Milagros G. it was not denied that the parties met at the office of the Barangay Chairman for possible settlement. Circ. Ronquillo.

Exceptions to the general rule: Sec. 7) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.000. the confrontation before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the pre- condition for the filing of the case in court. it is significant that the Barangay Chairman or Punong Barangay is herself the Chairman of the Lupon under the Local Government Code. On this score. 6) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities. 410(b) should be construed together with Section 412.noteworthy that under the aforequoted provision. 412(b) provides: . as well as the circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to the case. Sec. and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions. except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon. 4) Offenses where there is no private offended party. 410(b) of the same law that the Barangay Chairman shall constitute a pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts. Further. This is the truth notwithstanding the mandate of Sec. or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof.00). 3) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5. Sec. 408 of RA 7160 enumerates the following: 1) where one party is the government. 5) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon. 2) Where one party is a public officer or employee.

2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings.Offenses where there is no private offended party. 412 [b]1. 3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies. b) Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf. and support pendent lite. c) Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as prelim. Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law). 14-93 1. specifically the following: a) Criminal cases where accused in under police custody or detention (See Sec. Circular. – The parties may go directly to court in the following instances: 1) Where the accused is under detention. delivery of personal property. 3.Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued. and . attachment.00. Injunction. Other instances pursuant to Adm.“Where parties may go directly to court. and 4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. attachment. such as preliminary injunction.Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over P5.000. 2. delivery of personal property and support pendent lite. No.

Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides. d) Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations Venue Sec. Disputes between or among persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of said barangay. . those arising at the workplace where the contending are employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study. all disputes which involve real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or any part thereof is situated. shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located. 3. However. Also. the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. 2. or arbitration. at the election of the complainant. conciliation. 409 RA 7160: 1. Suspension of Prescriptive Period of Offenses – While the dispute is under mediation. 4.

(Sec. dismissed upon motion of defendant/s. corporation sole. partnership. 126 SCRA 217) Personal Appearance of Parties The parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative. De Borromeo vs. and not where any of the parties is a juridical person such as corporation. except for minor and incapacitated. Persons Not Covered by Barangay Law The above-cited provision of law applies only to cases involving natural persons. not for lack of jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of . Resumption of prescriptive period- The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complaint or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary.Limit to the period of interruption- That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. Pogoy. however. 415) Action of Court In Case of Non-Compliance A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a pre-condition for formal adjudication (Sec. Provided. testate or intestate estate (Vda. 412(a) of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law) may be: 1.

2000) Grounds for Repudiation When the consent is vitiated by force. 2000) Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award Such amicable settlement and arbitration award entered into by the parties has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court after 10 days from its date. 151 SCRA 289). (Royales vs. 127 SCRA 470. and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority applying by analogy Sec. 1. 2nd par. Cir. vs. 2. IAC. Court with Jurisdiction Over Petition to Nullify the Award Proper city or municipal court . 14-93) Effect of Non-Referral It is well-settled that the non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so required under the law is not jurisdictional in nature and may therefore be deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss (Banares II vs. violence or intimidation. GR No. (Sec.(Adm. Pam. unless: repudiated. or the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party under Sec. Gonzales vs. 158901. (Quiros. Balisisng.. action or prematurity. GR No. March 13.. et al. March 9. et al. et al. 132624. Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. 416) or unless a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper court. Arjona.. 408[g]. Of the Revised Kat. CA. Law.

within 10 days from the date of the settlement. 2. Execution of Amicable Settlement or Arbitration Award To be enforced by: 1. a written complaint or sworn statement may now be filed before the Office of the Prosecutor for the purpose of PI in accordance with the provisions of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. and a corresponding certificate to file action is issued. 3. by filing a sworn statement with the lupon chairman and 4. any of the parties to the case.the lupon within 6 months from the date of the settlement or 2. WHEN THE CRIME COMMITTED REQUIRES A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION crime or offense committed . B.by action in the appropriate city or municipal court after the lapse of said period. Repudiation Of The Settlement An amicable settlement may be repudiated by 1. such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the certification to file action (Sec. 418) Filing of Complaint For PI In case of failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement during the barangay conciliation.

Filing of affidavit-complaint for preliminary investigation Dismissal Issuance of Subpoena Submission of Counter-Affidavit by Respondent Resolution Filing of MR .

when required.– Preliminary Investigation .(As Amended by A. Preliminary investigation defined. Filing of Petition for Review with Secretary of Justice Filing of MR Certiorari / R65 Judicial Stage Rule 112 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. O5-8- 26-SC) SECTION 1. No.M.

the respondent is probably guilty thereof. and 2. 2 months and 1 day without regard to the fine Nature A statutory not a constitutional right and effects of its absence when required- The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right. Definition – An inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief (or probable cause) that: 1. or otherwise render the same defective and (2) neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing the information (Serapio v. but is merely a right conferred by statute. January 28. 2003) .1. a crime has been committed. 396 SCRA 443. 2. For an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years. The absence of a preliminary investigation (therefore) (1) does not impair the validity of the Information. Before the filing of a complaint or information in court. and should be held for trial 2. Sandiganbayan. When required to be conducted: 1.

which refers to the penalty to be imposed upon the accused after considering the evidence and the attendant modifying circumstances in the case. and 2. 389 SCRA 45. GR 158211. 2004). prescribed penalty. The cases falling under this category have been called as direct-filing cases. and not upon the imposable penalty for the crime found to have been committed by the respondent after a preliminary investigation. For this purpose. is distinct from the imposable penalty. Jr. General rule. Ranis. Aug. People. What is conducted instead is an inquest.when the accused was lawfully arrested without warrant for a crime punishable by imprisonment of not less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day and he does not ask for a preliminary investigation. which is the penalty indicated by law for the crime. Exceptions or instances when preliminary investigation not required: 1.when the penalty prescribed for the offense charged does not exceed four (4) years and two (2) months. 69 [2002]) .Preliminary investigation – precondition to filing a criminal action in court. (San Agustin vs. ―No complaint or information for an offense shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted. Imposable penalty determines whether a preliminary investigation is required- Whether or not there is a need for a preliminary investigation under Section 1 in relation to Section 8 of this Rule depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint filed with the Prosecutor’s office. (People vs. 31.

R. et al. Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Jan. neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely. are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level (Samuel Lee.. 164673. However. not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt (Cruz v. 2010). Hon. vs. the validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. . A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the prosecution’s evidence.V. Quantum of evidence needed for probable cause- 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 suspect. as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence. substantial basis- Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary. whether the facsimile message is admissible in evidence and whether the element of deceit in the crime of estafa is present are matters best ventilated in a full-blown trial.. 173844. 2012) For instance. and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. Gonzales. No.      April 11. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt. 15. GR No. In fine. et al. not during the preliminary investigation. Substantial evidence v. G. KBC Bank N.Purpose The purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the person accused of the crime is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

Cruz. Not a trial.” The ultimate purpose of preliminary investigation: (1) is to secure the innocent against hasty. 458-459 [1994]). where rights and obligations are finally adjudicated. 737 [1998]). People. and should be held for trial. what is required is “substantial evidence” (or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion) which cannot rest entirely or even partially on hearsay evidence.  . nor part of the trial- The Supreme Court (SC) in this case cited Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. 335 SCRA 581. Sandiganbayan.in administrative cases. 71 Phil. and (2) also to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. Estrada v. expense and anxiety of a public trial. ( Duterte vs. Jr. Marcos vs. Ombudsman [2015]) Preliminary investigation is an evidence-screening procedure for the purpose of determing whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime punishable by at least four (4) years ) two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. Sandiganbayan 289 SCRA 721. (Raro vs. 96. Substantial basis is not the same as substantial evidence because substantial evidence excludes hearsay evidence while substantial basis can include hearsay evidence (Sen. from the trouble. vs. 605 [2000] citing Cruz. Boncan. 216) Duty of an investigating prosecutor during preliminary investigation- The main function of the government prosecutor during the preliminary investigation is merely (1) to determine the existence of probable cause. 68 Phil. malicious and oppressive prosecution. and (2)to file the corresponding information if he finds it to be so. 233 SCRA 439. and to protect him from an open and public accusation of crime. Hashim vs.

What is judicial or quasi-judicial function? .(Metrobank) v. An executive function- Neither a judicial nor quasi-judicial proceeding it is an executive function and cannot be interfered with by the court- Why Preliminary investigation is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial The executive determination of probable cause concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence to support an information being filed. 301 SCRA 475 A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence is not required. CA. the investigating  prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice only determines whether the act or  omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Tobias III. By reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations. but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief than an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.xxx The rules do not  require that a prosecutor have moral certainty of the guilt of a person for the  latter to be indicted for an offense after the conduct of a preliminary  investigation. and to ensure that his finding  should not run counter to the clear dictates of reason. At a preliminary investigation. where it stressed that a preliminary  investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable  cause is not part of a trial. who is called  upon not to disregard the facts presented.  People v. There is no  definitive standard by which probable cause is determined except to consider the attendant conditions. the existence of probable cause depends upon the  finding of the public prosecutor conducting the examination. It does not adjudicate on the rights of parties. a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal.

whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case. Go. i. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the . He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making functions. 2001. when a public prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation. The judicial determination of probable cause. It described a quasi-judicial body as an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature which performs adjudicatory functions. GR No. the Court held that a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. 2005 the Court held that a public prosecutor does not perform acts of a quasi-judicial body. Differentiated from judicial determination of probable cause- The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation. when performing adjudicatory functions. CA. July 6. on the other hand. Such is not the case. Said body affects the rights of private parties either through adjudication or rule making. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial. 143375. resolutions to file or not to file are not appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43- In the previous case of Bautista v. its decisions approving the filing of a criminal complaint are not appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 as are decisions of quasi-judicial bodies enumerated therein. is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor.. 156081. 19.In Santos v. GR No. determine the rights of the parties and their decisions have the same effect as judgments of a court. Its awards.e. Oct. Not being a quasi-judicial body. The court further holds that the Office of the Prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial body. is one made by the judge to ascertain whether warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. according to the Court. Necessarily.

R. is an executive  function. .Repiublic.R. This is a judicial function (People vs. Such determination should be free from the court’s  interference save only in exceptional cases where the Department of  Justice gravely abuses its discretion in the issuance of its orders or  resolutions. Nos. A preliminary inquiry or a preliminary examination is conducted by the judge to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. CA. 197098. the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant. Sound policy supports this distinction. et al/Antonio ng  Chiu v. to be subjected to the expense. 187 SCRA 788.   Further. Preliminary investigation is executive in nature. No. Determination of probable cause for filing in court v. rigors and embarrassment of trial or if the offender is to be released.evidence submitted. 195198 & G.  February 11. G. 2013. Preliminary examination is judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge. If the judge finds no probable cause. the SC has repeatedly ruled that the determination of probable cause. Co vs. It is part of the prosecutor’s job. 539 SCRA 147). Carbonel. AAA vs. 534 SCRA 496). there is a necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. et al. Court of Appeals. for purposes of preliminary investigation. Department of the Justice.  Doctrine of separation of powers apply­  courts cannot directly decide      matters over which discretionary authority has been delegated to the  executive department. Loreli Lim Po v. 2. determination of probable cause for issuance of warrant of arrest or commitment order- 1 A preliminary investigation is conducted by the prosecutor to ascertain whether the alleged offender should be held for trial. Otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary investigation and examination of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts (Ledesma vs. 278 SCRA 656. Inting.

Preliminary investigation is an executive. to conduct a preliminary investigation. To allow him to do so is to authorize him to meddle in the executive and administrative functions of the prosecutor. 270 SCRA 393. But even this Court cannot order the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case. particularly over the objections of the latter’s superiors. DEMETRIOU. As the officer authorized to direct and control the prosecution of criminal actions. March 25. “ . Navarro. The courts try and absolve or convict the accused but as a rule have no part in the initial decision to prosecute him. Review of prosecutor’s resolution is thru administrative not judicial remedies- SANCHEZ vs. A judge cannot directly order an assistant prosecutor.Designation of prosecutor by court improper as it violates the principle of separation of powers- People v. function. may a judge name or designate a particular assistant prosecutor to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case? Held: No. 1997 Issue: In remanding the complaint or information to the provincial prosecutor. 1993 HELD: “The decision of the prosecutor may be reversed or modified by the Secretary of Justice or in special cases by the President of the Philippines. November 9. a prosecutor is primarily responsible for ascertaining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. not a judicial.

rather. 2004 Question: While as a general policy courts should not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigation. CA. People [2014]). March 30. it is only for the purpose of determining whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. 3.Judicial determination of probable cause after filing of information. not a review of prosecutor’s finding- It does not concern itself with whether there is sufficient basis for the filing of the information but only whether or not there is sufficient basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest so that it can bind the person of the accused. the judge makes a determination of probable cause independent of the prosecutor’s fimding (Mendoza v.) when there is prejudicial question which is sub judice. 426 SCRA 460. While it is within the trial court’s discretion to make an independent assessment of the evidence on hand. . The judge does not act as an appellate court of the prosecutor and has no capacity to review the prosecutor’s determination of probable cause. leaving the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause.) when necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused. Exceptions to non-interference by courts- Filadams Pharma v. 2.) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions. what are the exceptions to the general rule? Answer: The following are the exceptions: 1.

1996 Question: What are the remedies of the offended party in cases where the government prosecutor unjustifiably refuses to file an information against a person who appears to be responsible for a crime? Answer: Where the government prosecutor unreasonably refuses to file an information or to include a person as an accused therein despite the fact that the evidence clearly warrants such action.) where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense. (2) he may lodge a new complaint against the offenders before the Ombudsman and have a new examination conducted as required by law. 8. ordinance. 9. 5. February 20.) where the prosecution is under an invalid law. 7.) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority.) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and amotion to quash on that ground has been denied.4. . and 10. Sandiganbayan.) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance. he may file an action for madamus to compel the prosecutor to file such information. 6.) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent.) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution. the offended party has the following remedies: (1) in case of grave abuse of discretion. 253 SCRA 773. or regulation. Remedies against refusal to file Socrates v.

(4)he may secure an appointment of another prosecutor. Sec. 1992 . Sec. March 6. need of another preliminary investigation depends on kind (formal or substantial) of amendment TEEHANKEE JR. or (5) he may institute another criminal action if no double jeopardy is involved. 6 & 9 R 112 – by the judge after an information is filed to support the issuance of a warrant of arrest or a commitment order is already previously arrested thru a valid warrantless arrest. Secs. 27 of the Civil Code. Ombudsman (2015) Secs 1 and 3 of R 112 – probable cause determined during a preliminary investigation to support the filing of an information in court.(3) he institute administrative charges against the erring prosecutor. 208 of the Revised Penal Code. or a criminal complaint under Art. vs. 4 R 126 for issuance of a search warrant Where information is amended. 4 Kinds of probable cause enumerated in Sen Jinggoy Estrada v. or a civil action for damages under Art. 5(b) R 113 – When effecting an a hot pursuit arrest because the rule states as requisites that an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it. MADAYAG.

In the course of the trial. “An objective appraisal of the amended information for murder filed against herein petitioner will readily show that the nature of the offense originally charged was not actually changed. we hold that an amendment of the original information will suffice and. Hultman died. consequent thereto. an additional allegation. The prosecution sought to change the information from frustrated murder to consummated murder. Teehankee Jr. was originally charged for the crime of frustrated murder for shooting Hultman who was comatose for many months. This being the case. . That the accused committed a felonious act with intent to kill the victim continues to be the prosecution's theory.]. questioned the new charge for lack of preliminary investigation thereon . is still available to you now. Instead. the supervening fact of the death of the victim was merely supplied to aid the trial court in determining the proper penalty for the crime [So it is still murder. the filing of the amended information for murder is proper. What is involved here is not a variance of the nature of or different offenses charged. Jr. that is. “There is an identity of offenses charged in both the original and the amended information [murder pa rin!]. but only a change in the stage of execution of the same offense from frustrated to consummated murder.” ISSUE #2: What kind of amendment? Formal or substantial? HELD: Formal. for example alibi. ISSUE #1: Was there an amendment of the information or substitution when the information was changed from frustrated murder to consummated murder? HELD: There is an amendment.” So you are not prejudiced because the same defense available to you then. Claudio Teehankee.FACTS: Here. There is no question that whatever defense herein petitioner may adduce under the original information for frustrated murder equally applies to the amended information for murder.

If you change the crime or when there is substitution. “The amended information could not conceivably have come as a surprise to petitioner for the simple and obvious reason that it charges essentially the same offense as that charged under the original information. Despite the fact that based on the imposable penalty no preliminary investigation was required. 2001 Facts: Accused was charged with slight physical injuries. a new preliminary investigation is not necessary. the prosecutor conducted one. the information was amended to the charge of serious physical injuries. Furthermore. 349 SCRA 194. Vivar.” Villaflor v. as we have heretofore held. Since it is only a formal amendment. Issue: Should a preliminary investigation be conducted? . Considering the imposable penalty. the later offense required a preliminary investigation but the prosecutor did not conduct any. then preliminary investigation is required. January 16. When the injuries sustained by the offended party turned out to be more serious than they had first appeared. preliminary investigation is unnecessary. if the crime originally charged is related to the amended charge such that an inquiry into one would elicit substantially the same facts that an inquiry into the other would reveal.ISSUE #3: Is there a need of a preliminary investigation on the new charge? HELD: No need because you have not changed the crime.

Deang. it does not place in jeopardy the person against whom it is taken. 1997 Issue: . 672 [2000] Rights of respondents Presence of counsel not a right because it is merely a statutory not constitutional right- People v. (People vs. Hence. then a new preliminary was not necessary. 275 SCRA 696. a converso. (Metrobank vs. an open and public accusation of a crime. No double jeopardy in preliminary investigation because there is no judgment on the merits- By reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigation. the expenses and anxiety of a public trial. The filing of the Amended Information. malicious and oppressive prosecution. if the original charge was related to the amended one. Tonda. 270 [2000]. did not violate the right of accused to be protected from a hasty. 338 SCRA 657. 338 SCRA 254. Narca. the finding of a prima case to hold the accused for trial is not equivalent to a finding of guilt. or from the trouble.Held: No. The amended information could not have come as a surprise to him for the simple and obvious reason that it charged essentially the same offense as that under the original Information. without a new preliminary investigation. a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. such that an inquiry would elicit substantially the same facts. July 21. Moreover.

1995 Question: May respondent in a preliminary investigation avail of discovery proceedings? Answer: The Rules on Criminal procedure does not expressly provide for discovery proceedings during the preliminary investigation stage of criminal proceeding. In fact. There is nothing in the Rules which renders invalid a preliminary investigation held without respondent’s counsel. negate its use by a person . Preliminary investigation is not the venue for the full exercise of the rights of the parties. Not being part of the due process clause but a right merely created by law. Parties may submit affidavits but have no right to examine witnesses though they can propound questions through the investigating officer. May a preliminary investigation be validly conducted without respondent being assisted by counsel? Held: Yes. would make a mockery of criminal procedure. if sustained. preliminary investigation if held within the statutory limitations cannot be voided. 247 SCRA 652. a preliminary investigation may even be conducted ex-parte in certain cases. however. De Leon. This is why preliminary investigation is not considered as a part of trial but merely preparatory thereto and that the records therein shall not form part of the records of the case in court. Use of modes of discovery Webb v. The argument. This failure to provide discovery procedure during preliminary investigation does not. August 23. since all that a party has to do to thwart the validity of the preliminary investigation is for their counsel not to attend the investigation.

Respondent has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the complainant may present- Section 3. and hence cannot demand the full exercise of his rights as an accused the right to a preliminary investigation is a statutory. Preliminary investigation is not too early a stage to guard against any significant erosion of the constitutional right to due process of a potential accused. (2)to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant and. the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are merely statutory rights. X x x A person under preliminary investigation.under investigation when indispensable to protect his constitutional right to life. not constitutional. Rule 112 of the Rules expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right (1)to submit a counter-affidavit. X x x . the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited to those granted by procedural law. (3)where the fiscal sets a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses. such as the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish his innocence. is not yet an accused person. liberty and property. Thus. In short. liberty and property to real risk of loss or diminution. The object of a preliminary investigation is to determine the probability that the suspect committed a crime. to be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to cross-examine. Xxx A preliminary investigation is not a part of a trial and it is only in a trial where an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights. The finding of a probable cause by itself subjects the suspect’s life. not constitutional due process rights. as Senator Estrada is in the present case when he filed his Request.

When to object to lack of preliminary investigation. Sandiganbayan. does not impair the validity of the information. instead of dismissing the information. July 30. not jurisdictional.A preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely (thru legislation) without infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial (Sen. Estrada v. Ombudsman). 349 SCRA 194. should hold in abeyance the proceedings and order the public prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. not a ground to quash- Villaflor v. Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court or constitute a ground for quashing the information. The trial court. January 16. 385 SCRA 436. 2001 Question: What is the effect of the absence of a preliminary investigation? Answer: The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective.before entry of plea Romualdez v. 2002 Question: When must the objection to lack of preliminary investigation be raised? Answer: . Vivar. Effect of lack of preliminary investigation.

and an opportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant is accorded him (Romuladez v. Mar. Gomez. waivable The right to a preliminary investigation may be waived for failure to invoke the right prior to or at the time of the plea (People vs. 1986) and the court. 206 SCRA 138) Waiver of preliminary investigation/ The new rules does not require as a condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings [in the preliminary investigation] the presence of the respondent for as long as efforts to reach him were made. July 11. An inquest is a summary inquiry conducted by a prosecutor for the purpose of determining whether the warrantless arrest of a person was . 30. Sep. Right to a preliminary investigation. Bulusan. 1970). Sandiganbayan [2010]). must remand the case for preliminary investigation (Sanciangco vs. 117 SCRA 73. Go vs. and should be held for trial. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. Court of Appeals. People. Any objection to lack of preliminary investigation must be made before entry of the plea (People vs. People vs. 160 SCRA 492. CFI. 1987). Preliminary Investigation distinct from Inquest Proceedings A preliminary investigation is a proceeding distinct from an inquest. 24. Monteverde. The refusal of the court to remand the case for preliminary investigation can be controlled by certiorari and prohibition to prevent trial (Bandiala vs. instead of dismissing the information.

by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. AM No. (Sec. the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters. Sarmiento. Rule 110 States: “Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112. Aug. 1. or (2) the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. (1) by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts. 431 [2002]. 7. (Enriquez vs. Rule 112. For all other offenses. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.based on probable cause. Olegario R. Ladiana vs.2006) Preliminary Investigation distinguished from custodial investigation Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. People. Jr. RTJ-06-2011. (3) In Manila and other chartered cities. 1. Custodial investigation is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way (ibid) Relation of Preliminary Investigation to the institution of criminal actions Sec. and should be held for trial. . 393 SCRA 419.

By filing the complaint of information directly with the first level court. Other officers as may be authorized by law 2. SC. Who may conduct PI: 1. National and Regional State Prosecutors 3. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. 3. 2005) . two ways of initiating the action are prescribed. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants 2. 2005 but effective October 3. Extent of their authority to conduct PI: It shall extend to all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions (A.” Procedure for cases not requiring a preliminary investigation Where a preliminary investigation is not required because the penalty prescribed for offense involved is less than four (4) years two (2) months and one (1) day. Authority to conduct Preliminary Investigation 1. SEC. 05-06-26. 2. 8. except in Manila or other chartered cities where the complaint should be filed with the prosecutor’s office unless otherwise provided by their charters (Sec. By filing the complaint directly with the prosecutor. or 2.M. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws. August 30. namely: 1. Rule 112).

functions and duties. Sec. it may take over. within legal contemplation. Ombudsman and his deputies 2. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction. 2007. 265. Casaclang. as amended by RA 9369. The Ombudsman and his deputies are.“Other officers authorized to conduct” COMELEC 1. concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government. office or agency. to investigate on its own or on complaint by any person. has the power. 43). 294 SCRA 394. RA 9369 which took effect on January 23. at any stage. 403 [1998]) The Office of the Ombudsman has the powers. BP 881. Omnibus Election Code. any act or omission of any public officer or employee. from any investigatory agency of the government. improper or inefficient. introduced an amendment to the Omnibus Election Code pursuant to which the Comelec. through its duly authorized legal officers. the investigation of . other officers authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation. to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the Omnibus Election Code and to prosecute the same (Sec. (Velasco vs. when such act or omission appears to be illegal.

it is only the Ombudsman which has jurisdiction over them. Constitution and Sec. Sandiganbayan GR 105965-70. par. The Hon. et al. Art. 274-275 [1998]. 165399 & 165475/G. Feb. Executive Secretary. No. . Executive Secretary. May 30. The Hon.R. the Supreme Court debunked petitioners’ argument that because they are not presidential appointees. 20. such cases (Section 13(1). 10. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officials is not exclusive. 165404 & 165489. whether falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts. with respect to petitioners. XI. 2011 The Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with similarly authorized agencies. G. see also Office of the Ombudsman vs. In this case. Millan and Bernardo T. Lacson v. but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies of the government in relation to the offense charged. the Ombudsman may share its authority to conduct an investigation concerning administrative charges against them with other agencies. 15. Ombudsman Theron V. et al/Jaime R. Tac-an 300 SCRA 265. Viray v. 1. 2006. Mar. No. Breva. (Gozos vs.R. 2001). RA 6770) The investigators of the Ombudsman have concurrent jurisdiction with public prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations in all cases involving public officers. Uy vs. Therefore. GR 145938.

If it were otherwise. but also those of the regular courts. on respect for the investigatory and prosecutor powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. the functions of the Court will be seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regards to complaints filed before it. unjust. This is founded in Sec. . or ineffient. improper. office or agency. DOJ provincial or city prosecutors Uy v. in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped with cases if they could be compelled to 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 (People v. 2001 Question: What is the extent of the authority of the Ombudsman in conducting preliminary investigation? Answer:The Ombudsman is clothed the authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees. March 20.Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine probable cause/ Reason thereof- This rule is based not only. 354 SCRA 651. not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan. 15 and 11 of RA 6770 which vests the Ombudsman with the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer or employee. Borje [2014]).

Deputation by Ombudsman not needed Honasan II v. DOJ. 2004 Question: Do city and provincial prosecutors (DOJ) have the authority to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes committed within their jurisdiction when such offenses are cognizable by the Sandiganbayan? Answer: Yes. 4. Preliminary Investigations and prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and employees IN RELATION TO OFFICE whether cognizable by Sandiganbayan or the Regular Courts. DOJ. the prosecutor cannot dismiss the complaint without the prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy. Panel of Prosecutors. Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. under Sec.” However. Panel of Prosecutors. Series of 1995. b. after their investigation. 427 SCRA 46. and without prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy. Also. nor can the prosecutor file an Information with the Sandiganbayan without being deputized by. in offenses falling within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 95-001. states: “1. which list the officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation states that “their authority to conduct preliminary investigation shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions. the prosecutors shall. 200 Facts: OMB-DOJ JOINT CIRCULAR NO. April 13. April 13. 427 SCRA 46. Sec.Authority over Sandiganbayan cases Honasan II v. transmit the records and their resolutions to the Ombudsman or his deputy for appropriate action. 2 and 4. and whether filed with the Office of .

” Issue: Should prosecutors of the Department of Justice be deputized by the ombudsman before they can validly conduct preliminary investigation over offenses committed by public officials in relation to office which are cognizable by ordinary courts? Held: No. and the Rules on Criminal Procedure. either in their regular capacities or as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors. Thus. The Constitution. DOJ prosecutors need not be authorized by the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigations for complaints filed with it because the DOJ’s has the authority to act as the principal law agency of the government and investigate the commission of crimes. That fact that all prosecutors are in effect deputized Ombudsman prosecutors under the OMB-DOJ circular is a mere superfluity. 8. prevailing jurisprudence. Ombudsman Act of 1989.the Ombudsman or with the Office of the Province/City Prosecutor shall be under the control and supervision of the office of the OMBUDSMAN. The power to conduct preliminary investigation on charges against any public officers and employees may be exercised by any provincial or city prosecutor or their assistants. OMB Administrative Order No. 354 SCRA 651. there is not even a need to delegate the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an agency which has the jurisdiction to do so in first place. all recognize and uphold the concurrent jurisdiction of the ombudsman and the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation on charges filed against public officers and employees. Authority of the Special Prosecutor Uy v. 2001 Question: . March 20. Sandiganbayan.

as an organized component of the Office of the Ombudsman.What is the extent of authority of the Special Prosecutor in conducting preliminary investigation? Answer: The Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman. Its power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 734 [1999]). (ibid) It may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate or deputize any fiscal. The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military has the authority to investigate the civilian personnel of the government such as the members of the PNP. state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases (see Agbay vs. For criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. it is the Office of the Special Prosecutor.DOJ Special Counsels . which exercises investigatory and prosecutorial powers. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military. (Sistoza vs. 323 [2002]) 4. 388 SCRA 307. Desierto. 309 SCRA 726.

May 7. 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code. 14. SEC. 3. affidavits [subscribed. Panel. 2. supra) 5. sworn to and certified] of the complainant and his witness. state the address of the respondent. He/she shall file the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. There are 3 parties involved in a preliminary investigation namely: (a) the complainant. and . Garfin GR 153176 March 29. 2004) or panel of investigating prosecutors of the DOJ (Honasan vs. 1. (People vs. The complaint shall: 1. have the authority to conduct preliminary investigation. Procedure as to the Complainant 1. 1986). as amended. under Sec. The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) with the assistance of the Office of the Solicitor General and other government agencies is empowered to investigate. (b) the investigating officer and (c) the respondent. 2. Executive Order No. file and prosecute cases investigated by it (Sec. be accompanied by: 1. Procedure.Special counsels designated by the Secretary of Justice.

is subpoenaed. either to: 1. if the respondent: 1. He/she has ten (10) days after the filing of the complainant. but . two [2] copies for the official file Procedure as to the Investigating Officer 1. 2. cannot be subpoenaed. plus 2. or 2. Issue a subpoena to the respondent. a copy of the complaint. 2. He/she shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant (or ex-parte). as many as there are respondents. 1. 3. its supporting affidavits and documents 2. and 2. Number of copies for the complainant: 1. or 2. have no right to examine or cross-examine. can be present at the hearing. The parties [complainant and respondent] 1. 3. He/she may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. but does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period. other supporting documents to establish probable cause. Dismiss it – if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation. attaching to the subpoena: 1.

or 2. terminated within five (5) days 4. 3. copying. held within ten (10) days: 1. Within Ten (10) days after the investigation. but 2. he/she shall submit: . from submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents. and 3. may submit to the investigating officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned. he/she shall have the right to: 1. With respect to the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant. to copy them at his expense. 2. if the evidence is voluminous 2. or photographing at his/her expense 3. Within 10 days from receipt of the subpoena with complaint and supporting affidavits and documents. examine the evidence which he may not have been furnished. he/she shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial Procedure as to Respondent 1. they shall be made available for examination. from the expiration of the period of their submission 2. they need not to be furnished to the respondent. The hearing shall be: 1. to require the complainant to specify those which he intends to present against the respondent. 2. With respect to object evidence: 1.

the complaint is normally initiated through an affidavit of complaint. counter-affidavits [subscribed and sworn to and certified] of himself and that of his witnesses. complaint to commence a preliminary investigation- Note that the complaint filed for the purpose of preliminary investigation differs from the complaint filed for the purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution. 1. other supporting documents relied upon for his/her defense 4. Complaint to institute a criminal prosecution v. and 2. (Duterte . 3 of Rule 110 and which is in the name of the People of the Philippines. DOJ. The latter refers to the complaint defined in Sec. It has also been held that the complaint referred to in a preliminary investigation is not just the affidavit of the complainant because his affidavit is treated as a component of the complaint. 543 SCRA 70). Necesssity of complainant’s affidavit It is mandatory requirement for the complainant to submit his affidavit and those of his witnesses before the respondent can be compelled to submit his counter-affidavits and other supporting documents. He/she shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-Affidavit Commencement of the Preliminary investigation- It is the filing of the complaint with the investigating prosecutor that starts the preliminary investigation process. In actual application. (See Santos-Cancio vs.

Sandiganbayan. Affidavits notarized by a notary public without any showing that a prosecutor or qualified government official was unavailable are not in accord with the rules. June 1. (Ladlad vs. GR 172070-72. state prosecutor or (2)government official authorized to administer oath. Desierto. 2007) Note the steps: the investigating officer follows upon filing of the complaint- a)Determination of whether or not there is ground to continue. Jr. Monserate. 291 SCRA 292. Office of the Ombudsman.vs. 256 SCRA 443 [2001]. Moreover. (Knecht vs. b)Issuance of subpoena In graft cases. it is also within his discretion to determine whether or not a preliminary investigation should be conducted. 239 SCRA 283 [1994]). then he may recommend its outright dismissal. 298-300 [1998]) . or (3) in their absence or unavailability. the Ombudsman does not necessarily have to conduct a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a complaint. supra. The complaint and affidavits must be under oath. This requirement is mandatory. persons who can administer the oath- The Rules require that for purposes of preliminary investigation. Should the investigating officer find the complaint utterly devoid of merit. Senior State Prosecutor Velasco. vs. a notary public who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. the complaint and its accompanying affidavits and supporting documents be ‘sworn to’ before (1) any fiscal (now prosecutor). (Oporto. citing Olivas vs.

  There is no provision in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court that gives the  Complainant or requires the prosecutor to observe the right to file a Reply to the accused’s counter­affidavit. 280 SCRA 579 [1997] established the principle that respondent’s counter-affidavit filed late should not be allowed and considered in resolving the case for preliminary investigation. It is only when the respondent fails to file counter-affidavit may the investigating officer consider the respondent’s comment as the answer to the complaint. the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant. Sandiganbayan. the right to resolve the Complaint even  without a counter­affidavit. in certain instances.Filing of Counter-affidavit is required not a comment- In the preliminary investigation. supra) Counter-affidavit filed late not allowed and considered- The case of Espiritu vs. when allowed- (1)if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed. Jovellanos. does not submit counter­affidavits within the ten (10) day  period. (Duterte vs. no vested right to file a reply. of if subpoenaed. does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period. or (2)if subpoenaed. viz: “(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed. Section 3 (d) of Rule 112 gives  the prosecutor. not a comment. 3(d)) Preliminary investigation. what the respondent is required to file is a counter-affidavit. the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the  . To illustrate the non­mandatory nature of  filing a Reply in preliminary investigations. (Sec. Ex-parte resolution.

 P/Insp. Marcelo.evidence presented by the complainant. That the  requirements of due process are deemed complied with in the present case  because of the filing of an MR by Complainant was simply a fortunate turn  of events for the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. it should be denied and the case should be resolved on the sole basis of the complainant’s evidence. In case a motion to dismiss is filed. April  25.R. G. No. Motion to Dismiss not allowed The Rules disallow the filing of a motion to dismiss in lieu of counter- affidavit except when grounded on lack of jurisdiction. Orlando C. petitioner was  entitled to receive a copy of the Counter­affidavit filed by Aguillon.  Provincial Prosecutor Dusaban had the duty to send petitioner a copy of  Aguillon’s Counter­affidavit.R.  Ariel S. 190569. Artillero v. April 25. was cured when petitioner filed a Motion for  Reconsideration. Section 3(c).  Artillero v. No. GR . G.. grants a complainant this right. Casimiro.  2012. P/Insp. Orlando C. et al. non­receipt of counter­affidavit cured by  complainant’s filing of MR of the resolution. etc. 190569. and the Provincial  Prosecutor has the duty to observe the fundamental and essential  requirements of due process in the cases presented before it. Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.. 2012. Preliminary investigation. Casimiro.  The procedural defect of not having received a copy of the Counter­ affidavit. however. etc. (Romualdez vs. Ariel S.” On the other hand. et al.

23. Admin. the presence of the accused is not needed to conduct the hearing. the investigator need not hold a clarificatory hearing. Rather than being mandatory. 567 SCRA213. 833 [1998]) Clarificatory hearing discretionary The investigating officer has the right to set a hearing for clarificatory questions. Aug. Sierra v. the absence of a clarificatory hearing is not a denial of due process (De Ocampo vs. 815. A clarificatory hearing is not indispensable during preliminary investigation. Lopez. Sept. Ramos) Thus. Sandiganbayan. The fact that the accused excaped will not excuse the investigating judge from his duty to end the preliminary investigation as soon as possible. 284 SCRA 378. Ramos. 2006. 25. Sec. As such. infra). 335 Phil. 28.165510-33. 166 SCRA 618. Racho v. Velasco vs. 623 [1988] cited in Tuliao vs. Miro. The decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator and the investigator alone. Ramos. Of Justice GR 147932. 386-387 [1998]. (Tuliao vs. Case No. a clarificatory hearing is optional on the part of the investigating officer. De Leon. The obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves or by employing dilatory tactics (Rodis vs. and an opportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant is accorded him. 7549. 2005. (ibid) . Jan. supra). (Tuliao vs. Presence of the accused in the clarificatory hearing- The new rules do not require as condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings (in the preliminary investigation) the presence of the accused (respondent) for as long as efforts to reach him were made. Webb vs. where the purpose of the clarificatory hearing is only to re-examine the testimony of the complainant’s witnesses. 2009). Casaclang. If the evidence on hand already yields a probable cause.

It certainly can not be assumed that the law has included a provision that is deliberately intended to become meaningless and to be treated as a dead letter. 159 SCRA 70. The offending officer may. SANDIGANBAYAN. Resolutions submitted to the head of the office for approval shall be acted within ten (10) days from submission. with absolute impunity. 01-2000) Effect of non-compliance with the periods- However. (DOJ Circular No. (ibid) TATAD vs. be subjected to disciplinary action in the absence of a justifiable explanation. . however. So Tatad questioned the information. This period shall include hearings conducted. 1988 FACTS: The preliminary investigation lasted for 3 years. ISSUE #1: Is the 10-day period to issue a resolution mandatory or directory? HELD: “The 10-day period fixed by law is merely “directory.” yet. if any.” So all of the information filed must be dismissed for violation of the right for speedy trial. on the other hand. and preparation and issuance of resolutions and corresponding informations. it can not be disregarded or ignored completely. non-compliance with these periods does not affect the validity of the resolution and/or information.within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of assignment. March 21.Periods for disposing preliminary investigation cases.

how come the delay in terminating a preliminary investigation becomes now a ground for dismissal? HELD: “It has been suggested that the long delay in terminating the preliminary investigation should not be deemed fatal. True — but the absence of a preliminary investigation can be corrected by giving the accused such investigation. 1988 and the information was filed only on May 9. GARCHITORENA. man has not yet invented a device for setting back time. Santiago raised this issue (on delay) because the offense was allegedly committed on or about October 17. The amended information was filed only on December 8. In the case at bench. 1992 or 4 years later. Sandiganbayan. HELD: “[Santiago] cannot complain that her constitutional rights to due process were violated by reason of the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation.ISSUE #2: The government contended that a total lack of preliminary investigation is not a ground for dismissing an information.” SANTIAGO vs. But an undue delay in the conduct of a preliminary investigation can not be corrected. “ . 1991 or almost 3 years later. 159 SCRA 70 [1988] is inapplicable to petitioner's case. December 2. In Tatad. Tatad v. for until now. there was a continuum of the investigatory process but it got snarled because of the complexity of the issues involved. there indeed was an unexplained inaction on the part of the public prosecutors despite the simplicity of the legal and factual issues involved therein. So following the Tatad ruling they ought to be dismissed. for even the complete absence of a preliminary investigation does not warrant dismissal of the information. 1993 FACTS: Anti-graft charges were filed against Miriam Defensor-Santiago when she was still the Immigration Commissioner.

” So it is like splitting your causes of action working against you. SERVANTES vs. 1999 FACTS: Here. SANDIGANBAYAN. It can easily be deduced from a complete reading of the adjudicatory discourse in Tatad that the three-year delay was specifically considered vis-a-vis all the facts and circumstances which obtained therein. Petitioner has not explained why she failed to raise the issue of the delay in the preliminary investigation and the filing of the information against her in those petitions. HELD: “In the application of the constitutional guaranty of the right to speedy disposition of cases. Elpidio Servantes was charged for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft law. 307 SCRA 149. It is palpably clear that the application of the Tatad doctrine should not be made to rely solely on the length of time that has passed but equal concern should likewise be accorded to the factual ambiance and considerations. “We note that [Santiago] had previously filed two petitions before us involving 2 criminal cases. 253 SCRA 773. particular regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. like the splitting of causes of action.” So you just don’t consider the time element.” SOCRATES vs. May 18. A piece-meal presentation of issues. February 20. 1996 Socrates was a governor of Palawan and also facing cases in the Sandiganbayan where he invoked the Tatad ruling. Servantes filed a motion to quash for violation of the right to speedy disposition of the case. It took the special prosecutor six (6) years from the filing of the initiatory complaint before he decided to file an information for the offense in the Sandiganbayan. is self-defeating. Special prosecutor . SANDIGANBAYAN. You must also consider the facts.

We cannot accept special prosecutor’s ratiocination. he is supposed to file his counter-affidavit. Special Prosecutor: “Servantes here was insensitive to the implications and contingencies thereof by not taking any step whatsoever to accelerate the disposition of the matter. But if he cannot be served a subpoena or even if subpoenaed he does not submit his counter-affidavit? A: The investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant. There is nothing which says that it cannot be done. He was deprived of his right to speedy disposition of the case. the complainant can also file a reply-affidavit. Exception to the 60 day period from filing to terminate the entire proceedings. Q: Going back to paragraph (b) when the respondent is subpoenaed. It is the duty of the prosecutor to speedily resolve the complaint as mandated by the Constitution regardless of whether Servantes did not object to the delay although the delay was with his acquiescence provided it was not due to causes directly attributable to him. try it. a right guaranteed by the Constitution.tried to justify the delay in the resolution of the complaint by stating that no political motivation appears in the prosecution of the case in apparent reference to the case of Tatad because in the said case there was political motivation behind the delay. Let’s go back to paragraph [b]: There is no mention that after the counter-affidavit. Well. my position is. What is the factor is when the delay was caused by him. there is nothing which says that it can be done. HELD: “We find Servantes’ contention meritorious. where shorter period is mandated- .” So the mere fact that he was not complaining is not a factor. since it is not prohibited.” So you are estopped.

561 [1999]). While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court. (Antiporda. The preliminary investigation is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. Garchitorena. Reinvestigation when proper A reinvestigation is proper only if the accused’s substantial rights would be impaired. . Jr. In turn. 90 RA 9165) When jurisdiction of the investigating officer ends and the jurisdiction of the court begins or when preliminary investigation is terminated and criminal action is “commenced” “Commenced”(differentiated from the word “instituted” which is important to determine whether the action has prescribed or not) is important to determine the start of judicial jurisdiction. The only qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused. 591 [2000] citing Crespo vs. (Advincula vs. the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in Court. vs. once the case had already been brought to court. (Sec. 321 SCRA 551. CA 343 SCRA 583.Mogul 151 SCRA 462 [1987]).The preliminary investigation of cases filed under the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 shall be terminated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of their filing. or the right of the People to due process of law. whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the court.

Judge Talavera. (People vs. – Resolution of Investigation Prosecutor 1. the lower court should not give due course to the motion for reinvestigation. 365-366 [1976]) When reinvestigation not proper 1. it must wait for the prosecutor to report on the result of such reinvestigation. vs. or as shown by the record. But where no less than the Supreme Court has sustained the finding of a probable cause against the accused. This action would enable the latter to reprobate and reverse the secretary’s resolution. He shall certify under oath in the information that: 1.When the trial court orders a reinvesitigation of the case. If the investing prosecutor finds cause to hold respondent for trial: 1. 2. has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses. He shall prepare the resolution and information. it is grossly erroneous for respondent judge to order the reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor. (Pilapil vs. Beriales 70 SCRA 361. he. 4. when the resolution of the investigating prosecutor was reviewed by the Secretary of Justice. AM No. RTJ -05-1909. April 6. nor should a reinvestigation be condicted. 299 SCRA 343 [1998]). In granting the Motion for Reinvestigation. Inc. not only to be consistent with its order but also to do justice and at the same time to avoid a possible miscarriage of justice. So too. . respondent effectively demolished the DOJ’s power of control and supervision over prosecutors. 2005) SEC. That is a matter of duty on its part. (Community Rural Bank of Guimba (NE). Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. 2. Sandiganbayan. an authorized officer.

to his superior may either be the: 1. and 3. 2. Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction Review of the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor . and 4. He shall forward the record of the case. or 3. or 2. 3. chief state prosecutor. within five (5) days from his resolution. or 3. Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the SB in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. He shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint. Provincial or City Prosecutor. the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him. to his superior who may either be the: 1. and 2. 2. there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. within five (5) day from his resolution. or 2. Chief State Prosecutor. He shall forward the record of the case. If the investigating prosecutor finds NO cause to hold the respondent for trial: 1. Provincial or City Prosecutor. the accused was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

1. There is no need for conducting another preliminary investigation 2. No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or the approval of the : 1. chief state prosecutor. Duty of the superior reviewing the resolution: 1. the Ombudsman or his deputy 2. by either: 1. The Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the resolution of the superior of the investigating prosecutor: . or 2. by himself. file the information against the respond. and 2. If the recommendation for DISMISSAL is DISAPPROVED by the superior on the ground that probable cause exists: 1. or 2. or 3. He/she shall act on the resolution within 10 days from receipt thereof. or direct another assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so. approving it. provincial or city prosecutor. The superior may. He/she shall immediately inform the parties of such action Approval or Disapproval of recommendation made by the Investigating Prosecutor 1. disapproving it. and 2.

Sandiganbayan. Finding of probable cause is not equivalent to a finding of sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt b. Notwithstanding the absence in the information of a certification as to the holding of a preliminary investigation. March 17. FILE the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation. Resolution a. DISMISS or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to the parties 1. Motu propio 3. or 2. What the Secretary of Justice may do when he reverse or modify said resolution – he directs the prosecutor concerned either to: 1. the information is nonetheless considered valid for the reason that such certification is not . 1. Absence of Certification in the Information does not invalidate information Alviso v. 1993 Issue: Is an information without the certification by the prosecutor that he conducted a preliminary investigation valid? Held: Yes. 220 SCRA 55. Upon a verified petition for review by a proper party under such rules as the DOJ may prescribe. or 2.

In preliminary investigation. 255 SCRA 85). Torralba vs. (Tam Wing Tak Vs. 15. 350 SCRA 475. Makasiar. Hence. 2003). 271 SCRA 67. Lapura. the failure of the prosecution to furnish copy of the resolution in the preliminary investigation to the respondent is not a ground to quash an information. service can be made upon the party himself or through his counsel. especially as the agency concerned. Hobilla-Alino. has its own procedural rules governing said service. even if represented by counsel. was not held invalid. Aug. (Pecho vs. 483-484 [2001] Failure to furnish respondent copy of an adverse resolution The failure to furnish the respondent with a copy of an adverse resolution does not affect the validity of an information thereafter filed even if a copy of the resolution upon which the information is based was not served upon the respondent. (Hegerty vs. Sandiganbayan 230 SCRA 33 [1994]). 71-72 [1997]). So too. .an essential part of the information itself and its absence cannot vitiate it as such. motions and other papers provided for in the Rules of Court cannot be made to apply to the service of resolutions by public prosecutors. CA GR 154920. What is not allowed is the filing of the information without a preliminary investigation having been previously conducted (People v. Service of Resolutions in Preliminary Investigation can be done to party himself or through his counsel- The Rule on service of pleadings. in this case the DOJ. 238 SCRA 116 [1994]. the service of the resolution to the respondent. Sandiganbayan. (Vasquez vs.

4. Gacott. the COMELEC or its designated prosecutor? Held: . 286 SCRA 177. It has no application in a case where the information is already filed before the proper court. 1995 Issue: May a judge dismiss an information without the consent of the provincial or city or chief state prosecutor? Held: Yes. Jr. May 9. 1988 Issue: In cases where a DOJ prosecutor has been deputized by the Comelec to prosecute an election offense. 244 SCRA 50. Authority to appeal dismissal of action involving an election offense belongs to COMELEC (?) COMELEC v. which provides that no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor applies to the conduct of the preliminary investigation.” b. Rule 112 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. consent of prosecutor not necessary a. who has authority to decide whether or not to appeal from the order of dismissal issued by trial court. In fact the epigraph of Rule 112 is “Duty of investigating fiscal. which is within the control of the public prosecutor. Silva. February 10.. Case pending in court Manlavi v. Sec.Authority of judge to dismiss an information.

” On the other hand. 426 SCRA 460. §2(6) of the Constitution expressly vests in it the power and function to “investigate. Art.” Prosecutors designated by the COMELEC to prosecute the cases act as its deputies who derive their authority from it and not from their offices. prosecute cases of violations of election laws. He does not exercise . Review of Resolution during preliminary investigation lies with the Sec. A quasi-judicial body has been defined as “ an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making. The authority to decide whether or not to appeal the dismissal belongs to the COMELEC. Nature of prosecution office not considered a quasi-judicial body so review of resolution in preliminary investigation is administrative not governed by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court Filadams Pharma v. Of Justice a. Consequently. 2004 Issue: Is the Office of the Prosecution a quasi-judicial agency whose resolutions are subject to review by the CA under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure? Held: No. If he thought there was no probable cause for proceeding. and . malpractices. he should have discussed the matter with the COMELEC and awaited its instruction. including acts or omissions constituting election frauds. March 30. he should have sought permission to withdraw from the cases. IX-C. If he disagreed with the COMELEC’s findings. offenses. the prosecutor in a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. it was beyond the power of the DOJ prosecutor to oppose the appeal of the COMELEC. and where appropriate. CA.

39. the office of the prosecutor is not a quasi- judicial body. Supervision and control over prosecutors during preliminary investigation lies with the Secretary of Justice Community Rural Bank v. the Secretary of Justice is the ultimate authority who decides which of the conflicting theories of the complainants and the respondents should be believed. Consequently the secretary may direct them to file either a motion to dismiss the case or an information against the accused. 5. they are subject to review by Secretary of Justice who may affirm. its decisions approving the filing of a criminal complaint are not appealable to the CA under Rule 43. The actions of prosecutors are not unlimited. 8. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed an whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. Talavera. In short. reverse or modify their actions or opinions. Title III of the Revised Administrative Code gives the Secretary of Justice supervision and control over the office of the Chief Prosecutor and the Provincial and City Prosecution Offices. and 9. 2005 Question: In the conduct of preliminary investigation. 455 SCRA 34. who exercises supervision and control over city and provincial prosecutors? Answer: Sec. and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. April 6. Book IV in relation to Sec. necessarily. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial. nullify. Chapter 8. . Hence.adjudication nor rule-making functions. Chapter 2.

Talavera 455 SCRA 34). Esguerra. Inc. 1. . vs. filing a petition for review In cases subject of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. Note that the appeal to the Secretary of Justice does not hold or prevent the filing of the corresponding information in court based on the finding of probable cause in the appealed resolution.E. in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness. The Secretary of Justice has the ultimate authority to decide which of the conflicting theories of the complainants and the respondents should be believed (Community Rural Bank of Guimba [N. although it is entirely possible that the investigating fiscal may erroneously exercise the discretion lodged in him by law. Thus.Judicial Review of determination of probable cause not allowed except for grave abuse of discretion- Courts should give credence. to the findings and determination of probable cause by prosecutors in preliminary investigation. NPS Rule on Appeal. the proceedings in court are held in abeyance (Sec. Inc. among others. 70). 11 of Rule 116. Under Sec. CA. if a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending. July 3. (Hegerty vs. 2000). 350 SCRA 146. Note also that the party filing a petition for review is allowed to file a motion for the suspension of the arraignment. Regional State Prosecutors and Provincial/City Prosecutor (Sec. Dep’t of Justice. pending resolution of the appeal. the arraignment shall be suspended. this does not render his act amenable to correction and annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. an appeal may be brought to the Secretary of Justice from the resolutions of the Chief State Prosecutor. 153 [2001].}. unless the Secretary of Justice directs otherwise. Dep’t Circular No. v. upon motion by the proper party. but the appellant and prosecutor shall see to it that. 70. CA. 180 [1996]) Remedy from prosecutor’s resolution .Appeal to the Secretary of Justice. 328 SCRA 168. DM Consunji. 9 Dep’t Circular No. (Depasquier vs.

Suspension of court proceedings pending appeal to the DOJ

Where the Secretary of Justice exercises his power of review only after
an information has been filed, trial courts should defer or suspend
arraignment and further proceedings until the appeal is resolved. Such
deferment or suspension, however, does not signify that the trial court is ipso
facto bound by the resolution of the secretary of justice. Jurisdiction, once
acquired by the trial court, is not lost despite a resolution by the secretary of
justice to withdraw the information or dismiss the case. Ledesma vs. CA,
278 SCRA 656, 680 [1997])

In Marcelo vs. CA, 235 SCRA 39 [1994], the Supreme Court ruled that,
although it is more prudent to wait for a final resolution of a motion for
review or reinvestigation from the secretary of justice before acting on a
motion to dismiss or a motion to withdraw an information, a trial court
nonetheless should make its own study and evaluation of said motion and
not merely rely on the awaited action of the secretary. The trial court has the
option to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal,
whether before or after the arraignment of the accused, and whether after a
reinvestigation or upon instructions by the secretary who reviewed the
records of the investigation; provided that such grant or denial is made from
its own assessment and evaluation of the merits of the motion.

In Martinez vs. CA, 237 SCRA 575 [1994], the high court overruled the
grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal upon the
recommendation of the secretary of justice because, such grant was based
upon considerations other than the judge’s own assessment of the matter.
Relying solely on the conclusion of the prosecution to the effect that there
was no sufficient evidence against the accused to sustain the allegation in the
information, the trial judge did not perform his function of making an
independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case.

Judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice allowed only
thru certiorari under Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion etc.,-

Judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is limited
to a determination of whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excesss of jurisdiction considering that the full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive branch in
the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation.
Courts are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the
executive branch. It may, however, look into the question of whether such
exercise has been made in grave abuse of discretion.(Metrobank vs. Tonda,
338 SCRA 254, 270-271 [2000]. Thus, as a general rule, the Supreme Court
does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s determination of the existence or
absence of probable cause except when there is grave abuse of discretion
(Sistoza vs. Desierto, 388 SCRA 307, 323 [2002]).

Remedy from resolution of DOJ Secretary of the the appeal- to file a
petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65

Under exceptional circumstances, a petition for certiorari assailing
the resolution of the Secretary of Justice (involving an appeal of the
prosecutor’s ruling on probable cause) may be allowed
notwithstanding the filing of an information with the trial court
(Yambot v. Hon. Artemio Tuquero [2011]).

Filadams Pharma v. CA, 426 SCRA 460 March 30, 2004

Question:

Where the Secretary of Justice dismisses an appeal on the ground
that no probable cause exists, what is the remedy of the adverse party?

Answer:

If his motion for reconsideration is denied by the Secretary of Justice,
since there is no more appeal or other remedy available in the ordinary
course of law, the procedure is to file a petition for certiorari with the CA on
the ground of grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Conditions for appeal to the Office of the President from the DOJ

While judicial pronouncements do not allow an appeal to the Court of
Appeals under Rule 43 from the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the
appeal referred to in such pronouncements evidently pertain only to a
judicial appeal, an administrative appeal is not proscribed. Likewise
Memorandum Circular No. 58 dated June 30, 1993, provides that the appeals
from the petition for review of “decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary
of Justice on preliminary investigations of criminal cases are entertained by
the Office of the President” under the following conditions which have to
be established as jurisdictional facts:

(a)The offense involved is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death;
(b)New and material issues are raised which were not previously
presented before the DOJ and hence, were not ruled upon;
©The prescription of the offense is not due to lapse within six (6)
months from notice of the questioned resolution; and
(d)The appeal or petition for review is filed within thirty (30) days from
notice.

If the appeal does not clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the
President, the appeal shall be dismissed outright. If the lack of jurisdiction is
not readily apparent, the appellant/petitioner shall be ordered to prove the
necessary jurisdictional facts.

Appeal to CA under Rule 43 from resolution of the Office of the
President and Rule 45 from CA to SC on pure question of law-

From the office of the President, the aggrieved party may file an appeal with
the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 43. Under Sec. 1, the final orders
or resolutions of the Office of the President is appealable to the Court of
Appeals by filing a verified petition for review following the procedure set
by Sec. 5 and 6 of Rule 43.

The aggrieved party by the judgment, final order or resolution of the Court
of Appeals may avail of an appeal by certiorari (petition for review on
certiorari) to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Review of Ombudsman resolution when there is grave abuse of
discretion-

Maturan v. Ombudsman, 435 SCRA 323, July 7, 2004

Question:

What is the proper procedure for seeking a review for the resolution
of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the existence or non-existence of a
probable cause?

Answer:

The proper course of action is a special civil action for certiorari
before the Supreme Court. While the Ombudsman has the full discretion
to determine whether a criminal case should be filed, the SC is not
precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman’s action when there is grave
abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, in which
case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be invoked pursuant to present
practice or, exceptionally, even Sec. 1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Accordingly, where the finding of the Ombudsman as to the existence of
probable cause is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, while there is no appeal, the aggrieved party may
file with the SC a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Once complaint or information is filed in court, court has discretion to
dismiss complaint or information

What is the procedure if on appeal the DOJ Secretary finds no probable
cause but the information is already filed in court?

A: Under the new rules, the fiscal is ordered to file a motion to dismiss the
case in court.

But will the court be bound by the findings of the Justice Secretary and
obligated to grant the motion?

That was the issue in the case of CRESPO. And the SC ruled that:

CRESPO vs. MOGUL, June 30, 1987

HELD: The power of the fiscal is practically absolute whether to file
or not to file. But once the case is filed in court, the power now
belongs to the judge and he is the one who will determine whether to
proceed or not to proceed. The court will be the one to decide because
control over the case is already shifted in the court. The court now has the
absolute power and once the court tell the fiscal ‘you proceed,’ then the
fiscal has to proceed. The latter should not shirk from his responsibility
of representing the People of the Philippines. So the absolute power of
the fiscal ends upon the filing of the case in court.

Advice to the Sec. of Justice once info is filed in court

“As an advice [note the word advice], that in order to avoid this
unpleasant situation where the opinion of the Secretary of Justice is not to
proceed but the opinion of the judge is to proceed, and the fiscal is caught
in the middle, when the case is already filed in court, the Secretary of
Justice as much as possible, should not review the resolution of the fiscal
to file when the case is already filed in court to avoid this unpleasant
situation because it will really cause a conflict of opinion between the
two (2) offices.”

Santos v. Orda, 437 SCRA 504, September 1, 2004

Facts:

Accused were charged with murder in an information filed by the City
prosecutor.

On appeal to the DOJ, the Secretary reversed the prosecutor and ordered
him to withdraw the information.

Despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration filed by complainant
with the DOJ Secretary, the prosecutor submitted a motion to withdraw the
information.

The RTC granted the motion subject to re-filing of the information if the DOJ
reverses itself.

A motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC stating that it cannot
order the re-filing of the Information if the DOJ and the public prosecutor
refuse to do so.

Issue:

Did the RTC commit a grave abuse of it s discretion in granting the
prosecutor’s motion to withdraw the information on the Secretary of
Justice’s finding that there was no probable cause?

Held:

Yes. Once an information is filed in court, any disposition of the case
or dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the
exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court. A
motion to dismiss the case filed by public prosecutor should be addressed
to the court who has the option to grant or deny the same. In resolving the
motion, the trial court should not rely solely and merely on findings of the
public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice that no crime was committed
or the evidence of the possession of the public prosecutor is insufficient to
support a judgment of conviction of the accused. The trial court should
make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the
affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information; or any
evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the
motion is filed by the public prosecutor.

already constitute a second look on .In this case. From such resolution. the Regional State Prosecutors are authorized to resolve petitions for review of resolutions of Provincial/City Prosecutors in cases cognizable by the MeTC. June 26. or Provincial or City Fiscal exercises the delegated power to conduct preliminary investigation of election offense cases. in the interest of justice. dismissals by the provincial or city prosecutors of drug- related cases (RA 9165) involving the maximum penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be subject to automatic review by the RSP having jurisdiction over the prosecution office concerned. said officers have already resolved the issue of probable cause. MCTC. the RTC abdicated its judicial power and acted as mere surrogate of the Secretary of Justice. Appeal to COMELEC from the resolution of prosecutor in election offenses In cases where the State Prosecutor. the RTC failed to make an independent assessment of the merits of the cases and the evidence on record or in the possession of the public prosecutor. 46. 70-A. except in the National Capital Region. 2003). As the exercise by the Commission of its review powers would. June 10. In granting the motion of the public prosecutor to withdraw the information. at this point. Automatic review by Regional State Prosecutor In addition. appeal to the Comelec lies. Authority of Regional State Prosecutors to review- Under the present set-up. after the investigating officer submits his recommendation. (DOJ Circular No. MTC. 2000). In granting the public prosecutor’s motion. Nevertheless. the Secretary of Justice retains the power to review resolutions of the RSPs in appealed case (DOJ Circular No. the RTC relied solely on the joint resolution of the Secretary of Justice.

(Faelnar vs. 331 SCRA 429. Purpose of requirement . necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein. “When warrant shall issue” will be discussed later as part of the judicial process SEC. supporting evidence. Records supporting the information or complaint—An information or complaint filed in court shall be supported by: 1.the issue of probable cause. Records. the Comelec’s ruling on the appeal would be immediately final and executory. shall not form part of the record of the case 2. the resolution on the case 2. Records 1. 436 [2000]) Note: Section 5. it is to be introduced as an evidence in the case by the requesting party 1. however. the court. 2. 7. and 3. may order the production of the record or any of its part when: 1. the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses. on its own initiative or on motion of any party. Record of the PI conducted by a prosecutor or other officers as may be authorized by law: 1. or 2. People.

429 SCRA 685. The judge may even call the complainant and his witness to themselves answer the court’s probing questions to determine the existence of probable cause. if the judge finds the records and/or evidence submitted by the investigating prosecutor to be insufficient. together with the other supporting evidence of the resolution.Okabe v. However. the complaint was considered part of the record of the . or direct the investigating prosecutor either to submit more evidence. he may order the dismissal of the case. 1987 Issue: Where an offense can only be prosecuted upon complaint of the offended party. to enable him to discharge his duty. Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure that an information or complaint filed in court shall be supported by affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses. is it necessary to mark and introduce during the trial the written complaint in evidence as the basis of the information filed by the prosecutor? Held: No. May 27. 8 (a). 2004 Question: What is the purpose of the requirement under Sec. Under the rule prevailing at the time this case was commenced and tried. Answer: It is intended to allow the judge to personally determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused. 2. Record as evidence during trial People v. Rondina. April 8. Rule 112. 149 SCRA 128. Gutierrez.

3. People. Such complaint was in fact transmitted as required and could therefore be judicially noticed by the trial judge without the necessity of its formal introduction as evidence of the prosecution. Under Sec. 395 SCRA 507. Nonetheless. the record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the RTC records unless introduced as evidence during the trial. neither may the trial court be compelled to take judicial notice of the same. will show that the accused presented. The dismissal of the case by the investigating MTC judge and by . these records will not exculpate the accused. A careful review of the records of this case. the records of the preliminary investigation. January 20. the records of preliminary investigation cannot be treated as evidence in court. and formally offered as evidence. 8. reversed both of them so that trial proceeded. The Secretary of Justice. Absent such introduction. Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. 2003 Facts: The MTC judge who conducted the preliminary investigation for the crime of attempted rape dismissed the complaint and he was affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor. Issue: Should the previous dismissal of the case entitle the accused to an acquittal? Held: The previous dismissal of the case during its preliminary investigation stage before the Provincial Prosecutor is immaterial. Records of previous dismissal Santos v. however. however.preliminary investigation and had to be transmitted to the trial court upon the filing of the corresponding charge.

In cases cognizable by the MTC. For good reasons. 8: 1. by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation. maximum of 4 years and 2 months.– Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: (a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112. File the complaint or information with the MTC Q: Now. Cases covered by this section – cases where the imposable penalty is a: 1. and 2. Rule 110: SECTION 1.the provincial prosecutor was based on the report in the barangay blotter which are highly unreliable and undeserving of any probative value. going back to Rule 110. the dismissal of the case was reversed by the Secretary of Justice. . SEC. Institution of criminal actions. 8. minimum of 6 months and 1 day 2. Cases not requiring a PI nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure 1. Two [2] ways of instituting a criminal case under Sec. File the complaint with the prosecutor while observing the procedure outlined in Sec. how is it instituted? A: Section 1. 3 2. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

3. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath. the procedure in Section 3[a] of this rule shall be observed. or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. in . There is no need for preliminary investigation. the complaints shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters. The prosecutor will simply find out based on the affidavit of the complainant and his witnesses whether or not there is probable cause. or. – The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner: (a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses. Procedure. [c] or [d]. If it is filed with the prosecutor. by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. NO more subpoena and counter-affidavit. plus two (2) copies for the official file. In Manila and other chartered cities. There is no mention of [b]. (b) For all other offenses.x x x x x So there are two (2) ways: (a) direct filing or (b) you file with the prosecutor and the provincial prosecutor will file the information. Procedure when complaint is filed with the prosecutor first instead of directly filing an information in court- Let’s relate this to Section 8. Only Section 3[a] should be followed. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents. SEC. as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause.

each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. The respondent is not allowed to file counter-affidavits Procedure when Complaint or Information is filed with the MTC 1. Procedure when Complaint is filed directly with Prosecutor 1. be accompanied by: 1. and 2. 2. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within 10 days from its filing. affidavits [subscribed. other supporting documents to establish probable cause. state the address of the respondent. The complaint must: 1. 2. state the address of the respondent. before a notary public. be accompanied by: 1. their absence or unavailability. If the judge finds NO probable cause . and 2. and 2. sworn to and certified] of the complainant and his witnesses. affidavits [subscribed. The complaint must: 1. other supporting documents to establish probable cause. 3. sworn to and certified] of the complainant and his witnesses. and 2.

Within 10 days from: 1. 2. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence. or 2. He shall dismiss the complaint: 1. 2. and 2. If the judge finds probable cause: 1. He may require the submission of additional evidence: within 10 days from notice. to determine further the existence of probable cause. evaluating the evidence. After personally: 1. or 2. He shall: 1. submission of additional evidence. hold the accused for trial 2. 1. or commitment order if the accused had already been arrested. 3. Within 10 days after the filing of the complaint or information. or 2. examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. He may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest: . expiration of the period to submit the additional evidence 3. 1. issue a warrant of arrest. He shall dismiss the case.

peace officer. or prosecutor. and the accused person is not under the custody of the law. Padilla GR 156962. to determine further the existence of probable cause. he shall. (Victorias Milling Co. issue a commitment order. require the submission of additional evidence. and thereafter dismiss the same within ten (10) days from submission thereof if he still finds no probable cause. he may dismiss the case within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information if he finds no probable cause after personally evaluating the evidence. October 6. to submit additional evidence within ten (10) days to determine further the existence of probable cause. however. he may dismiss the complaint if he finds no probable cause after personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. (b)If filed by the prosecutor. within ten (10) days from its submission or expiration of said period. within ten (10) days from notice. or (d)If he finds probable cause. Inc. Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint or information. dismiss the case.” If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence. if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody Section 8[b]. the trial judge may take any of the following actions.Procedure when information is filed directly with the MTC- When a complaint or information involving a ‘direct filing case’ is filed with the Municipal Trial Court either by the offended party. he shall issue a warrant of arrest. 2008) The next sentence is new: “He may. (c)He may require the offended party or the prosecutor. viz: (a)If filed by the offended party or peace officer. vs. he shall follow the procedure outlined in Section 3(a) of Rule 112. as the case may be. or if the accused is under custody. When he finds .

Aglugub. It is just a notice that he is required to appear. 177 [Usurpation of Authority] of the Revised Penal Code.” So it is not really necessary that every time a case is filed in the MTC with a penalty not more than 4 years and 2 months. Otherwise. Penalty of prision correccional medium or less Sesbreno v. or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested. If the judge finds no sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial. Rule 112 of the Rules shall be observed. or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested. He may instead issue summons. and hold the latter for trial. Summons here is not really the same in the Rules of Court. 3(a). and there is probable cause that a warrant of arrest be issued. However. . he shall dismiss the complaint or information. if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody. he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest. he shall issue a warrant of arrest. 2005 Question: What procedure should be followed in a complaint for violation of Art. and hold him for trial. he shall issue a warrant of arrest. 452 SCRA 365. February 28. And that is a new provision. the judge is given the discretion to merely issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest if he does not find it necessary to place the accused under custody.probable cause. Cases: 1. [The next sentence is new again:] However. Whether it is necessary to place the accused in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice is left to the judge’s sound judgment. where the penalty prescribed by law is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months? Answer: The procedure laid down in Sec.

among which are: a. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. Q: Can a preliminary investigation be stopped by asking the court to grant a preliminary injunction or a restraining order? Can a criminal prosecution be enjoined or restrained? A: NO. e. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority. f. h. If you believe that you are not guilty. c. ENRILE. you will be acquitted. b. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law. the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction. d. . When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice. g. However. 192 SCRA 83 HELD: Indeed. then you prove that in court. preliminary or final. i. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused. Anyway if you are not guilty. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution. and j. as a GENERAL RULE. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense. ordinance or regulation. the SC came out with EXCEPTIONS cited in the case of BROCKA vs. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent. There are however exceptions. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions.

(3) In Manila and other chartered cities. . (1) by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial Courts. the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their charters. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. or (2) the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. Rule 110 States: Office “Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112. 1. For all other offenses. by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation.WHEN THE CRIME COMMITTED DOES NOT REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION crime or offense committed Metro-Manila / Chartered City Filing thru File with Prosecutor's Office Filing in Court Prosecutor's Sec.

two ways of initiating the action are prescribed. 6. So there are two (2) ways: (a) direct filing or (b) you file with the prosecutor and the provincial prosecutor will file the information. Only Section 3[a] should be followed. By filing the complaint directly with the prosecutor. The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws. Rule 112). The prosecutor will simply find out based on the affidavit of the complainant and his witnesses whether or not there is probable cause. the procedure in Section 3[a] of this rule shall be observed. NO more subpoena and counter-affidavit. 8. There is no mention of [b]. Procedure when complaint is filed with the prosecutor first instead of directly filing an information in court- Let’s relate this to Section 8. or 5. [c] or [d]. except in Manila or other chartered cities where the complaint should be filed with the prosecutor’s office unless otherwise provided by their charters (Sec. If it is filed with the prosecutor.” Procedure for cases not requiring a preliminary investigation Where a preliminary investigation is not required because the penalty prescribed for offense involved is less than four (4) years two (2) months and one (1) day. There is no need for preliminary investigation. namely: 4. . By filing the complaint of information directly with the first level court.

They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within 10 days from its filing. 3. Procedure when Complaint is filed directly with Prosecutor 1. and 2. state the address of the respondent. before a notary public. as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. The complaint must: 1. in their absence or unavailability. Procedure. 3. The respondent is not allowed to file counter-affidavits Procedure when Complaint or Information is filed with the MTC . be accompanied by: 1. and 2. 2. other supporting documents to establish probable cause. – The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner: (a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses. SEC. plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath. or. sworn to and certified] of the complainant and his witnesses. each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. affidavits [subscribed.

other supporting documents to establish probable cause. and 2. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence. or 2. 2. After personally: 1. examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. submission of additional evidence. He may require the submission of additional evidence: within 10 days from notice. 3. and 2. state the address of the respondent. 2. to determine further the existence of probable cause. evaluating the evidence. He shall dismiss the case. Within 10 days after the filing of the complaint or information. 2. affidavits [subscribed. sworn to and certified] of the complainant and his witnesses. or 2.1. or . 1. be accompanied by: 1. Within 10 days from: 1. If the judge finds NO probable cause 1. He shall dismiss the complaint: 1. The complaint must: 1.

Procedure when information is filed directly with the MTC- When a complaint or information involving a ‘direct filing case’ is filed with the Municipal Trial Court either by the offended party. If the judge finds probable cause: 1. (c)He may require the offended party or the prosecutor. or prosecutor. issue a warrant of arrest. to submit additional evidence within ten (10) days to determine further . and 2. hold the accused for trial 2. viz: (a)If filed by the offended party or peace officer. Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint or information. He shall: 1. he may dismiss the case within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information if he finds no probable cause after personally evaluating the evidence. or commitment order if the accused had already been arrested. the trial judge may take any of the following actions. 2. he may dismiss the complaint if he finds no probable cause after personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. he shall follow the procedure outlined in Section 3(a) of Rule 112. He may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest: if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody Section 8[b]. (b)If filed by the prosecutor. expiration of the period to submit the additional evidence 3. as the case may be. peace officer.

And that is a new provision.” If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence. issue a commitment order. he shall issue a warrant of arrest. or if the accused is under custody. within ten (10) days from notice.” So it is not really necessary that every time a case is filed in the MTC with a penalty not more than 4 years and 2 months. and hold him for trial. Inc. 2008) The next sentence is new: “He may. When he finds probable cause. he shall. he shall issue a warrant of arrest. vs. require the submission of additional evidence. however. Summons here is not really the same in the Rules of Court. Padilla GR 156962. It is just a notice that he is required to appear. and there is probable cause that a warrant of arrest be issued. He may instead issue summons. he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest. or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested. to determine further the existence of probable cause. [The next sentence is new again:] However.the existence of probable cause. dismiss the case. within ten (10) days from its submission or expiration of said period. if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody. or (d)If he finds probable cause. (Victorias Milling Co. WHEN THE SUSPECT OR SUSPECT/S IS/ARE ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT crime / offense committed Resolution Recommending Custodial Investigation Motion to Conduct Warrantless Arrest Inquest either forJudicial Stage Filing or Release for RA 7438 . and the accused person is not under the custody of the law. October 6. and thereafter dismiss the same within ten (10) days from submission thereof if he still finds no probable cause.

  the evidence gathered and presented by the prosecution on the occasion of  their lawful arrest without warrant cannot be deemed as the “fruits of a  poisonous tree. Linda Alviz y Yatco and Elizabeth Dela  . People of the Philippines v. As a result of the finding that a buy­bust operation actually took  place and that Linda and Elizabeth were apprehended in flagrante delicto.” but are admissible and competent proof of their  guilt. Rule 113) Significance of a valid warrantless arrest to evidence seized-  Lawful warrantless arrests. evidence gathered in    flagrante delicto   admissible.WARRANTLESS ARREST (Section 5.

with a warrant. Warrantless Arrest as exception Here the determination of probable cause is therefore made by the arresting officer or civilian effecting the arrest precisely because of the urgency in the situation. 2013. and 2. February 6. .Vega y Bautista. Rule 113 Arrest Section 1. a valid warrantless arrest. General rule: A judge has jurisdiction to determine existence of probable cause. No. Definition The taking of a person into custody 2.R. 177158. Purpose In order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense Two kinds of arrest: 1. reasonable man to believe that (a) a crime was committed and (b) the person to be arrested probably committed it. G. Common requisite or basis: probable cause – facts and circumstances that would convince a prudent.

is attempting to commit a crime [Sec. 5(b)] 3. based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it [Sec. (In flagrante delicto arrest) When in the presence of the arresting officer or private person. the offense has just been committed. 5(a)]. 2. is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place he is temporarily confined while his case is pending. and 2. Procedure to follow when effecting the arrest A. and 2. is actually committing. or . is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where He is serving judgment. or 3. or 2.Instances of valid warrantless arrest- Section 5. has committed 2. Kinds and requisites of each. the person to be arrested: 1. Valid Warrantless Arrests Two important considerations: 1. (Hot pursuit arrest) When: 1. Kinds and conditions of warrantless arrest- 1. (Arrest of an escapee) When the person to be arrested: 1. the arresting officer has probable cause to believe.

3. Procedure 1. and . A police officer or peace officer. or is attempting to commit a crime. 5(C) B. is actually committing. 2003 Accordingly. and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Sec.February 4. In Flagrante Delicto Arrest or caught in the act of committing a crime arrest and probable cause- Meaning of and elements of “in flagrante delicto”- People v. or 2. for this exception to apply 2 elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. The person arrested without a warrant shall be delivered to the nearest police station or jail. Procedure after arrest is made under in flagrante or hot pursuit arrest: 1. 7 of Rule 112 (Inquest if penalty prescribed is at least 4 years 2 months and 1 day). Any private person (citizen’s arrest) 2. has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another [Sec. Chua. Persons authorized to make warrantless arrests: 1. 396 SCRA 657.

2010 The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. (Padilla vs. (a) when the officer sees the offense. 16 Phil. although at a distance. Alunday. the acts must be known to the officer or civilian at the time of their commission through his sensory perceptions before the arrest. The rule requires. Sucro 195 SCRA 388 [1991]) Is presence of the arresting officer or civilian enough? It is not enough that the crime has been committed. Aug. 3. Sayo vs. Racho. CA. In other words. or (b) hears the disturbance caused thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. 516. or (d) has not been consummated at the time when the arrest is made. . 859. People vs. Samonte. 414 [1997]. Chief of Police. or is attempting to commit an offense What is meant by “in his presence”? Presence not enough/Personal knowledge required- An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer. GR No. within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant. that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed. 186529. People vs. People vs. is being committed or about to be committed in the presence of the arresting officer or civilian. in addition. or (c) the offense is continuing. 269 SCRA 402. is actually committing. Sept. GR 181546. 3.US vs. 80 Phil.(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer or private person. he must also be aware (personal knowledge) of such crime before the arrest. 2008.

Sec. the person arrested committed a crime in the presence of the arresting officers. An arrest made after an entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113. 431 SCRA 194. Aminudin. the Court ruled that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation and the warrantless arrest of the accused caught in flagrante delicto. 2004 Held: Yes. Cuizon. 163 SCRA 402. July 9.Manlangit (2014). 144 SCRA 01. 5(a) of the Rules of Court. Ramos. People vs. Mengote. Any search resulting from a lawful warrantless arrest is valid because the accused committed a crime in flagrante delicto. 1990 etc) Cases: Arrest during buy-bust operation Teodosio v. People vs. August 2. 256 SCRA 325. that is. People vs. CA. June 8. 210 SCRA 114.Personal knowledge or awareness must precede the arrest Knowledge of the commission of the crime in one’s presence must precede the arrest. People. Posadas vs. In People v. 1990 Issue: . Burgos. 187 SCRA 311. Continuing offenses Umil v. (People vs.

and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. Aminnudin. the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he is committing an offense when arrested. Mere suspicion is insufficient as personal knowledge is required. who testified that she conducted microscopic. chemical and chromatographic tests on them. A rebel may be deemed to be in flagrante delicto at all times for purposes of arrest.1984. May a person be arrested without a warrant for the crime of rebellion even if he is not at the time of arrest actually in the act of taking up arms against the government? Held: Yes. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. or had just been committed . and approached him as he descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. It was found to contain 3 kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. Acting on this tip. He was identified by name. 163 SCRA 402 (1988) The PC officers had received a tip two days before the arrest from one of their informers that the accused was on board an identified vessel on a particular date and time bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. The crimes of rebellion. Is the arrest valid? Is the search proper? Held: Contrary to the averments of the government. the accused was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed. People vs. subversion. they waited for him in the evening of June 25. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. Rebellion being a continuing offense.

What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. at the moment of his arrest. absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers. he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It has been held that “reliable information” alone. Hence. There was no basis for an inflagrante delicto arrest and no urgency to justify a warrantless search of a moving vehicle which can lead to the warrantless arrest. It was only . Hence.396 SCRA 657. Aminnudin [July 6. the warrantless arrest has no justification. in People v. it was ruled that “accused was not. committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. To all appearances. To all appearances. 2003 Question: May an in flagrante delicto arrest be made based solely on reports? Answer? No.to justify the warrantless arrest. is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. 1988]. Chua. 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. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. 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. Arrest based on report People v. The identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.February 4. he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel.

Saycon.when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. This warrantless search led to a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto arrest. The search and seizure was justified under the principle justifying the search of moving vehicles as there was no time to obtain a warrant. More specific details were received earlier on the morning that the appellant would be arriving the same morning. the agents had to act quickly but there was not enough time to obtain a warrant of arrest or search warrant. search and seizure. all they knew is that he would be taking a boat from Manila to Dumaguete on the morning of 8 July 1992. Clearly. was justified although the suspect was not perceptively committing a crime but like Aminnudin merely alighted from the vessel.” The Amminnudin case as compared to those where there is lack of opportunity to obtain a warrant of search- People vs. and . 263 SCRA 325 A warrantless arrest. HOT PURSUIT ARREST Requisites (probable cause) 1. based on information from a NARCOM agent that a suspected shabu courier was arriving at Dumaguete City on board a vessel and who was pointed to by another agent. the offense has just been committed. The Supreme Court observed: The record shows that the NARCOM officers were uncertain as to the precise date and time appellant would arrive from Manila.

is the time when the crime was in fact committed. 746 [1999]. Generoso (2014). 144 SCRA 1 It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime.2. April 16. the Court explained: In other words. 202 SCRA 251 [1991]) Second Element: “ Has just been committed” People vs. 305 SCRA 740. Del Rosario. that the person to be arrested committed it. 2009. People vs. Agojo. probable cause to believe. People vs. 86 [1997]. 282 SCRA 80. Burgos. 181318. 760 [1999] “Has just been committed” connotes immediacy in point of time. the clincher in the element of “personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances” (indicating that a crime was indeed committed) is the required element of immediacy wthin which those facts or circumstances should be gathered. People vs. 305 SCRA 740. or actually have been committed first. in relation to the making of the warrantless arrest. Mahusay. GR No. Del Rosario. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. In Pestilos v. A crime must in fact. and not the time when the person making the arrest learned or was informed of such commission. based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances.(People vs. If there is an appreciable length of time between the two then a warrant of arrest must be secured. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The recency contemplated here. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. . Ramos. Umil v s.

indicating that he perpetrated the crime. that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the crime. SCRA 388. In most cases. a thorough investigation and the exercise of reasonable judgment are needed. The arresting officers themselves must have personal knowledge of facts showing that the suspect performed the criminal act. Need for thorough investigation and exercise of reasonable judgment- In determining the commission of the crime as a fact. they must have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission. 342. that the person to be arrested committed it. the arrest is validated based on the knowledge derived by the arresting officer from his investigation and the testimony of witnesses (People vs. [2000]) . Personal knowledge means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. mere intelligence information that the suspect committed the crime will not suffice. They should know for a fact that a crime was committed. “Thus. while the law enforcers may not actually witness the execution of an act constituting the offense. Third element: Probable cause to believe. This guarantees that the police officers would have no time to base their probable cause finding on facts and circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation.This required time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. based on actual facts. The reason of the element of immediacy is this – as the time gap for the commission of the crime to the arrest widens. interpretation and hearsay. the piece of information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external factors.Posadas. based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances. Again.

Doria. coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. Then. an eyewitness or victim must accompany the arresting officer during the arrest. This information was passed on to the police officers stationed at Fort Bonifacio where accused was expected to pass by. however. 2009. Ombudsman. must be based upon “probable cause” which means an“actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. [1997]). and to prevent abuse. GR No. in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers. 709 [1991]) Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause. (Abelita III v.As a minimum. They saw the accused take the money from the car trunk. Aug. This would at least ensure that arrests are not based on mere suspicion. In People vs. because the accused was holding the key to the stolen vehicle.e. Sinoc (275 SCRA 357. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. At the very least. i. the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts. 397 [2000] citing People vs. 301 SCRA 668. There was a pay-off in a kidnapping case at Magallanes Commercial Center which was witnessed by police officers. Probable cause and Personal Knowledge of Facts “Personal knowledge” of facts in arrests without a warrant under Section5(b) of Rule 113. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause. Posadas vs.” The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when. Doria. Was the arrest without warrant valid? Why? . 14. material or physical evidence must be found linking the person to be arrested to the crime. 170762. there was arrest and search. 341 SCRA 395. the Court validated the arrest in a robbery case.

e. G. 14 August 2009. and (2) the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Section 5(b0. 596 SCRA 220. Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause. Rule 113 of the 1995 Rules on Criminal Procedures does not require the arresting officers to personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts.R. Lozada. 170672. 226-227 citing People v. (Abelita III v. A reasonable suspicion. G. coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. January 19. 178039. Doria. who was the kidnapper. i. in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers. It is sufficient for the arresting team that they were monitoring the pay-off for a number of hours long enough for them to be informed that it was indeed appellant. (People v. must be founded on probable cause. The grounds of suspicion is reasonable when. Problem: A police officer heard X shout for help and immediately went to the place where the voice came from and saw there X lying on the ground with stab . The arrest was done pursuant Section.. This is equivalent to personal knowledge based on probable cause.R. which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which provides that when an offense has in fact been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. 250-251 (2003)). The second instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph (b) necessitates two stringent requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has just been committed. No. 241. 2011). Uyboco. 454 Phil. therefore.

(No actual belief nor reasonable ground of suspicion because the facts known especially the information given by the waitress that he was the . When the police picked it up. under hot pursuit as the officer had actual belief that Y committed the offense and that it has just been committed. 2001 Facts: After being informed that a person has been shot. Entering the house. the police sent a team to investigate. two spent . They knocked and when accused opened the door. 360 SCRA 690. (Reasonable ground of suspicion. i.38 caliber shells fell from it. July 10. (A crime has just been committed) He also saw Y a meter away from X holding a bloodied knife which he threw away upon seeing the police officer. Is the warrantless arrest valid? Yes. (a crime has just been committed) After talking to a waitress and a tricycle driver who gave them the description of the person last seen with the victim. Despite being ordered to stop Y ran away and was able to evade arrest. They saw the victim slumped on his tricycle parked near the road.wounds. they noticed that he fitted the description. It was only in the evening of that day when Y was arrested without a warrant inside a friend’s house. They then brought him to the cafe where the waitress identified him as the person she saw drinking beer with the victim. Cubcubin.e. accused denied involvement. Asked about the killing.. Where no probable cause exists People v. they found a “bloodied” Hanes T- shirt placed over a divider. personal knowledge of actual facts creating a reason to believe that the accused committed the crime). the police went to the house of accused.

the report of the killing. the information that he was at the cafe with the victim. In this case. For a warrantless arrest to be valid. Nuevas. Effect of an illegal arrest on jurisdiction of the court The illegality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. 2007) It has been ruled time and again that an accused is stopped from assailing any irregularity with regard to his arrest if he fails to raise the issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before his arraignment. Issue: Was the arrest lawful? Held: No. At the time he was arrested. 516 SCRA 463. But they had no probable cause to believe that accused committed the crime.person she saw drinking or the last person seen with the victim is not a valid basis for the suspicion that he killed the victim). (People v. Feb. it is required that the offender has just committed an offense and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. Any objection involving the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before . 22. and the description given by the tricycle driver. he was not doing anything overtly criminal. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. Their knowledge of facts and circumstances from which they inferred that accused was guilty was based entirely on what they had been told by others: to wit. the first requisite is satisfied because the arrest of accused was effected shortly after the victim was killed.

to have escaped from detention. (People vs. There must be clear and convincing proof that the accused had an actual intention to relinquish his right to question the existence of probable cause ( Jose Antonio C. Ramos. such a scenario would still not provide salvation to accused’s cause because jurisprudence also instructs us that the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error (People v. 191069. 13 Rule 113 . Borlongan v.he enters his plea. even if the accused’s warrantless arest was proven to be indeed invalid. otherwise. Velasco [2013]) Arrest of Escaped Prisoners An accused who files a “fake” bail bond is considered not merely to have jumped bail but. Leviste v. et al. 570 [1993]) As such the accused may be re-arrested without warrant. 15. the objection is deemed waived. 2010. for all intents and purposes. Ho. Other instances of warrantless arrest: Sec. May 25. Aug. 182677. 143951. Elmo M. 348 SCRA 603. 3. GR No. 609 [2000]. Alameda. 222 SCRA 557. Pena. People vs. Waiver of right to question The rule that the accused is precluded after arraignment from questioning the illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary investigation applies only if the accused voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial. without previously invoking his objections thereto. 2010) When to question legality of arrest. 2010). An invalid arrest is not sufficient cause to set aside a judgment- Nevertheless. GR No. Del Rosario. Nov.. (People v. Tan GR No.

the so-called “invitation” of a person in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is a prohibited act for which the inviting officer may be held liable (Secs. Rule 114 last par. cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion. 647 [1998]) ( Mine: In other words it is considered as a taking of a person into custody in order to make him answer to an offense) Thus. 2(f) and 4). Mere invitation is covered by the proscription on a warrantless arrest because it is intended for no other reason than to conduct an investigation. “If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued. An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without permission of the court where the case is pending. upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking.” Sec. illegal Under RA No. 299 SCRA 635. (People vs. any person may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place in the Philippines. Jr. 7438. 23. . Arrest by “invitation”.” Sec. Rule 114 on bail: For the purpose of surrendering the accused. Olivarez. without prejudice on the liability of the “inviting” officer for any violation of law. RA 7438 expanded the meaning of custodial investigation under Section 2(f) as including the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed.” a. the bondsmen may arrest him or. 23.

He was already singled out as a prime suspect in the grisly deed. and 2. whatever was seized from him could not be used against him. 343 SCRA 357. His warrantless arrest did not fall under the exceptions provided for in the Rules of Court. Rules in making arrest: 1. (People vs. Thus. yet the police failed to obtain a warrant for his arrest. where the arrest of the accused. 7 of Rule 112 (Inquest if penalty prescribed is at least 4 years 2 months and 1 day). By an actual restraint of the person to be arrested. which the arresting officers ostensibly referred to as an “invitation. The person arrested shall NOT be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention Procedure after arrest is made under in flagrante or hot pursuit arrest: 1. Other important points on arrest: Section 2. How arrest is made: 1. Procedure 1. or 2. Use of force . By the submission of such person to the custody of the person making the arrest 2. and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Sec. so was the subsequent search and seizure of the stolen items from him. This conclusion is consonant with the raison d’ etre of the exclusionary rule. The person arrested without a warrant shall be delivered to the nearest police station or jail. Consequently. De la Cruz. 373- 374 [2000] b.” was illegal. Violence or unnecessary force shall NOT be used in making an arrest.

his arresting authority. . and 2. (Sec. 1993 En Banc: Cruz. manual touching of the body. Application of actual force. It is enough that there be an intent on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and an intent on the part of the other to submit. Question: To constitute arrest. An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night (Sec. General Rule – the officer must inform the person to be arrested of: 1. 6). person to be arrested forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him of the cause of his arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. under the belief and impression that submission is necessary. 2. 2. must there be an actual use of force by the arresting officer? Answer: No. J. Sanchez 227 SCRA 627 November 8. giving of such information will imperil the arrest. 1. People v. physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. Exceptions – the officer’s failure to apprise the arrestee of the above is justified when the: 1. 3. person to be arrested flees. the cause of his arrest 2. 8) How Arrest is Effected by an Officer Without a Warrant 1.

Exceptions – the private person’s failure to apprise the arrestee of the above is justified when the: 1. General Rule – the private person must inform the person to be arrested of the: 1. cause of his arrest 2. 4. person to be arrested forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him of the cause of his arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. person to be arrested is then engaged in the commission of an offense. person to be arrested flees. 4. giving of such information will imperil the arrest. and 2. 9) How Arrest is Effected by a Private Person 1. 5. 3. intention to arrest him. 2. person to be arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense. the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after escape . person to be arrested is then engaged in the commission of an offense. or 6. 5. the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense. person to be arrested is pursued immediately after escape 3. (Sec. or 6.

Right of officer making a lawful arrest: He may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest 2. Fortaleza. and c) He has announced his purpose. Obligation of the persons summoned: Assist the arresting officer in effecting the arrest. nevertheless. are entitled to be considered as agents of authority.(Sec. it is an essential condition that they lend assistance by virtue of an order or request of such agent of authority. 10) Assistance while Arrest is being made 1. Personality of persons summoned All persons who come to the aid of agents of authority. 12 Phil. that in order that the person who come to the aid of agents of authority may be considered agents of authority. An officer making a lawful arrest may orally summon assistance (sec. An officer can break a door to effect entrance in order to arrest under the following conditions: a) He is refused admittance. and also all public functionaries. (US vs. provided he can render such assistance without detriment to himself. Accordingly. b) He has announced his authority. 472 [1909]). it being understood. the offender will be liable for indirect assault. 4. 11) . these persons are given the protection of Article 149 of the RPC wherein if attacked. 5.

or by any non-governmental organization. or child. parent. 2[f]. grandparent or grandchild. RA 7438) Arrestee’s right to be visited- Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family. or by any non- governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. RA 7438). 2. 12 Right to Break out from a Building. nephew or niece. 2[f]. 2[a]. It is necessary to liberate himself 7. 6. (Sec. fiancé or fiancée. RA 7438) . The person’s “immediate family” shall include his or her spouse. uncle or aunt. bother or sister. Requisites 1. and Right to be visited by the immediate members of his family. and guardian or ward. national or international (Sec. An officer has the right to break out from building or enclosure (Sec. 2[b]. or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel. 11. The right to remain silent (Sec. detained or under custodial investigation as spelled out in RA 7438: The right to be assisted by counsel at all times (Sec. An officer has entered the building or enclosure in accordance with Sec. RA 7438). Rights of a person arrested. by his counsel.

or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister or by his counsel. 4. 14. May confer privately with such person: 1. Who has the Right to Visit the Person Arrested 1.Attorney’s right to visit and confer with arrestee Sec. and a fine of Four thousand pesos (P4. detained or under custodial investigation.000. A relative of the person arrested. subject to reasonable regulations Penalty for obstructing. or from examining and treating him. 2. in urgent cases. At the request of the person arrested or of another acting in his behalf.00). preventing or prohibiting visit- Any person who obstructs. at any hour of the day or. In cases falling under in flagrante and hot pursuit arrests. Any member of the Philippine Bar: 1. prevents or prohibits any lawyer. RA 7438) 8. of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years. in the jail or any other place of custody. from visiting and conferring privately chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family with him. (Sec. at any hour of the day or night 2. 2. any member of the immediate family of a person arrested. or from ministering to his spiritual needs. the person arrested shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police .

(1) Art. .. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. 5 Rule 113) Admission to bail not a bar to right to question the legality of an arrest- 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. station or jail and proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112 [Inquest proceeding] (last par. questioning. III Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. The objection shall be resolved by the court as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case (Sec. provided that he raises the objection before he enters his plea. 2. he must be provided with one. initiated by law enforcement officers. Rule 114) CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION Constitutional Provision Sec. Sec. 12. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. 26. Xxx What does “investigation” mean? Custodial investigation which involves: 1.

R. . incommunicado. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel.1999 and other cases) RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION 1) To be informed of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. 130612. force. G. (People vs. 7438 has extended the constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been arrested but has merely been “invited”for questioning. Secret detention places. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. he must be provided with one.A. The reason for making these rights available is to counterbalance the coercive atmosphere in such investigations. intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. May 11. 3. 2) No torture. the suspect has been taken into police custody. No. Domantay. violence. solitary. after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. No. the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements. The right to custodial investigation begins only when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect. R. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

. 2) a mayor. moreover.3) Any confession or admission in violation of Self- Incrimination Clause shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. 4) any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused. His silence. private or public prosecutor.  Under Sec. THREE RIGHTS ARE MADE AVAILABLE BY SEC. A person who is not an accused may assume the stance of silence only when asked an incriminatory question. 12. 12(1): a) The right to remain silent  Under the right against self-incrimination in Sec. b) The right to counsel — Example of those who are not impartial counsel are: 1) Special counsel. counsel of the police. and their families. 17. however. (Rights of Accused) only an accused has the absolute right to remain silent. 3) a barangay captain. or a municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused. may not be used against him. unless the accused approaches him as counselor or adviser. 4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions as well as compensation to aid rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practice. a person under investigation has the right to refuse to answer any question.

c) The right to be informed of his rights — the right guaranteed here is more than what is shown in television shows where the police routinely reads out the rights from a note card. and in the presence of his any immediate family members. detained or under custodial investigation: 1) To be assisted by counsel at all times. such investigation report shall be null and void. he must also explain their effects in practical terms. preferably of his own choice. such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible in any proceeding. 3) The custodial investigation report shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel in the language or dialect known to him. in a language known to and understood by him. or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by his . 2) Shall be informed . 125 of the RPC or under custodial investigation. UNDER RA 7438 The following are the rights of persons arrested. shall be in writing signed by such person in the presence of his counsel. otherwise such waiver shall be null and void and of no effect. of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with him. 6) Shall be allowed visits by his or conferences with any member of his immediate family. otherwise. 4) Any extrajudicial confession made by him shall be in writing and signed in the presence of his counsel or upon a valid waiver. otherwise. 5) Any waiver under the provisions of Art.

7438 imposes a maximum penalty of 8 years imprisonment to an arresting or investigating officer who fails to warn the accused of his rights. The arrest involves an offense which requires PI 2. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. The person may make a valid waiver and/or admission in the presence of any of his parents. counsel. 4 of RA No. INQUEST Rule 112 SEC 6. district school supervisor. Inquest investigation: . When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant. When Sec. 6 is applicable: 1. municipal judge. 1. spouse. 2) if he has validly waived his right to a lawyer. Sec. What about admissions during a PI? Prosecutors are not law enforcement officers. municipal mayor. older siblings. When a complaint and information may be filed without need of the required preliminary investigation: When an INQUEST has been conducted in accordance with existing rules 3. and 2. or by any national NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President. or priest or minister of the gospel (RA 7438 sec.

the following may file the complaint directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person: 1. he may apply for bail. An investigation based only on the affidavit of the offended party. The preliminary investigation must be terminated within 15 days from its Inception Requisites for a valid waiver of detention- . It is informal and summary and its purpose is to determine whether or not the person detained should remain under custody and then charged in court. Despite the waiver. 1. An inquest is an investigation conducted by a prosecutor in criminal cases where a person has been lawfully arrested and detained without a warrant of arrest. the police. he must sign a waiver of the provision of Art. a peace officer Effects when a person lawfully arrested without a warrant asks for Preliminary Investigation 1. but 2. or 2. Part II. and 3. BEFORE the complaint or information is filed: 1. Manual for Prosecutors) 4. 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Who shall file the complaint or information against said person lawfully arrested without a warrant: 1. and some witnesses. General Rule – The [Inquest] prosecutor 2. in the presence of his counsel. Exceptions – In the absence or unavailability of the inquest prosecutor. the offended party. (Sec.

This has to be done before he is arraigned as the entering of a plea is deemed a waiver of one’s right to a PI. the court has now assumed jurisdiction over the case. AFTER the complaint or information is filed: 1. otherwise. his right to PI is deemed waived. he has the right to adduce evidence in his defense during the PI. although the title is of lesser significance when compared to the essence of the motion. When inquest is required/requisites 1." the term seems to be a misnomer because it presupposes that a prior investigation had been held. A "motion to conduct a preliminary investigation" appears to be a more appropriate term. Common reason suggests that because the complaint or information has already been filed. he may ask for a PI within 5 days [non-extendible] after learning that the complaint has been filed. otherwise such waiver shall be null and void.A. and 2. Be it noted that by virtue of R. 3 of Rule 112. 2). and (b) signed by such person in the presence of his counsel. Hence. 7438. any waiver by the person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be (a) in writing. While lawyers traditionally call the motion a "motion for re-investigation. but 3. the accused is lawfully arrested . the accused should address the motion for the holding of a preliminary investigation to the court. 2. It is a summary investigation and which does not follow the procedures set forth in Sec. An inquest is not a preliminary investigation. (Sec.

Affidavit of the arrest. Initial duty of the inquest prosecutor- . c. CA) 2. Part II. The affidavit of arrest and the statements or affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses shall be subscribed and sworn to before the Inquest Officer by the affiants (Sec. b. The accused is entitled not to a mere inquest investigation but to a regular preliminary investigation. 3. Manual for Prosecutors). The investigation report. CA. Inquest. (Larranaga vs. Other supporting evidence gathered. These documents include the following: a.This rule applies only in cases where the accused was lawfully arrested without warrant of arrest. Go vs. An inquest is conducted by a public prosecutor who is assigned inquest duties as an Inquest Officer and is to discharge his duties only at the police stations/headquarters of the PNP in order to expedite and facilitate the disposition of the inquest cases (Sec. that the imposable penalty is not less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day. 2. Part II Manual for Prosecutors) 2. During the pendency of such investigation. Where the records do not show that the accused was lawfully arrested. Inquest procedure- 1. this rule does not apply. how commenced The inquest proceedings shall be deemed commenced from the time the Inquest Officer receives the complaint and referral documents from the law enforcement authorities. the accused should be released from detention subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation. and d. The statements of the complainant and the witnesses.

Rule 113. 8 Part II Manual]).Under DOJ Circular No. the inquest officer may summarily examine the arresting officers on the circumstances surrounding the arrest or apprehension o f the detained person [Sec. GR 175013. 61 which provides: “When Arrest Not Properly Effected – Should the Inquest Officer find that the arrest was not made in accordance with the Rules. b)note down the disposition of the referral document. c)forward the same. 2007 and companion cases) 2. the inquest shall proceed but the Inquest Officer shall first ask the detained person if he desires to avail himself of a preliminary investigation and if . June 1. affidavit or sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses and other supporting evidence. together with the copies of the charge sheet or complaint. Procedure when arrest is lawful- Should it be found. however.” (For this purpose. he shall: a. Where the recommendation for the release of the detained person is approved by the City or Provincial Prosecutor but the evidence on hand warrant the conduct of a regular preliminary investigation. the order of release shall be served on the officer having custody of said detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve upon the detainee the subpoena or notice of preliminary investigation. the initial duty of the inquest officer is to determine if the arrest of the detained person was made “in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5.)recommend the release of the person arrested or detained. People. If the arrest was not properly effected. (Beltran vs. 1. 61. to the City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action. together with the record of the case. dated September 21. that the arrest was properly effected. the inquest prosecutor should proceed under Section 9 of Circular No. 1993.

Duty of the prosecutor Go v. what should the prosecutor do? Answer: When the police files a complaint which is not proper for inquest. People GR No. June 1. he shall be made to execute a waiver of the provisions of Art. Manual of Prosecutors). CA. 2007. . In Beltran vs. Manual). If no probable cause is found. Part II. 175013. he shall prepare the corresponding information with the recommendation that the same be filed in court (Sec. The preliminary investigation may be conducted by the Inquest Officer himself or by any other Assistant Prosecutor to whom the case may be assigned (Sec. The inquest conducted must be for the offense for which the detainee was arrested. 125 of the Revised Penal Code with the assistance of a lawyer. Where accused is illegally arrested a. He is also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation.10.he does. he shall recommend the release of the detained person (Sec. 13. the prosecutor should immediately schedule a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is probable cause for charging the person in court. If the Inquest Prosecutor finds that probable cause exists. In such a situation. the Supreme Court nullified the second inquest on Beltran for rebellion because he was arrested without warrant for Inciting to Sedition. 206 SCRA 138 February 11. 1992 Question:Where a person is unlawfully arrested and the police files a complaint against him for inquest. Part II. 15). the person is entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should be accorded him without any conditions.

the trial court should suspend proceedings and order a preliminary investigation considering that the inquest investigation conducted by the State Prosecutor is null and void. Duty of the judge when information was filed despite an illegal arrest San Agustin v. January 31.August 31. Inquest during holidays Soria v. Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. and an information was filed against him. 437 SCRA 392. However. 2005 . 450 SCRA 339.b. Neither is it a ground to quash the information or nullify the order of arrest issued against him or justify the release of the accused from detention. It does not impair the validity of the Information or otherwise render it defective. The RTC commits a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction if it simply orders the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation which is merely a review by the prosecutor of his records and evidence instead of a preliminary investigation as provided for in Sec. 2004 Question: Where an accused has been illegally arrested but thereafter the Office of the Prosecutor conducted an inquest. what should the trial court do? Answer: The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court but merely the regularity of the proceedings. People. Desierto. 3. instead of a regular preliminary investigation.

he was brought to court on the very first office day following arrest. For. 1993 Question: Where a person is unlawfully arrested without a warrant. [18 SCRA 1168. stock should be taken of the fact that November 7 was a Sunday. Jr. draft the information and search for the Judge to have him act thereon. In these 3 no-office days. or by virtue of an invalid warrant.Issue: When a person is arrested without a warrant on a Sunday or a holiday. and November 9 (election day) was also an official holiday. These are considerations sufficient enough to deter us from declaring that Arthur Medina was arbitrarily detained.” Effect of subsequent issuance of a valid warrant on an initially illegal arrest- People v. can he question the validity of his continued detention? Answer: No. November 8 was declared an official holiday. In Medina v. it was not an easy matter for a fiscal to look for his clerk and stenographer. The issue of his invalid arrest becomes moot and academic if the new warrant of arrest complies with the . docket the case and have the order of commitment prepared. where to locate and the uncertainty of locating those officers and employees could very well compound the fiscal’s difficulties. And then. 227 SCRA 627. Sanchez. and get the clerk of court to open the courthouse. 1170]. Orozco. 125 of the Revised Penal Code? Held: No. 18 or 36 hours so as not render the arresting officer liable for delay in delivery of detained persons under Art. November 8. but subsequently a valid warrant is issued against him. it was ruled: “But. is the prosecutor required to hold an inquest and charge him within 12.

Direct filing of complaint in court in the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor Now. February 16. you cannot file a complaint directly with the RTC. Ruiz v. Posting of bail before case is filed Despite the waiver. Beldia. it is allowed under this situation : – (1) the accused is arrested without a warrant. the arrested person may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within 15 days. and (3) there is the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor. (2) the penalty prescribed is not less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day of imprisonment. But now. Everything here is done by information. 2005 Issue: . requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court. If the first warrant was unquestionably void. But as a matter of practice. returning her to the same prison she will just have left. This Court will not participate in such a meaningless charade.” – a very radical provision. there is a new sentence inserted in Section 6 first paragraph – “In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor. The RTC does not entertain complaints filed by the police or the offended party. 451 SCRA 402. release of the accused for that reason will be a futile act as it will be followed by her immediate re- arrest pursuant to the new and valid warrant. Why is this a very radical change? There is no problem with the MTC because you can file directly in the MTC.

(PEOPLE vs. After 5 days. CA. He need not wait for a formal complaint or information to be filed since bail is available to “all persons” where the offense is bailable. CA. How to ask for Preliminary Investigation after inquest and filing of case in court- Note that the SC had ruled that the period of 5 days is NON-EXTENDIBLE – that is absolute. 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a judge could grant bail to a person lawfully arrested but without a warrant. 242 SCRA 645). upon waiver of his right under Art. the bail application should have been filed with a Quezon City court which has the authority to grant bail and not a Marikina court because itv is not the place where is held. 6. 1995 . 242 SCRA 645 March 23. In this case. Venue of the application for bail- While a person lawfully arrested and detained and not yet formally charged can apply for bail. can seek his provisional release through the filing of an application for bail. the application must be filed in the province. you have no more right to ask for a preliminary investigation. Sec. city or municipality where the person arrested is held. Nature of the five-day period People v. May a detained person who is not yet facing any charge in court be granted bail? Held: A person lawfully arrested and detained but who has not yet been formally charged in court.

7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court gives the accused the right to ask for a preliminary investigation but it does not give him the right to do so after the lapse of the 5-day period. Sec.Issue: May a motion for “reinvestigation” be filed beyond the 5-day period from the time accused learns of the filing of the information against him? Held: The period for filing a motion for preliminary investigation after an information has been filed against an accused who was arrested without a warrant has been characterized as mandatory by the Court. This is in accord with the intent of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to make preliminary investigation simple and speedy. WHEN A SEARCH WARRANT IS ISSUED AND IMPLEMENTED crime or offense committed Filing of Application for Search Warrant Personal Examination to Determine Probable Cause Issuance and Implementation Of Search Warrant .

2. 2. Definition and Elements of a Search Warrant 1. Directed to a peace officer 5. Art. Commanding him to 1. and. search for personal property described therein.(See Sec. Signed by a judge. Issued in the name of the People of the Philippines. bring it before the court The purpose is to gather evidence. Motion to Quash Arrest of Owner If there is no Arrest Search Warrant Custodial Investigation Direct Filing Filing for PI Inquest General rule and exception Generally. and 4. III of the Constitution) a. 2. It is an order in writing. . peace officers are not allowed to conduct search and seizure if they have no search warrant. 3.

2. Where an Application for Search Warrant may be Filed 1.SEC. 3. any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known. dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms. filing in such courts requires compelling reasons stated in the application. The Presidential Anti- . or 2.any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced Note: In both exceptions. illegal gambling. 99-10- 09-SC dated January 25. in cases involving heinous crimes. Qualification – if the criminal action has already been filed: the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. 2000. before: 1. Under the aforementioned issuance the following are authorized to act on all applications for search warrants involving any of the above crimes: The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City filed by the PNP. General Rule: Before any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed 2. NBI. Exception – for compelling reasons stated in the application. Search warrants involving heinous crimes and others The above rules in Section 2 have been deemed modified in AM No. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed.

158467. The SC observed that the cases against petitioners involved a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law of 1972 (RA 6425). 2009 The petitioners filed a motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress the evidence illegally seized. 99-10-09-SC. which is a court outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the courts of Angeles City and Porac.Organized Task Force and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force with the said courts. October 16. The Court likewise held that as to the claim that the application was defective for not having been personally endorsed by the head of the NBI. as long as it is not inconsistent with law. It was contended among others. GR No. Ex-parte application for a search warrant . Marimla v. The applications shall be personally endorsed by the heads of said agencies. People. Case: Sps. Pampanga where the alleged crime was committed. under Section 31. for the search of places to be particularly described therein. the Court held that nothing in said memorandum prohibits the head of the NBI and of the other law enforcement agencies mentioned from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing the application to their assistant heads. Chapter 6 of the Administrative Code of 1987. It was also argued that the application for search warrant was not personally endorsed by the head of the NBI as required by AM No. xxx. the application for search may be filed by the NBI in the City of Manila pursuant to said memorandum. As such. Besides. and the seizure of property or things as prescribed in the Rules of Court. that the application for search warrant was filed and the warrant issued by the RTC Manila. an assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau may perform such duties as may be specified by their superior or head.

Corp. vs. Further. Inc. Fernandez. vs. Pacific Industrial Trdg. After the judge has issued a warrant he is not precluded to subsequently quash the same. (Chemise Lacoste S. Authority to Issue and scope of search warrant Court with power to issue Kenneth Roy v. 214 Phil. 113-95 merely specified which court could try and decide cases involving intellectual property rights. Jurisdiction is conferred upon courts by substantive law. 331 SCRA 697. only for initiatory pleadings. AO No. Pryce Gases Inc. not by administrative order.R. May 11. Estela Tuan. 332. Nov. People vs. No. if he finds upon re-evaluation of the evidence that no probable cause exists. Aug. The authority to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts and may be effected outside their territorial jurisdiction. 23. Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to the testimonies under oath of the complainant and the witnesses. A search warrant is merely a process issued by the court in the exercise of its ancilliary jurisdiction and not a criminal action which it may entertain pursuant to its original jurisdiction. 2007). 165122. 30.An application for a search warrant is heard ex-parte. 2010) . It is neither a trial nor a part of the trial. 11. GR No.A. Power to quash warrant Inherent in the court’s power to issue search warrants is the power to quash warrants already issued. 2006. Taypin. It did not vest exclusive jurisdiction with regard to all matters in any one court. a certificate of non-forum shopping is not required for applications. Action on these applications must be expedited for time is of the essence. (Skechers USA. 176066. GR 164321 Nov. G.. Santos vs. 2000 Held: Yes.

Achacoso. time and place necessitating and justifying the filing of an application for a search warrant with a court other than the court having territorial jurisdiction over the place to be searched and things to be seized or where the materials are found is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court where the application is filed. (2a) As a rule only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by the authorities. 2004 Held: Yes. Chiu. (i.Non-judicial search warrants prohibited- Salazar v. By the . The determination of the existence of compelling considerations of urgency. Personal property to be seized. Nunez (GR No. or (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. 42 specifically authorized the taking of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and paraphernalia(s) only. and the subject. 183 SCRA 145. 3. March 14.e. SEC. February 27. 1990 Place of application/Presence of compelling reason People v. June 30. 424 SCRA 72. – A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property: (a) Subject of the offense. illegal drugs) (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds. 2009) Search Warrant No. People vs. or fruits of the offense. 177148.

– 1. unless there be something in the context of the statement which would repel such inference. 4. jigsaw. There must be an application in writing under oath. SEC. the generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar nature with those particularly enumerated. component. The Court also declared: “The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to be taken to those. hammer. cash. where a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character. Requisites for issuing search warrant. the lady’s wallet. and only those particularly described in the search warrant – to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. and bolo were not encompassed by the word paraphernalia as they bear no relation to the use or manufacture of drugs. to be determined by the judge personally 2. 4. There must be probable cause: 1. drill. Thus. saws. electric tester. Certainly. 2. speakers. electric planer. It can only be issued in connection with one specific offense. camera. said search and seizure is absolutely impermissible. It must particularly describe: .principle of ejusdem generis. grinder. In seizing the said items then. After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce 3. the police officers exercised their own discretion and determined for themselves which items in appellant’s residence they believed were “proceeds of the crime” or “means of committing the offense”. the Court explained.

489 SCRA 445) Basis of Probable Cause. There must be probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce Meaning of Probable Cause as to issuance of a search warrant Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. the place to be searched which may be anywhere in the Philippines. Dayrit 180 SCRA 89). and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.(Prudente v. Personal Knowledge This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the . and 2. Lanzanas. 1. the objects to be seized There must be an application which must be under oath and based on the personal knowledge of the applicant or witness he may produce There must be an affidavit in support of the application. and not based on mere hearsay. in order to convince the judge. (Kho v. The affidavit must be based on the personal knowledge of the affiant.

People v. supra.(Alvarez v. Chief of Staff. and 2. 33. omitting any mention of ‘applications’. 133 SCRA 815) Meaning of knowledge. CFI. 5 Duty of a Judge before issuing a Warrant 1. the complainant. vs. (Kenneth Roy savage/K Angelin Export Trading vs. Tee 395 SCRA 419) Certification of non-forum shopping not required The absence of a certificate of non-forum shopping in the application for search warrant will not result in the dismissal of the application. The examination must be: 1. The Rules of Court as amended requires such certification only from initiatory pleadings.issuance of the warrant. Burgos v. cf Washington Distillers. test is liability for perjury The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage caused. 64 Phil. CFI of Tayabas. (Alvarez v. in the form of searching questions and answers. the witnesses the complainant may produce 2. Taypin supra. of the existence of probable cause. 260 SCRA 821 [1996]) Sec. Inc. He must personally examine: 1. CA. .

However. The following must be attached to the record 1. November 16. Records of deposition/What is important is evidence showing that the deposition did take place not the attachment of said deposition in the record People v. Searching questions explained Pendon v. notes of the proceedings were apparently taken by the Clerk of Court. 2. 2. under oath. 191 SCRA 429. In the letter of transmittal of the . 3. in writing. January 20. not merely routinary or pro forma. 1990 Answer: The examination must be probing and exhaustive. 2. 395 SCRA 419. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. CA. The affidavits they submitted Cases: 1. The sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses. 2003 Facts: No transcript of the depositions of the witnesses were attached to the records of the Search Warrant. and 4. if the claimed probable cause is to be established. Tee. on facts personally known to them 4.

the clerk of court of the issuing RTC Branch testified that the available records the court possessed do not include the transcript of the searching questions and answers made by the judge in connection with the application. Hence. mention is made of “notes” at “pages 7-11. No presumption of regularity can be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify it. for as long as there is evidence on the record showing what testimony was presented. 420 SCRA 622.” though said notes could not be found in the records. Held: Since the clerk of court could not produce the sworn statements showing that the judge examined them in the form of searching questions and answers. But the purpose of the Rules in requiring depositions to be taken is to satisfy the examining magistrate as to the existence of probable cause.Clerk of Court. . said omission is not necessarily fatal. The depositions of the witnesses were not attached to the Search Warrant as required by the Rules of Court. January 22. The Bill of Rights does not make it an imperative necessity that depositions be attached to the records of an application for a search warrant. People v. Issue: Is the warrant valid? Held: Yes. the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record. Mamaril. 2004 Facts: During the trial of accused for possession of marijuana which was seized by virtue of a search warrant.

Difference between Pp v Tee and Pp v. Mamaril-

In the first, it was shown that there was deposition taken of the testimonies
of the applicant or witnesses but not attached; while in the second, there
was no taking of the testimony or examination.

Insufficiency of Affidavits

Mere affidavits of the complainant and his/her witnesses are not
sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and to attach them to the
record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be
able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable
cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it, if it will be found later
that his/her declarations are false.(Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388)

Case:

Prudente v. Dayrit 180 SCRA 69

In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw stated
that ―he has been informed that Nemesio Prudente ―has in his control
and possession the firearms and explosives described therein, and that he
―has verified the report and found it to be a fact. On the other hand, in his
supporting deposition, P/Lt. Florencio C. Angeles declared that, as a result
of their continuous surveillance for several days, they gathered information
from verified sources that the holders of the said firearms and explosives
are not licensed to possess them. In other words, the applicant and his
witness had no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances which
became the basis for issuing the questioned search warrant, but acquired

knowledge thereof only through information from other sources or
persons.

While it is true that in his application for search warrant, applicant
P/Major Dimagmaliw stated that he verified the information he had earlier
received that petitioner had, in his possession and custody, the firearms and
explosives described in the application, and that he found it to be a fact, yet
there is nothing in the record to show or indicate how and when said
applicant verified the earlier information acquired by him as to justify his
conclusion that he found such information to be a fact. He might have
clarified this point if there had been searching questions and answers, but
there were none. In fact, the records yield no questions and answers,
whether searching or not, vis-à-vis the said applicant.

What the records show is the deposition of witness, P/Lt. Angeles, as
the only support to P/Major Dimagmaliw’s application, and the said
deposition is based on hearsay. For it avers that they (presumably, the
police authorities) had conducted continuous surveillance for several days
of the suspected premises and, as a result thereof, they ―gathered
information from verified sources‖ that the holders of the subject firearms
and explosives are not licensed to possess them.

Factor that may be considered in the determination of probable cause-

Time of making the affidavit or application in relation to time of
observation of alleged offense and issuance of the warrant-

The Supreme Court observed:

(2) Such statement as to the time of the alleged offense must be clear
and definite and must not be too remote from the time of the making of
the affidavit and issuance of the search warrant.

(3) There is no rigid rule for determining whether the stated time of
observation of the offense is too remote from the time when the affidavit is
made or the search warrant issued but, generally speaking, a lapse of time
of less than three weeks will be held not to invalidate the search warrant,
while a lapse of four weeks will be held to be so.

A good and practical rule of thumb to measure the nearness of time
given in the affidavit as to the date of the alleged offense, and the time of
making the affidavit is thus expressed: The nearer the time at which the
observation of the offense is alleged to have been made, the more
reasonable the conclusion of establishment of probable cause.(Asian
Surety and Insurance Co. v. Herrera 54 SCRA 312)

Effect of lack of probable cause

People v. Salanguit, 356 SCRA 683, April 19, 2001

Facts:

The Search Warrant issued by the judge states:

“It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after
examining under oath SR. INSP. Rodolfo Aguilar, PNP and his witness SPO1
Edmund Badua, PNP, that there is probable cause to believe that Robert
Salanguit has in his possession and control in his premises Binhagan St., San
Jose, Quezon City as shown in Annex “A”, the properties to wit:
UNDETERMINED QUANTITY OF SHABU AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.”

Issue:

Considering that during the deposition-taking, no witness testified on
anything about drug paraphernalia, should the warrant be nullified for
having been issued without probable cause?

Held:

No. It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which was
issued on probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized
on the basis thereof, is to be invalidated in toto because the judge erred in
authorizing a search for other items not supported by the evidence.

Probable cause to arrest and probable cause to search

Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 65 further explained, thus:

“.... each requires a showing of probabilities as to somewhat different facts
and circumstances, and thus one can exist without the other. In search
cases, two conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence; that the
items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected to criminal
activity, and that the items will be found in the place to be searched. It is
not also necessary that a particular person be implicated. By comparison, in
arrest cases there must be probable cause that a crime was committed
and that the person to be arrested has committed it, which of course can
exist without any showing that evidence of the crime will be found at the
premises under person’s control. Worthy of note, our Rules of Court do not
provide for a similar procedure to be followed in the issuance of a warrant of
arrest and search warrants....”

Requisite of particular description of the place or the person to be
searched and the things to be seized-

Reason for required particularity in the description

It is essential, that it particularly describes the place to be searched,
the manifest intention being that the search be confined strictly to the place

also described. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra; Garaygay v. People, 335 SCRA
272). In other words, the prevent the searching officer from exercising his
discretion on where and what to search.

Particularity of description when warrant is directed against a person-

What is important is the description sufficient to identify the subject; The
name is important because it is the best description to identify; but even
if name is erroneous or name is unknown, there must be sufficient
description.

The standard for determining the legality of a warrant directed against a
person is whether the person has been sufficiently described with
particularity sufficient to identify him with reasonable certainty. Even if
the name is unknown or erroneously written, the description of the
person with certainty to identify him and set him apart from others is
enough to lend validity to the warrant (US v Ferrone, 438 F. 2d 381, 3d Cir.
1971). Nowhere in Section 4, Rule 126 or any other provision of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure is it required that the search warrant must
name the person who occupies the described premises. (Quelnan vs.
People, 526 SCRA 653, July 6, 2007).

The failure to correctly state in the search warrant the first name of accused
does not invalidate the warrant provided there is additional description that
would sufficiently enable the police officers to locate the petitioner. What is
prohibited is a warrant against an unnamed party, and not one which
contains a description personae that will enable the officer to identify the
accused without difficulty. (Nala vs. Barroso, Jr., GR 153087, Aug.7, 2003)

If name is not known, then a fictitious name should be used coupled with
sufficient description of the person.

John Doe warrant

A John Doe warrant which does not name the person subject of the same, is
the exception rather than the rule. Hence, in one case a warrant was voided
to the extent that it was issued against fifty (50) John Does none of which
could be identified by the witnesses (Pangandaman vs. Casar, 159 SCRA
599).

While the rule requires it necessary to express the name or give some
description of a party subject of the warrant, the principle does not prevent
the issue and service of a warrant against a party whose name is unknown.
In such a case, the best possible description of the person is to be given in
the warrant; but it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be
served, by stating his occupation, his personal appearance and
peculiarities, the place of his residence or other circumstances by which he
can be identified. The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the
proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served.

2. Particularity of description when subject of search is a place only and
not for a person- Description of the place is vital not description of the
occupant

Where the search warrant is issued for the search of a specifically described
premises only and not for the search of a person, the failure to name the
owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and search warrant
does not invalidate the warrant; where the name of the owner of the
premises sought to be searched is incorrectly inserted in the warrant, it is
not a fatal defect if the legal description of the premises to be searched is
otherwise correct so that no discretion is left to the officer making the

supra) or 2) When the description expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure. Al-Ghoul v. Dissent of J. Sec. ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. 2007). R 126. supra.(Rules of Court.(People v. with reasonable effort. 166061. Any designation or description that points out the place to the exclusion of all others.(Id. Particularity of description of things to be seized- Tests to Determine Particularity A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized: 1) When the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. Rubio. July 6. 3. and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it. Abad Santos) or 3) When the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. (Quenlan vs. People. GR No. satisfies the constitutional requirement. CA. 2). Rule on sufficiency of the description of the place- The long standing rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can.search as to the place to be searched. .

411 SCRA 81. to prove the said offense. In seizing the said items then. (Uy and Unifish Packing Corp. Seizure of objects not described in the warrant People v. other than those articles. June 19. and only . the police officers were exercising their own discretion and determining for themselves which items in appellant’s residence they believed were “proceeds of the crime” or “means of committing the offense. may the police also seize money as well as a car which. Thus. September 12. they believe to be “proceeds of the crime” or “means of committing the offense”? Answer: No. The constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to be seized to those. 2003 Question: In the execution of a search warrant for the seizure of Dangerous Drugs. v. if the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense committed. Go.R. Ownership of property seized not required. 344 SCRA 36). People. 2007). No. only control and possession- The law does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. BIR. 168306. and the articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence. It is sufficient that the person against whom the swarrant is directed has control and possession of the property sought to be seized (Yao v.” This is absolutely impermissible. G. though not described in the warrant. the applicant must necessarily have some evidence.

bankbooks. checks. 411 SCRA 81. one requisite is that it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime. Under the plain view doctrine. 2003 Facts: In the execution of a search warrant for the seizure of Dangerous Drugs. Rather. Note: Money and car are not illegal per se hence. it is readily apparent that the seizure of the items does not fall within the “plain view” exception.those. check writer. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The illegal character of the objects was not immediately apparent. passports. Go. the suspicions of the policemen appear to have been aroused by the presence of the numerous passports and immigration documents which they discovered in the course of their search. dry seals and stamp pads as “seizure of evidence in plain view. the police also seized assorted documents. After they confirmed that accused was not operating a travel agency. typewriter.” Issue: Can the seizure be justified under the plain view doctrine? Held: No. Measured against this standard. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. September 12. particularly described in the search warrant – to leave the officers of law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. the seizure cannot also be justified under warrantless search of evidence in plain view. People v. they concluded that his possession of said documents and .

Tariff and Customs Laws. to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws. for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. (Stonehill v. violating a given provision of our criminal laws. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. April 14. One-Offense Rule a. 20 SCRA 383) Cases: 6. Warrant for three (3) offenses Vallejo v. Tariff and Customs Laws. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause. Specific offense must be charged and not violations of codes Indeed. CA.passports was illegal even though they could not identify the alleged law supposedly violated." In other words. no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. or committed specific omissions. of the highest order. It would be a legal heresy." — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate provision of said laws or codes. As a matter of fact. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. 2004 Facts: . The search warrant shall be issued in connection with but one offense. Diokno. the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical persons therein named had committed a "violation of Central Bank Laws. the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. 427 SCRA 658. As a consequence.

. RPC. Issue: Considering that there are as many offenses of infringement as there are rights protected in the various movie titles involved. Alibagu. 171. Ilagan. 3019 (Anti- Graft) has been committed or is about to be committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that the Registry of Deeds. Provincial Capitol. 49 directed the seizure. The opening statement of Search Warrant No.A. . Article 213. Revised Penal Code.D.D. 1996 Facts: The search warrant issued for violation of P. does the warrant violate the rule that a search warrant must be issued only in connection with one specific offense? Held: No. Isabela has in its possession and control. 56. CA. among others.. and R. 261 SCRA 144. 2000-03 reads: “It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath NBI Head Agent Franklin M. The search warrant itself indicates it was issued for violation of Sec. The specifications therein merely refer to the titles of the copyrighted motion pictures belonging to Columbia which defendants were in possession for sale or lease in violation of P. Javier and his witness that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Falsification of Land Titles under Art.” Several counts of the same offense Columbia Pictures v. That there were several counts of the offense of copyright infringement and the search warrant uncovered several contraband items in the form of pirated video tapes is not to be confused with the number of offenses charged. 49 only. August 28.D. of pirated video-tapes. P. 49.

These containers must give way to the interest in the prompt and efficient completion of the task when a legitimate search is underway and when its purpose and limits have been precisely defined. In other words. every part of that vehicle which may contain the object to be seized may be searched.Ct. If the warrant is to search a vehicle. Ross. It refers also to the reasonableness of the manner the warrant was executed including the time and place of its execution. 456 US 798). Extent of the search It is also required for a search to be reasonable that the object of the search must be the one properly described in the warrant. A warrant which authorizes the search of weapons includes the authority to open closets. 275 US 192..Implementation/Enforcement of a Search Warrant Jurisprudence discloses that the reasonableness of both the seizure and the search does not exclusively refer to the manner by which the warrant was procured. It is neither fair nor licit to allow officers to search a place not described in the warrant because the place not described is what the officers had in mind (People v. the lawful search of the premises particularly described extends to the areas in which the object may be found (US v. 48 S. found that a search warrant describing only intoxicating liquors should not include ledgers and bills of account within the searched premises. chests and containers in which the weapons might be found. . drawers. Where the warrant is clear and limited only to a particular place like a store described in the warrant the search does not extend to the apartment units located at the back of the store even if the sketch submitted to the judge indlude the apartments. US. 291 SCRA 400). in holding that officers cannot seize property not specified in the warrant. 1927. Marron v. CA.

to minimize risks to the officer and destruction of the evidence. 2d 1020.It has been held that when a search warrant authorizes the search of a place particularly described. Illinois (444 US 85. 8th Cir. 2d 238 1979). The search of narcotics often result to violence . 2d 1255. 756 F. 602 P. 2d 600 7th Cir. Search of third persons not named in the warrant A search warrant for a place of a named owner is being executed and you just happened to be in the premises searched. 100 S. 1985). Thus. the US Supreme Court struck down as invalid a search of a mere patron in a bar. Alaska 1979). can you be also searched? The prevailing American general rule is that a warrant to search a place does not extend to the authority to search all persons in the place because the police have no probable cause to search and detain a person not particularized in the warrant. 1969). Meyer. Courts have also generally allowed a search of vehicles owned or controlled by the owner of the premises and at the same time found in the premises (US v. There have been cases where the Court upheld the search of things belonging to third persons while in the place validly searched as when the officers had no knowledge that the same belongs to a third person (Carman v. 417 F. Ct. Some cases authorized the temporary detention of a person in the premises searched while the search was underway to prevent flight if incriminating evidence is found. Ed. a justified search would include all the things attached to or annexed to the land if the place described be land (US v. 338 62 L. Percival.. More leeway has also been allowed in searches of contraband like narcotics. State. in Ybarra v.

An officer should knock. and 2. Right to break door or window to effect search. himself. The officer gives notice of his purpose and authority. Cases: . 143 L. He is refused admittance to the place of directed search 2. Right to Break Door or Window 1. 526 US 603. Authorized acts upon breaking in: 1. The officer may execute the warrant. SEC.and a scrambling for the destruction or concealment of incriminating evidence. or 2. or 2. any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein Being armed with a warrant does not justify outright entry or barging into the place to be searched. He may liberate: 1. Ed. Requisites for an officer to break open any outer or inner door or window of a house: 1. 1692 1926). Ct. 2d 818 119 S. The “Knock and announce” principle. introduce himself and announce his purpose and only in exceptional cases may he forego the same like when his safety is in danger of being jeopardized or when evidence is about to be destroyed (Wilson v. Layne. 7.

When to break door or window People v. would be dangerous or futile. allowing the destruction of evidence. or 2. or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses in the absence of occupant. 439 SCRA 350. Huang Zhen Hua. under the particular circumstances.1. Search of house. removing a prop to or pushing open a closed door of entrance to the house. turning a door knob. 2004 Question: When may the authorities armed with a search warrant break open any door and enter without first knocking or announcing their presence? Answer: In order to justify a “no-knock” entry. In their absence – [2] witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality Cases: . This standard – as opposed to a probable-cause requirement—strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual privacy interest affected by no-knock entries. room. or 3. SEC. even a closed screen door. What constitutes breaking includes the lifting of a latch. Who must be Present during a Search 1. the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence. or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by. 8. room or premises. for example. September 29. unlocking a chain or hasp. The lawful occupant of the house. Any member of his family.

whereby the witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises. del Castillo. Presence of occupants People v. they were not allowed to actually witness the search of the premises. They should be the ones that should have accompanied the policemen while the search was being done and not substituted by the barangay tanods in their stead. 2004 Facts: When the police searched the house. Issue: Was there sufficient compliance with Sec. NBI. Time of making search. were accompanied by barangay tanods who acted as witnesses when the search was going on in the upper and lower portions of the house. 162 SCRA 467 SEC. 9.1. The police. QUINTERO vs. however. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court? Held: No. violates both the spirit and the letter of the law. The search of the house must be done in the presence of the lawful occupants and it is only in the absence of the former that 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality may be called upon to witness the search. Such a procedure. unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person . September 30. While accused and the other occupants of the house were present during the search. they ordered the occupants to remain seated in the sala. 439 SCRA 601. 8. – The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time.

257 SCRA 430 [1996] FACTS: On April 3. After 10 days from its date. as a rule- MUSTANG LUMBER. Validity of search warrant. (8) Does the validity of a search warrant prescribe? SEC. vs. Multiple service of warrant not allowed. But a search warrant. Thereafter. If you cannot arrest. it shall be void. . You can use it once for 10 days. Under Rule 113. It is only a directive that you will enforce it within 10 days. But it does not mean you can use it everyday or for the next 10 days. Compare that with the lifetime of a warrant of arrest under Section 4 of Rule 113. Not being able to complete the search on said date it was continued the next day. 10. in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. 1990. the 10-day period does not mean to say that the warrant of arrest is only good for 10 days. keep it and try to arrest the accused in the future. COURT OF APPEALS. (9a) Warrant of search v. is different.or in the place ordered to be searched. – A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. warrant of arrest re lifetime- A search warrant has a lifetime only of ten (10) days. it shall be void. a search warrant was issued and a team of DENR operatives searched the premises of Mustang Lumber in Valenzuela Metro Manila on the same date. INC. Does this mean to say that you can use a search warrant everyday for 10 days? NO.

1990 done under and by virtue of the search warrant issued on April 3. The receipt: 1. and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in one day. in the presence of at least 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality Cases: 1. 1988 Issue: . the same may be continued under the same warrant the following day. Rule 126 of) the Rules of Court. or 2. 11.1990. He must give a detailed receipt for the property seized 2.1990 was a continuation of the search on April 3. Hence. Receipt for the property seized. must be given to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made.Is the search on April 4 a warrantless search? HELD: “We also affirm the rulings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the search on April 4.” Duties of the Searching Officer/s after enforcement of the warrant SEC. Witness to the receipt Quintero v. June 23. must be left in the place in which the seized property is found. NBI. in the absence of such occupant. Obligation of Officer Seizing Property under a Warrant 1. it could be served at any time within the said period. a search warrant has a lifetime of ten days. Under (section 9. provided it is still within the ten day period. 162 SCRA 469.

is the receipt admissible in evidence? Held: No. It is the police officers who confiscated the same who should have signed such receipts. 11. 439 SCRA 601. No doubt this is a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to remain silent . del Castillo. when the one who attested to the receipt from the raiding party was himself a member of the raiding party. The receipt issued by the seizing party in the case at bar showed that it was signed by a witness. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. may a member of the searching party sign the receipt? Held: No. Sgt. Issue: Considering that accused was not assisted by counsel. Indeed it is unusual for accused to be made to sign receipts for what were taken from him. Where the occupants of the place to be searched were not actually present during the search. 2004 Facts: After the house where accused stayed was searched by virtue of a warrant. This requirement of the Rules was rendered nugatory. Ignacio Veracruz. September 30. who accompanied the agents of NBI during the conduct of the search. The procedure is irregular for failure to comply with Sec. Accused was the victim of a clever ruse to make him sign the alleged receipt which in effect is an extra-judicial confession of the commission of the offense. Signing of receipt by accused People v. This person was a policeman from the Manila Metropolitan Police. which included a quantity of “shabu”. the police asked her to sign an inventory of the articles seized.

the property seized. 2. together with a true inventory duly verified under oath. if the return has been made – the judge shall: 1. 2. He shall file and keep the return of the search warrant. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath 2. ascertain whether a receipt has been issued for the items seized [Sec. return and proceedings thereon. require that the property seized be delivered to him. After Seizure – the officer must forthwith deliver to the judge who issued the warrant: 1. if no return has been made – the judge shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why 2. see to it that the property seized. Duties after Issuance of Warrant 1. Duty of the judge after issuance of search warrant – 10 days after issuance of the search warrant. SEC. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. 2. Such a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in evidence.whereby he was made to admit the commission of the offense without informing him of his right. be delivered to him 3. 12. 11]. and 3. he shall ascertain if the return has been made: 1. He shall enter in the log book: . Duty of the custodian of the log book on search warrants: 1.

Trial courts are known to take judicial notice of the practice of the police in retaining possession of confiscated specimens suspected of being marijuana by immediately forwarding them to the NBI for examination before filing a case with the city prosecutor’s office. del Castillo. Speculations as to the probability of tampering with the evidence cannot then be avoided. they delivered it to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. the result. 2004 Facts: After the police officers seized the “shabu” by virtue of a search warrant. 2. and 3. . 12: It shall constitute contempt of court Cases: 1. other actions of the judge 4. Issue: Is the procedure proper? Held: No. Custody of issuing court People v. 439 SCRA 601. 1. instead of the court issuing the search warrant. This violates the mandatory requirements of the law and defeats the very purpose for which they were enacted. Consequence of violation of Sec. the date of return. September 30. The mere tolerance by trial courts of such a practice does not make it right.

The case of Yee Sue Koy vs. And there was really a raid and so many bottles where taken from the premises of Washington Distillers.” Thus. their products are spirits and wine. vs. the police officers have no authority to retain possession of the marijuana and more so. the bottles that Washington Distillers uses for their products are actually La Tondeña bottles. In said decision. One of the issues here is whether you can still claim the bottles. approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary for the retention of the property seized by the police officers. . COURT OF APPEALS 260 SCRA 821 [1996] FACTS: This involves a controversy between Washington Distillers and La Tondeña Distillers. Almeda (70 Phil 141) is cited to justify retention by the police and the NBI of the custody of the allegedly confiscated specimens. All those bottles were turned over to La Tondeña. They buy empty bottles. like the NBI. Absent such approval. WASHINGTON DISTILLERS INC. Obviously. clean them. According to La Tondeña Distillers. and use them to serve their products. the SC also held that it was “for the reason that the custody of said agents is the custody of the issuing officer or court. the SC recognized the fact that the objects seized were retained by the agents of the Anti-Usury Board. the retention having been approved by the latter. So La Tondeña decided to apply for a search warrant to raid the premises of Washington Distillers to recover all these bottles. to deliver the property to another agency. and only then will their custody be considered custody of the court. considering that they have been paid for when bought by customers. La Tondeña complained because those are their bottles. instead of being turned over to the Justice of the Peace. However.

as a means of acquiring property or of settling a dispute over the same. the La Tondeña should file action for interpleader to determine who really owns the bottles. but it does not have the same effect as a writ of replevin. HELD: Washington Distillers was sustained. But you cannot use a mere search warrant to resolve the issue of ownership. 2001 Question: In what instances may a valid search without a warrant be conducted? Answer: The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions. as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Sec. “A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal action. It is a special criminal process. It cannot therefore be resorted to. as was done here by La Tondeña Distillers. assuming the role of a stakeholder. The proper remedy is for private respondent or for the Government itself. the order of issuance of which cannot and does not adjudicate the permanent status or character of the seized property. September 12. A search warrant is only to get the property. 12. much less a civil action. If the issue is ownership there should be another case for replevin.Now. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence.if the bottles are in the possession of the government. Washington Distillers questioned the act of turning over the bottles to La Tondeña questioning the ownership of said bottles. Gonzales. 365 SCRA 17. Or. (2) seizure .” WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE Valid warrantless searches People v. to bring the appropriate action.

Stop and Frisk Situation. Consented search. What may be done to a person lawfully arrested: He may be searched without a search warrant 2. constitute proof in the commission of an offense . Search of vessels and aircrafts. Search incidental to a valid arrest 2. 6. Search incident to lawful arrest. 13. sanitary and building regulations. (3) search of a moving vehicle. (Valeroso v. Evidence in plain view. Dangerous weapons. 4. 5. 3. Anything which may have been used or 3. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire. GR No.of evidence in plain view. 7. INSTANCES OF VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH 1. What he may be searched for or scope of the search: 1. (6) stop and frisk. and 9. Customs searches. 2009) SEC. 3. CA. (5) customs search. Sept. and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest 1. 164815. Exigent searches or searches during emergency circumstances 8. Search of moving vehicles. or 2. (4) consented warrantless search.

February 4.must be contemporaneous to the lawful arrest or the search must be conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter. To prevent the destruction of evidence. 396 SCRA 657. and 2. b. The search is contemporaneous to the arrest. c. It is within the permissible area No valid arrest means no valid search and seizure. Time. The arrest is valid. Factors to be taken into consideration: a. and c. Chua. To protect the arresting officer from physical harm Requisites: a. 2003 Facts: . b. Place – at the place of arrest General rule: Valid arrest must precede the search People v.2 reasons for allowing the warrantless search: 1. Subject and scope of search – the person of the suspect and the premises within his/her immediate control and the things to be seized are limited to “dangerous weapons” or “anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense”.

In this case. accused was first arrested before he was searched and the alleged illegal items found in his possession. Nevertheless. then alighted carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box. In this case. Exception Recent Court pronouncements hold that in searches incident to a lawful arrest. absent any act of a felonious enterprise. For this exception to apply. In “in flagrante delicto” arrests. is actually committing or about to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting officers. a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make . generally the process cannot be reversed. Similarly. policemen received a report that accused was about to deliver drugs that night at Thunder Inn Hotel in Angeles City. At 11:45 that evening. the arrest must precede the search. Immediately.22 caliber firearm. For the exception to apply. in the presence of the arresting officer. the police sent a team to the place. is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that could justify the arrest. there must be a lawful arrest which can only occur if the person to be arrested has committed. Issue: Was there a warrantless valid search and seizure? Held: No. there was no valid “stop-and-frisk”search. “reliable information” alone. The police accosted him. the search and seizure must precede the arrest. there was no overt manifestation that accused was committing a crime. At 10:00 o’clock in the evening. The box accused carried contained 2 small transparent plastic bags with almost 2 kilos of “shabu” and bullets for . The search does not fall under the “search incident to a lawful arrest” exception. accused arrived and parked his car near the entrance of the hotel.

even without a warrant. 186529. Racho. ruled on several occasions that: “x x x When an arrest is made. The rule requires. is actually committing. GR No. Thus. we have to determine first whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest appellant. it becomes both the duty and the right of the arresting officer to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect but also within the permissible are within the latter’s reach x x x a vaild arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. August 3. The phrase “within the area of his immediate control” means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. 2010). In addition. that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed. The long standing rule in this jurisdiction is that “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. There is no cogent reason to depart from this well- established doctrine (People vs. Scope of the search The Court has however. was the tip given by the informant that appellant would arrive carrying shabu this circumstance gives rise to another question of whether that information. Moreover. and the arrest itself frustrated. in addition.the arrest at the outset of the search. it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. by itself. or is attempting to commit an offense. Otherwise. it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. the officer’s safety might well be endangered. A gun on a table or in the drawer in front of the person arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person . If what prompted the police to apprehend the accused. is sufficient probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest. in lawful arrests.

If in the course of the search.. (414 US 260. A search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is not limited to things related to the reason for the arrest. 488. 360 SCRA 690. allowed the search of the cigarette case of a person arrested for traffic violation. 13 of Rule 126 allows the warrantless search of the person “lawfully arrested” as an incident to a lawful arrest in a manner similar to American rulings allowing a full search of the body of the person. jewelry. 38 L. when the person arrested was brought out of the room with his hands tied.arrested x x x” (People v. Sept. 3. watches and others attached to the person in a permanent or semi- permanent capacity. Valeroso v. 1973). 94 S. 467. Ct. like an illegally possessed weapon. the search extends to weapons like a gun or a knife with no actual connection to the crime of illegal possession of the drugs. Illegal drugs were discovered in both instances. Florida. Estella. 2009). Leangsiri. A full search means searching any property associated with the arrestee’s body like clothing. supra). 2d 427 1973) and Gustafson v. People v. To protect the arresting officer. the search is not confined to things used in the commission of the crime. People v. CA GR No. 94 S. If for instance. it is submitted that the phraseology of the rule does not prevent the seizure of the evidence. Ed. 164815. Cubcubin. 2d 456. evidence is found constituting proof of another offense. CA. Jr. This is subject to the condition that it is within the scope or subject of the search as incident to a lawful arrest. Sec. Robinson (414 US 218. a cabinet which is locked could no longer be considered as part of “an area within his immediate control” because there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him (Valeroso v. Ed. The search includes inspecting the clothing of the . Thus. Ct. 38 L. a person is legally arrested for illegal possession of drugs. The cases of US v. 395 SCRA 553. 252 SCRA 213.

the Court held that a law enforcement officer has the authority to stop someone and do a quick surface search of their outer clothing for weapons.person arrested for bloodstains. State. 2d 149 Tex. 544 S. but reasonable belief- The test of the conduct of an officer under similar circumstances.W. 1976) STOP AND FRISK RULE The Terry doctrine is of two parts: the “stop” and the “frisk”. Smith. This is allowed if the officer has a reasonable belief based on a genuine reason and in the light of the officer’s experience and the surrounding circumstances. 1972. Crim. 2d 348 Minn. The test instead was reasonable belief (called a genuine reason in a Philippine decision). 203 N. that a crime has either taken place or is . Test for both the stop and frisk is not existence of probable cause as no full arrest is made. was not the existence of probable cause because no full arrest is made. fingerprints or even serial numbers (State v. Because of the important interest in protecting the safety of police officers. The “frisk” made after the “stop” must be done because of a reasonable belief that the person stopped is in possession of a weapon that will pose a danger to the officer and others. The “frisk” must be a mere pat down outside the person’s outer garment and not unreasonably intrusive. App. Parker v. A valid “stop” by an officer requires that he has a reasonable and articulable belief that criminal activity has happened or is about to happen.W.

A mere deep suspicion by an experienced officer that criminal activity could take place is not sufficient for the application of the Terry doctrine. 182010. No. Dec. 123595.R. under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner.about to take place and the person stopped is armed and dangerous. the police officers were on a surveillance operation as part of their law enforcement efforts . He must support his conclusion by particularizing the acts that led to the conclusion. approach and stop a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause. CA. which underlies the recognition that a police officer may. 12. G. The ruling that probable cause is not required in a stop and frisk situation is Terry’s significant contribution to jurisprudence. August 25. People GR No. and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to frisk to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer” (Malacat v. Illustrations: In Esquillo v. Terry emphasized that a reasonable belief for making a stop must also be followed by a frisk which is equally reasonable which means it should not be broader than is necessary to find weapons in the person briefly stopped. 1997). This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon the officer’s bare suspicion or hunch. Dual purpose of the rule A "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. 2010.

it was instinctive on his part to be drawn to curiosity and to approach her. That petitioner reacted by attempting to flee after he introduced himself as a police officer and inquired about the contents of the plastic sachet all the more pricked his curiosity. Terry Search vs.A Terry stop is not an arrest.when PO1 Cruz saw petitioner placing a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance into her cigarette case. Scope of search.The search is of the person and the area within his control. A Terry search has a limited scope compared to a full scale arrest and search. The Terry doctrine therefore. 283 SCRA 159. CA. they differ in terms of the (1) requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and (2) in their allowable scope (Malacat v. where the person is taken under the custody of the arresting officer. Chua. is not judged by the more stringent requirement of probable cause which concededly applies only to an arrest and a search. Search incident to a lawful arrest Though both result in a warrantless search. A search incident to a lawful arrest presupposes the existence of a probable cause for the arrest. 396 SCRA 660). non-intrusive pat down of one’s outer garments to determine the presence of weapons. It is thus. The Terry doctrine as originally formulated. Given his training as a law enforcement officer. People vs. Required quantum. What applies in a Terry stop and frisk is the reasonableness of . investigative “stop” followed by a surface. any fruit of a crime or of things which may provide the person arrested with the means to escape. does not require a probable cause and the person is not under a full scale arrest but under a mere brief. more intrusive and is conducted not only for the purpose of finding weapons but also for the purpose of searching for evidence.

the act of the officer. 518 SCRA 641. 532 SCRA 152. March 22. As a general rule. such search and seizure constitutes derogation of a constitutional right (Epie. Jr. justifies a terry stop and frisk. Sept. in the vehicle to be searched (ibid). such a warrantless search has been held to be valid as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe prior to the search that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime. otherwise. 2007). it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is . 3. Rather. Probable cause required- When a vehicle is flagged down and subjected to an extensive search. v. 2007). “The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile thus is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. This “reasonable standard” while not sufficient to validate an arrest and search. “It is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought” (People vs. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES This is justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. a search and seizure must be carried through with judicial warrant. Tuazon. Ulat-Marredo.

Ross. Ed. 2157. Probable cause required for the extensive search- . 2172. 456 US 798.probable cause to believe that it may be found. 2d. 572). 102 S. 824. 72 L. Just as probable cause to believe that a stolen lawnmower may be found in a garage will not support a warrant to search an upstairs bedroom. or b) An extensive search Distinction between the stop and the search- Probable cause not required for the “stop” and “visual search”- A stop is proper even if the standards of probable cause are not satisfied as long as it is called for under the balancing of interest principle. is a justification only for a limited search. Checkpoints The “stop and search” without warrant at a military or police checkpoint may either be: a) A mere routine inspection. which may be less intrusive. or the so-called “visual search” but not an extensive search. The “stop” however. probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase.Ct. Probable cause to believe that a container placed in the trunk of a taxi contains contraband or evidence does not justify a search of the entire cab’(US v.

136292. Where the occupants are not subject to a physical or body search. Simply looks into the vehicle. the Supreme Court summarized the instances of routine search. 2. EVIDENCE IN PLAIN VIEW Elements of a valid search of evidence in plain view . 2002. Flashes a light therein without opening the car’s doors.The more intrusive search or an extensive search without warrant may only be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched. 4. The existence of probable cause justifying the warrantless search is determined by the facts of the case. Where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair gounds. January 15. 5. Where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area. (Aniag vs. 3. Barros. thus: 1. Court of Appeals. G. 231 SCRA 557) Instances of routine inspection or search In Caballes vs. (People vs.R. and 6. No. Where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection. Comelec 237 SCRA 424) This is the second aspect of the so-called “stop and search” principle.

Zalameda v. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure and in this regard only probable cause and not absolute certainty is required (People vs. Sept. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime. regardless whether it is evidence of the crime they are investigating or evidence of some other crime because it would be needless to require the police to obtain another warrant. they should not be required to close their eyes to it. 217 SCRA 597.) The fact that the evidence is in plain view is not alone sufficient to justify a warrantless seizure. Under the plain view doctrine. 2009). Musa. 183656. 2. GR No. P/Supt. Inadvertent discovery of the evidence which is in plain view. there is no legitimate expectation of privacy and there is no search within the meaning of the Constitution. Judge Abelita v.. People. American courts which have extensively discussed the principle have held that the seizure be based also on the “immediately apparent” element. “Immediately apparent” requires merely that the seizure be presumptively reasonable assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area. that a nexus exists between a viewed object and criminal activity” (United Laboratories v. August 14. Reason for the rule: The doctrine is a recognition however. and 3. of the fact that when executing police officers come across immediately upon incriminating evidence not covered by the warrant. Isip. 461 SCRA 574). GR No. 170672. 2009. Doria et al. 1. .

2205) and. 3. search and seizure of any vessel. aircraft. 1. Doria. Felimon Abelita. CA. article. animal or other movable property. may at anytime enter. 2009).The “inadvertence” requirement means that the officer must not have known in advance of the location of the evidence and discovery is not anticipated (United Laboratories v. when the same is subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under the Tariff and Customs laws. The plain view doctrine does not therefore apply where the officers did not just accidentally discover the evidence but actually searched for it (Valeroso v. cargo. . Sept. store or other building not being a dwelling house. the customs agents board the vessel to look for smuggled items. (Sec. They can conduct warrantless search for the enforcement of customs laws. Isip. When a vessel arrives from abroad. Tariff and Customs Code authorizes Customs officials to make arrests. 164815. 2209). 2208) A dwelling house may be entered or searched only upon warrant issued by a judge (or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law) upon sworn application showing probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. pass through. 461 SCRA 574. III v. GR No. CUSTOMS SEARCHES Another instance of a valid warrantless search is a search conducted under the customs and tariff code. rules and regulations (Sec. (Sec. or search any land or enclosure or any warehouse. supra).

Arca. package. and search any person on board said vessel or aircraft if underway. 2007) The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein. of the existence of such rights. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. 65 SCRA 336) 4. (People vs. That the right to privacy exists. Elements of a valid waiver or consent: 1. Section 2211. Feb. (Sec. box or envelope on board. search and examine said vessels or aircraft and any trunk. etc. . vs. Should also apply to seizure of fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws. Jr. 3. actual or constructive. 2. the consent must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search. 144 SCRA 01) Totality of circumstances principle to determine if consent is voluntary- Otherwise stated. and to inspect. CONSENTED SEARCH A waiver or consent cannot be presumed simply because the accused failed to object to the search. Nuevas 516 SCRA 463.e.(People vs. 2. 22. (Roldan. the consent is unequivocal. 2210) 3.. The person involved had knowledge. Barros. i. To go aboard any vessel or aircraft within the limits of any collection district.

and intelligently given. 15. The question whether a consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all circumstances. but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. (8) the environment in which the questioning took place. that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given. (7) the nature of the police questioning. (6) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found. Jan. G. 136292.R. (5) the presence of coercive police procedures. and (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. CA. (Caballes vs. (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant. by clear and positive testimony. (3) whether he objected to the search or passively looked on. It is the state which has the burden of proving. Hence. (2) whether he was in a public or secluded location. consent is not to be lightly inferred. No.2002) SEARCHES UNDER EXIGENT/EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES . uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.specific. Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics of the person giving and the environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant.

30. No. People vs. or unnecessary. 1987 Edition p. 91107. Such period is considered as extraordinary circumstance. No. 188 SCRA 288 [1990]. August 20.The last exception to the warrant exception would be searches during exigent or extraordinary circumstances provided probable cause exists. Montilla. Maspil. Criminal Procedure for Law Enforcement Personnel. Among these situations are danger of physical harm to the officer or destruction of evidence. People vs. 1991. Motion to Suppress Evidence 3. Remedy/ies What are the remedies of the person subject of a search warrant? 1.R. 238 SCRA 174. G. G. In that case. People vs. Malmstedt. Certiorari under Rule 65 or 4. 1991. NOTE: This exception is a catch-all category that encompasses a number of diverse situations. Posadas. People vs. No. 1998. useless. Motion to Quash Search Warrant 2. June 19. Del Carmen. Valmonte vs. Rolando V.R. Villa. 85177. January. Just like what happened during the 1987 and 1989 coup where the military made some searches in suspected places.R. March 18. and searches in hot pursuit. 123872. there is no need to obtain search warrants considering that during that time all the courts in Manila were closed because of the coup de etat. Fernandez. Sucro. People vs. danger to a third person.. 93239.R. driving while intoxicated. dangerous. Villa. Objecting to admissibility of evidence during trial . 1990. No. G. 150 (Footnote. G. were upheld in People vs. What they have in common is some kind of emergency that makes obtaining a search warrant impractical. citing Valmonte vs. 182) NOTE: Search based on probable cause under extraordinary circumstances. 178 SCRA 211 [1989].

If a criminal action has already been instituted: it may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted 2. Motion to quash and preliminary investigation .The remedy is a motion to suppress evidence. However. where to file. 2. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence. 14. If no criminal action has been instituted: the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant 3. The manner of serving the warrant and of effecting the search are not an issue to be resolved in a motion to quash the search warrant. Where to file 1. which is limited to the validity of the issuance of the warrant. if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court: the motion shall be resolved by the latter court Limited Scope of Motion to Quash Search Warrant The question of whether there was abuse in the enforcement of the challenged search warrants is not within the scope of a Motion To Quash.SEC. Motion to Quash a Warrant or Suppress Evidence.

Nevertheless. The purpose of the first is to determine whether a warrant should issue or be quashed. Effect on filing of civil case . November 23. in determining probable cause for issuing or quashing a search warrant. Solid Triangle v. The preliminary investigation and the filing of the information may still proceed if. The court does not oblige the investigating officer not to file an information for the court’s ruling that no crime exists is only for purposes of issuing or quashing the warrant. and should be held for trial. 370 SCRA 491. and the second. but such is the inevitable consequence. the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained through an illegal warrant does not necessarily render the preliminary investigation academic.” 3. finds that no offense has been committed. there exists “sufficient ground to engender a well- founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. because of other (admissible) evidence. When the court. whether an information should be filed in court. 2001 Issue: May the court issuing the search warrant quash the same on the ground of lack of probable cause despite the pendency of a preliminary investigation before the prosecutor’s office involving possession of objects which were seized by virtue of the warrant? Held: Yes. It may be true that. Sheriff of RTC. it does not interfere with or encroach upon the proceedings in the preliminary investigation. are proceedings entirely independent of each other. as a result of the quashal of the warrant. the private complainant is deprived of vital evidence to establish his case. The proceedings for the issuance/quashal of a search warrant before a court and the preliminary investigation before an authorized officer.

(Silahis v. 2005 Facts: Where a court quashes a search warrant it previously issued on the ground that there is no probable cause considering that the copyrighted products of the complainant are not original creations. it does not usurp the power of. Petitioners’ violation of individual respondents’ right against unreasonable search furnishes the basis for the award of damages under Art. 163087. 470 SCRA 384. 32 of the NCC. under which not only public officers but also private individuals are civilly liable for violation of the rights enumerated therein. may complainant still file a civil case for infringement of trade mark? Held: Yes. Consequently. 2006). A separate complaint for copyright infringement may still be filed because the order for the quashal of a warrant is not res judicata. much less preclude. Civil liability arising from unreasonable search and seizure The course taken by petitioners and company stinks in illegality. not falling under any of the exceptional instances when a warrantless search is allowed by law. In so doing. GR No. September 20. In the determination of the existence of probable cause for the quashal of a warrant. February 20. the court from making a final judicial determination of the issues in a full-blown trial.Manly Sportswear v. . the court’s finding that the seized products are not copyrightable was merely preliminary as it did not finally and permanently adjudicate on the status and character of the seized items. Dadodette Enterprises. it is inevitable that the court may touch on issues properly threshed out in a regular proceeding. Soluta.

415 SCRA 540. The plea and actual participation of the accused in the trial would not cure the illegality of the search and transform the inadmissible evidence into objects of proof. 1991 Question: When is there waiver of the objections to the validity of the search warrant? Answer: Objections to the legality of the search warrant and to the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby are deemed waived when no objection to the legality of the search warrant is raised during the trial of the case nor to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through said warrant. 193 SCRA 373. People.When to object and Waiver of objections to illegal search Demaisip v. . Pua. The waiver by the accused of his right to question the legality of his arrest does not necessarily carry with it his waiver of the right to question the admissibility of any evidence procured by the police on the occasion of or incidental to his illegal arrest or thereafter. November 11. 2003 Question: Where accused fails to challenge the legality of the arrest before trial. January 25. Effect of failure to object to illegal arrest People v. is he also precluded from questioning the legality of the search? Answer: No.

No. (Valmonte vs. Sept. Villa. Replevin not a remedy to recover items validly seized . 1989). or threatened to be infringed.Question of Standing The Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed.R. 83988. G. 29.