CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Atty. George S.D. Aquino
JURISDICTION
Three kinds of jurisdiction necessary in criminal prosecutions:
1. Jurisdiction over subject matter;
2. Jurisdiction over territory; and
3. Jursidiction over the person accused.
Jurisdiction over subject matter
Refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal
case. In simple terms, it is jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Generally, jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority to hear and
determine a cause – it is a question of law.
It is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules. Rules of procedure yield to
substantive law. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and any
judgment, order or resolution without it is void and cannot be given effect.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon
the court by the accused, express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is
conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only
by law in the manner and prescribed by form.
When the law confers jurisdiction, that conferment must be clear. It cannot be
presumed. It must appear from the statute or will not be held to exist.
How acquired? The court must look into allegations of the written accusation for it
to know whether or not, it has jurisdiction over the offense charged therein.
It must be stated that jurisdiction is not determined by the penalty actually imposed
after trial but by the penalty imposable by law on the offense, absent any attendant
circumstances.
It is a firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal
matters is measure by the law in effect at the time of the commencement of the
criminal action and not the law in effect at the time of the commission of the crime.
Continuing jurisdiction – the jurisdiction fo the court is referred to as “continuing” in
view of the general principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that
jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of
that jurisdiction.
Objections on jurisdiction – matter may be raised or considered motu proprio by
the court or at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
While the jurisdiction of a tribunal may be challenged at any time, sound public
policy bars one from doing so after their having procured that jurisdiction,
speculating on the fortunes of litigation.
Jurisdiction over territory
Venue is jurisdictional and a court is bereft of jurisdiction to try an offense
committed outside its limited territory.
The Court has explained that the place where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the action but also the essential element of
jurisdiction.
Venue is jurisdictional, thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with
an offense allegedly committed outside of its limited territory.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his (1) arrest, with or
without a warrant, and (2) his voluntary appearance or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. Thus, by filing several motions before the RTC and
seeking dismissal of the criminal case, respondent voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. (Jimenez v. Sorongon)
The voluntary submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court is
accomplished by either pleading to the merits such as by filing a motion to quash
or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, appearing for
arraignment or entering trial.
There is no submission to the jurisdiction of the court when the accused files a
motion to quash the warrant because it is the very legality of the court process
forcing the submission of the person of the accused.
HAM 1
Criminal jurisdiction of trial courts
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
1. ALL violations of municipal ordinances within their territorial jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years, except in cases falling within the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the RTC or the Sandiganbayan.
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence.
4. BP 22 cases
5. Summary procedure
a. Traffic laws, rules, and regulations;
b. Rental law
c. BP 22
d. Municipal/city ordinances
e. Imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or fine not exceeding
P1000, or both;
f. Damage to property not exceeding P10,000.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction of all criminal cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body, except those now falling under
the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall
be exclusively taken cognizance by the latter;
2. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and injunction within
their regions;
3. Appeals from the MTC in their regions;
4. Jurisdiction over certain laws:
a. Criminal and civil aspects of written defamation;
b. Violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
c. Intellectual property rights;
d. Money laundering, except those under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
SANDIGANBAYAN
1. Violation of the following laws:
a. RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Protices Act
b. RA 1379 (Civil Forfeitures)
c. Bribery under the RPC
2. Where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in government, at the time of the commission of the offense:
a. Officials of the executive department occupying regional director
positions, otherwise classified as salary grade 27 and up,
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING:
i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, sangunniang
panlalawigan members, provincial treasures, assessors,
engineers, and other provincial heads;
ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, sangunniang panlungsod
members, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
department heads;
iii. Diplomatic service consul and higher;
iv. Army/air force colonel or naval captain in the military or
higher;
v. Provincial directors and PSSUPT or higher;
vi. City and provincial prosecutors, their assistants, and
officials and prosecutors in the Ombudsman; and
vii. Presidents, directors/trustees, or managers of GOCCs,
state universities, and GFIs.
b. Members of Congress and officials with salary grade 27 or higher
c. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
d. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional commissions without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
e. All other national and local officials classified as Salary grade “27”
and up.
3. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials in relation their office
4. Civil and criminal cases in connection with PCGG EOs
5. PROVIDED, that the RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where
the information:
a. Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
b. Alleges damage or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding one million pesos
P1,000,000
A member of the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines, though a
student, is a “director or trustee” of state university and thus falls within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Serana v. Sandiganbayan)
Salary Grade “27” has no application to the enumeration of public officials like the
provincial governors etc. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction by virtue of their
positions.
As a rule, to make an offense one committed in relation to the offense, “the relation
has to be such that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist without the office.”
An offense may be said to have been committed in relation to the office is the
offense is “intimately connected” with the office of the offender and is perpetrated
HAM 2
while he was in the performance of his official functions, even if public office is not
an element of the offense charged.

It is important that the complaint or information must allege the intimate connection
between the offense chaged and the discharge of official duties because the factor
that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of facts in the complaint or
information.

Example:
• Mayor had someone murdered while using his position as head of the
local police force

HAM 3
 RULE 110
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Sec. 1. Institution of criminal actions
Criminal actions are instituted by complaint to the:
Filing with the OFFICE OF THE
PROSECUTOR
1. For criminal cases in METRO
MANILA and OTHER
CHARTERED CITIES,
unless otherwise provided;
2. Cases requiring
PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION (4-2-1 rule)
respondent was not terminated upon the City Prosecutor’s approval of the
investigating prosecutor’s recommendation that an information be filed with court.
The prescriptive period remains tolled from the time the complaint was filed with
the Prosecutor’s Office until such time tat respondent is either convicted or
acquitted by the proper court.
Panaguiton v. DOJ
Filing with the MTC
“The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings” phrase in the Prescription
Law means that if a complaint has been filed with the Prosecutor’s Office for
For all other offenses
violation of Special Penal Laws like BP 22, then the prescription is interrupted, and
does not necessarily mean the filing in judicial proceedings.
Sec. 5, 16. Who must prosecute criminal actions.
General rule: All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the control and direction of the prosecutor.

Exception: Private prosecutors may take the lead if the public prosecutor has a
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of heavy workload or there is a lack of public prosecutors, who will be authorized
prescription of the offense unless otherwise provided in special penal laws in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor,
subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized, the private prosecutor
RPC and SPECIAL PENAL LAWS MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence
of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
Filing of the complaint with the Filing of the complaint with the
Prosecutor tolls the period of Prosecutor does not interrupt, only Private prosecutor: Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in
prescription (People v. Bautista, the filing in court, interrupts the the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by
Panaguiton v. DOJ) prescriptive period (Jadewell v. counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
Lidua)
The public prosecutor may turn over the actual prosecution of the criminal case to
the private prosecutor but he may, at any time, take over the actual conduct of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law: filing of the complaint before the Punong trial.
Barangay shall interrupt the prescriptive period but in no case shall the interruption
exceed 60 days from the filing of the complaint Public vs. private crimes

Prescription is interrupted even when the court has no jurisdiction
As a rule, there is no direct filing of an information or complaint with the RTC
because its jurisdiction covers offenses which require preliminary investigation.
People v. Bautista
It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal’s office
suspends the running of the prescriptive period. The proceedings against
Public crimes are crimes wherein any competent person can file a complaint for
the prosecution of an offense.
Private crimes are crimes wherein the public prosecutor cannot prosecute the case
where there is no complainant.
For private crimes, the absence of a private complainant would render the case
dismissible; for crimes against chastity – the only witness is the offended party.
HAM 4
Compliance with Section 5, Rule 110 is jurisdictional and not a mere formal 2. Charging a person with an offense
requirement. 3. Subscribed by
a. The offended party;
If the offended party is of age, right to file the complaint is exclusive and b. Any peace officer; or
successive (minor -> parents -> grandparents -> guardian). c. Or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated.
List of private crimes:
1. Adultery and concubinage; What is an information?
2. Seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness; 1. Accusation in writing charging the person with an offense, subscribed by
3. Defamation which consist in the imputation of the above the prosecutor and filed with the court.

2 modes for the extinction of criminal liability in seduction, abduction, and acts of An information requires no oath as the prosecutor filing the information is acting
lasciviousness under his oath of office.
1. Pardon prior to the institution of the criminal action
2. Marriage What must be alleged?
1. Name of the accused;
Piñote v. Ayco 2. Designation of the offense given by statute;
3. Cause of the accusation/acts or omission complained of;
The Court rules that a violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of the 4. Name of the offended party;
Philippines as a whole and not merely to the person directly prejudiced, he being 5. Approximate date;
merely the complaining witness. It is on this account, held the Court, that the 6. Place where the offense was committed;
presence of a public prosecutor in trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect
vital State interests. The act of allowing the presentation of defense witnesses in Acts or omissions complained of as constitutive of the offense:
the absence of complainant public prosecutor or a designated private prosecutor is • Actual recital of the facts of how the elements of the crime are
a transgression of the Rules which could not be rectified by subsequently giving accomplished must be included
the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witness. • Conflict between the designation and the body of the accusation? The
body will govern.
People v. Piccio
Sufficiency of the information
The Solicitor General has the sole authority to represent the People in proceedings
before the Court of Appeals. Thus, an appeal to the CA without the conforme of An information is valid if it sufficiently alleges the manner by which the crime is
the OSG is thus invalid. committed.

People v. dela Cerna
An affidavit of desistance wherein a complainant has decided to withdraw the
information by stating that she had forgiven the accused in a private crime will not
hold water. Forgiveness should be done before the institution of the criminal action
and not prior to the institution of the criminal action.
Secs. 2-4, 6-13. Complaint and Information
What is a complaint? (Sec. 3)
1. A sworn written statement
An information is fatally defective when it is clear that it does not really charge an
offense or when an essential element of the crime had not been alleged.
Objections relating to the form of the complaint or information cannot be made for
the first time on appeal. The accused-appellant should move before arraignment
either for a bill of particulars, for instance, if he wants to know the exact date of the
commission of the alleged offense.
Every information must state the qualifying and aggravating circumstance
attending the commission of the crime. It should not only be an allegation by recital
but also including the facts that would make it as such.
HAM 5

The test of sufficiency in the information is whether it enables a person of common
understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment
properly.
Duplicity of offenses – one act = one information
Ex. Rifle – one information for every person
Grenade – one act of throwing caused multiple deaths = one information
Name of the accused
How to fill the name of the accused:
1. Name and surname of the accused and any appellation he is known;
2. Fictitious name if he cannot be ascertained, and must be accompanied by
a statement that the accused’s name is unknown;
3. His true name shall be inserted in the complaint/information if will later be
known.
Place of the commission of the offense
It is not necessary to allege the exact place where the crime was committed.
It is sufficient to allege that the place where the crime was committed is some
place within the jurisdiction of the court.
Date and commission of the information
It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date in the
offense was committed except when the date of commission is a material element
to the offense.
The Court notes that an information where the date was stated as “on or about the
nd
2 of January 1996” is sufficient to cover even the December 29, 1995.
When the date is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as
alleged.
However, in case wherein the alleged date was “on or about the year 1992,” it was
held that it covered 1991 and 1993 and was too broad as for the accused to
account for his whereabouts in the three-year period.
People v. Bayabos
The indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical injuries were
inflicted on the victim. There is no allegation that the purported acts were
employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into an organization. Failure to
aver this crucial ingredient would prevent the successful prosecution of the
criminal responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the
crime of hazing.
Lasoy v. Zeñarosa
Where the information charged the accused of selling 42.410 grams of dried
marijuana instead of kilograms and the accused has been arraigned and pleaded
guilty to the charge, the information can no longer be amended.
People v. Puig
In an information for Qualfiied Theft against bank tellers, the allegation that such
employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and prejudice to
the Bank, without particularly referring to it as the owner of the money
deposits, is sufficient.
Ricarze v. People
In crimes against property, if the name of the owner of the property is unknown, it
should be described with such particularity as to the offense charged. In this case,
changing the name of the offended party is irrelevant as the property was
described with particularity. However, if the property is a general something like
money, the name of the offended party is necessary so as to particularly describe
the property.
Senador v. People
In estafa, where the name of the offended party in the information was wrong, the
remedy is amendment/correction and not dismissal of the case. Estafa is a crime
against property and if the thing was described with particularity, then the name of
the offended party is irrelevant.
Sec. 14. Amendment or substitution
FORMAL AMENDMENTS
1. New allegations relating only to the range of the penalty
2. Amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct
from the original one
HAM 6
 3. Allegations which do not alter the prosecution’s theory of the case Identity of offenses
4. Does not affect any substantial right of the accused 1. The evidence to support a conviction for ne offense would be sufficient to
5. Adds specifications to eliminate vagueness warrant a conviction for the other
2. Second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the offense
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS charged in the first information
1. Changes the nature of the crime alleged; 3. Second offense necessarily includes or included in the first offense
2. Exposes the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty; charged
3. Affects the essence of the offense;
4. Causes surprise or deprives the accused of an opportunity to meet the Examples:
new averment. • Physical injuries – included in murder
• Murder necessarily includes reckless imprudence
Amendment of the information • Acts of lasciviousness – included in rape
• Falsification of public documents includes private documents
BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT AFTER ARRAIGNMENT • Malversation of public funds – includes failure to render accounts
Formal and substantial WITHOUT ONLY formal amendments with People v. Casey
leave of court EXCEPT when the 1. Leave of court; and
amendment downgrades the nature 2. It does not prejudice the The additional allegations of conspiracy is only a formal amendment, petitioner’s
of the offense or excludes an rights of the accused participation as a principal not affected by the inclusion of others. The inclusion of
accused Ricardo Felix not affecting Casey’s case.

Fronda-Baggao v. People

The multiple informations of illegal recruitment can be amended into one

Subtantial amendment in old cases information of illegal recruitment in a large scale. The rules do not state that the
1. Robbery to robbery in an uninhabited place – exposed the accused to a amendment be only as regards to one information.
higher penalty
Pacoy v. Cajigal

Amendment vs. substitution
Amendment
1. May involve either formal or
substantial changes
2. Before arraignment – may be
without leave of court
3. Formal amendment – no new
PI
4. There is identity in the offenses
The averments in the amended information for murder are exactly the same as
those already alleged in the original information for homicide, as there was not at
all any change in the act imputed to the accused. Thus, the Court found the
Substitution amendment made in the caption and preamble from homicide to murder.
1. Substantial change from the
original charge Albert v. Sandiganbayan
2. With leave of court and
original information is Changing the information from “gross neglect of duty” to “gross inexcusable
dismissed negligence” has been dememed as only a formal amendment when it would only
3. New PI affect the modality of how the crime was committed. When an offense has been
4. Presupposes a different alleged, all of the modalities are necessarily included, thus, inserting gross
offense which does not inexcusable negligence only cures the mistake as to the terms used in the
include or is not necessarily modalities of the offense.
included in the original charge

HAM 7
Mendez v. People printed and published Manila, then the RTC
of Manila
Adding/removing certain branches of one’s store in the tax evasion case where the c. If holding office in the
owner is only a single proprietor is only a formal amendment. province or some
other city, then the
Sec. 15. Venue RTC of that province
or city.
In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. It cannot be
waived, and can be challenged anytime. 5. BP 22 cases

The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the Where any of its essential elements occurred:
action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. When the venue is chosen, • Drawn;
exclusionary rule shall apply (where one court with jurisdiction is chosen as • Issued;
against others that also has jurisdiction, the other shall have no more jurisdiction) • Delivered; or
• Dishonored
General rule
Macasaet v. People
Criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory: It was proven in this case that the offended party was residing in Marikina at the
• Where the offense was committed time of the commission of the offense. As the paper containing the libelous article
• Where any of its essential elements occurred was published in Manila, the offended party’s choice is between Marikina and
Manila only, and not Quezon City.
Special rules
Actual Residence: MARIKINA CITY
1. Offense committed in aircraft, train, or public or private vehicle in the Place first published: MANILA
course of its trip: Court to file: MARIKINA CITY or MANILA
• Departure
• Municipalities where the vehicle passed through Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati
• Arrival
Venue in the prosecution in online libelous articles cannot be determined by using
2. Offense committed in vessel: the place where the article was first accessed. Absent any imputations where the
• First port of entry publication was done, the only recourse to a private party in libel cases is to file it
• Where the vessel passed through in their place of actual residence.

3. Punishable under Article 2 of the RPC Rigor v. People

• Cognizable by the court where action is first filed
4. Libel cases
Private Individuals
a. Place where they are
actually residing
b. Place where libelous
article was first
BP 22 cases are not limited to where the check was dishonored like in Tarlac as in
this case. The check was drawn, issued, and delivered in San Juan. Ergo, both
Public Officers Tarlac and San Juan can have jurisdiction over the case and not only Tarlac.
a. Place where libelous
article was first Drawn: SAN JUAN
printed and published Issued: SAN JUAN
b. If holding office in Delivered: SAN JUAN
Dishonored: TARLAC
HAM 8
Court to file: SAN JUAN (Pasig RTC) or TARLAC

Union Bank v. People

If a perjured document (e.g. Certifiacte of Non-Forum Shopping in this case) was

subscribed and sworn in Makati but filed in a Pasay court, who has jurisdiction to
hear the perjury case? Answer: MAKATI COURT. Why? It was in Makati where the
essential ingredients for the crime of perjury was done, and hence, where the
crime was committed.

Place where perjury (and essential elements) committed: MAKATI CITY

Place where perjured document was filed: PASAY CITY
Court to file: MAKATI CITY

However, if the case involved verified petitions which contained falsehoods were
filed in court, it is an altogether different story. If the petition were subscribed and
sworn in Pasig but were submitted to courts in Makati and Tagaytay, where is the
proper venue? Answer: MAKATI and TAGAYTAY courts. Why? The falsehoods in
itself only became manifest and where the alleged untruthful statement found
relevance and materiality when the petitions were filed in court. (Ilusorio as cited in
Union Bank)

Place where falsehoods were made in verified petitions: PASIG CITY

Place where verified petitions were submitted: MAKATI CITY and TAGAYTAY
CITY
Court to file: MAKATI CITY and TAGAYTAY CITY (for each count)

Treñas v. People

When the crime charged is estafa, for a court to have jurisdiction as to venue one
of any of the essential elements should have occurred within its jurisdiction. In this
case, it cannot be proven that the elements of estafa were committed in Makati
(seems like in Iloilo), and dishonor of check is not an element of estafa and thus
cannot be used as basis for venue.

Place where estafa and its essential ingredients were committed: ILOILO
Place where check was dishonored: MAKATI CITY
Court to file (for estafa): ILOILO

HAM 9
 RULE 111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and civil action
General rule: when a criminal action is filed, the civil action is deemed instituted
Exceptions
1. When the offended party waives the civil action;
2. When the offended party reserves the right to institute it separately,
before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and affording the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation;
3. When the offended party institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
Jurisprudence explains that the civil aspect of a criminal case is based on the
principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
The purpose of civil action is for the resolution, reparation, or indemnification of the
private offended party for damage or injury he sustained of the delictual or
felonious act of the accused.
There are instances when no civil damage results from an offense such as:
espionage, violation of neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against
popular misrepresentation. In these examples, there are no private offended
parties.
Filing fees – moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
No filing fee – actual damages, except filing fees
BP 22 – actual damages equal to the amount of the check involved, where no
amount was alleged, the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien.
There can be no reservation of the civil action in BP 22. A separate proceeding for
the recovery of civil liability in cases of violation of BP 22 is allowed when the civil
case is filed ahead of the criminal case.
Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended.
Civil action instituted Civil action is SUSPENDED in whatever state it
BEFORE criminal action may be found.
Civil action instituted The separate civil action arising therefrom cannot
AFTER criminal action be instituted until final judgment has been entered
in the criminal action
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action, the same
may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in
the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already
adduced shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without
prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by
the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional
evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil action shall be tried and decided
jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of prescription of the
civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act of omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist.
Sec. 3. Separate and independent civil actions
May be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without reservation in
the criminal action.
Failure to make reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file
a separate and independent civil action based on the Civil Code
The right to bring civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and
regardless of the results of the latter, and the quantum of evidence required is
preponderance of evidence.
Ex delicto vs. independent civil action
Ex Delicto Independent Civil Action
Act or omission of as a • Culpa contractual
felony • Arts. 31, 32, and 34 of the Civil Code
• Art. 2176 (culpa aquilana/quasi-delict)
Sec. 4. Death of the accused
Death of the accused prior to final judgment, as when he dies pending appeal of
his conviction,extinguishes his criminal liability.
If the accused dies after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal
action, the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime is extinguished.
HAM 10
 Corpuz v. Siapno
Such rule, however, does not apply to independent civil actions.
The civil aspect of a criminal case need not be prosecuted separately insofar as
BEFORE case is filed or AFTER JUDGMENT of AFTER finality of there is a conviction. The civil liability should be awarded and not be deemed as a
before final judgment conviction but BEFORE judgment or conviction fine.
finality
The death of the accused The death of the Judgment can be Cruz v. CA
prior to final judgment appellant pending appeal enforced against the
terminates his criminal and prior to the finality of estate of the accused or Criminal case was tried in Manila but the subject property of the civil case was in
liability and only the civil the conviction his administrator or Bulacan. In the instant case, the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
liability directly arising extinguished his criminal executor. as the law has conferred upon the court the power to hear and decide cases
from and based solely on and civil liabilities arising involving estafa through falsification of a public document. When the court has
the offense committed from the delict or crime. jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and the
(civil liability ex delicto) crime committed was within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily
exercises jurisdiction over all issues the law requires the court to resolve.
Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar
Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa
A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving defendant from civil liability is
not a bar to criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission Even under the amended rules, a separate proceeding for the recovery of civil
subject of the civil action. liability in cases of violations of BP 22 is allowed when the civil case is filed ahead
of the criminal case. Since respondent instituted the civil action prior to the criminal
Lee v. Chua action, then the civil case may proceed independently of the criminal case, and
there is no forum shopping to speak of.
The offended party may also be a private individual whose person, right, house,
liberty, or property injured by the same punishable act or omission of the accused, Co v. Muñoz
or that corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the delictual acts
complained of. In this case, the allegedly perjurious statement is injurious to the Under Rule 120, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the
petitioner’s reputation insofar as her faithful performance and duties and civil liability might arise did not exist. Ergo, if a party wants to enforce the civil
responsibilities of a Board and Treasurer of CHL. action in light of a dismissal wherein the basis had been extinguished, the whole
dismissal should be appealed.
Cancio v. Isip
Casunapan v. Laroya
The Court held that the dismissal of the case of estafa on reasonable doubt does
not preclude the offended party from filing an independent civil action with the In criminal cases, the accused does not have the right to institute civil action ex
cause of action being culpa contractual. delicto independently of the criminal case. However, the accused can file a
separate and independent civil action based on the criminal act that had occurred.
Ferrer v. Sandiganbayan It is because, as per the Rules, using logic, the accused in a separate civil action
require him to file a counter-claim, then he coul institute a separate and civil action.
The court’s determination of the administrative liability for falsification of public
documents is in no way conclusive of his lack of criminal liability. The purpose of Secs. 5-6. Prejudicial question.
administrative proceedings is to protect public service while the purpose of criminal
prosecution is punishment of the crime. Rationale: to avoid two conflicting decisions

Elements of prejudicial question:

HAM 11
 1. Civil action preceded the filing of the criminal action;
2. Civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the
criminal action;
3. Resolution of the issue in the civil case determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused in the criminal action;
4. Jurisdiction to try the question must be lodged in another tribunal
Pimentel v. Pimentel
The annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question as regards to the criminal
case of parricide. The issue in parricide is whether or not the accused killed the
victim, and not any other.

There is no prejudicial question if the civil law and the criminal action, can, Argovan v. San Miguel Corporation
according to law, proceed independently of each other.
A separate case involving the accused wherein there was no relation as to the
nd
2 element: both civil and criminal cases must have similar issues or the issue in offended party does not take part of a prejudicial question.
one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other. The civil case must
involve the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based
rd
3 element: civil case is determinative of the guilt of the accused in the criminal
case. The resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution in the civil
action will not determine criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal
action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity that the civil case be
determined first before taking up the criminal case, therefore, the civil case does
not involve a prejudicial question.

Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola

Civil action to declare construction agreement void is not determinative of the guilt
of the accused in a BP 22 case. If private respondent indeed issued checks which
were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds, it is this fact that is subject of
prosecution under BP 22.

First Producers v. Co

The criminal action cannot be suspended when based on a prejudicial question,

assuming there is, when the civil action was filed subsequent to the institution of
the criminal action.

San Miguel Properties v. Perez

There can be a prejudicial question when the offense in the criminal case is failure
to deliver title whereas the civil case that was instituted prior to the criminal was a
determination of whether or not the receiver of BF Homes had the authority to sell
such property. In this case too, a prejudicial question is not only limited to the civil
courts but also administrative agencies who have exclusive and original
jurisdiction, where the cause of action cannot be filed anywhere except in the
HLURB.
HAM 12
 RULE 112 Instances when probable cause needs to be established:
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 1. INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR – whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof
Sec. 1. Preliminary investigation defined. 2. JUDGE – whether a warrant of arrest should be issued
3. JUDGE – whether a search warrant should be issued
A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there 4. PEACE OFFICER OR PRIVATE PERSON – whether an offense has just
is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on the
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances that the person to be
trial. arrested has committed it
Right to preliminary investigation Sec. 2. Who may conduct preliminary investigations.
• It is not a constitutional right but a statutory grant 1. Provincial and City prosecutors and their assistants;
• It is a personal right, which can be waived expressly or impliedly 2. National and Regional State Prosecutors
• It is a substantive right to withhold it would be to transgress due process 3. Other officers as may be authorized by law
a. COMELEC for Election offenses
Purpose of preliminary investigation b. PCGG for PCGG matters
c. Ombudsman for Sandiganbayan offenses
1. To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive
prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a NOTE: Those who can conduct preliminary investigations IS DIFFERENT from
crime and from the trouble, expense, and anxiety of a public trial. those who have the authority to file the information in courts OR dismiss the case
2. To protect the State from having to conduct useless and expensive trials outright. Persons whose authority is necessary are:
1. Provincial or City Prosecutor
Offenses where penalty PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 2. Chief State Prosecutor
PRESCRIBED is at least 4 YEARS, 2 REQUIRED 3. The Ombudsman or his deputies
MONTHS, AND 1 DAY
All offenses BELOW PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Preliminary investigation vs. preliminary inquiry/examination
OPTIONAL, OR WHERE THE
PROSECUTOR BELIEVES THAT A PI Preliminary investigation Preliminary examination/inquiry
SHOULD BE CONDUCTED EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PROBABLE CAUSE PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause • Ascertains whether the offender • Determines probable cause
should be held or released for for the issuance of a
Probable cause pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to support a well- trial warrant of arrest or
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably • Function of the prosecutor dismissal of the case (for
guilty thereof. • The investigating prosecutor is RTC) or issuance of
tasked to determine whether summons (for MTC)
Probable cause does not refer to evidence which would justify a conviction. While there is sufficient ground to • The function of the judge
it refers to probability of guilt, it requires more than a bare suspicion. This means engender a well-founded belief • Primary task of presiding
that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more that a crime has been judge is to determine
likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the committed and the accused is existence o non-existence
suspect/respondent. probably guilty thereof of probable cause or the
• If investigating prosecutor finds arrest of the accused
HAM 13
 probable cause, he executes a
certification at the bottom of the
information to that effect
Secs. 3-6. Process of Preliminary Investigation.
Investigating Prosecutor
1. File a complaint with the prosecutor
a. Contents of the complaint
i. Address of the respondent
ii. Affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses
iii. Supporting documents to establish probable cause
b. Copies of the documents:
i. The number of respondents
ii. PLUS two (2) copies for the official file
c. Affidavits should be sworn before:
i. Any prosecutor;
ii. Any government official authorized to administer oath; and
in case of the unavailability of both
iii. Any notary public
2. Within ten (10) days after filing, the investigating officer shall:
a. Dismiss it if he finds no ground; or
b. Issue a subpoena to the respondents attaching with it the (1)
complaint, (2) supporting affidavits and documents
c. The respondent has the right to examine the evidence submitted
3. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena, the respondent should:
a. Submit his and his witnesses’ counter-affidavits and other
supporting documents, which should also be subscribed before
officers, furnished to the complainant
b. The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in
lieu of counter-affidavit
4. If respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed does not submit
counter-affidavits, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint
based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
5. The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to
be clarified.
a. Parties may be present during hearing but without the right to
cross-examine, parties however may submit questions to the
prosecutor
b. Hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of
counter-affidavit.
c. Hearing shall be terminated within five (5) days
6. Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall
determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold respondent for
trial
Resolution
1. In resolving, the prosecutor should state:
a. Certify under oath the he or an authorized officer has personally
examined the complaint and his witnesses
b. There is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof;
c. The accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence
submitted against him, and was given the opportunity to give
controverting evidence
2. Within five (5) days, the prosecutor shall forward the record to the persons
listed below, who shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their
receipt
a. The City or Provincial Prosecutor;
b. The Chief State Prosecutor;
c. The Ombudsman or his deputy for Sandiganbayan offenses
3. The above-listed should act within ten (10) days from receipt and notify
the parties of their action
4. Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the
complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the chief of the
prosecution office, the latter may:
a. By himself file the information against the respondent
b. Direct another assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so
without conducting another preliminary investigation
Warrant of Arrest
1. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the
judge shall personally evaluate the resolution fo the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may:
a. Dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause
b. Issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order if the accused is
already in custody
c. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge
may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within
five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved within
thirty (30) days from the filing fo the complaint or information
HAM 14
Direct filing with the MTC
1. Within ten (10) days after the filing he finds no probable cause after
personally evaluating the evidence or personally examining the witnesses,
he shall dismiss the same.
2. He may, however, within ten (10) days from notice, to determine further
the existence of probable cause. If the judge still finds no probable cause
despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days from its
submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the same.
3. If he finds probable cause he shall issue a warrant of arrest, a commitment
order if the accused is already detained, or summons if he finds no
necessity to put the accused in detention.
Inquest proceeding
1. If the accused is lawfully arrested without warrant, the prosecutor, instead
of conducting a preliminary investigation, may conduct a inquest
proceeding. The prosecutor shall determine:
a. Whether said persons remain under custody; and
b. Whether they should be charged in court.
2. Inquest proceeding must be terminated within the period prescribed under
Article 125 of the RPC
a. 12 hours for LIGHT OFFENSES
b. 18 hours for LESS GRAVE OFFENSES
c. 36 hours for GRAVE OFFENSES
Questioning the absence of PI; effect on jurisdiction
An accused who wants to question the regularity or absence of a PI must do so
before he enters his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable
but not later than the start of the trial. Failure to invoke the right before entering a
plea will amount to a waiver.
An application for or admission of the accused to bail does not bar him from raising
such question.
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction
over the case nor does it impair the validity of the information or otherwise, renders
it defective, nor is it a ground for the quahsal of the information.
Sec. 7. Inquest proceeding.
The detained person should be present during the inquest proceedings unless
reasons exist that would dispense with his presence like confinement in a hospital.
The inquest proceeding shall be deemed commenced from the time that the
inquest prosecutor receives the complaint and referral documents from the law
enforcement authorities. Those documents include (a) affidavit of arrest, (b) the
investigation report, (c) the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, and
(d) other supporting evidence gathered.
Should it be found that the arrest was not made in accordance with the Rules of
Court, the inquest prosecutor shall not proceed with the inquest proceedings.
Instead he shall:
1. Recommend the release of the detainee;
2. Prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the action he took
and forward the same together with the record of the case;
3. If approved, the order of release shall be served on the officer having
custody of said detainee so the latter may be released;
4. The officer shall also serve upon the detainee a notice of preliminary
investigation if the evidence on hand warrants the conduct of a regular
preliminary investigation.
Santos-Concio v. DOJ
Investigation process: DILG -> DOJ Fact-Finding Committee -> NBI -> DOJ Panel
In this case, the Court held that the Fact-Finding Committee’s finding that no
preliminary investigation should be done is different from the preliminary
investigation that is done by the DOJ Panel. The report was only for the purposes
of putting the pieces of the ULTRA incident together and does not serve as a
preliminary investigation that was dismissed, though the two panels are both DOJ.
Unlike a complaint or information for instituting the criminal proceeding, a
complaint in a preliminary investigation need not be contained in a single
document. Complaint-affidavit is only a component of the complaint. A complaint
for PI need not be filed by the offended party, unless the offense is one which
cannot be prosecuted de officio.
Borlongan v. Peña
In cases not requiring preliminary investigation, the prosecutor is not mandated to
require the submission of counter-affidavits. Probable cause may be determined
on the basis alone of the affidavits and supporting documents of the complaint,
without infringing on the constitutional rights of the petitioners.
The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses. There is no provision of law or procedural rule which makes the
HAM 15
submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge can determine
whether or not there exists probable cause to issue the warrant.
It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the complainant, or any of his
witnesses, shall allege facts within their personal knowledge. Probable cause
should be based on evidence that would engender a well-founded belief. However,
it should at least be more than a mere suspicion.
Racho v. Miro
The Court ruled that a clarificatory hearing is not required during preliminary
investigation. Rather than being mandatory, a clarificatory hearing is optional on
the part of the investigating officer as evidenced of the use of the term “may” in the
Rules. This rule applies equally to a motion for reinvestigation.
Tolentino v. Paqueo
A Regional State Prosecutor is not one of the officers who are allowed by the
Rules who can authorize the filing or dismissing of a complaint by the investigating
prosecutor, they are only limited to: the Provincial or City Prosecutor, or the Chief
State Prosecutor. Moreover, the information filed is quahsable as one of the
grounds to approve a motion to quash is when the one who filed the information
had no authority. Fiscal Paqueo had no authority to file such an information, and
therefore the information should be quashed.
Crespo v. Mogul
The trial court is not bound by the decision of the Secretary of Justice, whose
executive function is to review the filing of complaints, to withdraw the information.
Even if trial will proceed notwithstanding the fact that the prosecutor’s motion to
withdraw the information was not granted, the duty of the prosecutor is to see that
justice is done and should do so, if he sees fit, the least the fiscal should do is
continue to appear for the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation
of evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his director and control.
Baltazar v. People
The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely
assists him in making the determination of probable cause for issuance of the
warrant of arrest. The judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents
to him. By itself, the Prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is ineffectual.
We likewise held that once a case has been filed with the court, it is that court, no
longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the
information may not be dismissed without its approval. The trial court has the
option to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal, whether
before or after the arraignment of the accused, and whether after a reinvestigation
or upon instructions of the secretary who reviewed the records of the investigation,
provided that such grant or denial is made from its own assessment and
evaluation of the merits of the motion.
Chan v. SOJ
The findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. The remedy is available to the aggrieved party.
Villaflor v. Vivar
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the
information or otherwise render it defective. Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of
the court or constitute a ground for quashing the information. The trial court,
instead of dismissing the information should hold in abeyance the proceedings and
order the public prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.
Even if the information is amended to charge serious physical injuries, instead of
the earlier charge for slight physical injuries, the accused cannot demand a new
preliminary investigation relative to the serious physical injuries where he already
had one in relation to the charge for slight physical injuries since the change made
is only a formal amendment. The offense was changed due to the time of infirmity
healing was for a more lengthy time.
San Agustin v. People
The inquest investigation conducted by the State Prosecutor is void because
under Rule 112, an inquest investigation is proper only when the suspect is
lawfully arrested without a warrant. In this case, the arresting NBI officers had no
personal knowledge that an offense was committed either for serious illegal
detention or arbitrary detention.
When no preliminary investigation was conducted, a motion to quash is not the
valid recourse. The trial court should suspend proceedings and order a preliminary
investigation considering that the inquest investigation conducted by the State
Prosecutor is null and void.
HAM 16
Ladlad v. Velasco

Beltran Petition

Beltran was “lawfully” arrested for inciting to sedition due to the arresting officer’s
personal knowledge that an offense was committed. In this case, the inquest
should only be for the inciting to sedition and not rebellion, where the arresting
officers had no personal knowledge and based it only on affidavits that did not
even state the name of Beltran as one who was committing rebellion, thus
negating the possibility of there being probable cause.

Ladlad and Maza Petition

Issues with PI:

• The respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of Tanigue
and Mendoza of the CIDG-PNP as complaints.
• Respondent prosecutors required them to “secure copies of the complaints
and its attachments.”
• Respondent prosecutors distributed copies of the affidavits not to the
Ladlad, Maza et al. but to the media.
Indeed, by peremptorily issuing the subpoenas to petitioners, tolerating the
complainant’s antics during the investigation, and distributing copies of a witness’
affidavit to members of the media knowing that petitioners have not had the
opportunity to examine the charges against them, respondent prosecutors not only
trivialized the investigation but also lent credence to petitioner’s claim that the
entire proceeding was a sham.

Respondent prosecutors also lacked impartiality when they said “We will just
declare probable cause, then it’s up to the court to decide.”

HAM 17
 RULE 114
BAIL
Bail as a matter of right
Bail as a matter of discretion
Bail is denied
probability of flight if
released on bail
o That there is undue risk
• RTC: Before conviction of an that he will commit
offense not punishable by another crime during the
reclusion perpetua, death, or life pendency of the appeal.
imprisonment • BEFORE CONVICTION IN RTC:
• MTC: Before and conviction charged with an offense
• AFTER CONVICTION IN THE punishable by reclusion perpetua,
RTC: and punished by the RTC of death, or life imprisonment AND
offenses not punishable by EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS
reclusion perpetua, death, or life STRONG
imprisonment. • ALL COURTS: after judgment of
• BEFORE CONVICTION IN THE conviction has become final
RTC: before conviction of • ALL COURTS: after accused has
offenses punishable by reclusion commenced to serve sentence
perpetua, death, or life
imprisonment. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
• CONVICTED BY THE RTC with furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court s
penalty imposed being reclusion required under certain specified conditions.
perpetua, death, or life
imprisonment, pending appeal Bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. The
• CONVICTED BY THE RTC, purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial.
PENDING APPEAL: bail-negating
Grant or denial of bail has no impact on the civil liability of the accused.
circumstances when penalty
imposed exceeds six (6) years:
o Recidivism, quasi- The bail may be furnished by the bail applicant himself or the bondsman.
recidivism, habitual
delinquency, or If bail is the security for the release of a person under custody, bail cannot be
commission of a crime availed of by someone outside the custody of law. A free man, therefore is not
aggravated by reiteracion entitled to bail. A fugitive may not apply for bail unless he gives himself up first so
o Previous escape from he may be placed under the custody of the law. The rationale behind this rule is to
legal confinement, discourage and prevent the practice where the accused could just send another in
evasion of sentence, his stead to post his bail, without recognizing the jurisdiction of the court by his
violation of conditions of personal appearance.
bail without a valid
Custody of the law is required before the court can act out on an application for
justification
o Commission of an bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the
offense while under defendant. The mere application for bail constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack
probation, parole, or of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. However, an accused, who is
conditional pardon confined in a hospital, may be deemed to be in the custody of the law if he clearly
o Circumstances of the communicates his submission to the court while confined in a hospital. In view of
case indicate a humanitarian considerations, the court may receive bail even without the physical
appearance of the accused.
HAM 18

Bail may also be used to guarantee the appearance of a material witness.
Evidence of guilt is strong
Does not mean that the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but
rather, shows evident guilt or presumption of guilt
“Strong” does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Secs. 10, 11, 14, 15. Kinds of bail.
1. Corporate surety – bail is furnished by a corporation
2. Property bond – a property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien on
the real property given as security for the amount of bail.
3. Cash deposit – the accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit
in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city,
municipal treasurer or the clerk of court where the case is pending.
a. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to
the payment of fines and costs, while the excess, if any, shall be
returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.
4. Recognizance – an obligation on record entered into before some court to
do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being
the appearance of the accused for trial. Release on recognizance may be
ordered by the court in the following instances:
a. Where the prescribed penalty does not exceed six (6) months
and P2000 fine;
b. Where the accused has been in custody for a period exceeding
the minimum imposable penalty;
c. Where the accused has filed for probation, pending finality of the
judgment, but no bail was filed or the accused in incapable of filing
one;
d. Youthful offender; and
e. Summary procedure cases.
Sec. 2.. Conditions of bail.
1. The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled,
shall remain in force at all stages until promulgation at the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in
or appealed to it;
2. The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by
the court at there rules and during:
a. Arraignment;
b. Identification of the accused by witnesses;
c. Promulgation;
3. 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
4. The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of
the final judgment.
Sec. 3. Duration of the bail.
The undertaking under the bail shall be effective upon approval, and unless
cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of
judgment of the RTC irrespective whether the case was originally filed in or
appealed to it.
No person under detention by legal processes shall be released or transferred
• Upon order of the court; or
• When the defendant is admitted to bail
Sec. 5, 8, 18. When bail is a matter of discretion
When bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing must be conducted whether or not
the prosecution refuses to present evidence and the prosecutor must be notified to
require him to submit his recommendation. This notice of hearing applies in all
cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion.
Even when there is petition for bail, in a case like the one before the trial court, a
hearing should still be held. Also, the fact that the public prosecutor recommended
bail for the accused did not warrant dispensing with the hearing.
Hearing to determine probable cause is not the same as the hearing for bail.
Duties of the trial judge in a bail hearing when bail is discretionary:
1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require
him to submit his recommendation;
2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not
the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the
accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its
sound discretion;
3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the
summary of the evidence of the prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the
approval of the bail bond. Otherwise the petition should be denied.
HAM 19
Evidence in bail hearing are automatically reproduced at the trial.
When bail as a matter of discretion is granted, it cannot be cancelled.
Sec. 16. When bail is not required
• When the law or the rules of court so provide
• When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than
the possible maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offense
charged
o If the penalty is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of
preventive imprisonment
• If the charge is a violation of a local ordinance, light felony, or where the
imprisonment is not greater than 6 months and/or a fine of Php2,000, or
both.
Sec. 17. Where application for bail is filed.
1. General rule: where the case is pending. If the judge is absent:
a. With any RTC or MTC judge in the same city/province/municipality
2. If arrested in a place other than where the case is pending
a. Any RTC judge of that place; and if not available
b. Any MTC judge in that place
3. Any person in custody who has not yet been charged in court can file his
application for bail with any judge in the city/municipality/province where
he is being held
4. When bail is a matter of discretion, application for bail may only be applied
in the court where the case is pending.
5. On appeal:
a. In the trial court when the accused has filed a notice of appeal but
the records of the case has not yet been transmitted to the
appellate court;
b. In the appellate court when appeal has been perfected
When bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge who
accepted 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
reason, require a different one to be filed.
Sec. 20. Increase or reduction of bail.
Even after the accused is admitted to bail, the amount of bail may either be
increased or reduced by the court upon good cause.
The increased amount must be given within a reasonable period if the accused
wants to avoid being taken into custody.
(insert something about possibility of escape and all)
Sec. 21. Forfeiture of bail.
When the presence of the accused is required by the court of these Rules, his
bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and
time. If the accused fails to appear in person as required, his ball shall be declared
forfeited and the bondsmen shall be given thirty (30) days within which to produce
their principal and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered against
them for the amount of their bail.
Within the said period, the bondsmen must:
1. Produce the body of the principal or give reason for his non-production;
and
2. Explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first
required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the
bondsmen, jointly and severally for the amount of bail. The court shall not reduce
or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been
surrendered or is acquitted.
Aside from forfeiture, when the accused fails to appear in court despite notice, the
court may issue a bench warrant for his arrest.
Bail CANNOT BE CANCELLED when the judge feels that there is a risk that he
accused may jump bail. His recourse would be to increase the amount of bail. If
the accused did indeed jump bail, he would forfeit the bail and issue a bench
warrant. He will however issue a new bail wherein the judge can increase the
amount of bail in which the accused would have to post.
Sec. 22. Cancellation of bail
1. Bail may be cancelled upon application of the bondsmen with due notice to
the prosecutor:
a. Upon surrender of the accused; or
b. Proof of death of the accused.
2. Bail is automatically cancelled:
a. Acquittal of the accused;
b. Dismissal of the case; or
c. Judgment of conviction is executed.
The appropriate remedy against the trial court’s cancelling of the bail is by filing
with the Court of Appeals a motion to review the said order in the same regular
HAM 20
appeal proceedings which the appellant himself initiated, such motion being an
incident to his appeal. The filing of a separate petition via a special civil action for
certiorari before the appellate court is proscribed and contravenes the rule against
multiplicity of suits and constitutes forum shopping. (Chua v. Court of Appeals)
Sec. 26. Effect of posing bail.
It shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or legality of
the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity of questioning the
absence of Pi of the charge against him.
Filing a motion for lifting the hold departure order and for leave to go to another
country is a waiver of the right to assail the validity of the arrest warrant.
San Miguel v. Maceda
The existence of a high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond
confers upon the court no greater discretion than to increase the bond to such
an amount as would reasonably tend to assure the presence of the defendant
when it is wanted, such amount to be subject, of course, to the other provision that
excessive bail shall not be required. Following then the above ratiocination,
respondent judge’s only recourse is to fix a higher amount of bail and not cancel
the previously fixed bail.
Lavides v. CA
A condition wherein the accused is made to plea during arraignment before he can
validly post bail is an invalid condition. The respondent judge reasoned out that
arraignment should be done so that the court would easily have jurisdiction over
the person of the accused. However, this would run contrary to the rights of the
accused to file for a motion to quash and other remedies pre-arraignment that
questions the validity of the information. In having to be arraigned before being
released from his detention, the accused would be constrained to choose between
liberty or quashal, and cannot choose both. (This has been cured by Sec. 26, Rule
114 however.)
Moreover, the condition that when the accused, after posting bail, fails to appear in
one hearing will be deemed as a waiver of his right to appear in trial and trial will
proceed in absentia is also invalid. There are instances where the accused must
appear in trial and his non-appearance would render such proceeding infirm. (See
section on Section 2)
Andres v. Beltran
The failure of the accused and of counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing is
not a valid ground for cancellation of bail. Nowhere in the provisions of Rule 114
does such ground exist. Bail may only be cancelled according to the provisions of
Sec. 22, Rule 114. Bail may only be increased or decreased upon good cause
shown.
Leviste v. CA
When a case is on appeal, the appellate court has discretion whether to grant the
petition for bail. The absence of bail-negating circumstances in cases where the
penalty imposed exceeds six years does not mean that bail will automatically be
granted as a matter of right. The essence of ‘discretion’ would be diminished if
such were the case. The rule, therefore, is when there is the presence of bail-
negating circumstances, bail shall be denied. In its absence, bail is discretionary
upon the court.
People v. Fitzgerald
The health of the accused is not a valid basis for granting bail as a matter of
discretion when the penalty prescribed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or
death. It is only upon a showing that the evidence of guilt is not strong can the
accused be released on bail. The accused can avail of medical services whilst in
detention. BUT
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan
Enrile is old, and sick. For humanitarian considerations, he should be released.
Moreover, he is a veteran of many cases wherein he did not escape. He should be
granted bail. Fucking bullshit.
Esteban v. Alhambra
We hold that the cash bail cannot be cancelled. Petitioner did not surrender the
accused, charged in the four criminal cases, to the trial court. The accused was
arrested and detained because he was charged in a subsequent criminal case.
Moreover, the bail bond posted was in the form of cash deposit. As a cash deposit,
it cannot be cancelled “by the bondsman surrendering the accused to the court.”
Cash deposits, even if posted by another person, are deemed to be the property of
the accused. Cash deposits do not have bondsmen, and are only applicable to
corporate sureties. Thus, there can be no surrender of the accused by the
bondsman when the bail posted is a cash deposit, and therefore bail cannot be
cancelled.
HAM 21