Professional Documents
Culture Documents
à Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or surrender; such jurisdiction once gained cannot be lost even if accused
escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno)
à Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the institution of the action and is retained even if the penalty for the
offense is later lowered or raised (People vs. Lagon)
2. Complaint – sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other public
official charged with the enforcement of the law violated
Information – accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court
3. Complaint and Information distinguished:
Complaint Information
ii. Vessel
5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an information or include a person therein as an accused
a. In RTC:
à By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite preliminary investigation therein.
à By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscal’s office
à In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense charged (Rule 110, §1)
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of municipal or city ordinances; and (4) criminal cases where the penalty
does not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties and civil liabilities]
à The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.
à Zaldivia vs. Reyes – since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court,
then the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that.
à Reodica vs. CA – [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information. It does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only, or for an action on the
merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscal’s office should suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling in Zaldivia
is not applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure, since that particular case involved a violation of an ordinance. Therefore,
the applicable law therein was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (“An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by
Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run”), §2 of which provides that period of prescription is
suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
à Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs.
Guevarra)
à Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery
cannot be sustained if there is a variance between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the property stolen.
à Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
à If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may be quashed; however, the prosecution is allowed to amend
the info to include the necessary facts (People vs. Purisima)
c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense
à Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)
d. Name of offended party
à Approximation of time is sufficient; amendment as to time is only a formal amendment; no need to dismiss case (People vs. Molero)
à A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since such would allow the prosecution to prove an offense distantly removed
from the alleged date, thus substantially impairing the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges against him (People vs. Reyes)
f. Place of commission
à Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place alleged, provided that the place of actual commission
was within the court’s jurisdiction and accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the information
à Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral parts of the crime. If proved, but not alleged, become
only generic aggravating circumstances.
Substitution
Amendment
1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
2. Continuing offenses
3. Piracy which is triable anywhere
4. Libel (residence; or where first published)
5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry
13. Special cases (who may prosecute)
à With consent of the offended party, offended spouse, grandparents, guardian, or state asparenspatriae, in that order
à Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the case independently of parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is
incompetent/incapable on grounds other than minority.
à If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or guardian may do so.
à In crimes against chastity, the consent of the victim is a jurisdictional requirement–retraction renders the information void (People vs. Ocapan)
à Ifcomplexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the complaint on his own
à The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case because of her interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)
14. Procedure
1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place (territorial jurisdiction)
1. Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2. Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
à Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be prejudicial to the accused and should be allowed (People vs. CA)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper offense, court shall dismiss original info upon the filing of a
corrected one, provided that the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution)
à Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the case; the motion to dismiss must be addressed
to the court which has discretion over the disposition of the case (Republic vs. Sunga)
à Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the amendment is made; otherwise, deemed to have
consented thereto.
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
à May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally, a flaw in the info)
à If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right to question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)
b. Motion to dismiss
à May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash
à Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same information/complaint
à Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
à Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to prove damages, the offended party is not barred
from filing a separate civil action
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
à NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil
action, and no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
à San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA – past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111 that a reservation be made prior to the institution of
an independent civil action is an “unauthorized amendment” to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering substantive rights,
the primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the
work of the trial court, and in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action: and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
à Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from crime
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that
the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
à Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action
7. Filing fees:
à A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC; complaints may be filed with the MTC without need of
an information, which is merely recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
à Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the information; an information filed without a preliminary
investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence, the accused may ask for one; it is the fiscal’s refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation
when the accused demands one which is a violation of the rights of the accused(Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss the info,
but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1) conduct its own investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information with the RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is
lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is conducted.
3. Right to Preliminary Investigation
à Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities
1. Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena complainant and respondent to submit affidavits and counter-
affidavits
1. If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he prepares an information and a resolution
à i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused is probably guilty thereof
à Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted, would be enough to merit a conviction of the
accused
iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint
à If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that there is a need to place the accused under custody,
then he may issue a warrant of arrest
à Flores vs. Sumaling – What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while before, it was mandatory for the investigating
judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judge’s power to order the
arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in custody “in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.” It
is therefore error for the investigating judge to order the issuance of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without making any
finding of a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in court
à Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge
1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary investigation, with the assistance of counsel, then the procedure for one prior
to arrest is followed
1. Inquest conducted as follows
(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the arrest
(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the complainant, arresting officer and witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused, OR prepares and files an information
à While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed with the court, the court acquires jurisdiction giving
it discretion over the disposition of the case and the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeals from the
decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary investigation.
6. Remedies
à Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
à Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed without a preliminary investigation
à Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
Rule 113 Arrest
1. Arrest – taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of some offense, made by an actual restraint
of the person or by his submission to custody
2. General Rule: No person may be arrested without a warrant.
à Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for an offense.
à “Invitations” are not arrests and are usually not unconstitutional, but in some cases may be taken as commands (Babst vs. NBI); however, the
practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is considered as
placing him under “custodial investigation.” (RA 7438)
à Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge that the person to be arrested committed
it
à Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
à The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest (Umil vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case pending)
1. Person is arrested
1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary investigation or inquest
à Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
1. Fiscal files info
5. Requisites for a warrant of arrest:
1. Probable cause
2. Signed by judge
3. Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to be arrested
à John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar)
6. Remedies
à Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was illegally arrested (void warrant or unlawful warrantless arrest, or
warrantless arrest beyond period with no information filed)
à Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed
à Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
à Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court questioning only its lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
à Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court would be deemed a submission to the authority
of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction it lacked over the person
à Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs.
Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, “Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation”
à Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial investigation
à Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)
1. Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
2. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal subject to consent of bondsman
3. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail or recognizance
5. Procedure
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
(4) Absent (3), with the MTC
1. Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do some particular act,
the most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance of the accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the trial,except:
1. Substitution of info (see R110, §14)
2. Court believes that material witness may not appear at the trial
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal offense – not higher that 6 month imprisonment and/or P2000
fine, or both)
1. Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light felony or criminal offense the imposable penalty to which does not exceed 6
months and or P2000 fine
2. Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the imposable principal penalty, without application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation and before the same has been resolved, but NO BAIL was filed or accused is incapable of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish bail
11. Cancellation of bail
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal
1. Case is dismissed
1. Accused is acquitted
2. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not more than 20 years, and:
1. Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or guilty of the aggravating circumstance of reiteration;
2. Provisionally escaped, evaded sentence, violated provisions of bail;
3. Committed offense while on probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
4. Probability of flight; or
5. Undue risk that during appeal, he may commit another crime
13. When bail is forfeited
à 30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him
c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily explain to the court why accused did not appear when first required to do so
à Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
à Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act of God, the obligee or the law (US vs. Bonoan)
14. Provisional forfeiture
1. Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear
15. Remedies
1. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person (Callanta vs. Villanueva). However, this does not
result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the articles seized incidentally to such illegal arrest.
2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation when he failed to do so before
entering his plea (People vs. DelaCerna)
3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior court permission (warrantless arrest
allowed).
Rule 115 Rights of Accused
1. Right of the accused under the Rules
à In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed innocent until and unless his conviction is affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of charges
à The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later proceedings must be in a language the accused understands (People vs.
Crisologo)
c. To be present at every stage of proceedings, subject to waiver by bail
à If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia; the accused forfeits his rights to be notified of proceedings in the future
and to adduce evidence in his behalf (People vs. Salas)
1. To testify as witness on his own behalf, subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination; not to be prejudiced by
his silence
2. Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
3. To confront and examine the witnesses against him, including the right to use in evidence testimony of a witness
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the RP
1. Given in another proceeding
2. With the same parties
3. Same subject matter
4. Opportunity to cross-examine
à Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when such informer was crucial in the operation itself; failure to present the
informer is a denial of the right to confront the witness which merits the reversal of the conviction (People vs. Bagano)
g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his behalf
à Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial, entitling the accused to mandamus to compel dismissal of
the case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained
à Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be allowed (Villaflor vs. Summers)
à Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of information, without which confession made by the accused is inadmissible (People
vs. Nicandro)
à Confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible (People vs. Opida)
à Right against self-incrimination and to counsel do not apply during custodial investigation (People vs. Ayson)
à During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form:
5. Remedies
1. Motion to quash
2. Motion to dismiss
à Both filed on the ground of violation of accused’s rights, thereby ousting the court of jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and that his
failure to appear is unjustifiable.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
1. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
à If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of good repute for probity and ability to defend accused
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment
à Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially complied with; if not, case may be remanded for re-
arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
1. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
2. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3. Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4. Accused personally makes his plea
5. Plea is entered into record
6. If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
à People vs. Agbayani – the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only when so demanded does denial thereof constitute
reversible error and ground for new trial. Further, such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
à NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”), accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial,
which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
à Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the manner of statement of such fact is immaterial (People
vs. Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
à Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his plea, and its consequences
à Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and determine his degree of culpability, and accused may still establish
presence of mitigating circumstances in his favor
à Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of exculpatory evidence (if accused pleaded guilty), trial court should consider
the plea withdrawn and in its place, order the plea of not guilty
à Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to quash or by plea in abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional
defects.
3. Effects
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the prosecution of presenting evidence and still result in the
conviction of the accused.
4. Remedies
à Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill of Particulars is necessary to clarify the acts for which the
accused is being charged
à Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a pending civil case
à May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, when it can be shown that the accused was not aware of the significance
of pleading guilty to the charges
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1. No offense charged
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
à For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law, only that it alleges that one offense was necessary to commit
the other (People vs. Alagao)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
1. No territorial jurisdiction
2. No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver considered even upon failure to move to quash on such
ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused
à The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for the pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs. Rodriguez)
c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy
à No waiver
à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the consent of the accused (Que vs. Cosico), unless ground for dismissal is: (a) denial of right
to speedy trial; or (b) insufficiency of evidence.
à If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no valid information and there could be no double jeopardy (Caniza
vs. People)
à Cudiavs CA – it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should prepare informations for offenses
committed within Pampanga but outside Angeles City. An information must be prepared and presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone
authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a motion to quash the information is a waiver of all
objections to it insofar as formal objections to pleadings are concerned, questions relating to want of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. Moreover, since the complaint or information was insufficient because it was so defective in form or substance that conviction upon
it could not have been sustained, its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy, and will not be a bar to a
second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single punishment for various offenses
à No waiver
à For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty existing at the time
g. Information contains allegations which, if true, would be a legal excuse or justification
à Doctrine of “Jurisdiction by Estoppel”: depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the
case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the
same ‘must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel’. However, if the lower court had
jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who
induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position — that the lower court had jurisdiction. Here,
the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing
thereon.
c. Accused had pleaded
e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or necessarily includes or is necessarily included
à Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the charge of damage to property through reckless
imprudence.
5. Procedure
1. MTQ filed
2. If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded yet), EXCEPT when the ground is:
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
à Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if necessary; mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if there is
not other plain, simple and adequate remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such grounds,except:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining – process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case
subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only some of the counts of a multi-count
indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.
à Under “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC, RTC and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
à Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, an accused may plea guilty to a lesser offense only if said offense is
necessarily included in the offense charged.
à Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures; these facts need not be proved by evidence in trial
à Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned by either accused or counsel; a later memo of confirmation, signed only by counsel, cannot cure defect
(Fule vs. CA)
3. Pre-trial order – binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls the course of action during the trial
4. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, §1)
à HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from
receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
à Cross-examination
à Re-cross
à Offer
1. Sick or infirm
2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
6. Requisites for postponement due to absence of a witness
à Upon the court’s discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single case if the offenses charged arise form the same facts or form part of a
series of similar offenses
à Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the same manner (People vs. David)
c. Motion for continuance – filed to postpone trial for just cause
à Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
à Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if court denies motion for discharge, his sworn statement shall
be inadmissible in evidence.
à Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his
statement (which formed the basis for his discharge)
à If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed
1. If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and the case is
submitted for judgment
à Case may also be dismissed motuproprio
g. Motion to reopen
à Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered
à To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before
à The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his behalf when his failure to adduce them during the trial was
his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
Rule 120 Judgment
1. Judgment – adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged, and the imposition of the proper penalty
and civil liability provided by law on the accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and the acquittal immediately becomes final and executory. If the accused
is found guilty, penalty and civil liability will be imposed on him.
a. Appeal
1. Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before and which could change the judgment
1. Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of sound discretion
2. Does not require consent of accused
3. May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional evidence
2. Motion for new trial
1. Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon issue of credibility
2. Only corroborative evidence is offered
3. Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which such confession can be obtained and fabricated)
4. Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be concocted
5. Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witness, due to unreliability of such recantations, EXCEPT if no other
evidence to sustain conviction aside from recanted testimony
4. New Trial vs. Reconsideration
à Motion for recon is based on the grounds of errors of law in the judgment is court is not asked to reopen the case for further proceedings, but to
reconsider its findings or conclusions of law and make them conformable to the law applicable to the case on the judgment the court has to render
anew.
à In New Trial, irregularities are expunged from the record and/or new evidence is introduced. In modification of judgment, no new hearings or
proceedings of any kind or change in the record or evidence. A simple modification is made on the basis of what is on the record.
à New trial presupposes that existence of a judgment to be set aside upon the granting of a new trial
à In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although the hearing may have already been closed
à Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require no further proceedings.
à Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities stand, and those affected are set aside. Court may allow introduction of new evidence
à Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
b. Filed with the CA or SC, if original case was with RTC
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
à If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall render judgment imposing said penalty, but refrain from entering
judgment and then certify the case and the entire record thereof to the SC for review (R124, §13)
à CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or re-trial, or dismiss the case
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or lesser penalty involving offenses committed on the same occasion, or
arising out of same occurrence where graver penalty of death is available but life imprisonment is imposed; all other cases, by petition for review
on certiorari
à Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a Motion for Recon or a Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the
notice perfected the appeal, and the trial court loses its power to modify or set aside the judgment. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal is
where the accused decides to serve his sentence.
1. Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and applicable to them
2. Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of judgment
3. Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result in double jeopardy
1. When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the maximum period of the new penalty
à Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned beyond the maximum penalty imposed by law (Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious, certiorari lies and no double jeopardy since validity and not correctness of dismissal is being challenged.
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
1. Search warrant – an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court
à Cannot be issued to look for evidence (UyKhetin vs. Villareal)
à Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a witness against himself (UyKhetin vs. Villareal)
à For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
à Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure (US vs. Katz)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it is authorized by a search warrant. Evidence gathered from an illegal search and
seizure is inadmissible.
à Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable character by which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
à Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to it, and such is not an unconstitutional deprivation of property
(Villanueva vs. Querubin)
à Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
à Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be effective:
à Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and the
thing to be searched for and seized is in the place to be searched
b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing judge
à By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an offense which occurred anywhere in the country (Malaloan vs. CA)
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions, the appellant and his witness and took down their written depositions
à Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a search warrant (UyKhetin vs. Villareal)
à Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
e. Particularly describes the place to be searched
à Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs. Herrera)
à Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination of probable cause (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto (search warrant becomes void after 10 days)
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
à Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case (People vs. SyJuco)
à Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the person against whom the warrant is issued, that the objects to be seized are
fruits or means of committing a crime, and that they belong to the same person, thus, not affecting third persons (People vs. SyJuco)
à When complainant’s knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are necessary (Alvarez vs. CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of complainant and witnesses under oath to determine probable cause
à Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs. Gonzales)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality
à Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same search for the same purpose and of the same place (UyKhetin vs. Villareal)
e. Peace officer leaves receipt with occupant at place searched
f. Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory, and surrenders items seized to receiving court (not necessarily court which issued the
warrant)
à Items seized illegally must remain in custodialegis pending resolution of the case (Roan vs. Gonzales)
6. Remedies from an unlawful search
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense charged (Nolasco vs. Pano)
iii. Subject in an offense which is mala prohibita cannot be summarily seized (Roan vs. Gonzales)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and surrounding under his immediate control
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in the proceeding.
Rule 127 Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases
1. Attachment as provisional remedy in criminal cases