2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW

Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION

Finding of improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional consequences.

Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place
where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and
hear the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited
to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes
committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is
grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the municipality of province
where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available. Unlike in civil cases, a finding
of improper venue in criminal cases carries jurisdictional consequences. Venue and jurisdiction
over criminal cases are placed 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. Union Bank of the Phils. vs. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012

Determination of venue shall be based on the acts constitutive of the crime committed.

The crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the
Revised Penal Code is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her
affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When
the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither
criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as
supplement to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a
written sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn
statement is submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission
are both material ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases, determination of venue shall
be based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the crime committed. Union
Bank of the Phils. v. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Any person, not only the offended party, may file a complaint before the prosecutor.

Whether Section 80 of PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code) contemplates complaints or reports

coming from private individuals or by other forest officers or deputized officials, Leonora and/or
Rhoda were not precluded by law from filing a complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor for
petitioner's alleged violation of Section 68 of PD 705. Section 3, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
enumerates the persons who are authorized to file a criminal complaint. The "complaint"
mentioned in this provision, however, refers to one filed in court for the commencement of a
criminal prosecution for violation of a crime. This does not refer to a complaint filed with the
Prosecutor's Office. As a rule, a criminal action contemplated under Rule 110 is commenced by a
complaint or information, both of which are filed in court. Thus, if a complaint is filed directly in
court, the same must be filed by those persons delineated in Sections 3 and 5 of the same rule,
such as the offended party. In the case of an information, the same must be filed by the fiscal or
prosecutor. However, a "complaint" filed with the fiscal or prosecutor from which he/she may
initiate a preliminary investigation may be filed by any person. Talabis vs. People, G.R. No.
214647, March 4, 2020, J. Hernando

The filing of information tolls the prescriptive period of a crime involving an ordinance.

As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls
the prescriptive period where the crime charged involved an ordinance. The respondent judge
was correct when he applied the rule in Zaldivia v. Reyes. In that case, the offense was committed
on May 11, 1990. The Complaint was received on May 30, 1990, and the Information was filed
with the Metropolitan Trial Court on October 2, 1990. The conduct of the preliminary
investigation, the original charge of Robbery, and the subsequent finding of the violation of the
ordinance did not alter the period within which to file the Information. Respondents were correct
in arguing that petitioner only had two months from the discovery and commission of the offense
before it prescribed within which to file the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. Jadewell
Parking System Corporation vs. Lidua, Sr., G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013

Qualifying or aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information.

Although the minority of AAA at the time of the rapes, and the fact that the accused was her
paternal uncle were established during the trial, the RTC nonetheless correctly convicted him of
four counts of simple rape instead of qualified rape because the special qualifying circumstance

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

of minority was not alleged in the informations. The circumstances of minority of the victim and
her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify the crime of rape, but only her
relationship to the accused was alleged and proved. The RTC was precluded from considering the
attendance of such qualifying or aggravating circumstances in the judgment because of the
failure to properly allege them. People vs. Nuyok, G.R. No. 195424, June 15, 2015

Note: See also Rule 110, Section 8: The complaint or information shall state the designation of the
offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference
shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

A defective information for failure to allege a qualifying circumstance may be waived.

For treachery to be appreciated, it must be sufficiently pleaded in the Information in order not
to violate the accused's constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of
the charge against him. Here, it is conceded that the Information against Alegre is defective
insofar as it merely averred the existence of the qualifying offense of treachery without specifying
the particular acts and circumstances that would constitute such. However, it is submitted that
Alegre is deemed to have waived this defect, considering his failure to avail of the proper
procedural remedies. Based on the records, Alegre did not question the supposed insufficiency
of the Information filed against him, through either a motion to quash or a motion for bill of
particulars. He voluntarily entered his plea during the arraignment and proceeded with the trial.
Thus, he is deemed to have waived any of the waivable defects in the Information, including the
supposed lack of particularity in the description of the attendant circumstances. Since Alegre is
considered to have waived his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or
qualifying circumstance in the Information, treachery may be appreciated against him if proven
during trial. People vs. Alegre y Nazaral, G.R. No. 254381, February 14, 2022, J. Hernando

Character of crime is not determined by the caption but by the recital of facts.

There is basis to rule that there was sexual abuse in the instant case, given that Eulalio kissed
AAA, who was only 11 years old at the time, by employing threats to force her into submission.
In relation to this, it is important to emphasize that although Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610
was not expressly mentioned in the Information, this omission is not fatal so as to violate his right
to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. Indeed, what controls is not
the title of the information or the designation of the offense, but the actual facts recited in the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

information constituting the crime charged. People vs. Eulalio y Alejo, G.R. No. 214882, October
16, 2019, J. Hernando

Formal amendments after arraignment should not prejudice the rights of the accused.

The Rules impose restrictions in the amendment of an information to safeguard the rights of the
accused. Thus, an information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court,
at any time before the accused enters his plea. However, after the plea and during the trial, only
a formal amendment may be made with leave of court and only if it can be done without causing
prejudice to the rights of the accused. In the same vein, if it appears at any time before judgment
that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original
information upon the filing of a new one, provided the accused would not be placed in double
jeopardy. People vs. Bongbonga, G.R. No. 214771, August 9, 2017

An allegation of conspiracy to add a new accused without changing the prosecution's theory that
the accused willfully shot the victim is merely a formal amendment. However, the rule provides
that only formal amendments not prejudicial to the rights of the accused are allowed after plea.
The test of whether an accused is prejudiced by an amendment is to determine whether a
defense under the original information will still be available even after the amendment is made
and if any evidence that an accused might have would remain applicable even in the amended
information. Corpus and Samonte vs. Judge Pamela, G.R. No. 186403. September 05, 2018

Only the Office of the Solicitor General can file appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme
Court.

Based on the records, it appears undisputed that Petitioner has no legal personality to assail the
dismissal of the criminal case. Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
dictates that all criminal actions commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases before the
Supreme Court, the authority to represent the State is vested solely in the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG). The People is the real party-in-interest and only the OSG can represent the People
in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as the private offended party is but
a witness in the prosecution of offenses, the interest of the private offended party is limited only
to the aspect of civil liability. It follows therefore that in criminal cases, the dismissal of the case
against an accused can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State.
Bumatay vs. Bumatay, G.R. No. 191320, April 25, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS

The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against him on the
civil aspect of the case.

The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where:
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (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 is acquitted.
However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if mere 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 or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him. Dy
vs. People, G.R. No. 189081, August 10, 2016.

Death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto.

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. Corollarily, 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. Where the civil
liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action, which 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.
Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil
action by prescription, 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. In such
case, 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 deprivation of right by prescription. People vs.
Bayotas y Cordova, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994

The offended party or the accused may appeal the civil aspect of an acquittal.

It has long been settled that in criminal cases, the People is the real party-in-interest and the
private offended party is but a witness in the prosecution of offenses, the interest of the private
offended party is limited only to the aspect of civil liability. While a judgment of acquittal is
immediately final and executory, either the offended party or the accused may appeal the civil

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. The real parties-in-interest in the
civil aspect of a decision are the offended party and the accused. Pili, Jr. vs. Resurreccion, G.R.
No. 222798, June 19, 2019

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

The conduct of preliminary investigation lies solely within the discretion of the prosecutor.

The conduct of the preliminary investigation and the subsequent determination of the existence
of probable cause lie solely within the discretion of the public prosecutor. If upon evaluation of
the evidence, the prosecutor finds sufficient basis to find probable cause, he or she shall then
cause the filing of the information with the court. Once the information has been filed, the judge
shall then personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence to
determine whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. Mendoza vs. People,
G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014

Once an information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on judicial discretion.

The circumstances of the instant case are quite distinct: the appeal with respect to the finding of
probable cause has yet to be resolved, however, the merits of the case have already been decided
by the trial court resulting to an acquittal. In any case, the Court finds the instant case already
moot and academic. In Crespo v. Mogul, the Court ruled that once the information has been filed
before the courts, the dismissal, conviction, or acquittal of the accused rests on their sound
discretion; they are not bound by any change in the opinion of the prosecutor or his superior
regarding probable cause. The courts should not blindly follow the resolutions issued by the
Department of Justice and should determine on their own whether there is probable cause to
hold the accused for trial. Debuque vs. Nilson, G.R. No. 191718, May 10, 2021, J. Hernando

Determination of probable cause relies on common sense and not evidence for conviction.

Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure
a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes
the offense charged. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and
circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no
technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is determined is whether there is

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that
the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. Here, there is nothing in the
Assailed Resolution and Order which suggests that the Ombudsman dismissed the Criminal
Complaints due to PAO’s failure to offer such higher quantum of evidence. Public Attorney’s
Office vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 197613, November 22, 2017

ARREST

In arrest in flagrante delicto, the officer himself must witness the crime.

For an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto, two elements must concur, 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. The officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the
commission of an offense is absolutely required. The officer himself must witness the crime. As
already discussed, standing on the street and holding a plastic sachet in one’s hands cannot in
any way be considered as criminal acts. Verily, it is not enough that the arresting officer had
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had just committed a crime; a crime must, in fact,
have been committed first, which does not obtain in this case. Dominguez vs. People, G.R. No.
235898, March 13, 2019

Illegality of arrest must be raised before arraignment.

Well-settled is the rule that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he
failed to move to quash the information against him before his arraignment. Any objection
involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person
of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed
waived. Even in the instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional
defect, and objection thereto is waived where the person arrested submits to arraignment
without objection. Applying the foregoing, the Court agrees that Dominguez had already waived
his objection to the validity of his arrest. However, it must be stressed that such waiver only
affects the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused but does not carry a waiver of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. Dominguez vs. People,
G.R. No. 235898, March 13, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

BAIL

As a rule, all persons charged with a criminal offense have the right to bail.

Persons charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua cannot avail of this right if the
evidence of guilt is strong. In the present case, Recto was charged with Murder — an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus, the RTC was acting within its powers or jurisdiction when
it denied Recto’s initial Petition for Bail. The RTC possesses sufficient discretion to determine,
based on the evidence presented before it during the bail hearing, whether the evidence of guilt
is strong. However, after the prosecution had rested its case, Recto filed a Motion to Fix Bail on
the ground that bail had become a matter of right as the evidence presented by the prosecution
could only convict Recto of Homicide, not Murder. This Motion to Fix Bail was denied by the RTC,
reiterating its earlier finding that, in its judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong. This is where
the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. As correctly pointed out by Recto, the evidence of
the prosecution could, at best, only convict him of Homicide and not Murder. Recto vs. People,
G.R. No. 236461, December 5, 2018

Recognizance must be accompanied with a court order for the release of the accused.

Marzan unlawfully released Cyrus and Pascua. To stress, Cyrus and Pascua were lawfully detained
pursuant to a duly issued commitment order of a court of law and yet they were released
pursuant to an improperly issued Recognizance, without an accompanying Court Order, in
violation of the law and BJMP rules and regulations. The accused may be released on
recognizance under Republic Act No. 6036, P.D. No. 603, and P.D. 968, as amended. Also, Section
16 of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly provides, "A person in custody for
a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the offense
charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance,
shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court."
Marzan vs. People, G.R. No. 226167, October 11, 2021, J. Hernando

Motion to quash may be filed while a petition for bail is pending.

There is no inconsistency between an application of an accused for bail and his filing of a motion
to quash. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in the custody of the law, furnished
by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the
conditions set forth under the Rules of Court. Its purpose is to obtain the provisional liberty of a
person charged with an offense until his conviction while at the same time securing his

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

appearance at the trial. A person may apply for bail from the moment that he is deprived of his
liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. On the other hand, a motion to quash an
Information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or
Information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are
apparent in the face of the Information. Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, G.R. No.
148769, G.R. No. 149116, January 28, 2003

ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

Three-fold duty of the Trial Court where accused pleads guilty to a capital offense.

At present, the three-fold duty of the trial court in instances where the accused pleads guilty to
a capital offense is as follows: (1) conduct a searching inquiry, (2) require the prosecution to prove
the accused's guilt and precise degree of culpability, and (3) allow the accused to present
evidence on his behalf. The present rules formalized the requirement of the conduct of a
searching inquiry as to the accused's voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences
of his plea. Further, it made mandatory the reception of evidence in cases where the accused
pleads guilty to a capital offense. Most importantly, the present rules require that the
prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Evidently, the accused may
no longer be convicted for a capital offense on the sole basis of his plea of guilty. People vs.
Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020

Searching inquiry must be focused on voluntariness and full comprehension of consequences.

The searching inquiry requirement means more than informing cursorily the accused that he
faces a jail term but also, the exact length of imprisonment under the law and the certainty that
he will serve time at the national penitentiary or a penal colony. The searching inquiry of the trial
court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the
consequences of the plea. Not infrequently indeed, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of
lenient treatment, or upon bad advice, or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a
lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to see to it
that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions. A searching inquiry likewise
compels the judge to content himself reasonably that the accused has not been coerced or placed
under a state of duress — and that his guilty plea has not therefore been given improvidently —
either by actual threats of physical harm from malevolent quarters or simply because of his, the
judge's, intimidating robes. People vs. Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Guidelines for the conduct of a searching inquiry.

Although there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge must conduct a "searching
inquiry," the Court held that the following guidelines should be observed: (1) Ascertain from the
accused himself: a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; b) whether he had the
assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and c)
under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations; (2) Ask the
defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with, and completely
explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty; (3) Elicit information
about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic status, and
educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free
and informed plea of guilty; (4) Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature
of the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence because a plea of
guilty carries with it not only the admission of authorship of the crime proper but also of the
aggravating circumstances attending it, that increase punishment; (5) Inquire if the accused
knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain to him the elements of the crime
which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of
his fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a
denial of his right to due process; (6) All questions posed to the accused should be in a language
known and understood by the latter; and (7) The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused,
in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or reenact
the crime or furnish its missing details. People vs. Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020

Plea bargain requires the consent of the accused, offended party, and the prosecutor.

A plea bargain 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. 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. Taking into consideration the
requirements in pleading guilty to a lesser offense, the Court finds 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. DOJ
Circular No. 27 merely serves as an internal guideline for prosecutors to observe before they may

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

give their consent to proposed plea bargains. Sayre vs. Xenos, G.R. Nos. 244413 & 244415-16,
February 18, 2020

MOTION TO QUASH

As a rule, denial of motion to quash is not a proper subject of appeal or certiorari.

Motions to quash are interlocutory orders that are generally unreviewable by appeal or by
certiorari. If the motion to quash is denied, it means that the criminal Information remains
pending with the court, which then must proceed with the trial to determine whether the
accused is innocent or guilty of the crime charged against him. Only when the court promulgates
a final judgment of conviction can the accused question the deficiencies of the Information by
raising them as errors by the trial court and as an additional ground for his exoneration in his
appeal. Radaza vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021, J. Hernando

As an exception, denial of motion to quash may be the subject of certiorari in certain instances.

Radaza's erroneous understanding of criminal procedure may be overlooked and his Petition can
be treated as an exception if his circumstances should fall under any of the following: (1) when
the court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion;
(2) when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford
adequate and expeditious relief; (3) in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice;
(4) to promote public welfare and public policy; and (5) when the cases have attracted nationwide
attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof. Under these
instances, appeal is considered an inadequate remedy for a denied motion to quash and
certiorari may be allowed instead. Radaza's case, however, certainly does not fit in any of the
aforecited jurisprudential exceptions, thus deserving the least application of liberality. Radaza
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021, J. Hernando

Lack of authority to file information, while a ground to quash, is not a jurisdictional defect.

A handling prosecutor's lack of prior written authority from the head prosecutor in the filing of
an Information does not affect a trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or
the person of the accused. Such handling prosecutor who filed an unauthorized Information but
without bad faith or criminal intent is considered as a de facto officer coated with a color of

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

authority to exercise acts that remain valid and official. If the unauthorized filing was done with
malice, the erring officer may be held criminally or administratively liable for usurpation of official
functions at most. Intentional or not, this deficiency remains formal, non-jurisdictional, and
curable at any stage of the criminal proceedings. As it always is, jurisdiction springs from
substantive law, whereas a government officer's authority to sue is a matter of mere form and
procedure. Purely technical infirmities are never determinative of a court's jurisdiction. In no case
shall it prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the offense or the person of the accused
Radaza vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021, J. Hernando

TRIAL

Application of the rule on examination of witness is not without an exception.

In order for the testimony of the prosecution witness be taken before the court where the case
is being heard, it must be shown that the said prosecution witness is either: (a) too sick or infirm
to appear at the trial as directed by the order of the court, or (b) has to leave the Philippines with
no definite date of returning. Surely, the case of Mary Jane does not fall under either category.
She is neither too sick nor infirm to appear at the trial nor has to leave the Philippines indefinitely.
To recall, Mary Jane is currently imprisoned in Indonesia for having been convicted by final
judgment of the crime of drug trafficking, a grave offense in the said state. In fact, she was already
sentenced to death and is only awaiting her execution by firing squad. Her situation is not akin
to a person whose limitation of mobility is by reason of ill-health or feeble age, the grounds cited
in Section 15 of Rule 119. In fact, Mary Jane's predicament does not in way pertain to a restriction
in movement from one place to another but a deprivation of liberty thru detention in a foreign
country with little or no hope of being saved from the extreme penalty of death by firing squad.
People vs. Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, October 9, 2019, J. Hernando

Deposition through written interrogatories in a criminal case may be allowed.

Unfortunately, in denying the State's motion for deposition through written interrogatories and
effectively requiring the presence of Mary Jane before the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, the
Court of Appeals appeared to have strictly and rigidly applied and interpreted Section 15, Rule
119. Considering the circumstances of Mary Jane, the Court of Appeals demanded for the
impossible to happen and thus impaired the substantial rights of Mary Jane and the State. By
denying the prosecution's motion to take deposition by written interrogatories, the appellate
court in effect silenced Mary Jane and denied her and the People of their right to due process by
presenting their case against the said accused. By not allowing Mary Jane to testify through

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

written interrogatories, the Court of Appeals deprived her of the opportunity to prove her
innocence before the Indonesian authorities and for the Philippine Government the chance to
comply with the conditions set for the grant of reprieve to Mary Jane. People vs. Sergio, G.R. No.
240053, October 9, 2019, J. Hernando

There are two modes by which an offender may become a state witness.

The two modes by which a participant in the commission of a crime may become a state witness
are, namely: (a) by discharge from the criminal case pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court; and (b) by the approval of his application for admission into the Witness
Protection Program of the DOJ in accordance with Republic Act No. 6981 (The Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Act). These modes are intended to encourage a person who has
witnessed a crime or who has knowledge of its commission to come forward and testify in court
or quasi-judicial body, or before an investigating authority, by protecting him from reprisals, and
shielding him from economic dislocation. Ampatuan, Jr. vs. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3,
2013

JUDGMENT

Variance doctrine does not apply to conviction of a higher or more serious offense.

Anent the charge for Acts of Lasciviousness, the Court affirms the CA’s conclusion that
subsequent proof of suggested rape is immaterial where the allegations of the Information only
describe lascivious conduct. To convict an accused of a higher or more serious offense than that
specifically charged in the information on which he is tried (e.g., Rape versus Acts of
Lasciviousness) would be an outright violation of his basic rights. It is well-settled that a
conviction for a crime not sufficiently alleged in the Information is proscribed by the fundamental
requirement of due process and other rights granted to an accused by the Constitution,
particularly the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
People vs. Bongbonga, G.R. No. 214771, August 9, 2017

Dismissal based on demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal.

When a criminal case based on demurrer to evidence is dismissed, the dismissal is equivalent to
an acquittal. As a rule, once the court grants the demurrer, the grant amounts to an acquittal;

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double
jeopardy. Hence, the Republic may only assail an acquittal through a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, a review of a dismissal order of the Sandiganbayan
granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence may be done via the special civil action of certiorari
under Rule 65, based on the narrow ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Republic vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016

Acquittal is immediately final and unappealable and may not be recalled for correction.

In criminal cases, no rule is more settled than that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final
and unappealable. Such rule proceeds from the accused’s constitutionally-enshrined right against
prosecution if the same would place him under double jeopardy. Thus, a judgment in such cases,
once rendered, may no longer be recalled for correction or amendment — regardless of any claim
of error or incorrectness. In some situations, the Court had allowed a review from a judgment of
acquittal through the extraordinary remedy of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. A survey of these
exceptional instances would, however, show that such review was only allowed where the
prosecution was denied due process or where the trial was a sham. Mandagan vs. Jose M. Valero
Corporation, G.R. No. 215118, June 19, 2019

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Only upon absence of lawful occupant may two persons be made as witnesses of a search.

The Rules of Court clearly and explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose
presence the search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, a search under the strength of a
warrant is required to be witnessed by the lawful occupant of the premises sought to be
searched. Only upon their absence may two (2) persons of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality be made to stand as their replacements. This is the rule notwithstanding that
the PNP New Rules on Engagement makes it mandatory the presence of at least two witnesses
during the conduct of the search. As between the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and the
PNP New Rules on Engagement, the former shall prevail. The power of the Court to promulgate
rules emanates from Section 5, paragraph 5 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which cannot
be encroached upon by the executive department, more specifically, by the PNP New Rules of
Engagement. Estores y Pecardal vs. People, G.R. No. 192332, January 11, 2021, J. Hernando

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 14 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Requirement of particularity is satisfied if it is as specific as the circumstances will allow.

The requirement of particularity as to the things to be seized does not require technical accuracy
in the description of the property to be seized, and that a search warrant may be said to
particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow it to be described. The same principle should be applied in the
case at bench. It would be unreasonable to expect PO2 Avila, or an outsider such as Labrador for
that matter, to have extensive knowledge of the interior set-up or floor plan of petitioner's house
without, however, having apparent authority or opportunity to access the premises prior to the
search. In this regard, the Court holds that the validity of the warrant must be assessed on the
basis of the pieces of information made available to Judge Morga at the time PO2 Avila applied
for the issuance of the search warrant which, in this case, were sufficiently supported by the
sketches of Labrador, and the testimonies of PO2 Avila and Labrador, who were, in fact,
personally examined by Judge Morga in the form of searching questions and answers. Diaz vs.
People, G.R. No. 213875, July 15, 2020, J. Hernando

RULE ON CYBERCRIME WARRANTS

Jurisdiction of special cybercrime court is limited to offenses under Sections 4 and 5 of the law.

The Court En Banc approved A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, also known as the Rule on Cybercrime
Warrants on July 3, 2018. Section 2.1 of the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants provides for the venue
of criminal actions in relation to RA 10175, to wit: — “The criminal actions for violation of Section
4 (Cybercrime offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other offenses), Chapter II of RA 10175, shall be filed
before the designated cybercrime court of the province or city where the offense or any of its
elements is committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any
of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place: Provided, that the court where
the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other courts. All
other crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special
laws, committed by, through, and with the use of ICT, as provided under Section 6, Chapter II of
RA 10175, shall be filed before the regular or other specialized regional trial courts, as the case
may be.” Causing vs. People, G.R. No. 258929 (Notice), April 5, 2022

Law enforcers must obtain a warrant to examine computers even in warrantless arrest.

Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, a law enforcer may conduct interception, provided there
is a prior search and seizure warrant. The Rule on Cybercrime Warrants provides that the warrant

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 15 of 16
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

shall issue based on probable cause, established through facts within the personal knowledge of
the applicant or witness, that an offense has been committed, being committed, or about to be
committed. Unlike the Anti-Wiretapping Act and HSA, the Cybercrime Prevention Act does not
penalize interception without a warrant; it merely declares the evidence obtained inadmissible.
Nonetheless, under the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants, a warrantless interception is not
countenanced, for even in the event of a valid warrantless arrest, law enforcers must obtain a
warrant before computers at the scene of the crime or arrest can be seized (and their data
examined). Calleja vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 252578, December 7, 2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 16 of 16