MODULE 1

UNDERSTANDING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: PRELIMINARIES

MODULE OVERVIEW:
This is the preliminary portion of the module in Criminal Justice System. It gives a sufficient
overview and definition of important legal terms in law related to the CJS. It also discusses in a
rather broad approach the five pillars of Criminal Justice System. The module shall also tackle
the meaning of justice and its types. The “system” of dealing with criminal law violators shall be
discussed in a comprehensive manner. The functions, processes and interplay of the pillars of
criminal justice are discussed as basis for subsequent discussions.

MODULE LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of the module, the student should be able to:
Specific Objectives: At the end of the unit, the students should be able to:
1. explain the concept of the Philippine Criminals Justice System;
2. define the meaning of law and its types;
3. discuss the meaning of justice and its components;
4. evaluate and analyze the course of the criminal justice system;
5. enumerate the components of the criminal justice system; and
6. describe the criminal justice system as a whole.

INTRODUCTION
The study of the Criminal Justice System is crucial in understanding the legal process from the
moment of arrest to the instant that liberty is reinstated to the accused; this covers measures to
reintegrate him back to the community. The system operates in a manner that the fundamental
rights of the accused is protected and safeguarded against the abuses of an oppressive and
vindictive State. Ours is one which is patterned before tripartite democratic and parliamentary
institutions which operates independently from each other, such as the United Kingdom, United
States of America and Spain. To understand the criminal justice system is to pry deep into the
institutions of law and justice, to see the system in a new light.

BASIC CONCEPTS:
1. Crime- an act or omission in violation of public law forbidding or commanding it (Black’s
Law Dictionary, 1920).
2. Felony- is an act or omission in violation of the Revised Penal Code (Reyes, L., 2009)
3. Offense- is an act or omission in violation of Special Penal Laws (Reyes, L., 2009)
4. Misdemeanor- is an act or omission in violation of city or municipal ordinance (Reyes, L.
2009).
5. Suspect- Is a person whose guilt is considered on reasonable grounds to be a practical
possibility
6. Respondent-A person who has been formally charged before the prosecutor’s office/
fiscal for a crime by the police, offended party or any other person in charged with the
enforcement of the law.
7. Accused- A person formally charged or declared by another person of being guilt of a
punishable offense.
8. Prisoner- A person convicted by a tribunal of a crime or offense and punished to suffer
imprisonment.
9. Victim- A person whose person, property or effects has been suffered loss, damage or
destruction.

1
CRIMINAL - one who has committed an offense punishable by law; implying crime or heinous
wickedness (Tradio, 1999).
A person can be ONLY branded as criminal under the following circumstances:
1. He must have committed a crime.
2. He must have been apprehended and investigated by the police.
3. By virtue of sufficient physical evidence and testimonies of witnesses, he must have
been arrested.
4. Due to the presence of prima facie evidence, the case was remanded to the court by the
prosecutor for trial.
5. There was arraignment.
6. There was trial.
7. The offender was found guilty.
8. A sentence was rendered by the court.
9. The convict was confined in prison.
10. The convict has fully served his sentence in prison.

CRIMINAL LAW DEFINED

Criminal law is that branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.

It is that branch of public substantive law which defines offenses and prescribes their penalties.
It is substantive because it defines the state’s right to inflict punishment and the liability of the
offenders. It is public law because it deals with the relation of the individual with the state.

LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

1. Must be general in application.
2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law.
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

CARDINAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

The three cardinal principles or characteristics of criminal law are:

Generality. Criminal law applies to all persons who commit felonies in Philippine territory.
Exceptions to this are the persons who are exempt from the application of criminal law by
virtue of treaty stipulations, laws of preferential application, and principles of public international
law.

Territoriality. Criminal law applies to all offenses committed within Philippine territory.
Exceptions to this rule are those found in Art. 2 of the RPC which provide for extraterritorial
jurisdiction of our courts.

Cases when criminal law of the Philippines will still apply even if the offense is
committed outside of its territory:
1. The offense was committed while on the Philippine ship or airplane;
2. Forging or counterfeiting any coin or currency notes of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Government committed outside of the Philippine territory.
3. Importing or bringing into the Philippines any counterfeited or forged coin, currency note,
or obligation or security issued by the government.

2
4. While being public officer or employee, should commit an offense in the exercise of his
function.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nation as
defined in the Tile One, Book Two of the RPC.
6. Crimes are committed within the Phil. Embassy to other country even if the crime
committed does not pertain to performance of duty. Phil. Embassy to other country is
considered as extension of Phil. Territory.

Prospectivity. Criminal law applies prospectively and not retroactively unless its provisions are
favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent. Exceptions: 1.) where the new law
provides against such retrospective application; 2.) when the offender is a habitual
delinquent (Art. 62 (5); and 3.) when the new law is not favorable to him.

JUSTICE is the adherence to truth or fact; impartiality; the rendering of what is due or merited. It
consists of ordering human relations in accordance with general principles impartially applied. It
is accomplished by justice agents (police) who are flexible. In jurisprudence, the constant and
perpetual disposition to render every man his due Duncan v. Magette, 25 Tex. 253).
conformity of our actions and our will to the law.

2 CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE
Conservative view (Orthodox): Justice is the giving of what is due to others
Progressive view (Modern): Justice is the treating of equals equally and unequal unequally
according to their degree of inequality.

Requirements of Due Process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of laws (Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987 Constitution).

Due process is the law that hears before it condemns, that proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after fair trial.

2 ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS:

Procedural due process – refers chiefly to the modes of procedure that the government must
follow in initiating actions.
Substantive due process – a prohibition of arbitrariness. Because if all that due process requires
is the observance of proper procedures, then life, liberty and property may be taken without
cause.

KINDS OF JUSTICE
There are four types of justice that people can seek when they have been wronged.
Distributive justice
Distributive justice, also known as economic justice, is about fairness in what people receive,
from goods to attention. Its roots are in social order and it is at the roots of Communism, where
equality is a fundamental principle.

If people do not thing that they are getting their fair share of something, they will seek first to
gain what they believe they deserve. They may well also seek other forms of justice.

Procedural justice
The principle of fairness is also found in the idea of fair play (as opposed to the fair share of
distributive justice).

3
If people believe that a fair process was used in deciding what it to be distributed, then they
may well accept an imbalance in what they receive in comparison to others. If they see both
procedural and distributive injustice, they will likely seek restorative and/or retributive justice.

Restorative justice
The first thing that the betrayed person may seek from the betrayer is some form of restitution,
putting things back as they should be.
The simplest form of restitution is a straightforward apology. Restoration means putting things
back as they were, so it may include some act of contrition to demonstrate one is truly sorry.
This may include action and even extra payment to the offended party.
Restorative justice is also known as corrective justice.

Retributive justice
Restoration may well not be enough for the betrayed person and they may seek revenge of
some sort, whereby they can feel the satisfaction of seeing the other person suffer in the way
that they have suffered.

Revenge can be many times more severe than reparation as the hurt party seeks to make the
other person suffer in return.

SYSTEM - orderly combination or arrangement, as of parts or elements, into a whole;

specifically, such combination according to some rational principle; any methodical arrangement
of parts. CJS as a system can be the organization, administration and operation of criminal
justice, in that all the components involved with the prevention, control and reduction of crime
and delinquency are conscious of each responsibility.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEFINED.

Criminal procedure is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of
persons accused of any criminal offense and for their punishment, in case of conviction. As
applied to criminal law, procedural law provides or regulates the steps by which one who has
committed a crime is to be punished

THREE SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The inquisitorial model is geared toward determining the truth of what has happened, and the
judgment is based on findings of fact that approximate the historical truth as closely as possible;
the adversary model regards the criminal process as a tool for the resolution of a dispute
between the accuser (usually, a public prosecutor) and the accused, and it emphasizes the
search for the truth only to the extent that truth-finding is necessary for the resolution of this
dispute (cf. Damaska, 1998). Moreover, the adversary system, determined to provide both sides
with a fair opportunity to win the contest, closely circumscribes the means by which facts can be
established in court, and it excludes from the fact finder's consideration evidence that might
unfairly prejudice one party. This basic contrast in outlook explains, for example, one of the
conspicuous differences in evidence law between continental and common law systems:
whereas hearsay evidence is generally admissible in inquisitorial systems (because even
hearsay, regardless of its lesser reliability, can help the finder of fact in his or her attempt to find
out what actually happened), common law systems exclude hearsay (with several exceptions)

4
because its introduction would prevent the opposing party from effectively testing the
truthfulness and reliability of the source of information (Damaska, 1997, pp. 79–81).

Inquisitorially oriented systems typically rely on neutral agents of the state (a judicial magistrate
or a state's attorney cast in an objective role) to initially collect the evidence and to prepare the
case for trial. At the trial stage, the court, in particular the presiding judge, is responsible for
introducing the relevant evidence, and the attorneys for the state and for the defense play only
supplementary roles. In the adversary system, by contrast, each party (i.e., the prosecutor and
the defense) collects and presents the evidence favoring its position. The judge plays the role of
an umpire at the trial stage, whereas a jury of laypersons is typically responsible for finding the
verdict. The Italian approach is similar to the adversary model in that trial proceedings are
adversarial, but trial is preceded by a thorough pretrial investigation conducted by the public
prosecutor, who at that stage is expected by the law to act in an "objective" fashion and to also
investigate facts favoring the suspect (Codice di procedura penale, allegato al decreto del
Presidente della Repubblica 22 sept. 1988, n. 447 (Italian CP), art. 358). Before a case can go
to trial, the results of the pretrial investigation must be submitted to a magistrate; he or she
determines whether there is sufficient evidence against the suspect and whether the case can
be resolved—if the defendant consents—by convicting and sentencing him on the spot, without
trial (Italian CCP, arts. 416–433). Spanish procedure similarly provides for a combination
between an inquisitorial investigation and a party-dominated trial (for an overview, see Vogler,
pp. 394–396).

The existence of such eclectic systems—of which there are more—demonstrates that the
inquisitorial and adversarial models of the process are merely ideal-types (Damaska, 1975),
convenient for reference in scientific debate but with limited relevance for the understanding of a
particular country's procedural system. It is unclear to what extent either of these models has
historically existed in pure form; today, in any event, every system of criminal procedure
includes inquisitorial as well as adversarial features.

LAW DEFINED.
The term "law, "in its broadest sense, means any rule of action or norm of conduct applicable to
all kinds of action and to all objects of creation. In this sense therefore, it includes all laws,
whether they refer to state law, physical law, divine law and others.

In a strict legal sense, law is defined as a rule of conduct, just and obligatory, laid down by
legitimate authority for the common observance and benefit. (Sanchez Roman, p. 23) Based on
this definition, law has the following elements:

1. IT IS A RULE OF CONDUCT - Laws serve as guides of an individual in relation to his

fellowmen and to his community.
2. LAWS MUST BE JUST - The chapter on human relations is now precisely embedded in
the New Civil Code in order to obtain stability of the social order. Laws, as guides for
human conduct, "should run as golden threads through society; to the end that law may
approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and dominance of justice. (Report of the
Code Commission, p. 39)
3. IT MUST BE OBLIGATORY— If laws are not enforced, the purpose for which they are
intended will not be served.
4. LAWS MUST BE PRESCRIBED BY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY - If laws are not
prescribed by legitimate authority, the people could not be expected to observe them.
Authority to make laws is conferred upon those duly chosen by the sovereign will of the
people. This is in consonance with Section 1, Article II, of the Philippine Constitution,

5
 which says that "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them."
5. LAWS MUST BE ORDAINED FOR THE COMMON BENEFIT - This recognizes the
famous Latin Maxim of "SAL US POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX" – the welfare of the
people is the supreme law. Laws should be applied not only to a particular group of
citizens. They are supposed to be applied equally to all citizens regardless of their
religion, political persuasion, or status in life.

CLASSIFICATION OF LAW
1. NATURAL LAW This law derives its force and authority from God. It is superior to other
laws. It is binding to the whole world, in all countries and at all times.
2. POSITIVE LAW
a. Physical Law - Universal rule of action that governs the conduct and movement
of things, which are non-free and material.
b. Moral Law - Set of rules which establishes what is right and what is wrong as
dictated by the human conscience and as inspired by the eternal law.
c. Divine Law - (a) Divine Positive Law i.e., Ten Commandments, (b) Divine
Human Positive Law i.e., Commandments of the church
3. PUBLIC LAW(a) Constitutional Law - is the fundamental law of the land, which defines
the powers of the government. (b) Administrative Law - that law which fixes the
organization and determines the competence of the administrative authorities and which
regulates the methods by which the functions of the Government are performed. (c)
International Law - body of rules, which regulates the community of nation.
4. PRIVATE LAW: Body of rules which creates duties, rights and obligations, and the
means and methods of setting courts in motion for the enforcement of a right or of a
redress of wrong. (Words and Phrases, Vol. 24, 337)
a. Substantive private law - Those rules which declare legal relations of litigants
when the courts have been properly moved to action upon facts duly presented
to them. (Words and Phrases, Vol. 24, 337)
b. Procedural or adjective private law - Refers to the means and methods of
setting the courts in motion, making the facts known to them and effectuating
their judgments.

SOURCES OF LAW
Law is derived from different sources, namely: (1) legislation; (2) precedent; (3) custom; and (4)
court decision.

LEGISLATION - Before the declaration of martial law in the Philippines on September 21, 1972,
the power to legislate laws is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, which consists of the
Senate and the House of Representatives Upon the imposition of martial law and after the
dissolution of the old Congress, the power to legislate law is vested in the President of the
Philippines. This is the reason why the President issued presidential decrees and letters of
instructions. When the Batasang Pambansa was organized, legislative power is principally
vested in this body although the President, under and by virtue of what is known as Amendment
No. 6, continued to issue decrees when the exigency of the situation requires and in case of
other emergencies. Among many others, this is one of the dictatorial acts that was severely
questioned by several lawyers and critics of the past regime. Now, after the People's Revolt on
February 22-25, 1986, and in accordance with the wishes and the will of the sovereign Filipino
people, the three branches of government operating under the doctrine of separation of powers
are restored, with each department being committed to do its utmost share in bringing about a

6
more democratic and efficient system of government that is responsive to the needs of the
people.

PRECEDENT - This means that the decisions or principles enunciated by a court of competent
jurisdiction on a question of law do not only serve as guides but also as authority to be followed
by all other courts of equal or inferior jurisdiction in all cases involving the same question until
the same is overruled or reversed by a superior court. In the Philippines, this doctrine of stare
decisis is not applied and recognized in the same manner that it is applied and recognized in
common law countries. However, our new Civil Code provides as follows: "x x x Judicial
decision applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system
of the Philippines. x x x" (Article 8, New Civil Code)

Furthermore, although Supreme Court decisions are binding on inferior courts, there are many
instances where the Supreme Court departed from its previous decision either wholly or partly.
In any case, that which is the latest necessarily amends or reverses those previously rendered
by the Supreme Court.

CUSTOM - Customs have the force of law only when they are acknowledged and approved by
society through long and uninterrupted usage. In the Philippines, there are several requisites
before the court considers custom. They are as follows:
(a) A custom must be proved as a fact according to the rulesof evidence (Article 12,
NCC);
(b) The custom must not be contrary to law (Article 11, NCC);
(c) There must be a number of repeated acts and these repeated acts must have
been uniformly performed;
(d) There must be a judicial intention to make a rule of social conduct; and
(e) A custom must be acknowledged and approved by society, through long and
uninterrupted usage.

COURT DECISION - Judicial decisions which apply or interpret the Constitution and the laws
are part of the legal system in the Philippines but they are not laws. However, although judicial
decisions are not laws, they are evidence of the meaning and interpretations of the laws.

In the Philippines, we adhere to the doctrine of STARE DECISIS which means that once a case
has been decided one way, then another case involving exactly the same question or point of
law
should be decided in the same manner. This principle, however, does not necessarily mean that
erroneous decisions or those found to be contrary to law must be perpetuated. On the contrary,
they should be abandoned.

Statutes are enacted by the legislature. They are actually the bills submitted to Congress for
consideration and approval. Once approved finally by Congress and by the President of the
Philippines these bills become statutes. (The rules on the approval of bills are found in Article
VI, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution) Other laws, which have the same binding force as
statutes are the presidential decrees, issued during the period of martial law and under the 1973
Constitution.

KINDS OF STATUTES
I. AS TO NATURE

7
 1. Penal statutes- Those, which impose punishment for an offense, committed against the
State. Statutes, which command or prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their
violation, are considered as penal statutes.

2. Remedial statutes- Those designed to correct an existing law, redress an existing

grievance, or introduce regulations conducive to the public good. (In Re: School Dist.
No. 6, etc. 278, N. W, p. 792).

3. Substantive statutes- These are laws, which establish rights and duties. (Bustos v.
Lucero, 81 Phil. 640)

4. Labor statutes- Those laws that govern the rights and obligations of employers and
employees, providing as well for the rules by which such rights and obligations may be
enforced.

5. Tax statutes- Those, which impose rules and regulations, related to taxation or to
creation of particular sources of revenue such as taxes, fees, and charges that are
needed for the support of government and for all public needs.

II. AS TO APPLICATION
1. Mandatory- Those which contain words of command or of prohibition, and non-compliance
with the same renders the proceedings to which it relates illegal and void.

2. Directory- Those which are permissible or discretionary in nature and merely outline the act to
be done in such a way that no injury can result from ignoring it or that its purpose can be
accomplished in a manner other than that prescribed and substantially the same result
obtained. In determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory, intention of the legislature
must be ascertained. The determination of this intention must not depend on the statute itself.
However, the following tests, while not conclusive or controlling, have often been used to
determine the mandatory or directory nature of statutes and statutory provisions:

1. TERMINOLOGY - The words or phrases regarded as making a provision mandatory

include "shall" and "must, "while the word "may" and the phrase "it is lawful" are usually
regarded as permissive or directory.

2. MATERIALITY OF THE PROVISIONS – Statutory provisions which relate to matters of

substance or which affect substantial rights, and are the very essence of the thing
required to be done, are regarded as mandatory. Provisions which are not material or
which do not affect any substantial right, and do not relate to the essence of the thing to
be done, so that compliance is a matter of convenience rather than substance, are
considered to be directory.

3. CONSEQUENCES —A statutory provision is mandatory where a failure of performance

will result to the injury or prejudice to the substantial rights of interested persons. If such
failure or performance will not result to the injury or prejudice of the substantial rights of
interested persons, then the provisions is generally regarded merely as directory.

4. PENALTY - It is a general rule of construction that where a legislative provision is

accompanied by a penalty for a failure to observe it, the provision is mandatory.
Otherwise, it is directory.

8
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAW
1. Certainty- people in both their personal and business lives should be able to:
a. form relationships with others;
b. enter into contracts, such as those relating to marriage; and the acquisition and
disposal of property;
c. and reasonably secure in their knowledge of what they are doing and their
understanding of its effect.

2. Flexibility- The law must be able to respond without undue delay to the challenge of
change at all levels of society.

3. Fairness- The effectiveness of law depends upon its acceptance by members of society
and that will not be available where a law is inequitable, unfair or unreasonable.

4. Accessibility- All should have access to knowledge of the law, either directly or through
intermediaries.

FEATURES OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. MENS REA – or the “GUILTY MIND”. According to this concept, a person cannot be held
responsible for a criminal act unless he or she intended the act committed. This does not
mean that the offender had to know the act was a violation of criminal law, only that he or
she intended to do something that the law defines as a crime.
2. ACTUS REUS – or the “ACT ITSELF”. Another feature of criminal law is the requirement
that the criminal act be carried out or actually committed. Without the act itself, there is no
crime and therefore no basis for prosecution. The intention to commit the crime is not
enough. The actus reus must be joined with the mens rea- that is, the intent and, the act
must be connected with each other.
3. CAUSATION- There must also be a causal link between the act committed by the offender
and the harm done to the victim. The resulting injury must be the LOGICAL, DIRECT, AND
PROXIMATE cause of the wrongful act.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM refers to the aggregate of agencies and mechanisms that the
government and society employ as a means of social control for the treatment of crime and
criminality.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that
the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws
are generally referred to as malum prohibitum.
Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional
felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special
laws are always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act
punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith
and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal negligence
or culpa.

Likewise when the special laws requires that the punished act be committed knowingly and
willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise.

9
When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the
same.

For example, Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes piracy in Philippine waters and the special
law punishing brigandage in the highways. These acts are inherently wrong and although they
are punished under special law, the acts themselves are mala in se; thus, good faith or lack of
criminal intent is a defense.

Historical Background on the CJS

US President Lyndon Johnson created the Presidential Commission on Crime and
Justice whose report released in 1967 was the first official document containing a
reference of the term “Criminal Justice System”.

The Commission was composed of members of the judiciary, legal profession, the
academe, criminologists, as well as law enforcement agencies.
Before 1967, however, Criminologists such as Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey
has introduced the Sociological approach to the study of crime by looking at the various
players of the criminal process as a “system”.

Throughout the modern world, the recognition that such systems exists was already
pronounced by early criminologists. Most notably in the United States and Europe.

An Overview of the Criminal Justice System

The term “criminal justice” encompasses “a chain of events, activities, tasks, or functions
that constitute the official response to perceived problems of law and order,” which includes
the following: “crime prevention and crime reduction; the arrest and prosecution of suspects; the
hearing of criminal cases by the courts; sentencing, administration and enforcement of court
orders; parole and other forms of license for prisoners; and work with offenders and ex-
offenders in prison or in the community.”
In the Philippines, the “Criminal Justice System” consists of the system of courts, including
the barangay justice system, the informal justice system implemented through practice
particularly by indigenous communities, and the quasi-judicial bodies empowered by law to
perform adjudicatory functions; the systems for law enforcement and prosecution which involve
investigating, apprehending and prosecuting those who could not be deterred from violating the
law and the rules of the society; the system of corrections and rehabilitation or the means of
rehabilitating offenders and returning them to the community as law-abiding citizens; and the
community which collectively imposes limitations on individual behavior of citizens for the
common good of civilized and democratic society that deters criminality and criminal behavior.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has adopted the vision of the “Criminal Justice System” as
follows:
to provide the public an effective system or process in the community by which
crimes are investigated, and the persons suspected thereof are taken into
custody, prosecuted in court and punished if found guilty, with provision being
made for their correction and rehabilitation, and to provide the people the ability to
seek and obtain a remedy through formal or informal institutions, and in conformity
with human rights standards.

The Five Pillars of the Criminal Justice System

10
The CJS is envisioned as being supported by five pillars, namely: law enforcement;
prosecution; courts; corrections; and the community. Each of these five pillars plays a
vital role in the administration of justice and, as such, their interplay and cooperation is
most necessary for the proper functioning of a Criminal Justice System.
Law Enforcement Pillar
The first pillar is the Law Enforcement Pillar. It consists mainly of the officers and personnel of
the Philippine National Police, National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and 34 other related agencies. These agencies are “at the forefront of the
Criminal Justice System of the country. They x x x directly deal with the citizens and are
directly exposed to the criminal elements.” Clearly, it is thus necessary that the member agencies
within this pillar are both trained and well-oriented with “the ways of civil society.”

Their work consists of the prevention and control of crimes, enforcement of laws and effecting
the arrest of offenders, including the conduct of lawful searches and seizures, to gather
necessary evidence so that a complaint may be filed at the Prosecution’s Office. Identified as the
first point of contact with the community, this pillar initiates the CJS machinery upon arresting
a person believed to be a suspect.

Prosecution Pillar
The second is the Prosecution Pillar, which is composed of the National Prosecution Service of
the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Ombudsman, and the Public Attorney’s Office.
While the focus of this pillar is the speedy disposition of cases, its principal task is the
investigation of criminal complaints emanating from the community and the law enforcement
agencies, and bringing these complaints to their successful prosecution in the judicial system.
The prosecution pillar conducts preliminary investigation of cases filed in the prosecutor’s office
and prosecutes cases filed in the court against alleged offenders after probable cause is
established.
Courts Pillar

The Courts Pillar adjudicates cases and renders judgment. The Philippine Judiciary is a four-
tiered court system consisting of the Supreme Court as the highest court of the land; the
intermediate courts consisting of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax
Appeals; the second level courts, which consist of Regional Trial Courts and Shari’a District
Courts; and the first level courts consisting of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Shari’a Circuit Courts.

The goal of the Courts Pillar is not merely to adjudicate cases, but to do so in accordance with
the Rule of Law and “without sacrificing the quality of justice.” Interestingly enough, the overall
performance of the CJS may be determined by the performance of the Courts Pillar. Many of
the factors that affect the disposition of a litigation – such as those that are in relation to the
procurement of witnesses and evidence, the determination of probable cause and the like –
are clearly outside of the control of the Judiciary. Nevertheless, because the litigation
process brings all these factors together, “[t]he performance of the courts therefore would
serve to synthesize to a large extent the overall performance of the criminal justice system.”

Corrections Pillar
Comprising the Corrections Pillar are the jails and prisons administered by the Bureau of
Corrections (BUCOR), the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and by the local
government units with regard to provincial and subprovincial jails. The Philippine National Police
likewise maintains detention facilities in its different police stations nationwide.

11
The Corrections Pillar may also be classified into two: institution-based and community-
based corrections. On one hand, the institution-based corrections include prisons and jails
which house prisoners serving terms of imprisonment; under detention status; and those for
safekeeping in selected cases. On the other hand, community-based corrections pertain to
probation and parole. These are being managed by the Parole and Probation Administration of
the DOJ. PPA conducts a post-sentence investigation of petitioners for probation as referred
by the courts, as well as pre-parole/pre-executive clemency investigation for those referred by
the Board of Pardons and Parole, to determine the suitability of the offender to be reintegrated in
the community instead of serving their sentence inside an institution or prison. The PPA further
supervises probationers, parolees and conditional pardonees to promote their rehabilitation
and reintegration to the mainstream of society. It mobilizes the community resources, especially
through volunteer probation aides.

Community Pillar
The Community Pillar is composed of institutions such as the Department of Social Welfare
and Development, Commission on Human Rights, National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples, Public Attorney’s Office , barangays, civic organizations, and non-governmental
organizations. Members of the Community Pillar are regarded to be both duty holders and
claimholders in the administration of justice.As duty holders, they have the responsibility to
assist law enforcement and the courts in solving crime by providing information, by
community participation in crime prevention and creating a culture of peace, and by
supporting the mobilization of resources for peace and order. As claimholders, they are the
beneficiaries of the justice system and they play critical roles in holding system duty holders
accountable. Likewise,
[i]t is x x x emphasized that the community as a subsystem of the whole
cyclical process is the most critical and useful component of the Criminal
Justice System considering its massive and pervasive composition. This
also plays a crucial role towards the society’s common goal of a fair and
equal administration of justice – either victims or criminals.
The importance of the Community Pillar cannot be overemphasized. In its own manner, it
ideally participates in two main responsive roles of the CJS: first, that of crime prevention, and
second, that of victim prevention. As for the first, this pillar collectively imposes limitations on
individual behavior of citizens that deter criminality and criminal behavior for the common good
of civilized and democratic society. Meanwhile, in relation to the second, it has been
recommended that communities must disseminate more information regarding the roles and
functions of the other components of the CJS, as well as broaden its own, in order to
responsively contribute to victimization prevention.
Ultimately, criminals will come from the community and some will return to it. From this alone,
it can be seen how much impact the Community Pillar can have in the rendition of justice. By
participating in government programs, though not entirely related to the criminal justice system
such as livelihood programs and the like, the community can therefore help lessen the crimes
by diverting what would be criminal enterprise into something more productive. Additionally,
by aiding in the capturing of criminals and in their subsequent prosecution, they can likewise
ensure proper and just redress for crimes.
Acknowledging that each pillar depends on the other, it cannot be stressed enough that for the
Philippine CJS to be effective, coordination between and among the different pillars must be
strengthened. A stronger CJS will, undoubtedly, not only result in a safer and more just society
but also, inevitably, contribute to the economic development of the country. This is because
it is believed that there exists a link between economic development and “amenities” such

12
as low crime rate. For a developing country like the Philippines, there is thus more reason to
engage in the assessment and improvement of its CJS.

A SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Criminal Justice Systems throughout the world vary considerably. The Philippine Criminal
Justice System is distinct and unique compared to other countries. But all criminal justice
systems face common problems. They must decide what acts should be considered as crimes,
on what punishment should be imposed on specific criminal acts, and the procedures to be
followed in dispensing justice.

But first we must consider ‘what is a system’? Its purpose, and ‘what constitutes a system’? A
system is one which consists of several parts that interacts with each other to produce some
results, serve some functions, or meet some objectives. (Holten and Jones. Each part of the
system are expected to perform their responsibilities for the attainment of their common goals
and objectives.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A SYSTEM
A system has several characteristics.
1. Systems have identifiable COMPONENTS. There are its parts or elements, structures that
perform certain function that contribute to the functioning of the system. The components of the
Criminal Justice System are often called the Pillars of the Criminal Justice System.

2. Each system constitutes an IDENTIFIABLE WHOLE. This means that we can distinguish
one system from another. Each has its function to perform within the system. The criminal
justice system is just one of many systems operating in our society.

3. The system’s components are INTERDEPENDENT. The elements of a system affect

each other and depend on each other. One element cannot function without input from another.
Although the parts or components are independent from each other, they serve a common goal.
The main goal of the criminal justice system is to maintain peace and order through crime
prevention and dispensation of justice for those who violated the penal laws.

4. Each system operates within an ENVIRONMENT. An environment consists of any

element outside the system’s boundary. All other systems in our society outside the CJS are
part of its environment. These may include the political system and economic system prevailing
in our society. Anything that may influence the system through inputs is considered as part of
the environment.

5. For every system there are INPUTS into its decision-making area. They keep the system
going as they flow into it from the environment.

There are two types of inputs.

a. DEMANDS – that is, what is wanted or expected from the system. These
inputs will help the Criminal Justice System to continuously pursue and fulfill its objective Ex.
Filipino Chinese businessmen demanding an end to rampant kidnapping; Citizens asking judges
to expedite cases brought before them.
b. SUPPORTS – anything to buttress or strengthen the system. Ex. Concerned citizens
reporting crimes; Providing funds for the rehabilitation of offenders by the government.

13
6. For every system there is OUTPUT. This is what the system produces. The CJS is
expected to dispense justice to an offender, to the victim and to the society as a whole.

7. Every time there is output from a system, reaction in the environment produces what we
can call FEEDBACK.

These feedbacks may either be praises or criticisms against the pillars of the Criminal Justice
System. These will ensure that those who are involve in the system will perform their duties and
responsibilities justly and honestly.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUNCTIONS

The Criminal Justice System has four basic functions. These are the goals and
objectives that those within the system sought to accomplish.
1. PROTECTION – protecting citizen’s lives, their safety, their property, and other rights as
law provides.
2. ORDER MAINTENANCE – preserving social and public order. Also, the prevention of
disorder through the presence of police officers in places where crimes might be
committed and the preservation of peace and order in correctional facilities and court
rooms.
3. LAW ENFORCEMENT – enforcing the law, with justice, by apprehending and
prosecuting suspects, adjudicating the accused, and administering sanctions to those
convicted.
4. CRIME PREVENTION – preventing crime by denying opportunities for crime
and deterring would be offenders. Paul Whisenand defined crime prevention as the
reduction or elimination of the desire and/or opportunity to commit a crime.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PROCESS

Theoretically, CJS is an integrated apparatus that is concerned with the prevention, prosecution,
conviction, sentencing, and correcting of criminals.

Conceptually, the American context of CJS is the process of linking its three components of the
police, court and correction.

a) THE POLICE - one who initiates the criminal justice process by the arrest of the
criminal.
b) THE COURT - one that conducts the trial and imposes the penalty if found guilty.
c) THE CORRECTION - where the criminal is remanded to prison not as a form of
punishment but for correction and rehabilitation.

In the Philippine setting, the CJS is broadened and anchored into the so-called “Five Pillars”
representing the police (law enforcement), prosecution, court, correction and community.

The five pillars of the CJS are by no means independent of each other. What each one does
and how it does has direct effect on the work of others. Hence, in or.der to attain and meet the
goals or objectives of the system, each pillar must function efficiently because the failure of one
means the failure of the entire system.

By definition, the CJS in the Philippine setting is the process of linking those five pillars together
so as to achieve an interrelated scheme of reciprocal responsibilities in its approach to
community involvement. It reveals that each component has a distinct, sequential role to
perform within the system (Isaias Alma Jose).

14
In summary, CJS is the institution charge with direct responsibility for the prevention and control
of crime. Specifically, CJS has been defined as the enforcement, prosecution, adjudication,
punishment and rehabilitation functions.

Formal Justice vs. Informal Justice System

In many countries, the formal state-administered justice system coexists with one or more
informal systems of justice provision and community dispute resolution. These mechanisms,
widely used in rural and poor urban areas worldwide, are also often referred to as “traditional”,
“indigenous”, “customary” or “non-state” justice systems. Estimates are that in many developing
countries around 80% of cases are resolved through such mechanisms. 

In many rural and poor urban areas of the world, people do not have access to state-
administered justice and security institutions, or choose not to use them. Instead, they rely on a
mixture of tradition, customary norms and practices, community relations, and sometimes
religious law, to provide justice and resolve disputes. The level of formalization and
institutionalization, including the relationship between such systems and the state, vary
considerably from country to country and within countries. In fact, some such systems are state-
sanctioned or regulated. Legal pluralism is a term sometimes used to reflect the complexities
involved in contexts where a diverse range of formal and informal legal systems and practices
are used to deliver justice and resolve disputes. 

In informal systems, decision-making is usually based on consultation and under the authority of
non-lawyers/jurists, mainly local, tribal or religious leaders, either individually or in groups.
Informal justice systems tend to address a wide range of issues of significant concern to the
people, including personal security and local crime; protection of land, property and livestock;
resolution of family and community disputes; and protection of entitlements, such as access to
public services. These community-based mechanisms, which can play an important role in
community cohesion, are usually more available and affordable, and often enjoy greater
legitimacy with the people than the formal system. 

The process used and outcomes produced by such systems can raise concerns with regard to
their compliance with international norms and standards. Corruption and abuse of power, as
well as a lack of accountability, are common problems. Usually decisions are neither formally
enforceable nor recorded, and tend to reinforce social hierarchies and discriminatory practices,
such as the exclusion of women. In some instances, they contribute to perpetuating gross
human rights abuses such as forced marriage and extrajudicial killing. 

15
 MODULE 2
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS
MODULE OVERVIEW
The criminal justice system, essentially, is the system or process in the community by which
crimes are investigated, and the persons suspected thereof are taken into custody, prosecuted
in court and punished, if found guilty, provisions being made for their correction and
rehabilitation. The criminal justice system is not just the agencies and persons charged with law
enforcement; not just the public prosecution, nor the courts, nor just the penal and correctional
system, nor just the community. The criminal justice system is all of these institutions or pillars
collectively. For it to work efficaciously and speedily, it is essential for all these pillars to work
efficiently and with dispatch, and in cooperation and in coordination with one another.

TOPIC LEARNING OUTCOMES:

After reading this MODULE, the student should be able to:
1. Identify and explain the five (5) stages of the criminal justice process.
2. Describe the flow of cases through each of the five stages in the criminal justice
process.
3. Explain what can happen to an accused at each stage of the process.
4. Discuss the possible defenses by the accused in a criminal case.
5. Define arraignment and trial.
6. Discuss the trial procedure in a criminal case.
7. Discuss the appeals process available to a convicted person.

INTRODUCTION
In understanding how the whole criminal justice system works, one must know the different
stages in its operation. Certain steps should be followed in order to ensure that procedural
justice is achieved in a criminal case. The stages in the criminal justice process are arrest,
charging, adjudication, sentencing and corrections.

MODELS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Models of Criminal Justice
Different models have been devised that attempt to conceptualize the particular features of the
justice system in England and Wales that identify principles and characteristics. Herbert Packer
(1968) identified two of the most enduring models which offer explanations as to how agencies
and policies may be shaped and they can usefully be viewed as opposite ends of a continuum
since they present contrasting rationale and characteristics. They are the Crime

CONTROL AND DUE PROCESS MODELS.
Crime Control
As the name suggests, this model emphasizes the role of the criminal justice system in reducing
and preventing crime by way of prosecuting and punishing those who are guilty of criminal

16
offences. It also accentuates the importance for the justice system of protecting and serving the
public through crime reduction. Crime control 'values' include the notion that that those thought
to be guilty may be pursued regardless of the rules that may be in place for protecting the rights
of suspects.

Due Process
This model incorporates ideas inherent in the rule of law and emphasizes the rights of the
defendant through the principles of the presumption of innocence, the defendant's right to a fair
trial, equality before the law and that justice should be seen to be done. Due process can be
perceived as an 'obstacle course' in that the rights of defendants are emphasized and
impediments placed in the way that criminal justice agencies are allowed to operate. The
protection given to defendants is to ensure that the innocent are acquitted and only the guilty
are convicted and punished.

An example of where 'due process' measures have been successfully adopted in recent years
can be seen in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE 1984) that identified the lack of
procedural safeguards in police interviews. Interviews are now recorded and suspects have the
right to legal representation. More recently the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows
for criminal justice practices to be scrutinised from a human rights perspective.
Other models have been identified that provide a different understanding of justice and its social
function. Michael King (1981 cited in Muncie & Wilson 2004:28) outlined six dominant models
which are outlined in the table below.
King's (1981) Models of Criminal Justice
Social function Process model Features of court

Justice Due Process Equality between parties; rules protecting defendants

against error; restraint of arbitrary power; presumption of
innocence
Punishment Crime Control Disregard of legal controls; presumption of guilt; high
conviction rate; support for the police; unpleasantness of
the experience
Rehabilitation Medical model Information collecting; individualisation; treatment;
(diagnosis, discretion of decision-makers; expertise of decision-
prediction and makers; relaxation of rules
treatment)

Management of Bureaucratic Independence from political considerations; speed and

crime and criminals model efficiency; importance of records; minimisation of
conflict; minimisation of expense; economical division of
labour
Denunciation and Status passage Public shaming of defendant; court values reflect
degradation model community values; agents' control over process

Maintenance of Power model Reinforcement of class values; alienation of defendant;

class domination deflection of attention from issue of class conflict;
differences between judges and judged; paradoxes and
contradictions between rhetoric and performance

17
Davies, Croall and Tyer (2005:20) have produced a helpful flowchart that depicts the route from
crime to sentence and is adapted below. Note the many stages that are present in the criminal
justice process and the number of interactions a suspect/defendant will have with criminal
justice personnel before they come to their involvement with the probation service. The process
involves a multitude of decisions and can be a bewildering experience for some and begins with
a crime being committed and reported to the police/authorities. Yet we know that not all crimes
are reported to the police.

The Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice

The Wedding  Cake Model  Theory of Criminal Justice was developed by Samuel Walker, a
scholar who analyzed the judicial system. The theory divides the proceedings in the criminal
justice system into four different categories: celebrated cases, serious felonies, lesser felonies
and misdemeanors. The theory allows for a closer analysis of these different types of cases
based on the manner in which they are dealt with in the criminal justice system.

Celebrated Cases:The top layer of the Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice includes
the "celebrated cases." These types of cases garner a great deal of media attention because
the crimes are unusual or because the defendants are celebrities or high-ranking officials. The
manner in which these types of cases are undertaken is not typical of the operation of the
criminal justice system. Because they are such high-profile cases, there are factors that need to
be taken into consideration that do not exist in more typical criminal cases. These include
everything from cameras in the courtroom to crowd control. By their very nature, examples of
celebrated cases are obvious: OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Bernie Madoff and so forth.

Serious Felonies:The second layer of the Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice
includes "serious felonies." On this layer of the "cake," the criminal justice system engages in its
standard operating procedure. There are not the same external factors impacting the system as
there are in celebrated cases. Serious felonies are cases involving those types of crimes in
which a defendant is not likely to be released on bail. There is a lesser chance that the
defendant will enter into a plea agreement before trial.

Lesser Felonies:On the third layer of the Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice are
lesser felonies. These types of cases tend to be non-violent. Within this grouping of cases are

18
certain drug-related charges, financial crimes and the like. A good portion of these cases end in
plea agreements.

Misdemeanors: The final layer of the Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice involves
misdemeanor cases. These are the least-serious types of crimes in the criminal justice system
(excluding traffic infractions). These types of cases include petty or minor theft and disturbing
the peace. Misdemeanors represent the largest category of cases in the criminal justice system.
Many misdemeanor cases are resolved with plea agreements.

The Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice assists in better understanding the
operation of the criminal justice system. How these cases fit into the overall justice system leads
to a clearer understanding of the mechanics of the judiciary. Moreover, by making distinctions
between different types of cases -- particularly between celebrated cases and other types of
criminal proceedings -- an observer better understands the differences between the norm and
the exceptions in the criminal justice system.

STAGES OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS

There are 5 stages in the criminal justice process:
1. ARREST
2. CHARGING
3. ADJUDICATION
4. SENTENCING
5. CORRECTIONS

Each of these stages begins with an action (input) that stimulates a process resulting in a crucial
decision being made for the accused (output).

I. ARREST STAGE
The Criminal justice process begins with the commission of a crime. But it is more accurate to
say that it begins with the detection of crime. Detection is taken to mean not only observed acts
of crime but the results of a crime. If a crime is undetected or unreported, it obviously does not
enter the system. Even if it was already committed but is still undiscovered, it does not enter
the system.
Definition of arrest: Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of an offense. (Rules of Court, Rule 113, Sec. 1)

2 DISTINCT SEQUENCES OF STEPS WHICH FOLLOW DETECTION

1. POLICE OBSERVATION – ARREST – BOOKING – INVESTIGATION
When the police witness an actual crime in progress and are able to apprehend the
offender, arrest is usually immediate. The suspect is taken and booked into the city or
municipal police station and will later be detained. This procedure (booking) involves such
things as fingerprinting, identification check, and reading of rights and charges. An investigation
follows for the purpose of developing a prosecutable case against the suspect. If the police feel
that trial is warranted, they pass the case into the next stage—charging.

2. COMPLAINT – INVESTIGATION – ARREST – BOOKING

The most common way in which crime is brought to the attention of those in the criminal
justice system is by citizen complaint to the police. Whether the report of a crime is by a
witness or a victim, an investigation is normally the next step. Unlike the first sequence,
investigation is conducted for the determination of whether a crime has actually been
committed, and if so, the identification of the offenders(s). If enough evidence is obtained and

19
police have probable cause to believe a specific person is the culprit, the case will be referred to
the next stage for the filing of a criminal case and for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. After
the warrant is served, the suspect will then be booked.

II. CHARGING STAGE

Police output in the form of an arrested or booked suspect becomes input into the charging
stage. The prosecution will decide whether the suspect will be tried for the commission of a
crime. At this point, evidence is evaluated, law is studied, and police officers and witnesses are
perhaps interviewed to assess the nature of the case and to decide whether the case will be
dismissed or be forwarded to the next stage.

If the prosecution decides that the suspect should be tried, criminal action is commenced by the
filing of a complaint or an information.
DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT: A complaint is a sworn statement charging a person with an
offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged
with the enforcement of the law violated. (RoC, Rule 110, Sec. 3)

DEFINITON OF INFORMATION: An information is an accusation in writing charging a person

with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. (RoC, Rule 110, Sec. 3)

III. ADJUDICATION STAGE

The input triggering this stage is the adjudication of the case before the court. Formal charges
are filed against the accused. At first, the suspect will be arraigned. ARRAIGNMENT refers to
the reading of charges against the accused and the declaration of his plea. The accused may
either plead guilty or not guilty to the charges. If the accused pleads guilty, lengthy trial will be
avoided and the judge may sentence the accused. If the accused pleads not guilty, a trial will
be conducted. TRIAL refers to the presentation of the prosecution and the defendant of their
respective case and arguments before a court.

Defenses against Criminal Charges

Assuming that basic tests of criminal responsibility are met and that an accused is ruled
competent to stand trial-the law makes available to the accused several types of defenses.
The burden of proof is on the State to remove all reasonable doubt about the guilt of the
defendant. That burden is in theory entirely on the state or prosecution; the defense need prove
nothing. All the defense is required to do is raise reasonable doubt about the guilt of the
accused, and the law requires an acquittal if such reasonable doubt is created.

The following are some of the defenses the accused might put up:

1. The Defense of Alibi. A defense of alibi is simply a claim by the defendant that he or she
was in another place when the crime occurred and therefore could not have committed it.
This defense is supported by witnesses who can place the defendant in that other location
at the right time. Documentary evidence may also be presented to prove the presence of
person in a specific place and time.

2. The Defense of Insanity. The defense of insanity is a claim that the defendant should be
exonerated from criminal responsibility because she or he was (or is) suffering from a
mental condition or mental incapacitation. Insanity is one of the exempting circumstances
for criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code. However, it is up to the accused to
prove that he was suffering from such illness during the commission of the offense.

20
2. The Defense of Instigation. If the defendant can establish that he or she would not have
committed the crime were it not for the encouragement or compulsion of law enforcement
agents, he is not criminally liable. In instigation a public officer or a private detective induces
an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the commission of
the crime by the latter.

3. The Defense of Duress. This defense is based on the claim that the act was the result, not
of any intent on the part of the accused, but of threats of loss of life, limb, or a loved one.
Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one’s
life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear. ( People vs. Borja) A
person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is not criminally liable because he
does not act with freedom. (People vs. Loreno)

4. The Defense of Consent. The defense that the victim consented to the act for which the
accused stands charged. This defense is common in rape and acts of lasciviousness where
force is usually applied in their commission.

5. The Defense of ‘Violation of the provisions of the BILL OF RIGHTS’. This defense is
invoked if the State or its agents violated the right of the defendant in obtaining evidence to
prove the latter’s guilt. Such evidence is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding.

TRIAL PROCEDURE:
The trial in a criminal court proceed in the following order:
1. the prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge;
2. the accused may present evidence to prove his defense;
3. the prosecution and the defense may, in that order present rebuttal and sur-rebuttal
evidence unless the court, in furtherance of justice , permits them to present additional
evidence;
4. upon admission of the evidence of the parties, the case shall be deemed submitted for
decision. (RoC, Rule 119, Sec. 11)

JUDGMENT
In a criminal case, the judgment of a court must state whether the accused is guilty or not guilty
of the offense charged and impose on him the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. The
judgment must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge
and sign by him.( RoC, Rule 120, Sec. 1) Civil liability is usually a monetary indemnity by the
accused to the victim or the victim’s heirs.
If the court found the defendant not guilty, he will be released and will go back to the
community. If he is guilty as charged, the next stage will come in.

IV. SENTENCING STAGE

A conviction becomes the input of the fourth stage; sentencing. In sentencing, the judge will
consider all circumstances surrounding the case and it is his duty to apply the
provisions of the law in rendering punishment or sentence against the accused.

2 ASPECTS OF SENTENCE
1. TYPE – refers to the facility or program to which the defendant is assigned

TYPES OF CORRECTIONS INSTITUTIONS OR PROGRAMS

21
A. FACILITIES FOR INCARCERATION: These facilities have a common
function to confine and isolate convicted persons from society at large. They include prisons
and jails. Prisons have at least 3 subtypes, known as MAXIMUM, MEDIUM, and MINIMUM
security institutions.

PAROLE AND PROBATION PROGRAMS: PROBATION is an alternative to incarceration and

allows convicted persons to remain at large under varying degrees of restriction and
supervision. PAROLE is a form of release that may be granted to a prisoner after she or he has
completed some portion of a sentence in a correctional institution. It is granted after a convicted
person served a part of his sentence and is allowed to complete a sentence at large, subject to
restrictions and supervision. Parole is not to be confused with probation which involves of not
serving of time in a correctional institution.

JUVENILE CORRECTIONS: Correction facilities provided for youthful offenders.

2. SEVERITY – refers to the length of jail service or amount of fine imposed.

APPEAL
An appeal is a remedy granted to a party in a certain case to ask for a higher or superior court
to reverse or amend decisions rendered by an inferior or lower court. A person convicted by a
trial court may appeal his conviction to a superior court if he feels that the judgment rendered is
erroneous. The accused has the right within fifteen (15)
days to appeal from the judgment of conviction. He can always appeal a judgment of conviction
but the State, through the prosecution cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal.(People vs
Velasco) The offended party(crime victims) can always appeal, whether from a judgment of
conviction or of acquittal or dismissal but in respect only to the civil liability.(Martinez vs Court of
Appeals)

In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded
to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment within five (5) days after the fifteenth
(15) day following the promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of a new motion for new
trial or reconsideration.(RoC, Rule 122, Sec. 10)

V. CORRECTIONS STAGE
This stage involves the convicted person’s serving of the sentence imposed. It is the stage
where the offender will be reformed and rehabilitated prior to his reintegration in the community.

22
 MODULE 3
LAW ENFORCEMENT

MODULE OVERVIEW
In this module, the concepts and preliminaries on law enforcement shall be discussed. The
Police (Law Enforcement) stand at the forefront of the Criminal Justice System. Law
Enforcement is a deterrent and preventive activity. This module shall look into the functions of
law enforcement in our Criminal Justice System. It shall also discuss the equally important
activities of the police such as criminal investigation, arrest, search and seizure, and crime
prevention.

MODULE TOPICS LEARNING OUTCOMES:

After reading this MODULE, the student should be able to:
1. Explain the major functions of the police.
2. Discuss the sub-functions of the law enforcement function.
3. Define and discuss criminal investigation.
4. Discuss the different investigative activities.
5. Explain the police authority of “arrest” and “search and seizure.”
6. Enumerate and discuss the different instances of warrantless arrest and warrantless
search.
7. Identify personal property that can be subject to seizure.
8. Discuss the aspects of crime prevention.
9. Enumerate and discuss the organizational principles in a police organization.
INTRODUCTION
The Law Enforcement pillar of the criminal justice system is the initiator of the whole criminal
justice process. Law enforcement officers are usually the ones responsible during the arrest
stage. The Philippine National Police (PNP) is the primary agency responsible in performing law
enforcement functions, specifically, the authority to arrest and search.

In discussing the police process, the focus will be on the steps related to the function of law
enforcement and its sub functions. These are crime detection, crime investigation,
apprehension of suspects, search and seizure and case preparation.

The Police (Law Enforcement) stand at the forefront of the Criminal Justice System. Law
Enforcement is a deterrent and preventive activity. It consists of patrolling to supervise conduct,
investigating to identify offenders and or recover stolen or missing property, warning or arresting
those who are probably guilty of criminal behavior, and assisting in the prosecution and trial
of offenders. Its goals are aimed towards the prevention of crime and disorder, preservation of
peace, and the protection of life, properties and individual freedom.

A large number of government agencies are involved in law enforcement one way or another.
The kind and degree of involvement vary from general and specific law enforcement to
enforcing standards and regulation pertaining to particular government activities.

23
In the Philippines, the law enforcement function is spearheaded by the Philippine National
Police (PNP), the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) under the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In addition to these government offices, there are other agencies tasked with enforcing special
laws. Among these are:
1. Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) - formerly PACC
2. Bureau of Internal Re\venue (BIR)
3. Land Transportation Office (LTO)
4. Bureau of Customs (BOC)
5. Bureau of Immigration (BOI)
6. Economic and Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB)
7. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
8. Philippine Coast Guard (PCG)
9. Marine Industry Authority (MARINA)
10. Bureau of Forest Development
11. Department of Agriculture (DA) - BFAR, BPI, etc.
12. Air Transportation Office (ATO)
13. National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
14. Bureau of Product Standards (BPS)

THE POLICE USE OF DISCRETION - Police officers are decision makers and most of their
decisions are based on discretion.

DISCRETION - It is the wise use of one's judgment, personal experience and common sense to
decide a particular situation. Apparently, the police exercise of discretion is unregulated
as U.S. Chief Justice Warren and Burger put it -

"No law book, no judge, no lawyer can readily tell how the policeman
on beat should appropriately and courteously exercise the same in this various
day to day activities, whatever they do, it is their own responsibility."

Abuse of discretion resulting to injury to persons or damage to property is punishable. So the

police must be guided by some basic concepts such as COMMON SENSE, PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE and SOUND JUDGMENT.

FACTORS WHICH SUBJECTS THE POLICEMEN TO PRESSURE AND WHICH MAY IN

SOME WAYS REGULATE POLICE DISCRETION
1. The legal political structure of the police organization; and
2. The vocal and angry groups of the community.

PROBLEMS ARISING FROM UNREGULATED DISCRETION

1. It lacks uniformity for implementation
2. It may be discriminatory
3. It foster police corruption in victimless crimes
4. It converts the law into a personal instrument of social control through the so-called
"sidewalk justice."

ROLE OF THE POLICE IN THE SYSTEM

24
 1. To arrest the suspect
a) By virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge on the basis of evidence submitted by
them.
b) Under circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest (Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court).

2. To conduct investigation - The police may conduct surveillance, interview persons with
knowledge of facts directly or indirectly connected with the offense, take photographs
(surreptitiously or otherwise), arrange to constitutional and statutory safeguards,
examine public and other available records pertaining to the persons involved and get
copies of pertinent entries.
3. To gather and preserve evidence
4. To transmit the records of the case to the court/prosecutor
5. To appear and testify in court

FUNCTIONS AND PROCESSES:

Major Police Functions:
1. Law enforcement
2. Order Maintenance
3. Crime Prevention
4. Public Services

LAW ENFORCEMENT
Law Enforcement is the core function of the entire criminal justice system. Law enforcement
agencies are the initiators of the entire criminal justice process.

SUBFUNCTIONS RELATED TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION

A. Crime Detection
B. Crime Investigation
C. Apprehension of Suspects
D. Search and Seizure
E. Case Preparation

A. CRIME DETECTION
There are several ways in which crimes come to the attention of police:
1. Receipt of citizen complaints or calls for assistance
2. Receipts of signals from alarm devices
3. Observations by officers on patrol of suspicious behavior, a crime in progress, or the
aftermath of a crime
4. Observation of the planning or execution of crimes by PROACTIVE MEASURES –
measures through which police seek to detect crimes, or attempts to be present
when they are committed, through the use of the following:
a. undercover agents
b. electronic devices for wiretapping or bugging
c. stakeouts (Hess)

When dealing with crimes detected by calls or alarms, a key element in whether the crime will
be solved and the culprit caught may be the time that elapses between receipt of the call or
alarm and the arrival of responding officers at the crime scene. This is known as RESPONSE
TIME, and the shorter it is, the better.

25
B. CRIME INVESTIGATION
Definition: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION is a police activity directed toward the identification
and apprehension of alleged criminals and the accumulation, preservation, and presentation of
evidence regarding their alleged crimes.(Lyman)

Objective of Investigation: To determine who the criminal is and to develop and present
legally accepted evidence to a court of law so that a conviction is assured and a crime solved.

Criminal Investigation is a specialized aspect of police work which is the responsibility of both
the uniformed patrolman and the investigator. In the investigation of crime, evidence
technicians and other highly train persons, known as Scene of the Crime Operations (SOCO)
officers, assist in the collection, preservation, analysis and presentation of physical evidence
found at the crime scene.

POLICE AUTHORITY
To understand the activities of police. It is necessary to examine briefly the legal authority upon
which they are based. Specifically, police have legal authority to ARREST persons and place
them in custody pending court action, to perform legal SEARCHES, and to SEIZE evidence for
use in court. Police officers, as part of their major function of enforcing the law has the power
to investigate and obtain necessary information to solve crimes and apprehend criminals.

C. APPREHENSION OF SUSPECTS
An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest. No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in
making an arrest. The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater restraint than is
necessary for his detention.(Rules of Court, Rule 113, Sec.2)

METHOD OF ARREST:
The method of arrest may vary according to whether it is made by virtue of a warrant or is made
without a warrant.

When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested
of the cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest, except when
he flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or
when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant
in his possession at the time of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires,
the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable. (RoC, Rule 113, Sec.7)

When making an arrest without a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of
his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the
commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees, or
forcibly resists before the officer has the opportunity to so inform him, or when giving of such
information will imperil the arrest. (RoC, Rule 113, Sec.8)

In the case of an arrest without a warrant, the person arrested shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail and he may be subjected to an inquest where the offense for which
he was arrested requires preliminary investigation. Where the arrest is made with a warrant, the
officer executing the warrant shall also deliver the arrested person to the nearest police station
or jail without unnecessary delay. (RoC, Rule 113, Sec.7 and 3)

26
An officer making a lawful arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary
to assist him in effecting the arrest. Every person so summoned by an officer shall assist him in
effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself. An officer
in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant, may break into any
building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is
refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose. Whenever an officer
has entered the building or enclosure, he may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate
himself. ( RoC, Rule 113, Sec. 10-12)

These powers are given only to police officers and not to private persons effecting an arrest.
An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.(RoC, Rule 113, Sec.6)

The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered for execution shall cause the
warrant to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt. Witnin ten (10) days after the
expiration of the period, the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make a report to
the judge who issued the warrant. In case of his failure to execute the warrant, he shall state
the reasons therefor.

A police officer may still effect the arrest of a person with a pending warrant of arrest, until such
time the latter has been arrested. A police officer need not bring the actual warrant when
effecting the arrest, as long as he has the knowledge that a warrant was issued against such
person.

A warrant of arrest, whether issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, may be served

anywhere in the Philippines. (RoC, Rule 135, Sec. 3)

DEFINITION OF WARRANT OF ARREST: is 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
take a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an
offense. (RoC 113, Sec.1)

As a rule, a warrant of arrest for the apprehension of an unnamed party upon whom it is to be
served is void except in those cases where it contains a description of the person or such as will
enable the officer to identify the accused.

Accordingly, in a case where the search warrant stated that John Doe(used when the name of
the person is unknown) had gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied by
him at 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila and as this John Doe was Jose M. Veloso, the
manager of the club, the police could identify John Doe as Jose M. Veloso without difficulty.
(People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil. 33)

ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT:

An arrest may lawfully be made even without a warrant under certain limited conditions which
approximate the existence of probable cause as would justify the issuance of a warrant of
arrest. The following are the provisions of Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

Any peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
1. when in his presence , the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
2. when an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

27
 3. 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 temporarily confined
while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

The above provisions are often referred to as “Citizen’s Arrest.”

OTHER INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS ARREST AS DECIDED BY THE SUPREME

COURT:
1. When, on the occasion of the execution of a search warrant, the personal property to
be seized as specified thereof, is found in actual or constructive possession of those
who may be held criminally liable either as principal or accessory.(Malaloan vs.
Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 249)

2. Upon oral order of a presiding judge, acting as such, directing a public officer to
arrest a person inside or within the premises of the court after having been
summarily declared in contempt of court, and which order is officially recorded by the
court stenographer.( RoC, Rule 71, Sec. 1)

3. For purposes of surrendering the accused, the bail (bondsman) either by person or
an agent may arrest him or on written authority endorsed in a certified copy of the
undertaking may cause him to be arrested by any police officer…(1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Sec. 20)

4. By virtue of an order issued by the President of the Republic of the Philippines or

the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation directing the arrest of illegal and
undesirable aliens following a final order of deportation for the purpose of
deportation.(Salazar vs. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145)

Law enforcers are advised not to effect arrest of any suspect if the circumstances
attendant to the commission of a felony or offense does not specifically fall in any of the above
enumerated instances.(Sadili and Pena)

D. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Almost as important as the authority to arrest is the authority to perform searches and to seize
evidence. Like arrests, searches may be performed with or without court-issued search
warrants.

DEFINITION OF SEARCH WARRANT : is an order in writing issued in the name of the people
of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search
for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.(RoC, Rule 126, Sec.1)

To obtain a search warrant from a judge, law enforcement agencies must supply the address or
description of the place or vehicle to be searched, the crime or activities being investigated, and
the things to be seized. Search warrants are issued when the judge has probable cause to
believe the evidence sought is related to criminal activity.

The Constitution declares that 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.( 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2)

28
This means that the search and seizure of houses, persons, paper and effects is unreasonable
if made without probable cause. Where the search and seizure is effected with a
warrant, the probable cause is to be determined by the judge issuing the warrant, but where the
search and seizure is effected without a warrant, the probable cause is necessarily to be
determined by the searching peace officer.

5 REQUISITES FOR ISSUING SEARCH WARRANT

1. upon probable cause
2. in connection with one specific offense
3. to be determined personally by the judge
4. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce.
5. particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.(1987
Constitution, Art. III, Sec.2)

PROBABLE CAUSE – means such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the object
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.( Alvarez vs. CFI,
66 Phil 33)

A judge may issue a search warrant only upon probable cause, in which he will personally
determined. He may do this , by personally examining in the form of searching questions and
answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements,
together with the affidavits submitted. (RoC, Rule 126, Sec.5)

The complainant and the witnesses must be under oath in order that perjury could be charged
against them in case their allegations prove false. Perjury is the giving of false testimony under
oath.

PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT CAN BE SUBJECT TO SEIZURE

1. Property subject to the offense
2. Property stolen or embezzled or fruits of the offense
3. Property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
(RoC, Rule 126, Sec.3)

VALIDITY OF A SEARCH WARRANT: A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from
its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (RoC, Rule 126, Sec.10)

The warrant must direct that it be served in the daytime, unless the affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which a case a direction
may be inserted that it be served at any time of the the day or night.(RoC, Rule 126, Sec. 9)

WHEN SEARCH AND SEIZURE MAY BE MADE WITHOUT WARRANT

There are several instances where a search may lawfully be made without a warrant.

1. Where there is consent or waiver.( People vs. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 223)

29
 Where a person voluntarily submits himself to a search, a warrant therefore is
unnecessary. And if a person failed to object at the time of the search, it is presumed that he
consented to the search.

2. Where search is an incident to a lawful arrest.( Alvaro vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 837)

A person lawfully arrested may be searched, without a search warrant, for dangerous weapons
or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense.
Such a search incidental to a lawful arrest is justified by the need to disarm the suspect in order
to take him into custody and by the need to preserve evidence on his person for later use at
trial.

Lawful warrantless searches may be made on a person arrested and of the immediate
surrounding area to remove any weapons that the arrestee might seek to use in order to resist
arrest or effect his escape and to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.

3. The “plain view” exception.

Where, without a search, the possession of articles prohibited by law is disclosed to plain view
or is open to eye and hand. (State vs. Quina, 79 S.E. 62)

And where an article is already in “plain view”, neither its observation nor its seizure would
involve any invasion of privacy. Such an article may therefore be seized without a search
warrant. This exception applies only where a police officer is not searching for evidence against
the accused but nonetheless inadvertently comes across such evidence whose incriminating
nature is immediately apparent.( People vs. Musa, 217 SCRA 597)

4. In the case of contraband or forfeited goods being transported by ship, automobile, or

other vehicle, where the officer making it has reasonable cause for believing that the latter
contains them, in view of the difficulty to securing a search warrant.(Magoncia vs. Palacio, 80
Phil. 70)

5. As an incident of inspection, supervision and regulation in the exercise of police power

such as inspection of restaurants by health officers, of factories by labor inspectors, of physical
establishments by fire marshals, of book of accounts by revenue examiners etc.

6. Routinary searches usually made at the border or at ports of entry in the interest of
national security and for the proper enforcement of customs and immigration laws.( 47 Am. Jur.
513-515)

7. Checkpoint searches.
“Stop-and-search” at military police checkpoints has been upheld by our Supreme
Court and therefore suspicious behavior during routine inspection and questioning at these
checkpoints may provide the probable cause to justify more extensive search. (People vs.
Exala, 221 SCRA 494)

METHOD OF SEARCH
Like a warrant of arrest, a search warrant is enforceable by forcible methods where resistance is
offered. The Rules of Court expressly authorizes the warrant officer, if refused admittance to
the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, to break open any

30
outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute
the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
therein. (RoC, Rule 126, Esc. 7)

However, only such property as has been particularly described in the search warrant may be
seized. Hence, again, the importance of particularity in the description in the warrant of the
things to be seized. Further assurance that this mandate is obeyed is provided by the
requirement that the seizing officer issue a receipt for the articles seized and promptly deliver
these articles together with an inventory to the issuing court

E. CASE PREPARATION
This is the process of bringing together in an organized and logical manner all
evidence collected during the investigation of a crime and present it to the prosecutor. The
investigator must be able to present to the prosecutor and prove before the court the CORPUS
DELICTI.

CORPUS DELICTI: (substance or body of the crime)- It means that a specific crime was
committed at a specified time, date and place, and that the person named in his report
committed the crime. (Lyman)

2. ORDER MAINTENANCE
Order Maintenance is sometimes referred to as “PEACEKEEPING”. It is the regulation of non-
criminal acts. It included such specific matters as crowd control, traffic regulation, and riot
prevention and control.

3. CRIME PREVENTION
2 ASPECTS OF CRIME PREVENTION
1. THE DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS TO COMMIT CRIMES
Police seek to prevent crime be being present in places where crimes might be committed and
by alerting citizens to refrain from practices that make them or their property vulnerable-this is
OPPORTUNITY DENIAL.

2. THE DETERRENCE OF CRIMES THROUGH THE RISK OF BEING CAUGHT.

Police also participate in the prevention of crimes by increasing the risk that offenders
will be subject to arrest, prosecution, conviction, and punishment.

4. PUBLIC SERVICES
Public services are the most demanding function in terms of the time and resources of law
enforcement services, especially for local police. Most calls for service received by the police
have little to do with crimes or disorders, either real or threatened. There are calls for various
emergency services and aid, assistance in locating lost persons or property, help in getting rid
of dangerous animals, etc.

31