Professional Documents
Culture Documents
College of Law University of The Philippines: Mandatory Readings
College of Law University of The Philippines: Mandatory Readings
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Arno V. Sanidad
MANDATORY READINGS:
1. Jurisdiction
j S.C Administrative Circular No. 51-96 [Superseding Administrative Order No. 173-94 dated
28 September 1994] Special Courts for kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous Drugs, Carnapping
2. Substantive Rights
a. Const. (1987), art. III;
c. DOJ National Prosecution Service, 2008 Manual for Prosecutors [see Reserved Section);
e. SC AM No. 03-1-09-SC [Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by the Trial Judges and Clerks
of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures]
h. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data [A.M. No.08-1-16-SC dated 22 January 2008]
i. S.C., A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, “The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.”
j. S.C. “A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Re: Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts).
February 21, 2012 [http:// sc.judiciary.gov.ph/admin matters/AM No 11-6-10-SC.pdf)
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION
Amy Rossabi, The Colonial Roots of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, 11 Columbia
A. Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. IV, Criminal Procedure [Rules 110-127), pp 1-56.
B. Criminal Jurisdiction
Neither at arraignment
Change of Venue:
City.
A. Generally
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. V. People, 427 SCRA 456 (2004)
B. MTC: (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal
Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
2. Appeal
a. Family Courts
Sec. 3 & 5 (a), R.A. No. 8369 (“Family Courts Act of 1997”)
b. Special Courts
Environmental Courts
(AO No. 23-2008, Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try, and Decide
Environmental Cases, January 28, 2008)
c. Offenses committed by public officials
Sec. 4 (a) par. 2, Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A
No. 8249
2. Appellate jurisdiction
R.A. 9346
9346;
Rule 125;
(2) Penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
Intermediate Appeal
No automatic appeal
d) Withdrawal of Appeal
Sec. 4(a), (1), (2), (3), (4), & (5) Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as
Sec. 4(a), 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), & (g) Pres. Dec. No, 1606, as
5. Court of Appeals:
a) Rule 41
b) Rule 42
c) Rule 124
6. Supreme Court:
a) Generally
Rule 65
Habeas Corpus
Rule 102
1) Search Warrant;
4) Motion to Suppress
“Exclusionary Rule”
Private searches
Governmental interference
Governmental transgression
2. Scope of protection
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S 207 (1986) –Aerial “naked eye” observation
Dow Chemicals v. U.S., 476 U.S 227 (1986) – Aerial search using device
Airport searches:
Sec. 7-16
C. Types
a. Generally
o Range of enforceability
witness: + + + +
F. Validity of warrant
Others: +
2. Warrantless Search & Seizure:
Computers:
U.S. vs. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir., January 30, 2007
Journal Articles:
Edward T.M. Garland and Donald F. Samuel, Fourth
Cellphones:
Journal Articles:
b. Consented Search
Written consent:
c. “Stop and Frisk”, Roadblocks & Checkpoints, and Other Less Intrusive Searches
Airport searches:
g. Extraordinary circumstances:
A. Service of warrant
1. Time of search
2. Two-witness rule
Rule 126, sec. 8;
B. Post-service procedure
1. Issuance of Receipt
Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010 (dissent of Bersamin)
1) Warrant of Arrest
A. Definition
B. Types
1. With a warrant
Soliven v. Makasiar,
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004
a. When justified:
R.A. 7438 [Guidelines, procedures and duties of officers arresting, detaining, inviting or investigating at
the time of arrest or at custodial interrogation];
Rep. Act. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006; JJWA),
4. “DNA” Warrants:
[DNA warrants: A panacea for old, cold rape cases? Georgetown Law Journal, Apr 2002 by
Valdivieso, Veronica
5. Invitations
1. Definition
People v. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000, 341 SCRA 25;
1. Rights involved
Republic Act. No. 7438, sec. 2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f);
2. Consequences of violation
4. Police line-up
Cf. v.v. Mendoza, The Right to Counsel in Custodial Interrogations, 61 PHIL. L. J. 409 (1986);
B. Remedies
1. Motion to Quash Warrant
3. Bail
Rule 102
See cited case in Esquillo vs. People, J. Bersamin Dissenting Aug. 25, 2010
Pertinent pleadings:
B. Nature
1. Matter of right
Enrile v. Perez, G.R. No. 147785 (resolution of the Supreme Court En banc dated May 5,
2001);
A. Corporate surety
C. Property
D. Recognizance
A. Guidelines
IV. Forfeiture and cancellation of bail; remedies for violation of bail conditions
Re: Anynomous Letter-complaint against Hon. Tamang, 617 SCRA 428 (2010)
PART FOUR
RULES 110,111,127
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL
WITH APPLICATION
Pertinent Forms:
1) Complaint
2) Information
A. Criminal
B. Civil
A. Criminal aspect
1. Generally
RJCL, sec.14;
a) MTC : (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in cities, the Municipal
Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
b) RTC
CASES:
a. MTC :
Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and
the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
Sec. 11 & 12, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
b. RTC:
Rule 110, secs. 5 (as amended by SC AM No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002),
16;
1) Procedural
a. Name of accused and offended party
b. Designation of offense
c. Formal amendment
a. Single offense
b. Cause of accusation
1999;
B. Civil Aspect
1. Generally
People vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994**
A. Amendment/substitution of information
B. Motion to Quash
C. Bill of Particulars
SCRA 739
D. Provisional Remedies
AND INQUEST
1) Complaint-Affidavit
2) Counter- Affidavit
3) Resolution
RESOLUTION
INFORMATION
(Inquest);
Conducted by prosecutor
Conducted by prosecutor
1. Conducted by prosecutor
RA 6770;
DOJ Department Order No. 61 (September 21, 1993) [“ New Rules on Inquest”];
RJCL, sec. 8;
A. Appeal
DOJ Department Order No. 70 (July 3, 2000) [“2000 NPS Rule on Appeal]; cf. DOJ-NPS
Manual,
C. Reconsideration
Rule 65
Ty v. NBI, supra