You are on page 1of 16

RULE 117 - MOTION TO QUASH

Section 1. Time to move to quash. At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or
information.

WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED FILE A MOTION TO QUASH?


> At any time before entering the plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information

WHAT IS THE FORM REQUIRED FOR A MOTION TO QUASH?


1. It must be in writing
2. It must be signed by the accused or his counsel
3. It must specify its factual and legal grounds

WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS THAT THE ACCUSED MAY INVOKE TO QUASH A COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION?
1. That the facts charged dont constitute an offense
2. That the court trying the case doesnt have jurisdiction over the offense
3. That the court trying the case doesnt have jurisdiction over the accused
4. That the officer who filed the information didnt have authority to do so
5. That it doesnt conform substantially to the form subscribed
6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by
law
7. That criminal liability or action has been extinguished
8. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification
9. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him has
been dismissed or otherwise terminated without the consent of the accused

CAN THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE BASED ON GROUNDS THAT ARE NOT ALLEGED IN THE MOTION TO
QUASH?
> The general rule is no, the court cannot consider any ground other than those stated in the motion to quash.
> The exception is the lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. If this is the ground for dismissing the case, it need
not be alleged in the motion to quash since it goes into the very competence of the court to pass upon the case.

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE STATEMENT THAT A MOTION TO QUASH HYPOTHETICALLY ADMITS


ALLEGATIONS OF FACT IN THE INFORMATION?
> It means that the accused argues that assuming that the facts charged are true, the information should still be
dismissed based on the ground invoked by the defendant.
> Therefore, since the defendant assumes that the facts in the information are true, only these facts should be
taken into account and the court resolves the motion to quash. Other facts, such as matters of defenses, which are not in
the information should not be considered
> The exceptions to the rule are when the grounds invoked to quash the information are extinction of criminal
liability, prescription, and former jeopardy. In these cases, additional facts are allowed.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE DEFENDANT ENTERS HIS PLEA BEFORE FILING A MOTION TO QUASH?
> By entering his plea before filing the motion to quash, the defendant waives the formal objectives to the
complaint or information
> But if the ground for the motion is any of the following below, there is no waiver. The following grounds
may be raised at any stage of the proceeding:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense
3. Extinction of criminal liability
4. Double jeopardy
> Note: if it is a formal objection, it is deemed waived upon plea
------------------------------
RULE 114 - BAIL
Section 1. Bail defined. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified.
Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.

WHAT IS BAIL?
1. It is the security given
2. For the release of a person in custody of the law
3. Furnished by him or a bondsman
4. To guarantee his appearance before any court as required

WHEN IS THE RIGHT TO BAIL AVAILABLE?


> The right only accrues when a person is arrested or deprived of his liberty
> The right to bail presupposes that the accused is under legal custody
> A court cannot order provisional liberty to one who is then actually in the enjoyment of his liberty
> The right to bail therefore presupposes that the accused should be in custody

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF BAIL?


1. Corporate surety
2. Property bond
3. Cash bond
4. Recognizance

WHAT IS RECOGNIZANCE?
1. Obligation of record
2. Entered before a court or magistrate duly authorized to take it
3. With the condition to do some particular act
4. The most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance of the accused for trial

WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL?


> Presumption of innocence

Conditions And Requirements Of Bail


Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:

(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of
the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was
originally filed in or appealed to it;

(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of these Rules;

(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a
waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and

(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.

The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking and
the conditions required by this section. Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months showing the face,
left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the bail.

WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF THE BAIL?


1. If before conviction, that the defendant shall answer the complaint or information in the court in which it is filed or to
which it may be transferred for trial
2. After conviction, that he will surrender himself in execution of the judgment that the appellate court may render
3. That in case the cause is remanded for new trial, he will appear in court to which it may be remanded and submit
himself to the orders and processes thereof
*For failure to perform any of these conditions, the bond given as security thereof may be forfeited.

CAN THE COURT IMPOSE OTHER CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS ON THE BAIL?


> Yes, the trial court may impose other conditions in granting bail where the likelihood of the accused jumping
bail or of committing other harm to the citizenry is feared.
> The court even has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Phiippines or restrict his right to
travel

DOES AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION ON EXCESSIVE BAIL?


> No because the determination if there is excessive bail would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case
> Bail would still be determined based on the following factors--financial liability of the accused to give
bail; nature and circumstance of the offense; penalty for the offense charged; character and reputation of the
accused; age and health of the accused; weight of the evidence against the accused; probability of the accused
appearing at the trial; forfeiture of other bail; the fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.

Release Or Transfer On Bail


Sec. 3. No release or transfer except on court order or bail. No person under detention by legal process shall
be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to bail.

ARTICLE 3, SECTION 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION:


All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.

WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE REGARDING THE RIGHT TO BAIL?


> As a general rule, before conviction of any criminal offense any person shall be bailable, except when such person
is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong
> From the moment a person is under custody, under arrest or detention or restraint by the officers of the law, he can
claim the

IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT OR OF DISCRETION? WHEN IS IT EITHER?


> Bail is either a matter of right or of discretion
> Upon custody and prior to conviction, it is a MATTER OF RIGHT when the offense charged is not
punishable by death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua
> However, upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua,
bail becomes a MATTER OF DISCRETION NOTA BENE: When bail is a matter of right, the accused may apply for
and be granted bail even prior to arraignment.

Bail As A Matter Of Discretion


Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be
filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted
the original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court conviction the accused changed the
nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the
appellate court.

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the
pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the
bondsman.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his
bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other
similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or (e) That there is
undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.

The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after
notice to the adverse party in either case.

IF THE ACCUSED IS CONVICTED IN THE RTC FOR AN OFFENSE WITH LESS THAN 6 YEARS OF
IMPRISONMENT, IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT OR OF DISCRETION?
> It is matter of discretion
> Bail after conviction in the RTC for an offense not punishable by a
capital punishment is a matter of discretion

IF THE ACCUSED IS CONVICTED IN THE RTC FOR AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE FROM 6 TO 8 YEARS,
IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT OR OF DISCRETION?
> It is neither a matter of right nor a matter of discretion. Why? It should be denied due to the high flight risk.

WHEN CAN THE PROSECUTION MOVE FOR THE CANCELLATION OR DENIAL OF BAIL OF THE
ACCUSED?
> If the penalty imposed by the court is imprisonment for more than 6 years, the prosecution may move for the denial or
cancellation of the bail of the accused, with notice to the accused, upon showing of the following circumstances:

1. That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
2. That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;
3. That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
4. That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
5. That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.

WHEN MAY A PERSON BE NOT ADMITTED TO BAIL?


> When the evidence of guilt is strong, a person shall not be admitted to bail if charged with a capital offense, or
when charged with an offense that under the law is punishable with reclusion
perpetua at the time of the commission of the offense and at the time of application for bail

IF PROSECUTOR REFUSES, WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE USED BY THE COURT?


> If the prosecutor refuses to cooperate, the evidence that should be used by the court is the evidence found in
the information, complaint or even the records of the case or preliminary investigation conducted

CAN THE COURT MOTU PROPIO GRANT BAIL EVEN IF THERE IS NO APPLICATION?
> No.

WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THE JUDGE WHO DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL?


> The order denying bail issued by the judge should contain a summary of the evidence presented and the reason for
the denial, otherwise, it shall be void
> The reason is that there is a need for clear grounds before a person can be denied his liberty
> This is to safeguard the constitutional right to presumption of innocence
IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE ACCUSED WOULD JUMP BAIL, WHAT CAN THE COURT DO?
1. Increase the amount of the bail
2. Require periodic reports of the accused to court
3. Warn the accused that should he jump bail, the trial may proceed in absentia

WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF RESIDUAL POWERS?


> They are powers which the trial court retains even after the perfection of the appeal
> For example: X was charged and convicted with a crime so he filed a notice of appeal. If he wants to put up bail,
where should he file his application? If the records of the case have not been
transmitted to the appellate court, X can file the application with the trial court. However, once the records have been
transmitted to the appellate court, the trial court loses his jurisdiction over the bail application.

IS THE RULE ABSOLUTE?


> No, if the decision of the trial court upgraded the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application should
be filed with and could only be resolved by the appellate court

CAN AN ACCUSED POST BAIL EVEN IF HE HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED IN COURT?
> Yes as long as the accused is under custody of the law

CAN MILITARY MEN POST BAIL?


> No, even if the offense is punishable with prison correctional, military men are not granted bail. They have
access to arms which make them a danger to society. The equal protection clause is not violated since they are
of a different class with a substantial difference from civilians.

Offenses Not Bailable, Bail As A Matter Of Discretion


Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. No
person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall
be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution.

IN AN INFORMATION FILED BEFORE THE RTC, RP WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF PD 1866 FOR
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION TEMPORAL MAXIMUM TO RECLUSION
PERPETUA. PENDING TRIAL, RP WAS RELEASED ON BAIL. THEREAFTER, RP WAS CONVICTED AS CHARGED
AND METED AN INDETERMINATE PENALTY OF 17 YEARS 4 MONTHS AND 1 DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL TO 21
YEARS OF RECLUSION PERPETUA. ON APPEAL, RPS CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED AND HIS BAIL WAS
CANCELLED. RP APPEALED TO THIS DECISION AND PRAYED TO BE ALLOWED TO POST BAIL FOR TEMPORARY
LIBERTY. IS RP ENTITLED TO BAIL?

> In this case, appellant was convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua. He is therefore not entitled
to bail as his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of guilt is strong.
> Furthermore, a summary hearing for his bail application for the sole purpose of determining whether or not
evidence is strong is unnecessary.
> The extensive trial before the lower court and the appeal before respondent court are more than sufficient in
accomplishing the purpose for which a summary hearing for bail application is designed

MUST THE DEFENSE PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE DURING THE HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL?
> No, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt of accused is strong

WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF THE TRIAL JUDGE IN CASE AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL IS FILED?
1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing or require him to submit a recommendation
2. Conduct a hearing
3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond. If evidence
of guilt is strong, the petition should be denied.

EVIDENT PROOF
Clear, strong evidence while leads a well-grounded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been committed as
charged, that the accused is the guilty agent and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered
PRESUMPTION GREAT
Exists when the circumstances testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong,
clear and convincing unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other conclusion

WHAT DETERMINES IF BAIL IS EXCESSIVE OR NOT? IS IT THE AMOUNT?


> It doesn't depend on the amount but is dependent on the circumstances of the accused particularly his financial
capacity

WHAT ARE THE GUIDELINES IN SETTING THE AMOUNT OF BAIL?


1. Financial liability of the accused to give bail;
2. Nature and circumstance of the offense;
3. Penalty for the offense charged;
4. Character and reputation of the accused;
5. Age and health of the accused;
6. Weight of the evidence against the accused;
7. Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bail;
9. The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
10. Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.

WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED IF HE IS DENIED BAIL?


> He should file a special civil action in the Court of Appeals within 60 days

Corporate Surety
Sec. 10. Corporate surety. Any domestic or foreign corporation, licensed as a surety in accordance with
law and currently authorized to act as such, may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and
an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board of directors.

CAN THE COURT REFUSE TO ACCEPT A CORPORATE SURETY AND REQUIRE INSTEAD THE POSTING
OF A CASH BOND?
> No, the trial court may not reject otherwise acceptable sureties and insist that the accused obtain his
provisional liberty only through a cash bond

> The posting of the cash bond would entail a transfer of assets into the possession of the court, and its
procurement could work untold hardship on the part of the accused as to have the effect of altogether denying the
accuseds constitutional right to bail.

> On the other hand, a surety bond may be obtained by the accused by the payment of a relatively small premium.
A surety or property bond doesn't require an actual financial outlay on the part of the bondsmand or property owner.

> It is only the reputation or credit standing of the bondsman or the expectancy of the price at which the property
can be sold is placed in the hands of the court to guarantee the production of the body of the accused at the various
proceedings leading to conviction or acquittal.

Sec. 15. Recognizance. Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the court may release a person in custody on his own
recognizance or that of a responsible person.

Recognizance is the release of a person in the custody of himself or another reputable person. He, or that person whom he
was entrusted to will be tasked with the burden of bringing him to court when he is required to.

Bail, When Not Required


Sec. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. No bail shall be required when the law or these Rules so
provide.

When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment prescribed
for the offense charged, he shall be released immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or
the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment.

A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the
offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall be released
on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court.
------------------------------------------

WHEN IS AN ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT LAWFUL?


> A peace officer or private person may arrest without warrant:

1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;

2. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where
he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

A POLICE OFFICER WAS CHASING A PERSON WHO HAD JUST COMMITTED AN OFFENSE. THE
PERSON WENT INSIDE A HOUSE, SO THE POLICE OFFICER FOLLOWED. INSIDE THE HOUSE, THE
POLICE OFFICER SAW DRUGS LYING AROUND. CAN HE CONFISCATE THE DRUGS AND USE THEM
AS EVIDENCE?
> Yes. The plain view doctrine is applicable to this case because there was a valid prior intrusion. The police
officer inadvertently discovered the evidence, he had a right to be there, and the evidence was immediately
apparent.

WHAT IF THE OFFICER MERELY PEEKS THROUGH THE WINDOW OF THE HOUSE AND SEES THE DRUGS,
CAN HE CONFISCATE THEM AND USE THEM AS EVIDENCE?
> He can confiscate them, without prejudice though to his liability for violation of domicile.
> He cannot use them as evidence because the seizure cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine, there being
no previous valid intrusion.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF A WARRANTLESS ARREST IS ILLEGAL?


> It doesn't render void all other proceedings, including those leading to the conviction of the accused nor can the
state deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts of record point
to his culpability

Time Of Making Arrest


Sec. 6. Time of making arrest. An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.

Sec. 7. Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant. When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer
shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest,
except when he flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of
such information will imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest
but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.

Sec. 8. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. When making an arrest without a warrant, the officer shall inform
the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the commission
of an offense, is pursued immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the officer
has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
CAN AN OFFICER ARREST A PERSON AGAINST WHOM A WARRANT HAS BEEN ISSUED EVEN IF HE
DOESN'T HAVE THE WARRANT WITH HIM?
> Yes, but after the arrest, if the person arrested requires, the warrant must be shown to him as soon as possible.

Citizen's Arrest- Method of arrest by private person


Method of arrest by private person. When making an arrest, a private person shall inform the person to be
arrested of the intention to arrest him and the case of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the
commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its commission, or has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the
person making the arrest has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

WHAT AUTHORITY DOES AN ARRESTING OFFICER HAVE?


1. Summon assistance
2. Break into the building or enclosure
3. Break out of the building

Arrest After Escape Or Rescue


Sec. 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may
immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines.

What instances when a warrantless search is valid?

Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution provides:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.

Law and jurisprudence have laid down the instances when a warrantless search is valid. These are:

Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12 [now Section 13], Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;
Seizure of evidence in plain view, the elements of which are:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent[;] and;
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicles inherent mobility reduces expectation
of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to
probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
Consented warrantless search;
Customs search;
Stop and Frisk; and
Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.

Both the trial court and the CA anchored their respective decisions on the fact that the search was conducted on a moving
vehicle to justify the validity of the search.
Indeed, the search of a moving vehicle is one of the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the Constitutional mandate that no
search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after personally determining the existence
of probable cause.

In People v. Bagista, the Court said:


The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search
incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence
in plain view.

With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been 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.

This in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in
the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search
has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe
before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.

It is well to remember that in the instances we have recognized as exceptions to the requirement of a judicial warrant, it is
necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure must have been impelled to do so because of probable cause. The
essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
Without probable cause, the articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence against the person arrested.

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to the
existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed, and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by law are in the place to be searched.

The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that
the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace
officers making the arrest.

Over the years, the rules governing search and seizure have been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the
object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place,
things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement which borders
on the impossible in instances where moving vehicle is used to transport contraband from one place to another with
impunity.

This exception is easy to understand. A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store,
dwelling house or other immobile structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted on a
mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
where the warrant must be sought.

Given the discussion above, it is readily apparent that the search in this case is valid. The vehicle that carried the
contraband or prohibited drugs was about to leave. PO2 Pallayoc had to make a quick decision and act fast. It would be
unreasonable to require him to procure a warrant before conducting the search under the circumstances. Time was of the
essence in this case. The searching officer had no time to obtain a warrant. Indeed, he only had enough time to board the
vehicle before the same left for its destination.

It is well to remember that on October 26, 2005, the night before appellants arrest, the police received information that
marijuana was to be transported from Barangay Balbalayang, and had set up a checkpoint around the area to intercept the
suspects. At dawn of October 27, 2005, PO2 Pallayoc met the secret agent from the Barangay Intelligence Network, who
informed him that a baggage of marijuana was loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave for the poblacion. Thus, PO2
Pallayoc had probable cause to search the packages allegedly containing illegal drugs.

This Court has also, time and again, upheld as valid a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 13, Rule
126 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.[23]

For this rule to apply, it is imperative that there be a prior valid arrest. Although, generally, a warrant is necessary for a
valid arrest, the Rules of Court provides the exceptions therefor, to wit:

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.[24]

Be that as it may, we have held that a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the
police has probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.[25]

Given that the search was valid, appellants arrest based on that search is also valid.
----------------------------

RULE 112 - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION


Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. 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, and should be held for trial.

Except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the
filing of a compliant or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4)
years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.

WHAT IS A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?


> It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial

WHAT IS THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?


1. It is merely inquisitorial
2. Only means of discovering whether the offense has been committed and the persons responsible for it
3. To enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint and information
4. Not a trial on the merits

5. Determine whether there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and the accused is
probably guilty of it
6. Doesn't place the accused in jeopardy
7. Doesn't affect the jurisdiction of the courtonly the regularity of the proceedings
8. Accused cannot assert lack of preliminary investigation. Court cannot dismiss the case based on this groundit
should conduct the investigation or order the fiscal or lower court to do it
9. Preliminary investigation may be waived
10. Accused should invoke right to PI before plea, otherwise it is deemed waived
11. Accused doesn't have full gamut of rights yet. He doesn't have right to counsel unless a confession is being
obtained from him.
12. There is also no right to confront witnesses against him.

WHEN IS IT REQUIRED?
> Before a complaint or information is filed, preliminary investigation is required for all offenses
punishable by imprisonment of at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, regardless of the fine, except if the accused was
arrested by virtue of a lawful arrest without warrant
> In case of lawful arrest without warrant: the complaint or information may be filed without a preliminary
investigation unless the accused asks for a preliminary investigation and waives his rights under Article 125 of the
RPC
> Whether or not there is a need for PI depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint filed
with the city or provincial prosecutors office and not upon the imposable penalty for the crime fund to have
been committed by the respondent after a preliminary investigation

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?


1. To determine if there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial

2. To protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense, and burden of defending himself in a formal trial unless
the reasonable probability of his guilt has been first ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent
officer

3. To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open
and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial

4. To protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?


> Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial and it is often the only means of discovering whether the
offense has been committed and the persons responsible for it to enable the fiscal
to prepare his complaint or information

> It is not a trial on the merits and has no purpose BUT to determine whether there is probable cause to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty of it

> It doesn't place the accused in double jeopardy

IS THE RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?


> No, it is a statutory right
> May be waived expressly or by silence
> It is not an element of due process unless it is expressly granted by law
> While the right to a PI may be substantial, nevertheless it is not a constitutional right

CONDUCT OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS


Sec. 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. The following may conduct preliminary
investigations:

(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;


(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.

Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in
their respective territorial jurisdictions.
CAN RTC JUDGES CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS?
> No, but this should not be confused with the authority of the RTC to conduct an examination for the purpose of
determining probable cause when issuing a warrant of arrest

WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE IN CONDUCTING A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?


> The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:

1. The complaint shall state:


> The address of the respondent and
> Shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other
supporting documents to establish probable cause.

> The affidavits must be subscribed and sworn before the prosecutor or government official
authorized to administer such or notary public

2. Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either:
> Dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or
> Issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting
affidavits and documents.

The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have
been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required to
specify those which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall be made available for
examination or copying by the respondent at his expense.

3. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and
documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents
relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified. The
respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.

4. If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the
ten (10) day period, the investigating office shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the
complainant.

5. The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness.
The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-examine. The hearing shall be held
within ten (10) days from submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from the expiration of the period
for their submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days.

6. Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is
sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.

IS A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING?


> Yes it is a judicial proceeding where the prosecutor or investigating officer acts a quasi-judicial officer
> Parties are given the opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence which shall be weighed and upon which a
decision shall be rendered
> Since it is a judicial proceeding, the requirement of due process in judicial proceedings is also required in preliminary
investigations
--------------------------------

Pre-trial and Pre-trial Conference


Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional
Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars
of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:
(a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PRE-TRIAL?


> The purpose is to expedite proceedings

WHEN IS PRE-TRIAL REQUIRED?


> Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, RTC, MTC and MCTC

WHEN SHOULD IT BE CONDUCTED?


> After arraignment, and within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused
> An exception to the rule is when the accused is under preventive detention. The case shall be raffled within 3 days.
Arraignment shall be done within 10 days after the raffle. Ten days thereafter, the pre-trial.

WHAT SHOULD THE ORDER FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE CONTAIN?


1. The presence of the accused and more importantly the offended party, for purposes of plea bargaining and
determination of civil liability. Remember that plea bargaining isnt allowed in cases involving violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
2. Referring the matter for preliminary conference to the clerk of court.
3. Warning that evidence not offered during preliminary conference shall be inadmissible except if because of good
cause and under the discretion of the court

WHO SHOULD PRESIDE IN A PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE?


> Clerk of court will preside the preliminary conference

WHAT SHOULD THE CLERK OF COURT DO IN PRESIDING OVER THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE?

1. The clerk of court is given a vital role in the speedy disposition of cases
2. He shall serve as the mediator or arbitrator between the accused and offended party for the two parties to reach a
settlement as to the civil liability of the accused
3. He shall serve as mediator between the parties with regard plea bargaining
4. He shall serve as mediator in the stipulation of facts between the accused and offended party
5. He shall oversee the introduction and marking of documentary evidence
6. He shall see that the evidence is genuine and duly executed
7. He shall oversee the conference if there will be any waiver to objections over admissibility of evidence
8. In case the accused gives a lawful defense, he will indicate that there would be a modification of the order of
trial

N.B
1. A preliminary conference precedes a pre-trial. It is officiated by the clerk of court. The clerk of court plays a
vital role in the speedy disposition of cases.
2. Often times, there would be no pre-trial anymore but the trial would commence and the judge would issue the
decision for the disposition of the case.
3. The pre-trial conference is conducted for the expeditious disposition of the case. What happens in the
conference is more than what meets the eye.
4. There is now an amendment in the new rules providing for the parties to talk with each other absent their
lawyers. Lawyers often times are stumbling blocks in the speedy disposition of
cases.
5. In the pre-trial and preliminary conference, there is narrowing of conflict between the parties. In furtherance of this,
the judge is sanctioned to allow the number of witnesses to be presented, limit the trial days, etc.
6. Remember that any evidence not presented or marked during the pre-trial conference shall not be admitted during the
trial. This is done to make the presentation of evidence mandatory for the
parties to the case. Additional evidence shall only be allowed if there is good cause and for furtherance of justice
7. Evidence is genuine and duly executedin relation to notarial law when the lawyer admits to the genuineness and
due execution of the documentary evidence presented.
8. The preliminary conference is to minimize the things to be discussed during the pre-trial conference that would
be conducted by the judge. After the pre-trial conference, a pre-trial order shall
be issued. This will serve as the bible for the rest of the proceedings.
9. See the Revised Rules on Pre-trial issued during August 2004.

Pre-Trial Agreement
Sec. 2. Pre-trial agreement. All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall
be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court.

WHAT HAPPENS DURING PRE-TRIAL?


> The following things are considered
1. Plea bargaining
2. Stipulation of facts
3. Marking for identification of evidence of the parties
4. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
5. Modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense
6. Other matters that will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case

WHAT IS THE FORM REQUIRED FOR THE PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT?


> Any agreement or admission entered into during the pre-trial conference should be
1. In writing
2. Signed by the accused
3. Signed by counsel
> A pre-trial agreement that doesnt follow this form cannot be used against the accused

Non-appearance At Pre-Trial Conference


Sec. 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial conference. If the counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at
the pre-trial conference and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose proper
sanctions or penalties.

WHAT IS A PRE-TRIAL ORDER?


> It is an order issued by the court after the pre-trial conference containing:
o A recital of the actions taken
o The facts stipulated
o The evidence marked

> The pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not disposed of, and controls the course of action
during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice

WHAT IS PLEA BARGAINING?


> It is the disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecution and the accused

> The accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case
subject to court approval

> It usually involves the defendants pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of
a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge
> It is encouraged because it leads to prompt and final disposition of most criminal cases. It shortens the time
between charge and disposition and enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they
are ultimately imprisoned
WHEN IS PLEA BARGAINING NOT ALLOWED?
> It is not allowed under the Dangerous Drugs Act where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.

WHAT IF THERE IS A PLEA BARGAINING ARRIVED AT?


1. Issue an order which contains the plea bargaining arrived at;
2. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case; and
3. Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability or damages duly established by the
evidence.
----------------------------

WHAT IS A JUDGMENT?
Adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the imposition on
him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any

WHAT IS THE FORM REQUIRED FOR THE JUDGMENT?


1. It must be written in the official language
2. Personally and directly prepared by the judge
3. Signed by him
4. It shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.

WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE JUDGMENT?


1. If the judgment is of conviction, it shall state the following:
a. The legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances which attended the commission
b. The participation of the accused as principal, accomplice, or accessory
c. The penalty imposed upon the accused
d. The civil liability or damages, if any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability has been reserved or
waived by the offended party.
2. If the judgment is of acquittal
a. Whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to
proved it beyond reasonable doubt
b. If the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise doesnt exist
----------------------

RIGHTS: BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT


(or with public prosecutor for preliminary investigation; taken into custody)

a. right to remain silent


b. right to counsel
c. right to be informed
d. right to have evidence obtained in violation of those above rejected

RIGHTS: AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT

a. right to refuse to be a witness


b. not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him because of such refusal
c. right to testify in his own behalf , subject to cross examination by the prosecution
d. while testifying: to refuse to answer an specific question which tends to incriminate him for some crime other that
which he is being prosecuted
----------------------------

Bill of Particulars
Sec. 9. Bill of particulars. The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him
properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and
the details desired.
WHAT IS A BILL OF PARTICULARS?
> It is a more specific allegation

> A defendant in a criminal case who believes that he is not sufficiently informed of the crime with which he is
charged and is not in a position to defend himself properly and adequately could move for a bill of particulars or
specifications

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BILL OF PARTICULARS?


> It is to allow the accused to prepare for his defense

WHEN CAN AN ACCUSED MOVE FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS?


> The accused must move for a bill of particulars before arraignment

> Otherwise, the right is deemed waived

WHAT SHOULD BE CONTAINED IN THE MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS?


> It should specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired

WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO MODES OF DISCOVERY?


> It is the right of the accused to move for the production or inspection of material evidence in the
possession of the prosecution
> It authorizes the defense to inspect, copy, or photograph any evidence of the prosecution in its possession
after obtaining permission of the court

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS RIGHT?


> The purpose is to prevent surprise to the accused and the suppression or alteration of evidence

IS THIS RIGHT AVAILABLE DURING PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?


> Yes
> When indispensable to protect his constitutional right to life, liberty and property