1.
Check penalty of oral defamation in re: preliminary investigation
Art. 385 of RPC. Slander – Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and
insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos.
Villanueva v. Almazan A.M. No. MTJ-99-1221. March 16, 2000
The root of the controversy is the unfamiliarity of respondent judge with the rules applicable in
cases requiring preliminary investigation.
Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court reads:
SECTION 1. Definition. -- reliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose
of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[7]
Section 9, of the same Rules provides:
SEC 9. Cases not falling under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts nor covered
by the Rule on Summary Procedure. -Mis-oedp
xxx.....xxx.....xxx
(b) Where filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court. -- If the complaint or information is
filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court, the procedure provided for in Section 3(a) of this
Rule shall likewise be observed. If the judge finds no sufficient ground to hold the respondent
for trial, he shall dismiss the complaint or information. Otherwise, he shall issue a warrant of
arrest after personally examining in writing an under oath the complainant and his witnesses
in the form of searching questions and answers.
Contrary to the clear mandate of the aforestated rules, the respondent Judge conducted the
preliminary investigation culminating in the lowering of the charge to simple slander. The
original charge for grave oral defamation is punishable[8] by arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period, while simple slander is punishable by
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Thus, the original charges were cognizable by
the Municipal Trial Court and did not require a preliminary investigation. The proper action
the respondent judge could have taken under the premises was to dismiss the complaint if
found to be without any basis for further proceedings or if warranted, to issue a warrant of
arrest for the respondent, and after arrest, to hold him for trial. It is decisively clear that in
conducting the preliminary investigation under attack, the respondent judge exceeded his
authority under the pertinent rules.
In his Comment, respondent judge was careful to refer to his challenged action as a
preliminary examination. Be that as it may, when he concluded that the proper charge should
be simple slander, after examining the complainant and her witnesses in subject criminal
cases, respondent Judge, in effect, conducted a preliminary investigation. Not only was such
preliminary investigation defective; it was a patent error because no preliminary investigation
is required for criminal cases cognizable by Municipal Trial Courts. It is only required for those
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.[9] Consequently, the respondent judge was devoid of
jurisdiction or authority to reduce the charge to simple slander.
2. When are provisional remedies available in criminal cases
IV — PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES
Availability of provisional remedies
1. The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are applicable, may be availed
of in connection with the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action (Sec. 1, Rule
127, Rules of Court).
2. It is worth remarking that as a rule, when a criminal action is instituted, the criminal
action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action, except of course when the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action (Sec. 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court). Now, since there is a civil action that goes
with the criminal action, provisional remedies may be availed of in connection with the civil
action.
To avail of a provisional remedy in a criminal action, it must be one with a corresponding civil
liability. If there is a civil liability, the civil action must be one arising from the offense charged
and which is instituted in the said criminal action. Hence, if the civil action has been waived,
reserved or instituted separately, the provisional remedy applicable may not be availed of in
the criminal action. Instead, the provisional remedy should be applied for in the separate civil
action instituted.
3. Since provisional remedies are available in connection with the civil action properly
instituted in the criminal action, the offended party may have the property of the accused
attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the
accused (Sec. 2, Rule 127, Rules of Court).
4. The reference to provisional remedies in Rule 127 is made in general terms hence, it is
submitted that the provisional remedies like preliminary attachment, preliminary in- junction,
receivership, replevin or support pendente lite may be availed of in connection with the civil
action in so far as they are applicable.
5. For instance, in a criminal action where the civil liability includes support for the
offspring as a consequence of the crime, and the civil aspect thereof has not been waived,
reserved or instituted separately, the accused may be ordered to provide support pendente lite
to the child born to the offended party (Sec. 6, Rule 61, Rules of Court).
6. For reasons connected with the offended party's availment of a provisional remedy,
the accused, during the trial, may prove not only his defense but also the damages he may have
sustained arising from the issuance of a provisional remedy in the case (Sec. ll[b], Rule 119,
Rules of Court).
When preliminary attachment is available
1. Preliminary attachment is available in a criminal case when the civil action is properly
instituted in the criminal action as provided in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and in the
following cases:
(a) When the accused is about to abscond from the Philippines;
(b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for money or property embezzled or
fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of the accused who is a public officer, officer of
a corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk, in the course of his employment as such,
or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his property, or is about to
do so; and
1
(d) When the accused resides outside the Philippines (Sec. 2, Rule 127, Rules of Court).
2. Observe that the grounds for a preliminary attachment in a criminal case are not as
varied as the grounds for preliminary attachment in a civil case. Sec. 1 of Rule 57 gov erning
civil cases are anchored on some other grounds aside from those cases provided for in a
criminal case under Sec. 2 of Rule 127.
3. In letter "b" of Sec. 2, preliminary attachment may be availed of without the need for a
showing that the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his property or is about to do
so. Instead, what need to be shown are the following:
(a) The criminal case is founded upon a claim that money or property was embezzled,
fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of the accused; and
(b) That the accused occupies any of the positions mentioned in Sec. 2 of Rule 127 or that
he committed a willful violation of duty (Sec. 2, Rule 127, Rules of Court).
3. Effect of pardon in adultery
Article 344 requires that –
a. The pardon must come before the institution of the criminal prosecution; and
b. Both the offenses must be pardoned by the offended party.
In view of these requirements a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendant wife
alone based on an affidavit executed by the offended husband in which he pardoned
her for her infidelity cannot prosper. (People v. Infante)
Pardon of the offenders by the offended party is a bar to prosecution for adultery or
concubinage. (Art 344 par 2) the pardon may be express or implied. So where the
offended husband had pardoned the adulterous act of his wife, such pardon precluded
him from prosecuting for adultery not only his wife but also the paramour.
4. Rule on search warrant in re: airport regular searches / where to apply /
where to implement / things to be searched, etc. (Saluday v. People GR No.
215305, Apr 03, 2018)
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, which was patterned after the Fourth
Amendment to the United States (U.S.) Constitution,[24] reads:
SEC. 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. (Emphasis supplied)
Katz v. United States,[27] the U.S. Supreme Court held that the electronic surveillance of a
phone conversation without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. According to the
U.S. Supreme Court, what the Fourth Amendment protects are people, not places such
that what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his or her own home or office,
is not a subject ofFourth Amendment protection in much the same way that what he or she
seeks to preserve as private, even m an area accessible to the public, may be
constitutionally protected, thus:
2
Because of the misleading way the issues have been formulated, the parties have attached
great significance to the characterization oftbe telephone booth trom which the petitioner
placed his calls. The petitioner has strenuously argued that the booth was a
"constitutionally protected area." The Government has maintained with equal vigor that it
was not. But this effort to decide whether or not a given "area," viewed in the abstract, is
constitutionally protected" deflects attention from the problem presented by this cast. For
the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to
the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment
protection.
People v. Johnson, the Court declared airport searches as outside the protection of
the search and seizure clause due to the lack of an expectation of privacy that society will
regard as reasonable:
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their
persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased
concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the
nation's airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through
metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage is routinely
subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious
objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is
little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness,
the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations
associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport
public address systems, signs. and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject
to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be
subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary
constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to
routine airport procedures.
in Dela Cruz v. People, the Court described seaport searches as reasonable searches
on the ground that the safety of the traveling public overrides a person's right to
privacy:
Routine baggage inspections conducted by port authorities, although done without
search warrants, are not unreasonable searches per se. Constitutional provisions
protecting privacy should not be so literally understood so as to deny reasonable
safeguards to ensure the safety of the traveling public.
xxxx
Thus, with port security personnel's functions having the color of state-related
functions and deemed agents of govemment, Marti is inapplicable in the present case.
Nevertheless, searches pursuant to port security measures are not unreasonable per
se. The security measures of x-ray scanning and inspection in domestic ports are akin
to routine security procedures in airports.
 xxxx
Port authorities were acting within their duties and functions when [they] used x-ray
scanning machines for inspection of passengers' bags. When the results of the x-ray
scan revealed the existence of firearms in the bag, the port authorities had probable
cause to conduct a search of petitioner's bag. Notably, petitioner did not contest the
results of the x-ray scan.
People v. Breis, the Court also justified a bus search owing to the reduced
expectation of privacy of the riding public:
Unlike the officer in Chan Fook, IOl Mangili did not exceed his authority in the
performance of his duty. Prior to Breis' resistance, IOl Mangili laid nary a finger on
Breis or Yumol. Neither did his presence in the bus constitute an excess of authority.
The bus is public transportation, and is open to the public. The expectation of privacy
in relation to the constitutional right against unreasonable searches in a public bus is
not the same as that in a person's dwelling. In fact, at that point in time, only the bus
was being searched, not Yumol, Breis, or their belongings, and the search of moving
vehicles has been uphold.
(Better read the case nalang haha )
5. Arrest – when is one deemed arrested (read pros mally’s notes)
Section 2. Arrest; how made. — An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a
person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the
arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The
person arrested shall not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his
detention.
6. Rule on bail
Section 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.
3
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the
amount of the undertaking and the conditions herein required. 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.
 Bail as a matter of Right - Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. —
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule
(a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and
(b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
 Bail as a matter of discretion - ail, 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
convicting 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.
7. Rule on plea bargaining or forced plea etc. (From Pros Mally’s Notes of
motion to quash)
KINDS OF PLEA:
i. PLEA OF NOT GUILTY:
1. Actual plea of not guilty
2. A plea of not guilty shall be entered for the accused if he
a) Refuses to plead;
b) Makes a conditional plea;
c) Pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence in which the guilty plea shall
be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered.
ii. PLEA OF GUILTY
-A plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the offense
charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from said charge and leaves the court
with no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law under the circumstances.
(People v. Ng Pek, 81 Phil. 563).
- It is elementary that a plea of guilty, besides being a mitigating circumstance, is a
judicial confession of guilt — an admission of all the material facts alleged in the
information;
- It is, however, also an established rule that a plea of guilty cannot be held to include
treachery and evident premeditation where the evidence adduced does not adequately
disclose the existence of these qualifying circumstances. (People v. Ariola, supra)
- To be considered, it must be spontaneously given in open court prior to
presentation of evidence. It must also be made unconditionally.
- By this plea of guilty alone, accused-appellant has supplied the necessary
proof as to his culpability. No other proof is required.
- Plea of Guilty to the Crime Charged in the Information. - If the accused pleads
guilty to the crime charged in the information, judgment shall be immediately
rendered, except in those cases involving capital punishment. ( continuous trial rule)
- accused pleaded to the offense charged, hence must be sentenced to the
penalty to which he pleaded.
4
a) PLEA OF GUILTY TO CAPITAL OFFENSE— When the accused pleads guilty
to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and
require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability.
The accused may present evidence in his behalf. (3a)
Court is mandated to do the following acts:
(a) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of
the consequences of his plea
(b) to require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise
degree of his culpability;
(c) to ask the accused if he wishes to present evidence in his behalf and be allowed
to do
(d) so, if he desires.
-"the proper and prudent course to follow where the accused enters a plea of 'guilty' to
capital offenses especially where he is ignorant with little or no education, is to take
testimony not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but to aid the Supreme Court in
determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the
meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea." ( PP v comendador)
b) PLEA OF GUILTY TO NON-CAPITAL OFFENSE; reception of evidence,
discretionary. — When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the
court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be
imposed. (4)
-There is thus no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a "searching
inquiry." As long as the voluntary intent of the accused and his full comprehension of
the consequences of his plea are ascertained,
Guidelines in the conduct of searching inquiry::
1. Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the
law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial
and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained
and interrogated during the investigations. This is intended to rule out the
possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of duress
either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters or
simply because of the judge's intimidating robes.
2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with,
and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of a plea
of guilty.
3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age,
socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.
4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty
under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. For not
infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon
bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty
should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to ensure that
the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions because a plea of
guilty carries with it not only the admission of authorship of the crime proper but
also of the aggravating circumstances attending it, that increase punishment.
5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain
to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the
court to do so would constitute a violation of his fundamental right to be informed
of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a denial of his right to due
process.
6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and understood
by the latter.
7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty, is truly
guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or
furnish its missing details
iii. PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the
consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to
plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to
said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, circ. 38-98)
Requisites for a plea of guilty to a lesser offense:
1. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged;
2. The plea must be with the consent of both the offended party and the
prosecutor ( unless offended party failed to appear despite notice during arraignment)
Note: accused cannot demand as a matter of right to plead guilty to a lesser offense; it
is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court. Trial courts are
exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually
5
charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the
convenience of the accused
Plea Bargaining – If the accused desires to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense,
plea bargaining shall immediately proceed, provided the private offended party in
private crimes, or the arresting officer in victimless crimes, is present to give his/her
consent with the conformity of the public prosecutor to the plea bargaining.
Thereafter, judgment shall be immediately rendered in the same proceedings. (
continuous trial rule)
PLEA BARGAINING - in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the
prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
approval. It usually involves the defendant's 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.
-There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the
agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid
potential losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because
the chief virtues of the system - speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the accused,
the offended party, the prosecution, and the court.
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage. The rules on plea bargaining
neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to
implement an existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and
duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress
for a disregard or infraction of them.
a) Allowed during arraignment - Plea bargaining is authorized under Section 2,
Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, ( Plea to a lesser offense)
b) Pre-Trial - Sections 1 and 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, require plea
bargaining to be considered by the trial court at the pre-trial conference
c) Any stage -it may also be made during the trial proper and even after the
prosecution has finished presenting its evidence and rested its case. Thus, the Court
has held that it is immaterial that plea bargaining was not made during the pre-trial
stage or that it was made only after the prosecution already presented several
witnesses.
- the rules allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient
evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged.
iv.CONDITIONAL PLEA – accused pleaded guilty by admitting his guilt provided that
a certain penalty will be meted unto him; he bargained to a lesser penalty.
PP v Magat, 5-31-00, GR 130026 - Accused-appellant's plea of guilty is undoubtedly a
conditional plea. Hence, the trial court should have vacated such a plea and entered a
plea of not guilty for a conditional plea of guilty, or one subject to the proviso that a
certain penalty be imposed upon him, is equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would,
therefore, require a full-blown trial before judgment may be rendered. In effect, the
judgment rendered by the trial court which was based on a void plea bargaining is also
void ab initio and can not be considered to have attained finality for the simple reason
that a void judgment has no legality from its inception. Thus, since the judgment of
conviction rendered against accused-appellant is void, double jeopardy will not lie
CONDITIONAL ARRAIGNMENT - the conditions attached to an arraignment must be
unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened.
-The conditions must be mentioned in the Order disposing of the arraignment.
Otherwise, the plea should be deemed to be simple and unconditional. E.g. the
accused and counsel must be advised as part of the arraignment process that the
arraignment is conditional, i.e., that it is w/o prejudice to the results of the
reinvestigation or review ( if accused wants to travel pending review and so that the
court will not lose juris over his person.
IMPROVIDENT PLEA OF GUILT- Plea involuntarily made and without consent
> It would be considered if there was failure to conduct searching inquiry,
failure of prosecution to present evidence, no rational basis between testimony and
guilt
- Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. — At any time before the judgment of
conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be
withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. (5)
-Conviction based on an improvident plea of guilty shall be set aside only if such plea
is the sole basis of the judgment. Where the trial court receives evidence to determine
precisely whether the accused erred in admitting his guilt, the manner in which the
plea is made loses legal significance if the conviction is independently of the plea,
based on evidence proving the commission by the accused of the offense charged.
Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution.
— Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties, the
court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order the
prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of
any written statement given by the complainant and other witnesses in any
investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or other investigating
officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which constitute or
contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case and which are in the
possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law investigating
agencies. (11a)
6
PURPOSE – to prevent surprise, suppression or alteration of evidence
- Mode of discovery
8. Rule on promulgation of judgment
Promulgation of judgment (Bar 1997)
1. As a rule, a judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and
any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is merely for a light
offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. The
judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court if the judge is absent or outside the
province or city (Sec. 6, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
2. If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be
promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the
place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment. The
court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to
approve the bail bond pending appeal. If the decision of the trial court convicting 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 (Sec. 6, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
How accused is to be notified of the promulgation
The notice shall be given by the clerk of court personally to the accused or through his
bondsman or warden and counsel. If accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or
escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known address (Sec. 6, Rule
120, Rules of Court).
Rule if the accused fails to appear in the promulgation of judgment
1. If the accused fails to appear at the scheduled promulgation of judgment despite
notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and
serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel (Sec. 6, Rule 120,
Rules of Court).
2. If the judgment is for conviction, and the failure of the accused to appear was without
justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in the Rules of Court against the
judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of
judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of
the remedies. He shall state the reason for his absence and if he proves the absence was
justified, he shall be allowed to avail of the remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice
3. Jurisprudence reiterates the rule thus:
"An accused is required to be present before the trial court at the promulgation of the
judgment in a criminal case. If the accused fails to appear before the trial court, promulgation
of judgment shall be made in accordance with Rule 120, Section 6, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
Re- vised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to'wit: In case the accused fails to appear at the
scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by
recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known
address or thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without
justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these Rules against the judgment and
the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment,
however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he
proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies
within fifteen (15) days from notice" (People v. Taruc, G.R. No. 185202, February 18, 2009).
Modification of judgment (Bar 1989)
A judgment of conviction may be modified or set aside upon motion of the accused, before the
judgment becomes final or before appeal is perfected (Sec. 7, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
When judgment becomes final
A judgment becomes final (a) after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or (b) when
the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or (c) when the accused has
waived in writing his right to appeal, or (d) has applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120, Rules
of Court).
Entry of judgment
After a judgment has become final, it shall be entered in accordance with Rule 36 (Sec. 8, Rule
120, Rules of Court).
9. Rule on discharge of accused as witness
Discharge of accused to be a state witness; requisites (Bar 1988; 1990; 1994; 2006)
1. When two or more accused are jointly charged for an offense, they shall be tried
jointly, unless the court upon motion of the prosecutor or any accused, orders a separate trial
for one or more of the accused (Sec. 16, Rule 119, Rules of Court).
2. One or more of the accused tried jointly with the others, may however, be discharged
with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state. For this purpose, the prosecutor
shall comply with the following: (a) file a motion for the discharge of the accused; and (b) file
the motion before the prosecution rests its case (Sec. 17, Rule 119, Rules of Court).
3. The court upon receipt of the motion shall require the prosecution to present evidence
and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness. The court shall conduct a hearing in
support of the discharge. The court, after hearing may direct that one or more of the accused
be discharged, if the court is satisfied that: (Bar 2006)
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;
(b) That there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the
offense committed, except the testimony of the accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moralturpitude
(Sec. 17, Rule 119, Rules of Court; Salvanera v. People, 523 SCRA 147, June 21, 2007). (Bar
1990; 1994)
4. Where a crime is contrived in secret, the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential
because only they have knowledge of the crime
10. Judgment
Meaning of judgment
A judgment is the 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 (Sec.
1, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
Requisites of a judgment
1. The following are the formal requisites of a judgment:
7
(a) It must be written in the official language;
(b) It must be personally and directly prepared and signed by the judge; and
(c) It must contain clearly and distinctly a (i) statement of the facts, and (ii) the law upon
which it is based (Sec. 1, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
2. The jurisdictional requirements before a judgment may be validly rendered are
jurisdiction overthe subject matter, the territory and the person of the accused
3. In connection with the rendition of judgments, the Court recently declared:
We have sustained decisions of lower courts as having substantially or sufficiently complied
with the constitutional injunction, notwithstanding the laconic and terse manner in which they
were written; and even if "there (was left) much to be desired in terms of (their) clarity,
coherence and comprehensibility," provided that they eventually set out the facts and the law
on which they were based, as when they stated the legal qualifications of the offense
constituted by the facts proved, the modifying circumstances, the participation of the accused,
the penalty imposed and the civil liability; or discussed the facts comprising the elements of
the offense that was charged in the information, and accordingly rendered a verdict and
imposed the corresponding penalty; or quoted the facts narrated in the prosecution's
memorandum, but made their own findings and assessment of evidence, before finally
agreeing with the prosecution's evaluation of the case.
Contents of a judgment of conviction; contents of judgment of acquittal
1. A judgment of conviction shall state:
(a) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused;
(b) the aggravating and mitigating circumstances which attended the commission of the
offense;
(c) the participation of the accused in the offense whether as (i) principal, (ii)accomplice,
or (iii) accessory;
(d) the penalty imposed upon the accused;
(e) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered
from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil
liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived
2. A judgment of acquittal shall:
(a) state whether or not the evidence of the pros- ecution (i) absolutely failed to prove the
guilt of the ac- cused, or (ii) merely failed to prove his guilt beyond rea- sonable doubt;
(b) determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist
(Sec. 2, Rule 120 Rules of Court).
* A verdict of acquittal is immediately final
Rule when there are two or more offenses in a single infor- mation or complaint (duplicitous
complaint or information)
1. When two or more offenses are charged in a single information or complaint, the
accused must file amotion
to quash (Sec. 3[f], Rule 117, Rules of Court) because of the rule that a complaint or
information must charge only one offense, except when the lawprescribes a single punishment
for various offenses (Sec. 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court).
2. If the accused fails to object before trial for the violation of Sec. 13 of Rule 110, the
accused is deemed to have waived the defect and the court may convict him for as many
offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for eachoffense, setting out
separately the findings of fact and law in each offense (Sec. 3, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
3. While Sec. 13 of Rule 110, frowns upon multiple offenses being charged in a single
information, the failure to raise this issue during arraignment amounts to a waiver and the
objection can no longer be raised on appeal
Judgment rendered by judge who did not hear case
In a relatively recent case, accused-appellant contends that the judge who penned the appealed
decision is different from the judge who heard the testimonies of the witnesses and was, thus,
in no position to render a judgment, as he did not observe firsthand their demeanor during
trial.
The Court did not agree. The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one
who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial, but merely relied
on the records of the case, does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the
evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion
11. Post-conviction remedy or probation
**pakicheck to hindi ko alam
POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES (Rules 37-38, 40–47, 52-53)
(1) Remedies before a judgment becomes final and executory
(a) Motion for reconsideration (prohibited in a case that falls under summary procedure)
(Rules 37, 52);
(b) Motion for new trial (Rules 37, 53); and
(c) Appeal (Rules 40, 41, 42, 43, 45)
(2) Remedies after judgment becomes final and executory
(a) Petition for relief from judgment
(b) Action to annul a judgment;
(c) Certiorari; and
(d) Collateral attack of a judgment.
12. Supervening fact rule
**pacheck rin haha
Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is
responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts
existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in
second jeopardy if indicted for the second offense.
13. Bail petition / motion
Where application or petition for bail may be filed (Bar 2002)
1. As a general rule, the application for bail may be filed with the court where the
case is pending. If the judge thereof is absent or unavailable, then the application
may be filed with any Regional Trial Court judge, Metropolitan Trial Court judge,
Municipal Trial Court judge, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge in the
province, city, or municipality (Sec. 17[a], Rule 114, Rules of Court).
Where there is no showing that the judgeof the court where the criminal
case is pending is unavailable, another judge who entertains a bail application
despite knowledge of the pendency of the case in another court is clearly in error
(Savella v. Ines, 521 SCRA 417).
Judges who approve applications for bail of accused whose cases are
pending in other courts are guilty of gross ignorance of the law (Re: Report on the
Judicial Audit in RTC Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar, 536 SCRA 313).
2. Where the accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where
the case is pending, the application for bail may also be filed with any Regional
Trial Court of said place. If no judge thereof is available, then with any
Metropolitan Trial Court judge, Municipal Trial Court judge or Municipal Circuit
Trial Court judge in the said place (Sec. 17[a], Rule 114, Rules of Court).
When bail is filed with the court other than where the case is pending, the
judge who accepted the bail shall forward it, together with the order of release and
other supporting papers, to the court where the case is pending, which may, for
good reasons, require a different one to be filed (Sec. 19, Rule 114, Rules of Court).
The failure of a judge who granted the bail to transmit the order of release
and other supporting papers to the court where the case is pending constitutes
violation of therules (Savella v. Ines, 521 SCRA 417).
3. Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be
released on recognizance, the application may only be filed in the court where the
case is pending, on trial, or appeal (Sec. 17[b], Rule 114, Rules of Court).
4. When a person is in custody but not yet charged, he may apply for bail with any
court in the province, city or municipality where he is held (Sec. 17[c], Rule 114,
Rules of Court).
14. Rule on appeal of several accused
Effect of appeal by any of several accused (Bar 1998)
1. An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did
not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter (People v. Gandia, G.R. No. 175332, February 6, 2008;
Garces v. People, 527 SCRA 827). Under Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the present
Rules on Criminal Procedure, an "appeal taken by one or more of several accused
shall not affect those who did not appeal, except in so far as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter (Olalia, Jr. v. People, 562
SCRA 723, August 20,2008).
2. "Although the rule states that a favorable judgment shall benefit those who did not
appeal, we have held that a literal interpretation of the phrase 'did not appeal* will
not give justice to the purpose of the provision. It should be read in its entirety and
should not be myopically construed so as to defeat reason, i.e., to benefit an
accused who did not join in the appeal of his co-accused in case where the
appellate judgment is favorable.
3. "In fact, the Court has at various times applied the foregoing provision without
regard to the filing or non-filing of an appeal by a co-accused, so long as the
judgment was favorable to him. In such cases, the co-accused already withdrew his
appeal, failed to file an appellant's brief, or filed a notice of appeal with the trial
court but eventually withdrew the same. Even more, in these cases, all the accused
appealed from the judgment of conviction but for one reason or another, their
conviction had already become final and executory. Nevertheless, the Court still
applied to them the favorable judgment in favor of their co-accused xx x*
(Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140656, September 13, 2007).
15. Review the entire search and seizure