Preweek - Remedial Law - Dean Salvador N. Moya II - 3 - CRIMPRO

PRE-WEEK NOTES AND CASES
IN
REMEDIAL LAW
(CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
FOR
LEGAL EDGE EXPERTS REVIEW CENTER, INC.
(2020-2021 BAR EXAMINATION)
BY:
DEAN SALVADOR N. MOYA II, LL.M.

BSC, LL.B., LL.M., DCL (Cand.)
Founding Dean, Tomas Claudio Colleges, College of Law, Morong, Rizal
Managing Partner, Moya Ablola Ebarle Law Firm
MCLE Lecturer on Trial Advocacy
Bar Reviewer [Legal EDGE Review Center, Villasis Law Center,
Powerhaus Review Center, Recoletos Law Center, Magnificus Juris
Reviews and Seminars Inc., UP Law Center, University of Cebu,
Albano Bar Review Center, PUP Bar Review Center]
Author [The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Notes and Cases (2017);
The Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases in
Relation to The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (2018); Bar Notes and
Cases in Remedial Law (2018); Bar Notes and Cases in Criminal Law,
2018 & 2019; Notes and Cases in Remedial Law (Volumes I-IV), 2019;
Notes and Cases in Civil Procedure, Volume I (Parts I, II, IV), 2020;
Notes and Cases in Remedial Law, Volume IV (Evidence), 2020;
Notes and Cases in Civil Procedure, Volume I (Part III), 2021; Bar Reviewer in
Remedial Law (Syllabus-Based), Volumes I (Parts 1 & 2) to IV, 2021 Ed.]
Professor in Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Special
Proceedings, Remedial Law Review I-II, Criminal Law I-II, Criminal Law Review
[TCC-COL, TSU-SOL, NEU-COL,
SSCR-COL, UE-COL, BulSU-COL, UP-COL]
1
2
GENERAL MATTERS
DISTINGUISH JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER FROM JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED
Q1. What determines the court’s jurisdiction over a criminal case? Explain.
A1. Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is vested by law. 1 In criminal cases, the imposable
penalty of the crime charged in the information determines the court that has jurisdiction over the case.2
The trial court‘s lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties‘ silence on the matter. 3 The failure of
the parties to raise the matter of jurisdiction also cannot be construed as a waiver of the parties. Jurisdiction
is conferred by law and cannot be waived by the parties.
Whereas, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his valid arrest or voluntary
surrender. (Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., 737 SCRA 252, 1 October 2014)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS
Q1. What is jurisdiction? Explain.
A1. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear and determine a judicial proceeding. 4 It is
the right and power of a court to adjudicate concerning the subject in a given case.5
Q2. What is criminal jurisdiction?
A2. Criminal jurisdiction is the power to declare an act a crime and to prosecute a person for its
commission. It is both a form of legislative jurisdiction, by which a government has the authority to declare a
particular conduct to be a crime, and a form of enforcement jurisdiction, by which the agents of that
government have the power to arrest a person for such conduct and the courts of that government have the
power to try and to order punishment for it. It is customarily based on the location of the conduct, the location
of the harm that occurs or is intended to occur as a result of the conduct, the nationality of the person who
engages in it, the nationality of a person or entity harmed by it, and the nature of the conduct itself. Thus, the
criminal jurisdiction of a nation/state may extend to actions by its citizens, to acts that occur within its
territory, to acts that harm its citizens, to acts that harm the government itself, and to acts that, by their
very nature, are likely to harm the government of the state or to harm the interests of all humankind. 6
The criminal jurisdiction of trial courts was defined in B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, 7
otherwise known as the ―Expanded Jurisdiction Act.‖
Q3. What is the concept of selective prosecution? Explain.
A3. A claim of "selective prosecution" may only prosper if there is extrinsic evidence of "clear showing
of intentional discrimination." The prosecution of one person to the exclusion of others who may be just as
guilty does not automatically entail a violation of the equal protection clause. (Abubakar vs. People, 868 SCRA
489, 27 June 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].8
ARCHIVING OF CRIMINAL CASES
Q4. What is the concept of archiving of criminal cases? Explain.
A4. The archiving of cases is a generally acceptable measure designed to shelve cases but is done only
where no immediate action is expected. 9 (Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, 24 January 2017)(En
________________________
1
People vs. Sps. Vanzuela, 581 Phil. 211 (2008)(Third Division)[Nachura, J.].
2
People vs. Purisima, 161 Phil. 443 (1976)(First Division)[Martin, J.].
3
People vs. Sps. Vanzuela, supra.
4
In re: De Camillis‘ Estate, 66 Misc.2d 882, 322 N.Y. S.2d 551, 556.
5
Biddinger vs. Fletcher, 224 Ga. 501, 162 S.E.2d 414, 416; Black, H. C. (1979). Black‘s Law Dictionary. Fifth Edition (p. 766). St. Paul,
Minn.: West Publishing Co.
6
Sheppard, S.M. (2011). The Wolters Kluwer Bouvier Law Dictionary. Compact Edition (p. 584). New York, U.S.A.: Wolters Kluwer Law &
Business.
7
An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,
Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa, Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980" (25 March 1994).
8
A case for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 where the conviction of the accused was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
9
Republic vs. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc., 424 Phil. 372 (2002).
3
Banc)[Per Curiam].10
Q5. What are the instances where a criminal case can be archived? Explain.
A5. A.C. No. 7-A-92 enumerated the circumstances when a judge may order the archiving of a criminal
case as follows:
(a) If after the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six (6) months from
the delivery of the warrant to the proper peace officer, and the latter has explained the reason why the
accused was not apprehended; or
(b) When proceedings are ordered suspended for an indefinite period because:
(1) the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders
him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently, or to undergo trial, and he
has to be committed to a mental hospital;
(2) a valid prejudicial question in a civil action is invoked during the pendency of the criminal case
unless the civil and the criminal cases are consolidated;
(3) an interlocutory order or incident in the criminal case is elevated to, and is pending
resolution/decision for an indefinite period before a higher court which has issued a temporary restraining
order or writ of preliminary injunction; and
(4) when the accused has jumped bail before arraignment and cannot be arrested by his bondsman.
In Marcos, when Judge Cabrera-Faller issued the warrants, she also archived the case. She, however,
did not cite any ground in A.C. No. 7-A-92 for the suspension of the proceedings. What she did was
unprecedented. She did not even bother to wait for the return of the warrants or wait for the six-month
period. By doing so, she exhibited bias, if not incompetence and ignorance of the law and jurisprudence. It
could also be that she knew it, but she opted to completely ignore the law or the regulations. Certainly, it
was a case of grave abuse of discretion as her actuations were not in accord with law or justice.
Q6. What is the duty of the Judge upon receipt of the Information in his sala?
A6. The presiding judge‘s task is to first and foremost determine the existence or non-existence of
probable cause for the arrest of the accused. 11 It was incumbent upon her to assess the resolution, affidavits
and other supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor to satisfy herself that probable cause existed
and before a warrant of arrest could be issued against the accused. 12 If she did find the evidence submitted by
the prosecutor to be insufficient, she could order the dismissal of the case, or direct the investigating
prosecutor either to submit more evidence or to submit the entire records of the preliminary investigation, or
she could even call the complainant and the witness to answer the courts probing questions to enable her to
discharge her duty.
The High Court in Marcos observed: Most probably, she did her duty to examine and analyze the
attached documents but because she took pity on the young accused (never mind the victim), she chose to
ignore or disregard them. Nonetheless, "when the inefficiency springs from failure to consider so basic and
elemental a rule, law or principle in the discharge of duties, the judge is either insufferably incompetent and
undeserving of the position she holds or is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in
bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority."13 (Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller, supra)[Art III, Sec. 2, 1987
Constitution; Sec. 6, Rule 112, The 2000 ROCP].
Q7. Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over a City Vice Mayor with salary grade 26 for
violations of R.A. No. 3019 and falsification of a public document? Explain.
A7. Yes. In Ampongan vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 234670-71, 14 August 2019)(Third Division)
[Peralta, J.], citing the case of Inding vs. Sandiganbayan,14 the High Court ruled:
Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, provides, among others, that officials of the
executive branch occupying positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and
higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 and those specifically enumerated
positions therein, i.e., without regard to salary grade, which include the position of, among others, Vice
Mayors, are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan if these public officials commit
crimes involving: (a) violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII
of the Revised Penal Code; and (b) other offenses or felonies committed in relation to their office.
________________________
10
On the immediate archiving of Criminal Case No. 11862, Judge Cabrera-Faller violated Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 when she
issued the June 3, 2013 Order directing the immediate archiving of Criminal Case No. 11862-13, after ordering the issuance of the
warrants of arrest against the accused in the same order.
11
Baltazar vs. People, 582 Phil. 275 (2008).
12
People vs. Grey, 639 Phil. 535 (2010).
13
Posa vs. Mijares, 436 Phil. 295 (2002).
14
478 Phil. 506 (2004).
4
In this case, petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Falsification of
Public Document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code which he allegedly committed when he
was the Vice Mayor of Iriga City. Violation of R.A. No. 3019 is one of those offenses, when committed by the
public official enumerated in the law, to be under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. While the charge of
falsification is not specifically included in the enumeration of crimes over which the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction, however, such crime falls under the category of other offenses committed in relation to the office
of the public official enumerated under the law. 15
Q8. Which court has jurisdiction to try criminal cases for violations of R.A. No. 9165 if the offender
is a government official with salary grade of 27 or above and there was an allegation that the crime was
committed in relation to the performance of his/her official duties? Explain.
A8. It is the Regional Trial Court. A plain reading of RA 9165, as of RA 6425, will reveal that
jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other.
The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan
whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of whether the
violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. (De Lima vs. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, 10 October
2017)(En Banc)[Velasco, Jr., J.].
Q9. Is an out-of-court identification such as police show up admissible as evidence against the
accused?
A9. No. An out-of-court identification such as a police show-up is inadmissible if it is tainted with
improper suggestions by police officers. [Concha and Managuelod vs. People, G.R. No. 208114 (3 October 2018)
(Third Division)[Leonen, J.], citing People vs. Nuñez, G.R. No. 209342 (4 October 2017)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].]
Q10. What is the probative value of a police line-up?
A10. A police line-up is not essential in identification and upheld the identification of the accused
through a show-up. We also held that even assuming arguendo that the out-of-court identification was
defective, the defect was cured by the subsequent positive identification in court for the ―inadmissibility
of a police line-up identification . . . should not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent
in-court identification.‖ (People vs. Rivera, 458 Phil. 856, 2003)(En Banc)[Puno, J.].
RULE 110
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
(Sections 1-16)
INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS (SECTION 1)
REVIEW NOTES AND CASES
Q1. What is the duty of the public prosecutor if there is a finding of probable cause? Explain.
A1. Upon a finding of probable cause, an information is filed by the prosecutor against the accused, in
compliance with the due process of the law.
It is enshrined in our Bill of Rights that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law."16 This includes the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and
"to be informed of the nature and accusation against him." 17 (People vs. Feliciano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196735, 5 May
2014) (Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q2. What is the test of the sufficiency of Complaint or Information?
A2. The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a person of common understanding
to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment properly. The purpose is to allow the
accused to fully prepare for his defense, precluding surprises during the trial. 18 (People vs. Feliciano, Jr., et al.,
supra, citing People vs. Wilson Lab-ea).19
________________________
15
See also Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan, 393 Phil. 143 (22 August 2000); Cunanan vs. Arceo, 242 SCRA 88 (1995); Sanchez vs. Demetriou,
227 SCRA 627 (1993); Montilla vs. Hilario, 90 Phil 49 (1951); People vs. Montejo, 108 Phil 613 (1960).
16
Const., Art. III, Sec. 14(1).
17
Const., Art. III, Sec. 14(2).
18
People vs. Wilson Lab-ea, 424 Phil. 482 (2002)(Third Division)[Carpio, J.], citing Jumawan vs. Eviota, 234 SCRA 524 (28 July 1994)(En
Banc) [Mendoza, J.].
19
424 Phil. 482 (2002)(Third Division)[Carpio, J.].
5
Q3. For violations of City or Municipal ordinance, does the filing of the Complaint with the
prosecutor’s office interrupt the running of the prescriptive period? Explain.
A3. No. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information
tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged involved is an ordinance. (Jadewell Parking Systems
Corporation vs. Lidua, Sr., 706 SCRA 724, 7 October 2013) (Third Division)[Leonen, J.].20
Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be filed
directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation." This
provision does not prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to.
However, the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the
prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means that 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.
This is in consonance with Act No. 3326 which says that the period of prescription shall be suspended
"when proceedings are instituted against the guilty party." The proceedings referred to are "judicial
proceedings."
In case of conflict between the Rules on Summary Procedure and Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure, the former should prevail as the special law. And if there be a conflict between Act
No. 3326 and Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the latter must again yield because this Court, in
the exercise of its rule-making power, is not allowed to "diminish, increase or modify substantive rights" under
Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution. Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right. 21
WHO MAY FILE THEM, CRIMES THAT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED DE OFFICIO (SECTION 5)
PROBLEM:
Sometime in 2014, Jeffrey "Jennifer" Laude was killed in Celzone Lodge, Ramon Magsaysay Drive,
Olongapo City allegedly by 19-year-old US Marine L/CPL Joseph Scott Pemberton. A complaint for murder
was filed by Jennifer's sibling, Marilou S. Laude, against Pemberton before the Olongapo City Office of the
City Prosecutor. On October 22, 2014, Pemberton was detained in Camp Aguinaldo, the general headquarters
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
On December 15, 2014, the Public Prosecutor filed an Information for murder against Pemberton before
the Regional Trial Court in Olongapo City. The case was raffled to Judge Ginez-Jabalde. Thereafter, a warrant
of arrest against Pemberton was issued on December 16, 2014.
Pemberton surrendered personally to Judge Ginez-Jabalde on December 19, 2014, and he was then
arraigned.
On the same day, Marilou S. Laude filed an Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines
to Surrender Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail and a Motion to Allow Media Coverage. However,
Laude failed to comply with the three-day notice rule on motion and they did not also secure the
conformity of the public prosecutor. The judge denied the motion.
Is prior conformity of the public prosecutor necessary in the motion? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The conformity of the Public Prosecutor to the Urgent Motion to Compel the AFP to Surrender
Custody of the Accused to the Olongapo City Jail is not a mere superfluity. In criminal cases, the People is
the real party in interest, which means allowing a private complainant to pursue a criminal action on his own
is a rare exception. (Jimenez vs. Sorongon, 687 SCRA 151, 5 December 2012)(Second Division)[Brion, J.].
The duty and authority to prosecute the criminal aspects of the case, including the custody issue, are
duly lodged in the Public Prosecutor. (Laude vs. Ginez-Jabalde, 775 SCRA 408, 24 November 2015)(En Banc)
[Leonen, J.].
CRIMINAL ACTIONS, WHEN ENJOINED
Q4. What is the effect of a Motion to Withdraw Information/Quash/Dismiss if the information is

________________________
20
Zaldivia vs. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (1992).
21
211 SCRA 277 (3 July 1992).
6
already filed in court? Explain.
A4. Once a complaint or information is already filed in court, any disposition of the case such as its
dismissal or its continuation rests on the sound discretion of the court. It is the best and sole judge on what to
do with the case before it. Thus, when a motion to dismiss the case is filed by the public prosecutor, it should
be addressed to the court who has the option to grant or deny the same. 22 The court should be mindful not to
infringe on the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due process of law. 23 (SSS vs. Seno,
Jr., G.R. No. 183478, 10 February 2020)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.].24
CONTROL OF PROSECUTION
Q5. Who has the control and supervision if the civil aspect is instituted with the criminal action?
Explain.
A5. When the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto is instituted with the criminal
action, whether by choice of private complainant (i.e., no reservation is made or no prior filing of a separate
civil action) or as required by the law or rules, the case will be prosecuted under the direction and control of
the public prosecutor.25
Private complainants in criminal cases are not precluded from filing a motion for reconsideration and
subsequently an appeal on the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the accused. An exception to the rule
that only the Solicitor General can bring actions in criminal proceedings before the CA or to the Supreme
Court is "when the private offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court."26 (Garcia
vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., 737 SCRA 252, 1 October 2014)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION (SECTION 6)
Q6. If the date alleged in the Information is different from the one eventually established during the
trial, will it invalidate the Information?
A6. No. In crimes where the date of commission is not a material element, it is not necessary to allege
such date with absolute specificity or certainty in the information.27 The Rules of Court merely requires, for the
sake of informing an accused, that the date of commission be approximated. 28 Since the date of commission of
the offense is not required to be alleged with such precision and accuracy, the allegation in an Information of a
date of commission different from the one eventually established during the trial is not fatal to prosecution. 29
Instead, the erroneous allegation in the information is just deemed supplanted by the evidence presented
during the trial or may even be corrected by a formal amendment of the information. 30
EXCEPTION:
The only instance where the variance in the date of commission of the offense as alleged in the
information and as established in evidence becomes fatal is when the discrepancy is so great that it induces
the perception that the information and the evidence are no longer pertaining to one and the same
offense. (People vs. Daguno, G.R. No. 235660, 4 March 2020)(Second Division)[Inting, J.].
Q7. What is the test to consider the information sufficient in form and substance? Explain.
A7. For an information to be sufficient, Rule 110, Section 6 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
requires that it state:
The name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
________________________
22
Santos vs. Orda, Jr., 481 Phil. 93 (2004), citing Crespo vs. Mogul, 235 Phil. 465 (1987).
23
Santos vs. Orda, Jr., id., at 106, citing Odin Security Agency, Inc. vs. Sandiganbayan, 417 Phil. 73 (2001).
24
Citing Crespo vs. Mogul, supra.
25
Sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of Court.
26
Heirs of Delgado, et al. vs. Gonzalez, et al., 612 Phil. 817 (2009)(First Division)[Carpio, J.]. See also Mobilia Products, Inc. vs. Hajime
Umezawa, 493 Phil. 85 (2005)(Second Division)[Callejo, Sr., J.].
27
People vs. Delfin, 738 Phil. 811 (2014).
28
Sections 6 and 11, Rule 110, Rules of Court, viz:
SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
xxxx
SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense. – It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the
offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a
date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
29
Rocaberte vs. People, 193 SCRA 152 (23 January 1991).
30
People vs. Delfin, 738 Phil. 811 (2014).
7
commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
The purpose of alleging all the circumstances attending a crime, including any circumstance that may
aggravate the accused's liability, is for the accused to be able to adequately prepare for his or her defense.
(People vs. Feliciano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196735, 3 August 2016) (Special Third Division)[Leonen, J.].31
The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an information is
whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential
element of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information are not be
considered.32 [Araza vs. People, G.R. No. 247429 (8 September 2020)(First Division)[Peralta, C.J.]; Keh vs. People, G.R.
Nos. 217592-93 (13 July 2020)(First Division)[Peralta, C.J.].]
Q8. What is the rationale for the required allegations in the information as provided under Section
6, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure?
A8. Factual allegations that constitute the offense are substantial matters. Moreover, an accused's right
to question a conviction based on facts not alleged in the Information cannot be waived. Thus, even if the
prosecution satisfies the burden of proof, but if the offense is not charged or necessarily included in the
information, conviction cannot ensue.33 (Villarba vs. CA, G.R. No. 227777, 15 June 2020)(Third Division)[Leonen,
J.].34
The allegations in the information are vital because they determine the real nature and cause of the
accusation against an accused. They are given more weight than a prosecutor's designation of the offense in
the caption.35 [Quimvel vs. People, 823 SCRA 192 (18 April 2017)(En Banc)[Velasco, Jr., J.]; Reyes vs. Ombudsman,
787 SCRA 355 (15 March 2016)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].]
DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE (SECTION 8)
Q9. What is the rationale for requiring the aggravating or qualifying circumstance to be alleged in
the information? Explain.
A9. The provision is in consonance with the constitutional rights of the accused to be informed of
the nature and cause of accusation against him. The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for his
defense, precluding surprises during the trial. Hence, even if the prosecution has duly proven the presence of
any of these circumstances, the Court cannot appreciate the same if they were not alleged in the
Information.36 [People vs. Pigar, G.R. No. 247658 (17 February 2020)(First Division) [Lazaro-Javier, J.]; People vs.
XYZ, G.R. No. 244255 (26 August 2020)(Third Division)[Gesmundo, J.].]
PROBLEM:
If the second paragraph of the Information reads:
―That the accused had performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of
Homicide as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
his own will.‖
Can the accused be convicted for the crime of frustrated murder based on these statements?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The rule is that the allegations of the information on the nature of the offense charged, not the
nomenclature given it by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, are controlling in the determination of the
offense charged. The accused can be properly found guilty of frustrated murder, a crime sufficiently averred in
the information. (People vs. Oandasan, 793 SCRA 278, 14 June 2016)(En Banc)[Bersamin, J.].
CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION (SECTION 9)
Q10. Is it necessary that the wordings in the Information are the exact repository of the law violated
by the accused?
________________________
31
See also People vs. Solar, G.R. No. 225595 (6 August 2019)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].
32
People vs. Odtuhan, 714 Phil. 349 (2013).
33
Andaya vs. People, 526 Phil. 480 (2006)(First Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.].
34
Citing Enrile vs. People, 766 Phil. 75 (2015)(En Banc)[Brion, J.].
35
See also Quimvel vs. People, 808 Phil. 889 (2017)(En Banc)[Velasco, Jr., J.].
36
People vs. Sota, et al., 847 SCRA 113 (29 November 2017).
8
A10. No. The wording of the information does not need to be a verbatim reproduction of the law in
alleging the acts or omissions that constitute the offense. Rule 110, Section 9 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure is clear that the information does not need to use the exact language of the statute.
Hence, to successfully state the acts or omissions that constitute the offense, they must be ―described in
intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the
offense charged.‖ Furthermore, ―the use of derivatives or synonyms or allegations of basic facts constituting
the offense charged is sufficient."37 (Villarba vs. CA, supra).
DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE
Q11. Is it necessary that the exact date when the offense was committed be stated in the
Information?
A11. No. It is not essential that the date of commission of the offense be alleged in the Information with
ultimate precision.38
Section 11, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
SECTION 11. Date of commission of the offense. — It is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the
offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual
date of its commission. (11a) (People vs. HHH, G.R. No. 248245, 26 August 2020)(Third Division)[Carandang,
J.].
DUPLICITY OF THE OFFENSE; EXCEPTION (SECTION 13)
Q12. When can there be duplicity of charges? Explain.
A12. There is duplicity (or multiplicity) of charges when a single Complaint or Information charges
more than one offense.39 The Rules prohibit the filing of such Information to avoid confusing the accused in
preparing his defense.40 Section 3(f) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that duplicity of
offenses in a single information is a ground to quash the Information.
AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION (SECTION 14)
Q13. How should an amendment be made if it will exclude some of the accused in the original
Information?
A13. An amendment of the information made before plea which excludes some or one of the accused
must be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of
court in compliance with Section 14, Rule 110. Section 14, Rule 110 does not qualify the grounds for the
exclusion of the accused. Thus, said provision applies in equal force when the exclusion is sought on the usual
ground of lack of probable cause, or when it is for utilization of the accused as state witness, or on some other
ground. (Soberano, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 154629, 5 October 2005)(Second Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
Q14. If there is a formal amendment in the information, is a second arraignment required?
A14. No. Second arraignment is not required for a formal amendment. This is so because a formal
amendment does not charge a new offense, alter the prosecution's theory, or adversely affect the accused's
substantial rights. (Villarba vs. CA, G.R. No. 227777, 15 June 2020)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
The need for arraignment pertains only to substantial amendments and not to formal amendments.41
Q15. What are the examples of formal amendments?
________________________
37
Lazarte vs. Sandiganbayan, 600 Phil. 475 (2009)(En Banc)[Tinga, J.]; Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, 444 Phil. 499 (2003)(En Banc)[Calleja,
Sr., J.].
38
People vs. Jampas, 610 Phil. 652 (2009).
39
Reodica vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 87 (8 July 1998).
40
People vs. Ferrer, 101 Phil. 234 (29 April 1957).
41
Kummer vs. People, 717 Phil. 670 (2013)(Second Division)[Brion, J.].
9
A15. As held in jurisprudence, the following are merely formal amendments:
(1) new allegations only affecting the range of the imposable penalty;
(2) amendments that do not change the offense originally charged;
(3) allegations that will not alter the prosecution's theory as to surprise the accused and affect their
form of defense;
(4) amendments that do not prejudice an accused's substantial rights; and
(5) amendments that only address the vagueness in the information but does not "introduce new and
material facts" and those which "merely states with additional precision something which is already contained
in the original information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged." 42
Q16. When can an amendment of the information be considered substantial? Explain.
A16. Substantial amendments refer to the "recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court."
The test of determining whether an amendment is substantial is the effect of the amendment on the
defense and evidence. An amendment is deemed substantial if the accused's defense and evidence will no
longer be applicable after the amendment is made. 43
Q17. Can an Information be amended by the public prosecutor after its filing in court? Explain.
A17. Yes. Before an accused enters his or her plea, either formal or substantial amendment of the
complaint or information may be made without leave of court.
After an entry of plea, only a formal amendment can be made provided it is with leave of court and it
does not prejudice the rights of the accused.44 After arraignment, there can be no substantial amendment
except if it is beneficial to the accused. 45
Once an accused is arraigned and enters his or her plea, Section 14 prohibits any substantial
amendment especially those that may prejudice his or her rights. One of these rights includes the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him or
her, which is given life during arraignment. (Corpus, Jr. and Samonte vs. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, 5 September
2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q18. What is the purpose of arraignment?
A18. Arraignment is necessary to bring an accused in court and in notifying him or her of the cause
and accusations against him or her.46 "Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that
he or she may be informed of the reason for his or her indictment, the specific charges he or she is bound
to face, and the corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted against him or her."
VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS (SECTION 15)
Q19. What is the effect of improper venue in criminal cases? Explain.
A19. Unlike in civil cases, a finding of improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional
consequences. In determining the venue where the criminal action is to be instituted and the court which has
jurisdiction over it, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of Court states that "subject to existing laws, the
criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred."
This provision should be read with Section 10, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court in that, "the complaint or
information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the offense was committed or
some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the
particular place where it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or is
________________________
42
Ricarze vs. CA, 544 Phil. 237 (2007)(Third Division)[Calleja, Sr., J.], citing Matalam vs. Sandiganbayan, 495 Phil. 664 (2005)(Second
Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
43
Ricarze vs. CA, 544 Phil. 237 (2007)(Third Division)[Calleja, Sr., J.].
44
Matalam vs. Second Division of the Sandiganbayan, 495 Phil. 664 (2005) (Second Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
45
Mendez vs. People, 736 Phil. 181 (2014)(Second Division)[Brion, J.] stated: "Once the accused is arraigned and enters his plea,
however, Section 14 prohibits the prosecution from seeking a substantial amendment, particularly mentioning those that may
prejudice the rights of the accused."
46
10
necessary for its identification.''
Both aforequoted provisions categorically place the venue and jurisdiction over criminal cases not only in
the court where the offense was committed, but also where any of its essential ingredients took place. In
other words, the venue of action and of jurisdiction are deemed sufficiently alleged where the Information
states that the offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at a place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. 47 (Corpuz vs. People, G.R. No. 241383, 8 June 2020)(First Division)[Reyes, Jr., J.].
INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED PARTY (SECTION 16)
Q20. What is the sole purpose of a criminal and a civil actions?
A20. The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and
others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or,
in general, to maintain social order.
The sole purpose of the civil action, on the other hand, is for the resolution, reparation or
indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the
delictual or felonious act of the accused. 48
This is in accordance with the provision in Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code that the civil liability
established in Articles 100, 101, 102 and 103 of the said Code includes: (1) restitution; (2) reparation of the
damage caused; and (3) indemnification for consequential damages.
Q21. What is the limitation on the intervention of the private complainant? Explain.
A21. In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant
or the offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom.49
RULE 111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
(Sections 1-7)
RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION WITH CRIMINAL ACTION (SECTION 1)
Q1. What is the legal basis for the rule that the civil action is deemed instituted in a criminal action?
A1. The basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental postulate of our law that "every
person criminally liable is also civilly liable."50 Underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory that
when a person commits a crime, he offends two entities, namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the
political entity, called the State, whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of that society
whose person, right, honor, chastity or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same
punishable act or omission.51 Thus, the provision of Section 1(a) of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure. (Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee, G.R. No. 181658, 7 August 2013)(First Division)
[Villarama, Jr., J.].
Q2. Is the appearance of the private prosecutor allowed in the prosecution of a criminal action?
Explain.
A2. Yes. For the recovery of civil liability in the criminal action, the appearance of a private prosecutor is
allowed under Section 1652 in relation to Section 12, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. 53
________________________
47
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People, 683 Phil. 108 (2012).
48
Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 446 SCRA 166 (13 December 2004).
49
Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso, 384 SCRA 466 (11 July 2002); People vs. Puig, 563 SCRA 564 (28 August 2008). See also Mobilia Products, Inc.
vs. Umezawa, 452 SCRA 736 (4 March 2005); Ricarze vs. CA, 515 SCRA 302 (9 February 2007).
50
Article 100, Revised Penal Code.
51
Banal vs. Judge Tadeo, Jr., 240 Phil. 326 (1987).
52
SEC. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action.—Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the
criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
53
Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 487 Phil. 384 (2004).
11
Q3. Is an independent civil action allowed for violation of B.P. Blg. 22? Explain.
A3. No. There is no independent civil action to recover the value of a bouncing check issued in
contravention of B.P. Blg. 22. This is clear from Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Section 1(b), Rule 111 was adopted from Circular No. 57-97 of the Supreme Court. It specifically states
that the criminal action for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil
action. It also requires the complainant to pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved.
Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but because of the inclusion of the civil action in
complaints for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the Rules require the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the
complaint. This rule was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. Blg. 22 cases as
creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for
actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and
sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the civil action in the
criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based
on dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. Instead of instituting two
separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried. It should be
stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is to discourage the separate filing of the civil action. The
Rules even prohibit the reservation of a separate civil action, which means that one can no longer file a
separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only instance when separate
proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the Rules
encourage the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases. It was previously observed that a separate civil
action for the purpose of recovering the amount of the dishonored checks would only prove to be costly,
burdensome and time-consuming for both parties and would further delay the final disposition of the case.
This multiplicity of suits must be avoided. Where petitioners‘ rights may be fully adjudicated in the
proceedings before the trial court, resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly unwarranted.
[Heirs Simon vs. Chan, G.R. No. 157547 (23 February 2011)(Third Division)[Bersamin, J.]; Evangelista vs. Screenex,
Inc., G.R. No. 211564 (20 November 2017)(First Division)[Sereno, CJ.].]54
RULE ON FILING FEES IN CIVIL ACTION DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH THE CRIMINAL ACTION
Q4. What is the rule on the payment of filing fees in case the civil aspect is deemed instituted in the
criminal aspect of the case?
A4. The rule is embodied under Supreme Court Circular 57-97 (which is adopted in Section 1(b), Rule
111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the following rules and
guidelines shall henceforth be observed in the filing and prosecution of all criminal cases under B.P. Blg. 22
which penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check without funds or credit:
1. The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa 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.
2. Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in
full the filing fees based upon the amount of the check involved which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed, in accordance with the schedule of fees in Section 7(a) and Section 8(a), Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court as last amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94 effective August 1, 1994. Where the
offended party further seeks to enforce against the accused civil liability by way of liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, he shall pay the corresponding filing fees therefor based on
the amounts thereof as alleged either in the complaint or information. If not so alleged but any of these
damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the amount of such fees shall constitute a first lien on
the judgment.
3. Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the
latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with the
pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2(a) of Rule 111 governing the proceedings in the actions as thus
consolidated.
4. This Circular shall be published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation and shall take
effect on November 1, 1997.
Q5. Does the dismissal of the criminal case carry with it the extinction of the civil action? Explain.
A5. No. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action where:
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required;
________________________
54
Citing the case of Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. vs. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp., 503 Phil. 411 (2005).
12
(b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and
(c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the
accused was acquitted. (Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., G.R. No. 172505, 1 October 2014) (Second
Division)[Leonen, J.].
The civil action based on delict may, however, be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the
final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did
not exist.44 [Burgos, Jr. vs. Naval, 793 SCRA 120 (8 June 2016) (First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]; Coscolluela vs.
Sandiganbayan (First Division), 701 SCRA 188 (15 July 2013) (Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].]
WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY (SECTION 3)
Q6. Does the requirement for the reservation of independent civil action apply in cases covered by
Arts. 32,55 33,56 34,57 and 217658 of the Civil Code? Explain.
A6. No. The requirement for the reservation of the civil action does not anymore apply to the
independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. Such actions may be filed at
anytime, provided the plaintiff does not recover twice upon the same act or omission. (Supreme
Transportation Liner, Inc. vs. San Andres, G.R. No. 200444, 15 August 2018)(Third Division)[Bersamin, J.].59
Q7. What is the limitation provided under Section 3, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure as regards to the filing of an independent civil action? Explain.
A7. The only limitation is that an offended party cannot "recover damages twice for the same act or
omission" of the defendant as provided for in Section 3 Rule 111, Section of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
Further, "defamation," "fraud," and "physical injuries," as used in Article 33, are to be understood in their
ordinary sense. Specifically, the "physical injuries" contemplated in Article 33 is bodily injury, not the "physical
injuries" referred to in the Revised Penal Code. (Kane vs. Roggenkamp, G.R. No. 214326, 6 July 2020)(Third
________________________
55
Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced
by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with
a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of
evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal
Code or other penal statute.
56
Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and
shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
57
Article 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger
to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
58
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
59
See also Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. vs. Tangco, 511 SCRA 67 (14 December 2006).
13
Division)[Leonen, J.].60
EFFECT OF THE DEATH OF ACCUSED OR CONVICT ON CIVIL ACTION (SECTION 4)
BAYOTAS DOCTRINE
Q8. What is the effect of the death of the accused on his civil and criminal liabilities pending appeal
of his case?
A8. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as
the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, the death of the accused
prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and
based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. [People vs. Layag, 806
SCRA 190 (17 October 2016)(First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.], citing People vs. Egagamao, G.R. No. 218809 (3 August
2016); People vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 (2 September 1994)(En Banc)[Romero, J.]
Q9. When can the civil liability survive even if the accused died pending appeal?
A9. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also
be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these
other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law;
b) Contracts;
c) Quasi-contracts;
d) x-x-x;
e) Quasi-delicts. [People vs. De Chavez, Jr., G.R. No. 229722 (13 December 2017)(First Division)
[Leonardo-De Castro, J.], citing People vs. Bayotas, supra].
Q10. Can a separate civil action be filed if the accused died during the pendency of the criminal
case?
A10. Yes. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by
way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator
or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based. (People vs.
De Chavez, Jr., supra).
Q11. Is the prescriptive period for the action on civil liability suspended during the pendency of the
criminal case?
A11. Yes. In cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the
private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action, the statute of limitations on the civil
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of
Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by
prescription.61
Thus, in the case of People vs. Layag, supra, the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction,
the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the
civil action instituted therein for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
grounded as it is on the criminal action.
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION (SECTIONS 6 TO 7)
Q12. When can a criminal action be suspended? Explain.
A12. Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure provide when a criminal
action may be suspended upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action.
________________________
60
See also Carandang vs. Santiago, 97 Phil. 94 (1955)(First Division) [Labrador, J.]; Madeja vs. Caro, 211 Phil. 469 (1983)(Second
Division)[Abad Santos, J.].
61
People vs. Bayotas, supra.
14
The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court, but the jurisdiction to try
and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct
and separate from the crime, but so intimately connected with it that its ascertainment determines the
guilt or innocence of the accused. For it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that the
civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based,
but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the
accused would necessarily be determined. 62 (Mathay, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 218964, 30 June 2020)(First
Division)[Caguioa, J.].
Q13. What is a prejudicial question?
A13. A prejudicial question arises when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there
exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because
howsoever the issue raised in the civil action if resolved would be determinative of the guilt or innocence
of the accused in the criminal case.63 (Arellano vs. Gatdula, G.R. No. 212215, 9 October 2019)(Second Division)
[Reyes, Jr., J.].
Q14. What are the elements of a prejudicial question? Explain.
A14. The following are the elements of a physical question:
(a) the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution
would be based;
(b) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the
accused would necessarily be determined; and
(c) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal. 64 (Arellano vs. Gatdula,
supra).
RULE 112
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
(Sections 1-8)
NATURE OF RIGHT
Q1. What is Preliminary Investigation?
A1. Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial.
Except as provided in section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the
filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two
(2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. (1a)65 (Section 1)
Q2. What is the effect of a petition for certiorari which questions the regularity of the preliminary
investigation if the information was already filed in court? Explain.
A2. A petition for certiorari, pertaining to the regularity of a preliminary investigation, becomes moot
after an information is filed and a trial court issues an arrest warrant upon finding probable cause against
the accused.66 (Marantan vs. DOJ Sec. De Lima, G.R. No. 206354, 13 March 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q3. What is the nature of preliminary investigation? Explain.
A3. Preliminary investigation is a matter of right if the crime committed is punishable by at least 4
years, 2 months, and 1 day.
It is a matter of discretion if the crime committed is punishable by less than 4 years, 2 months, and 1
day.
________________________
62
Reyes vs. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., 560 SCRA 518 (30 July 2008).
63
Sps. Jose vs. Sps. Suarez, 579 Phil. 242 (2008).
64
People vs. Victoria, 760 Phil. 754 (17 June 2015)(First Division)[Perez, J.].
65
See also Ocampo vs. Abando, 715 SCRA 673 (11 February 2014)(En Banc)[Sereno, C.J.]; Ang-Abaya vs. Ang, 573 SCRA 129 (4
December 2008); Uy vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 556 SCRA 73 (27 June 2008); Kuizon vs. Desierto, 406 Phil. 611 (2001); Pascual vs.
People, 547 Phil. 620 (2007).
66
Secretary De Lima vs. Reyes, 776 Phil. 623 (2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
15
Q4. During the preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman, is the non-furnishing of
the counter-affidavit of a respondent to another co-respondent considered a denial of due process?
Explain.
A4. No. Under procedural law, a respondent under preliminary investigation has the right to examine
the evidence submitted by the complainant,67 but he does not have a similar right over the evidence
submitted by his or her co-respondents.
During preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman is not required to furnish a respondent with the
counter-affidavits of his co-respondents, based on the following reasons:
First, there is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish a respondent with copies of
the counter-affidavits of his correspondents.
Second, Rule II, Section 4(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman states that "the
investigating officer shall issue an order attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and all other supporting
documents, directing the respondent" to submit his counter-affidavit. The affidavits referred to in Section
4(b) are the affidavits mentioned in Section 4(a). Clearly, the affidavits to be furnished to the respondent
are the affidavits of the complainant and his supporting witnesses.
Third, Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "the respondent
shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been
furnished and to copy them at his expense." A respondent's right to examine refers only to "the evidence
submitted by the complainant."
Thus, whether under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or under Rule II of the
Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, there is no requirement whatsoever that the affidavits executed by the co-
respondents should be furnished to a respondent. [Reyes vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 208243
(5 June 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]; Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41 (21
January 2015)(En Banc)[Carpio, J.].]
Q5. Is the investigating public prosecutor allowed to resolve the complaint even without the
counter affidavit of the respondent? Explain.
A5. Yes. Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court allows the Prosecutor to resolve the complaint
based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a
respondent were made and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the preliminary
investigation remains valid.68 The rule was put in place in order to foil underhanded attempts of a respondent
to delay the prosecution of offenses. (Ocampo vs. Abando, 715 SCRA 673, 11 February 2014)(En Banc)[Sereno, C.J.].
Q6. What is the period of appeal of an adverse resolution of the Office of the City/Provincial
Prosecutor to the Secretary of the Department of Justice?
A6. The party has fifteen (15) days reckoned from the date of receipt of the adverse resolution of the
city/provincial prosecutor to file an appeal. This is clear from Section 3 of the 2000 National Prosecution
Service Rule on Appeal (DOJ Circular No. 70).
Q7. If the DOJ, through its public prosecutors, is conducting a preliminary investigation, can the
respondent be deprive of his/her right to travel through the issuance of a DOJ Circular directing that the
name of the respondent be placed under the Watch List Order (WLO)?
A7. No. The right of the State to prosecute is not a carte blanche for government agents to defy and
disregard the rights of its citizens under the Constitution. The sovereign power has the inherent right to
protect itself and its people from vicious acts which endanger the proper administration of justice; hence, the
State has every right to prosecute and punish violators of the law. This is essential for its self- preservation,
nay, its very existence. But this does not confer a license for pointless assaults on its citizens. 69
The conduct of a preliminary investigation is an implement of due process which essentially benefits the
accused as it accords an opportunity for the presentation of his side with regard to the accusation. 70 The
accused may, however, opt to waive his presence in the preliminary investigation. In any case, whether the
accused responds to a subpoena, the investigating prosecutor shall resolve the complaint within ten (10) days
after the filing of the same. (Genuino vs. De Lima, 861 SCRA 325, 17 April 2018)(En Banc)[Reyes, Jr., J.].
Q8. During the conduct of a preliminary investigation, is the presence of the accused necessary?
A8. No. In the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the presence of the accused is not necessary
for the prosecutor to discharge his investigatory duties. If the accused chooses to waive his presence or
________________________
67
68
Rodis, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 248 Phil. 854 (1988).
69
Allado vs. Diokno, 302 Phil. 213 (1994).
70
Ocampo vs. Judge Abando, et al., 726 Phil. 441 (2014).
16
fails to submit countervailing evidence, that is his own lookout. Ultimately, he shall be bound by the
determination of the prosecutor on the presence of probable cause and he cannot claim denial of due
process.
The DOJ therefore cannot justify the restraint in the liberty of movement imposed by DOJ Circular No. 41
on the ground that it is necessary to ensure presence and attendance in the preliminary investigation of the
complaints. There is also no authority of law granting it the power to compel the attendance of the subjects of
a preliminary investigation, pursuant to its investigatory powers under E.O. No. 292. Its investigatory power is
simply inquisitorial and, unfortunately, not broad enough to embrace the imposition of restraint on the liberty
of movement.
Without a law to justify its action, the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 41 is an unauthorized act of the
DOJ of empowering itself under the pretext of dire exigency or urgent necessity. This action runs afoul the
separation of powers between the three branches of the government and cannot be upheld. Even the Supreme
Court, in the exercise of its power to promulgate rules, is limited in that the same shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights. This should have cautioned the DOJ, which is only one of the many agencies of
the executive branch, to be more scrutinizing in its actions especially when they affect substantive rights, like
the right to travel. (Genuino vs. De Lima, supra).
Q9. What is the rationale of the Supreme Court Circular on the Issuance of Hold Departure Order
(HDO)? Explain.
A9. Circular No. 39-9771 was specifically issued to avoid indiscriminate issuance of HDOs resulting to
the inconvenience of the parties affected as the same could amount to an infringement on the right and liberty
of an individual to travel. Contrary to the understanding of the DOJ, the Court intentionally held that the
issuance of HDOs shall pertain only to criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, to the
exclusion of criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MTC and all other cases. The intention
was made clear with the use of the term "only." The reason lies in seeking equilibrium between the state's
interest over the prosecution of the case considering the gravity of the offense involved and the individual's
exercise of his right to travel. Thus, the circular permits the intrusion on the right to travel only when the
criminal case filed against the individual is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, or those that pertains
to more serious crimes or offenses that are punishable with imprisonment of more than six years. The
exclusion of criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the MTC is justified by the fact that they pertain to less
serious offenses which is not commensurate with the curtailment of a fundamental right. Much less is the
reason to impose restraint on the right to travel of respondents of criminal cases still pending investigation
since at that stage no information has yet been filed in court against them. It is for these reasons that Circular
No. 39-97 mandated that HDO may only be issued in criminal cases filed with the RTC and withheld the same
power from the MTC. (Genuino vs. De Lima, supra).
WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE (SECTION 2)
SECTION 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. —
The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
(b) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(c) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the
proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions. (2a)(As amended by Section 2, A.M. No. 05-08-26-
SC, effective 3 October 2005)
Q10. What is the effect of the findings of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman? Explain.
A10. The Office of the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause is accorded great respect in the
absence of any grave abuse of discretion.
The Office of the Ombudsman is given a wide latitude of discretion when exercising its prosecutorial
powers. Thus, the Supreme Court avoids intruding on its determination of probable cause. Only when tainted
with grave abuse of discretion will the High Court reverse the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of probable
cause. (PCGG vs. Ombudsman Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 193398, 3 June 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
________________________
71
See A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC, dated 7 August 2018, after Rule 127 of this opus.
17
Q11. What does grave abuse of discretion mean in the findings of probable cause by the Office of
the Ombudsman during the conduct of preliminary investigation? Explain.
A11. Grave abuse of discretion means that public respondent's exercise of judgment or power was
so capricious and whimsical, or arbitrary and despotic, as to amount to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its
act must have been "so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal
to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."72 (PCGG vs. Ombudsman Gutierrez, et al.,
supra).
Q12. In the conduct of preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor is required to determine
whether there is probable cause against the respondent to be held for trial. What is probable Cause?
Explain.
A12. Probable cause is defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the
belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person
charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. (Joson vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 784 Phil.
172 (2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has
been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be
based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. A
finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
The term does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely
based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is
sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. [Arroyo vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan Fifth Division, G.R. No. 210488
(27 January 2020)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.], citing Ganaden vs. Ombudsman;73 ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon, et al.,
G.R. No. 195956 (11 March 2015)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].]74
Q13. What is the prevailing definition of probable cause in the United States where we borrowed
our concept of probable cause? Explain.
A13. In dealing with probable cause, however, as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities.
These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable
and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative to what must be
proved.
"The substance of all the definitions" of probable cause "is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt." 75
And this "means less than evidence which would justify condemnation" or conviction, as Marshall, C. J.,
said for the Court more than a century ago in Locke vs. United States.76 Since Marshall‘s time, at any rate, it
has come to mean more than bare suspicion: Probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances
within their the officers’ knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are
sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that" an offense has been or
is being committed.77
Q14. In the Philippines, what are four (4) instances in the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure where
probable cause is needed to be established?
A14. The four (4) instances are as follows:
1. By the prosecutor/ombudsman under Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the investigating officer,
to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. A preliminary
investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two months (2) and one day (1) without regard to the fine;
2. By the judge under Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine whether a warrant of
arrest or a commitment order, if the accused has already been arrested, shall be issued and that there is a
necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice;
3. By peace officer/private person under Section 5(b) of Rule 113: By a peace officer or a private
person making a warrantless arrest when an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
________________________
72
Domondon vs. Sandiganbayan, 384 Phil. 848 (2000)(Second Division)[Buena, J.].
73
665 Phil. 224 (2011)(Third Division)[Villarama, Jr., J.], citing Galario vs. Ombudsman, 554 Phil. 86 (2007)(Third Division)[Chico-Nazario,
J.].
74
See also Webb vs. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758 (1995)(Second Division)[Puno, J.]; Reyes vs. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., 582 Phil. 505
(2008)(Third Division)[Per J. Chico-Nazario, J.]; and Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. Nos. 212140-41 (21 January
2015)(En Banc)[Carpio, J.].
75
McCarthy vs. De Armit, 99 Pa. St. 63, 69, quoted with approval in the Carroll opinion, 267 U. S. at 161.
76
7 Cranch 339, 348.
77
Carroll vs. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162.
18
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
it;
4. By the judge in the issuance of search warrant under Section 4 of Rule 126: By the judge, to
determine whether a search warrant shall be issued, and only upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense 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
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
In all these instances, the evidence necessary to establish probable cause is based only on the
likelihood, or probability, of guilt.78 (Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, 21 January
2015)(En Banc)[Carpio, J.].
Q15. In the determination of probable cause during Preliminary Investigation, is it necessary to

review the elements of the crime?
A15. Yes. In order to arrive at probable cause, the elements of the crime charged should be
present.79 In determining the elements of the crime charged for purposes of arriving at a finding of probable
cause, only facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the accused are required, not absolute
certainty. [Reynes vs. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 223405, 20 February 2019](Third
OMBUDSMAN
Q16. What is the function of the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman?
A16. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is but a mere component of the Office of the Ombudsman. It
does not possess an independent power to act on behalf of the Ombudsman. Only upon the Ombudsman's
authority can it decide on matters with finality. Therefore, except upon the Ombudsman's orders, the Office
of the Special Prosecutor has no power to direct the filing of an information in court. [Beltran, et al. vs.
Sandiganbayan (Second Division), G.R. No. 201117, 22 January 2020](Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q17. Is a one-line marginal note by the Ombudsman sufficient to approve or disapprove the Office
of the Special Prosecutor's recommendations?
A17. Yes. A one-line marginal note by the Ombudsman is sufficient to approve or disapprove the Office
of the Special Prosecutor's recommendations.
Whatever course or action that the Ombudsman may take, whether to approve or to disapprove the
recommendation or the investigating prosecutor, is but an exercise of his or her discretionary powers based
upon constitutional mandate.80
What is important is the Ombudsman's action on the investigating officer's recommendations. [Beltran, et
al. vs. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), supra].81
PROBLEM:
Jose Dima and Anthony Tavern are the Municipal Mayor and Treasurer of the Municipality of Iliyan,
respectively. They questioned the finding of probable cause against them relative to the certification that the
construction of the Multi Purpose Hall was 100% complete is false. Such fraud or falsification employed by said
respondents caused undue injury or serious damage to the Municipality of Iliyan in the amount of Nine Million
Six Hundred Twenty Two Thousand Pesos (Php9,622,000.00) representing the amount paid for the
unaccomplished portion of the project. They argued that respondent Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon gravely abused its discretion for relying on the COA‘s Inspection Report and not on the barangay
captains' Certifications and the Fact-Finding Team's Findings and Observations.
Was there grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman to warrant the
reversal of its findings by the Supreme Court? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. ―Mere 'disagreement with the Ombudsman's findings is not enough to constitute grave abuse of
discretion.‖ The Office of the Ombudsman has both the constitutional and statutory mandate to act on
criminal complaints against erring public officials and employees. (Dichaves vs. Ombudsman, 802 Phil.
564 (2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]. As an independent constitutional body, the Office of the
Ombudsman is given a wide latitude to conduct investigations and to prosecute cases to fulfill its role "as
the champion of the people" and "preserver of the integrity of the public service."
________________________
78
Id. at 20-22, citing Brinegar vs. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).
79
Hasegawa vs. Giron, supra.
80
Gallardo vs. People, 496 Phil. 381 (2005)[Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
81
Citing Dumangcas, Jr. vs. Marcelo, 518 Phil. 464 (2006)(First Division) [Chico-Nazario, J.].
19
Under the principle of non-interference, the Supreme Court is called to exercise restraint in reviewing
the Office of the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause. As the High Court is not a trier of facts, it generally
defers to the sound judgment of the Office of the Ombudsman, which is in the better position to assess the
facts and circumstances necessary to find probable cause. Moreover, the finding of probable cause for holding
an accused for trial and for filing the necessary information before the courts is an executive function. The
Supreme Court will not interfere with this function unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
(Binay vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 213957-58, 7 August 2019) (Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
To constitute grave abuse of discretion, the Office of the Ombudsman must be shown to have conducted
the preliminary investigation in a manner that amounts to a "virtual refusal to perform a duty under the law."
[Reyes vs. Ombudsman, 810 Phil. 106 (2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]; Beltran, et al. vs.
Sandiganbayan (Second Division), supra].
Q18. Can the non-findings of probable cause of the Ombudsman be considered as grave abuse of
discretion that warrants reversal by the Supreme Court?
A18. No. Special civil actions for certiorari do not correct errors of fact or law that do not constitute
grave abuse of discretion. Thus, as a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the exercise of the
Office of the Ombudsman's discretion in determining the existence of probable cause when there is no
showing that it acted in an "arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner." [Joson vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, 816 Phil. 288 (2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]. See also Dichaves vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, 802 Phil. 564 (2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]; [Department of Finance Revenue Integrity
Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) vs. Yambao and Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 220632 (6 November 2019)
(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].]
Q19. What is the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and the DOJ over election offenses? Explain.
A19. Under the present law, the COMELEC and other prosecuting arms of the government, such as
the DOJ, now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses. 82
(Arroyo vs. DOJ, 701 SCRA 754, 23 July 2013)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].
EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE
Q20. Distinguish executive from judicial determination of probable cause.
A20. The two (2) kinds of determination of probable may be distinguished as follows:
(1) In Executive determination of probable cause either by the Public Prosecutor or the Office of
the Ombudsman, it is concerned merely with probability and not absolute or even moral certainty; it is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. It is sufficient that based on the preliminary investigation
conducted, it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. 83
Probable cause for the filing of an information is a matter which rests on likelihood rather than on
certainty. It relies on common sense rather than on clear and convincing evidence. [Marasigan vs. Fuentes,
776 Phil. 574 (2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]; Tupaz vs. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Visayas, G.R. No. 212491-92, 6 March 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 171188
(19 June 2009)(Second Division)[Quisumbing, J.]. See also Arroyo vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan Fifth
Division, G.R. No. 210488 (27 January 2020)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].]
Probable cause is concerned merely with probability and not absolute or even moral certainty; it is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. It is sufficient that based on the preliminary investigation
conducted, it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. 84 [See
Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 197293 (21 April 2014)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; Sombero, Jr. vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 237888 & 237994 (28 July 2020)(First Division)[Reyes, Jr., J.]. See also Imingan vs. Office of the
Honorable Ombudsman, G.R. No. 226420 (4 March 2020) (Second Division)[Inting, J.].]
(2) The purpose of judicial determination of probable cause is "to ascertain whether a warrant of
arrest should be issued against the accused."85 This determination is independent of the prosecutor's
determination of probable cause and is a function of courts for purposes of issuance of a warrant of arrest.
[SEC vs. Price Richardson Corporation, G.R. No. 197032 (26 July 2017)(Second Division) [Leonen, J.]; Mendoza vs.
People, supra].86
Q21. What is the rule when the information is already filed in court? Explain.
________________________
82
BANAT Party-List vs. COMELEC, 595 SCRA 477 (7 August 2009).
83
Ampil vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 715 Phil. 733 (2013)(Second Division) [Per J. Perez, J.].
84
Ampil vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 715 Phil. 733 (2013)(Second Division) [Per J. Perez, J.].
85
Art. III, Sec. 2, the 1987 Constitution; People vs. Castillo, et al., 607 Phil. 754 (2009)(Second Division)[Quisumbing, J.].
86
See also Paderanga vs. Drilon, 273 Phil. 290 (1991)(En Banc)[Regalado, J.]; Roberts, Jr. vs. CA, 324 Phil. 568 (1996)(En Banc)[Davide, Jr.,
J.]; Ho vs. People, 345 Phil. 597 (1997)(En Banc)[Panganiban, J.]; People vs. Inting, 187 SCRA 788 (25 July 1990)(En Banc)[Gutierrez, Jr.,
J.].
20
A21. As a general rule, if the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest error,
grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, courts should not dismiss it for
‗want of evidence,‘ because evidentiary matters should be presented and heard during the trial. The functions
and duties of both the trial court and the public prosecutor in "the proper scheme of things" in our criminal
justice system should be clearly understood. (Mendoza vs. People, supra, citing People vs. CA Cerbo).87
Q22. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure and the existing jurisprudence, is a Motion for
judicial determination of probable cause still permissible? Explain.
A22. It is no longer permissible. Motions for judicial determination of probable cause are already
superfluities because the rules already direct the judge to make a personal finding of probable cause.
The rules do not require cases to be set for hearing to determine probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant for the arrest of the accused before any warrant may be issued. Section 6, Rule 112 mandates the
judge to personally evaluate the resolution of the Prosecutor/ Ombudsman and its supporting evidence,
and if he/she finds probable cause, a warrant of arrest or commitment order may be issued within ten (10)
days from the filing of the complaint or Information; in case the Judge doubts the existence of probable
cause, the prosecutor/ombudsman may be ordered to present additional evidence within five (5) days
from notice. (Arroyo vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, G.R. No. 210488, 27 January 2020)(Third
The periods provided in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are mandatory, and as such, the judge
must determine the presence or absence of probable cause within such periods. The Judge should not be
stymied and distracted from his determination of probable cause by needless motions for determination of
probable cause filed by the accused.89
Q23. What is the duty of the Judge if confronted with a motion to dismiss or to withdraw an
Information due to lack of probable cause?
A23. Judges must proceed with caution in dismissing cases for lack of probable cause since the
evidence before them are preliminary in nature. 90 When probable cause exists, the court must proceed with
arraignment and trial. But should the evidence presented absolutely fail to support this finding of probable
cause, the case should be dismissed. Whether it is to dismiss the case or to proceed with trial, a judge's
action must not impair "the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the State and the offended
party to due process of law."91
Thus, in granting or denying a motion to withdraw an information, the court must conduct a
cautious and independent evaluation of the evidence of the prosecution and must be convinced that the
merits of the case warrant either the dismissal or continuation of the action.92
The order granting the withdrawal of an information must state the judge's assessment of the
evidence and reasons in resolving the motion. It must clearly show why the court's earlier assessment of
probable cause was erroneous. The court should not merely accept the prosecution's findings and conclusions.
Its independent judicial discretion in allowing the information to be withdrawn must not only be implied but
must be palpable in its order.93 Should the court fail to faithfully exercise its judicial discretion, the order
granting the withdrawal of the information is void.94 In extreme cases, arbitrary action by the trial court may
lead to an administrative inquiry. 95 (Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang, G.R. No. 206958, 8
November 2017)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q24. When is a criminal action deemed initiated? Explain.
A24. The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court, thereby,
acquires jurisdiction over the case which is the authority to hear and determine the case. When after the filing
of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the
accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal (now prosecutor) for the purpose of determining
whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of
________________________
87
361 Phil. 401 (1999)(Third Division)[Panganiban, J.].
88
Citing Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 640 Phil. 620 (2010)[Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].
89
See also Leviste vs. Almeda, 640 Phil. 620 (2010)[Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].
90
Mendoza vs. People, 733 Phil. 603 (2014)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
91
Judge Marcos vs. Judge Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472 (24 January 2017)(En Banc)[Per Curiam]; Ramos vs. People, 639 Phil. 51
(2010)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.]; Yambot vs. Armovit, S86 Phil. 735 (2008)(Third Division)[Nachura, J.], citing Crespo vs. Mogul,
235 Phil. 465 (1987)(En Banc)[Gancayco, J.].
92
See Ramos vs. People, 639 Phil. 51 (2010)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.] and Jose vs. Suarez, 714 Phil. 310 (2013)(Second Division)[Del
Castillo, J.].
93
Ibid.
94
Lee vs. KBC Bank N.V., 624 Phil. 115 (2010)(Second Division)[Carpio, J.].
95
See Marcas vs. Judge Pinto, 640 Phil. 1 (2010)(Second Division)[Peralta, J.].
21
the information in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the
criminal action against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of
the case at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation, the finding
and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. While it is true
that the fiscal has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in
court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should
be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court. The only qualification
is that the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People
to due process of law.
Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal
or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court, in
the exercise of its discretion, may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed
for the proper determination of the case. (Crespo vs. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, 30 June 1987)(En Banc)[Gancayco, J.].
Q25. When can the Supreme Court take cognizance of a petition for review under Rule 65 of the
findings of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman? Explain.
A25. A petition for review under Rule 65 will be given due course when the Office of the
Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court generally does not interfere with the Ombudsman's findings of probable cause.
An act of a court or tribunal may constitute grave abuse of discretion when the same is performed in a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform
a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of
passion or personal hostility.96 (Reyes vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 208243, 5 June 2017)(Second
Q26. Was there grave abuse of discretion if the new Ombudsman reversed his predecessor’s
findings of no probable cause that will warrant the Supreme Court’s action in a petition for certiorari and
prohibition? Explain.
A26. There was no grave abuse of discretion. The sitting Ombudsman can reverse the findings of no
probable cause against a respondent and order the filing of information in the Sandiganbayan.
Mere "disagreement with the Ombudsman's findings is not enough to constitute grave abuse of
discretion."98 It is necessary for the petitioner to prove "that the Ombudsman conducted the preliminary
investigation in such a way that amounted to a virtual refusal to perform a duty under the law." (Binay vs.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 213957-58, 7 August 2019) (Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q27. During the preliminary investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman, will the validity of the
respondent’s defense or accusation be taken into consideration in the determination of probable cause?
A27. No. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the
prosecution's evidence, and that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature
and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.99 Therefore, the
validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and
evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.
Thus, in Estrada vs. Ombudsman,100 the Supreme Court declared that since a preliminary investigation
does not finally adjudicate the rights and obligations of parties, probable cause can be established with
hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. (PDIC vs. Casimiro, et al.,
G.R. No. 206866, 2 September 2015)(First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
Q28. What is the Doctrine of Inordinate Delay?
A28. Inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of a preliminary investigation violates the
accused's right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases, and may result in the dismissal of the case
________________________
96
Angeles vs. Secretary of Justice, 503 Phil 93 (2005)(First Division)[Carpio, J.].
97
Citing Dichaves vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 206310-11 (7 December 2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]. See also Tupaz
vs. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, supra, citing Lim vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and
Other Law Enforcement Offices, 795 Phil. 226 (2016)(Third Division)[Peralta, J.]; Aguilar vs. DOJ, 717 Phil. 789 (2013)(Second
Division)[Per Curiam]. See also Uy vs. People, 586 Phil. 473 (2008)(Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.]; People vs. Pineda, 127 Phil. 150
(1967)(En Banc)[Sanchez, J.]; Chua vs. Padillo, 550 Phil. 241 (2007)(First Division)[Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.]; Marasigan vs. Fuentes, 776
Phil. 574 (2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]; Reynes vs. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 223405 (20 February 2019)
(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; SEC vs. Price Richardson Corporation, G.R. No. 197032 (26 July 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.];
Reyes vs. Ombudsman, 787 SCRA 355 (15 March 2016)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]; Ciron vs. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 194339-41 (20 April
2015).
98
Reyes vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, 810 Phil. 106 (2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
99
Lee vs. KBC Bank N.V., 624 Phil. 115 (2010), citing Andres vs. Cuevas, 499 Phil. 36 (2005).
100
G.R. Nos. 212140-41 (21 January 2015).
22
against the accused. (Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, G.R. Nos. 206438, etc., 31 July 2018)(En Banc)
[Leonen, J.].101
PROBLEM:
Atty. JLGR, the chief of staff of Sen JPE, is one of the accused in a plunder case filed by the Office of the
Ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan. However, she still filed a Motion for Bail Ad Cautelam. It took the
Sandiganbayan five (5) months to resolve her bail application. Plunder is a non-bailable offense. The reason for
the delay of the resolution was the appointment of the former Justice in-charge to the Supreme Court. Thus,
the new Justice in-charge of the Sandiganbayan will have to evaluate the almost 17 folders of the case.
Nevertheless, the hearing of the plunder case continued despite the pending incident.
The Motion for Bail Ad Cautelam was denied as well her Motion for Reconsideration and the
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration thereto. Thus, she filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to the
Supreme Court and ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan. She wants that the
Order of the Sandiganbayan which denied her bail application be set aside because her constitutional right to
speedy disposition of cases was violated. In view of this alleged violation, she wants that she be allowed to
post bail for her temporary liberty.
Is the contention of Atty. JLGR correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The contention of Atty. JLGR is incorrect. Segment delay vis-à-vis delay in the totality of a case
does not amount to grave abuse of discretion.
Set against the pace of the entire proceedings, the delay in the segment involving petitioner's bail
application is not unreasonable. Taking into account practical considerations, the delay does not amount to a
violation of the right of petitioner to speedy disposition. It does not warrant a declaration that the
Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolutions.
Bail applications pertain to a collateral issue, and the proceedings thereon are summary in nature and
"avoid unnecessary thoroughness,"102 the resolution denying or granting bail need not be detailed or
exhaustive. In fact, an exhaustive treatment of the evidence runs the risk of preempting the outcome of the
substantive issues of the main case. A resolution is sufficient if it informs the applicant and oppositor of the
facts and the law that form the basis of the denial or grant of bail. (Reyes vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan-Third
Division, G.R. No. 243411, 19 August 2020)(First Division)[Reyes, Jr., J.].
Q29. When is it proper for the respondent to prove an inordinate delay?
A29. The burden of proving delay depends on whether delay is alleged within the periods provided by
law or procedural rules. If the delay is alleged to have occurred during the given periods, the burden is on
the respondent or the accused to prove that the delay was inordinate.
Q30. When does the burden to prove inordinate delay shift to the prosecution?
A30. If the delay is alleged to have occurred beyond the given periods, the burden shifts to the
prosecution to prove that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances and that no prejudice was
suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.
The determination of whether the delay was inordinate is not through mere mathematical reckoning but
through the examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Courts should appraise a
reasonable period from the point of view of how much time a competent and independent public officer would
need in relation to the complexity of a given case. If there has been delay, the prosecution must be able to
satisfactorily explain the reasons for such delay and that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result.
The timely invocation of the accused's constitutional rights must also be examined on a case-to-case basis.
RESOLUTION OF INVESTIGATION PROSECUTOR (SECTION 4)
Q31. Does the filing of a petition for review with the Office of the Secretary of the DOJ include the
suspension of the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the court when the information was already filed in
________________________
101
See also Javier and Tamamao vs. People, G.R. No. 237997 (10 June 2020) (First Division)[Caguia, J.][a case for violations of Sec. 3(e),
Sec. 3(g), R.A. No. 3019; Malversation through Falsification under Art. 217 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; and
Violation of Section 65.2(4) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9184 was ordered dismissed citing Cagang. The
Preliminary Investigation lasted for five (5) Years]; and Martinez, III, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 232574 (1 October 2019) (First
Division)[Bersamin, C.J.](also citing Cagang, the Preliminary Investigation lasted for 4 years and 9 months).
102
People vs. Escobar, 814 Phil. 840 (2017).
23
court? Explain.
A31. No. Rule 116 on Arraignment and Plea of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Section 11. Suspension of arraignment. — Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be
suspended in the following cases:
x-x-x-x
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of
Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60)
days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
Rule 116, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure pertains to a suspension of an
arraignment in case of a pending petition for review before the Department of Justice. It does not suspend the
execution of a warrant of arrest for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of an accused.
Court's rule merely requires a maximum 60-day period of suspension counted from the filing of a
petition with the reviewing office.103 Consequently, therefore, after the expiration of the 60-day period, "the
trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment." 104 (Corpus, Jr., et al. vs.
Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, 5 September 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].105
DOJ CIRCULAR NOS. 70,106 70-A,107 AND 018-14108
Q32. What is the summary of the appeal process from preliminary investigation in the prosecutor’s
office to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Justice?
A32. The prevailing appeals process in the NPS with regard to complaints subject of preliminary
investigation would depend on two (2) factors, namely:
(1) where the complaint was filed, i.e., whether in the NCR or in the provinces; and
(2) which court has original jurisdiction over the case, i.e., whether or not it is cognizable by the
MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs.
The rules are as follows:
(a) If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the
ruling of the OPP may be appealable by way of petition for review before the Office of the Regional
Prosecutor (ORP), which ruling shall be with finality;
(b) If the complaint is filed outside the NCR and is not cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the
ruling of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) may be appealable by way of petition for review before
the SOJ, which ruling shall be with finality;
(c) If the complaint is filed within the NCR and is cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the
ruling of the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) may be appealable by way of petition for review before then
Prosecutor General, whose ruling shall be with finality;
(d) If the complaint is filed within the NCR and is not cognizable by the MTCs/MeTCs/MCTCs, the
ruling of the OCP may be appealable by way of petition for review before tlle SOJ, whose ruling shall be
with finality;
(e) Provided, that in instances covered by (a) and (c), the SOJ may, pursuant to his power of control
and supervision over the entire NPS, review, modify, or reverse the ruling of the ORP or the Prosecutor General,
as the case may be. [Urmaza vs. Hon. Rojas, et al., G.R. No. 240012 (22 January 2020) (Second Division)[Perlas-
Bernabe, J.], citing Cariaga vs. Sapigao].109
WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST MAY ISSUE (SECTION 5) 110
Q33. What are the options of the Judge upon receipt of the information filed in Court?
________________________
103
104
Samson vs. Daway, 478 Phil. 793 (2004)(First Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.].
105
See also Ledesma vs. CA, 344 Phil. 207 (1997)(Third Division)[Panganiban, J.] and Tolentino vs. Bonifacio, 223 Phil. 558 (1985)(Second
Division)[Abad-Santos, J.]; ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon, et al., G.R. No. 195956, supra; People vs. Goyala, Jr., G.R. No. 224650 (15
July 2020)[Gesmundo, J.].
106
"2000 NPS Rule on Appeal," dated 3 July 2000.
107
Entitled "Delegation of Authority to Regional State Prosecutors to Resolve Appeals in Certain Cases," dated 10 July 2000.
108
Revised Delegation of Authority on Appealed Cases (effective 1 July 2014).
109
811 Phil. 819 (2017). See also Section 32 of BP Blg. 129.
110
Formerly Section 6. The former Section 5 (Resolution of investigating judge and its review) was deleted per A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC (3
October 2005).
24
A33. According to the provision of Section 5, Rule 112, the judge has the following options upon the
filing of an Information:
(1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause;
(2) if he or she finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and
(3) in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause, order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within five (5) days from notice, the issue to be resolved by the court within thirty (30)
days from the filing of the information.111
It is required for the judge to "personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence." In case the evidence on record fails to substantiate probable cause, the trial judge may instantly
dismiss the case. (Corpuz, Jr. and Samonte vs. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, 5 September 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen,
J.].
PROBLEM:
Judge ―A‖ received two (2) informations for murder in his sala. Instead of evaluating the said
information, Judge ―A‖ after conducting a hearing, remanded the case to the Prosecutor‘s Office to conduct a
further preliminary investigation. Judge ―A‖ averred that the OPP did not follow the proper procedure in the
conduct of Preliminary Investigation under Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Is the Order of Judge ―A‖ correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The remand of the criminal cases to the Provincial Prosecutor for the conduct of another preliminary
investigation is improper.
The documents submitted, along with the Informations, are sufficient for Judge ―A‖ to rule on the
existence of probable cause. If she finds the evidence inadequate, she may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence. Judge ―A‘s‖ action in remanding the case to the prosecutor for further preliminary
investigation lacks legal basis.
When Judge ―A‖ ruled that the OPP did not follow the proper procedure in the conduct of Preliminary
Investigation under Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, she encroached upon the exclusive
function of the prosecutor. Instead of determining probable cause, she ruled on the propriety of the
preliminary investigation.
Regardless of Judge ―A‖‘s assessment on the conduct of the preliminary investigation, it was incumbent
upon him/her to determine the existence of probable cause against the accused after a personal evaluation of
the prosecutors' report and the supporting documents. She could even disregard the report if she found it
unsatisfactory, and/or require the prosecutors to submit additional evidence. There was no option for her to
remand the case back to the panel of prosecutors for another preliminary investigation. In doing so, she
acted without any legal basis. (Maza, et al. vs. Turla, G.R. No. 187094, 15 February 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen,
J.].
The task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to
determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused.112
Q34. What is the effect of conviction of the accused in case there is a question as regards the
determination of probable cause and issuance of warrant of arrest? Explain.
A34. A decision convicting an accused moots any proceeding that questions the determination of
probable cause, either in the filing of the information in court or in the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
Guilt beyond reasonable doubt had then been established, and questioning whether a lower quantum of proof
exists, i.e., probable cause, would be pointless. (Napoles vs. De Lima, G.R. No. 213529, 13 July 2016)(Second
CASES NOT REQUIRING A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (SECTION 8)
SECTION 8. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure. —
(a) If filed with the prosecutor. — If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor involving an
offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the
________________________
111
Ong vs. Genio, 623 Phil. 835 (2009)(Third Division)[Nachura, J.]; Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 197293 (21 April 2014)(Third
112
Leviste vs. Hon. Alameda, et al., 640 Phil. 620 (2009)(Third Division) [Carpio-Morales, J.].
25
procedure outlined in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint
based on the affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within ten (10)
days from its filing.
(b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. — If the complaint or information is filed with the
Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court for an offense covered by this section, the
procedure in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. If within ten (10) days after th e filing of the
complaint or information, the judge finds no probable cause after personally evaluating the evidence, or
after personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of
searching questions and answers, he shall dismiss the same. He may, however, require the submission
of additional evidence, 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, h e shall, within ten (10)
days from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he finds probable cause,
he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and
hold him for trial. However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused
under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest. (9a)
NOTES
The provision of Section 8, Rule 112 shall be correlated with the Revised Guidelines on Continuous
Trial in Criminal Cases.
Q35. What are the prohibited motions under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial in
Criminal Cases?
A35. The prohibited motions under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, otherwise known as the Revised Guidelines
for Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases, which was fully implemented on 01 September 2017, are as follows:
(b) Prohibited Motions. – Prohibited motions shall be denied outright before the scheduled
arraignment without need of comment and/or opposition:
i. Motion for judicial determination of probable cause.
ii. Motion for preliminary investigation filed beyond the five (5)-day reglementary period in
inquest proceedings under Sec. 6, Rule 112, or when preliminary investigation is required under Sec. 8,
Rule 112, or allowed in inquest proceedings and the accused failed to participate in the preliminary
investigation despite due notice.
iii. Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor recommending the filing of information once the
information has been filed before the court:
(1) if the motion is filed without prior leave of court;
(2) when preliminary investigation is not required under Sec. 8, Rule 112; and
(3) when the regular preliminary investigation is required and has been actually conducted, and
the grounds relied upon in the motion are not meritorious, such as issues of credibility, admissibility of
evidence, innocence of the accused, or lack of due process when the accused was actually notified, among
others.
iv. Motion to quash information when the ground is not one of those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.
v. Motion for bill of particulars that does not conform to Sec. 9, Rule 116.
vi. Motion to suspend the arraignment based on grounds not stated under Sec. 11, Rule 116.
vii. Petition to suspend the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question, when no civil
case has been filed, pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 111.
Q36. What are the meritorious motions under the RGCTCC?
A36. The meritorious motions under the RGCTCC are as follows:
(c) Meritorious Motions. – Motions that allege plausible grounds supported by relevant documents
and/or competent evidence, except those that are already covered by the Revised Guidelines, are
meritorious motions, such as:
i. Motion to withdraw information, or to downgrade the charge in the original information, or to

exclude an accused originally charged therein, filed by the prosecution as a result of a reinvestigation,
reconsideration, and review;
ii. Motion to quash warrant of arrest;

26
iii. Motion to suspend arraignment on the ground of an unsound mental condition under Sec. ll(a), Rule
116;
iv. Motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question where a civil case was
filed prior to the criminal case under Sec. ll(b), Rule 116;
v. Motion to quash information on the grounds that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, lack of jurisdiction, extinction of criminal action or liability, or double jeopardy under Sec. 3, par.
(a), (b), (g), and (i), Rule 117;
vi. Motion to discharge accused as a state witness under Sec. 17, Rule 119;
vii. Motion to quash search warrant under Sec. 14, Rule 126 or motion to suppress evidence; and
viii. Motion to dismiss on the ground that the criminal case is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation (SLAPP) under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.
The comment of the adverse party shall be filed within a non-extendible period of ten (10) calendar
days from notice/receipt of the order of the court to file the same, and the court shall resolve the motion
within a non-extendible period of ten (10) calendar days from the expiration of the ten (10)-day period,
with or without comment. The court, at its discretion, may set the motion for hearing within a non-
extendible period of ten (10) calendar days from the expiration of the ten (10)-day period to file comment,
in which case the same shall be submitted for resolution after the termination of the hearing, and shall be
resolved within a non-extendible period of ten (10) calendar days thereafter. Reply and memorandum need
not be submitted.
In case of a motion to discharge accused as state witness under Sec. 17, Rule 119, where the
prosecution is required to present evidence in support thereof, such motion shall be submitted for
resolution from the termination of the hearing, and shall be resolved within a non-extendible period of ten
(10) calendar days thereafter.
The motion for reconsideration of the resolution of a meritorious motion shall be filed within a non-
extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of such resolution, and the adverse party shall be
given an equal period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of the motion for reconsideration within which
to submit its comment. Thereafter, the motion for reconsideration shall be resolved by the court within a
non-extendible period of five (5) calendar days from the expiration of the five (5)-day period to submit the
comment.
Motions that do not conform to the requirements stated above shall be considered unmeritorious and
shall be denied outright.
Q37. What is the exception to the fifteen (15)-day fresh period rule in filing a Motion for
Reconsideration?
A37. Under the RGCTCC, the fresh period rule of fifteen (15) days has been reduced to five (5) days
from receipt of the adverse resolution to file a Motion for Reconsideration. It provides that:
The motion for reconsideration of the resolution of a meritorious motion shall be filed within a non-
extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of such resolution, and the adverse party shall be given
an equal period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of the motion for reconsideration within which to submit
its comment. Thereafter, the motion for reconsideration shall be resolved by the court within a non-extendible
period of five (5) calendar days from the expiration of the five (5)-day period to submit the comment.
Motions that do not conform to the requirements stated above shall be considered unmeritorious and
shall be denied outright.113
REMEDIES OF ACCUSED IF THERE WAS NO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
SECTION 6. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant
Q38. If the accused failed to object to the legality of his arrest before entering a plea, will it be a
reason to doubt his conviction of the crime charged?
A38. No. The accused's failure to object to the legality of his/her arrest or to the absence of a
preliminary investigation, before entering their plea, will not negate their conviction when it is duly proven by
the prosecution.
________________________
113
Nota Bene: For exhaustive discussion, you may see the ―Notes and Cases on the Revised Guidelines of Continuous Trial in Criminal
Cases in Relation to the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (2018 Edition)‖ book by the author, published by the Central Book Supply,
Inc.
27
Q39. What is the available remedy of a person subjected to an illegal warrantless arrest? Explain.
A39. When warrantless arrest was not lawful, the accused shall be entitled to a preliminary
investigation before an Information is filed against him. The inquest investigation conducted by the City
Prosecutor is void. Under Rule 112, Section 7114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an inquest
investigation is proper only when the suspect is lawfully arrested without a warrant.
Nonetheless, the absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction, but
merely the regularity of the proceedings. It does not impair the validity of the information or render it
defective. (De Lima vs. Reyes, 776 Phil. 623 (2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.], citing People vs. Narca, 341
Phil. 696 (1997)(Third Division)[Francisco, J.].
RULE 113
ARREST
(Sections 1-14)
Q1. Define arrest.
A1. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. (Section 1, Rule 113)
ARREST, HOW MADE (SECTION 2)
Q2. What is the manner of arrest recognized in this jurisdiction?
A2. The manner of arrest does not need the application of actual force, manual touching of the body,
physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an intent on the
part of one of the parties to arrest the other and an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the
belief and impression that submission is necessary.115 (Sanchez vs. Demetriou, et al., 227 SCRA 627, 9 November
1993)(En Banc)[Cruz, J.].
Q3. Is an invitation from a high-ranking police or military officer to a person to appear for
investigation equivalent to arrest?
A3. Yes. Considering that the invitation came from a high-ranking military official and the investigation
was to be made at a military camp, although in the guise of a request, it was obviously a command or an
order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly be expected to defy. In fact, he went without protest with
the officers who had come to fetch him. (Sanchez vs. Demetriou, et al., supra).
Q4. Is roadside questioning of a motorist considered a formal arrest?
A4. No. In Berkemer vs. McCarty,116 the U.S. Supreme Court held that, by virtue of the nature of the
questioning, the expectations of the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the procedure is
conducted, such questioning does not fall under custodial interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal
arrest.
In Luz vs. People,117 the Supreme Court, quoting the above American decision, ruled that motorist
detention due to traffic violations cannot be considered as custodial interrogation or formal arrest.
However, this ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a traffic violation. Certainly, when
there is an intent on the part of the police officer to deprive the motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into
custody, the former may be deemed to have arrested the motorist. In this case, the officer‘s issuance (or intent
to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the possibility of an arrest for the same violation.
In Berkemer, the U.S. Court also noted that the Miranda warnings must also be given to a person
apprehended due to a traffic violation.
________________________
114
Section 6 (now Section 7), Rule 112.
115
125 Am Jur 2d, p. 696.
116
468 U.S. 420 (1984).
117
667 SCRA 421 (29 February 2012).
28
In Knowles vs. Iowa,118 the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a police officer stops a person for
speeding and correspondingly issues a citation instead of arresting the latter, this procedure does not
authorize the officer to conduct a full search of the car. The Court therein held that there was no justification
for a full-blown search when the officer does not arrest the motorist. Instead, police officers may only conduct
minimal intrusions, such as ordering the motorist to alight from the car or doing a pat down.
ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL (SECTION 5)
Q5. What are the requisites of warrantless arrest under Section 5(a) and (b), Rule 113? Explain.
A5. In warrantless arrest made pursuant to Section 5(a), the concurrence of two circumstances is
necessary, namely:
(a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
For warrantless arrest made pursuant to Section 5(b), it requires that at the time of the warrantless
arrest:
i. an offense has just been committed; and
ii. the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had
committed it.
In both instances, the essential basis for the warrantless arrest is the arresting officer's personal
knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense.
Under Section 5(a), the officer himself witnesses the commission of the crime; under Section 5(b), the
officer actually knows that a crime has just been committed. 119 [Villasana vs. People, G.R. No. 209078 (4
September 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]. See also People vs. Gardon-Mintoy, G.R. No. 223140 (4 September
2019)(First Division)[Bersamin, C.J.]; In Re: Salibo vs. Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex, G.R. No. 197597, 8 April
2015)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].]
Q6. What is the general rule before a person can be arrested? Explain.
A6. For an arrest to be lawful, a warrant of arrest must have been judicially issued or there was a
lawful warrantless arrest as provided for in Rule 113, Section 5 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.120
A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest before a search
is made. Otherwise stated, a lawful arrest must precede the search; "the process cannot be reversed." 121 For
there to be a lawful arrest, law enforcers must be armed with a valid warrant. Nevertheless, an arrest may
also be effected without a warrant. [Manibog vs. People, G.R. No. 211214 (20 March 2019)(Third
Division)[Leonen, J.]; Duropan vs. People, G.R. No. 230825 (10 June 2020)(Third Division) [Leonen, J.]; Veridiano vs.
People, G.R. No. 200370 (7 June 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].]122
Q7. When can there be a valid warrantless search?
A7. In a plethora of cases, warrantless searches incidental to a lawful arrest, stop and frisk searches
are exceptions to the general rule in order to deter crime.123 People vs. Cogaed124 underscored that they are
necessary for law enforcement, though never at the expense of violating a citizen's right to privacy:
"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law enforcement.
That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this
should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of
the Constitution.
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present in the situation where the police officer finds
himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police
officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the
________________________
118
525 U.S. 113 (1998).
119
Macad vs. People, G.R. No. 227366 (1 August 2018).
120
People vs. Comprado, G.R. No. 213225 (4 April 2018); People vs. Gardon-Mentay, G.R. No. 223140 (4 September 2019).
121
People vs. Racho, 640 Phil. 669 (2010)(Second Division)[Nachura, J.].
122
See also People vs. Yusop, G.R. No. 224587 (28 July 2020)(First Division) [Reyes, Jr., J.]; Pestilos vs. Generoso, 746 Phil. 301 (2014);
Vaporoso vs. People, G.R. No. 238659 (3 June 2019).
123
People vs. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334 (30 July 2014)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
124
Ibid.
29
ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves observe — whether an individual is acting in a
suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal
knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.125
Q8. What are the limitations in inspections made at checkpoints? Explain.
A8. Routine inspections made at checkpoints have been regarded as permissible and valid, if the
inspections are limited to the following situations:
(a) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle parked on the public fair
grounds;
(b) simply looks inside a vehicle;
(c) flashes a light into the vehicle without opening its doors;
(d) where the occupants of the vehicle are not subjected to a physical or body search;
(e) where the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and
(f) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.126
In short, inspections at checkpoints are confined to visual searches. An extensive search of the vehicle
is permissible only when the officer conducting the search had probable cause to believe prior to the search
that he will find inside the vehicle to be searched the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the
commission of a crime. (People vs. Gardon-Mintoy, G.R. No. 223140, 4 September 2019)(First Division)[Bersamin,
C.J.].
METHOD OF ARREST
A. BY OFFICER WITH WARRANT (SECTION 7)
B. BY OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT (SECTION 8)
C. BY PRIVATE PERSON (SECTION 9)
Q9. What is the standard procedure in making an arrest?
A9. Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the standard procedure in
implementing a warrant of arrest. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer:
a) To inform him of the reason for the arrest;
b) He must be shown the warrant of arrest;
c) He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel and that any
statement he might make could be used against him;
d) The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone
he chooses by the most expedient means by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger.
It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. 127
Q10. What are the duties of a police officer or any person implementing an arrest? Explain.
A10. The duties of the police officer or any person implementing the warrant of arrest are as follows:
(a) The police officer or any person conducting arrest must identify himself as such, and state his
intention to arrest when there is no danger to himself or it would not prejudice the arrest.128
(b) Whenever a police officer introduces himself as such, he must show his police identification card or
badge. Persons who deal with the police need not ask for the officer‘s identification papers when the officer
________________________
125
See also Posadas vs. CA, 266 Phil. 306 (1990)(First Division)[Gancayco, J.]; Manalili vs. CA, 45 Phil. 632 (1997)(Third
Division)[Panganiban, J.]; People vs. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811 (1996)(Second Division)[Romero, J.]; Manalili vs. CA, 345 Phil. 632 (1997)[Per
J. Panganiban, Third Division]; People vs. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811 (1996)[Per J. Romero, Second Division].
126
People vs. Manago, 801 SCRA 103 (17 August 2016).
127
People vs. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 674 (26 September 1988); People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (20 March 1985); Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, 121 SCRA
538 (26 April 1983).
128
See Rules of Court, Rule 113, Sec. 8 (Method of arrest by officer without warrant) and Sec. 9 (Method of arrest by private person).
30
took the initiative outright. His service firearm is not an identification card. The best and immediate evidence
of police identity is the badge, the ID, and the proper uniform. It is a basic norm of police work, particularly
when approaching a stranger with whom he has no prior contact, not just to introduce himself properly but
also to present his police badge and ID.
(c) Further, the rules of engagement, of which every police officer must be thoroughly knowledgeable
and for which he must always exercise the highest caution, does not require that he should immediately draw
or fire his weapon if the person asked or to be accosted does not heed his call. Pursuit without danger should
be his next move and not vengeance for personal feelings or a damaged pride. Police work requires nothing
more than the lawful apprehension of suspects since the completion of the process pertains to other
government officers or agencies. (People vs. Tan, 359 SCRA 283, 21 June 2001)(First Division)[Ynares-
Santiago, J.].
Given this standard procedure, the legality of an arrest can be contested only by the party whose rights
have been impaired thereby.129
REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT OF ARREST
Q11. What are the requisites for a valid warrant of arrest?
A11. There are only four (4) requisites for a valid warrant, i.e.:
(1) it must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
(3) such judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce; and
(4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.130 (People vs. Tiu Won Chua a.k.a. "Timothy Tiu", et al., G.R. No. 149878, 1 July 2003) (Third
Division)[Puno, J.].
Q12. Will a mistake in the name of the person to be arrested or searched invalidate the warrant?
Explain.
A12. No. A mistake in the name of the person to be searched does not invalidate the warrant, 131
especially since if the authorities had personal knowledge of the drug-related activities of the accused. In fact,
a "John Doe" warrant satisfies the requirements so long as it contains a descriptio personae such as will
enable the officer to identify the accused.132
Q13. Will the mistake in the identification of the owner of the place to be searched invalidate the
warrant?
A13. No. A mistake in the identification of the owner of the place does not invalidate the warrant
provided the place to be searched is properly described.133
DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST
PROBLEM:
Judge ―A‖ received an Information in her sala against several accused for violation of the Anti-Hazing
Law which resulted to the death of one of the neophytes. Upon finding probable cause, Judge ―A‖ issued the
warrant of arrest. However, after the lapse of ten (10) days, Judge ―A‖ issued another order that recalled the
warrant of arrest for alleged inadvertence and eventually dismissed the criminal case against all the accused.
Is the disposition of Judge ―A‖ correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The well-settled rule that once a complaint or information is filed before the trial court, any
disposition of the case, whether as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the
sound discretion of the said court134 is not absolute. Although a motion to dismiss the case or withdraw the
________________________
129
People vs. Peralta, 426 SCRA 472 (30 March 2004).
130
"... 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." [Section 2, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution); People vs. Francisco, G.R. No.
129035 (22 August 2002)].
131
68 Am Jur 2d, Section 221 at 795 and 43 ALR5th, Section 2[b] at 27-28, citing State vs. Tramantano, 28 Conn. Supp. 325, 260 A.2d 128
(Super. Ct. 1969).
132
People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169 (1925).
133
Uy vs. BIR, G.R. No. 129651 (20 October 2000).
134
Crespo vs. Mogul, 235 Phil. 465 (1987).
31
Information is addressed to the court, its grant or denial must always be in the faithful exercise of judicial
discretion and prerogative.135 For the judge's action must neither impair the substantial rights of the accused
nor the right of the State and the offended party to due process of law. 136
A judge may dismiss the case for lack of probable cause only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on
record plainly fails to establish probable cause – that is when the records readily show uncontroverted,
and thus, established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime
charged.137
Hazing is commonly characterized by secrecy and silence and to require the prosecution to indicate
every step of the planned initiation rite in the information at the inception of the criminal case would be a
strenuous task.138 Although a speedy determination of an action or proceeding implies a speedy trial, it should
be borne in mind that speed is not the chief objective of a trial. It must be stressed that a careful and
deliberate consideration for the administration of justice is more important than a race to end the trial. 139
Although judges are generally not accountable for erroneous judgments rendered in good faith, such
defense in situations of infallible discretion adheres only within the parameters of tolerable judgment and
does not apply where the basic issues are so simple and the applicable legal principle evident and basic as
to be beyond permissible margins of error.140 (Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, 24 January
2017)(En Banc)[Per Curiam].
R.A. NO. 7438 (RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED, OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION)
Q14. What is the effect of an extra-judicial confession without counsel? Explain.
A14. Extrajudicial confession without counsel at the police station without a valid waiver of the right to
counsel - that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel - is inadmissible in evidence.141
Silence does not constitute as a valid waiver of right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel. Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution states that "these rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel." (People vs. Lumayag, et al., G.R. No. 181474, 26 July 2017)
(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q15. What are the factors to be considered in order that an out of court identification of the
suspects can be admitted in court?
A15. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have
adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz:
(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
(2) the witness' degree of attention at that time;
(3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. (People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, 2 March
2020)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.].142
________________________
135
Auto Prominence Corporation vs. Winterkorn, 597 Phil. 47 (2009); Bago vs. Judge Pagayatan, 602 Phil. 459 (2009).
136
Dimatulac vs. Judge Villon, 358 Phil. 328 (1998).
137
Young vs. People, G.R. No. 213910 (Resolution)(3 February 2016).
138
Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464 (1 July 2015).
139
State Prosecutors vs. Judge Muro, 321 Phil. 474 (1995).
140
Paso vs. Mijares, 436 Phil. 295 (2002).
141
People vs. Bariquit, 395 Phil. 823 (2000)[Per Curiam, En Banc]; People vs. Bonola, 274 SCRA 238 (19 June 1997)[Per J. Puno, En Banc].
CONST., Art. III, Sec. 12(1) and (3) provide:
Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
x-x-x
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
142
Citing People vs. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128 (1995).
32
RULE 114
BAIL
(Sections 1-26)
NATURE; BAIL DEFINED (SECTION 1)
Q1. What is Bail?
A1. Bail is the security given for the temporary release of a person who has been arrested and
detained but "whose guilt has not yet been proven" in court beyond reasonable doubt. 143 The right to bail is
cognate to the fundamental right to be presumed innocent. (People vs. Escobar, G.R. No. 214300, 26 July 2017)
(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q2. What is the purpose of bail?
A2. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so
required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused
when so required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. 144 Thus, bail
acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused‘s interest in his provisional liberty before
or during the trial, and the society‘s interest in assuring the accused‘s presence at trial. 145 It is worthy to note
that bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes.146 [Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan
(Third Division), 767 SCRA 282, 18 August 2015](En Banc)[Bersamin, J.].
WHEN BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT; EXCEPTIONS (SEC. 4)
Q3. When is bail a matter of right and when it is a judicial discretion?
A3. Bail is a matter of right if the offense charged is "not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment" before conviction by the Regional Trial Court. 147 However, if the accused is charged with an
offense the penalty of which is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment "regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution" and when evidence of one's guilt is not strong, then the accused's prayer for bail is
subject to the discretion of the trial court.148 (People vs. Escobar, G.R. No. 214300, 26 July 2017)(Second Division)
[Leonen, J.].
PROBLEM:
Basagolero and Mamano were arrested and detained on a Friday at the Criminal Investigation and
Detention Unit, PNP of General Santos City. They were charged with Frustrated Murder, punishable by
reclusion temporal, the penalty lower by one degree than that provided for consummated murder. Since they
want to be released immediately, on the next working day, their counsel went to the house of the Executive
Judge of the RTC to file the Petition for Bail. The Judge ordered the City Prosecutor to comment which the
latter immediately complied and stated the recommended amount of bail. The two accused immediately
posted their bail. Thereafter, the Judge issued the Temporary Release Order. The Petition for Bail and the bail
were only received by the OCC on the next working day, Monday.
Was the issuance of the Temporary Release Order valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Considering that the accused are not charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, Basagolero and Mamano were entitled to bail as a matter of right as
________________________
143
Leviste vs. CA, 629 Phil. 587 (2010)(Third Division)[Corona, J.].
144
Yap, Jr. vs. CA, 358 SCRA 564 (6 June 2001).
145
Leviste vs. CA, 615 SCRA 619 (17 March 2010).
146
Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan, 389 SCRA 623 (24 September 2002) where the Court said that the
constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss
of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See also Shima
Baradaran, Restoring the Presumption of Innocence, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 72 (2011), p. 728.
147
Rules of Court, Rule 114, Sec. 4.
148
Rules of Court, Rule 114, Sec. 5 in relation to Sec. 7.
33
guaranteed by the Constitution149 and pursuant to Section 4, Rule 114 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
There is nothing in the law or the rules that prevented a Judge from acting on the bail application
submitted to him on a weekend. Accordingly, the Judge acted in accordance with the rules in granting the
application for bail. (Rodriguez vs. Noel, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-18-2525, 25 June 2018)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe,
J.].
WHEN BAIL IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION (SEC. 5)
Q4. Is bail still available upon conviction of the accused if the penalty imposed is less than reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment? Explain.
A4. After conviction of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the
grant of bail becomes discretionary upon the court, which may either deny or grant it. In circumstances
where the penalty imposed exceeds six (6) years, the court is not precluded from cancelling the bail previously
granted upon a showing by the prosecution of the circumstances enumerated in Rule 114, Section 5 of the
Rules of Court. The presence of even one (1) of the enumerated circumstances is sufficient cause to deny or
cancel bail. (Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 237172, 18 September 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q5. What is the rationale of the denial of bail after judgment of conviction?
A5. The importance attached to conviction is due to the underlying principle that bail should be granted
only where it is uncertain whether the accused is guilty or innocent, and therefore, where that uncertainty is
removed by conviction it would, generally speaking, be absurd to admit to bail. After a person has been
tried and convicted the presumption of innocence which may be relied upon in prior applications is rebutted,
and the burden is upon the accused to show error in the conviction. From another point of view it may be
properly argued that the probability of ultimate punishment is so enhanced by the conviction that the accused
is much more likely to attempt to escape if liberated on bail than before conviction. 150 (Reyes vs. People, G.R. No.
237172, 18 September 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].151
Q6. What are the instances when bail becomes discretionary on the part of the court?
A6. The instances are as follows;
(1) upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment;152 or
(2) if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, provided none of the
circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3153 of Section 5, Rule 114 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 767 SCRA 282, 18 August 2015](En Banc)[Bersamin, J.].
Q7. In the exercise of judicial discretion, what are the guiding principles to be followed by a Judge?
A7. The guiding principles culled from jurisprudence are as follows:
first, the applicable provisions of the Constitution and the statutes;
second, by the rules which the Supreme Court may promulgate; and
third, by those principles of equity and justice that are deemed to be part of the laws of the land. 154
________________________
149
Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution provides:
SECTION 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
150
See also Rules of Court, Rules 110-127.
151
Citing Senator Vicente J. Francisco's eloquent explanation on why bail should be denied as a matter of wise discretion after judgment
of conviction reflects that thinking, which remains valid up to now.
152
Section 5, Paragraph 1, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
153
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be
cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance
of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid
justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to
the adverse party in either case. (5a)
34
The discretion of the court, once exercised, cannot be reviewed by certiorari nor controlled by mandamus
save in instances where such discretion has been so exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 155
Q9. How is the admission to bail determined if the crime is punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment?
A9. For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of whether or not evidence of guilt is strong in
criminal cases involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
lies within the discretion of the trial court. [Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), supra].
Q10. How should the discretion of the court be exercised if the case is a capital offense and the
accused filed a petition for bail?
A10. Such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of
the accused for the purpose of whether or not he should be granted provisional liberty. It is axiomatic,
therefore, that bail cannot be allowed when its grant is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial court
unless there has been a hearing with notice to the Prosecution. 156
Q11. What must a judge comply in resolving bail applications for a capital offense?
A11. In resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial judge is expected to comply with the
guidelines outlined in Cortes vs. Catral,157 reiterated in the Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Flor,
Jr. (A.M. No. RTJ-17-2503, 28 July 2020)(En Banc)[Per Curiam], to wit:
(1) In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the
hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court, as amended);
(2) Where bail is a matter of discretion, 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; (Sections 7 and 8, supra)
(3) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution;
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the
bailbond (Section 19, supra). Otherwise, petition should be denied.
HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR BAIL IN CAPITAL OFFENSES (SEC. 6- Capital offense defined; SEC. 7-
Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable).
Q12. What is a capital offense?
A12. A capital offense in the context of the rule refers to an offense that, under the law existing at the
time of its commission and the application for admission to bail, may be punished with death.158 [Enrile vs.
Sandiganbayan (Third Division), supra].
Bail, where filed (SECTION 17)
Q13. If the accused is arrested by virtue of a warrant, to which court will he post his bail for his
temporary liberty?
________________________
154
Carpio vs. Maglalang, 273 Phil. 240 (1991); Revilla, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division) (G.R. No. 218232), Cambe vs. Sandiganbayan
(First Division) (G.R. No. 218235), Napoles vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division) (G.R. No. 218266), People vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No.
218903), and Revilla, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division) (G.R. No. 219162, 24 July 2018)(En Banc) [Carpio, J.]; Napoles vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 224162 (7 November 2017)(En Banc)[Reyes, Jr., J.], citing Cortes vs. Catral, 344 Phil. 415 (1997).
155
SMC vs. Sandiganbayan, 394 Phil. 608 (2000), citing Big Country Ranch Corp. vs. CA, 297 Phil. 1105 (1993). See also People vs. Cabral,
362 Phil. 697 (18 February 1999); and Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 427 Phil. 820 (2002).
156
Gacal vs. Infante, 658 SCRA 535 (5 October 2011). See also Aguirre vs. Belmonte, 237 SCRA 778 (27 October 1994); People vs. Dacudao,
etc., et al., 170 SCRA 489; Concerned Citizens vs. Elma, 241 SCRA 84 (6 February 1995); People vs. Plaza, 602 SCRA 457 (2 October
2009); and Balanay vs. Adalim-White, 778 SCRA 1 (11 January 2016).
157
279 SCRA 1 (10 September 1997).
158
Section 6, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
35
A13. The bail for the temporary liberty of the accused can be posted as follows:
First, the application for bail must be filed in the court where the case is pending. In the absence or
unavailability of the judge thereof, the application for bail must be filed with another branch of the same court
within the province or city.
Second, if the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is
pending, bail may be filed with any regional trial court of the place. (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar, A.M. No. 06-6-340-RTC, 17
October 2007)(En Banc)[Per Curiam].159
The requirements of Section 17(a), Rule 114 must be complied with before a judge may grant bail. The
Court recognizes that not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law and that, if committed in good
faith, does not warrant administrative sanction, but only in cases within the parameters of tolerable
misjudgment. Where, however, the law is straightforward and the facts so evident, not to know it or to act as
if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
SECTION 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. — In the application for bail under section 8 of this
Rule, the court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his
recommendation. (18a)
SECTION 19. Release on bail.
Q14. What is the duty of the Judge when bail is filed in his court, but the case is pending in another
court? Explain.
A14. The judge should forward the records pertaining to the bail bond to the court who issued the
warrant immediately after receiving them. (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar, supra).160
Q15. Is the Clerk of Court authorized to sign a Release Order after the accused posted his bail bond
for his temporary liberty? Explain.
A15. No. Clerks of court have no authority to order the release of persons charged with penal offenses.
There is usurpation of judicial function when a person who is not a judge attempts to perform an act the
authority for which the law has vested only upon a judge. (Gonzalo vs. Mejia).161 In Escañan vs. Monterola
II,162 it was held that the clerk of court, unlike a judge, has no power to order either the commitment or the
release of persons charged with penal offenses. Thus, respondent, in ordering the release of the four
prisoners, has duly usurped the judicial prerogative of a judge. Such usurpation is equivalent to grave
misconduct.163
The issuance of a release order is a judicial function, not an administrative one. A Clerk of Court has no
power to order the release on bail of persons charged with penal offenses. 164 (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar, supra).
Q16. What is one of the important conditions in the application for bail that relates to the
appearance of the accused before the court? Explain.
A16. Section 2, Rule 114 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly states that one of the
conditions of bail is for the accused to "appear before the proper court whenever required by the court or
these Rules."165 [Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), supra].
Q17. If the first application for bail was denied by the trial court and the accused filed a second
petition for bail, does res judicata apply as a ground for its denial? Explain.
A17. No. Res judiciata does not apply in criminal cases.
Res judicata, as found in Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, is a principle in civil law and "has no
bearing on criminal proceedings."
________________________
159
Citing Cruz vs. Judge Yaneza, 363 Phil. 629 (1999).
160
Citing Naui vs. Mauricio, Sr., 460 Phil. 107 (2003).
161
435 SCRA 349 (28 July 2004).
162
351 SCRA 228 (6 February 2001), citing Biag vs. Gubatanga, 318 SCRA 753 (1999).
163
See also Judge Vallarta vs. Vda. De Batoon, 405 Phil. 454 (2001); and Biag vs. Gubatanga, 376 Phil. 870 (1999).
164
Hon. Arcilla vs. Sabido, 88 SCRA 53 (1979).
165
Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 (29 September 1967).
36
In People vs. Escobar (G.R. No. 214300, 26 July 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.], while there was an
initial ruling on Escobar's First Bail Petition, Escobar has not been convicted, acquitted, or has had his
case dismissed or terminated.
Even assuming that this case allows for res judicata as applied in civil cases, Escobar‘s Second Bail
Petition cannot be barred as there is no final judgment on the merits. 166
Q18. What does summary hearing mean for purposes of bail application?
A18. Summary hearing means such brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is merely to
determine the weight of the evidence for purposes of bail. The course of the inquiry may be left to the
discretion of the court which may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial
matters avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses and
reducing to a reasonable minimum the amount of corroboration particularly on details that are not essential to
the purpose of the hearing. (People vs. Escobar, G.R. No. 214300, 26 July 2017)(Second Division) [Leonen, J.].
Q19. Is bail still a matter of right after conviction of the accused by the Sandiganbayan for violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019?
A19. No. Bail after conviction is not a matter of right. Its grant or cancellation is within the sound
discretion of the court. (Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 237172, 18 September 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
GUIDELINES IN FIXING AMOUNT OF BAIL (SECTION 9)
SECTION 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. — The judge who issued the warrant or granted the
application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following
factors:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (9a)
Q20. Why is a hearing necessary in resolving applications for bail, whether bail is a matter of right
or discretion?
A20. A hearing for a petition for bail is required in order for the court to consider the guidelines set
forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly held in past cases that even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an
application for bail of an accused, the court may still require the prosecution to answer questions in order to
ascertain, not only the strength of the State's evidence, but also the adequacy of the amount of bail. (Balanay
vs. Adalim-White, 778 SCRA 1, 11 January 2016)(Second Division)[Del Castillo, J.].167
________________________
166
Citing Trinidad vs. Marcelo, 564 Phil. 382 (2007)(En Banc)[Carpio-Morales, J.].
167
Citing Villanueva vs. Judge Buaya, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131 (22 November 2010)(Third Division)[Brion, J.].
37
PROBLEM:
Mr. Victor Dimanarig is a duly elected member of the Sanguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Iliyan,
Province of Gumirikgitik. He was charged with murder and presently detained at the municipal jail. His
counsel filed a Motion for his temporary liberty so he could attend the session of the Sanguniang Bayan. The
Motion was not set for hearing nor was the prosecution required to file its comment. According to Judge
Anthony Tavern, it is not necessary because the prosecution has no witnesses to present. The furloughs
granted to Dimanarig happened six (6) times.
Is the action taken by Judge Tavern correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Judge Tavern is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for granting ex parte motions,
allowing Dimanarig‘s temporary liberty without setting the same for hearing. If hearing is indispensable in
motions for bail, more so in motions for temporary liberty. (Balanay vs. Adalim-White, supra).
In People vs. Hon. Maceda,168 reiterated in Trillanes IV vs. Judge Pimentel Sr.,169 the Supreme Court
held that all prisoners, whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence, cannot practice their
profession nor engage in any business or occupation or hold office, elective or appointive, while in
detention.
BAIL WHEN NOT REQUIRED (SEC. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. — No bail shall
be required when the law or these Rules so provide).
Q21. When can the court issue a warrant of arrest in a case covered by the Rules of Summary
Procedure?
A21. Section 16, Rule 19 of the Rules on Summary Procedure provides that the court shall not order
the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. If arrested for failure to appear
when required, the accused shall be released either:
(a) on bail; or
(b) on recognizance by responsible citizen subject to the approval of the court.
Q22. What are the criminal cases covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure?
A22. The criminal cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure are as follows:
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(4) Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law);
(5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom:
Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule
shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
Q23. Is there any exception?
A23. Yes. If the case is covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure but is necessarily related to
another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure. [Martinez, Sr. vs. Paguio;170 Agunday vs.
Tresvalles;171 (Riño vs. Cawaling].172
________________________
168
380 Phil. 1 (2000).
169
578 Phil. 1002 (2008).
170
394 SCRA 287 (27 December 2002).
171
319 SCRA 134 (25 November 1999).
172
431 SCRA 128 (7 June 2004).
38
INCREASE OR REDUCTION OF BAIL (SECTION 20)
Q24. What is required if bail is to be increased or will be decreased? Explain.
A24. It is a matter of discretion of the court to increase/reduce the amount of bail.
Section 20 of Rule 114 provides that after the accused shall have been admitted to bail, the court may,
―upon good cause shown,‖ either increase or decrease the amount of the same. Needless to state, this would
entail a hearing for the purpose of showing ―good cause‖ and hence, would require not only the presence
of the accused but also of the latter’s counsel. 173(People vs. Alano);174(Sy Guan vs. Amparo,).175
FORFEITURE (SECTION 21) AND CANCELLATION OF BAIL (SECTION 22)
Q25. Does the withdrawal of the Information automatically result in the cancellation of the bail
posted by the accused? Explain.
A25. Yes. Rule 114, Section 22 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines for the cancellation of bail.
Among the instances when bail is deemed automatically cancelled is when the case is dismissed. (See
Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 224974 (3 July 2017)(Second Division) [Leonen, J.]. Since cancellation of bail is
automatic upon the dismissal of the case, no notice or hearing is even necessary, as the cancellation takes
place when any of the three (3) instances, namely, acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or
execution of the judgment of conviction takes place.
The withdrawal of the information will necessarily result to the dismissal of the case and automatic
cancellation of the accused bail bond. (Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang, G.R. No. 206958, 8
November 2017)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
PROBLEM:
The XYZ bonding company filed a Motion to release bail bond due to the execution of an Affidavit of
Desistance by the private complainant in favor of accused AAA. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the
"Robbery in Uninhabited Place and by a Band" case. However, the judge refused to issue a release order of the
bond, because the cause of the dismissal is not among those provided under Section 22, Rule 114 of the 2000
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Is the Judge correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Judge was wrong. The provisions of the Rules of Court are clear. Bail shall be deemed automatically
cancelled in three (3) instances:
(1) the acquittal of the accused;
(2) the dismissal of the case; or
(3) the execution of the judgment of conviction.
The Rules of Court do not limit the cancellation of bail only upon the acquittal of the accused.
Such ruling, however, has no legal basis. In fact, the provision of Section 22, Rule 114 is clear: the
dismissal of the criminal case results to the automatic cancellation of the bail bond. (Cruz vs. People, G.R.
No. 224974, 3 July 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Non-compliance with the Rules of Court is not a mere error of judgment. It constitutes grave abuse of
discretion. [Crisologo vs. JEWM Agro-Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 196894 (3 March 2014)(Third
Division)[Mendoza, J.]; State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman vs. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 (26 June
2012)(En Banc)[Per Curiam].]
________________________
173
Andres vs. Beltran, 363 SCRA 371 (20 August 2001).
174
81 Phil. 19 (14 May 1948).
175
79 Phil. 670 (4 December 1947).
39
APPLICATION FOR BAIL NOT A BAR TO OBJECTIONS IN ILLEGAL ARREST, LACK OF OR IRREGULAR
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (SECTION 26)
Q26. If the accused applies for bail, does it amount to waiver of his right to assail the validity of the
issuance of the warrant of arrest? Explain.
A26. No. Under the new Rules, application for bail or the admission to bail is no longer considered as a
waiver of the accused‘s right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest as regards its attendant illegalities or
irregularities.176 (Leviste vs. Almeda).177
Q27. As a general rule, the Supreme Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction,
preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. It is a long-standing doctrine that
injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution. Public interest requires that criminal acts be
immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society.
What are the exceptions to the general rule?
A27. The exceptions are as follows:
(1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the
accused;
(2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions;
(3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
(4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
(5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
(6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
(7) where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
(10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied.178
RULE 115
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
(Section 1 only)
SECTION 1. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AT THE TRIAL
Q1. What are the fundamental rights of the accused? Explain.
A1. The fundamental rights of the accused are provided in Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution:
Section 14. (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 heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation 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.
________________________
176
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña, 538 SCRA 221 (23 November 2007).
177
626 SCRA 575 (3 August 2010).
178
Andres vs. Cuevas, 460 SCRA 38 (9 June 2005); Samson vs. Guingona, Jr., 348 SCRA 32 (14 December 2000). See also Asutilla vs. PNB,
141 SCRA 40 (15 January 1986)(First Division)[Melencio-Herrera, J.].
40
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Liong vs. People, G.R. No. 200630, 4 June
2018)(Third Division) [Leonen, J.].
Q2. What does ―to meet the witnesses face to face‖ mean?
A2. "To meet the witnesses face to face" means the right of confrontation. Subsumed in this right to
confront is the right of an accused to cross-examine the witnesses against him or her, i.e., to propound
questions on matters stated during direct examination, or connected with it.179 The cross-examination may be
done "with sufficient fullness and freedom to test the witness' accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue." (Liong vs. People, supra).
Q3. What is the purpose of Rule 115 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure?
A3. Rule 115 of the Rules of Court with its lone section is devoted entirely to the rights of the accused
during trial. Specifically, Rule 115, Section 1(f) on the right to cross-examine.
Denying an accused the right to cross-examine will render the testimony of the witness incomplete and
inadmissible in evidence. "When cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent." 180
Q4. Can the right to cross-examine be waived by the accused? Explain.
A4. Yes. Like any right, the right to cross-examine may be waived.181 It "is a personal one which may be
waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination."182
When an accused is given the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but fails to avail of it, the accused shall
be deemed to have waived this right. The witness' testimony given during direct examination will remain on
record. If this testimony is used against the accused, there will be no violation of the right of confrontation.
(Liong vs. People, supra).
Q5. In what situation can the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine be deemed
waived?
A5. When the accused abuses his option to choose his counsel by changing them repeatedly as a
tactic to delay the proceedings, he can be deemed to have waived his right to confrontation and cross-
examination. The pattern of postponements and changes of counsel is so obvious and patent xxx, which
wastes the time and resources of our judicial system. (Liong vs. People, supra).
Q6. Are there instances when, although the accused failed to cross examine the witness of the
prosecution, the testimony remains on record? Explain.
A6. Yes. In People vs. Narca,183 the trial court deferred to another date the cross-examination of the
prosecution witness on the instance of the accused. However, in the interim, the prosecution witness was
murdered. Thus, the accused moved that the testimony of the prosecution witness be stricken off the record
for lack of cross-examination. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, finding that the accused waived
their right to cross-examine the prosecution witness when they moved for postponement. It said that
"mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is the essence of the right to cross-examine."
In Gimenez vs. Nazareno,184 the Supreme Court held that an escapee who has been tried in absentia
does not retain the rights to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. These rights are
personal and "by his failure to appear during the trial of which he had notice," this Court said that the
accused "virtually waived these rights."
Q7. What are the present guidelines relative to the right to speedy disposition of cases and the right
to speedy trial? Explain.
A7. In the case of Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division (G.R. Nos. 206438 and 206458, and G.R.
Nos. 210141-42, 31 July 2018)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.], the Supreme Court made the following pronouncements:
First, the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial. While the
rationale for both rights is the same:
the right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal prosecutions against courts of law;
________________________
179
Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 6.
180
People vs. Givera, 402 Phil. 547 (2001)[Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], citing Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. CIR, 175 Phil. 225 (978)[Per
J. Muñoz Palma, First Division] and Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa German Airlines, 159-A Phil. 863 (1975)[Per J. Barredo, Second Division].
181
See Savory Luncheonelte vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, et al., 159 Phil. 310 (1975)[Per J. Muñoz-Palma, First Division].
182
See People vs. Narca, 341 Phil. 696 (1997)[Per J. Francisco, Third Division], citing Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang
Pilipino, 159 Phil. 310 (1975)[Per J. Muñoz Palma, First Division].
183
G.R. No. 108488 (21 July 1997)(Third Division)[Francisco, J.].
184
G.R. No. L-37933 (15 April 1988)(En Banc)[Gancayco, J.].
41
the right to speedy disposition of cases, however, may be invoked before any tribunal, whether judicial
or quasi-judicial.
What is important is that the accused may already be prejudiced by the proceeding for the right to
speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.
Second, a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior to a conduct of a
preliminary investigation. This Court acknowledges, however, that the Ombudsman should set reasonable
periods for preliminary investigation, with due regard to the complexities and nuances of each case. Delays
beyond this period will be taken against the prosecution. The period taken for fact-finding investigations
prior to the filing of the formal complaint shall not be included in the determination of whether there has
been inordinate delay.
Third, courts must first determine which party carries the burden of proof. If the right is invoked within
the given time periods contained in current Supreme Court resolutions and circulars, and the time periods that
will be promulgated by the Office of the Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that the right
was justifiably invoked.
If the delay occurs beyond the given time period and the right is invoked, the prosecution has the
burden of justifying the delay.
If the defense has the burden of proof, it must prove first, whether the case is motivated by malice or
clearly only politically motivated and is attended by utter lack of evidence, and second, that the defense did
not contribute to the delay.
Once the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution, the prosecution must prove:
first, that it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of preliminary investigation and in the
prosecution of the case;
second, that the complexity of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable; and
third, that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.
Fourth, determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must consider the entire
context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be weighed to the simplicity or complexity of the issues
raised.
An exception to this rule is if there is an allegation that the prosecution of the case was solely
motivated by malice, such as when the case is politically motivated or when there is continued
prosecution despite utter lack of evidence.
Malicious intent may be gauged from the behavior of the prosecution throughout the proceedings. If
malicious prosecution is properly alleged and substantially proven, the case would automatically be
dismissed without need of further analysis of the delay.
Another exception would be the waiver of the accused to the right to speedy disposition of cases or the
right to speedy trial. If it can be proven that the accused acquiesced to the delay, the constitutional right
can no longer be invoked.
In all cases of dismissals due to inordinate delay, the causes of the delays must be properly laid out and
discussed by the relevant court.
Fifth, the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial must be timely raised. The
respondent or the accused must file the appropriate motion upon the lapse of the statutory or procedural
periods. Otherwise, they are deemed to have waived their right to speedy disposition of cases.
The period for the determination of whether inordinate delay was committed shall commence from
the filing of a formal complaint and the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
The periods for the resolution of the preliminary investigation shall be that provided in the Rules of
Court, Supreme Court Circulars, and the periods to be established by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Failure of the defendant to file the appropriate motion after the lapse of the statutory or procedural
periods shall be considered a waiver of his or her right to speedy disposition of cases.
The ruling in People vs. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division,185 that fact finding investigations are included
in the period for determination of inordinate delay is ABANDONED.
________________________
185
723 Phil. 444 (2013)[Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
42
Q8. What is the precept of the right to speedy disposition of cases?
A8. A person‘s right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides:
SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all
parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-
judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked
with the administration of justice.186 [Coscollueda vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 701 SCRA 188, 15
July 2013](Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
Q9. When is the right to speedy disposition of cases deemed violated? Explain.
A9. Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended
by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked
for and secured; or even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse
without the party having his case tried.187
The right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such
that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient.188
Hence, in the determination of whether the defendant has been denied his right to a speedy disposition
of a case, the following factors may be considered and balanced:
(1) the length of delay;
(2) the reasons for the delay;
(3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
(4) the prejudice caused by the delay.
Q10. What is the constitutional basis of the equipoise doctrine?
A10. Equipoise doctrine states that "when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so
evenly balanced, the appreciation of such evidence calls for the tilting of the scales in favor of the
accused." The constitutional basis of the rule is the Bill of Rights which finds expression in Sec. 1(a), Rule 115
of the Rules of Court.189 (Gonzalez vs. People, G.R. No. 225709, 14 February 2018)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
Q11. Is police line up covered by the right to counsel?
A11. As a rule, a police lineup is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage.
The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed
by the accused during identification in a police lineup.190
RULE 116
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
(Sections 1-11)
SECTION 1. Arraignment and plea; how made
Q1. What is the concept of arraignment? Explain.
A1. Arraignment is defined as "the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of
________________________
186
Roquero vs. Chancellor of UP-Manila, 614 SCRA 723 (9 March 2010) (Second Division)[Perez, J.].
187
Roquero vs. Chancellor of UP-Manila, ibid.
188
Enriquez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 545 SCRA 618 (15 February 2008) (First Division)[Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.].
189
Vicario vs. CA, 367 Phil. 292 (1 June 1999)(Second Division)[Bellosillo, J.].
190
See also People vs. Lara, 678 SCRA 332 (13 August 2012) and People vs. Algarme, 578 SCRA 601 (12 February 2009), citing People vs.
Timon, 281 SCRA 577 (12 November 1997)(Third Division)[Panganiban, J.].
43
an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him." 191 Its purpose is to notify
the accused of "the reason for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face, and the
corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted against him."192 It is not an idle ceremony that can be
brushed aside peremptorily, but an indispensable requirement of due process, the absence of which renders
the proceedings against the accused void. 193 (People vs. Palema, et al., G.R. No. 228000, 10 July 2019)(Third
WHEN PLEA OF NOT GUILTY SHOULD BE ENTERED
Sec. 1(c), Rule 116 states when plea of not guilty should be entered, viz:
SECTION 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. —
x-x-x-x
(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be
entered for him. (1a)
WHEN MAY ACCUSED ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE (SECTION 2)
Q2. What is the role of the court in case the accused wants to plea bargain the criminal charge
against him? Explain.
A2. A plea bargain still requires mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval
of the court. The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused
as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court.195
The use of the word "may" in Section 2, Rule 116 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, signifies that
the trial court has discretion whether to allow the accused to make a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
Moreover, plea bargaining requires the consent of the accused, offended party, and the prosecutor. It is also
essential that the lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged. (Sayre vs. Xenos, et al., G.R. Nos.
244413 & 244415-16, 18 February 2020)(En Banc)[Carandang, J.].
Q3. What is plea bargaining in criminal cases? Explain.
A3. Plea bargaining has been defined as a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work
out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. 196 There is give-and-take
negotiation common in plea bargaining. 197
The essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to
avoid potential losses.198 Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief
virtues of the system - speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the accused, the offended party, the
prosecution, and the court.199 (Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 160, 15 August 2017)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].200
Q4. When is plea bargaining allowed? Explain.
A4. Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pre-trial, or even up to the point when
the prosecution already rested its case. 201 As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, the trial
court's exercise of discretion should not amount to a grave abuse thereof. 202 Grave abuse of discretion is a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
________________________
191
People vs. Pangilinan, 547 Phil. 260 (2007)(En Banc)[Chico-Nazario, J.].
192
193
Taglay vs. Daray, 693 Phil. 45 (2012)(Third Division)[Peralta, J.]. See also People vs. Verra, 432 Phil. 279 (2002)(First Division)[Puno, J.].
194
See also Enrile vs. People, 766 SCRA 1 (11 August 2015)(En Banc)[Brion, J.].
195
Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, 573 Phil. 368 (28 March 2008)(Third Division) [Austria-Jimenez, J.].
196
People vs. Villarama, Jr., 285 Phil. 723 (1992), citing Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1979, p. 1037. See also Gonzales III vs. Office of the
President of the Philippines, et al., 694 Phil. 52 (2012); Amante-Descallar vs. Ramas, 601 Phil. 21 (2009); Daan vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan,
573 Phil. 368 (2008); and People vs. Mamarion, 459 Phil. 51 (2003).
197
Parker vs. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790 (1970); Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, 573 Phil, 368 (2008).
198
Hughey vs. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990).
199
See Santobello vs. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) and Blackledge vs. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977).
200
Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165, which prohibits plea bargaining, was declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-
making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
201
See Daan vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, supra; People vs. Mamarion, 459 Phil. 51 (2003); Ladino vs. Hon. Garcia, 333 Phil. 254 (1996); and
People vs. Villarama, Jr., supra.
202
See Daan vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, supra.
44
despotic manner because of passion or hostility; it arises when a court or tribunal violates the Constitution,
the law or existing jurisprudence.203
If the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense subsequent to a bail hearing or after the
prosecution rested its case, the rules allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient
evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged. 204 The only basis on which the prosecutor and the court
could rightfully act in allowing change in the former plea of not guilty could be nothing more and nothing less
than the evidence on record. As soon as the prosecutor has submitted a comment whether for or against said
motion, it behooves the trial court to assiduously study the prosecution's evidence as well as all the
circumstances upon which the accused made his change of plea to the end that the interests of justice and of
the public will be served. The ruling on the motion must disclose the strength or weakness of the
prosecution's evidence. Absent any finding on the weight of the evidence on hand, the judge's acceptance of
the defendant's change of plea is improper and irregular.
Q5. What are the requisites of plea bargaining?
A5. The basic requisites of plea bargaining are:
(1) consent of the offended party;
(2) consent of the prosecutor;
(3) plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged; and
(4) approval of the court.
Among these conditions, the requirement of a plea offer is the most crucial, without which there is no
plea bargain to speak of and, logically, there is no basis upon which to sustain a claim for the reduction of
sentence under the plea bargaining framework. (Fernandez, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 224708, 2 October 2019)
(Second Division)[Reyes, J.].
Q6. Is the provision of Section 2, Rule 116 on plea of guilty to lesser offense mandatory or
discretionary? Explain.
A6. It is discretionary on the part of the Court. The use of the word "may" signifies that the trial court
has discretion whether to allow the accused to make a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. Moreover, plea
bargaining requires the consent of the accused, offended party, and the prosecutor. It is also essential that the
lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
Thus, in Malampad vs. Xenos (G.R. No. 244413 & 244415-16, 18 February 2020)(En Banc)[Carandang,
J.], the High Court ruled:
Taking into consideration the requirements in pleading guilty to a lesser offense, We find it proper to
treat the refusal of the prosecution to adopt the acceptable plea bargain for the charge of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs provided in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC as a continuing objection that should be resolved by the
RTC. This harmonizes the constitutional provision' on the rule making power of the Court under the
Constitution and the nature of plea bargaining in Dangerous Drugs cases. DOJ Circular No. 27 did not repeal,
alter, or modify the Plea Bargaining Framework in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
Therefore, the DOJ Circular No. 27 provision pertaining to acceptable plea bargain for Section 5 of R.A.
9165 did not violate the rule-making authority of the Court. DOJ Circular No. 27 merely serves as an internal
guideline for prosecutors to observe before they may give their consent to proposed plea bargains.
ACCUSED PLEAD GUILTY TO CAPITAL OFFENSE, WHAT THE COURT SHOULD DO (SECTION 3);
SEARCHING INQUIRY
Q7. What are the guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court which concerns pleas of guilty to a
capital offense? Explain.
A7. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Supreme Court adopts the following guidelines
concerning pleas of guilty to capital offenses as enunciated in the case of People vs. Pagal (G.R. No. 241257,
29 September 2020)(En Banc)[Gesmundo, J.]:
________________________
203
Albania vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 226792 (6 June 2017).
204
People vs. Villarama, Jr., supra, as cited in Gonzales III vs. Office of the President of the Philippines, et al., supra, and People vs.
Mamarion, supra.
45
1. AT THE TRIAL STAGE: When the accused makes a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the trial
court must strictly abide by the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. In particular, it must afford the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence as to the guilt of
the accused and the precise degree of his culpability. Failure to comply with these mandates constitute grave
abuse of discretion.
a. In case the plea of guilty to a capital offense is supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt,
the trial court shall enter a judgment of conviction.
b. In case the prosecution presents evidence but fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the trial court shall enter a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.
c. In case the prosecution fails to present any evidence despite opportunity to do so, the trial court
shall enter a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.
In the above instance, the trial court shall require the prosecution to explain in writing within ten (10)
days from receipt its failure to present evidence. Any instance of collusion between the prosecution and the
accused shall be dealt with to the full extent of the law.
2. AT THE APPEAL STAGE:
a. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense on the basis of his plea of guilty, whether
improvident or not, and proof beyond reasonable doubt was established, the judgment of conviction shall be
sustained.
b. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense solely on the basis of his plea of guilty,
whether improvident or not, without proof beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution was not given
an opportunity to present its evidence, or was given the opportunity to present evidence but the improvident
plea of guilt resulted to an undue prejudice to either the prosecution or the accused, the judgment of
conviction shall be set aside and the case remanded for re-arraignment and for reception of evidence
pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
c. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense solely on the basis of a plea of guilty, whether
improvident or not, without proof beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to prove the
accused's guilt despite opportunity to do so, the judgment of conviction shall be set aside and the accused
acquitted.
Said guidelines shall be applied prospectively. 205
IMPROVIDENT PLEA
SEC. 4. PLEA OF GUILTY TO NON-CAPITAL OFFENSE; RECEPTION OF

EVIDENCE, DISCRETIONARY;
SEC. 5. Withdrawal of Improvident Plea of Guilty;
SECTION 9. Bill of particulars. — The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars
to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the
complaint or information and the details desired. (10a)
PROBLEM:
Senator Juan Abogado was charged with the crime of plunder under R.A. No. 7080 in the
Sandiganbayan. Before his arraignment, Senator Abogado filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars. However, it was
denied including the oral Motion for Reconsideration of his counsel.
Thus, he filed a Petition for Review under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. According to Senator
Abogado the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it denied his motion for bill of particulars despite the ambiguity and insufficiency of the Information
filed against him. He maintains that the denial was a serious violation of his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Senator Abogado further alleges that he was left to speculate on what his specific participation in the
crime of plunder had been. He posits that the Information should have stated the details of the particular acts
________________________
205
See also People vs. Gambao, et al., G.R. No. 172707 (1 October 2013)(En Banc)[Perez, J.], a case for kidnapping for ransom under Art.
267 of the RPC, citing People vs. Oden, 471 Phil. 638 (2004).
46
that allegedly constituted the imputed series or combination of overt acts that led to the charge of plunder.
Moreover, his ‗desired details‘ are not evidentiary in nature; they are material facts that should be clearly
alleged in the Information so that he may be fully informed of the charges against him and be prepared to
meet the issues at the trial.
Is Senator Juan Abogado correct and entitled to a Bill of Particulars? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Under the Constitution, a person who stands charged of a criminal offense has the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 206 This right has long been established in
English law, and is the same right expressly guaranteed in our 1987 Constitution. This right requires that
the offense charged be stated with clarity and with certainty to inform the accused of the crime he is facing in
sufficient detail to enable him to prepare his defense.207
In the 1904 case of US vs. Karelsen,208 the Supreme Court explained the purpose of informing an accused
in writing of the charges against him from the perspective of his right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.
The objective is to describe the act with sufficient certainty to fully appraise the accused of the
nature of the charge against him and to avoid possible surprises that may lead to injustice. Otherwise, the
accused would be left speculating on why he has been charged at all. 209 (Enrile vs. People, 766 SCRA 1, 11
August 2015)(En Banc)[Brion, J.].
Q8. What is a Bill of Particulars?
A8. A bill of particulars is the further specification of the charges or claims in an action, which an
accused may avail of by motion before arraignment, to enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial.
In civil proceedings, a bill of particulars has been defined as a complementary procedural document
consisting of an amplification or more particularized outline of a pleading, and is in the nature of a more
specific allegation of the facts recited in the pleading. 210
Q9. What is the purpose of the bill of particulars in civil and criminal cases? Explain.
A9. The purpose of a motion for bill of particulars in civil cases is to enable a party to prepare his
responsive pleading properly.
In criminal cases, a bill of particulars details items or specific conduct not recited in the Information but
nonetheless pertain to or are included in the crime charged. Its purpose is to enable an accused:
a) to know the theory of the government’s case;211
b) to prepare his defense and to avoid surprise at the trial;
c) to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense; and
d) to compel the prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence. 212
In criminal proceedings, the motion for a bill of particulars is governed by Section 9 of Rule 116 of the
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The rule requires the information to describe the offense with sufficient particularity to apprise the
accused of the crime charged with and to enable the court to pronounce judgment. The particularity must be
such that persons of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what the Information means.213 (Enrile
vs. People 766 SCRA 1, 11 August 2015)(En Banc)[Brion, J].
________________________
206
Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution. See Go vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 604 SCRA 322 (23 October 2009).
207
See Dissenting Opinion of Justice (ret.) Tinga in Teves vs. Sandiganbayan, 488 Phil. 311 (2004), citing 21 AM JUR 2d § 325.
208
3 Phil. 223 (1904).
209
See Burgos vs. Sandiganbayan, 459 Phil. 794 (2003).
210
Virata vs. Sandiganbayan, 339 Phil. 47 (1997).
211
Remmer vs. United States, 9 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 277, 281; US vs. Caserta, 3 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 905.
212
See US vs. Kelly, 92 F. Supp. 672, 673 (W.D. Mo. 1950).
213
Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265 (2004).
47
RULE 117
MOTION TO QUASH
(Sections 1-9)
SEC. 1. Time to move to quash; SEC. 2. Form and contents.
Q1. What is the concept of a motion to quash? Explain.
A1. A motion to quash is a motion to dismiss where the accused "assails the validity of a criminal
complaint or information filed against him or her for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects
which are apparent in the face of the information." 214
Q2. When should a Motion to Quash on the ground of illegality of arrest or the procedure for the
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused be filed? Explain.
A2. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the
procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before
he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. We have also ruled that an accused may be
estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information
against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court
over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he
voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. It was also held in a number of cases that the illegal
arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient
complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the
accused. (Lapi vs. People, G.R. No. 210731, 13 February 2019)(Third Division) [Leonen, J.].215
GROUNDS (SEC. 3)
Q3. What are the grounds for motion to quash?
A3. The grounds for Motion to Quash are provided by Rule 117, Section 3 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure as follows:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is
prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Q4. Will an inordinate delay in the conduct of preliminary investigation a ground to quash the
information? Explain.
A4. Yes. However, it must be qualified. In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (Special Second Division)
(G.R. No. 231144, 19 February 2020)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.], the High Court reversed the dismissal of the
case by the Sandiganbayan and the latter was ordered to proceed with the trial of the case against accused
Leonardo R. Roman, former Governor of the province of Bataan with dispatch. The Supreme Court said:
________________________
214
People vs. Odtuhan, 701 SCRA 506 (17 July 2013)(Third Division)[Peralta, J.].
215
Citing People vs. Alunday, 586 Phil. 120 (2008)(Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.]; People vs. Dela Peña, G.R. No. 238120 (12 February
2020) (Second Division)[Inting, J.]; People vs. Pepino, 779 SCRA 170 (12 January 2016)(En Banc)[Brion, J.]; People vs. Cunanan, 753
SCRA 275 (16 March 2015).
48
While the Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases, this
constitutional right is not a magical invocation which can be cunningly used by the accused for his or her
advantage. This right is not a last line of remedy when accused find themselves on the losing end of the
proceedings. The State's duty to prosecute cases is just as equally important and cannot be disregarded at the
whim of the accused, especially when it appears that the alleged violation was raised as a mere afterthought.
Q5. What is the proper remedy if the Motion to Quash/Dismiss is granted by the Sandiganbayan for
the reason of undue delay? Explain.
A5. A special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy against the Sandiganbayan's order of
dismissal of a criminal complaint by reason of undue delay, thus:
It must be noted at the outset that a judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. However, in
such case, the prosecution is burdened to establish that the court a quo in this case, the Sandiganbayan,
acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction or a denial of
due process. (People the Honorable Fourth Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 233061-62, 28 July 2020)(First
Division)[Lazaro-Javier, J.].216
EFFECTS OF SUSTAINING THE MOTION TO QUASH (SECTION 5)
Q6. What are the alternative actions of a trial court when a Motion to Quash is filed by the accused?
Explain.
A6. Under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has three (3) possible alternative actions
when confronted with a Motion to Quash:
(1) Order the amendment of the Information;
(2) Sustain the Motion to Quash; or
(3) Deny the Motion to Quash.
The first two options are available to the trial court where the motion to quash is meritorious.
Specifically, as to the first option, the court had held that should the Information be deficient or lacking in any
material allegation, the trial court can order the amendment of the Information under Section 4, Rule 117 of
the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. (De Lima vs. Guerrero, 843 SCRA 1, 10 October 2017)(En Banc)[Velasco, Jr.,
J.].
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT SUSTAINING THE MOTION IS NOT A BAR TO ANOTHER
PROSECUTION (SECTION 6)
Q7. Which of the grounds for motion to quash proscribe the re-filing of another information when
said motion was granted? Explain.
A7. There are only two grounds as provided for by Section 6, Rule 117, which prevents the re-filing of an
information:
a) that the criminal action or liability has already been extinguished; and
b) that of double jeopardy.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY (SECTION 7)
Q8. When can there be double jeopardy? Explain.
________________________
216
Citing People vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. Nos. 233557-67 (19 June 2019); J. Caguioa, Dissenting Opinion in
Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, 875 SCRA 374 (31 July 2018).
49
A8. Based on Section 7, Rule 117 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, double jeopardy only
applies when:
(1) a first jeopardy attached;
(2) it has been validly terminated; and
(3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.217
With regard the first requisite, the first jeopardy only attaches:
(a) after a valid indictment;
(b before a competent court;
(c) after arraignment;
(d) when a valid plea has been entered; and
(e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.218 (Castañeda, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 241729, 8 July 2020)
(Second Division)[Inting, J.].
The test for the third requisite is "whether one offense is identical with the other or is an attempt to
commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the first information."
Q9. What are the protections guaranteed by the doctrine of double jeopardy? Explain.
A9. Double jeopardy provides three (3) related protections:
(1) against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal;
(2) against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and
(3) against multiple punishments for the same offense.219
Q10. Does the rule of conclusiveness of judgment apply in criminal proceedings? Explain.
A10. No. Except with respect to civil cases impliedly instituted, the rule of conclusiveness of
judgment has no application in criminal law proceedings. For criminal procedure, it is not res judicata under
Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court, but ―res judicata in prison grey‖ as double jeopardy, under Rule
117, Section 7. (Escobar, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 205576, 20 November 2017)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]. 220
Q11. Why is substantial amendment of the Information prohibited after the arraignment of the
accused? Explain.
A11. Substantial amendment to the information after plea is prohibited to prevent having the accused
put twice in jeopardy. (Article III,221 Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution)
The Constitutional provision on double jeopardy guarantees the invocation of the law not only against
the danger of a second punishment or a second trial for the same offense, "but also against being prosecuted
twice for the same act where that act is punishable by law and an ordinance." 222 When a person is charged
with an offense and the case against him or her is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other
way without his or her consent, he or she cannot be charged again with a similar offense. 223 Thus, "this
principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and conscience."
The constitutionally mandated right against double jeopardy is procedurally bolstered by Rule 117,
Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.224 (Corpuz, Jr. and Samonte vs. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, 5
September 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
________________________
217
Pacoy vs. Cajigal, 534 SCRA 338 (28 September 2007)(Third Division) [Austria-Martinez, J.].
218
People vs. Tampal, 314 Phil. 35 (1995), citing People vs. Vergara, 293 Phil. 610 (1993).
219
People vs. Dela Torre, 430 Phil. 420 (2002)(Third Division)[Panganiban, J.].
220
See also Tecson vs. Sandiganbayan, 376 Phil. 191 (1999)(Second Division) [Quisumbing, J.]; Asistio vs. People, 758 Phil. 485
(2015)(Third Division) [Peralta, J.]; Trinidad vs. Marcelo, 564 Phil. 382 (2007)(En Banc)[Carpio-Morales, J.].
221
Bill of Rights.
222
Ada vs. Virola, 254 Phil. 341 (17 April 1989)(Third Division)[Fernan, C.J.].
223
Mallari vs. People, 250 Phil. 421 (13 December 1988)(Third Division) [Fernan, J.].
224
Braza vs. Sandiganbayan, 704 Phil. 476 (20 February 2013)(Third Division) [Mendoza, J.].
50
PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL (SECTION 8)
Q12. When can there be provisional dismissal of a criminal case?
A12. A case can be provisionally dismissed if the following requisites concur:
(a) The prosecution with the express conformity of the accused, or the accused, moves for a
provisional dismissal (sin perjuicio) of his case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for its
provisional dismissal;
(b) The offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case;
(c) The court issues an Order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally; and
(d) The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the Order of provisional dismissal of the case.225
(Bonsubre, Jr. vs. Yerro, 750 SCRA 490, 11 February 2015)(First Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].226
TIME BAR RULE
Q13. What is the principle of time bar rule? Explain.
A13. The principle of time bar rule is a special procedural limitation qualifying the right of the State
to prosecute, making the time-bar an essence of the given right or as an inherent part thereof, so that its
expiration operates to extinguish the right of the State to prosecute the accused.227 [People vs. Lacson, G.R.
No. 149453 (7 October 2003)(En Banc)[Callejo, Sr., J.]; Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure].
MTC’s – 1 year
Q14. What is the period provided by the time bar rule of crimes punishable by six (6) years and
below or under the jurisdiction of the MTCs in general?
A14. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a
fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case
having been revived. (Second paragraph, first sentence of Section 8, Rule 117).
RTC’s – 2 years
Q15. How about the period provided by the time bar rule of crimes punishable by more than six (6)
years or under the jurisdiction of the RTCs in general?
A15. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional
dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been
revived. (Second paragraph, second sentence, Section 8, Rule 117).
RULE 118
PRE-TRIAL
(Sections 1-4)
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING PRE-TRIAL
SECTION 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. — In all criminal cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal
Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days
from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is
provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the
following:
(a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
________________________
225
Los Baños vs. Pedro, 604 Phil. 215 (22 April 2009)(En Banc)[Brion, J.]
226
A case of estafa which was provisionally dismissed.
227
See Los Baños vs. Pedro, 604 Phil. 215 (2009).
51
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
defense; and
(f) such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects
of the case. (secs. 2 and 3, cir. 38-98)
Q1. When should the pre-trial be conducted by the court?
A1. In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall,
after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person
of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court,
order a pre-trial conference.
Q2. What is the nature and purpose of pre-trial in criminal cases? Explain.
A2. Pre-trial in criminal cases is now mandatory because at the outset, litigation is abbreviated by the
identification of contentious issues. The purpose of entering into a stipulation or admission of facts is to
expedite trial and to relieve the parties and the court, as well, of the costs of proving facts which will not be
disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. These admissions during
the pre-trial conference are worthy of credit. (People vs. Pepito, 413 SCRA 558, 16 October 2003)(En Banc) [Per
Curiam].
Q3. What is stipulation of facts? Explain.
A3. A stipulation of facts by the parties in a criminal case is recognized as declarations constituting
judicial admissions, hence, binding upon the parties228 and by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed
with the introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the right to contest or dispute the
veracity of the statement contained in the exhibit.229
Q4. When can there be modification of order of trial? Explain.
A4. Modified order of trial is authorized whenever an accused admits the charge but interposes a
lawful defense. This does not mean, however, that in such a case, trial could be dispensed with altogether. A
judge must nonetheless ascertain whether the defense put up by the accused could withstand judicial
scrutiny. In other words, while the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that he is entitled to an extenuating circumstance, the trial court is still duty-bound to
establish that the accused, in fact, did not incur any liability relative to his admission. Needless to say, a
regular trial on the merits is necessary for this purpose.
Q5. What should the court do when the prosecution and the offended party agree to the plea offered
by the accused?
A5. As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, the trial court's exercise of its discretion
should neither be arbitrary, nor should it amount to a capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion.
(Daan vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, 28 March 2008)(Third Division)[Austria-Martinez, J.].
Q6. What is the present rule on plea bargaining?
A6. The pertinent rules on plea bargaining under the 2000 Rules230 of Criminal Procedure are as follows:
(a) Rule 116 (Arraignment and Plea):
SECTION 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be
allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, circ. 38-98)
(b) Rule 118 (Pre-trial):
________________________
228
People vs. Bocar, 27 SCRA 512 (28 March 1969).
229
People vs. Dichoso, 96 SCRA 957 (31 March 1980).
230
Effective 1 December 2000.
52
SECTION 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. — xxx order a pre-trial conference to consider the
following:
(a) plea bargaining; (Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo, 837 SCRA 160, 15 August 2017)(En Banc) [Peralta,
J.].231
Q7. Can plea bargaining be prohibited through legislation?
A7. No. Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. The Supreme Court's sole prerogative to issue, amend,
or repeal procedural rules is limited to the preservation of substantive rights, i.e., the former should not
diminish, increase or modify the latter. 232
PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT (SECTION 2)
Q8. What are the conditions for a pre-trial to be binding on the accused? Explain.
A8. For a pre-trial agreement to be binding on the accused, it must satisfy the following conditions:
(1) the agreement or admission must be in writing; and
(2) it must be signed by both the accused and their counsel.233
Q9. What does court’s approval mean under Section 2, Rule 118 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure? Explain.
A9. The court‘s approval, mentioned in the last sentence of Section 2 of Rule 118, is not needed to
make the stipulations binding on the parties. Such approval is necessary merely to emphasize the
supervision by the court over the case and to enable it to control the flow of the proceedings. Once validly
entered into, stipulations will not be set aside unless for good cause. 234 They should be enforced especially
when they are not false, unreasonable or against good morals and sound public policy. 235 When made before
the court, they are conclusive. And the party who validly made them can be relieved therefrom only upon a
showing of collusion, duress, fraud, misrepresentation as to facts, and undue influence; 236 or upon a showing
of sufficient cause on such terms as will serve justice in a particular case. 237
NON-APPEARANCE DURING PRE-TRIAL (SECTION 3)
Q10. Is the non-appearance of any party during the pre-trial a ground for case dismissal of the case?
Explain.
A10. No. Under R.A. No. 8493,238 the absence during pre-trial of any witness for the prosecution listed
in the Information, whether or not said witness is the offended party or the complaining witness, is not a
valid ground for the dismissal of a criminal case. Although under the law, pre-trial is mandatory in criminal
cases, the presence of the private complainant or the complaining witness is however not required. Even
the presence of the accused is not required unless directed by the trial court. It is enough that the accused
is represented by his counsel.
Indeed, even if none of the witnesses listed in the information for the State appeared for the pre-trial, the
same can and should proceed. After all, the public prosecutor appeared for the State. The public prosecutor is
vested with authority to consider those matters catalogued in Section 2 of R.A. 8493. 239
________________________
231
See also People vs. Mamarion, 459 Phil. 51 (2003).
232
Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, Constitution. See also Ogayon vs. People, 768 Phil. 272 (2015) and San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. vs. CA, 352 Phil. 405
(1998).
233
Bayas vs. Sandiganbayan, 391 SCRA 415 (12 November 2002)(Third Division)[Panganiban, J.].
234
National Council of Knights and Ladies of Security vs. Scheiber, 169 NW 272 (25 October 1918).
235
Esch vs. Forster, 168 So. 229 (20 January 1936).
236
83 CJS 90 (1953).
237
Woods vs. First National Bank of Chicago, 41 NE2d 235 (20 April 1942).
238
Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (12 February 1998).
239
People vs. Tac-An, 398 SCRA 373 (27 February 2003)(Second Division) [Callejo, Sr., J.].
53
PRE-TRIAL ORDER (SECTION 4)
Q11. What is the duty of the parties who participated during the pre-trial conference? Explain.
A11. A party who participates in the pre-trial conference is expected to sign the Pre-trial Order.
Considering that the Pre-trial Order contains the recital of the actions taken by the parties, agreements and
admissions, the facts stipulated, and the evidence marked, the parties must sign it.
Stipulations entered into during the pre-trial which were approved by the Court shall bind the parties,
limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of action during the trial, unless modified by
the court to prevent manifest injustice. 240
If a party believes that the Pre-trial Order is not an honest representation of what transpired in the pre-
trial conference, then he must specify his objections thereto and the court may modify it to prevent injustice.
In the Matter of the Alleged Improper Conduct of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy,
Jr.,241 this was what respondents exactly did when complainants pointed out the assailed statement in the
Pre-trial Order.
Q12. What is the purpose why it is required that the pre-trial order must be signed by the accused
and counsel? Explain.
A12. The purpose of this requirement is to further safeguard the rights of the accused against
improvident or unauthorized agreements or admissions which his counsel may have entered into without his
knowledge, as he may have waived his presence at the pre-trial conference;242 eliminate any doubt on the
conformity of the accused to the facts agreed upon.
Nevertheless, the accused cannot take advantage of the absence of his and his counsel‘s signatures on
the pre-trial order. (People vs. Uy, 327 SCRA 335, 7 March 2000) (First Division)[Davide, Jr., C.J.].
RULE 119
TRIAL
(Sections 1-24)
INSTANCES WHEN THE PRESENCE OF ACCUSED IS REQUIRED BY LAW
Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused has to be present:
(a) at the arraignment pursuant to Section 1(b), Rule 116;
(b) at the promulgation of judgment, except when conviction is for a light offense, in which case the
judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative pursuant to Section 6 of Rule
120, or unless promulgation in absentia is allowed under the third paragraph (second sentence) of said section;
and
(c) when the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify the accused.243 (Marcos vs.
Ruiz, G.R. Nos. 70746-47, 1 September 1992) (Third Division)[Davide, Jr., J.].
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
Q1. When can there be trial in absentia?
A1. The holding of trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987
Constitution which provides that after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. 244 (Senit vs. People,
________________________
240
People vs. Dumadag, 431 SCRA 65 (4 June 2004)(Second Division)[Callejo, Sr., J.].
241
395 SCRA 231 (16 January 2003).
242
Regalado, F. D. Remedial Law Compendium. Vol. 2. 7th revised ed. (p. 423).
243
Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546 (9 May 1975)(En Banc) [Antonio, J.]; People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (29 July
1986)(First Division) [Cruz, J.].
244
Bernardo vs. People, 549 Phil. 132 (3 April 2007)(Second Division)[Carpio-Morales, J.], citing Estrada vs. People, 505 Phil. 339 (25
August 2005) (Second Division)[Austria-Martinez, J.].
54
G.R. No. 192914, 11 January 2016)(Third Division)[Reyes, J.].
REMEDY WHEN ACCUSED IS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD (SECTION 9)
Q2. What are the factors to be considered in determining whether the right of the accused to speedy
trial or disposition of his case is violated?
A2. In determining whether the constitutional right to speedy trial of the accused has been violated, the
factors to consider and balance are the duration of the delay, reason therefor, assertion of the right or
failure to assert it and the prejudice caused by such delay.245
Under Section 9 of Rule 119, the trial court may dismiss a criminal case on a motion nolle prosequi246 if
the accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed time and is deprived of his right to a speedy trial or
disposition of the case on account of unreasonable or capricious delay caused by the prosecution.
Q3. When is the accused not entitled to the dismissal of his case despite the lapse of the time limit
provided by the rules? Explain.
A3. The accused is not entitled to a dismissal where such delay was caused by proceedings or
motions instituted by him.247 But it must be understood that an overzealous or precipitate dismissal of a case
may enable the defendant, who may be guilty, to go free without having been tried, thereby infringing the
societal interest in trying people accused of crimes rather than granting them immunization because of legal
error. [Olbes vs. Buemio;248 Lumanlaw vs. Peralta,249 there were fourteen (14) postponements of the
arraignment that resulted intolerable detention of the petitioner for almost two years].
In Conde vs. Rivera and Unson,250 the Supreme Court held that where a prosecuting officer, without
good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period
of time, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the
information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.
REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BECOME A STATE WITNESS (SECTION 17)
Q4. What are the requisites in order for the accused to become a state witness? Explain.
A4. Under Section 17, Rule 119 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the requisites are as follows:
(1) there is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(2) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of said accused;
(3) the testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(4) said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(5) said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
(People vs. Dongail, G.R. No. 217972, 17 February 2020)(Third Division)[Carandang, J.].
Q5. How should the provision of Section 17, Rule 119 be applied? Explain.
A5. Only when an information charging two (2) or more persons with a certain offense, has already
been filed in court will Section 17, Rule 119 of 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure "come into play." [Guingona, Jr.
vs. CA, G.R. No. 125532 (10 July 1998)(First Division)[Panganiban, J.]; Soberano, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 154629 (5
October 2005) (Second Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.].]
Q6. What are the requirements in order to be admitted to the Witness Protection Program (WPP)?
________________________
245
Abardo vs. Sandiganbayan, 355 SCRA 641 (28 March 2001)(Third Division) [Gonzaga-Reyes, J.].
246
A motion for nolle prosequi is a motion by a prosecutor or other plaintiff to drop legal charges, usually in exchange for a diversion
program or out-of-court settlement. A prosecutor in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit can file a motion for nolle prosequi
either before or during trial. (https://definitions.uslegal.com).
247
United State vs. Lustman, 258 F.2d 475 (1958).
248
607 SCRA 336 (4 December 2009).
249
482 SCRA 396 (13 February 2006).
250
45 SCRA 650 (25 January 1924).
55
Explain.
A6. Section 3, R.A. No. 6981 of the WPP provides:
Section 3. Admission into the Program. – Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or
information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial
or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, may be admitted into the Program:
Provided, That:
a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised
Penal Code, or its equivalent under special laws;
b) his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
c) he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is
subjected to threats to his life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced,
intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or evasively,
because or on account of his testimony; and
d) he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would be testifying against other law enforcement
officers. In such a case, only the immediate members of his family may avail themselves of the protection
provided for under this Act.
If the Department, after examination of said applicant and other relevant facts, is convinced that the
requirements of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations have been complied with, it shall admit
said applicant to the Program, require said witness to execute a sworn statement detailing his knowledge or
information on the commission of the crime, and thereafter issue the proper certification. For purposes of this
Act, any such person admitted to the Program shall be known as the Witness.
Q7. Can an accused, who is a police officer, be discharged to become a state witness? Explain.
A7. Yes. It must be stressed that Section 3 of R.A. No. 6981 enumerates the requirements before a
person may be admitted to the WPP. It does not state that if an accused cannot be admitted to the WPP, he
cannot be discharged as a witness for the state. Admission to the WPP and being discharged as an
accused are two different things.
Thus, in Soberano, et al. vs. People, supra, the High Court explained that: P/Sr. Supt. GLEN G. DUMLAO
being a law enforcement officer and, thus, disqualified to be under the WPP, do not in any way prohibit him
to be discharged from the information.
EFFECTS OF DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED AS STATE WITNESS (SECTION 18)
Q8. What is the effect of the discharge of the accused to be utilized as state witness? Explain.
A8. Section 12 of R.A. No. 6981 (24 April 1991), otherwise known as "Witness Protection, Security and
Benefit Act," provides that:
Section 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into the Program. – The certification of admission
into the Program by the Department shall be given full faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor who
is required not to include the Witness in the criminal complaint or information and if included therein, to
petition the court for his discharge in order that he can utilized as a State Witness. The Court shall order the
discharge and exclusion of the said accused from the information.
Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution
for the offense or offenses in which his testimony will be given or used and all the rights and benefits
provided under Section 8 hereof.
Q9. Who has the authority to employ an accused as a state witness, and grant him immunity?
Explain.
A9. Congress has vested such power in the Ombudsman as well as in the Secretary of Justice. The
authority to grant immunity is not an inherent judicial function. Besides, the decision to employ an
accused as a state witness must necessarily originate from the public prosecutors whose mission is to obtain
a successful prosecution of the several accused before the courts. The latter do not, as a rule, have a vision of
the true strength of the prosecution's evidence until after the trial is over. Consequently, courts should
generally defer to the judgment of the prosecution and deny a motion to discharge an accused so he can
be used as a witness only in clear cases of failure to meet the requirements of Section 17, Rule 119 of the
56
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. 251
Whether or not the delicate power should be exercised, who should be extended the privilege, the timing
of its grant, are questions addressed solely to the sound judgment of the prosecution. The power to prosecute
includes the right to determine who shall be prosecuted and the corollary right to decide whom not to
prosecute. In reviewing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in these areas, the jurisdiction of the
respondent court is limited. For the business of a court of justice is to be an impartial tribunal, and not to get
involved with the success or failure of the prosecution to prosecute. (Reyes vs. Ombudsman, 787 SCRA 355, 15
March 2016)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].252
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (SECTION 23, RULE 119)
Q10. What is the concept of Demurrer to Evidence?
A10. A demurrer to evidence tests the sufficiency or insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. As
such, a demurrer to evidence or a motion for leave to file the same must be filed after the prosecution rests its
case. But before an evidence may be admitted, the rules require that the same be formally offered, otherwise,
it cannot be considered by the court. A prior formal offer of evidence concludes the case for the prosecution
and determines the timeliness of the filing of a demurrer to evidence. [BDO Unibank, Inc. vs. Choa, G.R. No.
237553 (10 July 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.], citing Valencia vs. Sandiganbayan].253
Q11. In a Demurrer to Evidence, the accused challenged the sufficiency of evidence presented by
the prosecution. How could the sufficiency of evidence be satisfied to frustrate the demurrer?
A11. Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character,
weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the
circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove:
(a) the commission of the crime; and
(b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.254 (Singian, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 706
SCRA 451, 30 September 2013)(Third Division) [Del Castillo, J.].
Q12. When can the prosecution deemed to have rested its case for purposes of counting the five (5)-
day period under Section 23, Rule 119? Explain.
A12. Only after the court ruled on the prosecution's formal offer of documentary evidence could the
prosecution be deemed to have rested its case. [BDO Unibank, Inc. vs. Choa, supra, citing Cabador vs. People, G.R.
No. 186001 (2 October 2009)(Second Division)[Abad, J.].]255
Q13. Section 23, Rule 119 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that: x-x-x The order
denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment x-x-x. Is this a limitation on the review power of
the Supreme Court? Explain.
A13. No. In the resolution of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration of the State, in the case of
Arroyo vs. People (G.R. No. 220598, 18 April 2017)(En Banc)[Bersamin, J.], the High Court ruled:
The Constitution itself has imposed upon the Court and the other courts of justice the duty to correct
errors of jurisdiction as a result of capricious, arbitrary, whimsical and despotic exercise of discretion by
expressly incorporating in Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the
contrary or for the sake of the convenience of one side. This is because the Court has the bounden
constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of discretion whenever and wherever it is committed. Thus,
notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the demurrer to evidence, the
petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.
In Lazarte vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 191834, 4 March 2020)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.], the High
Court held that:
________________________
251
People vs. Sandiganbayan, 699 SCRA 713 (26 June 2013)(Third Division) [Abad, J.].
252
See also Quarto vs. Marcelo, 674 Phil. 370 (2011).
253
510 Phil. 70 (2005)(First Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.]. See also People vs. Go, 732 SCRA 216 (6 August 2014).
254
Gutib vs. CA, 371 Phil. 293 (1999).
255
See also Magleo vs. Judge De Juan-Quinagoran, 746 Phil. 552 (12 November 2014)(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.].
57
As to the denial of the demurrer to evidence, we have likewise ruled that the question of whether the
evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convince the court that the defendant is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt rests entirely within the sound discretion of the trial court. The error, if any, in
the denial of the demurrer to evidence may be corrected only by appeal. The appellate court will not review
in such special civil action the prosecution's evidence and decide in advance that such evidence has or has
not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The orderly procedure prescribed by the
Revised Rules of Court is for the accused to present his evidence, after which the trial court, on its own
assessment of the evidence submitted, will then properly render its judgment of acquittal or conviction. If
judgment is rendered adversely against the accused, he may appeal the judgment and raise the same
defenses and objections for review by the appellate court.
Q14. If the trial court granted the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused, can the private
complainant question the same to the higher court? Explain.
A14. No. A private complainant cannot question the Order granting the demurrer to evidence in a
criminal case absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process. The interest of the offended party is
limited only to the civil aspect of the case. (JCLV Realty & Development Corporation vs. Mangali, G.R. No. 236618,
27 August 2020) (First Division)[Lopez, J.].
Q15. What is the rationale of the rule that in a criminal case brought to the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeals, the OSG shall represent the Republic or the People or the State? Explain.
A15. The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the party affected by the dismissal of
the criminal action is the State and not the private complainant. The interest of the private offended party is
restricted only to the civil liability. In the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of
a witness for the prosecution such that when a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an
acquittal, an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the OSG. The private
offended party may not take such appeal, but may only do so as to the civil aspect of the case. 256 Differently
stated, the private offended party may file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG, but only insofar as
the civil liability of the accused is concerned. Also, the complainant may file a special civil action
for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil
aspect of the case.257 (JCLV Realty & Development Corporation vs. Mangali, supra).
Q16. What are the requirements for reopening of a case? Explain.
A16. Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence provide for the following requirements for the
reopening a case:
(l) the reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction;
(2) the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion;
(3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted;
(4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and
(5) the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty days
from the issuance of the order. (Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, 5 December 2017)(En
Banc)[Peralta, J.].
RULE 120
JUDGMENT
(Sections 1-9)
Q1. What is finality of acquittal doctrine? Explain.
A1. The finality-of-acquittal doctrine is a judgment of acquittal and is final and unappealable.258 The
reason for the finality-of-acquittal doctrine was explained by the Supreme Court in People vs. CA and
Francisco,259 thus:
In our jurisdiction, the finality-of-acquittal doctrine as a safeguard against double jeopardy faithfully
adheres to the principle first enunciated in Kepner vs. US.260 In this case, verdicts of acquittal are to be
________________________
256
144 SCRA 43 (12 September 1986).
257
463 SCRA 462 (15 July 2005).
258
People vs. Alejandro, G.R. No. 223099 (11 January 2018)(First Division) [Tijam, J.].
259
468 Phil. 1 (2004).
260
195 U.S. 100 (31 May 1904).
58
regarded as absolutely final and irreviewable. The cases of US vs. Yam Tung Way,261 People vs. Bringas,262
Gandicela vs. Lutero,263 People vs. Cabarles,264 People vs. Bao,265 to name a few, are illustrative cases. The
fundamental philosophy behind the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy is to afford the
defendant, who has been acquitted, final repose and safeguard him from government oppression through
the abuse of criminal processes. As succinctly observed in Green vs. US266 the underlying idea, one that is
deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources
and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense,
thereby subjecting him embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of
anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty.
(People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 233280-92, 18 September 2019)(Third Division)[Peralta, J.].
Q2. What are the exceptions to the application of this doctrine?
A2. The immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule as the Supreme Court has the
power and prerogative to relax the same in order to serve the demands of substantial justice considering:
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property;
(b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
(c) the merits of the case;
(d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules;
(e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
(f) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.267 (People vs. Santiago, G.R. No.
228819, 24 July 2019)(Special Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
INSTANCES WHEN JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL
Q3. What are the instances when judgment in a criminal case becomes final?
A3. A judgment in criminal case becomes final:
i. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal;
ii. When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served;
iii. When the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal;
iv. Has applied for probation.
REQUISITES OF A JUDGMENT (SECTION 1)
Q4. What is judgment in criminal case?
A4. Judgment in criminal case is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty
of the offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any.
Q5. What are the requisites of a judgment?
A5. The requisites of a judgment are as follows:
a) It must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge;
b) signed by him; and
c) shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.
Q6. What is the legal basis of Section 1, Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure? Explain.
________________________
261
21 Phil. 67.
262
70 Phil. 528 (1940).
263
88 Phil. 299 (1951).
264
102 Phil. 926 (1958).
265
106 Phil. 243 (1959).
266
355 US 184, 2 L. Ed. 199, 78 S Ct 221, 61 ALR 2d 1119.
267
Bigler vs. People, 782 Phil. 158 (2016).
59
A6. Section 1 of Rule 120 is consistent with the constitutional mandate that no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based.268
Pursuant to the Constitution, the Supreme Court also issued Administrative Circular No. 1,269 prompting
all judges to make complete findings of facts in their decisions and scrutinize closely the legal aspects of the
case in the light of the evidence presented. They should avoid the tendency to generalize and form
conclusions without detailing the facts from which such conclusions are deduced. Indeed, elementary due
process demands that the parties to a litigation be given information on how the case was decided, as well as
an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court.270
Q7. What are the essential parts of a good decision in general?
A7. The following are the essential parts of a good decision:
(a) statement of the case;
(b) statement of facts;
(c) issues or assignment of errors;
(d) court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule, separately considered and resolved; and
(e) dispositive portion.
The ponente may also opt to include an introduction or a prologue as well as an epilogue, especially in
cases in which controversial or novel issues are involved.271 An introduction is a concise but comprehensive
statement of the principal factual or legal issue/s of the case, while an epilogue is a summation of the
important principles applied to the resolution of the issues of paramount public interest or significance. It may
also lay down an enduring philosophy of law or guiding principle. (Velarde vs. Social Justice Society, 438 SCRA
283, 28 April 2004)(En Banc)[Panganiban, J.].
CONTENTS OF JUDGMENT (SECTION 2)
Q8. What are the contents of a judgment of conviction?
A8. If the judgment is for conviction, the contents pursuant to Section 2, first paragraph, Rule 120 of
the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure must be as follows:
(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the
aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission;
(2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory;
(3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and
(4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the
accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil
action has been reserved or waived.
Q9. What are the contents of a judgment if it is for acquittal?
A9. If the judgment is for acquittal, the contents pursuant to Section 2, second paragraph, Rule 120 of
the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure must be as follows:
a) it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
accused, or
b) merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might
arise did not exist.
________________________
268
Section 14, Article VIII, Constitution.
269
28 January 1988.
270
People vs. Bellaflor, 233 SCRA 196 (15 June 1994)(En Banc)[Bidin, J.].
271
Panganiban (1997). ―On Developing My Decision-Writing Style,‖ Justice and Faith (pp. 9-29).
60
Q10. Is the acquittal of the accused charged with physical injury based on reasonable doubt
precludes the filing of a complaint for damages? Explain.
A10. No. Under Rule 120, Section 2 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judgment
acquitting the accused must state whether the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the judgment must
determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Without such
declaration, it must be presumed that the acquittal was due to reasonable doubt, and the accused is civilly
liable ex delicto. Thus, the general rule shall apply: every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.272 (Kane
vs. Roggenkamp, G.R. No. 214326, 6 July 2020)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q11. What are the two kinds of acquittals and its effects? Explain.
A11. Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the
accused:
First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission
complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the
perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being
no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted
must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111
of the Rules of Court.
The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this
case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil
liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in
Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil action for damages is "for the same act or omission." Although the
two actions have different purposes, the matters discussed in the civil case are similar to those discussed in
the criminal case. However, the judgment in the criminal proceeding cannot be read in evidence in the civil
action to establish any fact there determined, even though both actions involve the same act or omission. The
reason for this rule is that the parties are not the same and secondarily, different rules of evidence are
applicable. Hence, notwithstanding herein petitioner's acquittal, the Court of Appeals in determining whether
Article 29 applied, was not precluded from looking into the question of petitioner's negligence or reckless
imprudence. (Manantan vs. CA and Sps. Nicolas, G.R. No. 107125, 29 January 2001)(Second Division)
[Quisumbing, J.].
Q12. What are the two (2) separate civil liabilities that might be incurred by an offender based on a
single act or omission? Explain.
A12. The offender might incur:
(1) Civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the criminal offense under Article 100 of
the Revised Penal Code, and
(2) Independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal
proceedings.
The independent civil liability may be based on "an obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony," as provided in Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or for
tort). It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless, treated
independently from the criminal action by specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code ("in cases of
defamation, fraud and physical injuries").
The civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based on the acts or omissions that constitute
the criminal offense; hence, its trial is inherently intertwined with the criminal action. For this reason, the
civil liability ex delicto is impliedly instituted with the criminal offense. If the action for the civil liability ex
delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of the criminal action, its proceedings are suspended
until the final outcome of the criminal action. The civil liability based on delict is extinguished when the court
hearing the criminal action declares that "the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist."
On the other hand, the independent civil liabilities are separate from the criminal action and may be
pursued independently, as provided in Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code, which state that:
ART. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter.
ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely
separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
________________________
272
Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 100.
61
Because of the distinct and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds
that the offended party may pursue the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without
offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.273
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT (SECTION 6); INSTANCES OF PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT/IN

ABSENTIA
Q13. Can the trial court promulgate judgment in absentia? Explain.
A13. Yes. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to
promulgate a judgment in absentia and gives the accused the opportunity to file an appeal within a period of
fifteen (15) days from notice to the latter or the latter's counsel; otherwise, the decision becomes final.
If the accused failed to attend the promulgation of judgment despite notice, the same is mandatory under
the fourth paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120.
If the accused has been notified of the date of promulgation, but does not appear, the promulgation of
judgment in absentia is warranted. This rule is intended to obviate a repetition of the situation in the past
when the judicial process could be subverted by the accused by jumping bail to frustrate the promulgation of
judgment. (Javier vs. Pepito, G.R. No. 193150, 23 January 2017)(First Division)[Sereno, C.J.].
Q14. What are the essential elements for the validity of the promulgation of judgment in absentia?
A14. The essential elements for the validity of promulgation of judgment in absentia are as follows:
(a) the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket; and
(b) a copy thereof was served upon the accused or counsel. (Javier vs. Pepito, G.R. No. 193150, 23
January 2017)(First Division)[Sereno, C.J.].274
Q15. What is the purpose of promulgation of judgment in absentia? Explain.
A15. The rule authorizing promulgation in absentia is intended to obviate the situation where the
judicial process could be subverted by the accused jumping bail to frustrate the promulgation of judgment.275
Section 6, Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the promulgation of judgment in
absentia in case the accused failed to appear despite notice. (Damayo vs. Lagura-Yap, 762 SCRA 581, 14 July
2015)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].
Q16. What is the consequence if the accused failed to appear during the promulgation of judgment
of conviction? Explain.
A16. The failure of the accused to appear without justifiable cause on the scheduled date of
promulgation of the judgment of conviction forfeits their right to avail themselves of the remedies against the
judgment.
It is not correct to say that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court diminishes or modifies the
substantive rights of petitioners. It only works in pursuance of the power of the Supreme Court to provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. This provision protects the courts
from delay in the speedy disposition of criminal cases - delay arising from the simple expediency of non-
appearance of the accused on the scheduled promulgation of the judgment of conviction. (Jaylo, et al. vs.
Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 183152-54, 21 January 2015)(First Division)[Sereno, C.J.].
Q17. What is the remedy of the accused in case a judgment of conviction was promulgated in
absentia?
A17. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure or the accused to appear was without justifiable
cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his
arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and
file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the
scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to
avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
________________________
273
See also Cancio, Jr. vs. Isip, G.R. No. 133978 (12 November 2002)(First Division)[Ynares-Santiago, J.].
274
See also Almuete vs. People, 693 SCRA 167 (12 March 2013); and Estrada vs. People, 505 Phil. 339 (25 August 2005)(Second
Division)[Austria-Martinez, J.].
275
See People vs. Chiok, 534 Phil. 538 (27 September 2006)(Third Division) [Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.].
62
Q18. In case the acquittal of the accused is tainted with grave abuse discretion, can it be corrected
by certiorari without violating the right of the accused to double jeopardy?
A18. Yes. Double jeopardy is not triggered when the order of acquittal is void.
Grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, and lack of jurisdiction prevents double
jeopardy from attaching.276
SECTION 7. MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT
Q19. Is it necessary for the convict to appear before the trial court for the promulgation or
affirmance or modification by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals of the judgment of conviction?
Explain the procedure.
A19. No. Administrative Circular No. 16-93, issued on 9 September 1993, set the following decisional
and statutory guidelines on the procedure after affirmance or modification by Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals of judgments of convictions in criminal cases:
x-x-x-x-x
(2) The practice of requiring the convict to appear before the trial court for "promulgation" of the
judgment of the appellate court should, therefore, be immediately discontinued. It is not only an
unauthorized surplusage entailing unnecessary expense, but it could also create security problems where
the convict was already under detention during the pendency of the appeal, and the place of confinement
is at some distance from the station of the court. Upon receipt of the certified copy of the judgment of the
appellate court if the convict is under detention, the trial court should issue forthwith the corresponding
mittimus or commitment order so that the prisoner may be considered remitted or may be transferred to
the corresponding prison facility for confinement and service of sentence. When the convict is out on bail,
the trial court shall immediately order the bondsman to surrender the convict to it within ten (10) days
from notice and thereafter issue the corresponding mittimus. In both cases, the trial court shall submit to
the Supreme Court proof of the execution of judgment within fifteen (15) days from date of such
execution. (Almuete vs. People, 693 SCRA 167, 12 March 2013)(En Banc)[Del Castillo, J.].
JUDGMENT IN CASE OF VARIANCE BETWEEN ALLEGATION AND PROOF (SECTION 4)
Q20. Can an accused be convicted of a crime with which he is not charged?
A20. No. As a rule, an accused can only be convicted of the crime with which he or she is charged. This
rule proceeds from the Constitutional guarantee that an accused shall always be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him or her. 277
Q21. Is there any exception to this rule?
A21. Yes. An exception to this is the rule on variance under Rule 120, Section 4 of the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which states:
Rule 120, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure simply means that if there is a
variance between the offense charged and the offense proved, an accused may be convicted of the offense
proved if it is included in the offense charged. An accused may also be convicted of the offense charged if
it is necessarily included in the offense proved. [Mallari vs. People, G.R. No. 224679 (12 February
2020)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; BBB vs. People, G.R. No. 249307 (27 August 2020)(First Division)[Lazaro-
Javier, J.].]
PROBLEM:
Amalia Simburoso issued five (5) checks at P1.0M each or a total of P5.0M in favor of Jose Dima,
President, and Chairman of the Board of Dima Corp. The company of Dima is the supplier of COVID 19
vaccines in the Municipality of Iraga, which were imported from China. Dima received the checks for
Simburoso‘s investment with the corporation, which shall earn 5% per month. However, Dima personally used
the money in online Sabong and lost his bets. He was charged with estafa by means of deceit under Art.
315(2)(d) of the RPC. After trial, Jose Dima was convicted for other deceits under Art. 318 of the RPC.
Can the conviction of Jose Dima be sustained? Explain.
________________________
276
Villareal vs. People, 680 Phil. 527 (1 February 2012)(Second Division) [Sereno, J.], citing People vs. Hernandez, 531 Phil. 289 (28 August
2006) (Second Division)[Puno, J.].
277
Navarrete vs. People, 542 Phil. 496 (31 January 2007)(First Division)[Corona, J.].
63
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Persons like Jose Dima, who receive money for investment in a particular company but divert
the same to another without the investor's consent may be held criminally liable for other deceits under
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in scope intended to
cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, the crime of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is necessarily included in
the crime of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, Jose Dima
may be convicted of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.
Simply put, an accused may be convicted of an offense proved provided it is included in the charge
or of an offense charged which is included in that which is proved. In the case of Jose Dima in the problem,
he was convicted of the crime falling under "Other deceits" which is necessarily included in the crime of estafa
under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), considering that the elements of deceit and damage also constitute the
former. Hence, Jose Dima‘s right to be properly informed of the accusation against him was never violated.
(Osorio vs. People, G.R. No. 207711, 2 July 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
RULE 121
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
(Sections 1-6)
SECTION 1. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION.
Q1. What is the concept of new trial?
A1. The remedy of new trial has been described as ―a new invention to temper the severity of a
judgment or prevent the failure of justice.‖ 278 Thus, the Rules allow the courts to grant a new trial when there
are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial,
or when there exists newly discovered evidence. In the proceedings for new trial, the errors of law or
irregularities are expunged from the record or new evidence is introduced. Thereafter, the original judgment is
vacated and a new one is rendered.279
Q2. What is the prescribed period to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration?
A2. Under the Rules, a person convicted of a crime may avail of the remedy of new trial before the
judgment of conviction becomes final. Thus, a motion for new trial may be filed within fifteen (15) days
from its promulgation or notice.280
Q3. Can a motion for new trial be filed after the motion for reconsideration was denied?
A3. No. Section 1, Rule 121 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the remedies of
motion for reconsideration and motion for new trial may be availed of at any time before a judgment of
conviction becomes final, which is fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of judgment. (Tejano, Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan, 584 SCRA 191, 7 April 2009)(Third Division)[Peralta, J.].
In Neypes vs. CA,281 the Supreme Court allowed a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a notice of
appeal in the Regional Trial Court to be counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial
or motion for reconsideration. This ―fresh period rule‖ shall also apply to Rule 45 governing appeals by
certiorari to the Supreme Court. Without an appeal, the judgment becomes final upon expiration of the period
and execution should necessarily follow.282
Q4. Why are the courts reluctant in granting a motion for new trial due to newly discovered
evidence? Explain.
A4. The reason why courts are reluctant in granting new trial due to newly discovered evidence is
because, it is presumed that the moving party has had ample opportunity to prepare his case carefully and
to secure all the necessary evidence before the trial. Such motions are treated with great caution due to the
danger of perjury and the manifest injustice of allowing a party to allege that which may be the
________________________
278
Jose vs. CA, 70 SCRA 257 (31 March 1976).
279
People vs. Tamayo, 86 Phil. 209 (25 April 1950).
280
Lumanog vs. Salazar, Jr., 364 SCRA 719 (7 September 2001); People vs. Excija, 258 SCRA 424 (5 July 1996).
281
469 SCRA 633 (14 September 2005).
282
Lubrica vs. People, 516 SCRA 674 (26 February 2007).
64
consequence of his own neglect to defeat an adverse judgment. Hence, the moving party is often required
to rebut a presumption that the judgment is correct and that there has been a lack of due diligence, and to
establish other facts essential to warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered
evidence.283
In Berry vs. State of Georgia,284 the Supreme Court of Georgia held that applications for new trial on
account of newly discovered evidence are not favored by the Courts. Thus, it is incumbent on a party who
asks for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, to satisfy the Court, that:
a) the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial;
b) it was not owing to the want of due diligence that it did not come sooner;
c) it is so material that it would produce a different verdict, if the new trial were granted;
d) it is not cumulative only;
e) the affidavit of the witness himself should be produced, or its absence accounted for; and
f) a new trial will not be granted, if the only object of the testimony is to impeach the character or
credit of a witness.
These standards known as the ―Berry Rule‖ have since been followed by the courts in determining
the propriety of motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Q5. Distinguish a motion to reopen trial from a motion for new trial.
A5. A Motion to reopen trial may be distinguished from Motion for new trial as follows:
(1) A motion to reopen may properly be presented only after either or both parties have formally
offered, and closed their evidence,285 but before judgment.
A motion for new trial is proper only after rendition or promulgation of judgment. 286
(2) A motion for reopening, unlike a motion for new trial, is not specifically mentioned and prescribed
as a remedy by the Rules of Court. There is no specific provision in the Rules of Court governing motions to
reopen. It is albeit a recognized procedural recourse or device, deriving validity and acceptance from long
established usage.
(3) A motion for new trial in civil or criminal actions may be applied for and granted only upon
specific, well-defined grounds, set forth respectively in Rules 37 (Section 1) and 121 (Section 2).
On the other hand, the reopening of a case for the reception of additional evidence after a case has been
submitted for decision but before judgment is actually rendered is controlled by no other rule than that of the
paramount interests of justice, resting entirely in the sound judicial discretion of a Trial Court. Its concession,
or denial, by said Court in the exercise of that discretion will not be reviewed on appeal unless a clear abuse
thereof is shown.287 (Alegre vs. Reyes, 161 SCRA 226, 9 May 1988)(First Division)[Narvasa, J.].288
GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL
SECTION 2. Grounds for a new trial. — The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following
grounds:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been
committed during the trial;
(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted
would probably change the judgment. (2a)
________________________
283
58 Am. Jur. 2d 393; Tadeja vs. People, 691 SCRA 252 (20 February 2013) [Herein author is the counsel for the petitioner Tadeja];
People vs. Licayan, 363 SCRA 234 (15 August 2001).
284
10 Ga. 511 (1851), as cited in Custodio vs. Sandiganbayan, 453 SCRA 24 (8 March 2005).
285
See Rule 132, C, Sections 35 to 38, Rules of Court. The situation is different from that where a party, at the rebuttal stage, wishes to
present additional evidence-in-chief which he may do only by prior leave of court in accordance with Section 1(f), Rule 30 (in relation to
civil cases) and Section 3(c), Rule 119 (as regards to criminal actions).
286
See Rule 37 (civil cases) and Rule 121 (criminal cases), Rules of Court.
287
See Moran. Comments on the Rules. Vol. 2. 1979 ed. (pp. 212-213), citing cases; Francisco. The Revised Rules. Vol. 2. 1966 ed. (p. 494),
also citing cases.
288
See also The United States vs. Vizquera, et al., 4 Phil. 380 (5 April 1905)(En Banc)[Willard, J.]; United States vs. Cinco, et al., 8 Phil. 388
(17 August 1907); US vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303 (15 November 1910); 64 C.J., 160.
65
Q6. Will the error/mistake committed by the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial be a ground
for a new trial? Explain.
A6. No. The error of the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial is neither an error of law nor an
irregularity upon which a motion for new trial may be presented. In criminal cases, as well as in civil cases, it
has frequently been held that the fact that blunders and mistakes may have been made in the conduct of
the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel
does not furnish a ground for new trial. To admit such grounds, as reasons for reopening cases, would be to
put a premium on the willful and intentional commission of errors by accused persons and their counsel, with
a view to securing new trials in the event of conviction. (People vs. Remudo, 364 SCRA 61, 30 August 2001)(En
Banc)[Per Curiam].289
Q7. What is the remedy from the denial of a motion for new trial? Explain.
A7. Appeal is the remedy if the motion for new trial is denied.
In the original text of Sec. 1, Rule 41, an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration was
excluded as subject of an appeal. However, it was amended by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issued its resolution in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (4 December 2007) to approve certain
amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58 and 65 of the Rules of Court effective on December 27, 2007. Among the
amendments was the delisting of an order denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration
from the enumeration found in Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of what are not
appealable. The amended rule now reads:
SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that
completely disposes of the case or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be
appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on
the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims,
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints while the main case is pending, unless the court
allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil
action as provided in Rule 65. (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, 2007) (Sps. Mendiola vs. CA, G.R. No.
159746, 18 July 2012)(First Division) [Bersamin, J.].
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION (SECTION 3)
Q8. What are the grounds for motion for reconsideration?
A8. The grounds are as follows:
1. errors of law; or
2. fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings.
Q9. Can a motion for new trial be treated as a motion for reconsideration? Explain.
________________________
289
See also People vs. Villanueva, 339 SCRA 482 (31 August 2000); US vs. Umali, 15 Phil. 33 (15 January 1910); Briones vs. People, 588
SCRA 362 (5 June 2009); and People vs. Mercado, 397 SCRA 746 (19 February 2003).
66
A9. Yes. A motion for new trial on the ground of errors of law in the judgment may be properly called
a motion for reconsideration because the court is not asked to reopen the case for further proceeding, but
only to reconsider its findings or conditions of law and make them conformable to the law applicable to the
case in the judgment the court has to render anew. 290
Errors of law in the judgment do not affect or invalidate the whole proceeding prior to the judgment, but
only the judgment itself. To correct such errors, no new trial is required but only a reconsideration of the
original and rendition of a new judgment, without necessity of granting new trial. If the court finds its
judgment to be contrary to evidence or law, it may amend such judgment accordingly without granting a new
trial, unless the court deems the introduction of additional evidence advisable.
In the resolution of the motion for reconsideration in the case of People vs. Romero,291 the Supreme Court
laid down the ruling that in criminal cases, a motion for reconsideration on the ground of errors of law in the
judgment is equivalent to a motion for new trial and interrupts the period of fifteen days for the perfection of
an appeal.
REQUISITES BEFORE A NEW TRIAL MAY BE GRANTED ON GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED

EVIDENCE
Q10. What are the requisites for new trial to be granted on the ground of newly discovered
evidence? Explain.
A10. For the court to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the concurrence of
the following requisites must obtain:
(a) the evidence must have been discovered after trial;
(b) the evidence could not have been discovered at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence;
(c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and
(d) the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.292
The most important requisite is that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at
the trial even with reasonable diligence; hence, the term "newly discovered." The determinative test is the
presence of due or reasonable diligence to locate the thing to be used as evidence in the trial. If the alleged
newly discovered evidence could have been very well presented during the trial with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, the same cannot be considered newly discovered. 293
The accused, therefore, has the burden of showing that the new evidence he seeks to present has
complied with the requisites to justify the holding of a new trial. 294
Q11. What are the two (2) aspects of newly discovered evidence?
A11. The two aspects of newly discovered evidence are as follows:
a) a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and
b) a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered.295
It is to the latter that the requirement of due diligence has relevance.
EFFECTS OF GRANTING A NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
SECTION 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. — The effects of granting a new trial
or reconsideration are the following:
(a) When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed during
the trial, all the proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be set aside and taken anew. The court
may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional evidence.
________________________
290
People vs. Tamayo, 86 Phil. 209 (25 April 1950).
291
89 Phil. 672 (31 July 1951).
292
In Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo De Villa, 442 SCRA 706 (17 November 2004); People vs. Bongalon, 374 SCRA 289 (23
January 2002); People vs. Judavar, 380 SCRA 548 (11 April 2002); Lumanog vs. Salazar, Jr., 364 SCRA 719 (7 September 2001); People
vs. Tirona, 300 SCRA 431 (22 December 1998); Amper vs. Sandiganbayan, 279 SCRA 434 (24 September 1997); Dapin vs. Dionaldo, 209
SCRA 38 (15 May 1992).
293
People vs. Li Ka Kim, 429 SCRA 169 (25 May 2004); People vs. Datu, 397 SCRA 695 (19 February 2003); People vs. Mangulabnan, et al.,
99 Phil. 992 (28 September 1956); Reyes vs. People, 71 Phil. 598 (22 April 1941); United States vs. Luzon, 4 Phil. 343 (29 March 1905).
294
Tejano, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 584 SCRA 191 (7 April 2009); Tumang vs. CA, 172 SCRA 328 (17 April 1989). See also Cabarlo vs. People,
507 SCRA 236 (16 November 2006)(En Banc)[Ynares-Santiago, J.].
295
Dinglasan, Jr. vs. CA, 502 SCRA 253 (19 September 2006).
67
(b) When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the evidence already
adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of
justice, allow to be introduced shall be taken and considered together with the evidence already in the
record.
(c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original judgment shall be
set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly. (6a)
Q12. What determines the granting of the motion for new trial or reconsideration?
A12. Interest of justice determines the granting of the motion. In the case of People vs. Almendras,296
the Supreme Court cannot in fairness ascribe any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court for
forfeiting the right of the defense to present evidence due to the defense counsel‘s tactics that took the case
on its lethargic course. However, in view of the death penalty imposed on appellants, the Court was
constrained to rule that the accused-appellants be allowed to present evidence.
Although Section 2 of this Rule enumerates the specific grounds in granting new trial or reconsideration,
and none of which is present in the Almendras case, nonetheless Section 6 on the effects thereof considers
the ―interest of justice‖ as a gauge in the introduction of additional evidence.
Q13. Can an affidavit executed in favor of the accused, which tends to prove their innocence,
warrants the remand of the case by the Supreme Court to the trial court for a new trial?
A13. In previous cases, the Court granted the accused‘s motion for new trial on the basis of affidavits
executed either by witnesses or by the perpetrators of the crime as they tend to establish the innocence of
the accused.297 In the 1987 case of People vs. Amparado298 and Cuenca vs. CA,299 affidavits confessing to the
actual commission of the crime were executed by the supposed culprits. The Supreme Court remanded the
cases to the trial court because of the possibility that, should the affidavits be proven true, the conviction
of the accused could be reversed or at least modified.
Q14. What is the effect if a new trial or reconsideration is granted? Explain.
A14. The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication. Consequently,
the case stands as if there had never been a trial. In US vs. Ayres,300 the Supreme Court of the United States
said:
It is quite clear, that the order granting the new trial has the effect of vacating the former judgment,
and to render it null and void, and the parties are left in the same situation as if no trial had ever taken
place in the case. This is the legal effect of the new trial by a court competent to grant it.301
Q15. If a new trial is granted, what will be the probative value of the evidence presented during the
original trial?
A15. In the 2000 case of People vs. Ebias,302 the Supreme Court expressly ruled in accordance with Rule
121, Section 6 by allowing the evidence already in the record stand and the new evidence to be taken into
account by the trial court and be considered with evidence already in the record and, thereafter,
judgment to be rendered accordingly.
RULE 122
APPEAL
(Sections 1-13)
EFFECT OF AN APPEAL
Q1. What is the effect of an appeal in criminal cases? Explain.
A1. It is a basic principle in criminal law that a notice of appeal throws the entire case open for
review. Once an appeal is accepted by this Court, it will have "the authority to review matters not
________________________
296
401 SCRA 555 (24 April 2003).
297
Helmuth, Jr. vs. People, 112 SCRA 573 (15 March 1982).
298
156 SCRA 712 (21 December 1987).
299
250 SCRA 485 (1 December 1995).
300
9 Wall. 609, 610; 19 Law. ed., 627.
301
People vs. Borjal, 58 Phil. 172 (28 March 1933).
302
342 SCRA 675 (12 October 2000).
68
specifically raised or assigned as errors by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a
just resolution of the case."303 (People vs. Palema, et al., G.R. No. 228000, 10 July 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J].
In criminal cases, however, the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proven.304 To prove guilt, courts must evaluate the evidence presented in relation to the elements of
the crime charged.305 Thus, the finding of guilt is essentially a question of fact. For this reason, the entire
records of a criminal case are thrown open for this Court's review. 306
The Supreme Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual findings of the lower courts, or even
arriving at a different conclusion, "if it is not convinced that the findings are conformable to the evidence on
record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses." 307 The lower courts' factual findings will
not bind this Court if facts that could affect the result of the case "were overlooked and disregarded.‖ 308 (Lapi
vs. People, G.R. No. 210731, 13 February 2019)(Third Division) [Leonen, J.].309
If the Notice of Appeal is filed in accordance with Rule 122,310 Section 3(e), in relation to Rule
311
124, Section 13(c) of the Rules of Court, it opens the entire case for review by the Supreme Court on any
question be it one of fact or law, or mixed, and even one not raised by the parties. 312 (People vs. Fulgado,
G.R. No. 246193, 19 February 2020)(First Division)[Reyes, Jr., J.].313
PROBLEM:
―A‖ was charged and convicted by the trial court for the crime of attempted rape. However, on appeal to
the CA, the judgment was modified, and ―A‖ was convicted for acts of lasciviousness.
Can the People assail the modification of judgment via a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Where the CA modified the accused-appellant‘s conviction from attempted rape to acts of
lasciviousness, it was held that the CA had already acquitted the accused of attempted rape, a review of the
downgrading of the crime will violate the respondent‘s right against double jeopardy.
A judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial court or the appellate court, is final, unappealable,
and immediately executory upon its promulgation.
The provision of Section 1, Rule 45 must be read in relation to Section 1, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which provides that any party may appeal from a judgment or final order ―unless the
accused will thereby be placed in double jeopardy.‖ The judgment that may be appealed by the aggrieved
party envisaged in the Rule is a judgment convicting the accused, and not a judgment of acquittal by a
petition for review. (People vs. Arcega, G.R. No. 237489, 27 August 2020) (First Division)[Peralta, C.J.].314
PROBLEM:
Anthony Tavern and Jess Dima are employees of Dimaculangan Enterprises, the biggest hardware
company in Central Luzon based in Clark Field, Pampanga. They were criminally charged with attempted
theft. However, the MTC of Clark Field acquitted Tavern and Dima. Dimaculangan Ent. filed a Petition for
Certiorari with the RTC, but it was dismissed, and the Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.
________________________
303
People vs. Pirame, 384 Phil. 286 (2000)[Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]. See also Ramos vs. People, G.R. No. 226454 (20 November
2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
304
Const, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2).
305
See Macayan, Jr. vs. People, 756 Phil. 202 (2015)[Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
306
Ferrer vs. People, 518 Phil. 196 (2006)[Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division].
307
People vs. Macasinag, 255 Phil. 279 (1989)[Per J. Cruz, First Division].
308
People vs. Ortiz, 334 Phil. 590 (1997)[Per J. Francisco, Third Division].
309
A case for illegal use of Shabu under Article II, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165.
310
Rule 122 - Appeal
xxxx
SEC. 3. How appeal taken.
xxxx
(e) Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
311
Rule 124 - Procedure in the Court of Appeals
xxxx
SEC. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court. – x x x
xxxx
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and
enter judgment. imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court
of Appeals.
312
People vs. Rivera, 613 Phil. 660 (2009).
313
Accused was acquitted by the SC for Violation of Sections 5 and 11, R.A. No. 9165.
314
Citing People vs. Balunsat, 745 Phil. 54 (2014).
69
Does Dimaculangan Enterprises have the personality to file the Petition for Certiorari with the RTC
and eventually elevate the case to the Supreme Court? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Dimaculangan Enterprises have no authority in filing a special civil action for certiorari with the
RTC to seek the annulment of the decision of the MTC which acquitted Tavern and Dima from the crime
of attempted theft.
It is settled that in criminal cases, the State is the offended party and the private complainant's interest
is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. 315 Hence, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if
there is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken, whenever
legally feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and may be made only by the public
prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The private complainant or offended party may not undertake such motion for reconsideration or appeal on the
criminal aspect of the case. However, the offended party or private complainant may file a motion for
reconsideration of such dismissal or acquittal or appeal therefrom but only insofar as the civil aspect thereof is
concerned. (Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. vs. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 236686, 5 February 2020)(First Division)[Peralta,
C.J.].
WHO MAY APPEAL (SECTION 1); WHERE TO APPEAL (SECTION 2)
Q2. Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court the proper remedy when the court
grants a Motion to Withdraw Information and Release of Bail Bond of the accused?
A2. No. Appeal is the proper remedy. An order granting a motion to withdraw an information and
dismissing a criminal case is final, and the remedy to question this final order is an appeal. (Personal
Collection Direct Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang, G.R. No. 206958, 8 November 2017)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].316
PROBLEM:
Jess Dima and Anthony Tavern are the Barangay Chairman and Treasurer respectively of Brgy. San
Nicolas, City of Iraga. They were indicted for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019. The case emanates from a
public bidding where Dima allowed his sister, Amalia Dima, to participate for the construction of the Barangay
Hall. R.A. No. 9184 and its implementing rules automatically disqualify a relative within the third civil degree
of the head of the procuring entity to participate in a bid.
After trial, Dima and Tavern were convicted by the RTC, Branch 123 of the City of Iraga. Their Motion for
Reconsideration was denied. Thus, they filed a Notice Appeal. However, the Clerk of Court erroneously
transmitted the record of the case to the CA and not to the Sandiganbayan. The CA affirmed the conviction of
Dima and Tavern.
Does the CA have appellate jurisdiction over cases which involve violations of R.A. No. 3019?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The CA does not have appellate jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments, resolutions or orders
of RTCs pertaining to violations of RA 3019. The assailed rulings should, therefore, be vacated and the case,
remanded to the court of origin for referral to the proper forum— the Sandiganbayan.
Dima and Tavern were not responsible for the error in transmitting the case. For such duty rests on the
Clerk of Court as provided by Rule 122, Section 8 of the 2000 Rules of criminal Procedure. They should not
be prejudiced by the Clerk of Court's mistake.317
Dima and Tavern should not be prejudiced by the fault caused by the concerned Clerk of Court. For what
is at stake is no less than their life and liberty. Hence, the dispositions of the CA should be vacated and the
case remanded to the trial court for transmission of the records to the Sandiganbayan. (Hunnob, et al. vs. People,
G.R. No. 248639, 14 October 2019)(Second Division)[Lazaro-Javier, J.].318
________________________
315
Cu vs. Ventura, G.R. No. 224567 (26 September 2018); Cu vs. Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation, etc., G.R. No. 211222
(7 August 2017); Chiok vs. People, et al., 774 Phil. 230 (2015).
316
See also Santos vs. Orda, 634 Phil. 452 (2010)[Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
317
See Dizon vs. People, G.R. No. 155101 (1 December 2014)(Special Second Division)[Sereno, CJ].
318
See also Munez vs. People, G.R. No. 247777 (28 August 2019)(Second Division)[Lazaro-Javier, J.], citing Dizon vs. People, G.R. No.
227577 (24 January 2018).
70
HOW APPEAL TAKEN (SECTION 3)
Q3. How is appeal taken in case of conviction by the RTC? Explain.
A3. From RTC decision if the penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the accused shall file a
notice of appeal as a requirement within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of judgment. If the
penalty is lower than reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment via Rule 45. 319
Q4. If the accused is acquitted in a criminal case, and the same is appealed either to the CA or to the
SC, who is authorized to represent the State? Explain.
A4. It is the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The State has the "inherent prerogative in prosecuting
criminal cases and in seeing to it that justice is served." 320 Subsumed under this right is the authority to appeal
an accused's acquittal. The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the
Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the OSG.(Sec. 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
Administrative Code). The OSG is the law office of the Government. (BDO Unibank, Inc. vs. Choa, G.R. No.
237553, 10 July 2019) (Third Division)[Leonen, J.].321
In criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be
appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private complainant or the offended
party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. In
a catena of cases, this view has been time and again espoused and maintained by the Court.
Q5. Can a private offended party in a criminal case file an appeal to question the award of damages
without the intervention of the state through the Office of the Solicitor General? Explain.
A5. Yes. The private offended party's interest in a criminal case is limited to the civil liability arising
from it.322 It is a fundamental principle in remedial law that if the trial court dismisses the case or renders a
judgment of acquittal, the private offended party cannot appeal the criminal aspect of the case. Only the Office
of the Solicitor General can represent the State in actions brought before the CA or this Court. 323 (Guy vs. Tulfo,
G.R. No. 213023, 10 April 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].324
Q6. If the accused filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause before the
Sandiganbayan and the same was granted that leads to the dismissal of the case, will a certiorari petition
under Rule 65 proper? Explain.
A6. No. Certiorari is not the proper remedy. The proper remedy from the Sandiganbayan Resolutions
dismissing the criminal cases is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 and not under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. The availability of appeal, it being speedy and adequate, proscribes a certiorari petition under Rule 65.
Subject to certain exceptions, 325 the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the
petition following the basic rule that certiorari, being an independent action, is not a substitute for a lost
appeal. (People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 219824-25, 12 February 2019)(First Division)(En Banc)[Reyes, Jr., J.].
Q7. From the RTC conviction of the accused for violation of Section 3(b), R.A. No. 3019, involving a
government employee with salary grade below 27, to which court should the accused appeal his/her
conviction?
A7. The accused should appeal his conviction to the Sandiganbayan. This is provided by P.D. No.
1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660. 326 This is complemented by Section 1, Rule XII, Part III of the Revised
Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan. (Sideno vs. People, G.R. No. 235640, 3 September 2020)(First Division)
________________________
319
See Sec. 3(e), Rule 122 in relation to Section 13(c), Rule 124; People vs. Mateo, 477 Phil. 752 (2004)[Per J. Vitug, En Banc]; Amended
Rules to Govern Review of Death Penalty Cases, Adm. Order No. 00-5-03-SC (2004); and People vs. Feliciano, Jr., et al., G.R. No.
196735 (3 August 2016)(Special Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
320
People vs. Subida, 526 Phil. 115 (2006)[Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
321
Citing Bautista, et al. vs. Cuneta-Pangilinan, 698 Phil. 110 (24 October 2012) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
322
People vs. Santiago, 255 Phil. 851 (1989)[Per J. Gancayco, First Division].
323
People vs. Gabriel, 539 Phil. 252, (2006)[Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Second Division].
324
Citing Banal vs. Tadeo, Jr., 240 Phil. 327 (1987)[Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division]. See also People vs. Santiago, 255 Phil. 851
(1989)[Per J. Gancayco, First Division]; Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Piccio, 740 Phil. 616 (2014)[Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second
Division].
325
As held in Department of Education vs. Cuanan, 594 Phil. 451, (2008):(a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy
dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned
order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. In Tanenglian vs. Lorenzo (573 Phil. 472, 2008), the Court added other
grounds: (a) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his
failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; or (b) in other meritorious cases.
326
An Act Strengthening Further the Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Further Amending Presidential
Decree No. 1606, as amended, and Appropriating Funds Therefor.
71
[Peralta, C.J.].
Q8. Section 2, Rule 50 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides, among others, that an
appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed
outright. Is there an exception to this rule?
A8. Yes. Based on the following reasons:
(1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
(2) the merits of the case;
(3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules;
(4) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory;
(5) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (Sideno vs. People, supra)
EFFECT OF APPEAL BY ANY OF SEVERAL ACCUSED (SECTION 11)
PROBLEM:
―A,‖ ―B‖ and ―C‖ were convicted by the RTC for violation of Section 5, R.A. No. 9165. Only ―A‖ appealed
the case to the CA and eventually to the Supreme Court. The High Court acquitted ―A‖.
What is the effect of the acquittal of ―A‖ to the accused who did not appeal? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acquittal of ―A‖ redounded to the benefit of his co-accused ―B‖ and ―C‖ who did not appeal. This
is in consonance with Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. [People vs. Sison, et al.,
G.R. No. 238453 (31 July 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]; People vs. Fulgado, G.R. No. 246193 (19 February
2020)(First Division) [Reyes, Jr., J.].]
Q9. What is the effect on appeal, if the findings of fact by the trial court is affirmed by the CA?
Explain.
A9. As a general rule, the findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are
given great weight and credence on review. The rationale of the rule is because the trial court has the
advantage of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the
angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a
reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame,
the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the
candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien. 327 [People vs.
Feliciano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196735 (3 August 2016)(Special Third Division)[Leonen, J.], citing People vs. Quijada, G.R.
Nos. 115008-09, 24 July 1996)(En Banc)[Davide, Jr., J.].]
Q10. What are the exceptions to the rule on finality of findings of facts by the trial court when
affirmed by the CA?
A10. The exceptions are as follows:
i. where such findings are clearly arbitrary;
ii. or erroneous as when they are tainted with bias or hostility;
iii. or are so lacking in basis as to suggest that they were reached without the careful study and
perceptiveness that should characterize a judicial decision.328
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
Q11. What are the grounds for the dismissal of appeal? Explain.
________________________
327
People vs. Daniel Quijada, 328 Phil. 505 (1996)[Per J. Davide, En Banc], citing People vs. De Guzman, 188 SCRA 407 (7 August
1990)[Per J. Cruz, First Division]; People vs. De Leon, 315 Phil. 584 (1995)[Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division]; People vs. Delovino, 317
Phil. 741 (1995)[Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division]; Creamer vs. Bivert, 214 MO 473 (1908); M. Frances Mcnamara, 200 Famous Legal
Quotations (1967), 548.
328
People vs. Labarias, 217 SCRA 483 (25 January 1993)[Per J. Cruz, First Division].
72
A11. The grounds for the dismissal of appeal are as follows:
a) For having been taken out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the
reglementary period.329 [Rule 41, Section 13]
In Salvan vs. People,330 the Supreme Court held that the power of the RTC to dismiss an appeal is
limited to the instances specified in the afore-quoted provision. In other words, the RTC has no jurisdiction
to deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground - such as "that an appeal is not a proper remedy."
The authority to dismiss an appeal for being an improper remedy is specifically vested upon the CA and
not the RTC.
b) The fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable. (1a) [Rule 50, Section 1]
Dismissals of appeal may also be had upon the grounds specified by Rule 50 of the Rules of Court;
but it is the Court of Appeals, not the trial court, which is explicitly authorized to dismiss appeals on said
grounds. Generally, these grounds do not include matters which go into the merits of the cause or to the
right of the plaintiff or def end ant to recover. Case law has come to recognize other grounds for dismissal,
by way of exception, e.g., that the cause has become moot, or the appeal is frivolous or manifestly dilatory.
But, to repeat, authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that it is frivolous or taken manifestly for delay "is
not certainly with the court a quo whose decision is an issue, but with the appellate court." 331
RULE 124
PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
(Sections 1-18)
Q1. What are the grounds for the dismissal of an appeal filed before the CA in criminal cases?
A1. Under Section 8, Rule 124 the appeal may be dismissed;
a) On motion of the appellee;
b) or motu proprio on the following grounds:
1. appellant escapes from prison or confinement;
2. jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. (Usares vs. People,
G.R. No. 209047, 7 January 2019) (Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
Q2. What is the rationale for dismissing an appeal upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio by
the CA if the accused-appellant jumps bail during the pendency of his appeal?
A2. The rationale is that an accused-appellant who jumps bail during the pendency of his appeal is
considered to have evaded the established judicial processes to ensure his proper criminal prosecution,
and in so doing, forfeits his right to pursue an appeal. (People vs. Mapalao).332
PROBLEM:
In the RTC Decision dated January 14, 2019, Jess Dimas was convicted for Homicide.
During the promulgation of Judgment on January 18, 2019, Atty. John Laurence Buelo, representing
Dimas, manifested in open court that they intend to file a Notice of Appeal within fifteen (15) days from
January 18, 2019 and moved that Dimas be released under the same bond. The RTC granted the said motion
in an Order issued on even date.
Accordingly, Dimas filed a Notice of Appeal on January 22, 2019, which the RTC granted in an Order
dated January 25, 2019.
On March 15, 2019, a certain Malvino Matalino filed a Motion for the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest,
against Dimas. Matalino averred that Dimas jumps bail.
________________________
329
As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC (1 May 2000).
330
457 Phil. 785 (2003).
331
PBCOM vs. CA, G.R. No. 218901 (15 February 2017)(First Division) [Caguioa, J.].
332
274 Phil. 354 (1991).
73
The CA dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure on
the ground that Dimas jumps bail. Unknown to Dimas, his counsel Atty. Buelo abandoned him without any
information as to his whereabouts. Dimas belatedly filed a Motion for Reconsideration through a certain Atty.
William Halili, stating among others, that Dimas did not jump bail but actually a victim of unprofessionalism of
his counsel. The CA denied Dima‘s Motion for Reconsideration, issued an Entry of Judgment and remanded
the case to the court of origin in RTC Branch 123 of the City of Iliyan for the issuance of the warrant and
implementation of the final and executory decision.
Is the dismissal of the appeal correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. While as a general rule, the negligence of counsel may not be condoned and should bind the
client, the exception is when such negligence is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is
deprived of his or her day in court, 333 the Supreme Court has ruled that dismissal of appeals purely on
technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat
their very aims.334 (Usares vs. People, supra).
PROBLEM:
Antone Tavern was charged with two (2) counts of rape of his then eleven (11)-year old niece-in-law,
AAA.
After trial in the RTC, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of simple statutory
rape, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, and to
indemnify AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each
count of rape, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
On appeal to the CA, it affirmed the ruling of the RTC with modification, adjusting the award of damages
in favor of AAA to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages, plus legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the ruling
until fully paid.
Dissatisfied, Antone Tavern moved for reconsideration of the CA adverse decision but the same was
denied. He then filed an Appeal via Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure to the Supreme Court.
Is the remedy of Antone Tavern correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Antone Tavern made a procedural lapse in elevating the case before the Supreme Court via petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Section 3(e), Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure especially provides that ―except as provided in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule 124, all
other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.‖
In the problem, the CA affirmed the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua to Antone for each
count of Statutory Rape committed against AAA. As such, he should have filed a notice of appeal before the
CA instead of a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, Antone‘s failure to timely file a notice of appeal before the CA resulted in the latter court's
Decision and the Resolution to the Motion for Reconsideration lapsing into finality. [Antone vs. People, 845 SCRA
294 (20 November 2017)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]. See also People vs. Lumayag, et al., G.R. No. 181474 (26
July 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].335]
Q3. What is the difference between an appeal by Petition for Review under Rule 45 and an appeal
under Rule 124, Section 13?
A3. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 must be differentiated from appeals under Rule
124, Section 13336 involving cases where the lower court imposed on the accused the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment, or, previously, death:337
________________________
333
See Hilario vs. People, 574 Phil. 348 (2008).
334
Sarmiento vs. Zaratan, 543 Phil. 232 (2007).
335
The High Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. [Rule 124, Section 13(c)
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure].
336
As amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated 28 September 2004. See also People vs. Mateo, G.R. No. 14767887 (7 July 2004)[Per J. Vitug,
En Banc].
337
See Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."
74
Where the CA finds that the imposable penalty in a criminal case brought to it on appeal is at least
reclusion perpetua, death or life imprisonment, then it should impose such penalty, refrain from entering
judgment thereon, certify the case and elevate the entire records to the Supreme Court for review. This will
obviate the unnecessary, pointless and time-wasting shuttling of criminal cases between the Supreme Court
and the CA, for by then the Supreme Court will acquire jurisdiction over the case from the very inception and
can, without bothering the CA which has fully completed the exercise of its jurisdiction, do justice in the case.
On the other hand, where the CA imposes a penalty less than reclusion perpetua, a review of the case
may be had only by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 where only errors or questions of law
may be raised.338
An appeal in a criminal case "throws the whole case open for review." 339 The underlying principle is that
errors in an appealed judgment, even if not specifically assigned, may be corrected motu propio by the
Supreme Court if the consideration of these errors is necessary to arrive at a just resolution of the case. 340
Nevertheless, "the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process, it being merely a
statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner provided for by law." 341 (Dela Cruz vs. People,
G.R. No. 209387, 11 January 2016)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
RULE 125
PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT
(Sections 1-3)
SECTION 1. UNIFORM PROCEDURE.
Q1. Can the provision of Section 8, Rule 124 on dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to
prosecute be applied in the Supreme Court? Explain.
A1. Yes. Although Rule 124, Section 8 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure particularly applies to the
CA, it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the same Rules.
In the 2009 case of People vs. Taruc,342 the trial court promulgated a judgment of conviction while
accused-appellant was at large. He remains at large even while his counsel continues to file various pleadings
on his behalf before the RTC, the CA, and the Supreme Court. Given that the accused-appellant escaped
from jail and eluded arrest until when his appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, the issue of
whether he has lost his right to appeal his conviction inexorably ensues. He cannot so audaciously hope
that his appeal before the highest Court would succeed.
Q2. What is the effect if a new trial is granted by the Supreme Court?
A2. When new trial is granted, it vacates both the judgment of the trial court convicting the
accused343 and the judgment of the CA affirming it.344 It remands the case to the trial court for reception of
newly-discovered evidence and promulgation of a new judgment, 345 and at times with instruction to the trial
court to promptly report the outcome. 346 The Supreme Court itself does not conduct the new trial for it is no
trier of facts.347 (People vs. Fitzgerald, 505 SCRA 573, 27 October 2006)(First Division) [Austria-Martinez, J.].
Q3. What is the effect if the CA grants a new trial?
A3. When the CA grants a new trial, unlike the Supreme Court, it may decide questions of fact and
mixed questions of fact and law.348 Thus, when it grants a new trial under Sec. 14, Rule 124, it may either:
________________________
338
Mercado vs. People, 441 Phil. 216 (2002)[Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division]. The case was decided in 2002 before the amendment of the
Rules in A.M. No. 00-5-3-SC dated 28 September 2004.
339
People vs. Galigao, 443 Phil. 246 (2003)[Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc], citing People vs. Tano, 387 Phil. 465 (2000)[Per J.
Panganiban, En Banc] and People vs. Castillo, 382 Phil. 499 (2000)[Per J. Puno, En Banc].
340
People vs. Galigao, 443 Phil. 246 (2003)[Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc], citing People vs. Pirame, 384 Phil. 286 (2000)[Per J.
Quisumbing, Second Division].
341
People vs. Judge Laguio, Jr., 547 Phil. 296 (2007)[Per J. Garcia, First Division].
342
579 SCRA 682 (18 February 2009).
343
Callagan vs. People, 493 SCRA 269 (27 June 2006).
344
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 543 (6 February 1997).
345
People vs. Almendras, 401 SCRA 555 (24 April 2003); People vs. Del Mundo, 262 SCRA 266 (20 September 1996).
346
People vs. Datu, 397 SCRA 695 (19 February 2003).
347
Ruiz vs. People 475 SCRA 476 (18 November 2005).
348
Suarez vs. Villarama, Jr., 493 SCRA 74 (27 June 2006).
75
(a) directly receive the purported newly-discovered evidence under Sec. 12;349 or
(b) refer the case to the court of origin for reception of such evidence under Sec. 15.350
In either case, it does not relinquish to the trial court jurisdiction over the case. It retains sufficient
authority to resolve incidents in the case and decide its merits.
SECTION 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. — The procedure for the review by the
Supreme Court of decisions in criminal cases rendered by the Court of Appeals shall be the same as in
civil cases. (2a)
PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 2, RULE 125
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the procedure referred to under this Section 2 of Rule
125.
By certiorari, the appellate or superior court can only review questions or errors of law decided or
committed by the lower court. Questions or findings of fact of the inferior tribunal cannot be reviewed on
certiorari. Evidence which is made a part of the record cannot be examined to determine whether or not it
justifies the finding on which the decision or judgment was made. 351
Q4. What is error of judgment?
A4. An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and
which error is reversible only by an appeal. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged
errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment,
correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 352
Q5. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review the evidence presented? Explain.
A5. No. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to go over the evidence in order to decide whether the
conclusions of fact of the Court of Appeals are correct or not. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited
to pass upon errors of law committed by the CA. 353 The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to alter or modify
the conclusions of fact of the CA.354 Thus, in one case, the Supreme Court held that as to whether there was a
provocation or not is a question of fact and that the findings of the CA on questions of facts are final. 355
Q6. What is the mode of appeal in criminal cases where death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is the penalty imposed? Explain.
A6. Section 9, Rule 45 provides that the mode of appeal prescribed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure shall be applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in criminal cases where the
penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment which is via notice of appeal. [See
Section 3(c)(e), Rule 122 in relation to Section 13(c), Rule 124; Antone vs. People, G.R. No. 225146 (20 November
2017)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].]
The purpose of review by the Supreme Court upon all cases in which capital punishment has been
imposed by the trial court, as first enunciated by the Supreme Court in US vs. Laguna,356 is one having for its
object simply and solely the protection of the accused. Having received the highest penalty which the law
imposes, he is entitled to have the sentence and all the facts and circumstances upon which it is founded
placed before the highest tribunal of the land, to the end that its justice and legality may be clearly and
conclusively determined. Such a procedure is merciful; it gives the accused a second chance for life. It is a
positive provision of law that brooks no interference and tolerates no evasions, and neither the courts nor the
accused can waive it.
________________________
349
Sec. 12. Power to receive evidence. – The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence
and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases (a) falling within its original jurisdiction; (b) involving
claims for damages arising from provisional remedies, or (c) where the court grants a new trial only on the ground of newly-discovered
evidence.
350
Sec. 15. Where new trial conducted. – When a new trial is granted, the Court of Appeals may conduct the hearing and receive
evidence as provided in Section 12 of this Rules or refer the trial to the court of origin.
351
Sotto vs. COMELEC, 76 Phil. 516 (16 April 1946); Elks Club vs. Rovira, 80 Phil. 272 (24 February 1948).
352
People vs. CA, 308 SCRA 687 (21 June 1999).
353
Mateo vs. Collector of Customs, 63 Phil. 470 (21 September 1936).
354
Guico vs. Mayuga and Heirs of Mayuga, 63 Phil. 328 (21 August 1936); Mamuyac vs. Abena, 67 Phil. 289 (12 April 1939); Meneses vs.
Commonwealth of the Philippines, 69 Phil. 647 (2 April 1940); Onglengco vs. Ozaeta and Hernandez, 70 Phil. 43 (20 June 1940).
355
De las Alas vs. People, 78 Phil. 868 (31 July 1947).
356
17 Phil. 533 (20 December 1910).
76
Q7. What is the present rule as regards the review of judgment if the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment? Explain.
A7. In People vs. Rocha, et al. (G.R. No. 173797, 31 August 2007)(Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.],
citing the case of People vs. Mateo,357 the High Court pronounced:
While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases where the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed
an intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases
a review by the CA before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.
Thus, in view of the Mateo ruling, the present procedure in the review of criminal cases if the penalty
imposed by the RTC is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are as follows:
i. The mandatory review by the Supreme Court is only required for cases where the penalty
imposed is death. No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the Regional Trial Court imposed the death
penalty.358 Where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to the Court of
Appeals for automatic review and judgment.359
ii. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a review of the trial court
decision is conducted only when the accused files a notice of appeal. Neither the Decision of the Court in
Mateo nor the abolition of the death penalty has changed this.
As the penalty imposed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals in Rocha is reclusion perpetua, the
review by the Supreme Court is not mandatory and, therefore, the accused-appellants can validly withdraw
their appeal. The rule that neither the accused nor the courts can waive a mandatory review is not applicable.
However, the granting of a Motion to Withdraw Appeal is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court.
SECTION 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided. — When the Supreme Court en banc is equally
divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had on whether to acquit the appellant, the case
shall again be deliberated upon and if no decision is reached after re-deliberation, the judgment of
conviction of the lower court shall be reversed and the accused acquitted. (3a)
Q8. What is the effect if no majority vote for an en banc decision is obtained as regards the acquittal
of the accused in a criminal case? Explain.
A8. In an appeal of a criminal case, if the Supreme Court is equally divided as to the guilt of the
appellant or the necessary votes for a judgment of conviction (eight) cannot be had, the decision of conviction
of the lower court shall be reversed, and the defendant acquitted.
In People vs. Fernandez,360 nine (9) members of the Supreme Court en banc were for the acquittal of the
appellants Labra and Barcelona, hence they were both acquitted and their immediate release was ordered.
However, as regards appellants Fernandez and Antido, there were six (6) votes sustaining the finding of
incomplete self-defense and for the imposition upon each of them of the indeterminate penalties only of six (6)
months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum, for the murder, plus
the straight penalty four (4) months of arresto mayor, for each of them, for the frustrated murder. Six (6) other
members of the Court voted for higher penalties.
In other words, there were six (6) Justices who voted for the penalty imposed by the ponente appropriate
for homicide with the mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender and
equally six (6) votes for varying higher penalties.
Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 125 and by parity of reasoning, the Court, by the vote of twelve (12)
members of the Court, the lower penalty stated above was imposed upon each of the appellants Fernandez
and Antido.
________________________
357
433 SCRA 640 (7 July 2004).
358
Sec. 3(d), Rule 122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.
359
Sec. 10, Rule 122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.
360
111 SCRA 100 (27 January 1982).
77
RULE 126
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
(Sections 1-14)
NATURE OF SEARCH WARRANT
SEC. 1. SEARCH WARRANT DEFINED.
Q1. What is the nature of the issuance of a search warrant?
A1. A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as 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 and bring it before the court.
A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and
peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity.
In American jurisdictions, from which we have taken our jural concept and provisions on search
warrants, such warrant is definitively considered merely as a process, generally issued by a court in the
exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its
original jurisdiction. Clearly then, an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action.361
Q2. What is the legal basis of the issuance of a search warrant? Explain.
A2. The legal and constitutional basis of the issuance of search warrant like the warrant of arrest is
Section 2,362 Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
The issuance of a search warrant must be premised on a finding of probable cause; that is, the
existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place to be searched.363 (People vs. Sison, et al., G.R. No. 238453, 31 July 2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q3. What is required in the conduct of a warrantless search by a law enforcer? Explain.
A3. In warrantless searches, law enforcers "must not rely on a single suspicious circumstance." What
is required is the "presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together,
warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity.‖ Indeed, it is unlikely that a law enforcer's suspicion
is reasonably roused at the sight of a single activity, which may very well be innocent. It is far more likely that
there first be several, continuous, peculiar acts of a suspect before any law enforcer's suspicion is roused. At
every peculiar act done, a law enforcer's suspicion is successively confirmed and strengthened.364
Q4. What is the consequence of illegal searches and seizures conducted by police officers?
A4. Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution stipulates that illegal searches and seizures result in
the inadmissibility in evidence of whatever items were seized:
SECTION 3. x-x-x-x
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of [the right against unreasonable searches and seizures]
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
This exclusionary rule is a protection against erring officers who deliberately or negligently disregard the
proper procedure in effecting searches, and would so recklessly trample on one's right to privacy. By negating
the admissibility in evidence of items seized in illegal searches and seizures, the Constitution declines to
validate the law enforcers' illicit conduct. "Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an
________________________
361
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation and Petron Corporation vs. Romars International Gases Corporation, G.R. No. 189669 (16
February 2015)(Third Division)[Peralta, J.].
362
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
363
Century Chinese Medicine Company vs. People, 720 Phil. 795 (2013)[Per J. Peralta, Third Division], citing Sony Music Entertainment
(Philippines), Inc. vs. Hon. Español, 493 Phil. 507 (2005)[Per J. Garcia, Third Division].
364
People vs. Cogaed, supra, citing J. Bersamin, Dissenting opinion in Esquillo vs. People, supra; People vs. Malmstedt, 275 Phil. 447
(1991)[Per J. Padilla, En Banc]; People vs. Que; 333 Phil. 582 (1996)[Per J. Puno, Second Division]; Aniag, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 307 Phil.
437 (1994)[Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc].
78
unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree."365
Q5. What are the consequences if the arrest is declared invalid?
A5. The invalidity of an arrest leads to several consequences among which are:
(a) the failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of an accused;
(b) criminal liability of law enforcers for illegal arrest; and
(c) any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid thus rendering the evidence acquired as
constitutionally inadmissible.
Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an invalid arrest must be raised through a
motion to quash before an accused enters his or her plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived and an
accused is "estopped from questioning the legality of his or her arrest." 366
The voluntary submission of an accused to the jurisdiction of the court and his or her active participation
during trial cures any defect or irregularity that may have attended an arrest. 367 The reason for this rule is that
"the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused."368
Nevertheless, failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused from
questioning the admissibility of evidence seized.369 The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an
accused fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person in a timely manner. Jurisdiction over
the person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually
exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.
As a component of the right to privacy, 370 the fundamental right against unlawful searches and seizures
is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution under Article III, Section 2 thereof. (Veridiano vs. People, G.R. No.
200370, 7 June 2017)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Q6. What is the concept of the plain view doctrine? Explain.
A6. Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer,
who has a right to be in a position to have that view, may be validly seized by such officer without a warrant
and, thus, may be introduced in evidence. 371 An object is deemed in plain view when it is "open to eye and
hand"372 or is "plainly exposed to sight."373 (Pilapil, Jr. vs. Cu, supra).
Q7. What are the requisites for the application of the plain view doctrine?
A7. The requisites so that the "plain view" doctrine can be applied are as follows:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion
or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.374
DISTINGUISH FROM WARRANT OF ARREST
Q8. Distinguish warrant of arrest from search warrant.
A8. The following are the distinctions:
________________________
365
Ambre vs. People, 692 Phil. 681(2012)[Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
366
People vs. Lopez, Jr., 315 Phil. 59 (1995)[Per J. Kapunan, First Division]. See Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 331 Phil. 531 (1996)[Per J.
Panganiban, En Banc]; Rebellion vs. People, 637 Phil. 339 (2010)[Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
367
People vs. Lapitaje, 445 Phil. 729 (2003)[Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc]; Rebellion vs. People, 637 Phil. 339 (2010)[Per J. Del Castillo,
First Division].
368
People vs. Escordial, 424 Phil. 627 (2002)[Per J. Mendoza, En Banc], citing People vs. Timon, 346 Phil. 572 (1997)[Per J. Panganiban,
Third Division].
369
Homar vs. People, G.R. No. 182534 (2 September 2015)[Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Sindac vs. People, G.R. No. 220732 (6 September
2016)[Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]; People vs. Racho, 640 Phil. 669 (2010)[Per J. Nachura, Second Division]; People vs.
Martinez, 652 Phil. 347 (2010)[Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]. See Antiquera vs. People, 723 Phil. 425 (2013)[Per J. Abad, Third
Division].
370
People vs. Cogaed, supra.
371
Miclat, Jr. vs. People, 672 Phil. 191 (2011).
372
Cruz, Isagani A. and Cruz, Carlo L., Constitutional Law (2015 edition), p. 372, citing Harris vs. U.S., 390 U.S. 234 (1968).
373
Miclat, Jr. vs. People, supra.
374
Ibid.
79
(a) Generally, a search warrant must be issued before the filing of charges or the arrest of an
individual. It is principally governed by Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. It finds its
constitutional basis like the issuance of warrant of arrest in Art. III, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution.
Whereas, a warrant of arrest may be issued after the filing of the Information in court and judicial
determination of probable cause.
(b) The search warrant is valid only for 10 days from the date of its issuance pursuant to Section 10,
Rule 126.
Whereas, a warrant of arrest remains outstanding until the accused is arrested.
(c) If the search warrant is issued by the SC and the CA, it is implementable anywhere in the
Philippines.
[NOTE: Pursuant to A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC promulgated on 25 January 2000, if the application of the SW
is made by the NBI and PNP-CIDG in Manila and Quezon City involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling,
dangerous drugs and illegal possession of fire arms, the SW can be issued by the Executive Judge and Vice
Executive Judges of Manila and Quezon City, which may be served in places outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the said courts.
Otherwise, the search warrant is only implementable within the judicial region of the issuing court.
[Section 2(b), Rule 126].
See further A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants),
dated 29 June 2021, in Rule 113.]
(d) MTC Judges can issue a search warrant even if it has no criminal jurisdiction of the alleged crime
committed pursuant to the 2016 case of People vs. Castillo, Jr..375
The High Court held that: Municipal Trial Court has the authority to issue search warrant involving an
offense in which it has no jurisdiction. Thus, the Municipal Trial Court of Gattaran, Cagayan has the
authority to issue a search warrant to search and seize the dangerous drugs stated in the application
thereof in Aparri, Cagayan, a place that is within the same judicial region. The fact that the search warrant
was issued means that the MTC judge found probable cause to grant the said application after the latter was
found by the same judge to have been filed for compelling reasons. Therefore, Sec. 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court was duly complied with.
Whereas, for warrant of arrest, whether it is issued by the RTCs or MTCs, it is implementable anywhere
in the Philippines.
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT, WHERE FILED (SECTION 2)
Q9. Can the application for a search warrant be made with another court other than the court which
has territorial jurisdiction over the alleged crime committed?
A9. Yes. Under Section 2(b), Rule 126, the application for a search warrant should have stated
compelling reasons why the same was being filed outside of the court's territorial jurisdiction where the
alleged crime was committed and the place where the search warrant was to be enforced. The wording of the
provision is of a mandatory nature, requiring a statement of compelling reasons if the application is filed in
a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place of commission of the crime. Since
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of persons to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures, and search warrants constitute a limitation on this right, then Section 2, Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should be construed strictly against state authorities who would be
enforcing the search warrants. 376
PROBLEM:
The CIDG of the province of Iliyan received reports that Ramolete Enterprises is selling fake LPG gas
tanks manufactured by Lee Petroleum and Gas Products and Bhotsot Gas Supplies Inc. The location of the
sales and distributions is in Barangay San Nicolas, City of Iraga, province of Iliyan. However, the CIDG learned
that the owner of Ramolete Enterprises is a very influential person and known to be a political kingpin in the
City of Iraga. Thus, while there are six (6) branches of RTC in the City of Iraga, the CIDG applied a search
warrant in Magayon City, the capital of the province of Iliyan. The RTC of Magayon City, after finding probable
________________________
375
G.R. No. 204419 (7 November 2016).
376
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Romars International Gases Corporation, 750 SCRA 547 (16 February 2015).
80
cause, issued the search warrant. The implementation was smooth, and the CIDG confiscated the gas tanks
subject of the search warrant. The counsel for Ramolete Enterprises filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant
on the ground that the RTC of Magayon City has no jurisdiction over the alleged crime committed because it is
outside of its territorial jurisdiction. The RTC of Magayon City granted the Motion to Quash.
Is the quashal of the search warrant by RTC, Magayon City correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The proceedings for applications of search warrant are not criminal in nature thus, the rule that
venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto. It is erroneous to equate the application for and the obtention
of a search warrant with the institution and prosecution of a criminal action in a trial court. It is, therefore,
incorrect to say that only the court which has jurisdiction over the criminal case can issue the search warrant
and that a court whose territorial jurisdiction does not embrace the place to be searched cannot issue a search
warrant therefor, where the obtention of that search warrant is necessitated and justified by compelling
considerations of urgency, subject, time and place.
The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980377 conferred on the regional trial courts and their judges a
territorial jurisdiction, regional in scope. Thus, any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
committed may validly entertain an application for and issue a search warrant in connection with said crime.
However, in the National Capital Judicial Region, Administrative Circular No. 13 of 01 October 1985 as
amended by Circular No. 19 of 04 August 1987 must be observed. After the criminal complaint or information
is filed with the appropriate court, search warrants in connection with the crime charged may only be issued
by said court.
The wording of the provision is of a mandatory nature, requiring a statement of compelling reasons if the
application is filed in a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place of commission of the
crime. (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Romars International Gases Corporation, 750 SCRA 547, 16 February
2015)(Third Division)[Peralta, J.].378
Q10. Will an administrative case prosper against a judge to determine whether the application for a
search warrant has compelling reason that justifies the issuance for the crime committed outside his
territorial jurisdiction? Explain.
A10. No. It must be done through a judicial proceeding. Administrative proceeding is not the proper
forum to review the search warrants issued by a Judge in order to determine whether the compelling reasons
cited in the application is indeed meritorious. It could hardly be determined whether the Judge violated
Section 2 of Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure by simply issuing search warrants involving
crimes committed outside their territorial jurisdiction.
The propriety of the issuance of search warrant is a matter that should be raised in a motion to quash
or in a certiorari petition, if there are allegations of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the issuing
judge. (In Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the RTC, Branch 170, Malabon City, A.M. No. 16-
05-142-RTC, 5 September 2017)(En Banc)[Del Castillo, J.].
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT (SECTION 4)
Q11. What are the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant?
A11. The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are:
(1) probable cause is present;
(2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
(3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the
witnesses he or she may produce;
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.379
(Petron LPG Dealers Association vs. Ang, 783 SCRA 162, 3 February 2016).
________________________
377
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (14 August 1981).
378
Citing Malaloan vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (6 May 1994). See also People vs. Chiu, 424 SCRA 72 (27 February 2004); In Re: Report on the
Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the RTC, Branch 170, Malabon City, A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC (5 September 2017)(En Banc)[Del
Castillo, J.].
379
Del Castillo vs. People, 664 SCRA 430 (30 January 2012).
81
Q12. Before issuing a Search Warrant, is it mandatory for the Judge to examine both the applicant
and his/her witnesses? Explain.
A12. No. The purpose of the proceeding is for the judge to determine that probable cause exists. Thus,
there is no need to examine both the applicant and the witness/es if either one of them is sufficient to
establish probable cause. [People vs. Gabiosa, G.R. No. 248395 (29 January 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.], citing
Alvarez vs. CFI of Tayabas].380
PARTICULARITY OF PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THINGS TO BE SEIZED (SECTION 4)
Q13. What is the source of the principle of particularity?
A13. The Source of the particularity is Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution — one of two
provisions in the Bill of Rights preserving the citizens' right to privacy 381 — protects every citizen's right
against unreasonable searches and seizures. It preserves, in essence, the right of the people "to be let alone"
vis-à-vis the far-reaching and encompassing powers of the State, with respect to their persons, houses,
papers, and effects. It thus ensures protection of the individual from arbitrary searches and arrests initiated
and perpetrated by the State. [People vs. Gabiosa, G.R. No. 248395 (29 January 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.];
Diaz vs. People, G.R. No. 213875 (15 July 2020)(Second Division) [Hernando, J.].]
Q14. What is the test to determine whether the search warrant passed the requirement of
definiteness and or particularity? Explain.
A14. The test that must be met is whether the description of the place to be searched under the
warrant is sufficient and descriptive enough to prevent a search of other premises located within the
surrounding area or community. A "place" may refer to a single building or structure, or a house or
residence.382
PERSONAL EXAMINATION BY JUDGE OF THE APPLICANT AND WITNESSES (SECTION 5)
Q15. What is necessary in the issuance of a search warrant?
A15. The existence of a probable cause to be determined by the judge for the issuance of a warrant.
Its existence largely depends on the finding of the judge conducting the examination. 383
Q16. Is the non-attachment of the transcript of the examination by the Judge a ground to invalidate
the search warrant he issued? Explain.
A16. No. To substantiate a finding of probable cause, Section 5 of Rule 126 specifically provided for its
requirements. However, failure to attach to the records the depositions of the complainant and his
witnesses and/or the transcript of the judge's examination, though contrary to the Rules, does not by itself
nullify the warrant. The requirement to attach is merely a procedural rule and not a component of the
right. Rules of procedure or statutory requirements, however salutary they may be, cannot provide new
constitutional requirements.384 Instead, what the Constitution requires is for the judge to conduct an
"examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce," after
which he determines the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.
Q17. What is the purpose of taking depositions of the complainant and his/her witnesses in the
application for a search warrant?
A17. The purpose of the Rules in requiring depositions to be taken is to satisfy the examining
magistrate as to the existence of probable cause.385 The Bill of Rights does not make it an imperative
necessity that depositions be attached to the records of an application for a search warrant. Hence, said
omission is not necessarily fatal, for as long as there is evidence on the record showing what testimony was
presented.386 (People vs. Tee, 395 SCRA 419, 20 January 2003)(En Banc) [Quisumbing, J.].
Q18. What does ―searching questions‖ mean under Section 5, Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure? Explain.
________________________
380
64 Phil. 33 (1937).
381
The other one being Article III, Section 3 on the right to privacy of communication and correspondence.
382
U.S. Federal courts consistently held that the "place" particularly described as required under the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution, when applied to dwellings, refers to a single living unit or residence. (United States vs. Parmenter, 7th Cir. 1982,
531 F. Supp. 975, citing United States vs. Hinton, 7 Cir. 1955, 219 F.2d 324).
383
Luna vs. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310 (29 November 1968); Abuan vs. People, 505 SCRA 799 (27 October 2006).
384
US vs. Berkus, 428 F.2d 1148.
385
Alvarez vs. CFI of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33 (29 January 1937).
386
State vs. Sherrick, 98 Ariz 46, 402 P2d 1, 6 (1965), cert den 384 US 1022, 16 L. Ed 2d 1024, 86 S Ct. 1938.
82
A18. The searching questions propounded to the applicant and the witnesses depend largely on the
discretion of the judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule governing how a judge should conduct his
examination, it is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary,
general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro-forma. The judge must not simply rehash the contents of the
affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. The questions
should not merely be repetitious of the averments stated in the affidavits or depositions of the applicant
and the witnesses. If the judge fails to determine probable cause by personally examining the applicant and
his witnesses in the form of searching questions before issuing a search warrant, grave abuse of discretion is
committed. [People vs. Gabiosa, G.R. No. 248395 (29 January 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.], citing People vs.
Choi].387
Q19. What is the liability of the issuing Judge of a search warrant if he failed to reduce in writing
the examination conducted? Explain.
A19. The judge could be held liable for gross ignorance of the law for his failure to reduce the
examination in writing relative to his issuance of a search warrant. No record of searching questions and
answers attached to the records of the case is in palpable disregard of the statutory requirement. (Balayon, Jr.
vs. Dinopol, 490 SCRA 547, 15 June 2006)(First Division) [Chico-Nazario, J.].
PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED (SECTION 3)
Q20. What is the general rule as regards to the property that may be seized by virtue of a search
warrant?
A20. The general rule is only personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by
the authorities. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a
fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. 388
Q21. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search in any particular case?
A21. It is considered as a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances

involved. The rule is that the Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal effects or
residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in compliance with the procedure
outlined in the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court. 389
PROBLEM:
Police Major Jose Dima Jr., the Chief of the DEU of the PNP-Iliyan City, applied for a Search Warrant due
to alleged violations of R.A. No. 9165 he received from his informant. After the findings of probable cause, the
RTC of the City of Iliyan issued the Search Warrant. The subject of the offense stated in the search warrant are
the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and paraphernalias only at the residence of Amado Rosin Jr.,
located at No. 2777 Ilang-Ilang Street, Barangay San Juan, City of Iliyan. Together with seven (7) police
officers under the supervision of Major Dima, Jr., they also seized a lady‘s wallet, cash, grinder, camera,
component, speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer, drill, and bolo, which they found
in the said place.
Can the seized items be admissible as evidence against Amado Rosin, Jr.? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
We should qualify the answer:
Insofar as the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and paraphernalia are concerned, they are
admissible as evidence against Amado Rosin, Jr. However, the lady‘s wallet, cash, grinder, camera,
component, speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer, drill, and bolo, they are
inadmissible. The items other than those enumerated in the Search Warrant were not encompassed by the
word paraphernalia as they bear no relation to the use or manufacture of drugs. In seizing the said items
then, the police officers exercised their own discretion and determined for themselves which items in Rosin‘s
residence they believed were ―proceeds of the crime‖ or ―means of committing the offense.‖ This is absolutely
impermissible.390
________________________
387
529 Phil. 538 (2006).
388
People vs. Del Rosario, 234 SCRA 246 (20 July 1994).
389
People vs. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (17 June 1999).
390
See also People vs. Nuñez, 591 SCRA 394 (30 June 2009); and Tambasen vs. People, 246 SCRA 184 (14 July 1995).
83
The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and
only those, particularly described in the search warrant and to leave the officers of the law with no
discretion regarding what articles they should seize, and seizures may not be made and that abuses may
not be committed.391
EXCEPTIONS TO SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT
Q22. What are the valid searches without warrants?
A22. Yes. Jurisprudence recognizes exceptional instances when warrantless searches and seizures are
considered permissible:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view‖;
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
[Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy
especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to
probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity.]392
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and frisk;393
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.394 [Manibog vs. People, G.R. No. 211214 (20 March
2019)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]. See also Pilapil, Jr. vs. Cu (G.R. No. 228608) and People vs. Cu (G.R. No.
228589, 27 August 2020)(First Division)[Peralta, C.J.].]
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST (SECTION 13)
REVIEW MOTES AND CASES
Q23. What does search incident to lawful arrest means? Explain.
A23. It means that there should first be a lawful arrest before the warrantless search can be made;
the process cannot be reversed. 395 As such, the search made against the future accused would be valid only if
sufficient probable cause to support it existed independently of the arrest. (People vs. Gardon-Mintoy, G.R. No.
223140, 4 September 2019)(First Division)[Bersamin, C.J.].
CONSENTED SEARCH
Q24. What is a consented search? Explain.
A24. Waiver of any objection to the unreasonableness or invalidity of a search is a recognized exception
to the rule against a warrantless search. 396 The consent to the search, however, must be express, knowing and
voluntary. A search based merely on implied acquiescence is not valid, because such consent is not within the
purview of the constitutional guarantee, but only a passive conformity to the search given under intimidating
and coercive circumstances.397
In People vs. Lacerna,398 it was held that the otherwise prohibited intrusive search of appellants plastic
bag was validated by the express consent of appellant himself, who was observed to be urbanized in
mannerism and speech, and who moreover stated that he had nothing to hide and had done nothing wrong.
________________________
391
Del Rosario vs. People, 358 SCRA 373 (31 May 2001); Roan vs. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (25 November 1986); Corro vs. Lising, 137 SCRA
541 (15 July 1985); Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (27 February 1971); UyKheytin vs. Villareal, 42 Phil. 886 (21
September 1920).
392
People vs. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315 (2010)[Per J. Nachura, Second Division]; Caballes vs. CA, 424 Phil. 263 (2002)[Per J. Puno, First
Division]; Laud vs. People, 747 Phil. 503 (2014)[Per Curiam, First Division], citing Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc., 563 Phil. 781 (2007)[Per
J. Tinga, Second Division]; People vs. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 (1998)[Per J. Romero, Third Division].
393
Malacat vs. CA, 347 Phil. 462 (1997)[Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc], citing Mustang Lumber vs. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996); Moreno vs. Ago
Chi, 12 Phil 439 (1909); Rule 126, § 12, Rules of Court; and Terry vs. Ohio, 392 US 1, 88 S Ct 1868, 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). See also Roan
vs. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (25 November 1986), citing several cases.
394
Ibid.
395
People vs. Manago, 801 SCRA 103 (17 August 2016).
396
21 Am Jur 2d, "Criminal Law," Sec. 202.
397
People vs. Outten, 147 NE 2d 284, 285,13 Ill 2d 21 (1958).
398
G.R. No. 109250 (5 September 1997)(Third Division)[Panganiban, J.].
84
SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLE
Q25. Why is warrantless search for moving vehicle allowed? Explain.
A25. Search of moving vehicle is allowed because it is highly regulated by the government. The
vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal
activity. (Telen vs. People, G.R. No. 228107, 9 October 2019) (Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
CHECK POINTS; BODY CHECKS IN AIRPORT
Q26. Is checkpoint legal? Explain.
A26. Yes. Military or police checkpoints have also been declared to be not illegal per se as long as the
vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is
merely visual.399
It should be stressed as a caveat that the search which is normally permissible in this instance is limited
to routine checks — visual inspection or flashing a light inside the car, without the occupants being subjected
to physical or body searches. A search of the luggage inside the vehicle would require the existence of
probable cause.400
Q27. Is bus inspection at a checkpoint legal? Explain.
A27. Yes. The bus is public transportation, and is open to the public. The expectation of privacy in
relation to the constitutional right against unreasonable searches in a public bus is not the same as that in
a person's dwelling. (People vs. Breis, G.R. No. 205823, 17 August 2015)(Second Division)[Carpio, J.].401
Q28. What is the rationale of body checks in the airport, seaport or bus terminal/station?
A28. Airport search is outside of the protection of the search and seizure clause due to the lack of an
expectation of privacy that society will regard as reasonable. [Saluday vs. People, G.R. No. 215305 (3 April
2018)(En Banc)[Carpio, J.], citing People vs. Johnson].402
SEAPORT SEARCH
Q29. Why are seaport searches reasonable?
A29. Seaport searches are reasonable searches on the ground that the safety of the travelling public
overrides a person's right to privacy.
PLAIN VIEW SITUATION
Q30. What are the elements of seizure of evidence in ―plain view‖?
A30. The elements are as follows:
a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present
in the pursuit of their official duties;
b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.403 (Telen vs. People, G.R. No.
228107, 9 October 2019)(Third Division) [Leonen, J.].
STOP AND FRISK SEARCH
Q31. Differentiate search incidental to a lawful arrest and stop and frisk search.
A31. The differences are as follows:
A search incidental to lawful arrest requires the existence of a lawful arrest as a condition precedent. It
________________________
399
Aniag, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (7 October1994).
400
People vs. Lacerna, et al., supra, citing People vs. Barros, 231 SCRA 557 (29 March 1994). See also People vs. Saycon, 236 SSCRA 325 (5
September 1994), citing Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989).
401
See also People vs. Doria, G.R. No. 125299 (22 January 1999)(En Banc) [Puno, J.].
402
401 Phil. 734 (2000).
403
People vs. Aruta, supra.
85
is imperative that a lawful arrest happens first before the search—never the reverse.404
As a general rule, a lawful arrest is carried out only upon the issuance of a judicial warrant. However,
Rule 113, Section 5405 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the instances when warrantless
arrests are considered lawful.
Whereas, stop and frisk search is done to deter the commission of a crime. This kind of search is used
"when dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in the city streets where unarguably
there is no time to secure an arrest or a search warrant."406 This Court laid down the test to a reasonable stop
and frisk search in Malacat:
While probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere
suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons
concealed about him. (Telen vs. People, supra).407
A "stop and frisk" search is defined in People vs. Chua408 (People vs. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334 (30 July
2014)[Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing J. Bersamin, Dissenting Opinion in Esquillo vs. People, 629 SCRA
370 (25 August 2010)[Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division], as "the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on
the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband." Thus, the allowable scope of a "stop
and frisk" search is limited to a "protective search of outer clothing for weapons."409
Q32. What is the rationale of ―stop and frisk search‖? Explain.
A32. "Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry 410 searches) are necessary for law
enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses.
However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution.
ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTOM LAWS
Under the Tariff and Customs Code, searches, seizures and arrests may be made even without
warrants, for purposes of enforcing customs and tariff laws. Without mention of the need to priorly obtain a
judicial warrant, the Code specifically allows police authorities to enter, pass through or search any land,
enclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine
any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board; or stop and search and
examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law. 411
PROBLEM:
Antonio ―Tony‖ Colarina boarded a passenger bus from Iraga City going to Magayon City. He was
carrying a brown bag which he placed at the backseat of the bus. In it, was a .45 caliber firearm with one
magazine loaded with eight (8) live ammunition, and a hand grenade. When the bus passed a checkpoint in
Camp Marcelino, Municipality of Sampaga, province of Sumagang Norte, an inspection by members of the
PNP manning a checkpoint was conducted inside the bus. He was pointed by the conductor as the owner of
the brown bag. When asked by the inspecting team of the license, he cannot present any. Thus, a case for
violation of P.D. No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearm, ammunition, and explosives was filed against
Colarina. He was convicted by the RTC of Sumagang Norte. The conviction was affirmed by the CA. On appeal
to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition, Colarina raises a pure question of law and argues that the seized
items are inadmissible on the ground that the search conducted by the PNP Officers was unreasonable
and illegal.
Rule on the contention of Colarina.
________________________
404
People vs. Manago, 793 Phil. 505 (2016)[Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division], citing Comerciante vs. People, 764 Phil. 627 (2015)[Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
405
SECTION 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
406
Manalili vs. CA, 345 Phil. 632 (1997)[Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
407
Citing Malacat vs. CA, supra, and Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 (1968).
408
444 Phil. 757 (2003)[Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division];
409
People vs. Cogaed, supra, citing People vs. Aruta, supra.
410
Terry vs. Ohio, id.
411
U.S. 454, 77 L Ed 423. Cited in People vs. Bernal (4th Dist) 345 P 2d 140, 143 174 Cal App 2d 777 (1959); People vs. Outten, 147 NE 2d
284, 285, 13 Ill 2d 21 (1958); Swift vs. Commonwealth, 100 SE 2d 9, 12, 199 Va 420 (1957). See also 21 Am Jur 2d, "Criminal Law," Sec.
202.
86
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Colarina was wrong. Section 2, Article Ill of the Constitution, which was patterned after the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,412 reads:
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Indeed, the constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition. Rather, it operates against
"unreasonable" searches and seizures only.413
Conversely, when a search is "reasonable," Section 2, Article III of the Constitution does not apply.
(Saluday vs. People, G.R. No. 215305, 3 April 2018)(En Banc)[Carpio, J.]. 414
The prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure ultimately stems from a person's right to privacy.
Hence, only when the State intrudes into a person's expectation of privacy, which society regards as
reasonable, is the Fourth Amendment triggered. Conversely, where a person does not have an expectation of
privacy or one's expectation of privacy is not reasonable to society, the alleged State intrusion is not a "search"
within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. 415
Q33. What factors should be considered to determine the voluntariness of a person subject of the
search?
A33. The following characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which
consent is given must concur:
(a) the age of the consenting party;
(b) whether he or she was in a public or secluded location;
(c) whether he or she objected to the search or passively looked on;416
(d) his or her education and intelligence;
(e) the presence of coercive police procedures;
(f) the belief that no incriminating evidence will be found;417
(g) the nature of the police questioning;
(h) the environment in which the questioning took place; and
(i) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting.418
REMEDIES FROM UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEC. 14)
Q34. What is the proper remedy for unlawful search and seizure? Explain.
A34. The remedy is to file a motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence in accordance
with Section 14, Rule 126. The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested with the trial judges in
the exercise of their judicial function.419 Upon the filing of the application for search warrant, the RTC is duty-
bound to determine whether probable cause existed in accordance with Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure.420 Also, inherent in the courts’ power to issue search warrants is the power to quash
________________________
412
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized.
413
People vs. Aruta, supra.
414
See also People vs. Marti, 271 Phil. 51 (1991); Katz vs. US, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
415
People vs. Johnson, 401 Phil. 734 (2000); Dela Cruz vs. People, 776 Phil. 653 (2016); People vs. Breis, supra; Costabella Corp. vs. CA, 271
Phil. 350 (1991); Caballes vs. CA, supra.
416
Id., citing United States vs. Barahona, 990 F. 2d 412.
417
Id., citing United States vs. Lopez, 911 F. 2d 1006.
418
Id., citing United States vs. Nafzger, 965 F. 2d 213.
419
Manly Sportwear Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises, 470 SCRA 384 (20 September 2005).
420
Ching vs. Salinas, Sr., 462 SCRA 241 (29 June 2005).
87
warrants already issued.421
Q35. Which Court has jurisdiction to resolve the motion to quash search warrant? Explain.
A35. The motion to quash should be filed in the court that issued the warrant unless a criminal case
has already been instituted in another court, in which case, the motion should be filed with the latter.
(Solid Triangle Sales Coronation vs. The Sheriff of RTC-QC, Br. 93, 370 SCRA 491, 23 November 2001)(First
Division)[Kappunan, J.].
Q36. What is the nature of the proceeding for the seizure of personal property by virtue of a search
warrant? Explain.
A36. The proceeding for the seizure of property by virtue of a search warrant does not end with the
actual taking of the property by the proper officers and its delivery, usually constructive, to the court. The
order for the issuance of the warrant is not a final one and cannot constitute res judicata. Such an order does
not ascertain and adjudicate the permanent status or character of the seized property. By its very nature, it is
provisional, interlocutory. It is merely the first step in the process to determine the character and title of the
property. That determination is done in the criminal action involving the crime or crimes in connection with
which the search warrant was issued. Hence, such a criminal action should be prosecuted, or commenced if
not yet instituted, and prosecuted. The outcome of the criminal action will dictate the disposition of the
seized property.422
RULE 127
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN
CRIMINAL CASES
(Sections 1-2)
SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES.
Q1. What is the general rule on the application and availability of provisional remedies such as
prohibition or injunction, preliminary or final, in criminal cases? Explain.
A1. As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction, preliminary or final, to
enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. 423 It is a long-standing doctrine that said writs will not lie for the
reason that public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the
protection of society.424
Q2. Are there any exceptions to this rule?
A2. Yes. The following exceptions to the rule have been recognized:
1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of
the accused;
2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or

multiplicity of actions;
3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
________________________
421
Solid Triangle Sales Cororation vs. The Sheriff of RTC QC, Br. 93, 370 SCRA 491 (23 November 2001).
422
Vlasons Enterprises Corporation vs. CA, 155 SCRA 186 (28 October 1987).
423
Andres vs. Cuevas, 460 SCRA 38 (9 June 2005).
424
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña, 538 SCRA 221 (23 November 2007); Domingo vs. Sandiganbayan, 322 SCRA 655 (20 January 2000).
88
10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied.425
Thus, where the civil action is instituted with the criminal action, all provisional remedies of
preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction, appointment of a receiver, replevin, and support
pendente lite are available in civil actions may be availed of, as may be applicable.426
SECTION 2. ATTACHMENT.
Q3. What is an attachment?
A3. Attachment is an ancillary remedy. It is not sought for its own sake but rather to enable the
attaching party to realize upon relief sought and expected to be granted in the main or principal action. 427
Being an ancillary or auxiliary remedy, it is available during the pendency of the action which may be
resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for
purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. They are provisional because they constitute
temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action and they are ancillary because they are mere
incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main action. 428
A writ of preliminary attachment is a species of provisional remedy. As such, it is a collateral proceeding,

permitted only in connection with a regular action, and as one of its incidents; one of which is provided for
present need, or for the occasion; that is, one adapted to meet a particular exigency. 429
The rule on Preliminary Attachment is governed by Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Q4. What is the philosophy behind the availability of the writ of preliminary attachment in criminal
cases? Explain.
A4. Since the court in a criminal case has jurisdiction to try and decide the civil action involved therein,
it must also have jurisdiction to issue all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry into
effect such civil jurisdiction, one of them being preliminary attachment. 430
But when the right to civil indemnity is waived or reserved, there is no civil action before the court in the
criminal proceeding and therefore there is nothing in the jurisdiction of the court to which the auxiliary writ of
attachment may be considered necessary. In such case, attachment is improper. 431
The same rule applies with equal force even if the civil action be suspended by the institution of the
criminal action inasmuch as suspension is not termination of the civil action. The stayed proceeding remains
pending before the court in which the civil action has been filed separately from the criminal action.432
________________________
425
De Jesus vs. Sandiganbayan, 536 SCRA 394 (17 October 2007); Andres vs. Cuevas, supra; Samson vs. Guingona, Jr., 348 SCRA 32 (14
December 2000).
426
Borlongan, Jr. vs. Peña, 538 SCRA 221 (23 November 2007).
427
BAC Manufacturing and Sales Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 130 (2 August 1991).
428
Regalado, F. D. Remedial Law Compendium. Vol. 1. 7th Ed. (p. 606).
429
Feria, N. (2001). Civil Procedure Annotated (p. 261).
430
Ramcar, Incorporated vs. De Leon, 78 Phil. 449 (15 May 1947).
431
Eraña, et al. vs. Vera, 74 Phil. 272 (27 July 1943).
432
Ramcar Incorporated vs. De Leon, supra. See also Silangan Textile Manufacturing Corporation vs. Demetria, 518 SCRA 160 (12 March
2007) (Third Division)[Chico-Nazario, J.]; Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation vs. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corporation), 465 SCRA
454 (29 July 2005)(Second Division)[Puno, J.].
89


Preweek - Remedial Law - Dean Salvador N. Moya II - 3 - CRIMPRO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preweek - Remedial Law - Dean Salvador N. Moya II - 3 - CRIMPRO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRE-WEEK NOTES AND CASES

DEAN SALVADOR N. MOYA II, LL.M.

JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS

Q1. What is jurisdiction? Explain.

Q2. What is criminal jurisdiction?

Q3. What is the concept of selective prosecution? Explain.

ARCHIVING OF CRIMINAL CASES

Q4. What is the concept of archiving of criminal cases? Explain.

Q10. What is the probative value of a police line-up?

INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS (SECTION 1)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Q2. What is the test of the sufficiency of Complaint or Information?

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Is prior conformity of the public prosecutor necessary in the motion? Explain.

CRIMINAL ACTIONS, WHEN ENJOINED

Q4. What is the effect of a Motion to Withdraw Information/Quash/Dismiss if the information is

already filed in court? Explain.

SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION (SECTION 6)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE (SECTION 8)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

If the second paragraph of the Information reads:

CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION (SECTION 9)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE

DUPLICITY OF THE OFFENSE; EXCEPTION (SECTION 13)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Q12. When can there be duplicity of charges? Explain.

AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION (SECTION 14)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Q14. If there is a formal amendment in the information, is a second arraignment required?

Q15. What are the examples of formal amendments?

A15. As held in jurisprudence, the following are merely formal amendments:

(2) amendments that do not change the offense originally charged;

(4) amendments that do not prejudice an accused's substantial rights; and

Q16. When can an amendment of the information be considered substantial? Explain.

Q18. What is the purpose of arraignment?

VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS (SECTION 15)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Q19. What is the effect of improper venue in criminal cases? Explain.

necessary for its identification.''

INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED PARTY (SECTION 16)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Q20. What is the sole purpose of a criminal and a civil actions?

RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION WITH CRIMINAL ACTION (SECTION 1)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY (SECTION 3)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

EFFECT OF THE DEATH OF ACCUSED OR CONVICT ON CIVIL ACTION (SECTION 4)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

PREJUDICIAL QUESTION (SECTIONS 6 TO 7)

REVIEW NOTES AND CASES

Q12. When can a criminal action be suspended? Explain.

Q13. What is a prejudicial question?

Q14. What are the elements of a prejudicial question? Explain.

A14. The following are the elements of a physical question:

Q1. What is Preliminary Investigation?

Q3. What is the nature of preliminary investigation? Explain.

WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE (SECTION 2)

SECTION 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. —

The following may conduct preliminary investigations:

(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;

(b) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and

(c) Other officers as may be authorized by law.