You are on page 1of 8

GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS [206 SCRA 138; G.R. NO.

101837; 11 FEB 1992]
Facts: Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, almost had a collision with another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter
got out of his car, shot the driver of the other vehicle, and drove off. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down petitioner’s plate
number and reported the same to the police, who subsequently ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting, petitioner
presented himself in the police station, accompanied by 2 lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently a criminal charge was brought
against him. Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the lower court, setting and commencing trial without preliminary
investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation as bail has been posted and that such
situation, that petitioner has been arrested without a warrant lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule 112 of The 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests. Petitioner in his
petition for certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation.
Issues: (1) Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. (2) Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to
preliminary investigation.
Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. Ramos, wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days
from actual commission of the offenses, which however constituted “continuing crimes,” i.e. subversion, membership in an outlawed
organization, etc. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113. This is because the arresting officers were not actually
there during the incident, thus they had no personal knowledge and their information regarding petitioner were derived from other sources.
Further, Section 7, Rule 112, does not apply.
Petitioner was not arrested at all, as when he walked in the police station, he neither expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or
was not guilty of any crime. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor, preliminary investigation should have been scheduled to determine
probable cause. Prosecutor made a substantive error, petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation, necessarily in a criminal charge, where
the same is required appear thereat. Petition granted, prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary investigation, trial for the criminal case is
suspended pending result from preliminary investigation, petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond.

Cudia vs. CA
If the fiscal had no authority to file the information, the dismissal of the first information would not be a bar to subsequent prosecution.
Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.
Facts: Cudia was arrested in Mabalacat, Pampanga allegedly for possessing an unlicensed revolver. He was brought to Angeles City, where he
was detained. The City Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an information against him for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The
Information states that he committed the crime in Angeles City. The case was raffled to RTC Branch 60, Angeles City. Cudia pleaded not guilty
to the charges. During the ensuing pre-trial, the court called the attention of the parties to the fact that, contrary to the information, petitioner
had committed the offense in Mabalacat, and not in Angeles City. Inasmuch as there was an existing arrangement among the judges of the
Angeles City RTCs as to who would handle cases involving crimes committed outside of Angeles City, the judge ordered the re-raffling of the
case to a branch assigned to criminal cases involving crimes committed outside of the city. Thereafter, the case was assigned to Branch 56 of
the Angeles City RTC. However, the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga also filed an information charging petitioner with the same crime of
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The case was likewise raffled to Branch 56 of the Angeles City RTC. This prompted the
prosecutor in the first criminal case to file a Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw the Information, it appearing that the apprehension of the accused
was made in Mabalacat, Pampanga, within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga. The trial court granted the motion.
Cudia then filed a Motion to Quash the second criminal case on the ground that his continued prosecution for the offense of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition for which he had been arraigned in the first criminal case, and which had been dismissed despite his
opposition would violate his right not to be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The trial court denied the motion to
quash. CA affirmed that there was no double jeopardy on the ground that the petitioner could not have been convicted under the first
information as the same was defective.
Issue: Whether or not Sapiera could be held civilly liable when she was acquitted in the criminal charges against her
Held: It is plainly apparent that the City Prosecutor of Angeles City had no authority to file the first information, the offense having been
committed in the Municipality of Mabalacat, which is beyond his jurisdiction.
It is thus the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should prepare informations for offenses committed within
Pampanga but outside of Angeles City. An information, when required to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another. It
must be exhibited or presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction.
Petitioner, however, insists that his failure to assert the lack of authority of the City Prosecutor in filing the information in question is
deemed a waiver thereof. As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioners plea to an information before he filed a motion to
quash may be a waiver of all objections to it insofar as formal objections to the pleadings are concerned. But by clear implication, if not by
express provision of the Rules of Court, and by a long line of uniform decisions, questions relating to want of jurisdiction may be raised at any
stage of the proceeding. It is a valid information signed by a competent officer which, among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court
over the person of the accused (herein petitioner) and the subject matter of the accusation. In consonance with this view, an infirmity in the
information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.
In fine, there must have been a valid and sufficient complaint or information in the former prosecution. If, therefore, the complaint or
information was insufficient be a bar to petitioners subsequent prosecution. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a
defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution. (Cudia vs. CA, G.R. No. 110315. January 16, 1998) 125 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, with the because it was so defective in form or substance that the conviction upon it could not have been sustained,
its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded. As the fiscal had no authority to file the information, the dismissal of the
first information would not assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible person of his choice.
Notwithstanding such waiver, he may apply for bail as provided in the corresponding rule and the investigation must be terminated within
fifteen (15) days from its inception.

G.R. No. 147932 LAILA G. DE OCAMPO vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
Facts: Magdalena Dacarra executed a sworn statement at the QC Women’s Desk because her son, Ronald, was complaining of dizziness.
Ronald told his mother that his teacher, Laila Deocampo, banged his head against Lorendo’s head. Ronald was brought to the quack doctor
then to East Avenue Medical for x-ray. It was found out that Ronald’s head was fractured. Ronald eventually died.

W/N probable cause exists.2001 The accused was found guilty by the trial court of violating RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).A vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured. The court emphasized that the requirement for Preliminary Investigation is probable cause and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the Petitioner never denied the occurrence of the head-banging incident. Khor. Deocampo subsequently filed a petition for review with the DOJ. one claiming to have witnessed the head-banging incident and the other. The vehicle was identified. L-74869. from the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses. other reasons. Secretary of Justice. A preliminary investigation is designed to secure the respondent involved against hasty. the petition should have been filed with the CA. It was found to contained three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by the NBI forensic examiner. 480 SCRA 71 [2006]). The search conducted thereafter was valid. inspected his bag and finding what looked like marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. 2) such possession is not authorized by law. Further. It also upheld the prosecutor’s findings and pointed out that Deocampo never denied the act. Absence of clarificatory hearing The Petitioner argues that she was denied of due process because a clarificatory hearing was not performed. IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI. against Deocampo. the corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin. 06 Jul 1988. Section 3(e) of Rule 112 uses the term “may”: (e) If the investigating officer believes that there are matters to be clarified. Deocampo then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. HELD:The accused is GUILTY. 2. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. The Petition was denied and the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice was affirmed. which are alleged to have been the cause of Ronald’s death are evidentiary and should be threshed out during trial. indeed. Lastly. the drugs and paraphernalia obtained where in plain view of the police when the accused was arrested. they waited for him in the evening and approached him as he descended from the gangplank after the informer pointed at him. When they were verified as marijuana leaves. Obtaining the autopsy report. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto. On the basis of the finding. No. the accused is thus guilty. DOJ Resolution--The DOJ denied the petition for review. Acting on this tip.R. such as the vehicular accident. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team had determine on his own authority that a search warrant was not necessary. It was within the immediate control of the arrested person. G. . 163 SCRA 402 FACTS:Having earlier received a tip from an informer identifying the accused by name who was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. c. during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine. He was identified by name. And from the information they have received. Two other persons. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Aminnudin’s arrest and search were lawful. however. The prosecutor is not prohibited to obtain a copy of the autopsy report. it was decided that the court will relax the rules due to the gravity of the offense charged.During the Inquest Proceedings. possessing an unlicensed firearm. stating that 1) Ronald’s head condition was due to a previous vehicular accident. His name was known.R. Deocampo also submitted her counter-affidavit. b. 1988 Facts: The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer received a tip from one of their informers that the accused was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. It was held that clarificatory hearings are not indispensable. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GUZMAN GR 117952-53. Issue: Whether or not accused constitutional right against unreasonable serach and seizure is violated Ruling:The Supreme Court Held that warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the rules of court not justified unless the accused was caught in flagrante or a crime was about to be committed or had just been committed. All elements concurring. In the present case. Preliminary Investigation--Lorendo’s mother attended hearing and alleged that Deocampo offered her P100. and 3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. the PC officers simply accosted him. Yet they did nothing. Likewise. Procedural issue The OSG contends that the petition should be dismissed outright for being filed with the wrong court. ACQUITTED People v Aminnudin. the accused failed to quash the information against him before arraignment thus he is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: 1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified as a prohibited drug. and (b) whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof (De Ocampo vs.14. The investigating prosecutor issued a resolution finding probable cause against Deocampo. Xxx Preliminary investigations are also inquisitorial and not based on merits. Feb. they could have persuaded a judge that there was a probable cause. Issues a. malicious and oppressive prosecution. Petitioner argues that the head-banging is not the proximate cause of Ronald’s death. W/N there is denial of due process during the preliminary investigation 1. it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9.Inquest Proceedings-. a victim of Deocampo came forward. it was ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of homicide . an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him and he was eventually convicted. G. The date of his arrival was certain. to justify the issuance of a warrant. and 2) the immediate cause of Ronald’s death was “cardio pulmonary arrest” based on the autopsy report. PEOPLE V. he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses. 74869 July 6.No. Quoting PEOPLE v. The evidence of probable cause should be determined by a judge and not law enforcement agents. 000 for non-appearance at the Preliminary Investigation.

Pano. 267) "the possession of such considerable quantity as three plastic bags of marijuana leaves and seeds coupled with the fact that he is not a user of prohibited drugs cannot indicate anything except the intention of the accused to sell. unless authorized by law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team. April 15. 4. 82544.The provision provides the Sale. II of R. 72564. "Please go with me. 4. In other words.G. which are prohibited drugs for the purpose of selling the same from Baguio City to Olongapo City. In the case at bar.On the day of the arrival.1 kilos of marijuana.12? Held: Yes. alibi does not deserve much credit as it was established only by the accused herself. seizure and apprehension were lawful. ISSUE: WON Claudio’s warrantless search. the court held that contention is without merit. and apprehension is unlawful under Rule 126. 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. Issues:a)Whether or not the accused is also liable Sec. Therefore. the above-named ACCUSED without being lawfully authorized. 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. testified that while on board the Victory Liner heading back to his home in Olongapo. 12 provides for a warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest to be lawful. in his presence. Sec. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful ( Nolasco v. G. The provision provides the Search incident to lawful arrest where a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. a peace officer or a private person may. Yet they did nothing. Pat. at the moment of his arrest. Pampanga. arrest a person when. 5(a) of the said Rules provides for the in flagrante delicto arrest. give away to another. he inserted one of his fingers in a plastic bag located at the bottom of the woven bag and smelt marijuana. The date of its arrival was certain. The warrantless search. the agents then waited at the port for the vessel. the witness did not heed her plea and instead handcuffed her right hand and with her. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO [162 SCRA 840. Art.A. Although the accused contends that she may not be convicted of this provision. Delivery Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs where the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who. there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1. In addition to this. they immediately frisked him and searched his bag which contained themarijuana. 12. He could recognize the smell of marijuana because he was assigned at that time at the ANTI-NARCOTICS Unit. Obina intercepted her and showed her his ID Identifying himself as a policeman and told her he will search her bag because of the suspicion that she was carrying marijuana inside said bag. or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. At the police headquarters Investigation Section. Thus. Moreover. seizure and apprehension were lawful. (140 SCRA 259. Administration. A closer perusal of the subject provision shows that it is not only delivery which is penalized but also the sale. distribute and deliver said marijuana. the bag was searched in the presence of Investigator Cpl. Pat. People v. indeed. 58. administration. boarded a tricycle right away and brought the suspect to the police headquarters with her bag appearing to contain vegetables. Subsequently. Claudio replied.” PEOPLE vs. was on a vessel bound for Iloilo and is carrying with him marijuana. the person to be arrested has committed. had determined on his own authority that a “search warrant was not necessary. there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1. do anything after he discovered that there was marijuana inside the plastic bag of the accused until they reached Olongapo City and the accused alighted from the bus. without a warrant. Leoncio Bagang. or is attempting to commit an offense. The vehicle was identified. Art. without a search warrant. let us settle this at home. a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. in the Olongapo City. Rule 126. Claudio was caught transporting 1. Therefore. 6425 aside from Sec. they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause. It is clear that the PC had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9.During the trial. No. 147 SCRA 509). Dutch Citizen Adriaan Van Den Elshout. Meanwhile. No. seizure. The police agents had enough time to secure a warrant toarrest and search the accused but did not do so. is actually committing. With the feeling that there was some unusual. Sec. Aminnudin.committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that hehad just done so People vs Anita Claudio G. the accused that alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed and that his bag was confiscated without a search warrant. it is a well- established rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive testimony. NO. that is. HARVEY V. a policeman. the warrantless search. AMINUDIN163 SCRA 402 FACTS: The police agents in Iloilo City received a tip from a reliable informer that the accused.R. distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. thus the lower court did not err in finding her guilty of violating Sec. Art II of R. Here.RULING:NO. administer. unlawfully and knowingly transport 1. its Rule 126. 72564 Facts: On or about 21 July 1981. The said vessel was to arrive few days after such tip. Rule 113. shall sell.A. Daniel Obiña did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. Sec. As held in the case of People v. he had the urge to search the woven plastic bag so when they reached San Fernando. Claudio was caught in flagrante delicto transporting prohibited drugs. ISSUE: Is the marijuana found in the accused bag admissible evidence? HELD: No. Toledo." However. Tiongco. Daniel Obiña did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio. the Aminnudin was arrested. 8.R. All reside at Pagsanjan Laguna respondent Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Mission . however. 4. He did not. Claudio and Sgt. Thus. (Nolasco v. Pano.1 kilos of Marijuana dried leaves. 5425 . appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Obiña. Prosecution’s witness Danel Obiña. did then and there willfully.1 kilos of marijuana. Inside the plastic bag was found a big bundle of plastic containing marijuana weighing about one kilo. His name was known. Upon arrival of the vessel and when the suspect disembarked. 147 SCRA 509). thearrest did not fall into any of the exceptions of a valid warrantless arrest because the accused- appellant was not. without a search warrant in paragraph (12a). The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. II of the same Act? b)Whether warrantless search. distribute. Petitioners are the following: American nationals Andrew Harvey. 198 FACTS: Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City convicted the accused Anita Claudio y Bagtang for violating Sec. Sec. 28 JUN 1988] Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. Claudio boarded the same bus and took the seat in front of him after placing a woven buri bag made of plastic containing some vegetables she was carrying at the back of Obiña’s seat. to justify the issuance of a warrant. And from the information they had received. Sec. Philippines. deliver. No effort was made to comply with the law.R. seizure and apprehension were unlawful? RULING:NO. dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug. Claudio.1 kilos of marijuana.

The ex parte issuance of a hold-departure order was a valid exercise of the presiding court’s inherent power to preserve .) Seizure of evidence in plain view. Richard Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room. On the matter of bail. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the Sandiganbayan. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA. The rule that search and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Issues: (1) Whether or Not the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of existence of probable cause. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Facts: Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged with violation of Section 3(e). The articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest.) Search in a moving vehicle. Therefore. A fair hearing must also be conducted with assistance of a counsel if desired. 2. (2) Whether or Not there was unreasonable searches and seizures by CID agents. Trial by the Board of Special Inquiry III commenced the same date. appearing for arraignment. 45 and 46 of Immigration Act and sec69 of Revised Administrative Code.) Search is incidental to the arrest. The arrest of petitioners was based on the probable cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months. she is effectively estopped from asserting the contrary after she had earlier recognized the jurisdiction of the court and caused it to exercise that jurisdiction over the aforestated pleadings she filed therein. 109266 SANTIAGOvs. is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court's jurisdiction thereover. right to travel and freedom of speech. as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender. entering trial) or by filing bail. it violates the declared policy of the state to promote and protect the physical. whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. 3019. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of articles linked to the offense. deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being undesirable aliens under Sec.000. Deportation proceedings are administrative in character and never construed as a punishment but a preventive measure. spiritual and social well being of the youth. The “Operation Report” read that Andrew Harvey was found together with two young boys. although such confinement was illegal at the beginning.00. How the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported. moral. Section 37 (a) provides that aliens shall be arrested and deported upon warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation against them. to accept a fellowship at Harvard University.000. it issued a hold departure order against Santiago by reason of the announcement she made. Furthermore. Laguna. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution authorizing the Santiago to post cash bond which the later filed in the amount of P15. the deportation charges and the hearing presently conducted by the Board of Special Inquiry made their detention legal. it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. She directly filed a "Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan from Enforcing its Hold Departure Order with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction" with the SC. the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. Meanwhile. the power to deport aliens is an act of the State and done under the authority of the sovereign power. Held: While pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised Penal Code. Santiago cannot now be heard to claim otherwise for. She likewise argued that the hold departure order violates her right to due process. She argued that the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the hold departure order considering that it had not acquired jurisdiction over her person as she has neither been arrested nor has she voluntarily surrendered. 2. On 4 March1988. The court heard the case on oral argument on 20 April 1988. Petition for bail was filed 11March 1988 but was not granted by the Commissioner of Immigration. Section12 of Rules on Criminal Procedure). Lastly.000. One released for lack of evidence. that she would be leaving for the U. Has Santiago's right to travel been impaired? Held: 1. Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes were also found. Did the Sandiganbayan err when it issued the hold departure order without any motion from the prosecution and without notice and hearing? 3. by her own representations. No. Warrants of Arrest were issued 7March1988 against petitioners for violation of Sec37. There are at least three exceptions to this rule.S. 4 April1988 Petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. They were apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID in Pagsanjan. While Van Den Elshout in the “after Mission Report” read that two children of ages 14 and 16 has been under his care and subjects confirmed being live- in for sometime now. In view of the foregoing. which was widely publicized in both print and broadcast media.HON.69 of Revised Administrative Code. It is a fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement is or has become legal. another charged not for pedophile but working with NO VISA. The deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner of Immigration are in accordance with Sec37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 in relation to sec69 of the Revised Administrative code. She filed an "Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond".00. Santiago is deemed to have voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of respondent court upon the filing of her "Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond" wherein she expressly sought leave "that she be considered as having placed herself under the jurisdiction of (the Sandiganbayan) for purposes of the required trial and other proceedings. Republic Act No. Seized during the petitioner’s apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in sex. the court therebyacquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (3) Whether or Not the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to petitioners. Issues: 1. but she asked for the cancellation of her bail bond and that she be allowed provisional release on recognizance. 1. the search done was incidental to the arrest. It has been held that where after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested. G. An order of arrest was issued against her with bail for her release fixed at P15.00 be duly accepted" and that by said motion "she be considered as having placed herself under the custody" of said court. therefore the articles are admissible evidences (Rule 126. Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. Her arraignment was set.R. since the same isintended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused. The voluntary appearance of the accused. The filing of the petitioners for bail is considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity. The Sandiganbayan deferred the arraignment.Orders to the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) to apprehended petitioners at their residences. Has the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the person of Santiago? 2. It a police measure against the undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and tranquility of the people. The hold departure order was also issued sua sponte without notice and hearing. 3." and categorically prayed "that the bail bond she is posting in the amount of P15.

and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. explosive materials and subversive documents. J. existent or known shall be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant. thereafter. Vasquez. 06 May 1994. an accused holds himself amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the court. When the latter court issues the search warrant. No.R. Firearms. or in anticipation thereof. Parties with pending cases should apply for permission to leave the country from the very same courts which. he filed an . Petition is DENIED and the assailed judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. January 27. 3. are in the best position to pass upon suchapplications and to impose the appropriate conditions therefor since they are conversant with the facts of the cases and the ramifications or implications thereof.(Defensor-Santiago vs. The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress shall likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher court. FACTS: Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas.D. otherwise they shall be deemed waived. et al. 104879 May 6. G. the interested party may move in the court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as evidence of the personal property seized under the warrant if the same is offered therein for said purpose. that the executive judges or their lawful substitutes in the areas and for the offenses contemplated in Circular No. that objections not available. has primary jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions). the instant petition is DENIED. that a search warrant is merely a judicial process designed by the Rules to respond only to an incident in the main case. The following are the guidelines when there are possible conflicts of jurisdiction where the criminal case is pending in one court and the search warrant is issued by another court for the seizure of personal property intended to be used as evidence in said criminal case: 1. Salboro of the CAPCOM filed with the RTC of Caloocan City an application for search warrant. 1866 perpetrated in Quezon City. CA. G. a motion to quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative remedies. An application for a search warrant may be filed with another court only under extreme and compelling circumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which may or may not give due course to the application depending on the validity of the justification offered for not filing the same in the court with primary jurisdiction thereover. warrant. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the motion to quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from further proceeding thereon. Quashal of Search Warrant and For the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired Evidence. he may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. 1993) G. 4. RULING:NO. on the foregoing premises.R. ISSUE:W/N a court may take cognizance of an application for a search warrant in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial boundary and. By posting bail. 3. Since under the obligations assumed by petitioner in her bail bond she holds herself amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the court. No. however. not a criminal action. were seized and taken during the search. Where the issue of which court will try the case shall have been resolved. 5. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court. she may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. Petitioners presented a Motion for Consolidation. 232 SCRA 249 FACTS: Members of the CAPCOM. A judicial process is defined as a writ.R. even made a public statement that she had every intention of leaving the country allegedly to pursue higher studies abroad. 2. All grounds and objections then available. explosive materials and subversive documents were seized and taken during the search. WHEREFORE. therefore. Absalon V. the court wherein it was filed.R. 104879. Since a search warrant is a judicial process. Since two separate courts with different participations are involved in this situation. petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. were indicted. that where a criminal case is pending.: FACTS: Lt. 217 SCRA 633 (1993). statutory or reglementary. the court denied the quashal of the search warrant and the validity of which warrant was upheld invoking paragraph 3(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines which provides that search warrants can be served not only within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court but anywhere in the judicial region of the issuing court. 99289-90. 1994 ELIZALDE MALALOAN et al v. thus. the hold departure order is but an exercise of respondent court's inherent power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. Leviste v. It may be conceded. subpoena. In order to prevent forum shopping. issue the warrant to conduct a search on a place outside the court's supposed territorial jurisdiction HELD: A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. or the assigned branch thereof. all EILER Instructors. among others. expressly or impliedly provides a jurisdictional or territorial limit on its area of enforceability. as a matter of policy. no legal provision. proceeded to the site where a labor seminar was then taking place. as a matter of fact. REGALADO. with the necessary safeguards and documentation therefore. in the first instance. existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. It is a special and peculiar remedy. drastic in its nature. and where no such criminal case has yet been filed. Santiago does not deny and. a motion to quash shall consequently be governed by the omnibus motion rule. 17 March 2010. or other formal writing issued by authority of law. The search warrant was sought for in connection with an alleged violation of P. provided. To reiterate. without prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. 189122. a motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same criminal offense is charged in different informations or complaints and filed in two or more courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the criminal action. G. Firearms. Petitioners. No. However. all personal property seized under the warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court wherein the criminal case is pending. Pending appeal. The court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case. 19 shall have primary jurisdiction. Nos. armed with a search warrant issued by respondent RTC Judge of Kalookan City in connection with an alleged violation of P.D. if one has already been instituted. Court of Appeals. Malaloan v CA. such court shall be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to act on applications for search warrants incident to the criminal case. It is clear. and made necessary because of a public necessity. ISSUE(S):Whether or not the issuance of search warrants and/or warrants of arrest is subject to jurisdictional restrictions. We uphold the course of action adopted by the Sandiganbayan in takingjudicial notice of such fact of petitioner's plan to go abroad and in thereafter issuing sua sponte the hold departure order.

admission to bail is expressly declared to be discretionary.R. Rule 114 is present then bail shall be denied. where the penalty imposed by the trial court is more than six years but not more than 20 years and the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5 are absent. G. the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail. 2010 Leviste v. reclusion perpetua. ISSUE:Whether the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. It invoked the bedrock principle in the matter of bail pending appeal. From then on. 189122. the appellate court may consider all relevant circumstances.” Petitioner now questions as grave abuse of discretion the denial of his application for bail. Petitioner quotes Section 5. Similarly. It is likewise consistent with the trial court’s initial determination that the accused should be in prison. or life imprisonment. Petitioner actually failed to establish that the Court of Appeals indeed acted with grave abuse of discretion. Thus. Considering that the accused was in fact convicted by the trial court. in the second situation.urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal. citing his advanced age and health condition. does the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s application for bail. judicial discretion has been defined as “choice. the accused faces a certain prison sentence and thus may be more likely to flee regardless of bail bonds or other release conditions. if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years then bail is a matter of discretion. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. In addition. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. including the demands of equity and justice. the establishment of a clearly defined rule of action is the end of discretion. the constitutional right to bail ends. citing his advanced age and health condition. reclusion perpetua. Pending appeal of a conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death. Rule 114. Rule 114 of the 1964 Rules of Criminal Procedure and then of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. where the penalty imposed by the trial court is more than six years but not more than 20 years and the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5 are absent. allowance of bail pending appeal should be guided by a stringent-standards approach. accordingly. such discretion must be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. assuming the appellant’s case falls within the first scenario allowing the exercise of sound discretion. at the post-conviction stage. On the other hand. permitting bail too freely in spite of conviction invites frivolous and time-wasting appeals which will make a mockery of our criminal justice system and court processes. if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Finally. bail becomes a matter of discretion. the presumption of innocence terminates and. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore. Petitioner’s theory is that. other than those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5. They were modified in 1988 to read as follows: . et al. This means that. We disagree. this will establish whether or not the appellate court will exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the application for bail pending appeal and (2) the exercise of discretion stage where. After conviction by the trial court. On the other hand. and claiming the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part. Retired Court of Appeals Justice Oscar M. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court? HELD: NO. upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable death. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was present. that is.” Choice occurs where. At the risk of being repetitious. J. This is especially germane to bail pending appeal because long delays often separate sentencing in the trial court and appellate review. bail must be granted to an appellant pending appeal. discretionary nature of bail mentioned in Section 5 of Rule 114 does not mean automatic grant of bail in case of appeal. considering that none of the conditions justifying denial of bail under the third paragraph of Section 5. CA. where the appellate court must determine whether any of the circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5. admission to bail is discretionary. However. on the basis thereof. and claiming the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on his part. or life imprisonment. petitioner’s theory effectively renders nugatory the provision that “upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death.” On the other hand. This judicial disposition finds strong support in the history and evolution of the rules on bail and the language of Section 5. ISSUE: In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant sentenced by the trial court to a penalty of imprisonment for more than six years. with the selection of the outcome left to the decision maker. Pending appeal. bail must be granted to an appellant pending appeal. Rule 114 is present. bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. by severely clipping the appellate court’s discretion and relegating that tribunal to a mere fact-finding body in applications for bail pending appeal in all instances where the penalty imposed by the trial court on the appellant is imprisonment exceeding six years. If it so determines. another authority in remedial law. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was present.: FACTS:Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s application for bail. Rule 114 is present. March 17. It invoked the bedrock principle in the matter of bail pending appeal. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court? HELD:Petitioner’s stance is contrary to fundamental considerations of procedural and substantive rules. Digest Corono. he filed an urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal. between “two alternatives or among a possibly infinite number (of options). to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists. (emphasis supplied) In the first situation.” Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. it may either allow or disallow bail. Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent sound discretion approach. NO. Petitioner’s theory is that. A finding that none of the said circumstances is present will not automatically result in the grant of bail. that the discretion to extend bail during the course of appeal should be exercised “with grave caution and only for strong reasons. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. therefore. He simply relies on his claim that the Court of Appeals should have granted bail in view of the absence of any of the circumstances enumerated in the third paragraph of Section 5. Given these two distinct scenarios. is of the same thinking: Bail is either a matter of right or of discretion.” there is “more than one possible outcome. letting the accused out on bail despite his conviction may destroy the deterrent effect of our criminal laws. Herrera. any application for bail pending appeal should be viewed from the perspective of two stages: (1) the determination of discretion stage. that the discretion to extend bail during the course of appeal should be exercised “with grave caution and only for strong reasons.” The aforementioned provisions were reproduced as Sections 3 to 6. petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is not punishable by death. the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion. the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion. except when any of the enumerated circumstances under paragraph 3 of Section 5.

HON. Apparently. he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled on 23 May 1997. assailing the trial court's order. 2005 ( 3 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) case was pending in the Court of Appeals. had been contacted by Manolet Lavides for an assignation that night at Lavides' room at the Metropolitan Hotel in Diliman. dated 16 May 1997. otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash. Lavides was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of P800. and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident. invalidating the first two conditions under 16 May 1997 order -. when discretionary. denied Lavides' motions to reduce bail bonds. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. Accordingly. a matter of right. the police knocked at the door of Room 308 of the Metropolitan Hotel where Lavides was staying. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. this Court en banc lays down the following policies concerning theeffectivity of the bail of the accused. the constitutional right to bail ends. Quezon City. Article II of the Constitution provides: SEC. Jennifer Catarman. Lavides filed the petition for review with the Supreme Court. except those filed in Criminal Case Q-97-70550 or Q-97-70866. his arrest having been made in accordance with the Rules. In all the cases. ISSUE:Whether the court should impose the condition that the accused shall ensure his presence during the trial of these cases before the bail can be granted." No bail was recommended. and Annalyn Talinting (Criminal Case Q-97-70866 to Q-97-70874). Judge Presiding over Branch 107. . While the Constitutional Law II. bringing the total number of cases against him to 12. MANOLET O. such as arraignment. the presumption of innocence terminates and. there would then be no need for the arraignment of the accused.” Section 13. Mary Ann Tardesilla.m. Quezon City. respondents. denying his motion to quash and maintaining the conditions set forth in its order of 16 May 1997. and its two orders. GR 129670. Lavides filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. All persons. and other Purposes) was filed on 7 April 1997 against Lavides in the Regional Trial Court. shall before final conviction be entitled to bail as a matter of right. subject to the conditions in the 16 May 1997 order and the "hold-departure" order of 10 April 1997. respectively. an information for violation of Article III. — Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death. and after trial is convicted by the trial court of a lesser offense than that charged in the complaint or information. 3. finding that. the parents of Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter. §5(b) of RA 7610 (An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse. RULING: In cases where it is authorized. The pre-trial conference was set on 7 June 1997. Quezon City (Criminal Case Q-97-70550).00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment. On 30 June 1997. he filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40. 1994 which brought about important changes in the said rules as follows: SECTION 5. FACTS: On 3 April 1997. §1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is required. and to suspend arraignment. — All persons in custody. 13. except those charged with a capital offense or an offense which. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. dated 23 May 1997. From then on. the court. the trial court could ensure Lavides' presence at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings. and (2) In the event that he shall not be able to do so. On 10 April 1997. On 2 June 1997. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed." while under Rule 116. and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. the police saw him with Lorelie. (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest. to wit: 2) When an accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense which under the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail is punishable by reclusion perpetua and is out on bail. when evidence of guilt is strong. An entrapment operation was therefore set in motion.000. Sec. on application. for the guidelines of the bench and bar with respect to future as well as pending cases before the trial courts. his arraignment cannot be held. shall. Lavides filed separate applications for bail in the 9 cases. LUNA PISON.00. warrants for his arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed to trial in absentia -. Hence. it was alleged that. then 16 years old. ROSALINA L. be bailable by sufficient sureties. may admit the accused to bail. which were all consolidated. the Court of Appeals rendered its decision.000. Lavides had sexual intercourse with complainants who had been "exploited in prostitution and given money as payment for the said acts of sexual intercourse. At the risk of being repetitious. x x x (emphasis supplied) After conviction by the trial court. whereupon they arrested him. and thus he must therefore remain under detention until further order of the Court. When Lavides opened the door.000. RTC. two more informations were filed against Lavides. Exploitation and Discrimination. LAVIDES vs. These scenarios certainly undermine the accused's constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail. who was wearing only a t-shirt and an underwear. under the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail. Amendments were further introduced in Administrative Circular No. Based on the sworn statement of Lorelie and the affidavits of the arresting officers. WHEREFORE. Pending resolution of his motion. Further. in separate orders. and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. bail should be granted before arraignment. this was not the first time the police received reports of Lavides' activities. Lavides filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved." On 29 April 1997. of the same date. On 20 May 1997. Denial of bail pending appeal is “a matter of wise discretion. §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. exception. Providing Penalties for its Violation. to quash the informations. his bail bonds shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited. there is probable cause to hold the accused under detention. and that the accused is entitled to bail in all the case. such discretion must be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. in Criminal Case Q-97-70550.00 for all the cases under certain conditions. On 16 May 1997. Under Rule 114. which were submitted at the inquest. and that he is granted the right to post bail in the amount of P80. the same rule set forth in the preceding paragraph shall be applied.e.000. 9 more informations for child abuse were filed against Lavides by Lorelie San Miguel. on various dates mentioned in the informations. On 23 May 1997. Lavides filed a motion to quash the informations against him. He shall and must always be present at the hearings of these cases. Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged. the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion. Then on 22 May 1997. is punishable by reclusion perpetua. the trial court issued an order resolving Lavides' Omnibus Motion. and by three other minor children. that (1) the accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial of these cases. 12-94 dated August 16.00 for each case or a total of P800. At around 8:20 p. Bail.and maintained the orders in all other respects. Bail.i. accordingly. Nonetheless. one of the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules. the trial court. The court's strategy to ensure the Lavides' presence at the arraignment violates the latter's constitutional rights. before conviction. the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Counsel explained that he was unable to attend the trial because he had attended urgent matter which needed his personal attention. the court made no ruling on the manifestation and offer by petitioner’s counsel that the reading of the information is waived and a plea of not guilty is entered. Marcos was able to settle his obligation with the complainants and the latter executed an Affidavit of Desistance. A bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the accused is specifically required by the court of the RoC and. due to Almario‘s resignation after only eight months of service following the completion of his training course. Almario served as A-300 First Officer of PAL. he tendered his resignation. Since said higher position required additional training. and costs of litigation. Section 1 of the CBA provides that pilots fifty-seven (57) years of age shall be frozen in their position and shall not be permitted to occupy any position in the company‘s turbo-jet fleet. except when conviction is for a light offense. he would render service to it until the costs of training were recovered in at least three (3) years. PAL prayed that he should be ordered to reimburse the costs for his training. refuse to reimburse the costs of training without violating the principle of unjust enrichment. at the promulgation of judgment. at the arraignment pursuant to par. however. successfully bid for the higher position of Airbus 300 (A-300) First Officer. he cannot successfully prosecute the case. Asst. Stated otherwise.  With regard to the 2nd information. Almario is in violation of the CBA. proficiency. in any event. The CA found Almario liable under the CBA between PAL and ALPAP and. INC. despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the court on a given date. Almario‘s contention was confirmed by the RTC but was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). more than five months of training consisting of ground schooling in Manila and flight simulation in Melbourne. or technical competence so that he could efficiently discharge the position of A-300 First Officer.  During the arraignment. and 3. Marcos and his lawyer already left. PAL filed a Complaint against Almario before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). City filed to RTC Bohol 2 information against Marcos for violation of BP 22. He also explained that Marcos left in belief that there would no presentation of evidence since an Affidavit of Desistance was already filed before the court. The court granted his request. Mr. The petitioner was neither made to confirm the manifestation nor directed to personally make the plea. he underwent.Simply put. City Fiscal filed a Motion to Dismiss the case because without the testimony of the complainants who withdrew. 2. HELD:Article XXIII. There was no valid arraignment as it is required that the accused would personally enter his plea. for ―personal reasons. On April 28. When the case was called for hearing. when the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify the accused. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. The prosecution proceeded in the presentation of its evidence and rested its case. Because of that.  Marcos appeared during the scheduled arraignment but asked for resetting because his lawyer has just withdrawn from the case. then about 39 years of age and a Boeing 737 (B-737) First Officer at PAL. As such.  Thus. this action for review on Certiorari by Mr. 1995. carried no such agreement. the trial may proceed in absentia. under Article 22 of the Civil Code. Mr. the accused fails to appear in person as so required. PAL invested for the training of Almario to enable him to acquire a higher level of skill.‖ Despite a letter coming from PAL to reconsider his resignation otherwise he will bear the cost of training. It is true that he has the right to be present at every stage of the proceeding (from arraignment to promulgation). In his Answer. . 532 SCRA 614 (2007) Courts will not allow one party to enrich himself at the expense of another. the petitioner’s appearance was not required at the subject trial. ALMARIO v. but he can waive his presence. therefore. the accused has to be present: 1. The reason why pilots who are 57 years of age are no longer qualified to bid for a higher position is because they have only three (3) years left before the mandatory retirement age of 60 and to send them to training at that age. Rule 116. for reimbursement of P851.  Essentially. ISSUE:WON the court erred in in forfeiting the petitioner’s bail bond for his non-appearance during trial. Later on. Australia. Almario denied the existence of any agreement with PAL that he would have to render service to it for three years after his training failing which he would reimburse the training costs. the foregoing provision clearly and unequivocally recognizes the prohibitive training cost principle such that it will take a period of at least three (3) years before PAL could recover from the training expenses it incurred. in which case the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 120. Fiscal of Tgb. He cannot. Marcos pleaded not guilty. at PAL‘s expense. Almario. of which he was a member. VICENTE S. attorney‘s fees equivalent to 20% of the said amount. Admittedly. He pointed out that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between PAL and the Airline Pilot‘s Association of the Philippines (ALPAP). or unless promulgation in absentia is allowed under 3rd par of said Section. MARCOS vs RUIZ FACTS:  After conducting a preliminary investigation. PAL invoked the existence of an innominate contract of do ut facias (I give that you may do) with Almario in that by spending for his training. Almario. The failure of the accused to appear at the trial despite due notice and without justification is deemed an express waiver of his right to be present. Given that. Thus.  Later. The expectation of PAL was not fully realized. After completing the training course.  Because Marcos did not attend the trial. the court forfeited his bail bond. Almario still proceeded with his resignation. PAL would no longer be able to recover whatever training expenses it will have to incur.107 worth of training costs. ISSUE:Whether or not the act of Mr. PAL expected to recover the training costs by availing of Almario‘s services for at least three years. the 2nd information was the same as the 1st so the counsel of the accused offered that reading of information is waived and plea of not guilty be directly entered. what are the instances where the presence of the accused during trial is indispensable? May a counsel enter a plea in behalf of the accused? RULING:  The forfeiture of the bail bond was inappropriate. Section 1. (b). Almario having resigned before the 3-year period. Asst.  Under the RoC. but after eight months of service as such.