Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART ONE: Prosecution of Criminal and Civil Aspects of Offense [001 – 043]

- Accused can appeal the civil aspect of the case

001 Salazar v People 
 - Granting demurrer is only on criminal aspect, trial must proceed on civil aspect
- Prosecution cannot appeal from judgment of acquittal, places accused in double jeopardy; but
offended party can also appeal civil aspect
- Jurisdiction is determined at time of filing, not at commission of offense, but penalty is determined
002 People v Lagon 
 at time of commission

- Application and obtention of a search warrant is not the same with institution of action
003 Malaloan v CA 
 - Application of search warrant may be made with another court under extreme and compelling
circumstances
- Guidelines: (1) court where criminal action is pending has primary jurisdiction, other courts only
under extreme and compelling circumstances; (2) when latter court issues, motions to quash and
suppress may be filed in and resolved by such court; (3) where no motion is filed in issuing court,
party may file in court where action is pending; (4) if issuing court denies motion to quash, it shall
transmit all evidence obtained to court handling the case; (5) same guidelines apply if several
information are filed with different courts
- Fiscal must be present during the proceedings despite turning over active conduct of trial to the
004 People v Beriales 
 private prosecutor; otherwise, prosecution is not under control of the fiscal

- Court may dismiss the case at its discretion even if fiscal objects if case has already been filed in
005 Republic v Sunga 
 court
- But only after hearing the fiscal’s view that the court should exercise its exclusive authority
- In rape, offended party must prosecute, this is a jurisdictional requirement (no longer good law)
006 People v Ocapan 


- Filing of affidavit or sworn statement of the offended party, if it contains all allegations required of
007 People v Ilarde 
 a criminal complaint, constitutes sufficient compliance

- Where the OSG takes a position contrary to the complainant and recommends the acquittal of the
008 People v Madali 
 accused, the complainants have the right to be heard on the question of indemnity and damages
arising
- Preliminary investigation is terminated upon filing of the information in the proper court; once the
009 Crespo v Mogul 
 case has been filed, any disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion of the court
- A motion to dismiss should be addressed to the court who has the option to grant or deny the
same
- Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while
the case is already in court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court
- Crespo only applies when fiscal files a motion to dismiss or withdraw information, prior to that, the
010 Roberts Jr v CA 
 court must wait for the DOJ’s decision on the appeal

- Without criminal complaint for rape, which was required before RA8353, criminal case cannot
011 People v Galigao 
 proceed; accused must be acquitted (no longer good law; criminal complaint no longer required in
rape)
- Records and documents verify that accused and alias are one and the fame
012 People v Guevarra 
 - Issue of validity of information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; issue is one affecting
jurisdiction over the person, and should have been raised in a motion to quash
- Accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that which he is charged in the complaint
or information on which he is tried
- Lack of one essential element in the criminal information is ground for quashal of information
013 People v Purisima 


- Aggravating circumstance of “committed in band” cannot be appreciated because it was not

014 People v Buayaban 
 alleged in the information; “robbery in band, with homicide” is not a crime

- In determining what crime is charged in an information, the material inculpatory facts recited are
015 People v Delim 
 controlling

- Aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved properly
016 People v Fernandez 


- Requirement of allegation of special aggravating cirumstance in the information is retroactively

017 People v Masapol 
 applied because it is favorable to the accused

- That rape victim became insane merely raised the penalty imposable, and does not charge
018 People v Degamo 
 another offense; hence, merely a formal amendment and does not constitute double jeopardy

1
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Change of charge from slight to serious physical injuries is only a formal amendment; it charged
019 Villaflor v Vivar 
 essentially the same offense
- New preliminary investigation not necessary as it would elicit the same facts
- If duplicity of offenses is committed in the information charged, the same is ground for motion to
020 People v Fernandez 
 quash; failure to object constitutes waiver

- Successive shots with a shotgun, each shot necessarily constitutes one act, and should be
021 People v Lopez 
 embodies in a separate information; but accused failed to object, so constitutes a waiver

- When a person charged claims to be within the exception, it is more logical and convenient that
022 US v Chan Toco 
 he would aver and prove such fact as a defense, rather than the prosecutor to anticipate such
defense and deny it in the information
- Not necessary to aver all the evidence in the information; it is sufficient that the accused is
023 Balitaan v CFI allowed to prepare his defense

Batangas 


- Accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in the
024 Matilde v Jabson 
 complaint or information on which he is tried
- Real nature of crime not determined by caption in information, but by actual recital of facts in the
information
- Information that does not allege accused is father of rape victim cannot consider such as
025 People v Gallo 
 qualifying circumstance
- Retroactive application of jurisprudence even after finality of judgment allowed
- Information for libel must set out the particular defamatory words verbatim and as published,
026 Vasquez v CA 
 statement of substance is insufficient; however, may be cured by evidence

- In rape of relative, allegation of “uncle” and “niece” not specific enough to satisfy special qualifying
027 People v Llanto 
 circumstance, must allege degree of consanguinity or affinity

- “On or about (date)” allowed; precise date of commission of rape is not essential element; failure
028 People v Lizada 
 to specify exact date does not render information defective

- “On or about the year 1992” not allowed, deprives accused of his right to intelligently prepare for
029 People v Ladrillo 
 his defense, it creates a serious doubt on the commission of the rape

- Date of rape in information is different from what was proved, information is not defective; time not
030 People v Losano 
 an essential element

- Rape committed “on or about and during the interval between 1910 to 1912” is so indefinite and
031 US v Javier Dichao 
 uncertain that it does not give the accused the information required by law

- 8 day gap in rape information not significant, can petition to amend the information
032 People v Molero 


- Affidavit cures ambiguity in the complaint regarding the number of offenses committed
033 People v Lualhati 
 - Pardon in rape cases should be given before the filing of the complaint (no longer good law on
rape; other crimes against chastity)
- 6 year approximation in the information for theft renders it fatally defective; statement is so
034 Rocaberte v People 
 general as to span a number of years prevents accused from properly preparing his defense; but
not a ground for motion to quash, must file a motion for bill of particulars
- Information need not allege the specific weapon used in the crime of murder
035 People v Perez 


- No prejudicial question when husband filed civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage; any
036 Marella-Bobis v nd rd
decision in the civil case will not change the fact that husband entered into 2 and 3 marriages

Bobis 


- Civil case for collection of money, torts and damages raises a prejudicial question to the criminal
037 Ark Travel Express complaint of false testimony concerning material facts in such civil case; criminal case must be
suspended
Inc v Abrogar 


- No prejudicial question if the civil and criminal actions can proceed independently of each other;
038 People v Consing, also if the actions involve different issues

2
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Jr. 


- Amendment from frustrated to consummated murder, after victim’s death, is proper, because
039 Teehankee v there is no variance in the nature of the offenses, only a change in the stage of execution
- Substantial amendments consist of changes in the recital of facts constituting the offense
Madayag 
 charged, and determinative of jurisdiction of court; all others are amendment
- Test: (1) WON defense would be equally available after amendment; (2) WON evidence accused
might have is equally applicable
- Cannot amend information when already on appeal
040 Draculan v Donato 
 - No new information may be filed on appeal, as it would be double jeopardy

- Oral motion to amend to include habitual delinquency allowed, because only a formal amendment;
041 Almeda v Villaluz 
 habitual delinquency only affects the imposable penalty, dos not change the crime charged

- Post-arraignment amendment to allege conspiracy of other accused only a formal amendment; it

042 People v CA (1983) 
 will not prejudice rights of accused who is already charged as a principal

- Motion to quash after arraignment allowed in the following cases: (1) information charges no
043 Cruz v CA 
 offense, (2) trial court has no jurisdiction, (3) penalty or offense has been extinguished, (4) double
jeopardy has attached
PART TWO: Search and Seizure 
[044 – 124] 


- General warrants are void, must particularly describe the things to be seized
044 Stonehill v Diokno 
 - Exclusionary rule on objects seized in violation of constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures
- Private searches are not within the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures
045 People v Marti 
 - Mere presence of NBI officers did not convert the search into a warrantless search if they are
merely there to observe; to look at what is in plain sight is not a search
- Exception is if private person initiates a search at the instigation of government agencies or
officers
- Right against unreasonable searches and seizures extends as well to oral statements;
046 Katz v US 
 governments cannot electronically listen to and record citizens’ phonecalls

- Search warrant was never questioned, so its validity is presumed

047 Villanueva v - Money was considered evidence, and therefore no longer fungible

Querubin 


Supra 045
048 People v Marti 


- General allegations against saturation drives; must adduce concrete evidence

049 Guanzon v De Villa 
 - There is high probability of abuses, but the solution is not to stop all police action; what is
prohibited is not police action per se, but the procedure
- Probable cause: such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
050 Burgos v Chief of prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched
Staff 
 - Person against whom the search warrant is directed need not be the owner of the personal
property to be seized; no real property may be seized
Supra 046
051 Katz v US 


- Presumption of unreasonableness of search and seizure absent a warrant issued by judge

052 People v Aruta 
 - When warrantless searches allowed: (1) Rule 126, Sec 12; (2) plain view; (3) moving vehicle; (4)
consented search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; (7) exigent circumstances; in all cases,
probable cause must still be established
- Participation in the trial does not cure the illegality of search and seizure
- Police may stop and frisk based on suspicious behavior, pat him for weapons, but only when
053 Manalili v CA 
 warrant is impracticable

Supra 003
054 Malaloan v CA 


- File motion to quash warrant with the issuing court, but if none is filed and criminal case is already
055 People v CA (1998) 
 initiated in a different court, may file motion with the latter
- Search warrant valid if judge personally determines probably cause, and if warrant describes

3
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
place to be searched
- Requisites for issuance: (1) probable cause; (2) determined personally by the judge; (3)
056 Paper Industries personally examined, under oath, and in writing; (4) witness and applicant must testify to facts
personally known to them; (5) warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and items to
Corp. v Asuncion 
 be seized
- Judge may not merely rely on affidavits submitted; examination must be in the form of probing and
exhaustive questions, not merely routinary or pro forma
- “Totality of circumstances” test to determine probable cause
057 Illinois v Gates 


- Negative ingredient such as lack of a license can be proved by a certification from the relevant
058 People v Estrada 
 agency; no reason why this cannot be secured
- Inadequacy of description of residence characterizes warrant as a general warrant, violates
constitutional requirement
- Invalid warrant, it assumes the entire building is owned by the accused when in fact part of it was
059 People v Sy Juco 
 occupied by another person
- Warrant in question is beyond what was applied for, and officers seized items in premises not
belonging to the accused
- Test for affidavits: WON such was drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged in case the
allegations contained are proven false
Supra 050
060 Burgos v Chief of
Staff 


Supra 044
061 Stonehill v Diokno 


- In cases of pirated movies, master tapes must be presented for probable cause to be established;
062 Columbia Pictures v mere allegations of existence of copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for issuance of search
warrant
CA (1994) 


- Master copy not an indispensable requirement, merely a guidepost

063 Columbia Pictures v - Other evidence may be presented to meet the requirement, especially if production in court of the
master tape would result in delay, inconvenience or expenses out of proportion to its evidentiary
CA (1996) 
 value

Supra 056
064 Paper Industries
Corp. v Asuncion 


- Mere affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses are not sufficient; the examining judge must
065 Roan v Gonzales 
 take depositions in writing
- Deposition must not merely rehash the contents of the affidavit, but the judge must make his own
inquiry on the intent and justification of the application
- Defense of acting under superior orders is not a justification not to secure a warrant; persons in
066 Alih v Castro 
 this case were only suspects, and not wanted criminals
- Civil courts have the authority to determine whether or not there is probable cause to search a
person’s premises
- Description in warrant does not have to be in precise and minute detail; description is required to
067 Kho v Macalintal 
 be specific only so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow

Supra 056
068 Paper Industries
Corp. v Asuncion 


Supra 059
069 People v Sy Juco 


Supra 050
070 Burgos v. Chief of
Staff 


4
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Personal examination is necessary, cannot instruct deputy clerk of court to depose complainants
071 Bache v Ruiz 
 and witnesses
- Description cannot be couched in language that is all-embracing as to include all conceivable
records
- Search and seizure may be conducted on a separate day, provided the warrant has not expired
072 Mustang Lumber v - Administrative seizure: owner retains physical possession, only an inventory of articles is taken
and signed by the owner; owner is prohibited from disposing the objects
CA 


Supra 044
073 Stonehill v Diokno 


Supra 058
074 People v Estrada 


Supra 055
075 People v CA (1998) 


- Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizure does not extend to non-
076 US v Verdugo- resident aliens residing in a foreign country; even if warrantless, because residence was in Mexico

Urquidez 


- Evidence obtained in a search incidental to a lawful arrest is admissible

077 People v Padilla 
 - Once the lawful arrest is effected, the police may undertake a protective search of the passenger
compartment and containers in the vehicle which are within the person’s grabbing distance,
regardless of the nature of the offense
- Two-tiered test of incidental search: (1) item is within arrestee’s area of immediate control; (2)
search was contemporaneous with arrest
- The law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made; the process
078 People v Chua Ho cannot be reversed
- If warrantless arrest, it must fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules
San 


- Where accused has been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure
079 OCA v Barron 
 of the fruit of the crime, as well as for the body search upon him, because it is incidental to a lawful
arrest
- Search incidental to lawful arrest must only be within the area under the person’s immediate
080 Chimel v California 
 control, within which he might have obtained a weapon or destructive evidence; cannot search his
whole house upon service of arrest warrant
- 1985 decision: void warrant but admissible evidence because it was for rebellion, a crime against
081 Nolasco v Pano 
 public order, therefore it did not need a warrant (bad ruling)
- 1987 decision: reversed the 19785 decision
- Attempt to flee creates probable cause that person was concealing something illegal, and it is duty
082 Posadas v CA 
 of police officers to inspect

- Stop and frisk not the same with search incidental to lawful arrest; Muslim men with eyes moving
083 Malacat v CA 
 fast not sufficient cause for stop and frisk or in flagrante delicto arrest

- When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or premises,
084 People v Malasugui 
 he is precluded from later complaining thereof

- Even if there was compromise, compromise was only to the institution of criminal action, and not
085 Alvarez v CFI 
 consent to the search

- Peaceful submission to a search does not mean consent to be searched, but submission to the
086 Garcia v Locsin 
 authority of the law
- Implied waiver requisites: (1) existence of right subject of waiver, (2) actual or constructive
knowledge of existence of such right, (3) actual intention to relinquish the right
- Taking of evidence from person’s house was with his consent, because he admitted his guilt
087 People v Agbot 
 during the investigation; surrender of the weapon is a natural consequence of admitting guilt

- Where the officer has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous
088 Terry v Ohio 
 individual, he would be warranted to conduct a the frisk for the protection of himself and others

- Police officers must have probable cause for conducting stop and frisk searches
089 Delaware v Prouse 


5
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Mere mobility of vehicles does not give police unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate
090 Caballes v CA 
 searches without warrants; fact that vehicle looked different not probable cause for search

- Checkpoints valid, no sufficient evidence presented to declare them unconstitutional

091 Valmonte v De Villa 
 - Constitutional right is personal, can only be invoked by the person whose rights are infringed

Supra 053
092 Manalili v CA 


- Checkpoints also not illegal per se as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants
093 People v Laserna 
 subjected to body search, and inspection is merely visual; cannot search luggage because that
would require probable cause
- But here, luggage was validly searched because accused consented
- Search of moving vehicle valid even without warrant because it is not practicable to secure a
094 Carroll v US 
 warrant because the vehicle can quickly be moved out of the locality

- Customs search does not need a warrant under Tariff Code, except if search is done in dwelling
095 Papa v Mago 
 - Bureau of Customs retains jurisdiction until importation is terminated; termination ends upon full
payment of customs duties, taxes and charges
- Probable cause is a minimum requirement for a reasonable search even in search of moving
096 Almeida-Sanchez v vehicle

US 


Supra 090
097 Caballes v CA 


- Basis of search of moving vehicle is practicality and urgency of situation; it is an exception to

098 Asuncion v CA 
 search warrant requirement

- Seizure of ship caught in flagrante fishing illegally and without license is valid warrantless seizure
099 Roldan v Arca 


- A case of search of a moving vehicle

100 People v Lo Ho
Wing 


- A case of search of a moving vehicle; probable cause established by information received by

101 People v Balingan 
 Narcotics Intelligence and surveillance conducted

- When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such warrantless search is valid
102 Obra v CA 
 as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before
the search that they will find the evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle
- Objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that
103 Harris v US 
 view are subject to seizure

- Limitations on plain view doctrine: (1) there must be exigent circumstances; (2) discovery of
104 Coolidge v New evidence must be inadvertent
- Plain view doctrine not applicable if discovery was anticipated, because then the police would
Hampshire 
 have ample time to obtain a warrant

Supra 065
105 Roan v Gonzales 


- Search incidental to lawful arrest may include those in plain view of an officer who has the right to
106 People v Musa 
 be in the position to have that view; police officer not searching for evidence but inadvertently
comes across an incriminating object
- Cannot move from one portion of the house to another, otherwise, fishing for evidence
- Where there is unlawful arrest, the search of person and home cannot be deemed legal as an
107 People v Doria 
 incident to the arrest
- Requisites of plain view: (1) officer has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area; (2) discovery is inadvertent; (3) it is immediately apparent to
the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime
- Where object is inside a closed package, it cannot in itself be in plain view, and cannot be seized
without a warrant
- Warrantless arrest valid because accused caught in flagrante delicto; entrapment scheme is valid

6
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Police intentionally peeping through window is not inadvertent discovery of evidence; there was
108 People v Bolasa 
 no valid intrusion

Supra 045
109 People v Marti 


- Company searching employee’s items not a violation of constitutional right, but may give rise to
110 Waterous Drug Corp civil and criminal action

v NLRC 


- Warrantless searches and seizures can be valid under extraordinary circumstances, as during a
111 People v De Gracia 
 rebellion, which necessarily involves urgent and exigent circumstances
- General chaos and disorder, courts in surrounding areas were closed so no opportunity to secure
a search warrant
- Two witnesses or resident must actually witness the search, not enough that they are in the house
112 People v Gesmundo 


Supra 112
113 People v Gesmundo 


- It is the police officers who confiscated the items who should sign the receipt; if signed by the
114 People v Lacbanes 
 accused, it is tantamount to an extrajudicial confession, and therefore he must be assisted by
counsel
Supra 115
115 People v Gesmundo 


Supra 044
116 Stonehill v Diokno 


Supra 071
117 Bache v Ruiz 


- Persons with no property interest in the car searched and item seized, and have no reasonable
118 Rakas v Illinois 
 expectations of privacy, cannot challenge the search in those areas

Supra 056
119 Paper Industries
Corp. v Asuncion 


- Documents must be returned to the accused if they were not mentioned in the warrant
120 Uy Kheytin v
Villareal 


- Objects seized, although inadmissible due to improper search, cannot be returned because to
121 Magonica v Palacio 
 order the return of prohibited weapons would justify a criminal offense
- Illegality of search is independent from the illegal possession of prohibited arms
- Dismissal at preliminary investigation is never with prejudice; re-filing is allowed
122 Collector v Villaluz 
 - Since dismissal at preliminary investigation does not bar subsequent prosecution, to return the
items to the accused would deprive Customs of the evidence indispensable to the successful
prosecution of the case
- Illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of
123 Mata v Bayona 
 which is prohibited

- Persons directly and indirectly involved in transgressing the right of private persons against
124 MHP Garments v CA unreasonable searches and seizures may be held civilly liable for tort

PART THREE: Arrest [125 – 211]

- Invalid arrest, participating in a rally is not unconstitutional; police’s only basis was accused’s t-
125 David v Arroyo 
 shirt displaying “Oust Gloria”, not sufficient for probable cause

- Application of actual force, physical restraint or a formal declaration is not required; it is enough
126 Sanchez v that there be an intent on the part of one to arrest another, and an intent of the other to submit
- Letter-invitation from military officials constitutes an arrest; entitled to rights of persons under

7
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
custodial investigation
Demetriou 
 - If accused raises grounds other than lack of jurisdiction over his person in the motion to quash, he
is deemed to have submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction
- Accused voluntarily going to the officer upon “invitation” was a submission to the latter’s custody
127 People v. Sequiño 
 an therefore an arrest; unlawful if there was no probable cause for his arrest

- Voluntary appearance of the accused where court acquired jurisdiction over his person is
128 Defensor-Santiago v accomplished either by his pleading to the merits, or by filing bail
- Filing of bail bond is valid if done after accused submits to jurisdiction of court, even if accused
Vasquez 
 has not personally appeared

- Giving or posting bail is tantamount to submission of person to the jurisdiction of the court; also if
129 Cojuangco v appearance is other than objecting to the jurisdiction of the court

Sandiganbayan 


?
130 People v. Siao 


- Judge may order fiscal to submit additional evidence to aid him in determining probable cause
131 Placer v Villanueva 
 before issuing a warrant of arrest
- Fiscal’s certification does not obligate the judge to issue a warrant; the issuance of a warrant is
not a mere ministerial function, it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion
- Determination of probable cause is a judicial function, it is not for the provincial fiscal nor the
132 People v Inting 
 election supervisor to ascertain
- Probable cause determination in preliminary investigation is executive; probable cause
determination for issuance of warrant is judicial in nature
- Probable cause does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty; it
133 Allado v Diokno 
 is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief
- However, probable cause may not be established simply by showing that the judge subjectively
believes that he has grounds for his action; good faith is not enough
- “Prima facie” denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the
134 Salonga v Cruz proposition it supports; no prima facie case here for issuance of warrant
- Person cannot be included in the trial of 40 persons when on the face of the record, no evidence
Pano 
 linking him to the alleged conspiracy exists

- Records and report supporting fiscal’s resolution finding probable cause should be before the
135 Lim v Felix 
 judge for him to determine judicial probable cause; judge need not personally examine each
witness
- Mere reliance on bare certification of the prosecutor does not satisfy the constitutional
requirement of personal determination
- MTC judge may issue warrant even before he makes a resolution if he is satisfied that a probable
136 Pangandaman v cause exists, and there is necessity to place accused in custody; but procedure must be completed
in RTC
Casar 
 - 50 “John Doe” warrants void because they not particularly describe the person to be arrested

- Accused was not informed of his constitutional rights when he was arrested, and was not provided
137 People v Lumayok 
 with counsel; invalid arrest, therefore extrajudicial confession cannot be admitted as evidence, also
because the confession was in language unknown to him
- Person arrested shall be informed of his constitutional rights (1) to remain silent and to counsel,
138 People v Albior 
 (2) that any statement he might make could be used against him, (3) to communicate with his
lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses, by the most expedient means
- No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by
the person arrested
- Warrantless arrest under Sec 5(a) requires: (1) person to be arrested must exert an overt act
139 People v Tudtud 
 indicating he has just committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime; (2) such
overt act is done within the view of the arresting officer
- No basis for warrantless arrest; not caught in flagrante delicto, lacks elements
140 People v Chua 


- Probable cause must be based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, which means
141 People v Mendez 
 an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion; it is reasonable when it is based on actual facts

Supra 107
142 People v Doria 


8
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Fact that the initial report which led to the warrantless arrest was not brought to trial does not
143 Cadua v CA 
 mean that the legality of the arrest was tainted
- Legality of apprehending would not depend on actual commission of the crime, but upon the
nature of the deed
- Police did not have time to apply for a warrant, and the tip received from the informant proved to
144 People v Montilla 
 be reliable
- It is necessary to adopt a realistic appreciation of the physical and tactical problems of law
enforcement agencies
- That a crime has been committed is an essential precondition; it is not enough to suspect that a
145 People v Burgos 
 crime may have been committed
- The fact of commission of the crime must be undisputed; the test of reasonable ground applies
only to the identity of the perpetrator
- Prosecutor failing to present the investigator gives rise to “provocative presumption” there was
torture and violence during custodial investigation
- Police summoned to crime scene and saw the dead body, and was pointed to the suspect, has
146 People v Jayson 
 probable cause to arrest said person without a warrant based on personal knowledge of the crime

Supra 088
147 Terry v Ohio 


- Guidelines and duties of officers which must be observed at the time of arrest and during custodial
148 People v Mahinay 
 investigation:
(1) person arrested must be informed in language known to and understood by him of reason
for arrest, shown warrant if any, every communication must be in language known to him;
(2) warn him that he has right to remain silent, and any statement he makes may be used as
evidence against him;
(3) he has right to be assisted at all times of independent and competent lawyer, preferably of
his own choice;
(4) if he has no lawyer or cannot afford one, he will be provided with one;
(5) whether or not he has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial investigation in any
form shall be conducted except in presence of counsel, or after valid waiver made;
(6) he has right to communicate by most expedient means, with lawyer, immediate family,
doctor, priest or minister, and be visited or confer with duly accredited NGO;
(7) he has right to waive any of said rights provided it is voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
made;
(8) that if person arrested waives his right to lawyer, it must be done in writing and in presence
of counsel, otherwise, waiver is void;
(9) he may indicate in any manner that he does not wish to be questioned;
(10) initial waiver of right to remain silent does not bar him from invoking it at any time during
the process;
(11) any statement or evidence obtained in violation of foregoing are inadmissible.
Supra 125
149 David v Arroyo 


- Accused was caught in flagrante as he was actually possessing illegal drugs on his person when
150 People v Valdez 
 he was searched (bad ruling)

Supra 145
151 People v Burgos 


- Arrest warrant by the name of John Doe for the apprehension of a person whose true name is
152 People v Veloso 
 unknown is void without further descriptions of the person to be apprehended

Supra 136
153 Pangandaman v
Casar 


- Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a
154 People v Pasudag 
 suspect in the commission of a crime, and the police starts to ask questions which tend to elicit an
admission
- The moment there is a move or even urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions
155 People v Zuela 
 or even plain information which may appear innocent at that time, there is custodial investigation
requiring assistance of counsel
- Custodial investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry but starts to focus on a
156 People v Valdez 
 particular person as a subject

9
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- In order for confession to be admissible, it must be: (1) voluntary, (2) made with the assistance of
157 People v Rodriguez 
 competent and independent counsel at the time of confession, (3) express, and (4) in writing

- Custodial investigation includes the time the person is invited to be investigated for a crime
158 People v Del
Rosario 


- Letter-invitations sent by high-ranking military officials can be taken as an authoritative commend

159 Babst v NIB 
 which one can only defy at his peril and are illegal

- Right to be informed is different from merely requiring the officers to inform the accused of his
160 People v Mulueta 
 right; the accused must be able to understand said rights
- “Invitation” is custodial investigation as the accused was singled out
- The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the invitation ceases to be a
161 People v Tan 
 general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect

- The place of interrogation cannot determine the existence or absence of custodial investigation,
162 People v Baniquet 
 and it is to be noted from the way the accused was questioned; interrogation while walking to the
station is custodial investigation
- Person in custody must, prior to the interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to
163 Miranda v Arizona 
 remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court
- He must clearly be informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer
with him during investigation, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him
- Perfunctory reading of rights is merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful
164 People v Obrero 
 information to the suspect
- Police should have taken extra care considering the accused finished only grade 4
- Police must follow Miranda safeguards for in-custody interrogation of accused persons
165 People v Duero 
 - Even if persons has answered some questions or volunteered some statements, he is not
precluded from refraining to answer further questions
- Admissions obtained during custodial investigation without benefit of counsel, although reduced
166 People v Ordoño 
 into writing and later signed in the presence of counsel, is still inadmissible
- Statements made to a radio announcer should be admissible and are deemed voluntary
Supra 164
167 People v Obrero 


- Though statements without Miranda warnings are inadmissible, it can be used to question the
168 Harris v NY 
 credibility of the witness

- “Public safety” exception to Miranda; answer was needed to insure that future danger to the public
169 NY v Quarles 
 did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area

Supra 165
170 People v Duero 


- Incumbent upon prosecutor to establish that prior to in-custody questioning, accused was
171 People v Figueroa 
 informed of his rights; the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional
presumption of innocence
?
172 Gumabon v Director
of Prisons 


- Where the right has not been adequately explained and there are serious doubts as to whether
173 People v Nicandro 
 the person interrogated knew and understood his relevant constitutional rights when he answered
the questions, it is idle to talk of waiver of rights; must be an intelligent waiver
- Long questioning followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law
174 People v Galit 
 that the accused be informed of his rights
- There should be several short and clear questions, and every right explained in simple words in a
dialect or language known to the person under investigation
- In informing the accused of his rights, it is presumed to contemplate the transmission of
175 People v Continente 
 meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle; valid waiver if made in presence of counsel
- Extrajudicial confession is presumed to be voluntarily and validly made unless the contrary is
176 People v Bacor 
 proven and that the burden of proof is upon the party who claims the contrary (bad ruling?)

10
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Uncounseled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel is inadmissible
177 People v Quidato Jr. 
 in evidence
- Belated arrival of a lawyer even if prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled confession does
not cure the defect
Supra 164
178 People v Obrero 


- “Effective counsel” is one who can be made to act in protection of the accused’s rights, and not by
179 People v Labtan 
 merely providing accused with anyone who possesses a law degree
- Must be willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, not one who would merely be
giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual’s rights
- Mere perfunctory recitation of rights, signifying nothing more than a feigned compliance with
180 People v Samulde 
 requirements not sufficient

- While initial choice of lawyer where person cannot afford one is naturally lodged in police,
181 People v Gallardo 
 accused has final choice and reject counsel given and ask for another one
- Lawyer is deemed engaged by accused if accused does not raise any objection against the
lawyer’s appointment during investigation
- Must explain rights in practical terms and in a language the person understands; effective
182 People v Canoy 
 communication must result to understanding of what is conveyed
- Degree of explanation will vary depending on: (1) education, (2) intelligence, (3) other personal
circumstances
- Police admission that accused was not appraised of his rights destroys the presumption of
183 People v Sapal 
 regularity

- Presumption against waiver of protection given by constitution; prosecution must prove with
184 People v Jara 
 strongly convincing evidence that the accused willingly and voluntarily submitted his confession and
waived right to counsel
Supra 173
185 People v Nicandro 


Supra 186
186 People v Continente 


- Police line-up in this case was not part of custodial inquest, not yet zeroing in on the accused
187 Gamboa v Cruz 


- Since the line-up was conducted after indictment, it already formed part of the prosecution of the
188 US v Wade 
 case, and not a mere general investigation; counsel was required, unless intelligently waived

- Police line-up in this case is outside the mantle of right to counsel because it involves a general
189 People v Pavillare 
 inquiry into an unsolved crime, and is purely investigatory

Supra 184
190 People v Jara 


Supra 145
191 People v Burgos 


- Rights of a person under custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements not
192 People v Andan
 elicited through questioning by authorities and given during ordinary conversation or media
interviews
- Confession to the radio reporter is admissible, if accused freely agreed to the interview and no
193 People v Domantay 
 showing that reporter was prompted by police

- If other persons are engaged to help the police, spontaneous confession to them cannot be
194 People v Morada 
 admitted as evidence, Andal does not apply

- Reading of the rights of the accused falls short of the requirement on the appraisal of
195 People v Ramos 
 constitutional rights

Supra 173
196 People v Nicandro 


- Fact of absence of counsel alone nullifies the confession; questioning should have ceased at that
197 People v Decierdo 
 point
- Accused’s failure to expressly ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver of the right

11
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Bail as remedy for arrest and detention is a constitutional right; warrant of arrest with no
198 Parada v Veneracion 
 recommendation for bail for a bailable offense is a downright violation of the right

- Where detention is by commitment order issued by a court with jurisdiction and on basis of
199 Ilagan v Enrile 
 information filed, writ of habeas corpus does not lie
- Absence of preliminary investigation does not go into jurisdiction of the court, but merely to
regularity of proceedings
- Although illegal arrest, what is important is the legality of the detention at the time of filing of the
200 Velasco vs. CA 
 application for habeas corpus; if subsequently detained validly, cannot apply for writ

- Writ of habeas corpus not only for physical restraint; a prior release that would render the writ
201 Moncupa v Enrile 
 moot must be one that is free from involuntary restraints

202 Enrile v Perez 


- Objection to illegal arrest must be before plea; any defect is cured by plea
203 People v Alojado 
 - Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person must be
before plea
- Any irregularity in arrest waived when, instead of quashing the information for lack of jurisdiction
204 People v Rondero 
 over person, accused voluntarily submits himself by entering a plea

- If a person is alleged to be restrained of liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued
205 Umil vs Ramos 
 by a judge, writ not available

- Every arrest without a warrant be tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceeding
206 Umil v Ramos
(Resolution) 


- Although warrant was irregularly issued, any infirmity attached to it was cured by the accused’s
207 Bagcal v Villaraza 
 submission to the jurisdiction of the court by applying for bail, filing memorandum for bail, and filing
MR when application was denied
-
208 Luna v Plaza 


- Where a warrant of arrest is assailed for an improper preliminary investigation, proper remedy is
209 Alimpos v CA motion to quash the warrant a petition for reinvestigation

- Subsequent reading of the Miranda rights does not cure the taint of an illegal arrest; otherwise, the
210 Brown v Illinois effect of the exclusionary rule would be diluted

- Judicial authority to whom person arrested must be surrendered cannot be any other but the judge
211 Sayo v Chief of who alone is authorized to issue a warrant of commitment

Police

PART FOUR: Preliminary Investigation and Inquest [212 – 234]

- Preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, it is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive
212 PCGG v. Desierto 
 display of both parties evidence

- Preliminary investigation does not make any pronouncement as to the guilt or innocence of the
213 Baytan v COMELEC 
 party involved; cannot be considered a judicial or a quasi-judicial proceeding

- Right to preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional; it is to protect the accused against
214 Hashim v Boncan 
 hasty, oppressive prosecution, and to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions

- Preliminary examination by City Court is allowed since findings by fiscal are not a bar; not double
215 Tandoc v Resultan 
 jeopardy because preliminary examinations are not full trials
- Reinvestigation only applies where a case is cognizable by the CFI but filed with the City Court
for purposes of PI and thereafter dismissed by the latter on the ground of no prima facie case exists
- Entitled to new preliminary investigation even after information filed, but remedy is to hold
216 Doromal v proceedings in court in abeyance pending the determination of probable cause

12
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Sandiganbayan 


- PCGG has authority to conduct preliminary investigation, but must not prejudge the case
217 Conjuangco v otherwise denial of due process

Sandiganbayan 


- Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
218 Webb v De Leon 
 establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt
- Deputy Ombudsman has the authority to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute cases
219 Velasco v before the Sandiganbayan

Casaclang 


- Tanodbayan has authority to conduct preliminary investigation, but once case filed in court,
220 Balgos v Crespo applies, and subsequent reinvestigation requires leave of court

Sandiganbayan 


- Preliminary investigation is generally inquisitorial, often the only means of discovering the persons
221 Paderanga v Drilon 
 who may be reasonably charged with a crime

- No right to cross-examine witnesses in preliminary investigation

222 Rodil v Garcia 


- Mere belief is not enough, prosecution must arm itself with facts and circumstances to establish
223 Allado v Diokno 
 probable cause; cannot be overeager to file the case

- Both parties may appeal the resolution to the DOJ

224 Dimatulac v. Villon 
 - Nothing in Crespo forecloses power of SOJ to review resolutions of fiscals; he is only enjoined to
refrain from entertaining a petition as far as practicable
Supra 009
225 Crespo v Mogul 


Supra 010
226 Roberts v CA 


- Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or
227 Dungog v CA 
 conviction or acquittal rests in the sound discretion of the court

- Motion for reinvestigation, after court acquires jurisdiction, should be addressed to the court
228 Velasquez v Usec of
Justice 


- Conviction invalid because arraignment and trial commenced notwithstanding the fact that the
229 People v Beriales 
 fiscal has not yet made his report on the result of the reinvestigation
- Also, no public prosecutor supervising when private prosecutor presented evidence
- Ordinarily, criminal prosecution may not be blocked by court prohibition or injunction; exceptions:
230 Primicias v (1) for the orderly administration of justice; (2) to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
oppressive and vindictive manner; (3) to avoid multiplicity of actions; (4) to afford adequate
Pangasinan 
 protection to constitutional rights; and (5) in proper cases, because the statute relied upon is
unconstitutional or was held invalid.
- Relief in equity may availed of to stop a purported enforcement of a criminal law where it is
231 Hernandez v Albano 
 necessary; exceptions

- More reason will injunction not lie when the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage;
232 Guingona v City courts cannot usurp the primary function of the City Fiscal to conduct the preliminary investigation

Fiscal 


- From the very beginning accused demanded that a preliminary investigation be conducted; to be
233 Go v CA 
 released on bail as a matter of right
- Should the evidence of guilt be strong, the prosecutor may move for cancellation of petitioner's
bail

13
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Mere failure of accused and counsel to appear cannot be construed as a waiver of right to PI,
234 Larrañaga v CA 
 especially because he has been vigorously invoking his right to a regular PI since start of
proceedings
- Rule is that right to PI is waived when accused fails to invoke it before or at time of entering plea
- However, filing of charges and issuance of warrant of arrest will cure the defect of illegal detention
235 ------------ 


PART FIVE: Bail [236 – 252] 


- Person applying for admission to bail should be in the custody of the law, or otherwise deprived of
236 Feliciano v his liberty; only those who have either been arrested, detained or deprived of liberty will ever have
the occasion to seek the benefits of bail
Pasicolan 


Supra 128
237 Defensor-Santiago v
Vasquez 


- Bail is security required by court and given by accused to ensure that accused before the court at
238 Cortes v Catral 
 scheduled time and place
- Judge is mandated to conduct a hearing even in cases where prosecution simple chooses to file
comment, or leave the application of bail to the discretion of the court; court must ask searching
questions to determine strength of evidence of guilty
- Order granting or refusing bail must contain summary of evidence for the prosecution; otherwise,
order may be invalidated
- In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, court is mandated to notify the
239 People v Manallo 
 prosecutor of the hearing of the application and require submission of recommendation
- If matter of discretion, hearing despite prosecution’s refusal to present evidence of guilt
- If bail is matter of right, prosecution has no right to present evidence for denial of bail; only for the
240 People v. Donato 
 purpose of determining amount of bail

- Arraignment not pre-requisite to bail because bail is security of appearance at arraignment

241 Lavides v CA 
 - Bail requires accused’s presence in: (1) arraignment, (2) during trial, for identification purposes;
(3) promulgation, except if light offense
- Arraignment not pre-requisite; person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his
242 Serapio v liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender, he need not wait for arraignment

Sandiganbayan 


- Capital offenses are bailable in the discretion of the court; power of the court to determine whether
243 Herras Teehankee v evidence of guilt is strong implies full exercise of judicial discretion
- Instructions in acting on application for bail: (1) in capital offenses, if prosecution does not oppose,
Director of 
Prisons 
 as a general rule, grant the release; (2) but if court has reason to believe that prosecutor’s attitude
is not justified, may ask him questions to ascertain strength of evidence; (3) if prosecutor refuses to
answer on the ground that it may involve disclosure of information that will imperil success of
prosecution, court may not compel him
- Whether the motion for bail is heard in summary proceeding or regular trial, the prosecution must
244 People v San Diego 
 be given opportunity to present all evidence it may desire; otherwise, denial of due process and bail
order considered void
- Mere recital of affidavits in bail hearing not sufficient evidence upon which judicial discretion may
245 Ocampo v Bernabe 
 be exercised; mere hearsay evidence

- The right of the prosecution to control the quantum of evidence and the order of presentation of
246 Siazon v Judge 
 the witness while not to be disregarded, must nevertheless be equated with the purpose of the
hearing
- To allow prosecution to conduct hearing as if it were a full-blown trial defeats the purpose
- Judge is under legal obligation to receive evidence with view of determining whether evidence of
247 Mamolo, Sr. v guilt is strong as to warrant denial of bail
- Deferential attitude of prosecution cannot excuse judge’s disregard of his duty to determine
Narisma 
 whether evidence of guilt is strong

Supra 238
248 Cortes v Catral 


14
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Findings of trial court during bail hearings merely a preliminary appraisal, not to be construed as
249 People v Tuppal 
 immutable evaluations

Supra 202
250 Enrile v Perez 


- Excessive bail renders it meaningless; amount must be reasonable calculated for the purpose of
251 Dela Camara v bail, which is to ensure appearance of accused at trial

Enage

- Amount should be high enough to assure the presence of accused when required, but not higher
252 Villaseñor v Abaño than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose

PART SIX: Motion to Quash 
[253 – 266] 


- Information must allege acts and circumstances which constitute all essential elements of an
253 People v Asuncion 
 offense; otherwise, invalid

- Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
254 Uy v CA 
 cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused
- Determined by the allegations in the complaint or information; however, if evidence adduced show
that the offense was committed elsewhere, court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction
- Court cannot order a particular prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation, it is an executive
255 People v. Navarro 
 function, not judicial
- Court does not acquire jurisdiction over case if information was filed by person not a prosecutor
- Elements of double jeopardy: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the
256 Manantan v CA 
 first jeopardy must have terminated; (3) the second jeopardy must be the same for the offense as
the first
- Jeopardy attaches only when: (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after
257 Galman v arraignment; (4) a valid plea having been entered; (5) the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the express consent of the accused
Sandiganbayan 
 - “Not an impartial court” as ground to question jurisdiction; mistrial (never been used in other case)

?
258 Galman v Pamaran 


- Negligence included in willful offense, upon the theory that the greater includes the lesser offense;
259 Samson v. CA 
 rules only require that some essential elements be established to constitute the crime proved

- Only two instances where double jeopardy attaches notwithstanding case being dismissed with
260 Sta Rita v CA 
 express consent of accused: (1) dismissal is insufficiency of evidence; (2) proceedings have been
unreasonably prolonged in violation of right to speedy trial
Supra 018
261 People v Degamo 


Supra 001
262 Salazar v. People 


- Requisites to make provisional dismissal permanent: (1) had express consent of accused; (2)
263 People v. ordered by court after notice to the offended party; (3) 2 year period to revive has lapsed; (4) no
justification for filing beyond 2-year period
Lacson (
 May 2002)

- 2-year period rule should not apply retroactively because it would cause injustice and hardships in
264 People v Lacson (
 Apr the administration of justice; rule is for the benefit of the State and the accused

2003)

- Affirming April 2003, retroactive application would result in absurd, unjust and oppressive
265 People v Lacson (Oct consequences to the State and victims of crimes

2003)

15
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Temporary dismissal subject to reinstatement within 30 days would not place accused in double
266 Condrada v People 
 jeopardy

PART SEVEN: Arraignment, Plea and 
Pre-Trial [267 – 279] 


- Arraignment must be done in language or dialect known to the accused

267 People v Alicando 
 - Plea of guilt must be based on a free and informed judgment; conviction for capital offense cannot
rest alone on guilty plea, prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- No valid judgment can be rendered upon an invalid arraignment
- Mere reading of information during arraignment not valid, if not shown that accused understood
268 People v Estomaca 
 dialect in which it was read
- Where accused who pleads guilty is not specifically warned of its consequences, arraignment is
invalid
- Failure to move for bill of particulars, or for quashing the information, deprives the accused of the
269 People v Eugenio right to object to evidence which could lawfully be introduced under an information which is in
general terms, but which sufficiently charges a definite crime
Gutierrez 


- Court may order filing of a bill of particulars if information contains ambiguities, as it cannot
270 People v Abad prejudice any substantial rights of the accused

Santos 


- If information has been vague and ambiguous, alternative courses of action such as a motion for
271 People v Arlegui 
 bill of particulars could have been filed

- Rule on suppression of material evidence is not applicable if the evidence was at disposal of both
272 People v Realon 
 parties, corroborative or cumulative

- Accused has a right to the list of witnesses but those not in list may still testify; may be material to
273 People v Palacio 
 the strategy of prosecution to withhold identity; to prevent threatening or coercing of the witness

- In entering a plea of not guilty during arraignment, accused waives all possible objection as to the
274 People v Alba 
 sufficiency of the information

- When the plea of guilty is not definite or is ambiguous or not absolute, it amounts to a plea of not
275 People v. Strong 
 guilty
- Judge must not readily accept guilty plea; must be extra solicitous in assuring that accused
understands fully his plea
- Constitutional rights are for the protection of guilty and innocent; if accused does not clearly and
276 People v Gonzaga 
 fully understand nature of offense, nor advised as to meaning and consequences of guilty plea, it
should not be accepted
- Upon failure to objects, facts stipulated during pre-trial and in pre-trial order bind both parties
277 People v Abelita 


- Pre-trial order cannot be used against accused if it was not signed by accused and counsel, to
278 People v Uy 
 safeguard against improvident or unauthorized agreements

- If stipulation of facts not signed by accused and counsel, not binding; remedy is for prosecution to
279 Fule v CA 
 present evidence to establish the fact

PART EIGHT: Trial [280 – 284] 


- Choice of who to discharge as state witness is prerogative of fiscal, approval is by the court, as
280 People v Ocimar 
 long as trial court satisfied that requisites present
- Most guilty means highest culpability in terms of participation in commission of crime, not
necessarily in severity of penalty imposed
- Mistake to discharge the mastermind of the offense; all perpetrators are bound in conspiracy, so
281 People v Ramirez 
 equally guilty

- Trial court is the best judge of whether or not a witness is credible; findings on the credibility of a
282 People v Moreno witness are entitled to great weight and respect

- Motion to dismiss (demurrer to evidence) on insufficiency of evidence, made without leave of

283 Ocampo v CA court, is waiver by accused of right to adduce evidence

16
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Amended rule that allows defense to present evidence if demurrer, filed with leave, is
284 Oñas v subsequently denied must be retroactively applied to the accused

Sandiganbayan

PART NINE: Judgment [285 – 293]

- Judgment of conviction must include: (1) legal qualification of the offense constituted by acts, and
285 People v Lizada aggravating and mitigating circumstances; (2) degree of participation of the accused; (3) penalty
imposed; (4) civil liability or damages
- Prosecution’s motion to postpone was justified and the accused’s constitutional right to speedy
286 People v Pablo trial is a flimsy ground to deny the motion when there is already sufficient evidence adduced by the
prosecution to establish guilt
- Judge must not generalize and form conclusions without detailing the facts and law upon which
287 People v Escobe such conclusions are based
- Judge must set out in his decision the facts which he finds to have been proved
- While brevity should characterize a decision, judge should have outlined the basis for judgment
- Trial court judge may order additional presentation of evidence if he is yet unsatisfied with the
288 People v Toling evidence of guilt already presented
- If with reference to a particular point, he may, on his own motion, call additional witnesses or
recall some of the same witnesses, for the purpose of satisfying his mind
Supra 257
289 Galman v
Sandiganbayan

Supra 256
290 Manantan v CA

Supra 012
291 People v Guevarra


- Variance between the allegations of the information and evidence offered by the prosecution does
292 Sayson v People
 not of itself entitle the accused to an acquittal
- Erroneous allegation as to the person injured is immaterial, as the same is a mere formal defect
- Variance is in the participation or complicity; where accused held responsible as a principal in the
293 Vino v People information, but evidence showed that merely an accessory, greater responsibility necessarily
includes the lesser
PART TEN: Post Judgment Remedies [294 – 312]

Supra 224
294 Dimatulac v Villon 


Supra 257
295 Galman v
Sandiganbayan 


?
296 People v Almendras 


- Requisites for new trial based on new evidence: (1) evidence is discovered after trial; (2) could not
297 People v Datu 
 have been discovered and produced at trial even with reasonable diligence; (3) evidence is
material, probably change the judgment
- Real perpetrator met by the accused in Bilibid and the former confessed, constitutes new
298 People v Ebias 
 evidence discovered, ground for new trial

Supra 267
299 People v Alicando 


- Medical report subsequently issued by NBI which diametrically opposes the report by health
300 People v Del Mundo 
 officer in trial is not new evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence;
but new trial granted for substantial justice
- In motion to reopen trial, concession or denial by the court in the exercise of its discretion will not
301 Agulto v CA 
 be reviewed on appeal unless a clear abuse is shown

17
 Law124: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- Motion to reopen v motion for new trial; motion to reopen: (1) before judgment, (2) no rule
302 Alegre v Reyes 
 governing, only in interest of justice, (3) rests on sound discretion of judge; motion for new trial: (1)
after rendition or promulgation of judgment, (2) governed by Rule 121, (3) granted by the judge
based on well-defined grounds in the rules
- Judge did not manifest the requisite cold impartiality that accused deserved; entire criminal case
303 Valdez v Aguilizan 
 proceedings were filled with serious irregularities which under Rule 121 is a ground for the granting
of a new trial
- New testimonies from persons who assisted the victim sufficient ground for new trial
304 People v Amparado 


- Motion for reconsideration on the ground of errors of law is equivalent to motion for new trial, and
305 People v Enriquez 
 interrupts the period of 15 days for perfection

- Errors of law in the judgment do not affect the whole proceeding, only the judgment
306 People v Molina 


?
307 People v Saliling 


- Civil claim survives the death of the accused if it is based on source other than delict
308 Villegas v CA 


- By finality of judgment, the court loses its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same, but
309 Echegaray v Sec of retains its jurisdiction to execute and enforce it; courts have inherent power to control and supervise
the process of execution of decisions
Justice 


- Absence of an interpreter in sign language deprived the accused of being fully informed of the
310 People v Parazo 
 charges against him, and of the full and fair opportunity to defend himself; re-arraignment ordered

Supra 025
311 People v Gallo 


- If penalty imposed on a co-accused who did not appeal was incorrect, that penalty imposed on the
312 People v Barro Sr. 
 accused who did not appeal can be corrected to make it conform to the proper penalty

18