Ateneo de Manila University

Law school is tough enough as it is. Let’s lift each

other up. A candle loses nothing by lighting another
candle.
---
Reviewer in It’s not about the big things that you do the week or
Criminal procedure the night before the exams, but the little things that
you do patiently and consistently every day.

- Joval
Joanne Marie R. Valles, CPA

References:
1. Criminal Procedure Bar Lecture Series- Willard Riano
2. Remedial Law Compendium- Regalado
3. Cases from the Syllabus of Judge Jaime Caringal
PAY IT FORWARD.

Last edit: 12 January 2022

 Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS......................................................................................................................................1
BASIC CONCEPTS........................................................................................................................................................................2
Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court ............................................................................................................................2
Nature of Philippine Courts ...................................................................................................................................................5
JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
JURISDICTION IN GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................7
How jurisdiction is conferred .................................................................................................................................................7
How jurisdiction is determined ..............................................................................................................................................7
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction .............................................................................................................................................7
Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction ....................................................................................................................................7
Principle of the Exercise of Equity Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................................8
General Elements of Jurisdiction ...........................................................................................................................................8
Jurisdiction by estoppel .........................................................................................................................................................9
Enjoining criminal prosecution ..............................................................................................................................................9
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Elements of criminal jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Requisites for Valid Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................... 10
JURISDICTION IN PARTICULAR ................................................................................................................................................ 13
1st LEVEL COURTS................................................................................................................................................................ 13
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS ................................................................................................................................................... 14
FAMILY COURTS .................................................................................................................................................................. 15
SANDIGANBAYAN ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
OMBUDSMAN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18
COURT OF TAX APPEALS ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
COURT OF APPEALS ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
SUPREME COURT ................................................................................................................................................................ 21
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT THE TRIAL ........................................................................................................................23
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.......................................................................................................................................................... 23
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE .............................................................................................................................................. 23
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED ......................................................................................................................................................... 24
RIGHTAGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION .................................................................................................................................... 24
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 25
RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AT THE TRIAL .................................................. 25
RIGHT TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS ISSUED TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND PRODUCTION OF
OTHER EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF ............................................................................................................................................ 26
RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION .......................................................................................................................................... 26
RIGHT TO COUNSEL ................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Rights of the accused under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure .............................................................................. 27
Rights of persons under custodial investigation................................................................................................................. 27
RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE ............................................................................................................................................. 27
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT....................................................................................................................................................... 28
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES ........................................................................................................................................29
ACTIONS ARISING FROM CRIMINAL ACT ............................................................................................................................ 29
(1) CRIMINAL ASPECT.............................................................................................................................................................. 29
General concepts ................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Injunction to restrain criminal prosecution ........................................................................................................................ 30
Venue .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
The complaint/information ................................................................................................................................................ 31
(2) CIVIL ASPECT: DAMAGES ................................................................................................................................................... 42
General ............................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Suspension of separate civil action..................................................................................................................................... 44
Independent civil action...................................................................................................................................................... 44
Effect of death on civil actions............................................................................................................................................ 45
Prejudicial question ............................................................................................................................................................ 45
Effect of judgment in civil action on criminal action .......................................................................................................... 47
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION .....................................................................................................................................50
DEFINITION, NATURE AND PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................... 50
WHEN REQUIRED .................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Last edit: 12 January 2022
 PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT .................................................................................................................................... 53
IN CASE OF CLASH BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND THE COURT.................................................................................... 55
LACK OF AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 55
PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................................................................................ 56
PROCEDURE IN CASES WHERE PI IS NOT REQUIRED ............................................................................................................... 58
Lawful warrantless arrests ................................................................................................................................................. 58
MTC cases ........................................................................................................................................................................... 58
REMEDIES OF ACCUSED IF THERE WAS NO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ........................................................................... 59
REMEDIES FROM PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................... 59
Remedies of the aggrieved party against the decision/resolution of the prosecutor ........................................................ 61
Action of the Secretary of Justice ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Remedies of the aggrieved party against the decision/resolution of the secretary of justice: .......................................... 62
Remedies of the aggrieved party against the decision/resolution of the ombudsman ..................................................... 62
REINVESTIGATION/PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................ 63
INJUNCTION AND WRITS OF RESTRAINT IN PROPER CASES.................................................................................................... 64
BAIL ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 64
INQUEST ................................................................................................................................................................................. 65
Inquest proceedings in case of warrantless arrests ........................................................................................................... 69
Preliminary investigation in case of warrantless arrests ................................................................................................... 69
Action of the judge upon filing of complaint or information.............................................................................................. 70
ARREST .......................................................................................................................................................................71
GENERAL CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 71
ARRESTS WITH WARRANT ...................................................................................................................................................... 71
John Doe Warrant............................................................................................................................................................... 72
ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT ............................................................................................................................................... 72
In flagrante delicto ............................................................................................................................................................. 73
Hot pursuit .......................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Arrest of escaping prisoner................................................................................................................................................. 73
Exclusionary rule ................................................................................................................................................................. 73
Method of arrest................................................................................................................................................................. 74
Post-arrest procedure ......................................................................................................................................................... 74
RIGHTS OF A PERSON ARRESTED ............................................................................................................................................ 74
REMEDIES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Bail ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Writ of habeas corpus ........................................................................................................................................................ 75
Writ of habeas data............................................................................................................................................................ 75
Writ of amparo ................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Motion to quash information; preliminary investigation / reinvestigation ....................................................................... 76
Criminal liability for unlawful arrest ................................................................................................................................... 76
Suppression of evidence obtained ...................................................................................................................................... 76
DIPLOMATIC AND PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES FROM ARREST ......................................................................................... 76
BAIL ............................................................................................................................................................................78
CONDITIONS FOR BAIL .................................................................................................................................................................. 79
BAIL; WHEN NOT AVAILABLE .......................................................................................................................................................... 79
BAIL; WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT .................................................................................................................................................... 81
BAIL; WHEN A MATTER OF DISCRETION ............................................................................................................................................ 81
DOCTRINES................................................................................................................................................................................. 82
TYPES OF BAIL SECURITIES.............................................................................................................................................................. 83
AMOUNT OF BAIL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 84
WHEN BAIL NOT REQUIRED............................................................................................................................................................ 84
BAIL FILED WITH OTHER COURTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 85
MOTION TO QUASH .....................................................................................................................................................86
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................................................. 86
GROUNDS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 86
EFFECT WHEN GRANTED ........................................................................................................................................................ 89
REMEDY WHEN DENIED.......................................................................................................................................................... 90
PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL ........................................................................................................................................................ 90
ARRAIGNMENT, PLEA, AND PRE-TRIAL..........................................................................................................................93
ARRAIGNMENT & PLEA ........................................................................................................................................................... 93
Duty of the court before arraignment ................................................................................................................................ 94
Plea ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 94
Options of the accused before arraignment and plea........................................................................................................ 96
PRE-TRIAL................................................................................................................................................................................ 97
Continuous Trial Guidelines ................................................................................................................................................ 97
JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................................................................................. 99
Last edit: 12 January 2022
TRIAL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 100
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL ................................................................................................................................................. 100
TRIAL PROPER ....................................................................................................................................................................... 102
Formal offer of evidence................................................................................................................................................... 102
Reverse trial ...................................................................................................................................................................... 102
Witnesses.......................................................................................................................................................................... 103
Others ............................................................................................................................................................................... 105
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA................................................................................................................................................................ 106
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 106
REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................................................................................. 108
JUDGMENT ................................................................................................................................................................ 109
POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES ...................................................................................................................................... 113
REMEDIES FROM ACQUITTAL ............................................................................................................................................... 113
REMEDIES FROM CONVICTION- BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT................................................................................................. 113
Modification of judgment ................................................................................................................................................. 113
Reopening of proceedings ................................................................................................................................................ 113
New Trial or Reconsideration ........................................................................................................................................... 113
Appeal............................................................................................................................................................................... 115
REMEDIES FROM CONVICTION- AFTER FINALITY OF JUDGMENT ......................................................................................... 119
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES ............................................................................................................................................ 121
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ........................................................................................................................................... 122
CONCEPTS............................................................................................................................................................................. 122
EXCLUSIONARY RULE ............................................................................................................................................................ 125
VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES .......................................................................................................................................... 125
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest ............................................................................................................. 126
Search of moving vehicles: Carroll Doctrine ..................................................................................................................... 126
Search of evidence in plain view; plain view doctrine ...................................................................................................... 126
Stop and frisk; Terry Doctrine ........................................................................................................................................... 126
Consented warrantless search.......................................................................................................................................... 127
Customs search and seizure of goods............................................................................................................................... 128
Private searches................................................................................................................................................................ 128
Extraordinary circumstances ............................................................................................................................................ 128
Canine or dog sniff test..................................................................................................................................................... 128
REMEDIES AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 128

Last edit: 12 January 2022

INTRODUCTION ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

INTRODUCTION shall issue a commitment order if the accused has already been
Requirements for the information arrested.
1. The complaint or information is required by the Rules to be • Respondent now becomes the accused.
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS in writing.
2. The caption of a criminal case contains at least two names. Provisional remedies. When the complaint or information is filed and
General overview: a. People. The first name refers to the party that the civil action arising from the offense charged is properly instituted in
1. Contact with the law brought the action and this party is denominated as accordance with the Rules, the offended party may avail of the
2. Filing of the information/complaint the "People of the Philippines." provisional remedies available in civil actions. (e.g. attachment, support
3. Preliminary investigation b. Offender. The second name refers to the person pendente lite)
4. Arraignment named as offender.
5. Pre-trial Bail. A person under the custody of the law may gain his release from
6. Trial (3) Preliminary investigation. This is an inquiry aimed at finding confinement by availing of the constitutional right to bail which may be
7. Judgment probable cause to charge the accused in court. It is an inquiry aimed at given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or
8. Entry of judgment determining whether a crime has been probably committed, whether recognizance.
the person complained of is probably guilty of thereof, and hence, must • When. He may apply for bail before or after he is formally
(1) Contact with the law. The mere commission of a crime does not be held for trial. charged and as a rule, the application shall be made in the
automatically trigger the application of the rules of criminal procedure. • Duty of the prosecutor. He may either recommend the court where his case is pending but no bail shall be allowed
The rules come into operation only when acts are initiated that would dismissal of the complaint or the filing of information in court after a judgment of conviction has become final.
put the offender in contact with the law, which is normally effected with an accompanying resolution to that effect.
when the criminal act is brought to the attention of duly constituted • Probation. If before such finality, the accused applies for
• Subject for review. This may be reviewed by a higher officer probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail.
authorities.
in the prosecution hierarchy or by the DOJ Secretary.
1. When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant.
2. A written complaint before the barangay or in proper cases a (4) Arraignment. This the formal mode and manner of implementing
Preliminary investigation; when required. Not all cases require a the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and
sworn complaint before the prosecuting arm of the
preliminary investigation. In cases where penalty prescribed is at least 4 cause of the accusation against him. If before his arraignment, the
government.
years, 2 months, and 1 day, PI is required. accused escapes, the court has no authority to try him in absentia.
3. Lawful search of a place.
• Exception. The penalty of the crime notwithstanding, an
(2) Filing of the information or complaint. A criminal action is accused that has lawfully been arrested without a warrant shall Arraignment; how performed. The arraignment of the accused is
commenced by the filing of a complaint or an information. not undergo a preliminary investigation. done as follows:
• Exception to the exception. Such person may ask for a 1. The accused is to be arraigned before the court where the
preliminary investigation after signing a valid waiver of the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial.
When no preliminary Directly with the 1st level court;
provisions of Article 125 of the RPC. He may do so until 2. It is made in open court by the judge or clerk
investigation is required or with the prosecutor for
within 5 days after he finds out about the filing of information. 3. It consists of furnishing the accused with a copy of the
evaluation of evidence against
complaint or information and the reading of the same in a
complainant
What happens when information is filed in court. Any disposition language he understands.
If preliminary investigation Proper officer [prosecutor] for
of the case now rests within the exclusive jurisdiction and discretion of 4. He is then asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.
required preliminary investigation
Manila and other chartered Office of the prosecutor, unless said court.
• Preliminary examination. This is a judicial function separate Actions before entering plea. During the date set for arraignment, the
cities otherwise provided in their
and distinct from preliminary investigation. It is conducted by accused need not enter his plea outrightly because before the
charters
the judge to determine probable cause for the issuance of a arraignment and plea the accused has several options:
warrant of arrest. a. Bill of particulars. The accused may move for a bill of
Note: The complaint filed before the investigating officer is distinct particulars if there are defects in the information or complaint
from the complaint filed in court. The former refers to the complaint • Duty of the judge. He may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence if he doubts the existence of a probable which prevent him from properly pleading to the charge and
that initiates preliminary investigation while the latter refers to the one preparing for trial.
that commences the judicial proceedings against the accused. cause. After, he may order the dismissal of the case if he finds
no probable cause, or he shall issue a warrant of arrest. He

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 1

INTRODUCTION ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

b. Suspension. He may also move for the suspension of the • Formal requirements. It is required to be written in the declares what acts are crimes the steps by which one who
arraignment when justifiable reasons do exist for its official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and prescribes the punishment commits a crime is to be punished.
suspension as when among others, the accused appears to be and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a for committing them.
suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.
renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him • How promulgated. The judgment is promulgated by reading Jurisdiction Venue
and to plead intelligently thereto. it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in The authority to hear and The place where the case is to be
c. Quash. The accused may, at any time before entering his plea, which it was rendered unless it is for a light offense in which determine a case heard or tried
move to quash, i.e., to dismiss the complaint or information. case the judgment maybe pronounced in the presence of his A matter of substantive law A matter of procedural law
counsel or representative. Fixed by law and cannot be May be conferred by the act or
Motion to quash. The following are the requisites: conferred by the parties agreement of the parties
1. In writing Post-judgment remedies. After 15 days from the notice of final Establishes a relation Establishes a relation between
2. Signed by accused and counsel judgment or order the judgment of conviction becomes final. Within between the court and the plaintiff and defendant, or
3. Filed before entering into plea said period the accused may: subject matter petitioner and respondent
4. Must distinctly specify both its factual and legal grounds a. appeal
b. file a motion for the modification of the judgment or for the Adversarial nature. The system of procedure in our jurisdiction is
(5) Pre-trial. After the arraignment of the accused and within thirty setting aside of the same accusatorial or adversarial. It contemplates two contending parties
(30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the accused, c. move for a new trial or a reconsideration before the court which hears them impartially and renders judgment
the court shall order the mandatory pre-trial conference to consider only after trial.
certain matters including: plea bargaining, stipulation of facts, the (8) Entry of judgment. When all remedies have been exhausted and
marking of the evidence, the waiver of objections to admissibility, a the judgment has become final, the same shall be entered in accordance
possible modification of the order of the trial and such other matters with existing rules.
Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court
that will help promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and
civil aspects of the case Section 5 (5), Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution
BASIC CONCEPTS The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules
• Limit. The pre-trial order shall bind the parties, limit the trial
to matters not disposed of, and control the course of the concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
Concept of remedial law. Remedial law is that branch of law which pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
action during the trial, unless modified to prevent manifest prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their
injustice. practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
invasion. underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
• In writing. All agreements or admissions made or entered
during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
Concept of criminal procedure. It regulates the steps by which one courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be who committed a crime is to be punished.
used against the accused. substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Substantive Law Remedial Law Court.
(6) Trial. Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the pretrial order, Substantive law creates, Remedial law prescribes the
trial shall commence. The rule is that once the trial is commenced, it defines and regulates rights methods of enforcing those rights
shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated but Limitations on the rule-making power of the SC.
and duties regarding life, and obligations created by
it may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause. 1. The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
liberty or property which substantive law by providing a
• Dismiss. If the accused is not brought to trial within the time for the speedy disposition of cases
when violated gives rise to a procedural system for obtaining
limit set by the SC with respect to the period from arraignment 2. They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade
cause of action (Bustos v. Lucero, redress for the invasion of rights
to trial, the accused may move for the dismissal of the case. 3. They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights
81 Phil. 640). and violations of duties and by
Otherwise, he is deemed to have waived such right. prescribing rules as to how suits
Note: The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and
are filed, tried, and decided by the
(7) Judgment. A judgment is the adjudication by the court on the guilt despotic one, to be exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from
courts.
or innocence of the accused and the imposition on him of the proper passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but is the duty of the court to
As applied to criminal law, As applied to criminal law,
penalty and civil liability, if any. substantive law is that which remedial law provides or regulates

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 2

INTRODUCTION
exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion. Andres vs.
Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802
Echegaray v Secretary of Justice
Leo Echegaray was scheduled for execution and the judgment against
him had already become final and executory. However, because
according to him some members of the Congress had either sought for
his clemency or the review or repeal of the law authorizing capital
punishment, the SC granted his application for TRO as a cautionary
measure. Respondents now question this move, saying that the judiciary
has transcended its power of review because its decision denying to
declare RA 9177 unconstitutional had already become final and
executory. Hence, it already entered the exclusive authority of the
executive.
Doctrine: Power to execute. This Court promulgated rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure which, among others,
spelled out the rules on execution of judgments. These rules are all
predicated on the assumption that courts have the inherent, necessary
and incidental power to control and supervise the process of execution
of their decisions.
• Execution and enforcement of judgment. The finality of a
judgment does not mean that the Court has lost all its powers
on the case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court
loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.
Even after the judgment has become final the court retains its
jurisdiction to execute and enforce it.
• Particulars. The particulars of the execution itself, which are
certainly not always included in the judgment and writ of
execution, in any event are absolutely under the control of the
judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the
person of the convict except to provide for carrying out of the
penalty and to pardon.
• Supervening events. The most important part of a litigation,
whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of
decisions where supervening events may change the
circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene
and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness. It is
because of these unforeseen, supervening contingencies that
courts have been conceded the inherent and necessary power
of control of its processes and orders to make them
conformable to law and justice.
Rule-making power of SC in relation to the Legislative
Sec. 2 of Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion
the jurisdiction of various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines
the security of tenure of its Members.
Sec. 30, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.
Morales v CA
The OMB issued a 6-month preventive suspension order without pay
against Binay Jr. and other Makati officials in relation to the complaint
filed against them for violation of RA 3019 and Plunder with respect to
the construction. Binay filed before the CA a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65, praying for the issuance of a TRO against his
suspension. This was granted. The OMB now questions the jurisdiction
of CA to grant the said TRO. He uses the following provisions under
the Ombudsman Act:
Section 14 (1). No injunctive writ could be issued to delay the
Ombudsman's investigation unless there is prima facie evidence that the
subject matter thereof is outside the latter's jurisdiction.
Doctrine: Rule-making power of SC. The Congress has been vested
with the authority to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
the various courts, as well as to create statutory courts. But this does
not result in an abnegation of the Court's own power to promulgate
rules of pleading, practice, and procedure. When Congress creates a
court and delimits its jurisdiction, the procedure for which its
jurisdiction is exercised is fixed by the Court through the rules it
promulgates.
• Congress violated separation of powers through Section
14 (1); provision invalid. The first paragraph of Section 14,
RA 6770 is not a jurisdiction-vesting provision, as the
Ombudsman misconceives, because it does not define,
prescribe, and apportion the subject matter jurisdiction of
courts to act on certiorari cases; the certiorari jurisdiction of
courts, particularly the CA, stands under the relevant sections
of BP 129 which were not shown to have been repealed.
Instead, through this provision, Congress interfered with a
provisional remedy that was created by this Court under its
duly promulgated rules of procedure, which utility is both
integral and inherent to every court's exercise of judicial
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
power. Without the Court's consent to the proscription, as
may be manifested by an adoption of the same as part of the
rules of procedure through an administrative circular issued
therefor, there thus, stands to be a violation of the separation
of powers principle.
The OMB’s case also hinges on Section 14 (2). No appeal or
application for remedy may be heard against the decision or findings of
the Ombudsman, with the exception of the Supreme Court on pure
questions of law.
Doctrine: Congress cannot increase the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.
• Attempted to increase SC’s appellate jurisdiction;
provision invalid. The appeal referred to the law is obviously
a Rule 45 appeal, because it is the only remedy taken to the SC
on pure questions of law.
Baviera v Zoleta
Doctrine: The remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions of the
Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in criminal cases or
non-administrative cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion,
is to file an original action for certiorari (Rule 65) with the SC and not
with the Court of Appeals.
Note: The ruling in Fabian v Desierto saying that CA is the proper forum
of appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the
Ombudsman is not applicable here. In the present case, we talk about
resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.
Power of the SC to amend procedural rules
Neypes v CA
Doctrine: The Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all
courts. It has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal or even establish
new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy
disposition of cases. In the rules governing appeals to it and to the Court
of Appeals, particularly Rules 42,[27] 43[28] and 45,[29] the Court
allows extensions of time, based on justifiable and compelling reasons,
for parties to file their appeals. These extensions may consist of 15 days
or more.
Fresh period rule: To standardize the appeal periods provided in the
Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the
Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which
3
INTRODUCTION
to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration.
• This means in case the litigant has filed an MR in the
meantime, the 15-day period for filing a notice of appeal
refreshes from the receipt of the order dismissing such motion.
This is consistent with Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules which states
that the appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of judgment
or final order appealed from.
Rodriguez vs People
Doctrine: The pronouncement in Neypes with respect to the fresh
period rule is applicable to criminal cases.
• To apply it strictly to civil cases only would suggest a double
standard of treatment when we favor a situation where
property interests are at stake, as against a situation where
liberty stands to be prejudiced.
Power of the SC to suspend procedural rules
General Rule: Under the doctrine of finality and immutability of
judgments, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law,
and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the
highest court of the land. Upon finality of the judgment, the Court loses
its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.
Exception: In certain instances, SC has exercised its power to suspend
its own procedural rules.
Almuete v People
The Supreme Court has suspended the application of the rule above
based on certain recognized exceptions, viz:
Aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or property which would
warrant the suspension of the Rules of the most mandatory character
and an examination and review by the appellate court of the lower
court’s findings of fact, the other elements that should be considered
are the following:
a. the existence of special or compelling circumstances,
b. the merits of the case,
c. a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of
the party favored by the suspension of the rules,
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
d. a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory, and
e. the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
Hence, in this case, although the decision of the court has already
become final and executory, the SC ordered the reduction of the penalty
imposed because the lower court imposed the penalty for qualified theft
even though none of the qualifying circumstances are present.
Sumbilla v Matrix Finance Corporation
Suspension of rules. Nonetheless, the immutability of final judgments
is not a hard and fast rule. The Court has the power and prerogative to
suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and
when justice requires it.
Rationale: Procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of
justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than
serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the
latter.
Other case of rule-making power
Tan v Bausch & Lomb, Inc
The Administrative Orders of the SC designating special intellectual
property courts to promote the efficient administration of justice
and transferring the jurisdiction over such crimes from the MTC
and MTCC to the RTC and which also gave the SC the authority to
designate certain branches of the RTC to exclusively handle special
cases in the interest of justice are valid.
Retroactivity of procedural rules
Article 4, Civil Code
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
Rationale: No vested rights may arise from procedural laws.
Heirs of Eduardo Simon v Chan
Elvin Chan filed a civil suit for collection of a sum of money while the
related criminal case for violation of BP 22 was still pending. The
complaint was also brought on allegation of fraud under Article 33 of
the Civil Code and committed by Eduardo in the issuance of the check
which later bounced. The civil suit was filed without having made a
reservation therefor.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
• There is no independent civil action to recover the value of a
bouncing check issued in contravention of BP 22. This is clear
from Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, effective December 1,
2000. (Purpose is to decongest courts)
• While it may be true that the changes in the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure pertaining to independent civil action
became effective on December 1, 2000 and the case was filed
on August 3, 1999, the same may be given retroactive
application and may be made to apply to the case at bench,
since procedural rules may be given retroactive application.
• The retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate
any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, nor is it
constitutionally objectionable. The reason is simply that, as a
general rule, no vested right may attach to, or arise from,
procedural laws.
People v Lacson
In this case, the murder case against Lacson was provisionally dismissed
in 1999, before Rule 111 took effect in the year 2000. Said rule provides
that a case shall be revived within 1 year or 2 years, otherwise the
dismissal becomes permanent.
• It is true that procedural laws may be applied
retroactively. But to do that in this case would leave the
State only 1 year and 3 months within which to revive the
case. This is short of the two-year period fixed under the
new rule for offenses punished by imprisonment
exceeding 6 years.
Doctrine: Remedial legislation, or procedural rule, or doctrine of the
Court designed to enhance and implement the constitutional rights of
parties in criminal proceedings may be applied retroactively or
prospectively depending upon several factors, such as
a. the purpose to be served by the new standards
b. the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities
on the old standards, and
c. the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive
application of the new standards.
Application to the case. The two-year period fixed in the new rule is
for the benefit of both the State and the accused. It should not be
emasculated and reduced by an inordinate retroactive application of the
time-bar therein provided merely to benefit the accused. For to do so
would cause an “injustice of hardship” to the State and adversely affect
the administration of justice in general and of criminal laws in particular.
Therefore, the rule should be applied prospectively.
4
INTRODUCTION ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Liberal Interpretation rights and powers (21 CJS 16). It is a board or tribunal which decides a CA is a court of original and
Controlling principle; liberal. Liberal construction of the rules is the litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus, 64 OG 3189). exclusive jurisdiction over
controlling principle to effect substantial justice. The relaxation or actions for annulment of
suspension of procedural rules, or the exemption of a case from their Court Judge judgments of RTCs.
operation, is warranted when compelling reasons exist or when the A court is a tribunal officially A judge is simply an officer of The SC is a court of original The SC is fundamentally a court of
purpose of justice requires it. Strict adherence thereto must not get in assembled under authority of law such tribunal jurisdiction over cases appellate jurisdiction.
the way of achieving substantial justice. As long as their purpose is A court is an organ of the affecting ambassadors, public
sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, government with a personality ministers and consuls, and in
the rules should be liberally construed. People and AAA v CA separate and distinct from the person cases involving petitions for
or judge who sits on it certiorari, prohibition
Relaxation of rule on standing. The surviving spouse of a woman A court is a being in imagination A judge is a physical person mandamus, quo warranto, and
who was murdered filed a petition for certiorari before the SC, assailing comparable to a corporation habeas corpus
a portion of the RTC’s decision. As a rule, only the (OSG) is authorized A court may be considered an office A judge is a public officer
to file a petition in court assailing the order of the RTC considering that The circumstances of the court are Note: The Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate court to which
the offense charged is a public crime. But the SC held that being the not affected by the circumstances decisions or resolutions of a division of the Supreme Court may be
surviving spouse of the deceased and the offended party, he has that would affect the judge appealed.
sufficient personality to file the instant special civil action for certiorari.
This is in line with the underlying spirit of the liberal construction of Classification/ Jurisdiction of Philippine Courts Courts of General Jurisdiction Courts of Special or Limited
the Rules of Court in order to promote their object. Declarador v Gubaton Regular courts engaged in the administration of justice are organized Jurisdiction
into four (4) levels: Those competent to decide their Those which have no power to
Relaxation of rule on hierarchy of courts. The rule is that a petition a. First Level (MTCs, MeTCs, MTCCs, MCTCs) own jurisdiction and to take decide their own jurisdiction
for review on certiorari which seeks to nullify an order of the RTC b. Second Level (RTCs, Family Courts) cognizance of all kinds of cases, and can only try cases permitted
should be filed in the Court of Appeals in aid of its appellate c. Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) unless otherwise provided by the by statute.
jurisdiction. A direct invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Court d. Fourth Level (Supreme Court) law or Rules.
to issue writs of certiorari may be allowed only when there are special A court may also be considered Those which have only a special
and important reasons therefor clearly and specifically set out in the Courts of Original Courts of Appellate ‘general’ if it has the competence jurisdiction for a particular
petition. In this case the SC decided on its merits as it involved a juvenile Jurisdiction Jurisdiction to exercise jurisdiction over cases purpose or are clothed with
and the application of the rule on Juveniles in conflict with the law. Those courts in which, under Courts which have the power to not falling within the jurisdiction special powers for the
Declarador v Judge Gubaton the law, actions or proceedings review on appeal the decisions or of any court, tribunal, person or performance of specified duties
may originally be commenced orders of a lower court body exercising judicial or quasi- beyond which they have no
Nature of Philippine Courts MeTCs, MCTCs and MTCs judicial functions. authority of any kind.
Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal are courts of original
and equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (US v. jurisdiction without appellate Example: Regional Trial Courts Example: Municipal trial Courts,
Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321) jurisdiction. Juvenile and Domestic
RTC is likewise a court of But RTC is an appellate court with Relations Courts
Discussion: Equity means justice outside of law. original jurisdiction with respect to cases decided by first-
respect to cases originally filed level courts within its territorial
Meaning of a Court. It is an organ of government belonging to the with it. jurisdiction.
judicial department the function of which is the application of the laws CA is a court of original CA is primarily a court of appellate
to the controversies brought before it as well as the public jurisdiction with respect to jurisdiction with competence to
administration of justice. It is a governmental body officially assembled cases filed before it involving review judgments of the RTCs and
under authority of law at the appropriate time and place for the issuance of writs of certiorari, specified quasi-judicial agencies.
administration of justice through which the State enforces its sovereign prohibition mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 5

INTRODUCTION ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Principle of Judicial Hierarchy Bagalihug v Judge Fernandez

Exclusive Jurisdiction Concurrent Jurisdiction Doctrine: This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested Rule: Property seized in enforcing criminal laws is in the custody of the
The power to adjudicate a case or The power conferred upon with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next law and cannot be replevied, until such custody is ended.
proceeding to the exclusion of all different courts, whether of the highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of
other courts at that stage same or different ranks, to take the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the proper forum Limits of applicability. The rule applies only where the property is
cognizance at the same stage of for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy lawfully held, that is, seized in accordance with the rule against
the same case in the same or necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and warrantless searches and seizures or its accepted exceptions. Property
different judicial territories attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive subject of litigation is not by that fact alone in custodia legis.
Sometimes referred to as jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the Court’s docket.
confluent or coordinate Custodia legis. A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has
jurisdiction Exception: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if been and is subjected to the official custody of a judicial executive
warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the officer in pursuance of his execution of a legal writ. Only when property
Constitutional Courts Statutory Courts interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of is lawfully taken by virtue of legal process is it considered in the custody
One created by a direct One created by law other than national interest and of serious implications. Under the principle of of the law, and not otherwise.
Constitutional provision. the Constitution liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition
The SC owes its creation from All courts except the SC are for certiorari directly filed before it.
the Constitution itself. Only the statutory courts.
SC is a Constitutional court. Declarador v Judge Gubaton
Relaxation of rule on hierarchy of courts. The rule is that a petition
Note: The Sandiganbayan is constitutionally mandated NOT for review on certiorari which seeks to nullify an order of the RTC
constitutionally created. should be filed in the Court of Appeals in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction. A direct invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Court
Magno v People to issue writs of certiorari may be allowed only when there are special
Jurisdiction is conferred by law. There is no rule in procedural law as and important reasons therefor clearly and specifically set out in the
basic as the precept that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and any petition. In this case the SC decided on its merits as it involved a juvenile
judgment, order or resolution issued without it is void and cannot be and the application of the rule on Juveniles in conflict with the law.
given any effect. This rule applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was
raised for the first time on appeal or even after final judgment. Doctrine of Non-interference or Doctrine of Judicial
Stability
When defense of lack of jurisdiction may be interposed. Whenever
it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with
action shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, each other’s orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin
during appeal or even after final judgment. the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The
principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the
Estoppel will not cure the jurisdictional defect. The operation of judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction
the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly or power of review.
depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not.
If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies.
theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an
assailing such jurisdiction, for the same "must exist as a matter of law, administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such body is co-
and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel. People equal with the RTC in terms of rand and stature, and logically beyond
v Casiano the control of the latter.

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 6

JURISDICTION ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION Exception: when the party law the SB had no jurisdiction over the case, and the
raising the issue is barred by information was filed at a time when the law has already been
JURISDICTION IN GENERAL estoppel. amended, giving SB jurisdiction over the case.
Remedy: Petition for certiorari Remedy: Writ of error or appeal
Jurisdiction. The power and authority of the court to hear, try and under Rule 65
decide a case. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
Meaning. Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question
Lecture: Jurisdiction defines the power and authority of the courts to How jurisdiction is conferred which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially
hear and decide cases, as well as to enforce decisions. This is statutory. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. It is the where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
You will never see in the rules of court anything that defines law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules. The rule is that in order discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of
jurisdiction. to ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the provisions of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters
law shall be inquired into. When the law confers jurisdiction, that of fact.
If a case is filed in the court of the judge, the first thing that a judge conferment must be clear. It cannot be presumed. It must clearly appear
does is check WON the court has jurisdiction because if it does not, all from the statute or will not be held to exist. Jurisdiction cannot be fixed Purpose. The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it
actions it takes are void. The only valid thing that a court without by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an
jurisdiction can do is dismiss the case. of the parties. Also, it is not conferred by mere administrative policy of administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of
any trial court. some question arising in the proceeding before the court. Omictin v CA
Jurisdiction Exercise of Jurisdiction
Baviera v Paglinawan
The power or authority of the Exercise of this power or How jurisdiction is determined Petitioner filed directly with the office of the DOJ a complaint against
court authority The facts alleged in the complaint and the law in force at the time the respondents for the sale of foreign securities unregistered with the
of commencement of action determine jurisdiction. In order to SEC. This is a violation of BSP’s regulations. The SC ruled that this
Error of jurisdiction Error of judgement determine the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases, the complaint case, being a specialized dispute, should have been first referred to an
One where the act complained An error which the court may or information must be examined for the purpose of ascertaining administrative agency of special competence, which is the SEC. All
of was issued by the court commit in the exercise of its whether or not the facts set out therein and the punishment provided complaints for any violation of the Code and its implementing rules and
without or in excess of jurisdiction for by law for such acts fall within the jurisdiction of the court in which regulations should be filed with the SEC, in accordance with the
jurisdiction the criminal action is filed. The elements of jurisdiction must appear in doctrine of primary jurisdiction as enunciated above. Where the
Occurs when the court exercises Include errors of procedure or the complaint or information, and not by the evidence presented by the complaint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorse the complaint to
a jurisdiction not conferred mistakes in the court’s findings parties at the trial. It was held however, that if the evidence adduced the DOJ for preliminary investigation and prosecution.
upon it by law, or when the court during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else,
or tribunal although with Errors in the appreciation of the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
jurisdiction, acts in excess of its facts or application of the law. • In cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, both the nature of the Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction
jurisdiction or with grave abuse offense and the position occupied by the accused are conditions Meaning. In view of the principle that once a court has acquired
of discretion amounting to lack This presupposes the existence sine qua non before the Sandiganbayan can validly take cognizance jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that
or jurisdiction of jurisdiction of the case. it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This principle also means
Can be attacked collaterally Direct attack only • In complex crimes, jurisdiction is with the court having jurisdiction that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent
to impose the maximum and most serious penalty imposable on happenings or events, although of a character which would have
General rule: Any judgment the offense forming part of the complex crime. prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court,
rendered without jurisdiction is a once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it
total nullity and may be struck People v Sandiganbayan finally disposes of the case.
down at any time, even on Doctrine: The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is to be
appeal determined at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time Exceptions. Instances when a court may lose jurisdiction even if it has
of the commission of the offense. been attached to it:
1. When a subsequent law provides a prohibition for the
• In this case, the violation of the Auditing Code was committed
continued exercise of jurisdiction.
at a time when a different law was prevailing and under which

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 7

JURISDICTION
2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is
repealed by a subsequent law. The reason is that, the State
loses the power to prosecute when the law is repealed, hence,
the court has no more power to decide.
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as
where the court fails to provide counsel for the accused who
is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently waive his
constitutional right.
4. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is
terminated, abandoned or declared void.
5. When the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the
effect that it intended to operate as to actions pending before
its enactment.
6. Once appeal has been perfected
7. When the law is curative
Power to execute. Even the finality of the judgment does not totally
deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is
the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the
judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and
execute it. Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice
People v CA
The RTC convicted private respondents Lipao for violating PD No.
705, punishable with the penalty of prision correctional. During
proceedings before the RTC, Republic Act No. 7691, or The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, took effect. This gave MTC, MeTC,
MCTC jurisdiction over cases covering offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six years. CA dismissed the case for RTC’s
lack of jurisdiction.
Doctrine: Where a court acquired jurisdiction over an action, its
jurisdiction continues to the final conclusion of the case. Such
jurisdiction is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over
such dispute in another court or tribunal unless the statute provides for
retroactivity. The rule is settled that jurisdiction continues until the
court has done all that it can do to exercise that jurisdiction unless the
law provides otherwise.
• RA 7961 will show that its retroactive provisions apply only
to civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage.
Neither from an express proviso nor by implication can it be
understood as having retroactive application to criminal cases
pending or decided by the Regional Trial Court prior to its
effectivity.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Office of the Ombudsman v Rodriguez
A complaint was filed against Punong Barangay Rodriguez before the
OMB. A similar complaint was filed against him in the sangguniang
bayan. Who has jurisdiction?
Doctrine: Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of
the parties but continues until the case is terminated. When herein
complainants first filed the complaint in the Ombudsman, jurisdiction
was already vested on the latter. Jurisdiction could no longer be
transferred to the sangguniang bayan by virtue of a subsequent
complaint filed by the same complainants.
Principle of the Exercise of Equity Jurisdiction
A situation where the court is called upon to decide a particular situation
and release the parties from their correlative obligations but if it would
result in adverse consequences to the parties and the public, the court
would go beyond its power to avoid negative consequences in the
release of the parties.
Poso v Mijares
The general rule is that the SC does not review a trial court’s decision
in an administrative proceeding (such as suspension, dismissal or
disbarment) since its main concern is to determine the ethical
responsibilities of judicial conduct. However, this case the exception.
Even if this is an administrative proceeding, the situation calls for the
exercise of the Court’s equity jurisdiction to the end that we render
complete justice to all affected parties.
• SC declared the decision of Mijares void for obvious
miscarriage of judicial ethics, therefore it produces no legal
effects.
o Lecture: The court exercised its equity jurisdiction in
this case by rendering void the decision of Judge
Mijares in this case (for obvious miscarriage of
judicial ethics), when normally, it doesn’t review a
trial court’s decision in administrative proceedings.
• Considering that Judge Mijares has been administratively
warned before for violating the Ethical Code of Conduct, the
penalty of suspension for 4 months seems to be
disproportionate. The SC meted out the penalty of dismissal.
San Juan v Sandiganbayan
In this case, Sandiganbayan granted a motion that did not comply with
the rule that notice thereof must be given 3 days prior to the date of
hearing.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Doctrine: While it is true that any motion that does not comply with
the requirements of Rule 15 should not be accepted for filing and, if
filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance, however, this Court has
likewise held that where a rigid application of the rule will result in a
manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, technicalities may be
disregarded in order to resolve the case. Besides, in the exercise of its
equity jurisdiction, the court may disregard procedural lapses, so that a
case may be resolved on its merits based on the evidence presented by
the parties
General Elements of Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the parties
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
3. Jurisdiction over the res
4. Jurisdiction over the territory
(1) Jurisdiction over the parties
This is the legal power of the court to render a personal judgment
against a person in an action. This mode of acquisition of jurisdiction
over the plaintiff and the defendant applies to both ordinary and special
civil actions like mandamus or unlawful detainer cases.
a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired when the action is
commenced by the filing of the complaint. This presupposes
payment of the docket fees.
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant
• When required. It is required only in an action in
personam; it is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and
quasi in rem. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over
the person is necessary for the court to validly try and
decide the case, while in a proceeding in rem or quasi in
rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not
a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
provided the latter has jurisdiction over the res.
• How acquired. By warrant of arrest or by voluntary
appearance of the defendant, without service of
summons or despite a defective service of summons. The
defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be
equivalent to service of summons.
• Instances when appearance of defendant is not
tantamount to voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court:
a. when defendant files the necessary pleading;
8
JURISDICTION
b. when defendant files motion for reconsideration of
the judgment by default;
c. when defendant files a petition to set aside the
judgment of default;
d. when the parties jointly submit a compromise
agreement for approval of the court;
e. when defendant files an answer to the contempt
charge;
f. when defendant files a petition for certiorari without
questioning the court’s jurisdiction over his person.
(2) Jurisdiction over the subject matter
The power to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and
means not simply jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the
attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the
particular case belongs. It is the power or authority to hear and
determine cases to which the proceeding is question belongs.
• When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that
ipso facto are to be immediately resolved by the court on its
own: What is the subject matter of their complaint filed before
the court? Does the court have jurisdiction over the said
subject matter of the complaint before it? Answering these
questions inevitably requires looking into the applicable laws
conferring jurisdiction.
(3) Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing
or the property which is the subject of the action.
a. Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the court by
placing the property of thing under its custody (custodia legis).
Example: attachment of property.
b. It may also be acquired by the court through statutory
authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the
property or thing within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Example: suits involving the status of the parties or suits
involving the property in the Philippines of non-resident
defendants.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by the seizure of the thing under
legal process whereby it is brought into actual custody of law, or it may
result from the institution of a legal proceeding wherein the power of
the court over the thing is recognized and made effective. Banco Español
Filipino vs. Palanca
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
(4) Jurisdiction over the territory
The offense should have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court.
Jurisdiction by estoppel
Figueroa v People
General rule: The issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
Exception: Estoppel by laches, bars a litigant from asserting the court’s
absence or lack of jurisdiction, only in exceptional cases similar to the
factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy wherein the jurisdiction of the court
was assailed only 15 years after the questioned ruling had been entered.
• Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable
and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising
due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert
it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to recognition
of that court’s jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the
court’s jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however, did not intend this
statement to lay down the general rule. The Sibonghanoy doctrine applies
only to exceptional circumstances. The general rule remains: a court’s
lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even
on appeal.
• This doctrine is based upon grounds of public policy and is
principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of
permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
• The SC frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting
one’s case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only
if favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not.
Summary. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. After
voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on
the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or
power of the court. While the jurisdiction of a tribunal may be
challenged at any time, sound public policy bars one from doing so after
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
their having procured that jurisdiction, speculating on the fortunes of
litigation.
Enjoining criminal prosecution
General rule: The Court will not issue writs of prohibition or
injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal
prosecution. With more reason will injunction not lie when the case is
still at the stage of preliminary investigation or reinvestigation.
• Lecture: The rationale behind the prohibition to issue
injunction to restrain criminal prosecution is that no one
should stifle or stop the punishment of criminals. Public
interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated
and prosecuted for the protection of society.
Exceptions:
1. When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate
protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
2. When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice
or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of action
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice;
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority;
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation;
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
lust for vengeance; and
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused
and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.
Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution . Where
there is manifest bad faith that accompanies the filing of criminal
charges, as in the instant case where Brocka, et al. were barred from
enjoying provisional release until such time that charges were filed, and
where a sham preliminary investigation was hastily conducted, charges
that are filed as a result should lawfully be enjoined. Brocka v Enrile
Mandamus
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, immediately or at some other
specified time, to do the act required to be done, when the respondent
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
9
JURISDICTION
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or when the
respondent excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
office to which the latter is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• The remedy of mandamus, as an extraordinary writ, lies only
to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a
discretionary one. Mandamus will not issue to control the
exercise of discretion by a public officer where the law
imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in
reference to any manner in which he is required to act, because
it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the
court.
• The only time the discretion of the prosecutor will stand
review by mandamus is when the prosecutor gravely abuses
his discretion.
General rule: mandamus will not lie to compel the filing of an
information. Petitioners seek to compel respondent prosecutor
Villordon to resolve the preliminary investigation and file a criminal
information against Dee. This was not allowed by the court because the
institution of a criminal action involves the exercise of sound discretion
by the prosecutor mandamus lies to compel an officer to perform a
ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. In Sanchez v. Demetriou, the
Court said that mandamus will lie if there is showing of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the prosecutor. Marcelo, Jr. v Villordon
General rule: mandamus will not lie to compel dismissal of a
complaint. Petitioners seek to compel the respondent Judge Bay to
grant their motion to withdraw information and dismiss the case
through a writ of mandamus. This was not allowed by the court because
to do so would curb Judge Bay’s exercise of judicial discretion.
Mandamus lies to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not
a discretionary one. Hipos v Judge Bay
Exception; GADALEJ or to compel performance in case of
inaction. Petitioners, invoking their constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of their cases, seek to compel the Office of the OMB to
dismiss the administrative and criminal cases which have been pending
for almost 8 years already since the date of filing of the complaint. The
SC allowed this.
• It is inaccurate to say that the writ will never issue to control
the public official’s discretion. Our jurisprudence is replete
with exceptions to that rule.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• Thus, this Court held that if the questioned act was done with
grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable excess
of authority, the writ will be issued to control the exercise of
such discretion.
• Likewise, mandamus is a proper recourse for citizens who
seek to enforce a public right and to compel the performance
of a public duty, most especially when mandated by the
Constitution. Thus, a party to a case may demand expeditious
action from all officials who are tasked with the administration
of justice. Enriquez v Office of the Ombudsman
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Defined. The power or authority of a court to hear and to decide the
cases of a criminal nature.
Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts
See discussion under Jurisdiction in Particular
Elements of criminal jurisdiction
1. Penalty attached
2. Nature of the offense charged
3. Territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime commission
Note 1: Determined by the allegations in the complaint or information
not by the results of proof or by the trial’s court’s appreciation of the
evidence presented;
Note 2: Determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of
the criminal action and not at the time of its commission. Once vested
it cannot be withdrawn by a:
1. Subsequent valid amendment of the information or;
2. Subsequent statutory amendment of the rules of jurisdiction
UNLESS the amendatory law expressly provides otherwise or
is construed that it is intended to operate to actions pending
before its amendment, in which case the court where the
action is pending is ousted of jurisdiction and the pending
action will have to be transferred to the court having
jurisdiction by virtue of the amendatory law.
Penalty attached
People v Lagon
Subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the
authority of the court to impose the penalty imposable under the
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
applicable statute given the allegations of a criminal information, and
NOT by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by
the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial. See facts in
earlier discussion.
People v Mariano
Mariano alleges that CFI of Bulacan does not have jurisdiction over the
Estafa case against him because the subject matter (cable power and
electric cables) of the said case were the same with those involved in
the Malversation of Public Property case for which the Mayor was
convicted before the Tribunal. The Judge of CFI who sustained motion
to quash said that the military commission and CFI had concurrent
jurisdiction over the subject matter and because the former tribunal was
the first to take cognizance of the subject matter, respondent court lost
jurisdiction over it.
Ruling: The Military Commission is without power or authority to hear
and determine the particular offense charged against respondent
Mariano, hence, there is no concurrent jurisdiction between it and
respondent court to speak of. The rule that the court or tribunal which
first takes cognizance of the case acquires jurisdiction thereof exclusive
of the other does not apply in this case. CFI has jurisdiction because
the law in force at the time of commence of the action was the Judiciary
Act of 1948, vesting jurisdiction upon the CFI with respect to criminal
cases in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more
than six months, or a fine of more than two hundred pesos.
Requisites for Valid Exercise of Criminal
Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter. The authority of the court
to hear and determine a particular criminal case. The jurisdiction
of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations of
the complaint or information and once it is so shown, the court
may validly take cognizance of the case. It is the averments in the
information which characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the
court before which it must be tried.
2. Jurisdiction over the territory. This element requires that the
offense must have been committed within the court's territorial
jurisdiction. This fact is to be determined by the facts alleged in the
complaint or information as regards the place where the offense
charged was committed.
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused. This kind of
jurisdiction requires that the person charged with the offense must
10
JURISDICTION
have been brought into its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of
arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter
People v Lagon
Doctrine: Subject-matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by
the authority of the court to impose the penalty imposable under the
applicable statute given the allegations of a criminal information, and
NOT by what may be meted out to the offender after trial, or even by
the result of the evidence that would be presented at the trial.
• Lagon was charged with Estafa under Art 315 of the RPC. At
the time the information was filed, said law had already been
amended by PD 818, which imposed a higher penalty for the
crime and placed the case outside the City Court’s jurisdiction,
and into the CFI’s. The issue is which court has jurisdiction
over the case, considering that the latter law imposed a higher
penalty, and when applied, may be in disregard of the rule
against retroactivity of penal laws. CFI Roxas has jurisdiction
to try the case.
Application to the case: The new law (PD 818) will be applied to
determine the jurisdiction of the court, consistent with the principle that
subject matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal law matters is properly
measured by the law in effect at the time of the commencement of a
criminal action, rather than by the law in effect at the time of the
commission of the offense charged. However, as regards the imposable
penalty, the old law (Art 315 of the RPC) will be used because to apply
the higher penalty under the new law will be against the rule on
retroactivity of penal laws.
• It is unquestionable that the Court of First Instance, taking
cognizance of a criminal case coming under its jurisdiction,
may, after trial, impose a penalty that is proper for a crime
within the exclusive competence of a municipal or city court
as the evidence would warrant. He cannot be said to be acting
without jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the territory
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court
has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Isip v People
• The rule is settled that an objection may be raised based on
the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense
charged, or it may be considered motu proprio by the court at
any stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Treñas v People
Doctrine: In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot
exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed
outside its limited territory. The prosecution must not only prove that
the offense was committed, it must also prove the identity of the
accused and the fact that the offense was committed within the
jurisdiction of the court.
• An information for estafa was filed against Treñas before
Makati RTC. It was not alleged that any of the acts material to
the crime of estafa had occurred in Makati City. Thus, the trial
court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the case.
Lecture: The rationale behind this is that criminal laws should be
favorable to the accused. Confining the court’s jurisdiction to the place
where the material ingredients of the offense took place will be more
beneficial to the accused in the sense that he no longer has to go far to
look for witnesses or pieces of evidence to support his defense.
Exceptions; when a court has jurisdiction to try offenses not
committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The rule that the
offense must be prosecuted and tried in the place where the same was
committed admits of certain exceptions:
a. Where the Supreme Court, pursuant to its constitutional
powers orders a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
b. When the law provides otherwise
c. Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course
of its voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried
not necessarily in the place of the commission of the crime. It
may be brought and tried in the court of the first port of entry,
or in the municipality or territory where the vessel passed
during the voyage.
d. Offenses Committed under R.A. 9372 (Human Security Act
of 2007)
Jurisdiction over the person
Serana v Sandiganbayan
Serana was a former UP Student Regent who was charged and
convicted with estafa for failing to ensure the renovation of Vinzons
Hall, after receiving a P15M financial assistance from President Estrada
for such purpose. She claimed that SB did not have jurisdiction over
her person and the offense of Estafa.
• Ruling: Serana came within the purview of Section 4(B) of
PD1606: “Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this
section in relation to their office.”
• Section 4(A)(1)(g) explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction over “Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled corporations,
state universities or educational institutions or foundations.
Petitioner falls under this category.
• As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs
functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock
corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed,
a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606. Section
4(b) makes no reference to salary grade.
• Salary is not an essential element of public office but is only
an incident thereof.
How jurisdiction over the person is acquired
Pete M. Pico vs. Alfonso V. Combing, Jr
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired either
through:
1. Compulsory process, such as warrant of arrest, or
2. Through his voluntary appearance, such as when he
surrenders to the police or to the court.
Miranda v Tuliao
General Rule: one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. This is because seeking an
affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings,
constitutes voluntary appearance.
Exception; special appearance. In the following cases, seeking relief
from the court does not amount to voluntary appearance or submission
to the court’s jurisdiction:
1. In civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not
other grounds for dismissal are included;
2. In criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
3. Motions to quash a warrant of arrest
Implication of the exception: Therefore, in narrow cases involving
special appearances, an accused can invoke the processes of the court
even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of
the law. In cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the
11
JURISDICTION ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

general rule applies, i.e., the accused is deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief.
• However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the
court applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the
custody of the law.
Alawiya v CA
In this case, the accused filed a motion to quash impugning the
jurisdiction of the court. This is a case of special appearance. Hence,
questions regarding jurisdiction over his person are not deemed waived.
Also, since this is not an application for bail, he may be granted the
relief prayed for even if he is not in custody of law.
One can be under the custody One can be subject to the
of the law but not yet subject to jurisdiction of the court over
the jurisdiction of the court his person, and yet not be in
over his person, such as when the custody of the law, such as
a person arrested by virtue of a when an accused escapes
warrant files a motion before custody after his trial has
arraignment to quash the commenced.
warrant
Lecture: Before trial can proceed, custody of the law is not
required (accused may have escaped), but jurisdiction over the
person is required.

David v Agbay and People Jurisdiction Over the Jurisdiction Over the
In this case, accused filed an urgent motion for redetermination of Subject Matter Person of the Accused
probable cause, thereby waiving any question on the jurisdiction over Refers to the authority of the Refers to the authority of the
his person. This case falls under the general rule. Since he is now within court to hear and determine a court, not over the subject
the court’s jurisdiction, he may be granted the relief prayed for. particular case. It means that matter, but over the person
the offense is one which the charged. This requires that the
Custody of the law Jurisdiction over the person court is by law authorized to person must have been
Custody of the law is literally One who seeks an affirmative take cognizance of. brought in to its forum for trial,
custody over the body of the relief is deemed to have forcibly by warrant of arrest or
accused. It includes, but is not submitted to the jurisdiction of upon his voluntary submission
limited to, detention. the court to the court.
Accomplished either by arrest Acquired upon his arrest or Derived from the law. It can May be acquired by consent of
or voluntary surrender voluntary appearance. never be acquired solely by the accused (by voluntary
consent of the accused. appearance) or by waiver of
Voluntary appearance is objections.
accomplished either by his Objection that the court has no If he fails to make his objection
pleading to the merits (such as jurisdiction over the subject on time, he will be deemed to
by filing a motion to quash or matter may be made at any have waived it.
other pleadings requiring the stage of the proceeding, and
exercise of the court’s the right to make such
jurisdiction thereover, objection is never waived.
appearing for arraignment,
entering trial) or by filing bail.
Custody of the law is required
before the court can act upon
the application for bail, but is
not required for the
adjudication of other reliefs
sought by the defendant

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 12

JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION IN PARTICULAR
1st LEVEL COURTS
SECTION 32, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691. Jurisdiction of
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. Except in cases falling within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or
municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction; and
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective
of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising
from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind,
nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, that in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof (as amended by R.A, No. 7691).
Except those under exclusive original jurisdiction of RTC and
Sandiganbayan. Congress has the plenary power to define, prescribe
and apportion the jurisdictions of various courts. Hence, it may, by law,
provide that a certain class of cases should be exclusively heard and
determined by a specific court. COMELEC v Judge Aguirre
• Special laws prevail. Moreover, the settled rule in statutory
construction is that in case of conflict between a general law
and a special law, the latter must prevail. Jurisdiction
conferred by a special law to Regional Trial Courts must
prevail over that granted by a general law to Municipal Trial
Courts. Samson v Daway
The following cases fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
RTC [by virtue of special laws]:
1. Violations of the Omnibus Election Code; the one with
the substitute voting. RTC that has exclusive jurisdiction to
try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for violation
of the Omnibus Election Code, except those relating to the
offense of failure to register or failure to vote. COMELEC v
Judge Aguirre
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
2. Violation of intellectual property rights; the one with the
rayban shades. RTC was vested with the exclusive and
original jurisdiction to try and decide intellectual property
cases pursuant to Section 23 of BP 129 [giving SC the power
to designate certain RTC branches to exclusively try certain
cases], AO 113-95 and AO 104-96 of the SC. Tan v Bausch &
Lomb, Inc.
3. Violations of Intellectual Property Code; the one with the
ITTI shoes. Section 27 of RA 166 [Trademark Law] provides
that jurisdiction over cases of registered marks, unfair
competition, false designation of origin, and false description
of representation is lodged with the court of first instance.
Courts of First Instance are now called Regional Trial Courts.
Samson v Daway
4. Special commercial courts. On June 17, 2003, the Court
further issued a Resolution consolidating jurisdiction to hear
and decide Intellectual Property Code and Securities and
Exchange Commission cases in specific Regional Trial Courts
designated as Special Commercial Courts. The RTC branch
so designated will try and decide cases involving violations of
intellectual property rights, and cases formerly cognizable by
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Samson v Daway;
Tan v Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
SECTION 33, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, as further
amended by RA 11756. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil
cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed two million pesos
(P2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which
must be specifically alleged:
• Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the
determination of the filing fees:
• Provided, further, That where there are several claims or
causes of actions between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand
shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant
raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership,
the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession; and
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where
the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive on interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots.
(4) Exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions
where the demand or claim does not exceed Two million pesos
(P2,000,000.00).
SECTION 34, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691. Delegated
Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there
is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value
of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the
claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more
than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same
manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
SECTION 35, BP 129. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. In the
absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any
Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial
Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the
absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
13
JURISDICTION
SECTION 36, BP 129. Summary procedures in special cases. In
Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts with at least two
branches, the Supreme Court may designate one or more branches
thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases,
those involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations,
violations of the rental law, and such other cases requiring summary
disposition as the Supreme Court may determine. The Supreme Court
shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order
to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof
without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedures may
provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of
oral testimony and that the periods for filing pleadings shall be non-
extendible.
REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Resolution of the court en banc dated October 15, 1991 providing for
the revised rule on summary procedure for metropolitan trial courts,
municipal trial courts in cities, municipal trial courts and municipal
circuit trial courts.
Pursuant to Section 36 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P
Blg. 129) and to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination
of the cases referred to herein, the Court Resolved to promulgate the
following Revised Rule on Summary Procedure:
Section 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the SUMMARY
PROCEDURE in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction:
A. Civil Cases:
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the
amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered.
Where attorney's fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed
twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).
2. All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total
amount of the plaintiff's claim does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
B. Criminal Cases:
1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
2. Violations of the rental law;
3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
4. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law
for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
months, or a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided,
however, that in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the
imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).
Summary procedure does not apply to cases where another cause
of action is governed by ordinary procedure. This Rule shall not
apply to a civil case where the plaintiff’s cause of action is pleaded in
the same complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary
procedure; nor to a criminal case where the offense charged is
necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary
procedure.
Section 2. Determination of applicability. — Upon the filing of a civil or
criminal action, the court shall issue an order declaring whether or not
the case shall be governed by this Rule. A patently erroneous
determination to avoid the application of the Rule on Summary
Procedure is a ground for disciplinary action.
TO SUMMARIZE:
Criminal Jurisdiction of MetC, MTC, MCTC
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or
municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the
amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable or
accessory penalties, including the civil liability arising from
such offenses irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount.
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offense where the only
penalty provided for by law is a fine of an amount not more
than P4,000.
4. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving
damage to property through criminal negligence (reckless
imprudence)
5. Violations of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
6. Summary Procedure in the following cases:
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations,
violations of the rental law; and violations of municipal
or city ordinances
b. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by
law for the offense charged is imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months or fine not exceeding P1,000, or
both, irrespective of other imposable penalties,
accessory or otherwise, or of the the civil liability arising
therefrom.
c. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed
P10,000
7. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications for bail in
criminal cases in the absence of all RTC judges in a province
or city.
8. Exclusive original jurisdiction to try offenses of failure to
register or failure to vote under the Omnibus Election Code
9. Impossible penalty is Destierro
10. In the absence of RTC judges they can hear and decide cases
for writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail.
Prohibited actions in summary procedure
1. Motion to quash the complaint or information except if the
ground is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure
to comply with the barangay conciliation proceedings;
2. Motion for bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial, or for consideration of a judgment, or
for reopening of trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or
any other paper;
6. Memoranda;
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any
interlocutory order issued by the court; (Bar 2004)
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
10. Reply;
11. Third-party complaints;
12. Interventions
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
14
JURISDICTION
SECTION 19, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, further amended
by RA 11756. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the
demand or claims exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross
value of the estate exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and
of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law.
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs
or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Two million
pesos (P2,000,000.00).
SECTION 20, BP 129. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and
concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be
exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
SECTION 21, BP 129. Original jurisdiction in other cases.
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
1. In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be
enforced in any part of their respective regions; and
2. In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers
and consuls.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
SECTION 22, BP 129. Appellate jurisdiction. Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such
cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional
Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases
shall be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals which
may give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that
the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant
a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be
reviewed.
SECTION 23, BP 129. Special jurisdiction to try special cases.
[C.A.J.U.S] The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the
Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and
domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which
do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies,
and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine
in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
SECTION 24, BP 129. Special Rules of Procedure. Whenever a
Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of juvenile and domestic relation
cases and/or agrarian cases, the special rules of procedure applicable
under present laws to such cases shall continue to be applied, unless
subsequently amended by law or by rules of court promulgated by the
Supreme Court.
Other laws which specifically lodge jurisdiction in the RTC
L.A.I.D. or D.I.A.L.
1. Libel;
2. Decree on Intellectual Property;
3. Dangerous Drugs cases except where the offenders are under 16
and there are Family Courts in the province;
4. Special Agrarian Courts under Sec. 56 of RA 6657, as amended
[Syllabus: In areas where there are no family courts, the cases falling
under the jurisdiction of family courts shall be adjudicated by the RTC.]
Other special cases; violations of Intellectual Property Code.
Section 23 of BP 129 gave SC the power to designate certain branches
of the RTC to exclusively handle special cases in the interest of the
speedy and efficient administration of Justice. SC issued A.O. No. 113-
95, which designated special intellectual property courts. AO 104-96,
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
which transferred the jurisdiction over violations of the IP Code from
the MTC and MTCC to the RTC. Hence, the case of Unfair
Competition is properly cognizable by the RTC. Tan v Bausch & Lomb,
Inc.
Other special cases; violations of Intellectual Property Code.
Section 27 of RA 166 [Trademark Law] provides that jurisdiction over
cases of registered marks, unfair competition, false designation of
origin, and false description of representation is lodged with the court
of first instance. Courts of First Instance are now called Regional Trial
Courts. Samson v Daway
Section 90, RA 9165. Jurisdiction over dangerous drugs cases.
The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among
the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to
exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act. The
number of courts designated in each judicial region shall be based
on the population and the number of cases pending in their
respective jurisdiction.
Section 56, RA 6657. Special Agrarian Court. The Supreme Court
shall designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
within each province to act as a Special Agrarian Court.
FAMILY COURTS
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8369
October 28, 1997
An act establishing family courts, granting them exclusive original
jurisdiction over child and family cases, amending Batas Pambansa
Bilang 129, as amended, otherwise known as act of 1980, appropriating
funds therefor and for other purpose
Section 5. Jurisdiction of family Courts. - The Family Courts shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
a. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen
(18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or
more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the
offense: Provided, that if the minor is found guilty, the court shall
promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused
may have incurred.
15
JURISDICTION
• The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of
application pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603,
otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code";
b. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
relation to the latter;
c. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
d. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of
marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of
husband and wife or those living together under different status and
agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of
gains;
e. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
f. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of
Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the
Philippines";
g. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned,
dependent or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary
commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of
parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree
No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related
laws;
h. Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
i. Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as
amended;
j. Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act," as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and
k. Cases of domestic violence against:
1. Women - which are acts of gender-based violence that results,
or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm
or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such
as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's
personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and
2. Children - which include the commission of all forms of
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and
discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their
development.
[NOTE: If an question involving any of the above matters should arise
as an incident in any case pending in regular courts, said incident shall
be determined in that court.]
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10630
An act strengthening the juvenile justice system in the Philippines,
amending for the purpose republic act no. 9344, otherwise known as
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
the "juvenile justice and welfare act of 2006" and appropriating funds
therefor
Cases under RA 10630 are cognizable by family courts. The
following are covered:
1. Children below the age of criminal responsibility (15 years
old or below)
2. Children exempt from criminal responsibility and
considered as neglected (above 12 up to 15)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610
An act providing for stronger deterrence and special protection
against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination, and for other
purposes
Section 30. Special Court Proceedings . Cases involving
violations of this Act shall be heard in the chambers of the judge
of the Regional Trial Court duly designated as Juvenile and
Domestic Court.
• Any provision of existing law to the contrary
notwithstanding and with the exception of habeas
corpus, election cases, and cases involving detention
prisoners and persons covered by Republic Act No.
4908, all courts shall give preference to the hearing or
disposition of cases involving violations of this Act.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262
An act defining violence against women and their children,
providing for protective measures for victims, prescribing
penalties therefore, and for other purposes
Section 7. Venue. The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family
Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of
violence against women and their children under this law. In the
absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed,
the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or
any of its elements was committed at the option of the compliant.
People v Judge Yadao
Minor must be alive. In vesting in family courts exclusive original
jurisdiction over criminal cases involving minors, the law but seeks to
protect their welfare and best interests. Here, the two minor victims,
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
for whose interests the people wanted the murder cases moved to a
family court, are dead. As respondents aptly point out, there is no living
minor in the murder cases that require the special attention and
protection of a family court. In fact, no minor would appear as party in
those cases during trial since the minor victims are represented by their
parents who had become the real private offended parties.
SANDIGANBAYAN
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10660
(latest amendment compared to RA 8249)
An act strengthening further the functional and structural
organization of the sandiganbayan, further amending presidential
decree no. 1606, as amended, and appropriating funds therefor
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act
No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are
officials occupying the following positions in the government,
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of
the commission of the offense:
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act
No. 6758), specifically including:
a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members
of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
provincial department heads:
b. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other city department
heads;
c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying
the position of consul and higher;
16
JURISDICTION
d. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains, and all officers of higher rank;
e. Officers of the Philippine National Police while
occupying the position of provincial director
and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent and higher;
f. City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations,
state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.
2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989;
3. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
4. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of
the Constitution; and
5. All other national and local officials classified as
Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with
other crimes committed by the public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation to their
office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection
with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
Salary grade 27 has no reference to officials enumerated from a to g of Sec 4(a)(1).
Exception to the jurisdiction of SB: That the Regional Trial
Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the
information:
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• does not allege any damage to the government or any
bribery; or
• alleges damage to the government or bribery arising
from the same or closely related transactions or acts in
an amount not exceeding One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00).
NOTE: Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court,
the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
under this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than
where the official holds office.
Additional notes:
• RA 1379- forfeiture in favor of the state of any property
found to have been unlawfully acquired by a public
officer
• Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code- Direct bribery, indirect bribery,
qualified bribery, and corruption of public officials.
More rules; same provision
Appellate jurisdiction of SB. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions
or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their
own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided.
Salary grade. In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade ’27’ or higher, as
prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and
PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court,
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal
circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective
jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended.
SB’s exclusive original jurisdiction over writs. The
Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
petitions for the issuance of
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature,
including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or
which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A, issued in 1986:
• Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall
not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
Civil cases in SB. Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to
the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the
corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall
at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed
to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no
right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the
criminal action shall be recognized:
• Provided, however, That where the civil action had
heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein
has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is
hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to
the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case
may be, for consolidation and joint determination with
the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action
shall be deemed abandoned
Private individuals. In case private individuals are charged as
co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers
or employees, including those employed in government-owned
or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said
public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.
Meaning of crime committed “in relation to office”. An
offense is deemed to be committed in relation to the public office
of the accused when:
1. Such office is an essential or constitutive element of
the crime charged
17
JURISDICTION
2. When the offense charged is intimately connected
with the discharge of the official functions of the
accused (if the office is not an essential element of the
offense)
As a rule, to make an offense one committed in relation to the
office, the relation has to be such that, in the legal sense, the
offense cannot exist without the office. In other words, the office
must be a “constitutive element” of the crime, as defined by
statute (such as bribery, malversation, these crimes contain the
element of public office as a requisite).
What should be alleged in the information? It is important
the information allege the intimate relation between the offense
charged and the discharge of official duties. The information
must contain the specific factual allegations that would indicate
the close intimacy between the discharge of the official duties of
the accused and the commission of the offense charged, in order
to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to
public office (remember that the allegations in the information
determine the jurisdiction of the court).
• Exception: In cases where public office is a
constitutive element of the offense, there is no need
for the information to state the specific factual
allegations of the intimate connection between the office
and the offense.
• Example: a policeman who has in custody an accused,
rapes the accused while in his custody. Public office is
not a constitutive element in rape but the rape was
intimately connected between the public office as the
policeman raped the victim while discharging his public
functions.
Jurisprudence
Salary grade determines salary. It is the official's grade that
determines his or her salary, not the other way around. To determine
whether the official is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, therefore, reference should be made to Republic Act
No. 6758 [Compensation and Position Classification Act] and the Index
of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades. An
official's grade is not a matter of proof, but a matter of law which the
court must take judicial notice. Llorente v Sandiganbayan
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• Note that under subdivision b, the salary grade is not relevant.
In relation to office. The relation has to be such that, in the legal sense,
the offense cannot exist without the office. In other words, the office
must be a constituent element of the crime as defined in the statute.
Montilla v Hilario
Private individuals conspiring with public officers. SB is a special
criminal court which has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving violations of R.A. 3019 committed by certain public officers,
as enumerated in P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes
private individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or
accessories with the said public officers. People v Go
Even if public officer dead. A private person may still be indicted for
conspiracy in violating RA 3019 even if the public officer, with whom
he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to filing of the
information. The death of such officer does not mean that the allegation
of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or that their
alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by
the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not
extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of
conspiracy between him and respondent Go. People v Go
Even if public officer dead. The requirement before a private person
may be indicted for violation of Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019, among
others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in
conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require
that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the
public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no
longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public
officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone. People
v Go
OMBUDSMAN
Section 15, RA 6770. Powers, Functions and Duties. The
Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties:
1. Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by
any person, any act or omission of any public officer or
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary
jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of Government, the investigation
of such cases;
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any
officer or employee of the Government, or of any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as
any government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty
required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties;
3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action
against a public officer or employee at fault or who
neglect to perform an act or discharge a duty required by
law, and recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary
authority as provided in Section 21 of this Act
• Provided, that the refusal by any officer without
just cause to comply with an order of the
Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine,
censure, or prosecute an officer or employee
who is at fault or who neglects to perform an
act or discharge a duty required by law shall be
a ground for disciplinary action against said
officer;
4. Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case,
and subject to such limitations as it may provide in its
rules of procedure, to furnish it with copies of
documents relating to contracts or transactions entered
into by his office involving the disbursement or use of
public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to
the Commission on Audit for appropriate action;
5. Request any government agency for assistance and
information necessary in the discharge of its
responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent
records and documents;
6. Publicize matters covered by its investigation of the
matters mentioned in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4)
18
JURISDICTION
hereof, when circumstances so warrant and with due
prudence
• Provided, that the Ombudsman under its rules
and regulations may determine what cases may
not be made public: provided, further, that any
publicity issued by the Ombudsman shall be
balanced, fair and true;
7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape,
mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the
Government, and make recommendations for their
elimination and the observance of high standards of
ethics and efficiency;
8. Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum, and take testimony in any investigation or
inquiry, including the power to examine and have access
to bank accounts and records;
9. Punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of
Court and under the same procedure and with the same
penalties provided therein;
10. Delegate to the Deputies, or its investigators or
representatives such authority or duty as shall ensure the
effective exercise or performance of the powers,
functions, and duties herein or hereinafter provided;
11. Investigate and initiate the proper action for the
recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth
amassed after February 25, 1986 and the prosecution of
the parties involved therein.
The Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints filed against
high-ranking government officials and/or those occupying
supervisory positions, complaints involving grave offenses as
well as complaints involving large sums of money and/or
properties.
Primary jurisdiction of OMB. The primary jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission of a public officer or
employee applies only in cases cognizable by the SB. In cases cognizable
by regular courts, the Ombudsman has concurrent jurisdiction with
other investigative agencies of government. Office of the OMB v Rodriguez
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Concurrent jurisdiction in admin cases. In administrative cases
involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining
authorities, the body in which the complaint is filed first, and which
opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the
exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction. In this
case, since the complaint was filed first in the Ombudsman, and the
Ombudsman opted to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, the
Ombudsman's exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the
sangguniang bayan exercising concurrent jurisdiction. Office of the OMB
v Rodriguez
OMB can prosecute graft cases cognizable by the regular courts
as well. Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the Ombudsman primary
jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The law
defines such primary jurisdiction as authorizing the Ombudsman "to
take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the
government, the investigation of such cases." The grant of this authority
does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction of cases
involving public officers and employees cognizable by other court. Office
of the OMB v Rodriguez
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9503
An act enlarging the organizational structure of the court of tax appeals,
amending for the purpose certain sections of the law creating the court
of tax appeals, and for other purposes
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is of the same level as the Court of
Appeals, possessing all the inherent powers of a Court of Justice.
Composition. It consists of:
• Presiding Justice (formerly presiding judge)
• 8 Associate Justices (formerly associate judges)
The Presiding Justice and Associate Justices shall hold office during
good behavior, until they reach the age of seventy (70), or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office, unless sooner
removed for the same causes and in the same manner provided by law
for members of the judiciary of equivalent rank.
Divisions. The CTA may sit en banc or in three (3) Divisions, each
Division consisting of three (3) Justices.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
• The Presiding Justices and the two (2) most Senior Associate
Justices, all of whom are incumbent, shall serve as chairmen
of the three (3) Divisions.
• The other three (3) incumbent Associate Justices and the three
(3) additional Associate Justices shall serve as members of the
Divisions.
• The additional three (3) Justices as provided herein and the
succeeding members of the Court shall be appointed by the
President upon nomination by the Judicial and Bar Council.
Quorum. Five (5) Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions en
banc and two (2) Justices for sessions of a Division.
• when the required quorum cannot be constituted due to any
vacancy, disqualification, inhibition, disability, or any other
lawful cause, the Presiding Justice shall designate any Justice
of other Divisions of the Court to sit temporarily therein.
Voting proceedings.
• Reversal of division’s decision. The affirmative votes of
five (5) members of the Court en banc
• Promulgation of resolution or decision. Simple majority of
the Justices present or two (2) members of a Division
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9282
An act expanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA),
elevating its rank to the level of a collegiate court with special
jurisdiction and enlarging its membership, amending for the purpose
certain sections or republic act no. 1125, as amended, otherwise known
as the law creating the court of tax appeals, and for other purposes
Section 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases
involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees
or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue;
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving
disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code
19
JURISDICTION
provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be
deemed a denial;
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local
tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their
original or appellate jurisdiction;
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving
liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure,
detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other
penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs
Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and
taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city
board of assessment appeals;
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to
him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of
Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of
the Tariff and Customs Code;
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of
nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of
Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article,
involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and
302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard
measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal
the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses
Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from
violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and
Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue or the Bureau of Customs
• Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in
this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified
amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the
jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate.
• Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary
notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding
civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and
penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with,
and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA,
the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily
carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal
action will be recognized.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
1. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in their
respected territorial jurisdiction
2. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of
the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction
over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their
respective jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided
Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and
executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties:
• Provided, however, That collection cases where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be
tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court and Regional Trial Court.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases
1. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them,
in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
2. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of
the Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction
over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in
their respective jurisdiction.
COURT OF APPEALS
Section 9, BP 129. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall
exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts
and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the
Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil
Service Commission, Except those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its
original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must
be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the
Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. No. 7902.)
People v Mateo
CA’s intermediate review powers. Article 8, Section 5 (2) (d) provides
that the SC shall have the power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or
arm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in All criminal cases
in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
• Intermediate appeal. The constitutional provision is not
preclusive in character, and it does not necessarily prevent the
Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, from adding
an intermediate appeal or review in favor of the accused.
• Intermediate appeal. While the Fundamental Law requires a
mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases where the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or
death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate
review
• Rationale. A prior determination by the Court of Appeals on,
particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the possibility
of an error of judgment.
• Intermediate appeal is procedural. Procedural matters, first
and foremost, fall more squarely within the rule-making
20
JURISDICTION ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

prerogative of the Supreme Court than the law-making power 9. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en Division Clerks of Court, or to one of the appellate courts or its justices
of Congress. The rule here announced additionally allowing banc or by a division my be modified or reversed; who shall submit to the Court a report and recommendation on the
an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals, a subordinate 10. Cases involving conflicting decisions of two or more divisions; basis of the evidence presented.
appellate court, before the case is elevated to the Supreme 11. Cases where three votes in a division cannot be obtained;
Court on automatic review, is such a procedural matter. 12. Division cases where the subject matter has a huge financial Rule 3, Sec. 3, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court . Advisory
impact on businesses or affects the welfare of a community; opinions proscribed. – The Court cannot issue advisory opinions on
SUPREME COURT 13. Subject to section 11 (b) of this rule, other division cases that, in the state and meaning of laws, or take cognizance of moot and academic
the opinion of at least three members of the division who are questions, subject only to notable exceptions involving constitutional
SECTION 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution. The judicial power shall
voting and present, are appropriate for transfer to the court en issues
be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
banc;
established by law.
14. Cases that the court en banc deems of sufficient importance to Rule 3, Sec. 4, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court . Cases when
merit its attention; and the Court may determine factual issues. – The Court shall respect
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
15. All matters involving policy decisions in the administrative factual findings of lower courts, unless any of the following situations
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
supervision of all courts and their personnel. is present:
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
1. The conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
Rule 2, Sec. 11 , Internal Rules of the Supreme Court . Actions on surmise and conjecture
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
cases referred to the Court en banc. – The referral of a Division case 2. The inference made is manifestly mistaken;
to the Court en banc shall be subject to the following rules: 3. There is grave abuse of discretion;
Rule 2, Sec. 3, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. Court en banc
1. the resolution of a Division denying a motion for referral to 4. The judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts
matters and cases. – The Court en banc shall act on the following
the Court en banc shall be final and shall not be appealable to 5. The findings of fact are conflicting;
matters and cases:
the Court en banc; 6. The collegial appellate courts went beyond the issues of the
1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
2. the Court en banc may, in the absence of sufficiently case, and their findings are contrary to the admissions of both
international or executive agreement, law, executive order,
important reasons, decline to take cognizance of a case appellant and appellee;
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance,
referred to it and return the case to the Division; and 7. The findings of fact of the collegial appellate courts are
or regulation is in question;
3. No motion for reconsideration of a resolution of the Court en contrary to those of the trial court;
2. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death
banc declining cognizance of a referral by a Division shall be 8. Said findings of fact are conclusions without citation specific
penalty or reclusion perpetua;
entertained evidence on which they are based;
3. Cases raising novel questions of law;
9. The facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s
4. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and
Rule 2, Sec. 14, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. Per curiam main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents;
consuls;
decisions. – Unless otherwise requested by the Member assigned to 10. The findings of fact of the collegial appellate courts are
5. Cases involving decisions, resolutions, and orders of the civil
write the opinion of the Court, the decision or resolution shall be premised on the supposed evidence, but are contradicted by
service commission, the commission on elections, and the
rendered per curiam the evidence on record; and
commission on audit;
1. where the penalty imposed is dismissal from service, 11. All other similar and exceptional cases warranting a review of
6. Cases where the penalty recommended or imposed is the
disbarment, or indefinite suspension in administrative cases; the lower courts’ findings of fact.
dismissal of a judge, the disbarment of a lawyer, the suspension
or
of any of them for a period of more than one year, or a fine
2. in any other case by agreement of the majority of the Members Rule 9, Sec. 5, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. Consolidation
exceeding forty thousand pesos;
or upon request of a Member. of cases. – The Court may order the consolidation of cases involving
7. Cases covered by the preceding paragraph and involving the
common questions of law or of act. The Chief Justice shall assign the
reinstatement in the judiciary of a dismissed judge, the
Rule 3, Sec. 2, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. The Court not consolidated cases to the Member-in-Charge to whom the case having
reinstatement of a lawyer in the roll of attorneys, or the lifting of
a trier of facts. – The Court is not a trier of facts its role is to decide the lower or lowest docket number has been raffled, subject to
a judge’s suspension or a lawyer’s suspension from the practice
cases based on the findings of fact before it. Where the Constitution, equalization of case load by raffle. The Judicial Records Office shall see
of law;
the law or the Court itself, in the exercise of its discretion, decides to to it that
8. Cases involving the discipline of a member of the court, or a
receive evidence, the reception of evidence may be delegated to a
presiding justice, or any associate justice of the collegial appellate
member of the Court, to either the Clerk of Court or one of the
court;

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 21

JURISDICTION ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1. The rollos of the consolidated cases are joined together to

prevent the loss, misplacement or detachment of any of them;
and
2. The cover of each rollo indicates the number of the case with
which the former is consolidated.

The Member-in-Charge who finds after study that the cases do not
involve common questions of law or of fact may request the Court to
have the case or cases returned to the original Member-in-Charge.

Rule 10, Sec. 2 , Internal Rules of the Supreme Court .

Confidentiality of court sessions. – Court sessions are executive in
character, with only the Members of the Court present. Court
deliberations are confidential and shall not be disclosed to outside
parties, except as may be provided herein or as authorized by the Court.

The Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson shall record the action
or actions taken in each case for transmittal to the Clerk of Court or
Division Clerk of Court after each session. The notes of the Chief
Justice and the Division Chairperson, which the Clerk of Court and the
Division Clerks of Court must treat with strict confidentiality, shall be
the bases of the minutes of the sessions.

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 22

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT THE
TRIAL
Section 14, Article III 1987 Constitution.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly informed and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Rule 115, Section 1. Rights of Accused. In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
a. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
c. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every
stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation
of the judgment.
• The accused may, however, waive his presence at the
trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail,
unless his presence is specifically ordered by the
court for purposes of identification. The absence of
the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of
which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of
his right to be present thereat. When an accused
under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have
waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial
dates until custody over him is regained. Upon
motion, the accused may be allowed to defend
himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the
court that he can properly protect his right without
the assistance of counsel.
d. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-
examination on matters covered by direct examination. His
silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
e. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against
himself.
f. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at
the trial.
• Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the
testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or
cannot with due diligence be found in the
Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to
testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial
or administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
g. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance
of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
h. To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
i. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by
law.
[These are consistent with the provision in our Constitution, as cited.]
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law.”
Due process in criminal proceedings. This simply means that the
procedure established by law should be followed. US v Ocampo The
clause is limited to the procedures. US v Grant
• This criminal due process clause presupposes that the penal
law being applied satisfies the substantive requirements of due
process.
• The Court held that due process is satisfied if the accused is
informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge
he has to meet, with his conviction being made to rest on
evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity
for him to rebut it and the sentence being imposed in
accordance with valid law. It is assumed that the court that
rendered the judgement is one of competent jurisdiction.
Nunez v Sandiganbayan
• Essentially, this is the right to be heard.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
“The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.”
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal
prosecution, the burden is upon the State to prove every fact and
circumstance constituting the crime charged, for the purpose of
showing guilt of the accused. US v Luling
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt. The quantum of evidence
needed to overcome the presumption is proof beyond
reasonable doubt. For as long as the defense is able to present
evidence enough to create reasonable doubt, the presumption
remains.
• Reasonable doubt. That doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability after such
investigation to let the mind rest upon certainty of guilt.
• Discussion: The following things need to be proved: 1. The
crime was committed and 2. It was committed by the accused.
Re: Conviction of Judge Angeles
Judge Angeles was convicted of 2 counts of child abuse. SSP Velasco
wants her suspended on the ground that RTC decision convicting the
judge is prima facie evidence of guilt. Does this conviction in itself
warrant her suspension? No. her case is still on appeal and she still
enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Doctrine: Presumption of innocence; how overcome. It must be
remembered that the existence of a presumption indicating the guilt of
the accused does not in itself destroy the constitutional presumption of
innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together with all the
evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, proves the
accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the accused's guilt is
shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence continues.
Summary of right to bail, when matter of right or discretion. Under
the present revised Rule 114, the availability of bail to an accused may
be summarized in the following rules:
• Matter of right. It is a matter of right when the offense
charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
o Before conviction of RTC; or
o Before or after conviction of first level courts
• Matter of discretion. It is a matter of discretion after
conviction of RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
o Sound discretion. After conviction by the Regional
Trial Court wherein a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years is
23
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL
imposed, and not one of the circumstances stated in
Sec. 5 or any other similar circumstance is present
and proved, bail is a matter of discretion.
o Stringent discretion. After conviction by the
Regional Trial Court imposing a penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more than
20 years, and any of the circumstances stated in Sec.
5 or any other similar circumstance is present and
proved, no bail shall be granted by said court.
Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Bail, when
discretionary – Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the
court, on application may admit the accused to bail.
XXX
If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, but
not more than twenty years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail
previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a showing of the
prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or similar
circumstances:
a. That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
b. That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence or has violated the conditions of his
bail without valid justification;
c. That the accused committed the offense while on probation,
parole, or conditional pardon;
d. That the circumstances of the accused or his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal,
the accused may commit another crime.
Application: not a matter of right even if none of the 5
circumstances are present. Leviste was convicted by RTC of
homicide [6 years 1 day to 12 years 1 day]. He appealed to the CA. Then
he applied for bail. Is he entitled to bail as a matter of right considering
that none of the circumstances in Section 5 are present? No, this is a
matter of the court’s discretion. A finding that none of the said
circumstances present will not automatically result in the grant of bail.
Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less stringent
sound discretion approach. Leviste v CA
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
“To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him”
Purpose of the right:
1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge
against him as will enable him to make his defense;
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against
a further prosecution for the same cause (See Art III, Sec 21, on
double jeopardy); and
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction.
With regard to this last requirement, facts must be stated instead of
conclusions of law. In other words, the complaint must contain a
specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to
constitute the crime charged.
Information. An information is an accusation in writing charging a
person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the
court. The purpose of the requirement for the information’s validity
and sufficiency is to enable the accused to suitably prepare for his
defense since he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the
facts that constitute the offense. People v Ching
Requirements of a valid information. A valid and sufficient
information must state:
1. Name of the accused;
2. Designation of the offense given by the statute;
3. Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
4. Name of the offended party;
5. Approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
6. Place where the offense was committed.
Test for sufficiency of the complaint or information. The test is
whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such
particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the
offense charged to enable the accused to suitably prepare for his
defense.
Evidence is for conviction, not determination of sufficiency of
information. The rule that evidence must be presented to establish the
existence of the elements of a crime to the point of moral certainty is
only for purposes of conviction, not in the determination of sufficiency
of information.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Discussion: Can an accused charged with the crime of qualified theft
be convicted of simple theft without violating his right to be informed?
• Yes. When the accused was charged with qualified theft, he is
deemed to have been informed of such crime as well as lesser
crimes or crimes necessarily included in the said crime, such
as simple theft.
RIGHTAGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. No person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself
Purpose. The right against self-incrimination was created on the
grounds of public policy and humanity. It was established to remove
the temptation on the side of the accused to commit perjury or to
prevent the extorting of confession by duress.
In relation to presumption of innocence. It is the duty of the
prosecution to produce evidence showing guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt; and the accused cannot be called upon either by express words
or acts to assist in the production of such evidence, nor should his
silence be taken as proof against him. He has a right to rely on the
presumption of innocence until the prosecution proves him guilty of
every element of the crime charged. US v Navarro
Coverage of the right. Dela Cruz was arrested for an alleged extortion.
Without presence of his counsel, the NBI agents asked him to submit
his urine for drug testing. This yielded positive results for the use of
Shabu and became a basis for his conviction under RA 9165. Is the drug
testing valid? No. The constitutional right of an accused against self-
incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to
extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his
body in evidence, when it may be material. In the case at bar, petitioner
was arrested for extortion and it was not shown how urine sample could
be material to the charge of extortion. That being said, the drug test is
not covered by allowable-non-testimonial compulsion. The drug test
violated petitioner’s right against self-incrimination. Dela Cruz v People
Right to refuse to speak in criminal proceedings. In a criminal
proceeding, the right can be asserted from the moment that the accused
is asked to testify. He has an absolute right to be silent. That is, he may
refuse to take the witness stand.
24
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL
Right to refuse to speak in civil proceedings. In a civil case or for
the witness who is not the accused, he may assert the right only when
the incriminating question is asked. That is, he cannot refuse to take the
witness stand.
Right to refuse to speak in administrative proceedings. It depends
on the nature of the hearing. If a penalty may be imposed by the
administrative body, such as the forfeiture of property or the revocation
of a license, then the right may be asserted in the same way as in criminal
proceedings.
Rosete vs Lim
Petitioners Mapalo and Chito Rosete refuse to have their depositions
taken in the civil case because they allegedly would be incriminating
themselves in the criminal cases because the testimony that would be
elicited from them may be used in the criminal cases, violating their
right against self-incrimination. Can they refuse to take the witness
stand [submit themselves for deposition] on this ground? No.
General rule: Only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the
witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand does not generally
apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings. The parties
thereto can only refuse to answer if incriminating questions are
propounded.
Exception: A party who is not an accused in a criminal case is allowed
not to take the witness stand in administrative cases/proceedings that
partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a
criminal proceeding.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
“to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial”
Relative. The concept is necessarily relative and determination of
whether the right has been violated must be based on the balancing of
various factors. Length of the trial is certainly a factor to consider; but
other factors such as the reason for the delay, the effort of the
defendant to assert his right, and the prejudice caused the defendant
must also be considered.
Mere counting of time not enough. The concept of speedy
disposition is relative or flexible. A mere mathematical reckoning of the
time involved is not sufficient. Particular regard must be taken of the
facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. The right to a speedy
disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated
only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are
asked for and secured; or when without cause or justifiable motive, a
long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his
case tried. Cabarles v Maceda
Speedy disposition of cases. The guarantee of the speedy disposition
of cases under Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution applies to
all cases pending before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
Thus, the fact-finding investigation should not be deemed separate
from the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman if the aggregate time spent for both constitutes inordinate
and oppressive delay in the disposition of any case. People v Sandiganbayan
Factors. In the determination of whether the defendant has been
denied his right to a speedy disposition of a case, the following factors
may be considered and balanced:
1. The length of delay
2. The reasons for the delay
3. The assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused and
4. The prejudice caused by the delay
Fact-finding investigation in the OMB included in the counting.
The fact-finding investigation and preliminary investigation by the
Office of the Ombudsman lasted nearly five years and five months. The
Office of the Ombudsman had taken an unusually long period of time
just to investigate the criminal complaint and to determine whether to
criminally charge the respondents in the Sandiganbayan. Such long
delay was inordinate and oppressive, and constituted under the peculiar
circumstances of the case an outright violation of the respondents’ right
under the Constitution to the speedy disposition of their cases. The
guarantee of speedy disposition under Section 16 of Article III of the
Constitution would be defeated if the State’s argument that the fact-
finding investigation should not be considered a part of the preliminary
investigation (because the former was only preparatory in relation to the
latter; and that the period spent in the former should not be factored in
the computation of the period devoted to the preliminary investigation)
is accepted. People v Sandiganbayan
Rule 119, Section 9
Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit.
If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required
by Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended by Section
6 of this rule, the information may be dismissed on motion of the
accused on the ground of denial of his right of speedy trial. The
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
accused shall have the burden of proving the motion but the
prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the
evidence to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this
rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double
jeopardy.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall
constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
Section 6, Extended time limit.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1(g), Rule 116 and the
preceding section 1, for the first twelve-calendar-month period
following its effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit
with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed by
said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For the
second twelve-month period, the limit shall be one hundred
twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month period, the
time limit shall be eighty (80) days.
Rule 116. Section 1
Arraignment and plea; how made.
(g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or
Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall be held within
thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over
the person of the accused. The time of the pendency of a motion
to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying
suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing
the period.
RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-
EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM
AT THE TRIAL
Purpose. The right has a two-fold purpose: (1) to afford the accused
an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by cross-
examination, and (2) to allow the judge to observe the deportation of
the witness.
Available only in court proceedings. An accused’s right to meet the
witnesses face to face is limited to proceedings before the trial court.
25
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL
Accordingly, this is not available to him during a custodial investigation.
People v Camat
Exceptions to the right to confront witnesses:
1. The admissibility of ‘dying declarations’
2. Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
People v Estenzo
Purpose of requiring oral testimony of witnesses. Section 1, Rule
133 of the then Revised Rules of Court, which requires that the
testimonies of witnesses be given orally. The rationale for this is
explained by the Court:
• Purpose. The main and essential purpose of requiring a
witness to appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for the
adverse party the opportunity of cross-examination.
• Judge can check demeanor of witness. There is also the
advantage to be obtained by the personal appearance of the
witness before the judge, and it is this — it enables the judge
as the trier of facts to obtain the elusive and incommunicable
evidence of a witness’ deportment while testifying, and a
certain subjective moral effect is produced upon the witness.
It is only when the witness testifies orally that the judge may
have a true idea of his countenance, manner and expression,
which may confirm or detract from the weight of his
testimony.
Discussion. Actual cross-examination is not the crux of this right.
Rather, it is the mere opportunity to cross-examine. If the accused is
not accorded such opportunity, he may move to strike out the
testimony.
People v Go
Delos Reyes was convicted by the RPC of the crime of rape. The basis
was testimony of 5 witnesses, who were merely asked to confirm their
testimonies at the trial of Go, who was Delos Reyes’ co-conspirator.
The trial of Go preceded that of the present case and happened in a
different branch. Was there a violation of the constitutional right to
confront and examine witnesses? Yes. The apprehension of the
prosecution that the lapse of time may have compromised the memory
of the witnesses is understandable. In any event, lapse of time is a matter
that the trial court would consider in weighing the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies; it does not justify the abbreviated
procedure adopted by the trial court, especially considering that the case
against accused-appellant Go was tried before a different RTC branch.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
A.M. No. 004-07-SC
Rule on examination of a child witness
Section 8. Examination of a child witness. The examination of a child witness
presented in a hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open court.
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a
different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given
orally.
The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such
child witness may, however, move the court to allow him to testify in
the manner provided in this Rule.
RIGHT TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS
ISSUED TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE
OF WITNESSES AND PRODUCTION OF
OTHER EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF
“to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf’
Discussion: This right refers to the issuance of subpoena duces tecum
and subpoena ad testificandum.
Deposition should be made before the ourt/judge where the case
is pending. Complainant’s deposition was taken in RTC Makati
because she was too sick, but the case is pending in RTC Cebu. The SC
said that the deposition should be made before the court or at least
before the judge where the case is pending. Otherwise, the accused may
not be able to attend, as when he is under detention. More importantly,
this requirement ensures that the judge would be able to observe the
witness' deportment to enable him to properly assess his credibility.
This is especially true when the witness' testimony is crucial to the
prosecution's case. Vda de Manguerra v Risos
RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION
Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. By whom litigation
conducted. In the court of a Justice of the peace a party may conduct
his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by
him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court,
a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney,
and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized
member of the bar.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Whether the party appears personally or through an attorney,
he/she is bound by the outcome of the proceedings. A party in a
case may conduct a litigation either personally or by an attorney in the
courts. He may also be assisted by an agent or friend for the purpose in
the inferior courts. And even if a party may have chosen to appear
through counsel, he may at any time dispense with the services of higher
lawyer and prosecute or defend his/her case personally. If in the process
petitioner suffered reverses, she has only herself to blame. She is bound
by the consequences of her own voluntary act. People v Estoesta
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
“and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel”
Rationale. The accused enjoys this right because there is a realistic
recognition that the average defendant does not have the professional
skill to protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to
take his life or liberty. Johnson v Zerbst
Rationale. The right of an accused to counsel is guaranteed by the
Constitution, the supreme law of the land. This right is granted to
minimize the imbalance in the adversarial system where the accused is
pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the state. People v
Serzo
Pre-arraignment duties of a trial judge
1. Inform the accused that he has the right to have his own
counsel before being arraigned;
2. After giving such information, to ask accused whether he
desires the aid of counsel;
3. If he so desires to procure the services of counsel, the court
must grant him reasonable time to do so; and
4. If he so desires to have counsel but is unable to employ one,
the court must assign counsel de officio to defend him.
Counsel of his own choice. The preference in the choice of counsel
pertains more aptly and specifically to a person under custodial
investigation (Art III, Sec 12 (1)) rather than one who is the accused in
a criminal prosecution (Art III, Sec 14(2)). Amion v Judge Chiongson
o Discussion: This means that the qualification of a ‘competent and
independent’ counsel is no longer required for an accused in a
criminal proceeding. However, the counsel must still be qualified
in the sense that he must be a member of the bar (See Delgado v
CA, primer).
26
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL
But right to choose an attorney not absolute. An accused may
exercise his right to counsel by electing to be represented either by a
court-appointed lawyer or by one of his own choice. While his right to
be represented by counsel is immutable, his option to secure the
services of counsel de parte, however, is not absolute. The court is
obliged to balance the privilege to retain a counsel of choice against the
states’ and the offended party’s equally important right to speedy and
adequate justice. Thus, the court may restrict the accused’s option to
retain a counsel de parte if the accused insists on an attorney he cannot
afford, or the chosen counsel is not a member of the bar, or the attorney
declines to represent the accused for a valid reason. Also, the right to
counsel de parte is, like other personal rights, waivable so long as (1)
the waiver is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or
good customs; or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized
by law and (2) the waiver is unequivocally, knowingly and intelligently
made. People v Serzo
Rights of the accused under the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure
Rule 112, Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within ten (10) days from the filing
of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to
establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a
warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been
arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the
preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was
filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence
of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must
be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the
complaint of information.
Rule 113, Section 14. Right of attorney or relative to visit person
arrested. — Any member of the Philippine Bar shall, at the request of
the person arrested or of another acting in his behalf, have the right to
visit and confer privately with such person in the jail or any other place
of custody at any hour of the day or night. Subject to reasonable
regulations, a relative of the person arrested can also exercise the same
right.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Rule 116, Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right
to counsel. — Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused
of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have one. Unless the
accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed a
counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel de officio to
defend him.
Rule 116, Section 7. Appointment of counsel de officio. — The
court, considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the
questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de officio only such
members of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience
and ability, can competently defend the accused. But in localities where
such members of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and
ability, to defend the accused.
Rule 116, Section 8. Time for counsel de officio to prepare for
arraignment. — Whenever a counsel de officio is appointed by the
court to defend the accused at the arraignment, he shall be given a
reasonable time to consult with the accused as to his plea before
proceeding with the arraignment.
Rule 124, Section 2. Appointment of counsel de officio for the
accused. If it appears from the record of the case as transmitted that
(a) the accused is confined in prison, (b) is without counsel de parte on
appeal, or (c) has signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of court
of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de officio.
Rights of persons under custodial investigation
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 12
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section
17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of
this Section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.
Custodial investigation; when questioning is commenced. The
right attaches once custodial investigation begins. A custodial
investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after
the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into
custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends
itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.
People v Marra, citing Escobedo v Illinois.
“Invited for questioning”. RA 7438 has extended the constitutional
guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally
arrested but has merely been invited for questioning. People v Dumantay
RA 7438. As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the
practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without
prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE
…to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial…
Impartial judge as an element of due process. Due process of law
requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal and that
every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge. People v Angcap
Impartiality imperative in all stages. Impartiality is imperative even
in the investigations that precede the trial, and also in the decision-
making process that follows the trial. As opposed to the interpretation
in People v Jose, these rights are not merely applicable upon prosecution
(arraignment). It is possible for a judge who inherits a case from another
judge to decide a case fairly. It is sufficient in such circumstances that
the judge, in deciding the case, must base it completely on the cold
record before him, in the same manner as appellate courts when they
review that evidence of the case raised to them on appeal. People v
Narajos
27
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AT TRIAL
Effect of a partial trial. If it appears that the appellant was not given
a fair and impartial trial because if the trial judge’s bias or prejudice, the
Court will order a new trial, if it deems it necessary, in the interest of
justice.
Effect of a partial trial. The accused are admittedly notorious
criminals who were probably even proud of their membership in the
Commando gang even as they flaunted their tattoos as a badge of
notoriety. Nevertheless, they were entitled to be presumed innocent
until the contrary was proved and had a right not to be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due process of law. In this case, the
conviction of the defendants for the crime of murder was reversed
upon automatic review by the SC because the judge was partial,
seemingly having allied himself with the prosecution when he made
adversary, unnecessary, and cruel remarks against the accused. Cold
neutrality of an impartial judge. This is an indispensable requisite of
due process. The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear
to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will
be just. People v Opida
Judge who becomes a prosecutor; degree of participation
irrelevant. That Judge Elumba's prior participation as the public
prosecutor was passive, or that he entered his appearance as the public
prosecutor long after the Prosecution had rested its case against the
petitioner did not really matter. The evil sought to be prevented by the
rules on disqualification had no relation whatsoever with the judge's
degree of participation in the case before becoming the judge. This
structure is to ensure that the proceedings in court that would affect the
life, liberty and property of petitioner as the accused should be
conducted and determined by a judge who was wholly free,
disinterested, impartial and independent. Lai v People
Disqualification of judges
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of court
Compulsory prohibition. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any
case
• in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as
heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or
• in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth
degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or
• in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee
or counsel, or
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling
or decision is the subject of review,
without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them
and entered upon the record.
Voluntary inhibition. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound
discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned above.
Note on the above provision:
• Conclusive presumption of bias is a ground covered by the
first paragraph and would warrant mandatory disqualification.
• Perceived bias is a ground covered by the second paragraph
of the provision and would justify only the voluntary
inhibition of a judge.
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
The court, when finding the accused guilty, are more inclined to cite
defense evidence instead of prosecution evidence tending to prove the
same thing, the latter are judicial admissions that the accused cannot
possibly contest. The accused has been warned that whatever he says
may and shall be used against him. Before trial, an accused has the right
to remain silent. During trial, an accused has the right not to be
compelled to be a witness against himself. An accused who waives these
rights by speaking to police or testifying in court cannot complain that
his statements were used to convict him. Alvero v People
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, Section 11
Duties of a Person in Authority Taking a Child into Custody. —
Any person taking into custody a child in conflict with the law shall:
a. Assign an alias to the child;
b. Ensure that the blotter details containing the true name of the
child, if any, are modified, to reflect the alias by which the child
shall be known throughout the proceedings;
c. Explain to the child in simple language and in a dialect that
can be understood the reason for placing the child under
custody, and the offense allegedly committed;
d. Advise the child of his/her constitutional rights in a language
or dialect understandable to the child;
e. Present proper identification to the child;
f. Refrain from using vulgar or profane words and from sexually
harassing or abusing, or making sexual advances on the child;
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
g. Avoid displaying or using any firearm, weapon, handcuffs or
other instrument of force or restraint, unless absolutely
necessary and only after all methods of control have been
exhausted and have failed;
h. Avoid violence or unnecessary force and refrain from
subjecting the child to greater restraint than is necessary for
apprehension and custody;
i. That a body search of the child is done only by a law
enforcement officer of the same gender as that of the child;
j. Ensure expedited transfer of the child by immediately, or not
later than eight (8) hours after apprehension, turning over
custody of the child to the local social welfare and
development office or other accredited non-government
organizations;
k. Notify the child's parents, guardians or custodians or in their
absence, the child's nearest relative and the Public Attorney's
Office of the child's apprehension;
l. Ensure that the child is not locked up in a jail or detention cell
during the investigation;
m. Bring the child immediately to an available government
medical or health officer for a thorough physical and mental
examination;
n. Ensure that should detention of the child in conflict with the
law be necessary, the segregation of the child be secured in
quarters separate from that of the opposite sex and adult
offenders, except where a child is taken into custody for
reasons related to armed conflict, either as combatant, courier,
guide or spy, and families are accommodated as family units
in which case, the child shall not be separated from the family;
o. Record all the procedures undertaken in the initial
investigation including the following: whether handcuffs or
other instruments of restraint were used, and if so, the reason
for such use; that the parents or guardian of the child, the
Department of Social Welfare and Development, and the
Public Attorney's Office were informed of the taking into
custody of the child and the details thereof; the measures that
were undertaken to determine the age of child, and the precise
details of the physical and medical examination or in case of
failure to submit a child to such examination, the reason
therefore; and
p. Ensure that all statements signed by the child during the
investigation are witnessed and signed by the child's parents
or guardian, social worker or legal counsel in attendance.
28
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
ACTIONS ARISING FROM CRIMINAL ACT
Article 100, The Revised Penal Code. Every person criminally liable
for a felony is also civilly liable.
Rule 111, Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
General Rule: When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action.
Exception: Unless the offended party
1. Waives the civil action;
2. Reserves his right to institute the civil action separately; or
3. Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Dual nature of a criminal action. The criminal action has a dual
purpose, namely, the punishment of the offender and indemnity to the
offended party. Salazar v People
• Criminal action. The dominant and primordial objective of
the criminal action is the punishment of the offender. Criminal
actions are primarily intended to vindicate an outrage against
the sovereignty of the state and to impose the appropriate
penalty for the vindication of the disturbance to the social
order caused by the offender. Id.
• Civil action. The action between the private complainant and
the accused is intended solely to indemnify the former. The
civil action is merely incidental to and consequent to the
conviction of the accused. Id.
2 actions in criminal cases. Unless the offended party waives the civil
action or reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action, there are two actions involved in a
criminal case, the criminal action and the civil action. There is a merger
of the two cases to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Acquittal and civil liability. The acquittal of the accused does not
prevent a judgment against him on the civil aspect of the case where:
a. the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required;
b. where the court declared that the liability of the accused is only
civil;
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
c. where the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or
is not based upon the crime of which the accused was
acquitted.
Article 110, The Revised Penal Code. Several and Subsidiary
Liability of Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories of a Felony
— Preference in Payment. Notwithstanding the provisions of the
next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each
within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among
themselves for their quotas, and subsidiarily for those of the other
persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of
the principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly, against
that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been
enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a
right of action against the others for the amount of their respective
shares.
Article 111, The Revised Penal Code. Obligation to Make
Restitution in Certain Cases. Any person who has participated
gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make
restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.
Article 112, The Revised Penal Code. Extinction of Civil Liability.
Civil liability established in articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code
shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.
• Modes of extinguishing civil liability under Civil Law.
Civil liability arising from criminal liability can be extinguished
the same way as any other civil liability through:
o Payment/Performance
o Novation
o Loss
o Condonation
o Confusion/Merger
o Compensation
o Prescription
Article 113, The Revised Penal Code. Obligation to Satisfy Civil
Liability. Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
in the next preceding article, the offender shall continue to be obliged
to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him,
notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve
the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence, or
any other reason.
• The offender shall continue to be obligated to pay the civil
liability despite:
o Having served his sentence; or
o Not having served his sentence
Essential Rights
1. Presumption of Innocence
2. Procedural due process
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 14. No person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly informed and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
(1) CRIMINAL ASPECT
General concepts
Rule 110, Section 1. When Criminal Actions are deemed instituted.
Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows:
1. For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required
pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with
the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation.
2. For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information
directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the
prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint
29
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise
provided in their charters.
Preliminary investigation when required. It is required for offenses
for which the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months, and
1 day.
• Discussion: Since the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction
over offenses punishable with imprisonment of more than 6
years, it follows that there shall be no direct filing of
information with the RTC.
Interruption of prescriptive period. The institution of the criminal
action shall interrupt the running period of prescription of the offense
charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.
• General Rule: Institution shall interrupt the running of the
period of prescription of the offense charged. Prescription is
interrupted even if it is filed in a court without jurisdiction.
• Exception: Unless otherwise provided in special laws.
o Municipal ordinances. The prescriptive period is
suspended when proceedings are instituted against
the accused. Proceedings refer to judicial proceedings.
Act 3326
o Conflict between special laws. In case of conflict
between Act 3326 and Rule 110, the latter must yield
because the Court, in the exercise of its rule-making
power, cannot diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights—prescription in criminal cases is
a substantive right. Zaldivia v Reyes
Prescription commences from the commission (if known) or
discovery (if not known) until institution of judicial proceedings.
• Section 2 of Act 3326: This act governs the computation of
prescription of offenses under special laws
• Prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person and shall resume if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double
jeopardy.
• Civil law rules on prescription is applicable to criminal cases.
Uy v Sandiganbayan
Authority of OMB to investigate and prosecute. Ombudsman is
clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to
prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well.
Plenary and unqualified grant of power to OMB. Its power pertains
to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act
or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The
law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts.
• Primary jurisdiction. Section 15 of RA 6770 gives the
Ombudsman primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. This authorizes the Ombudsman to take over,
at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government,
the investigation of such cases. The grant of this authority
does not necessarily imply the exclusion from its jurisdiction
of cases involving public officers and employees cognizable
by other courts.
Office of the special prosecutor. This is an organic component of the
Office of the Ombudsman under the latter’s supervision and control. It
has the power to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute
criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
• OSP is not OMB. The jurisdiction of the Office of the
Ombudsman should not be equated with the limited authority
of the Special Prosecutor under Section 11 of RA 6770. The
Office of the Special Prosecutor is merely a component of the
Office of the Ombudsman and may only act under the
supervision and control and upon authority of the
Ombudsman, whose power to conduct preliminary
investigation and to prosecute is limited to criminal cases
within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
SEC v Interport
Violation of Revised Securities Act; jurisdiction with SEC. Under
Section 45 of the Revised Securities Act, the Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC) has the authority to make such investigations as it
deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated or is
about to violate any provision of said Act.
• SEC has jurisdiction to investigate. It is imperative that the
criminal prosecution be initiated before the SEC, the
administrative agency with special competence. After a finding
that a person has violated the Revised Securities Act, the SEC
may refer the case to the DOJ for preliminary investigation
and prosecution.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
• Akin to DOJ’s PI. The nature and purpose of the
investigation conducted by the SEC is equivalent to the
preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal
cases. As such, the investigation by SEC operated to interrupt
the prescriptive period.
Injunction to restrain criminal prosecution
General Rule: Courts will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction
(preliminary or final) to enjoin or restrain, criminal prosecution. More
so will injunction not lie when the case is still at the stage of preliminary
investigation or reinvestigation.
Exception: However, in extreme cases, the Supreme Court (in Brocka
vs Enrile) laid down several exceptions such as:
1. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused
2. When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice
or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions.
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is subjudice.
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent.
7. Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
lust for vengeance
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused
and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.
MJ Consunji v Esguerra
Preliminary investigation is executive prerogative; no mandamus.
The decision whether or not to dismiss the complaint is necessarily
dependent on the sound discretion of the prosecuting fiscal and,
ultimately, that of the Secretary or Undersecretary (acting for the
Secretary) of Justice. Mandamus does not lie to compel prosecutors to
file an Information or dismiss the complaint.
• Exception to non-interference; GADALEJ. It is a well
settled rule in the Supreme Court that they do not interfere
with the executive or judicial prerogative in finding probable
cause, except if the finding was done without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
30
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Venue
Venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory.
This is because venue in a criminal case is a jurisdictional matter.
• Rationale. To ensure that the defendant is not compelled to
move to, and appear in, a different court from that of the
province where the crime was committed as it would cause
him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and other
evidence in another place.
Rule 110, Section 15. Place where action is to be instituted.
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
(b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or
private vehicle in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or territory where
such train, aircraft, or other vehicle passed during its trip, including the
place of its departure and arrival.
(c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of
its voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court
of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory where the
vessel passed during such voyage, subject to the generally accepted
principles of international law.
(d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court
where the criminal action is first filed.
Where any of the essential ingredients occurred. A perjury case was
filed against Tomas in MetC- Makati for making a false narration in a
Certificate against Forum Shopping. The certificate was submitted and
used in Pasay, and then notarized in Makati. Does MetC Makati have
jurisdiction? Yes. Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the
offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients
occurred. In this case, all the elements of the crime charged have been
alleged in the Information to have been committed in Makati.
Unionbank v People
Change of venue. Where the SC, pursuant to its constitutional powers,
orders a change of venue or place of trial to void miscarriage of justice.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Sandiganbayan cases. Where the case is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction of which depends upon the nature of
the offense and the position of the accused, the offense need not be
tried in the place where the act was committed but where the court
actually sits in Quezon City.
Written defamation. Where the offense is written defamation, the
criminal action need not necessarily be filed in the RTC of the province
or city where the alleged libelous article was printed and first published.
It may be filed in the province or city where the offended party held
office at the time of the commission of the offense if he is a public
officer, or in the province or city where he actually resided at the time
of the commission of the offense in case the offended party is a private
individual.
Section 14, Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. Conduct
of initial investigation by the police. The police officer conducting
the initial investigation of a child conflict with the law shall do so in the
presence of either or both of the parents, guardian or custodian, or in
their absence, the nearest relative of the child, the child's counsel of
choice, or a lawyer from the Public Attorney's Office, and the local
social welfare officer. A representative of a non-government
organization, religious group, or member of the Barangay Council for
the Protection of Children shall be allowed to be present at the
investigation in the absence of the parents, guardian, relative, or social
welfare officer.
Malabon v CA
Issuance of a search warrant. RTC of Caloocan issued a search
warrant due to an alleged violation of PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions in Quezon City. The case was subsequently
tried in RTC Quezon City. Does RTC Caloocan have jurisdiction to
issue said warrant? Yes.
• Jurisdiction to issue search warrant. Before the criminal
action is filed with the appropriate court, a court which has no
territorial jurisdiction over the crime may validly entertain an
application for and thereafter issue a search warrant in
connection with the commission of such crime because a
warrant is only a judicial process in aid of the main case where
different courts may have original concurrent jurisdiction over
the case.
• What the Rules say. The lifetime of a search warrant has
been expressly set in our Rules at ten days but there is no
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
provision as to the extent of the territory wherein it may be
enforced, provided it is implemented on and within the
premises specifically described therein which may or may not
be within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court.
• But when case is already pending in another court. The
Court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary
jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for
purposes of said case. An application for a search warrant may
be filed with another court only under extreme and compelling
circumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction
of the latter court which may or may not give due course to
the application depending on the validity of the justification.
The complaint/information
The complaint or information. The complaint or information shall
be in writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against
all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved. Rule
110, Section 2
Complaint defined. A complaint is a sworn written 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. Rule 110, Section 3
Information defined. An information is an accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and
filed with the court. Rule 110, Section 4
Complaint. - For purposes of preliminary investigation, the complaint
filed with the prosecutor's office shall, as far as practicable, be
accompanied or covered by an Information Sheet and shall state,
among others –
1. The full and complete names and exact home, office or postal
addresses of the complainant and his witnesses;
2. The full and complete name and exact home, office or postal
address of the respondent;
3. The offense charged and the place and exact date and time of
its commission; and
4. Whether or not there exists a related case and, if so, the docket
number of said case and the name of the investigating
prosecutor thereof. Department of Justice-National
Prosecution Service Manual, Part III, Section 8
31
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Substance over form. The real nature of the offense charged is to be
ascertained by the facts alleged in the body of the Information and the
punishment provided by law, not by the designation or title or caption
given by the Prosecutor in the Information. The Information must
allege clearly and accurately the elements of the crime charged. Guinhawa
v People
People v Villanueva
RTC convicted Villanueva of rape qualified by minority and
relationship for raping his 15 year old daughter. He now contends that
the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not alleged, and must
not be considered by the court, it being placed only in the opening
paragraph of the information against him. Should the qualifying
circumstance of relationship be appreciated? Yes.
• No specific location of element in the information. There
is no law or rule prescribing a specific location in the
Information where the qualifying circumstances must
"exclusively" be alleged before they could be appreciated
against the accused. It is irrelevant and immaterial whether the
qualifying circumstance of relationship is mentioned in the
opening paragraph of the Information or in the second
paragraph which alleges the acts constituting the crime
charged since either paragraph is an integral part of the
Information.
• Consider whole information. The information sheet must
be considered, not by sections or parts, but as one whole
document serving one purpose, i.e., to inform the accused why
the full panoply of state authority is being marshalled against
him.
People v Sandiganbayan
Cavite Mayor Castillo was charged with violation of RA 3019. He
questions the validity of the information against him for failing to allege
the exact amount of benefit he allegedly granted, as well as the particular
injury caused to the people. Is the information against him defective on
this account? No.
• Ultimate facts needed, not minor details. For as long as
the ultimate facts constituting the offense have been alleged,
an information charging a violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019
need not state, to the point of specificity, the exact amount of
unwarranted benefit granted nor specify, quantify or prove, to
the point of moral certainty, the undue injury caused. An
information need only state the crucial facts constituting the
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
offense, not the finer details of why and how the crime was
committed.
Persons prosecuting criminal action and intervention of
offended party
General
Rule 110, Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action:
Public prosecutor. All criminal actions either commenced by
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction
and control of a public prosecutor.
Private prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public
prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private
prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution
Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to
the approval of the court.
Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial
even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is
revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the
offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority
shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon
elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court.
Discussion; rationale behind the requirement. Since a criminal
offense is an outrage against the sovereignty of the State, it necessarily
follows that a representative of the State shall direct and control the
prosecution thereof.
Discussion; when private prosecutor may prosecute a case even
in the absence of the public prosecutor. The private prosecutor may
do so if he is authorized to do so in writing. The authorization shall be
given by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecutor. To be given effect, it must be approved by the court.
Prosecution of private crimes
Adultery and concubinage. The crimes of adultery and concubinage
shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended
spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
without including the guilty parties, if both are alive, nor, in any case, if
the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the
offenders.
Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness. The offenses of
seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted
upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been
expressly pardoned by any of them.
• If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she
can file the complaint, and she has no known parents,
grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal
action in her behalf.
Minor is offended party in seduction, abduction, and acts of
lasciviousness. The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to
initiate the prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts
of lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents, or
guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so.
• When minor fails to file. Where the offended party, who is
a minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents,
or guardian may file the same. The right to file the action
granted to parents, grandparents, or guardian shall be
exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised
successively in the order herein provided, except as stated in
the preceding paragraph.
Defamation. No criminal action for defamation which consists in the
imputation of any of the offenses mentioned above shall be brought
except at the instance of and upon complaint filed by the offended
party.
Rape. Under RA 8353, rape is now a crime against persons. Thus,
prosecution for rape may now be commenced in court even by the filing
of an information by the public prosecutor.
Special laws. The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be
governed by the provision thereof.
Intervention of the offended party
Rule 110, Section 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal
action. Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted
32
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may
intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
General rule: The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal
cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the OSG.
• Because in criminal cases, the People are the real-parties in
interest. In view of the principle that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real-party-in-
interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment, an appeal on a criminal case not filed by the People
represented by the OSG is dismissible.
Exception: In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the SC, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its
special prosecutor, shall represent the People except in cases filed
pursuant to Eos 1, 2, 14, and 14A issued in 1986.
People v Beriales
The TC granted the appellants’ motion for reinvestigation of the case
to be conducted by the Fiscal. Nevertheless, the court proceeded with
the case and then rendered judgment against them. To add, the City
Fiscal and/or his assistants or special counsel were totally absent when
the appellants were arraigned and when the private prosecutor
presented evidence and rested the case supposedly for the People. Was
there a denial of due process? Yes.
Duty of public prosecutor. In the trial of criminal cases, it is the duty
of the public prosecutor to appeal for the government. Once a public
prosecutor has been entrusted with the investigation of a case and has
acted thereon by filing the necessary information in court, he is by law
in duty bound to take charge thereof until its final termination, for
under the law he assumes full responsibility for his failure or success
since he is the one more adequately prepared to pursue it to its
termination.
Duty to direct and control prosecution of criminal cases. There is
nothing in the rule of practice and procedure in criminal cases which
denies the right of the fiscal, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to
turn over the active conduct of the trial to a private prosecutor.
Nevertheless, his duty to direct and control the prosecution of criminal
cases requires that he must be present during the proceedings.
People v Madali
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
RTC convicted accused-appellants of the crime of murder. Upon
appeal, the OSG recommended their acquittal. Helen, wife of the
deceased, filed a Memorandum for the Private Complainant. Rule 122,
Sec.1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that any
party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will
be placed in double jeopardy. Can Helen be considered a party to this
case? Yes.
Party means anyone who may be affected. The word party in the
provision includes not only the government and the accused but other
persons who may be affected by the judgment. The complainant has an
interest in the civil liability arising from the crime. Hence, in the
prosecution of the offense, the complainant’s role is that of a witness
for the prosecution.
Right to be heard re: damages. Ordinarily, the appeal of the criminal
cases involves as parties only the accused, as appellants, and the State,
represented by the SolGen, as the appellee. The participation of the
private offended party would be unnecessary if the State were simply to
seek affirmation of a judgment of conviction. However, where the OSG
takes a contrary position and recommends, as in this case, the acquittal
of the accused, the complainant’s right to be heard as regards indemnity
and damages arises.
People and AAA v CA
AAA was raped. RTC convicted the 3 accused. CA reversed and
acquitted accused. AAA, through private counsel, filed a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 alleging GADALEJ on the part of CA. Valid?
Yes.
General rule: SG appeals on behalf of State in acquittal. In criminal
cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against
him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of
the State. This is because the authority to represent the State in appeals
of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested
in the OSG.
Intervention by offended party. As the aggrieved party, AAA clearly
has the right to bring the action in her name and maintain the criminal
prosecution. She has an immense interest in obtaining justice in the
case precisely because she is the subject of the violation.
Rodriguez v Ponferrada
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2 separate informations were filed against Rodriguez for Estafa and a
violation of BP 22. The information for violation of BP 22 against
Rodriguez was raffled to the MTC of QC, Branch 42. While the estafa
case was raffled to RTC of QC, Branch 104. Rodriguez filed an
Opposition to the Formal Entry of Appearance of the Private
Prosecutor saying that private prosecutor is barred from appearing
before this Court as his appearance is limited to the civil aspect which
must be presented and asserted in the BP 22 cases. Can the private
prosecutor appear? Yes. None of the exemptions below are present.
Intervention by offended party. The offended party may intervene in
the prosecution of a crime, except in the following instances:
a. When, from the nature of the crime and the law defining and
punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of a private
offended party; and
b. When, from the nature of the offense, the offended parties are
entitled to civil indemnity, but
o they waive the right to institute a civil action
o expressly reserve the right to do so or
o the suit has already been instituted.
In any of these instances, the private complainant's interest in the case
disappears and criminal prosecution becomes the sole function of the
public prosecutor.
Doctrine of election of remedies. In its broad sense, election of
remedies refers to the choice by a party to an action of one of two or
more coexisting remedial rights, where several such rights arise out of
the same facts, but the term has been generally limited to a choice by a
party between inconsistent remedial rights, the assertion of one being
necessarily repugnant to, or a repudiation of, the other. In the present
cases before us, the institution of the civil actions with the estafa cases
and the inclusion of another set of civil actions with the BP 22 cases are
not exactly repugnant or inconsistent with each other. Nothing in the
Rules signify that the necessary inclusion of a civil action in a criminal
case for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law precludes the institution
in an estafa case of the corresponding civil action, even if both offenses
relate to the issuance of the same check. The crimes of estafa and
violation of BP 22 are different and distinct from each other.
Chua v CA
4 informations of falsification of public documents were filed against
Francis Chua. Chua moved to exclude complainant's counsels as private
prosecutors in the case on the ground that Hao [complainant] failed to
33
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
allege and prove any civil liability in the case. Can the private
prosecutors be allowed to actively participate in the cases? Yes.
Civil action deemed instituted. A private offended party has a right
to intervene in a criminal case through private prosecutors because they
are deemed a party in interest. This is because when a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action. None of these exemptions are present.
Accordingly, evidence should be allowed to establish the extent of
injuries suffered.
Lee Pue Liong v Chua Pue Chin Lee
Chua Lee filed an information against Paul Lee for Perjury. In the
process, a private prosecutor was participating in the proceedings. Paul
Lee wanted to restrain the private prosecutor by alleging that the
offense was a crime against public interest and the private prosecutor
has no business therein. Paul Lee further alleged that Chua Lee may not
intervene in the case the latter is not an offended party for the State is
the one offended, Perjury being a crime against public interest.
Contention valid? No.
Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Underlying this
legal principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a
crime, he offends two entities, namely (1) the society in which he lives
in or the political entity, called the State, whose law he has violated; and
(2) the individual member of that society whose person, right, honor,
chastity or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the
same punishable act or omission.
Offended party may participate in proceedings in crimes against
public interest. The offended party is the person against whom or
against whose property the offense was committed. Such party must be
one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in the subject matter of
the action. Such interest must not be a mere expectancy, subordinate or
inconsequential. The interest of the party must be personal; and not one
based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and
unrelated party.
Private prosecutor may participate. The private prosecutor may
participate provided that he participates under the direction of the
public prosecutor, which was that in this case. It is through the private
prosecutor that the offended party intervenes.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Merciales v CA
In this case, public prosecutor presented 7 witnesses none of whom
actually witnessed the crime. One of the accused came forward and
expressed willingness to become state witness but prosecutor insisted
that it was unnecessary to present evidence for the discharge of said
accused. This led to the denial of the motion to discharge the accused.
Also, prosecutor rested the case knowing fully well that the evidence he
had presented was insufficient. Guilty of serious non-feasance? Yes.
Duty of public prosecutor in prosecution of criminal offenses. It
is the duty of the public prosecutor to bring the criminal proceedings
for the punishment of the guilty. Concomitant with this is the duty to
pursue the prosecution of a criminal action and to represent the public
interest. A crime is an offense against the State, and hence is prosecuted
in the name of the People of the Philippines. As the representative of
the State, the public prosecutor has the right and the duty to take all
steps to protect the rights of the People in the trial of an accused. He
can be compelled by a mandamus to do his duty.
People v Piccio
Private prosecutors, with the conformity of the public prosecutor,
appealed from the RTC decision dismissing the libel case against the
accused for lack of jurisdiction. OSG prayed to be excused from filing
the appellant’s brief as they received advisory from DOJ that they do
not have information about the case. Can private complainants appeal
an order of the trial court dismissing a criminal case without OSG’s
conformity? No.
SG appeals on behalf of State in acquittal. If there is a dismissal of
a criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused,
it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect
representing the People. The private complainant or the offended party
may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but
only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned.
Crespo v Mogul
The fiscal filed an information for estafa against the accused. The DOJ
Secretary reversed the resolution of the fiscal and thereafter ordered the
latter to dismiss the information. The Trial court refused to grant said
motion to dismiss. Valid? Yes.
DOJ Secretary’s power of review vis-à-vis court’s jurisdiction.
Generally, all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
fiscal. The Secretary of Justice can review the actions of the fiscal. He
has the power to affirm, modify, or reverse the action or opinion of the
fiscal. But in the event that the information has already been filed with
the Court, the Court already acquires jurisdiction over the case. Given
this any disposition of the case, its dismissal or the conviction, or the
acquittal of the accused now rests in the sound discretion of the court.
Remedy. In order to avoid a situation where the opinion of the
Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be
disregarded by the trial court, the SoJ, should, as far as practicable,
refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action
of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed
in the Court.
Roberts v CA
The investigating prosecutor released a Joint Resolution where he
recommended the filing of an information against the petitioners. The
petitioners filed with the DOJ a petition for review as well as a motion
to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of
Warrants of Arrest before the court. The judge denied these and
directed the issuance of warrant of arrests on the ground that trial was
already pending (following Mogul Doctrine). GADALEJ? Yes.
When judge may grant or deny. The test of the independence and
integrity of courts is not the filing of motions to suspend proceedings and
to defer arraignment but the filing of a motion to dismiss or to
withdraw the information on the basis of a resolution of the petition
for review reversing the resolution of the investigating prosecutor.
Ruling: It was premature for Judge Asuncion to deny the motion to
suspend proceedings and to defer arraignment on the grounds that the
case is already pending in this Court. Only when the motion to dismiss or
withdraw the information is filed the trial judge may grant or deny it,
not out of subservience to the Secretary of Justice, but in faithful
exercise of judicial prerogative.
Non-retroactivity of removal of complaint requirement for rape.
In 1996, Galigao raped his 3 minor daughters. Out of the 3, Daisy did
not file a complaint. At the time of the commission of the offense, the
law in force required a criminal complaint before a criminal action is
instituted. But when RA 8353 took effect in 1997, it removed the said
requirement. Can the criminal action pertaining to the rape of Daisy
push through even without a criminal complaint? No. Penal laws shall
34
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
be applied retroactively only when they favor the accused. People v
Galigao
Procedural aspect (form)
1. Name of the accused
2. Name of the offended party
3. Designation of the offense
(1) Name of the accused
Rule 110, Section 7. Name of the accused. The complaint or
information must state the name and surname of the accused or any
appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If his name
cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name
with a statement that his true name is unknown.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears
in some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in
the complaint or information and record.
Discussion. If the offense is committed by more than one person, all
of them shall be included in the complaint or information.
2-fold task of the prosecution in every criminal case:
1. To prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the
crime charged
2. To establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the
person(s) responsible therefor.
Mistake in name not tantamount to mistake in identity. A mistake
in the name of the accused is not equivalent, and does not necessarily
amount to, a mistake in the identity of the accused, especially when
sufficient evidence is adduced to show that the accused is pointed to as
one of the perpetrators of the crime. However, the identity of the
accused must be proven. People vs Amodia
• What matters is his identification as the person who
committed the crime, not the name under which he was
arrested or charged. People v Bonito
(2) Name of the offended party
Rule 110, Section 12. Name of the offended party. The complaint or
information must state the name and surname of the person against
whom or against whose property the offense was committed, or any
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known. If
there is no better way of identifying him, he must be described under a
fictitious name.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the offended party is
unknown, the property must be described with such particularity as to
properly identify the offense charged.
(b) If the true name of the of the person against whom or against whose
properly the offense was committed is thereafter disclosed or
ascertained, the court must cause the true name to be inserted in the
complaint or information and the record.
(c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is sufficient to state its
name, or any name or designation by which it is known or by which it
may be identified, without need of averring that it is a juridical person
or that it is organized in accordance with law.
Some notes
2 types of positive identification:
1. Direct evidence. When a witness identifies a suspect or
accused in a criminal case as perpetrator of the crime as an
eyewitness to the very act of the commission.
2. Circumstantial evidence. The type of identification which,
when taken together with other pieces of evidence
constituting an unbroken chain, leads only to fair and
reasonable conclusion that the accused is the author of the
crime to the exclusion of others.
Rule if the name of the offended party is unknown in offenses against
property
1. In case of offenses against property, the designation of the
name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable
for as long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or
information can be properly identified
2. If the name of the offended party is unknown, the property
must be described with such particularity as to properly
identify the offense charged
3. If the subject matter of the offense is generic and not
identifiable (i.e. money unlawfully taken), an error in the
designation of the offended party is fatal and will result to
acquittal of the accused. But if the subject matter is specific
and identifiable, an error in the designation of the offended
party is immaterial.
People v Guevarra
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Out of the 8 accused, Vergel Bustamante alias Dan Saksak was
convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for depriving a
woman of her liberty and demanding ransom for her release. However,
the amended information only alleged kidnapping. There is no
allegation that said kidnapping was for the purpose of extorting a
ransom. Neither was the demand for ransom proved in court. The
accused also contested the fact that the trial court ordered the
amendment of the information to include, as party defendant, Vergel
Bustamante alias Dan Saksak.
No conviction of higher offense. The accused cannot be convicted
of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in the complaint
or information on which he is tried. It matters not how conclusive and
convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused person cannot be
convicted of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or
information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein.
Rationale: He has a right to be informed of the nature of the offense
with which he is charged before he is put on trial, and to convict him
of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information
on which he is tried would be an authorized denial of that right.
Amendment of information to name the accused. Pursuant to
Section 7, Rule 110 (see provision above), the information can be
amended to include his true name. There was sufficient basis to do this
in this case. However, this issue cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. It should have been raised before the trial court in a motion to
quash the information.
(3) Designation of the offense
Rule 110, Section 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and
specifying 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.
Rule 110, Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know
35
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service Manual, Part
III, Section 40. Designation of offense charged. For offenses that
are punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the caption shall set forth
the denomination of the offense and the specific article and paragraph
of the statute violated.
Where there is another charge or countercharge in the same case having
one case number or in case of a consolidated resolution involving two
or more criminal cases with two or more docket numbers, the caption
shall also contain said information.
Discussion. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the
statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions
constitutive thereof. In other words, if the offense is stated in such a
way that a person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what
is meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law, the
inevitable conclusion is that the information is valid. It is not necessary
to follow the language of the statute in the information.
Rules. In designating the offense, the following rules must be observed:
1. The designation of the offense requires, as a rule, that the
name given to the offense by statute must be stated in the
complaint or information.
2. If the statute gives no designation to the offense, then
reference must instead be made to the section or subsection
punishing it
3. To be included in the complete designation of the offense is
an averment of the acts or omissions constituting the offense.
4. The complaint or information must specify the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances of the offense
Alleged facts > designation of offense. The failure to designate the
offense by the statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing
the act or an erroneous specification on the law violated does not vitiate
the information if the facts alleged clearly recite the facts constituting
the crime charged. Malto vs People
• The sufficiency of an information is not negated by an
incomplete or defective information of the crime in the
caption or other parts of the information but by the narration
of facts and circumstances when adequately depicts a crime
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
and sufficiently apprises the accused of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him.
• Every information must state the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances attending the commission of the crime for
them to be considered in the imposition of the penalty. If
these circumstances were not alleged, the accused cannot be
held liable or cannot be prejudiced. It would be a denial of the
right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him
and consequently, a denial of due process.
• The qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by
descriptive words such as “qualifying” or “qualified by” to
properly qualify an offense. It is the specific allegations of an
attendant circumstances which adds the essential element
raising the crime to a higher category.
Acts must be alleged; if not alleged, cannot be appreciated even
if proved. Accused was charged with robbery in a band with homicide.
But there was no allegation in the information that more than three
armed malefactors acted together in the commission of the crime. Can
he be convicted of the crime charged? No. First, there is no such crime
in the RPC. The felony is properly called robbery with homicide under
Art 294(1) of the RPC. The circumstance that it was committed by a
band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
However, in the present case, we cannot treat the ordinary aggravating
circumstance of band because it was not alleged in the body of the
information. Rules section 8 and 9 above must be complied with. The
requirement under Section 9 is mandatory. Hence, even if such
circumstances are proved in trial, they cannot be appreciated against the
accused. People v Buayaban
Allege qualifying and aggravating circumstances. RTC found
accused guilty of 2 counts of murder and sentenced him to death. RTC
appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance, and dwelling,
unlawful entry, and nighttime as aggravating circumstances. Is the
conviction proper? No. Every complaint or information should state
not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. In this
case, while treachery and nighttime were properly alleged in the
information, their elements were not proved. Dwelling and unlawful
entry were not alleged in the information. People v Avendaño
Relationship as a qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the
information. RTC sentenced the accused to death for qualified rape
for raping his 13-year-old daughter. But the relationship was not alleged
in the information. Can relationship [per RA 7659] considered as a
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
qualifying circumstance? No. SC held that for the attendant
circumstances in RA 7659 to qualify the offense, they must be alleged
in the information. If proved during trial, they can only be appreciated
as generic aggravating circumstances. People v Gallo
Relationship as a qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the
information. RTC convicted Lizada of 4 counts of qualified rape for
raping the 13-year-old daughter of his common wife. The information
did not allege their relationship and the victim’s minority. Was the
conviction proper? No. Even if the prosecution proved the qualifying
circumstances mentioned, the accused can be convicted only of simple
rape, the circumstances not having been alleged in the information.
People v Lizada
Degree of relationship must be specifically alleged in the
information. For raping his 12 year old niece, RTC convicted Llanto
of rape and sentenced him to death. The information merely referred
to the victim as his niece, without specifying the degree of their
relationship? Should death penalty be imposed on Llanto considering
the circumstance of relationship? No. The Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure require the aggravating and qualifying circumstances to be
stated in the information. The allegation that the accused is the uncle is
not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of
relationship under Art 266-B. It must be alleged in the information that
he is a relative by affinity or consanguinity within the third civil degree.
People v Llanto
People v Delim
Malefactors abducted the victim from his house. After several days, the
victim was found dead. The information reads: once inside with intent
to kill, treachery, evident premeditation, conspiring with one another,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously grab, hold…
What crime was alleged and what can he be convicted of? He was
charged with murder but can be convicted only of homicide.
Specific intent controlling. The specific intent of the malefactors as
disclosed in the information or criminal complaint that is determinative
of what crime the accused is charged with. It is evident on the face of
the Information that the specific intent of the malefactors was to kill
him and that he was seized precisely to kill him. Abduction was merely
incidental to their primary purpose of killing him. Moreover, there is no
specific allegation in the Information that the primary intent of the
malefactors was to deprive the victim of his freedom or liberty and that
killing him was merely incidental to kidnapping.
36
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Qualifying circumstances must be alleged. Special aggravating
circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearms as well as dwelling were
proven during the trial but there is no allegation in the Information.
Hence, they can be convicted only of homicide.
People v Fernandez
Accused was convicted of violating the Anti-Carnapping Act for taking
the car of his victim, who died. Reclusion perpetua to death is the
proper penalty if the victim dies but he was sentenced to death because
the trial court considered as aggravating the commission of the offense
by a person belonging to an organized or syndicated crime group. Was
the imposition of the death penalty proper? No.
Aggravating circumstances must be alleged and proved. The
allegation of being part of a syndicate or that appellant and companions
had formed part of a group organized for the general purpose of
committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of a syndicated or
organized crime, was neither alleged nor proved by the prosecution.
The allegation of being part of a syndicate or that appellant and
companions had formed part of a group organized for the general
purpose of committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of a
syndicated or organized crime, was neither alleged nor proved by the
prosecution.
People v Valdez
The information reads: accused conspiring together, confederating with
and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength
did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack
and employ personal violence upon the person” of the victims. Can the
accused be convicted of murder? No.
Sufficient factual averments; set forth the facts and circumstances
describing how the offense was qualified. There is a need to
specially aver the factual circumstances or particular acts that constitute
the criminal conduct or that qualify or aggravate the liability for the
crime. The alleged circumstances in the information did not sufficiently
set forth the facts and circumstances describing how treachery attended
each of the killings. The use of the gun as an instrument to kill was not
per se treachery. Nor is the use of term ‘treachery’ sufficient for the
term itself, standing alone, is nothing but a conclusion of law
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Rationale. The requirement of sufficient factual averments is meant to
inform the accused of the nature and cause of the charge against him in
order to enable him to prepare his defense. It emanates from the
presumption of innocence in his favor, pursuant to which he is always
presumed to have no independent knowledge of the details of the crime
he is being charged with.
• The real question is not did he commit a crime given in the
law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the
acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner
therein set forth.
Canceran v People
The information reads: xxx steal and carry away xxx performing all the
acts of execution which would produce the crime of theft as a
consequence but, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of some
cause independent of accused's will, that is, they were discovered by the
employees xxx. RTC convicted accused of consummated theft. Proper?
No. Conviction proper for attempted theft only.
No frustrated theft. It has been established in jurisprudence that there
is no such crime as frustrated theft. However, the information can never
be read to charge Canceran of consummated Theft because the
indictment itself stated that the crime was never produced. Instead, the
Information should be construed to mean that he was charged only with
attempted theft.
No conviction of higher offense than charged. It matters not how
conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused
cannot be convicted in the courts of any offense, unless it is charged in
the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily
included therein. He has a right to be informed as to the nature of the
offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial, and to convict
him of an offense higher than that charged in the complaint or
information on which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of
that right.
When offense is necessarily included in another. An offense
charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the
essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the
complaint or information, constitute the latter. The crime of theft in its
consummated stage undoubtedly includes the crime in its attempted
stage. In this case, although the evidence presented during the trial
prove the crime of consummated theft, he could be convicted of
attempted theft only.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Accused can be convicted of the crime charged in the information
or those necessarily included therein. The information charged the
accused with Statutory Rape [under Art 335(3) of RPC, in relation to
RA 7610, 7659, and 8313] for the rape of a 6 year old. The RTC
convicted him of such and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. OSG
wishes to convict him of child-rape under RA 8353 or the Anti-Rape
Law, which imposes death penalty for raping a child below 7 years old.
Proper? No. Having been specifically arraigned on the charge of
STATUTORY RAPE, he cannot after trial, be held to answer for child-
rape. The accused can only be convicted of a crime charged against him
in the information or those necessarily included therein. RA 8353 was
not mentioned in the information. To convict him under said law will
violate his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against
him. People v Tampos
Substantive aspect (content)
1. Non-duplicity of offense
2. Date of commission
3. Place of commission
(1) Non-duplicity of the offense
Rule 110, Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. A complaint or
information must charge but one offense, except when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
Effect of failure to object. In case of failure to object, the defect is
deemed to have been waived by the accused and the courts should
convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved and impose
on him penalty for each and every one of them.
Duplicity in offenses; but not in modes of commission of a single
crime. This means that there is a joinder of distinct offenses in one
complaint or information. But when the charge merely describes in a
single information the different modes by which the offense was
committed, like alleging manifest impartiality, evident bad faith, and
gross inexcusable negligence, no distinct offenses are charged.
Exceptions to the rule. A complaint or information may contain 2 or
more offenses when the law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses.
• Compound crimes. A single act constitutes 2 or more grave
or less grave felonies.
37
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
• Complex crime proper. Where an offense is a necessary
means to commit the other.
• Special complex crime. Complex crimes where the law
provides a specific penalty therefore.
• Continuous crime. A series of acts committed on the same
period and impelled by a single intent or resolution.
If not a complex crime, one crime per information. Accused
successively shot 3 people, 2 of whom died, while the last one sustained
non-life-threatening wounds. A single information charging him of
double murder and frustrated murder was filed. Proper? No. Since the
victims were shot successively, each act of shooting constituted a
separate crime and therefore should each be charged in separate
informations. However, this defect is deemed to have been waived
because the accused failed to file a motion to quash the information on
the ground of duplicity before entering his plea. People v Lopez
Waived if no quashing. RTC found accused guilty of 2 counts of
murder and sentenced him to death for each crime. However, only one
information was filed for the 2 deaths. Is it proper for the court to
impose a separate penalty for each crime? Yes. The information is
defective for being duplicitous, but such defect is deemed waived
because of failure to object to it before entering his plea. People v
Avendaño
The rule that 1 information suffices for complex crimes does not
apply in quasi-offenses under Art 365 of RPC. Informations were
filed charging Ivler of 2 separate offenses: Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries and Reckless Imprudence Resulting
in Homicide and Damage to Property. The SC ruled that there is no
need to file separate informations because the rule is one information
will suffice for a complex crime [although a single act produces two or
more grave or less grave felonies or one act is necessary for the other]
does not apply in quasi-offenses punished under Article 365 of the
RPC. The law punishes the manner of commission of the offense
[through imprudence], regardless of the number or gravity of results.
Ivler v Judge San Pedro
Rule 110, Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
Non-verbatim quotation in a libel information may be cured by
evidence. An information for libel was filed against Vasquez in relation
to his statements that were published in an article. He claims that the
information did not set out the entire news article as published.
Contention valid? No. while the general rule is that the information
must set out the particular defamatory words verbatim and that a
statement of their substance is insufficient, a defect in this regard may be
cured by evidence. In this case, the article was presented but Vasquez
never objected so he is deemed to have waived the said defect. Vasquez
v CA
(2) Place and date of commission
Rule 110, Section 10. Place of commission of the offense. The
complaint or information is sufficient if it can be understood from its
allegations that the offense was committed or some of the essential
ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court,
unless the particular place where it was committed constitutes an
essential element of the offense or is necessary for its identification.
Rule 110, Section 11. Date of commission of the offense. It is not
necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the
offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the
offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date
as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
When date, place, and time not essential ingredients of the crime.
The erroneous allegation in the information is just deemed supplanted
by the evidence presented during trial or may even be corrected by a
formal amendment of the information.
Exception. An exception to the rule above is that if the discrepancy is
so great that it induces the perception that the information and the
evidence are no longer pertaining to one and the same offense. In this
event, the defective allegation in the information is not deemed
supplanted by the evidence not can it be amended but must be struck
down for violating the right of the accused to be informed. People v Delfin
Exact date is not essential in murder. The information against the
accused alleged that the murder was committed on November 27, 2000.
It was proved during trial to have been committed on September 27,
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2000. Defective information? No. It is not necessary to state the precise
date of the commission of the crime when it is not an essential element
of the crime. In murder, the date of commission of the offense is not
an essential element. People v Delfin
Kind and nature of weapon used not needed in the information.
The RTC convicted Perez of murder qualified by treachery for stabbing
his friend, with whom he had just had a drinking spree. Accused avers
that there is no allegation of the use of any bladed weapon in the
information. Information valid? Yes. It is inconsequential not to
describe the kind and nature of the weapon used in stabbing the victim.
People v Perez
Exact date is not essential in rape; gravamen is carnal knowledge.
The rape information filed against the accused alleged that the crime
occurred before December 24, 2002, but it was proven to have occurred
on December 24, 2002. Is the information defective? No. It is not
necessary to state the precise date of the commission of the crime when
it is not an essential element of the crime. In rape, the date of
commission of the offense is not an essential element. People v Buca
On or about August 1998; no violation of right to be informed.
RTC convicted Lizada of 4 counts of qualified rape for raping the 13-
year-old daughter of his common-law wife. One of the informations
said on or about August 1998. Accused said that it is too indefinite, and in
violation of the rules. Is he correct? No. It is not necessary to state the
precise date of the commission of the crime when it is not an essential
element of the crime. In rape the date of commission of the offense is
not an essential element. Furthermore, the accused failed to object prior
to trial. This is waiver. People v Lizada
On or about the year 1992; too broad already. In the rape
information filed against the accused, the crime was alleged to have
been committed on or about the year 1992. Is the information defective?
Yes. The Rules require that the time of the commission of the offense
must be alleged as near to the actual date as the information will permit.
The date above encompasses not only the 12 months of 1992 but
includes prior and subsequent years. People v Ladrillo
Exact date is not essential in rape; gravamen is carnal knowledge.
The information for rape [of his daughter] filed against the accused
alleged that the rape was committed sometime in May 1995. However,
according to the accused, the medico-legal report as well as the
testimony of the victim’s grandmother put the time of commission
38
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
around August or September. Is the information defective? No. While
the complaint must allege the specific time and place when and where
the offense was committed, the proof need not correspond to this
allegation, unless the time and place is material and of the essence of
the offense as a necessary ingredient in its description. The date of
commission is not essential in the crime of rape. People v Losano
Affidavit may cure defect in the information. The rape information
against the accused reads: on or about the month of June, 1978, and for
sometime prior and subsequent thereto…. Is the complaint defective for
charging more than one offense? No. In the victim’s sworn statement,
she categorically affirmed that the accused abused her before the start
of classes in 1978. The affidavit, which may be considered part of the
complaint required by law, cures any ambiguity in the complaint
regarding the number of offenses committed by the accused. People v
Lualhati
Variance of several years not allowed. The information for theft
against the accused alleged that the time of commission was from 1977
to December 1983… a period of 7 years or about 2551 days. Is this defective?
Yes. A variance of a few months between the time set out in the
indictment and that established by evidence during the trial, does not
constitute a serious error so as to warrant an acquittal or dismissal. But
a variance of several years necessitates either an amendment (if the
prosecution can still establish a certain date through evidence) or a
dismissal of the case. Rocaberte v People
Remedy is motion for a bill of particulars. The accused may, before
arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to plead and to prepare for
trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or
information and the details desired. Rocaberte v People
Remedies available
1. Amendment/substitution of information
2. Motion to quash (see Rule 117 discussion
3. Bill of particulars
4. Provisional remedies
(1) Amendment / substitution of information
Amendment. The correction of an error or an omission in a complaint
or an information.
Rule 110, Section 14. Amendment or substitution.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, Rule 119, Section 19. When mistake has been made in charging
without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. the proper offense. When it becomes manifest at any time before
After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense
made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any
prejudice to the rights of the accused. other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be
discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and
the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper information.
information, can be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with
notice to the offended party and with leave of court . The court shall Department of Justice National Prosecution Service Manual Part
state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be III, Section 4. Effect of amendment of information. In case an
furnished all parties, especially the offended party. information is amended, a new preliminary investigation shall be
conducted:
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made -if the amended charge is not related to the crime originally charged;
in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original -if there is a change in the nature of the crime charged; or
complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the -if the information on its face is null and void for lack of authority to
proper offense in accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided the file the same.
accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy. The court may require
the witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial.
Formal amendments
The following were held to be merely formal amendments:
Summary: 1. New allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty
Amendment before plea (par General rule: Without leave of that the court might impose in the event of conviction;
1) court; amendment as to form 2. An amendment which does not charge another offense
and substance different or distinct from that charged in the original one;
3. Additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution's
Exception: If amendment theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and
downgrades the offense charged affect the form of defense he has or will assume; and
or excludes any of the accused, 4. Amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial
the ff are required: right of the accused, such as his right to invoke prescription.
1. Motion by the 5. An amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate
prosecutor vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and
2. Notice to the offended material facts, and merely states with additional precision
party something which is already contained in the original
3. Leave of court information and which adds nothing essential for conviction
Amendment after plea and With leave of court and must not for the crime charged.
during trial (par 1) prejudice the rights of the Note: Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint
accused; as to matters of form must be raised at the time the amendment is made, otherwise, silence
only would be deemed a consent to said amendment.
Substitution before judgment If there is a mistake in charging
(par 2) the proper offense, dismiss old Test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by an
and file new one, as long as no amendment. When the defense of the accused, under the original
double jeopardy complaint or information, would no longer be available after the
amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might have
would be inapplicable to the complaint or information, as amended.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 39
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

same facts, then a new preliminary investigation is not necessary. The

Examples of mere formal amendments: amendment was only a formal amendment. [Substantial amendment requires
• change of the offense charged from homicide to murder PI, unless amended charge is
• amending the information of qualified theft to include People v Degamo related to or included in the
habitual delinquency and recidivism Ellen was raped by the accused Degamo. After arraignment, a formal original charge]
• change of the offense from frustrated murder to amendment of the complaint was made alleging that Ellen became An amended information refers Substitution requires or
consummated murder insane as a consequence of the rape. Amendment valid? Yes, it is only to the same offense charged in presupposes that the new
a matter of form as seen in the enumeration below. Whatever defense the original information or to an information involves a different
• 4 informations of illegal recruitment placed together under a
appellant may have raised under the original information for rape offense which necessarily offense which does not include
single information for illegal recruitment in a large scale
committed with a deadly weapon equally applies to rape committed includes or is necessarily or is not necessarily included in
• Insertion of the real name of the accused with a deadly weapon where the victim has become insane by reason or included in the original charge the original charge, hence the
• Inclusion of an additional accused who acted in conspiracy on occasion of the rape. hence substantial amendments accused cannot claim double
with the other accused to the information after the plea jeopardy.
Amendment to charge more serious offense; when valid. has been taken cannot be made
Teehankee v Madayag Amendment of an information to charge a more serious offense is over the objection of the
Frustrated murder to murder; formal. Teehankee was charged for permissible and does not constitute double jeopardy even where the accused, for if the original
frustrated murder. He pled not guilty and the prosecution rested on the accused was already arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge, information would be
original information. However, the victim died. Consequently, where the basis of the more serious charge did not exist, but comes as withdrawn, the accused could
prosecution filed an amended information for murder. Teehankee now a subsequent event. In this case the basis for the amendment was the invoke double jeopardy.
contends that since there was a substantial amendment, the same may psychosis of complainant which was determined after the filing of the If the second information If the new information charges
no longer be allowed after arraignment and during the trial. Since the information. Unlike other qualifying circumstances, insanity of the involves the same offense, or an an offense which is distinct and
amended information for murder charges an entirely different offense, victim by reason or on occasion of the rape may not be readily discerned offense which necessarily different from that initially
it is essential that another preliminary investigation on the new charge right after the commission. includes or is necessarily charged, a substitution is in
be conducted before the new information can be admitted. Contention • The court noted that the insanity of the victim must at least included in the first information, order.
proper? No. The case discusses Section 114, Rule 110. be manifest at the time of filing the complaint or information an amendment of the
or at any time thereafter before judgment is rendered, in which information is sufficient
Villaflor v Vivar case, the information may be amended accordingly.
Two criminal cases were filed against the respondent, one for slight
• The fact that the victim during trial or while the case is Identity of offenses exists when the evidence to support a conviction
physical injuries and another for grave threats. Subsequently, the earlier for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the
pending, has returned to normal behavior after undergoing
charge of slight physical injuries was withdrawn and another for serious other, or when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, or
treatment, does not exculpate the appellant from the penalty
physical injuries was filed. The prosecutor conducted a preliminary when the second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of, or
of death.
investigation on the first information but not on the second one. RTC when it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in, the offense
granted the motion to quash the informations, ruling that the criminal charged in the first information.
Amendment Substitution
cases should be dismissed because the informations were filed without
preliminary investigation. Proper? No. May involve either formal or Necessarily involves a
substantial changes substantial change Amendment is sufficient; no need for substitution. What is
Absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the involved in this case is not a variance in the nature of different offenses
validity of an information or render it defective. Neither does it Amendment before plea has Substitution of information
been entered can be effected must be with leave of court as charged, but only a change in the stage of execution. Except for the
affect the jurisdiction of the court or constitute a ground for quashing death of the victim, the essential elements of the two offenses (intent
the information. The trial court, instead of dismissing the information, without leave of court the original information has to
be dismissed to kill and qualifying circumstances) are the same. As such, the amended
should hold in abeyance the proceedings and order the public information for murder is proper.
prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. Where the amendment is only as Another preliminary
PI not necessary for amended information if amended charge to form, there is no need for investigation is entailed and the
another preliminary accused has to plead anew to the Mere formal amendment; not substantial. The test is whether or not
essentially same as original charge. If the original charge was related a defense under the original information would equally stand under the
to the amended one, such that an inquiry would elicit substantially the investigation and the retaking of new information
the plea of the accused new information. In this case, the answer is in the affirmative. There is

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 40

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
no doubt that whatever defense the accused may adduce under the
original information for frustrated murder is equally available under the
amended information for murder. As such, this is properly made even
after plea.
Preliminary investigation not necessary. It follows that since only a
formal amendment was involved in the second information, a
preliminary investigation is unnecessary and cannot be demanded. The
amended information could not conceivably have come as a surprise to
the accused for the simple reason that it charges essentially the same
offense as that charged under the original information.
Matalam v 2nd Division of Sandignabayan
Refusal to pay money claims to illegal dismissal. An information
was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Matalam et al with
violation of Section 3(e) of RA. No. 3019 for their alleged illegal and
unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims of several DAR
employees. He has not yet pleaded. This information was amended after
reinvestigation, charging him of illegally dismissing from the service
complaining DAR-Maguindanao employees by way of unpaid salaries
during the period when they have been illegally terminated. Petitioner
insists that the amended information charging a separate and entirely
different offense cannot be admitted because there would be a serious
violation of due process of law. He claims he is entitled to a preliminary
investigation since he was not informed that he is being charged for the
alleged dismissal of the complaining witnesses and that he was not given
the opportunity to explain. Proper? Yes, he is entitled to another
preliminary investigation.
There is substantial amendment. In the original information, the
prohibited act allegedly committed by petitioner was the illegal and
unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims of the private
complainants, while in the amended information, it is the illegal
dismissal from the service of the private complainants. However, it
cannot be denied that the alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay
monetary claims is related to, and arose from, the alleged illegal
dismissal from the service of the private complainants.
PI required for substantial amendment. The rule is: Before or after
a plea, a substantial amendment in an information entitles an accused
to another preliminary investigation. However, if the amended
information contains a charge related to or is included in the original
information, a new preliminary investigation is not required. This
exception, however, is not to be applied automatically but the
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
circumstance of each case must be considered. In this case, manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence is an
element, but the accused was not given the opportunity to thoroughly
adduce evidence on the matter in relation to illegal dismissal.
Soberano v People
Several private individuals and members of the PNP-PAOCTF were
charged with double murder. After a motion for reinvestigation filed by
the prosecutor was granted, one of the accused was discharged for
being mistakenly identified. The information was later on amended to
discharge 4 of the accused as state witnesses, substitute the erroneously
charged individual, and to charge 3 more individuals. The amendment
happened before plea. Petitioner contends that Sec 17, Rule 119
[providing requisites for discharge as state witness] should be applied
instead of Section 14, Rule 110. Correct? No. Section 17, Rule 119
cannot be applied at the level of amending the information before the
plea because this [amending information before plea] is essentially an
executive function, not a judicial one.
Executive function before plea. Sec. 17 requires the need for the
prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each state
witness at a hearing in support of the discharge of the accused. This
does not come into play yet when what is being determined is who
should be criminally charged. This is an executive function, vested in
the prosecutor, who has the wide range of discretion on whether, what,
and whom to charge. Thus, at this juncture, the discretion is with the
prosecutor. The prosecutor must then satisfy itself that an accused
excluded from the information to be discharged as a state witness is
qualified for it.
Note: Section 17, Rule 119 is applied when an accused is retained in
the information but his discharge as state witness is sought after by the
prosecution before they rest their case.
Braza v Sandiganbayan
Braza, as president of FABMIK Construction was charged with a
violation of RA 3019 Section 3(g). He was arraigned and he pled not
guilty as a precondition to be authorized to travel abroad. A few months
later, he filed a motion for reinvestigation on the ground that the
documents relied upon by OMB were falsified. This was granted, but
he later on filed a manifestation to cancel his motion for reinvestigation
for fear that this might be used as a means to engage in a fishing
expedition against him. The reinvestigation was concluded and the
charge against him was modified to Sec 3(e) of the same law. He moved
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
to quash the amended information on the ground of double jeopardy,
among others. Proper? NO.
No double jeopardy in conditional arraignment; with consent.
The arraignment of Braza under the first information was conditional
in nature as it was a mere accommodation in his favor to enable him to
travel abroad without the Sandiganbayan losing its ability to conduct
trial in absentia in case he would abscond. The Sandiganbayan’s Order
clearly and unequivocally states that the conditions for Braza’s
arraignment as well as his travel abroad, that is, that if the Information
would be amended, he shall waive his constitutional right to be
protected against double jeopardy and shall allow himself to be
arraigned on the amended information without losing his right to
question the same.
Different offenses. Even if it was an unconditional arraignment, Braza
cannot rely on Double Jeopardy to avoid arraignment under 2 nd
information because the offense charged therein is different and not
included in the offense charged under the 1 st information. The first
offense involves into a contract or transaction in behalf of the
government and the contract is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the government. the second offense on the other hand, involves
acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence and giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference in the discharge of his functions.
(2) Motion to quash
See discussion in Rule 117.
Cruz vs CA
Petitioner Teodoro Cruz (Cruz) was charged in 4 separate informations
for estafa thru falsification of public documents. He entered a plea of
not guilty and later moved to dismiss the information on the ground
that it did not charge an offense. This, as well as the subsequent MR were
denied on the grounds of interest of substantial justice that the
prosecution could adduce evidence during trial. Was there GADALEJ?
No.
Judicial prerogative. The respondent court has judicial prerogative to
deny the MTD in case it is not convinced of the evidence presented to
support the allegation that the information does not charge an offense.
In the case at bar, the challenged informations allege the essential
elements of the offense charged. It is not proper therefore to resolve
the charges at the outset without the benefit of a full-blown trial.
41
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Matters of defense cannot be produced on hearings of
MTD/MTQ. Petitioner’s contention are matters of defense best
examined during trial rather than in the preliminary hearing of the
MTD. Matters of defense cannot be produced on hearing of
MTD/MTQ, except where the rules expressly permit, such as
extinction of criminal liability, prescription, and double jeopardy.
It was a tactic. To grant the MTD would be to sanction a shrewd
maneuver by petitioner wherein he files a motion to quash/dismiss after
arraignment, presents his evidence supporting his ground therefore, and
without the State being able to present its evidence in chief. It was filed
after arraignment so that the case cannot be refiled again considering
double jeopardy.
Remedy when MTQ or MTD is dismissed. The remedy is not to
file a petition for certiorari but to go to trial without prejudice on his
part to reiterate the special defenses he had in his motion and if, after
trial, an adverse decision is rendered against him, to appeal in the
manner prescribed by law. Also, being an interlocutory order,
MTD/MTQ cannot be appealed.
(3) Bill of particulars
Rule 116, Section 9. Bill of particulars. The accused may, before
arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to
plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged
defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.
Remedy when vague; bill of particulars. When allegations in an
Information are vague or indefinite, the remedy of the accused is not a
motion to quash, but a motion for a bill of particulars. The purpose of
a bill of particulars is to supply vague facts or allegations in the
complaint or information to enable the accused to properly plead and
prepare for trial.
Bill of particulars presupposes valid information. It presupposes a
valid Information, one that presents all the elements of the crime
charged, albeit under vague terms. Notably, the specifications that a bill
of particulars may supply are only formal amendments to the complaint
or Information. Thus, if the Information is lacking, a court should take
a liberal attitude towards its granting and order the government to file
a bill of particulars elaborating on the charges.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Liberal usage. Doubts should be resolved in favor of granting the bill
to give full meaning to the accused’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Enrile v People
OMB filed an Information for plunder against Enrile, et al. Enrile filed
a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence on record to establish probable
cause, which was denied. He then filed a motion for a bill of particulars
on the ground that the information filed against him was ambiguous.
He posits that the Information should have stated the details of the
particular acts that allegedly constituted the imputed series or
combination of overt acts that led to the charge of plunder. This was
also denied on 2 grounds: the details that Enrile desires are substantial
reiterations of the arguments he raised in his supplemental opposition
to the issuance of warrant of arrest and for dismissal of information;
and the details sought are evidentiary in nature and are best ventilated
during trial. Did SB act with GADALEJ in denying the motion for bill
of particulars without any explanation supporting its conclusion? YES
Purpose is to enable an accused to make an intelligent defense.
Some of the desired details are material facts that must be alleged to
enable the petitioner to properly plead and prepare his defense. The
Sandiganbayan should have diligently sifted through each detail sought
to be specified and made the necessary determination of whether each
detail was an ultimate or evidentiary fact.
That every element constituting the offense had been alleged in
the Information does not preclude the accused from requesting
for more specific details of the various acts or omissions he is
alleged to have committed. The request for details is precisely the
function of a bill of particulars. Hence, while the information may be
sufficient for purposes of stating the cause and the crime an accused is
charged, the allegations may still be inadequate for purposes of enabling
him to properly plead and prepare for trial.
Provisional remedies
See discussion under Rule 127
(2) CIVIL ASPECT: DAMAGES
General
Rule 111. Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless:
1. the offended party waives the civil action,
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. reserves his right to institute it separately, or
3. institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall
be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to
make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information,
the filing fees therefor shall constitute a first lien on the judgment
awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the
complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by
the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be
required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by
the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could
have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed.
Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated,
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party
shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If
the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount
awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not
yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with
42
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal
actions. (cir. 57-97)
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the others. The
institution of, or the reservation of the right to file, any of said civil
actions separately waives the others.
Note: In no case may the offended party recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the accused.
Section 12, Rules on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
Prosecution of civil action. When a criminal action is instituted
against a juvenile in conflict with the law, the action for recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be governed by Rule 111
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Article 29, CC. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted
on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence.
• Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the
plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the
complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable
doubt, the court shall so declare.
In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from
the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that
ground.
Lim v Kou Co Ping
An Information for Estafa through Misappropriation or Conversion
was filed against Co. The private complainant, Lily Lim, participated in
the criminal proceedings to prove her damages. Co was acquitted so
Lim appealed the civil aspect of the case. While this was pending,
Lim filed a complaint for specific performance and damages, asserting
breach of contract and abuse of rights as cause of action.
Did Lim commit forum shopping in filing the civil case for specific
performance and damages during the pendency of her appeal on the
civil aspect of the criminal case for estafa? NO.
Forum shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of
multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgment.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Although the cases filed by [the offended party] arose from the same
act or omission of [the offender], they are, however, based on different
causes of action.
Different causes of action. The first one is a civil action ex delicto,
having been instituted with the criminal action. The second one is a civil
action arising from a contractual obligation and for tortious conduct (abuse of
rights).
Dual nature of a criminal action. A single act or omission that causes
damage to an offended party may give rise to two separate civil liabilities
on the part of the offender:
1. Civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the
criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal
Code, and
2. Independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be
pursued independently of the criminal proceedings.
Independent civil liability. The independent civil liability may be
based on:
1. An obligation not arising from the act or omission complained
of as a felony," as provided in Article 31 of the Civil
Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort).
2. It may also be based on an act or omission that may constitute
felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from the
criminal action by specific provision of Article 33 of the ("in
cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries).
Because of the distinct and independent nature of the 2 kinds of civil
liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended party may pursue the 2
types simultaneously or cumulatively, without offending the rules on
forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.
Synthesis. Civil liabilities arising from felonies and those arising from
other sources of obligation are authorized by law to proceed
independently of each other.
Garces v Hernandez
The Trial Court acquitted the accused of murder, saying that there is
clearly no moral certainty that can be arrived at by the Court in convicting the accused;
evidence presented by the Prosecution have failed to elicit in the mind of the Court the
conclusion that the herein accused should and must be held criminally liable for the
death of… Is the accused liable for damages? No. The acts or omissions
from which the civil liability of respondents might arise did not exist.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
[Basically, there is no crime upon which to base the claim of civil liability
ex delicto]
People v Yanson
Yanson was convicted of murder. Trial Court awarded civil indemnity,
actual damages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. CA affirmed but
deleted the actual damages because of failure to substantiate the same.
Award of damages proper? Yes. When death occurs due to a crime, the
following damages may be awarded:
1. Civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim.
Based on prevailing jurisprudence, this is at Php 75, 000 and
is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof
other than the commission of the crime
2. Actual or compensatory damages. Awarded when
substantiated with receipts or documentation
3. Moral damages. These are awarded despite the absence of
proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs
4. Exemplary damages. An aggravating circumstance,
whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended
party to an award of exemplary damages
5. Temperate damages. These may be recovered as it cannot
be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss
although the exact amount was not proved.
People v Wahiman
General rule: There must be documentary proof to support indemnity
for loss of earning capacity.
Exception:
1. The deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum
wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be
taken of the fact that in the deceased’s line of work no
documentary evidence is available
2. The deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less
than the minimum wage under current labor laws.
The case at bar does not fall under any exceptions. Nevertheless, the
SC granted indemnity for loss of earning capacity. As testified by the
deceased’s widow, he was 54 years old and a manager in a firm and he
received a monthly salary of Php 95,000. This testimony was not
objected to nor questioned during cross or appeal. Clearly, the existence
of factual basis of the award has been satisfactorily established.
Formula. [2/3 x (80 – age)] x [gross annual income - necessary
expenses equivalent to 50% of the gross annual income]. Thus:
[2/3 x (80-54)] [(₱95,000 x 12) – 50% (₱95,000 x 12)] = ₱9,878,100.00.
43
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
People v Abrazaldo
Abrazaldo was found guilty of murdering Guban. The RTC awarded,
among others, P27,000 as actual damages for funeral, wake, novena,
and hospitalization expenses. These were unsubstantiated. Proper? NO.
Actual damages. To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to
prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty,
premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable
to the injured party.
Temperate damages. Where the amount of the actual damages cannot
be determined because of the absence of receipts to prove the same,
but it is shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages
may be awarded.
Suspension of separate civil action
Rule 111, Section 2. Institution of separate civil action. Except in
the cases provided for in Section 3 hereof, after the criminal action has
been commenced, the civil action which has been reserved cannot be
instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal
action.
a. Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the civil action as
provided for in the first paragraph of Section 1 hereof before the filing
of the criminal action and the criminal action is subsequently
commenced, the pending civil action shall be suspended, in
whatever stage before final judgment it may be found, until final
judgment in the criminal action has been rendered.
However, if no final judgment has been rendered by the trial court in
the civil action, the same may be consolidated with the criminal action
upon application with the court trying the criminal action.
If the application is granted, the evidence presented and admitted in the
civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal
action, without prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that
any party may wish to present.
In case of consolidation, both the criminal and the civil actions shall be
tried and decided jointly.
b. Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the
civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not bar claim of
damages. RTC acquitted Manantan for the crime of homicide through
reckless imprudence without ruling on the issue of civil liability. CA
awarded damages to the parents of the victim. The accused claims his
acquittal extinguishes his civil liability. Contention proper? No.
Acquittal was based on reasonable doubt. Hence, action for recovery of
damages is not barred. Manantan v CA
Independent civil action
Rule 111, Section 3. When Civil Action May Proceed
Independently. — In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and
2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action
may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently
of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages
twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. (3a)
Article 32, CC. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties
of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
1. Freedom of religion;
2. Freedom of speech;
3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
publication;
4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
5. Freedom of suffrage;
6. The right against deprivation of property without due process
of law;
7. The right to a just compensation when private property is
taken for public use;
8. The right to the equal protection of the laws;
9. The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
10. The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
11. The privacy of communication and correspondence;
12. The right to become a member of associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law;
13. The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
Government for redress of grievances;
14. The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form;
15. The right of the accused against excessive bail;
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
16. The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
17. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's
self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being
induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a
State witness;
18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual
punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially
declared unconstitutional; and
19. Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved
party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted),
and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
• Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or
other penal statute.
Article 33, CC. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries
a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence.
Article 34, CC. When a member of a city or municipal police force
refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of
danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for
damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of
any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice
to support such action.
44
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Effect of death on civil actions
Rule 111, Section 4. Effect of Death on Civil Actions. — The death
of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the
criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the
delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under section
3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising
from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or
legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against
said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the accused may be
substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem
for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty
(30) days from notice.
A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be
enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules for
prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed
without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file
against the estate of the deceased. (n)
Article 89, RPC. How criminal liability is totally extinguished.
Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
(1) By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
the pecuniary penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final judgment; xxx
DEATH
Civil Criminal
B4 Final Judgment Extinguished* Extinguished
After Final Judgment NOT Extinguished
*Pending appeal, civil liability based solely on the offense committed is
extinguished. Civil liabilities predicated on sources of obligation other
than delict (such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts)
survive.
Final judgment. A judgment in a criminal case becomes final:
• After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or
• When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or
served, or
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• The defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to
appeal.
People v Bayotas
Bayotas was convicted of Rape. He died pending appeal. Did his death
extinguish his criminal and civil liability? YES.
Summary of rules: death pending appeal
(1) Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon (civil
liability ex delicto)
• Rationale. When a defendant dies before judgment becomes
executory, there cannot be any determination by final
judgment whether or not the felony upon which the civil
action might arise exists, for the simple reason that there is no
party defendant
(2) 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. [law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts]
(3) Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above,
an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing
a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended.
• This separate civil action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator or the estate of the accused,
depending on the source of obligation upon which the same
is based as explained above.
(4) 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 21 21 of the Civil
Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a
possible privation of right by prescription
Super summary. Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no
longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted
therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
grounded as it is on the criminal.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Civil liability ex delictu extinguished upon death before final
judgment. De Guzman was convicted of theft in the RTC and was
affirmed by CA. Pending finality of criminal case before the Supreme
Court, petitioner died. Are the criminal and civil action extinguished?
Yes. The pecuniary liabilities adjudged against the petitioner are
undeniably ex delicto (actual damages for value of jewelry and moral
damages for fear and trauma caused). De Guzman v People
Criminal liability and civil liability ex delictu extinguished if
accused dies pending appeal, even decision was already
promulgated. CA and SC affirmed the conviction of Paras for the
crime of Rape. But he died pending appeal to the SC [SC already
promulgated the decision because notice of his death was received late].
Hence, his death extinguished both his criminal and civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the crime committed. SC’s decision
affirming conviction was rendered ineffectual and set aside. People v
Paras
Civil liability ex quasi-delicto survives; but it must be instituted.
RTC convicted Lipata of Murder and was adjudged to pay civil liability
ex delicto, actual damages, moral damages, and exemplary damages. CA
affirmed. Lipata died pending appeal. Civil liability ex delicto
extinguished? Yes. But his civil liability arising from quasi-delict
survives. However, since there was no separate civil case instituted prior
to the criminal case reservation for filing a separate civil case for the
cause of action arising from quasi-delict, the same cannot be enforced.
Under the present Rules, the heirs of the accused should file a separate
civil case in order to obtain financial retribution for their loss. People v
Lipata
Prejudicial question
Rule 111, Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial
question. A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon
the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in
the office of the fiscal or the court conducting the preliminary
investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial,
the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any
time before the prosecution rests.
Rule 111, Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question. The
elements of a prejudicial question are:
45
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
(1) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue related in the subsequent criminal action;
and
(2) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.
Department of Justice National Prosecution Service Manual Part
III, Section 23. Concept of prejudicial question. A prejudicial
question is one the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved in a case and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal.
• It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime
charged but so intimately connected with it that it determines
the guilt or innocence of the accused.
• To suspend the criminal action, it must not only appear that
said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which
the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the
resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt
or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
Section 24. Elements of prejudicial question. The essential elements
of a prejudicial question are:
a. the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related
to the issue raised in the criminal action;
b. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed; and
c. the cognizance of the said issue pertains to another tribunal.
Prejudicial question; another case determines one’s authority to
file a latter case. Buban, VP and General Manager of Anaped Estate
Inc. filed a complaint for estafa against Victoria and her husband failure
to remit rental collections. Victoria moved to suspend the proceedings
on the ground of a prejudicial question in view of the pendency of 2
intra-corporate cases in Makati and QC RTC. The other case prayed for
the nullification of election of Anaped directors and officers, including
Buban. Is there a prejudicial question? Yes. The outcome of the
resolution would determine the authority of Buban to make a valid
demand in behalf of the corporation. If the authority of the person
making the demand is defective, then no demand was made, therefore
estafa cannot prosper. People v Arambulo
JDNOM not a prejudicial question to bigamy case. Petitioner is
respondent’s second spouse. She filed a case for bigamy because the
latter contracted marriage with her while the former marriage was still
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
subsisting. Respondent filed a civil action for the judicial declaration of
nullity of his first marriage on the ground of absence of a marriage
license. He then moved to suspend the Bigamy proceedings on the
ground of prejudicial question. Is there a prejudicial question? No.
regardless of the result in the civil case, his liability for bigamy exists
because he contracted the second marriage while the first one was valid
and subsisting and before it was declared null and void by the courts.
In the absence of judicial declaration of nullity, the marriage is
presumed to exist. Marbella Bobis v Bobis
Jo: How is this ruling affected by the ruling in Pulido vs People, wherein
the SC said that a JDNOM is a valid defense in a bigamy charge?
Prejudicial question; pending civil case where the accused
allegedly made false testimony. Ark Travel filed a criminal complaint
for false testimony in a civil case against accused Baguio and Ira. The
related civil case was still pending during the present criminal
proceedings. The accused filed an MR of DOJ Secretary’s resolution
that directed the City Prosecutor to proceed with the case. This was
granted. Respondents then went to MTC and filed an MR, saying that
there is no more obstacle to grant the Motion to Withdraw Information
earlier filed. MTC denied this, relying solely on the Crespo doctrine that
once an information is filed in court, its dismissal is addressed to the
sole discretion of the court. MTC did not make an independent
evaluation of probable cause. There is a prejudicial question in this case.
False Testimony in a Civil Case requires falsity of testimony as an
element. In this case, since the civil case in which the accused allegedly
made the false statements is still pending, the falsity of their statements
has yet to be established. MTC cannot determine probable cause
pending resolution of the civil case. Hence, the criminal action for false
testimony must be suspended. Ark Travel Express v Abrogar
No prejudicial question; damages case and estafa. Plus Builders
purchased a lot from Consing but later on found out that the latter did
not have title thereto. Plus Builders filed a civil case for Damages and
Attachment to recover the amount paid, while Consing filed a case for
Injunctive Relief saying that he is merely an agent of his mother. Plus
Builders likewise filed a case for estafa through falsification of public
documents. Does the civil case constitute prejudicial question? No.
Right to damages is not determinative of existence of material elements
in estafa through falsification. In the first civil case, if PBI is held to be
entitled to the damages prayed for, it would not automatically result to
a finding of guilt of the accused in the estafa case. Likewise, in the
second case, status as an agent does not preclude liability in an estafa
case. People v Consing, Jr.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Prejudicial question. SMPI filed a complaint before the OCP against
BF Homes for violation of PD 957 for failure to deliver the TCTs of
the 20 lots that it purchased from the latter. SMPI also sued BF Homes
for specific performance before the HLURB to compel the latter to
release the 20 TCTs. Is the case before the HLURB a prejudicial
question? Yes. The resolution of the action for specific performance
would be determinative of the guilt of the accused in the criminal case.
The HLURB case resolves the issue on WON SMPI is entitled to
delivery, while the PD 957 case resolves the issue on WON the directors
of BF Homes are criminally liable for withholding the TCTs in question.
If HLURB holds SMPI not entitled to the delivery, then the basis for
the criminal liability for violating the PD would disappear, thereby
negating the need to proceed with the criminal case. San Miguel Properties,
Inc v Perez
Annulment not prejudicial question to bigamy charge. Te was
facing a criminal charge (bigamy) filed by his first wife, a civil case
(annulment of first marriage), and an administrative case (revocation of
engineering license). Petitioner in the criminal and administrative cases
moved to suspend the proceedings claiming that the pendency of an
annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question to the resolution of the
cases. Proper? No. The pendency of the civil action for annulment of
marriage is not a prejudicial question to a bigamy case for the outcome
of the annulment case had no bearing upon the determination of
petitioner's innocence or guilt in bigamy because all that is necessary is
that the first marriage is subsisting at the time the second marriage is
contracted. Furthermore, under the law, a marriage even one which is
void or voidable is deemed valid until declared otherwise. Te v CA
No prejudicial question if one is civil and the other is admin. Also,
there is no prejudicial question where one case is administrative and the
other is civil. A prejudicial question involves only a civil and a criminal
case. Te v CA
2/5 heirs of the deceased Bella Torres filed a compromise agreement in
court stating that they are the only heirs of Bella Torres. The remaining
3 children [alleged] who were excluded filed an action to annul the said
agreement. Petitioner claimed that the 3 are not actually biological
children of the deceased but were merely purchased from a third person
and were never legally adopted. Later on, they filed a complaint for
falsification and perjury against the 2. Is there a prejudicial question?
Yes. It is evident that the result of the civil case will determine the
innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal cases for falsification
46
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
of public documents If it is finally adjudged in the civil case that the 3
are not biological children of the late Bella and consequently not entitled
to a share in her estate as heirs, there is no more basis to proceed with
the criminal cases against petitioner who could not have committed
falsification in her pleadings, after the truth of her statements regarding
the filiation of the 3 having been judicially settled. Ty-de Zuzuarregi v
Villarosa
Petitioner is the president of GSMC. The company issued 10 BDO
checks for the embroidery services of El Grande. Meanwhile, SEC
granted GSMC’s application for a Petition for the Declaration of a State
of Suspension of Payments, for the Approval of a Rehabilitation Plan
and Appointment of a Management Committee. SEC issued an order
suspending all actions, claims, and proceedings against GSMC until
further order. GSMC informed El Grande of the same, but the latter
still presented the checks for payment and when they were dishonored,
the latter filed against petitioner 8 counts of violation of BP 22. MTC
convicted him of 8 counts, while CA acquitted him of the 6 and ordered
him to pay the total civil liability due to El Grande. Is petitioner liable
for said indemnity? No.
• It is clear that prior to the presentment for payment and the
subsequent demand letters to petitioner, there was already a
lawful Order from the SEC suspending all payments of claims.
It was incumbent on him to follow that SEC Order. As such,
the contract is deemed suspended
• Consequently, because there was a suspension of GSMC's
obligations, petitioner may not be held liable for the civil
obligations of the corporation covered by the bank checks at
the time this case arose.
• However, it must be emphasized that her non-liability should
not prejudice the right of El Grande to pursue its claim
through remedies available to it, subject to the SEC
proceedings regarding the application for corporate
rehabilitation.
Gidwani v People
Prejudicial question. Omictin (Operations Manager Ad Interim of
Saag) filed a complaint for 3 counts of estafa against Lagos for failure
to return the two company vehicles entrusted to him when he was still
the president of Saag. Lagos filed a motion to suspend proceedings on
the basis of a prejudicial question because of a pending petition with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the declaration of
nullity of appointments of Tan as President and Omictin as OM. Is
there a prejudicial question? YES. Ultimately, the resolution of the
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
issues raised in the intra-corporate dispute will determine the guilt or
innocence of private respondent in the crime of estafa filed against him
by petitioner before the RTC of Makati. One of the elements of the
crime of estafa with abuse of confidence under Article 315, par. 1(b) of
the Revised Penal Code is a demand made by the offended party to the
offender. Since the alleged offended party is Saag Phils., Inc., the validity
of the demand for the delivery of the subject vehicles rests upon the
authority of the person making such a demand on the company’s behalf.
If the supposed authority of petitioner is found to be defective, it is as
if no demand was ever made, hence, the prosecution for estafa cannot
prosper. Omictin v CA
Effect of judgment in civil action on criminal
action
Rule 111, Section 5. Judgment in Civil Action Not a Bar. — A final
judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil
liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the
same act or omission subject of the civil action. (4a)
Kinds of acquittal in relation to civil liability. Our law recognizes
two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the
accused.
(1) Acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of
the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to
civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator
of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act
or omission.
• There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the
question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted
must be based on grounds other than the delict complained
of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules
of Court.
(2) Acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been
satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may
be proved by preponderance of evidence only.
Article 100, RPC. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
Article 101, RPC. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases .
The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2,
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced
subject to the following rules:
1. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil
liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person,
and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine
but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person
under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that
there was no fault or negligence on their part.
• Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile
or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or
control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane,
imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property,
excepting property exempt from execution, in
accordance with the civil law.
2. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons
for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly
liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have
received.
• The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the
proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
• When the respective shares cannot be equitably
determined, even approximately, or when the liability also
attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the
inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the
damages have been caused with the consent of the
authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made
in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
3. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the
persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily
liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those
doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part
of their property exempt from execution.
Article 102, RPC. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. In default of the
persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other
persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in
their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal
ordinances or some general or special police regulations shall have been
committed by them or their employees.
• Innkeepers are also subsidiary liable for the restitution of
goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from
47
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof,
provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the
innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the
deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore
have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his
representative may have given them with respect to the care
of and vigilance over such goods.
• No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper's employees.
Article 103, RPC. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also
apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils,
workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
Calang and Philtranco v People
RTC convicted Calang of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple
homicide, multiple physical injuries, and damage to property. He was a
driver of a bus owned by Philtranco. RTC ordered Calang and
Philtranco to pay solidarily the death indemnity and actual damages due
to the accident. Liability of the latter was based on quasi-delict. Proper
to hold Philtranco solidarily liable? NO.
• Subsidiary liability of the employer. Calang was charged
criminally before the RTC. Undisputedly, Philtranco was not
a direct party in this case. Since the cause of action against
Calang was based on delict, both the RTC and the CA erred
in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang,
based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the CC.
If at all, Philtranco's liability may only be subsidiary per Article
103 in relation to 102 of the RPC.
• Requisites. Nonetheless, before the employers' subsidiary
liability is enforced, the following must be established:
(1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees;
(2) they are engaged in some kind of industry;
(3) the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge
of their duties; and
(4) the execution against the latter has not been satisfied due
to insolvency.
Note: The subsidiary liability of the employer arises only after
conviction of the employee in the criminal action.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Article 104, RPC. What is included in civil liability. The civil
liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code
includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Article 105, RPC. Restitution; How made. The restitution of the
thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any
deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
• The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in
the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful
means, saving to the latter his action against the proper
person, who may be liable to him.
• This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has
been acquired by the third person in the manner and under
the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
Article 106, RPC. Reparation; How made. The court shall determine
the amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing,
whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party,
and reparation shall be made accordingly.
Article 107, RPC. Indemnification; What is included.
Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those
caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a
third person by reason of the crime.
Article 108, RPC. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for
damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves . The
obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and
indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of
the person liable. The action to demand restoration, reparation, and
indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.
Article 109, RPC. Share of each person civilly liable. If there are two
or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the
amount for which each must respond.
Article 110, RPC. Several and subsidiary liability of principals,
accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference in payment.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the
principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
• The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the
property of the principals; next, against that of the
accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories.
• Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has
been enforced, the person by whom payment has been made
shall have a right of action against the others for the amount
of their respective shares.
Article 111, RPC. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases.
Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a
felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to
the extent of such participation.
Article 112, RPC. Extinction of civil liability. Civil liability
established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be
extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Law.
Article 113, RPC. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. Except in case
of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article
the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability
resulting from the crime (civil liability ex delicto) committed by him,
notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve
the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or
any other reason.
Rule on filing fees in civil action deemed instituted with the
criminal action
General Rule: There are no filing fees required for actual damages
claimed.
Exception: When otherwise required by the Rules as in:
a. BP 22 cases — filing fees are required and shall be paid based
on the amount of the check involved. Rule 111, Section 1(b)
b. Estafa cases — the filing fees shall be paid based on the
amount involved. Rule 141, Section 21(a)
• Filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing
of the criminal action in court where he seeks for the
enforcement of the civil liability of the accused by way of
moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages and where
48
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

the amount of such damages is specified in the complaint or

information.
• If the amount is not specified in the complaint or information,
and any of the damages is subsequently awarded, the filing fees
assessed in accordance with the Rules, shall constitute a first
lien on the judgment awarding such damages.

Viray v People
An information for qualified theft was filed against Viray, but the RTC
convicted him of robbery. Finding that the essential element of use of
force upon things is not present, CA convicted him of theft qualified by
grave abuse of confidence. SC convicted him of simple theft because
the breaking of door does not constitute the qualifying element of grave
abuse of confidence. The allegation in the information that the offender
is a laborer of the offended party does not by itself, without more, create
the relation of confidence and intimacy required by law for the
imposition of the penalty prescribed for qualified theft.
• Penalty. Since the amount of the property taken was not
established by an independent and reliable estimate, the court
may fix the value or impose the minimum penalty. In this case,
the court chose the latter because there was no available
evidence to prove the value of stolen property.
• Reparation. SC deleted the order for the reparation of the
property stolen. Article 2199 of the CC provides that one is
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary
loss suffered by him, as he has duly proved. In this case, only
the testimony of the private complainant was present

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 49

Preliminary investigation
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Is the respondent probably guilty and therefore, should go to trial?
DEFINITION, NATURE AND PURPOSE
Definition. It is through a preliminary investigation that the fiscal
determines the existence of a prima facie case that would warrant the
prosecution of a case.
Nature. The determination of probable cause during a preliminary
investigation is judicially recognized as an executive function and is
made by the prosecutor.
• Not a part of the trial. A full and exhaustive presentation of
the parties' evidence is not required, but only such as may
engender as well-grounded belief that an offense has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
Substantive right. A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in the
criminal justice system which spells for an individual the difference
between months if not years of agonizing trial and possibly jail term, on
the one hand, and peace of mind and liberty, on the other hand. Thus,
we have characterized the right to a preliminary investigation as not a
mere formal or technical right but a substantive one, forming part of
due process in criminal justice.
Purpose of PI; respondent’s perspective. The primary objective of a
preliminary investigation is to free a respondent from the
inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending
himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the reasonable
probability of his or her guilt has been passed upon in a more or less
summary proceeding by a competent officer designated by law for that
purpose.
Purpose of PI; state’s perspective. PI also protects the state from the
burden of unnecessary expense and effort in prosecuting alleged
offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous or groundless
charges.
Purpose of PI; more specific. The court declared in Callo-Claridad v
Estaban the following as the specific purposes of PI:
a. To inquire regarding the commission of the crime and the
connection of the accused with it, in order that he may be
informed of the nature and character of the crime charged
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
against him, and if there is probable cause for believing him to
be guilty, the State shall take the necessary steps to take him
to trial
b. To preserve the evidence and keep the witnesses within the
control of the State
c. To determine the amount of bail if the offense is bailable
Termination of PI. The preliminary investigation conducted by the
fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists
warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing
of the information in the proper court.
Waiver. The right to a preliminary investigation may be waived for
failure to invoke the right prior to or at the time of the plea.
Absence of PI; effect on jurisdiction. The absence of a PI does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case nor impair the validity
of the information or otherwise render it defective.
Quantum of proof. Probable cause implies probability of guilt and
requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence to justify a
conviction.
• More likely than not. Finding of probable cause needs only
to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime
has been committed and it has been committed by the
accused.
Clash: judge and prosecutor. Where there is a clash of views between
a judge who did not investigate and a fiscal who conducted a
reinvestigation, those of the prosecutor should normally prevail.
Limits of fiscal’s power. It is subject to the approval of the provincial
or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor, as the case may be, and it may
be elevated for review to the Secretary of Justice.
DOJ Sec power of control. Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors
are subject to appeal to the secretary of justice who, under the Revised
Administrative Code, exercises the power of direct control and
supervision over said prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify,
reverse or modify their rulings.
• The Secretary of Justice may direct that a motion to dismiss
the case be filed in Court or otherwise, that an information be
filed in Court.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
DOJ sec power of control; information has been filed. The justice
secretary's power of review may still be availed of despite the filing of
an information in court. In his discretion, the secretary may affirm,
modify or reverse resolutions of his subordinates pursuant to Republic
Act No. 5180, as amended.
Duty of trial courts. Where the secretary of justice exercises his power
of review only after an information has been filed, trial courts should
defer or suspend arraignment and further proceedings until the appeal
is resolved. Such deferment or suspension, however, does not signify
that the trial court is ipso facto bound by the resolution of the secretary
of justice. Jurisdiction, once acquired by the trial court, is not lost
despite a resolution by the secretary of justice to withdraw the
information or to dismiss the case.
Judicial review. The findings of the prosecutor and Secretary of Justice
are generally not subject to judicial review because of the principle of
separation of powers. The following are exceptions:
1. GADALEJ
2. Gross misapprehension of facts
3. Acting in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform duty
enjoined by law
4. Acting outside the contemplation of law
Probable cause. This refers to facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
Kinds of determination of probable cause
Probable cause of search Probable cause for filing of
warrant or arrest warrant information
Preliminary examination Preliminary investigation proper
Judicial in nature and is lodged Executive in nature. It is part of
with the judge the prosecutor's job
To determine whether a warrant To determine whether there is
of arrest should be issued against enough evidence to support the
the accused information being filed
Instances where probable cause has to be established
1. By the investigating officer for the filing of complaint or
information
2. By the judge to determine whether a warrant of arrest or
commitment order shall be issued
50
Preliminary investigation
3. By the peace officer or private person making a warrantless
arrest in hot pursuit
4. By the judge, to determine whether a search warrant shall be
issued
DOJ-NPS, Part III. Preliminary Investigation
Section 1. Concept of preliminary investigation. A preliminary
investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that
the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
A preliminary investigation is essentially a judicial inquiry since there is:
-the opportunity to be heard;
-the production and weighing of evidence; and
-a decision rendered on the basis of such evidence.
In this sense, the investigating prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer. But
see de Lima case.
Section 2. Purpose of preliminary investigation. A preliminary
investigation is intended to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious
and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open and public
accusation of a crime and from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a
public trial; and to protect the State from having to conduct useless and
expensive trials.
Section 3. Nature of preliminary investigation. The conduct of a
preliminary investigation is a substantive right which the accused may
invoke prior to or at least at the time of plea, the deprivation of which
would be a denial of his right to due process.
Part II. Inquest.
Section 1. Concept. Inquest is an informal and summary investigation
conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons
arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued
by the court for the purpose of determining whether or not said persons
should remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court.
Once information is filed with the court, the court acquires
jurisdiction; but it cannot ignore DOJ motion to withdraw
information solely on the ground that it has jurisdiction. A
complaint for libel was filed against Ledesma before the City
Prosecutor's Office. An Information for Libel was thereafter filed by
the Assistant City Prosecutor against petitioner with the Regional Trial
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Court of Quezon City. Upon a petition for review of the resolution of
the prosecutor filed by petitioner before the Department of Justice, the
Secretary of Justice reversed the Quezon City Investigating Prosecutor.
The Trial Prosecutor then filed a Motion to Withdraw Information
attaching thereto the resolution of the Department Secretary. The trial
judge, however, denied the motion based solely on the doctrine laid
down in Mogul that once a complaint or information has been filed in
court, any disposition of the case, rests on the sound discretion of the
trial court. GADALEJ? Yes. When confronted with a motion to
withdraw an information on the ground of lack of probable cause based
on a resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the bounden duty of the trial
court is to make an independent assessment of the merits of such
motion. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, the trial court is not
bound by such resolution but is required to evaluate it before
proceeding further with the trial. While the Secretary's ruling is
persuasive, it is not binding on courts. A trial court, however,
commits reversible error or even grave abuse of discretion if it
refuses/neglects to evaluate such recommendation and simply insists
on proceeding with the trial on the mere pretext of having already
acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action. Ledesma v CA
No need for motion for review for DOJ to act; DOJ Sec petitioner
issued an order creating a special panel to conduct a PI on the killing of
Dr. Ortega. Finding insufficient evidence to support probable cause,
the complaint was dismissed. Before the wife of the petitioner could file
for a petition for review, DOJ Sec issued another order creating a
second panel for another preliminary investigation. This time, there was
probable cause to charge former Palawan Governor Reyes. RTC issued
warrants of arrest. Reyes now contends that de Lima has no authority
to create the second panel to conduct a reinvestigation of the case.
Contention proper? NO. The Secretary of Justice exercises control and
supervision over prosecutors. It is within her authority to affirm, nullify,
reverse, or modify the resolution of her prosecutors even without a
motion for review. De Lima v Reyes
Nature of DOJ’s function; purely administrative/executive
function. The determination by the DOJ of the existence of probable
cause is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. However, the actions of the SoJ
in affirming or reversing the findings of prosecutors may still be subject
to judicial review if tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The fact that
the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the Government does not
make it a quasi-judicial office or agency. Its preliminary investigation of
cases is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. Nor does the DOJ exercise a
quasi-judicial function when it reviews the findings of a public
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
prosecutor on the finding of probable cause in any case. Indeed,
in Bautista v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court has held that a
preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding. De Lima v
Reyes
Inquest proceedings proper only when the accused has been
lawfully arrested without warrant. Inciting to sedition charge. Without a
warrant and without informing him of the charge against him, Beltran
was arrested and subjected to inquest proceedings for Inciting to
Sedition based on a speech he allegedly gave during the 20th year of the
EDSA Revolution. The inquest prosecutor indicted Beltran and filed
the corresponding Information. Rebellion charge. Beltran was subjected
to a second inquest, this time for rebellion. The DOJ panel of
prosecutors issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict Beltran
and San Juan as leaders/promoters of Rebellion. Beltran was
contending that there was no probable cause against him. The other
petitioners were contending that there were irregularities which
attended the preliminary investigation done in their cases. Thus, they
filed a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari to enjoin their
prosecution. Inquest proceedings valid? NO. Inquest proceedings
proper only when the accused has been lawfully arrested without
warrant. In this case, none of Beltran’s arresting officers saw Beltran
commit, in their presence, the crime of rebellion. Nor did they have
knowledge of facts and circumstances that Beltran had just committed
rebellion, sufficient to form probable cause to believe that he had
committed rebellion. Ladlad v Velasco
Initial duty of inquest officer. He must determine if the arrest of the
detained person was legally made. Otherwise, he shall:
1. recommend the release of the person arrested or detained
2. note down the disposition on the referral document
3. prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the
action taken
4. forward the same, together with the record of the case, to the
City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action. Ladlad v
Velasco
Lanier v People
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed an information charging
petitioner of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The SoJ, upon
motion of the accused, directed the prosecutor to withdraw the
information. This was granted by the trial court. OSG filed before the
CA a petition for certiorari to annul the DOJ resolutions. CA acted
favorably and nullified the same and reinstated the original information.
51
Preliminary investigation
Was TC correct in granting motion to withdraw? NO. Was CA Correct
in nullifying the SoJ Resolution and Order? Yes.
• Separation of powers. It is well-settled that courts of law are
precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors
and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable
cause for the purpose of filing criminal informations, unless
such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• The elements of the crime charged were attested to by
evidence. When the Secretary of Justice concluded that there
was planting of evidence based on the lone fact that the raiding
team arrived ahead of the search team, he, in effect went into
the merits of the defense. He effectively assumed the function
of a trial judge in the evaluation of the pieces of evidence, and
therefore acted outside his jurisdiction.
• TC did not make own independent assessment. The trial
court, having acquired jurisdiction over the case, is not bound
by such resolution but is required to evaluate it before
proceeding further with the trial. While the Secretary's ruling
is persuasive, it is not binding on courts. In this case, RTC
deferred to the finding of probable cause by the Secretary of
Justice without doing its own independent evaluation. Hence,
CA did not commit any reversible error when it nullified and
set aside the Resolutions and Order, rendered by the Secretary
of Justice and the RTC, respectively.
WHEN REQUIRED
Section 1, Rule 112. Preliminary investigation defined; when
required Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Except as provided in section 7 (when accused lawfully arrested without
warrant) of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be
conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense
where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.
DOJ-NPS Part III Sections 1,2, 3 and 7
(See Sections 1, 2 and 3 above)
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Section 7. Commencement of Preliminary Investigation. A
preliminary investigation proceeding is commenced:
(1) by the filing of a complaint by the offended party or any competent
person directly with the Office of the Investigating Prosecutor or Judge;
(2) by referral from or upon request of the law enforcement agency that
investigated a criminal incident;
(3) upon request of a person arrested or detained pursuant to a
warrantless arrest who executes a waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;
(4) by order or upon directive of the court or other competent authority;
or
(5) for election offenses, upon the initiative of the Commission on
Elections, or upon written complaint by any citizen, candidate,
registered political party, coalition of registered parties or organizations
under the party-list system or any accredited citizen arm of the
Commission on Elections.
RJCL
Section 8. Commencement of Preliminary Investigation.
Procedure for Handling Children Exempted from Criminal Liability. If
it is determined at the initial contact that the child is 15 years of age or
below, the procedure provided in Section 20, Republic Act No. 9344
shall be observed as follows:
(1) The authority who had the initial contact with the child shall
immediately release the child to the custody of the mother or father, or
the appropriate guardian or custodian, or in their absence, the nearest
relative.
(2) The authority shall immediately notify the local social welfare and
development officer of the taking of the child into custody.
(3) The local social welfare and development officer shall, with the
consent of the child and the person having custody over the child,
determine the appropriate intervention programs for the child.
(4) If the child's parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be
located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to
any of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious
organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council
for the Protection of Children; a local social welfare and development
officer; or, when and where appropriate, the Department of Social
Welfare and Development.
(5) If the child has been found by the local social welfare and
development office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by the
parents, or if the parents and the child do not consent to or do not
comply with the prevention program, the Department of Social Welfare
and Development or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
shall file before the court a petition for involuntary commitment
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as "The
Child and Youth Welfare Code."
Section 13. Taking Custody of a Child Without a Warrant. The law
enforcement officer or a private person taking into custody a child in
conflict with the law without a warrant shall observe the provisions in
Sections 5, 8 and 9 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure and shall forthwith deliver the child to the nearest police
station. The child shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section
7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Tandoc v Resultan
This case covers multiple complaints against various people. In one
case, the City Fiscal found probable cause and filed an information
before the City Court. It dismissed the other complaints after
conducting a PI. The offended party directly lodged with the City Court
the criminal complaints previously dismissed by the fiscal. The City
Court issued several Orders whereby the court a quo, after conducting
a preliminary examination of the 4 cases, found probable cause.
Issuance of warrants was ordered, but later suspended upon motion of
petitioners. The accused moved for reinvestigation of the cases by the
Office of the City Fiscal. Proper? NO.
2 stages of PI. First is the preliminary examination of the complainant
and his witnesses prior to the arrest of the accused to determine
whether or not there is ground to issue a warrant of arrest. Second is
the preliminary investigation proper, wherein the accused, after his
arrest, is informed of the complaint filed against him and is given access
to the testimonies and evidence presented, and he is also permitted to
introduce evidence in his favor. The purpose is to determine WON
accused should be released or held before trial.
When PI proper not required. In cases falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of an inferior court, as well as in cases within the concurrent
jurisdiction of the city courts or municipal courts with Courts of First
Instance, the accused was not entitled to be heard in a preliminary
investigation proper.
Rationale. The loss of time entailed in the conduct of PI is eliminated
with the assurance of a speedy trial for the accused. The preliminary
examination prior to the issuance of warrant of arrest and the sworn
statements of the witnesses are enough to establish probable cause.
52
Preliminary investigation
Application to the case. In the case at bar, the offenses charged
against petitioners for "Trespass to Dwelling", "Grave Threats" and
"Physical Injuries" were all within the jurisdiction of the City Court of
San Carlos City. The complaints could be filed directly with the City
Court which is empowered to conduct a preliminary examination for
purposes of issuance of warrants of arrest, and thereafter to proceed
with the trial of the cases on the merits. The preliminary investigation
proper conducted by the Office of the City Fiscal could have been
dispensed with.
Reinvestigation. From the order of the City Court finding reasonable
ground to believe that a crime was committed and the accused probably
guilty thereof, petitioners cannot seek a re-investigation by the Office
of the City Fiscal. The re-investigation sought by petitioners applies
only to instances where a case is cognizable by the Court of First
Instance but filed with the City Court for purposes of preliminary
investigation only and thereafter dismissed by the latter on the ground
that no prima facie case exists. However, for cases cognizable by
inferior courts and filed with the same not only for purposes of
preliminary investigation but for trial on the merits, the Office of the
City Fiscal has no authority to re-investigate
Doromal v Sandiganbayan
After conducting a PI and finding probable cause, the special
prosecution officer filed an information against petitioner for violating
RA 3019. This was later on annulled because it did not have approval
of OMB. The prosecutor sought OMB’s approval to refile the
information and was granted. Doromal moved to quash the
information contending that a new PI should have been conducted.
Proper? PI should be conducted.
New preliminary investigation. A new preliminary investigation of
the charge against the petitioner is in order not only because the first
was a nullity and because it is his right and that the charge against him
was changed. The Rules provide that no complaint or information shall
be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted.
When arrested without warrant. When a person is lawfully arrested
without a warrant for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court,
the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peace
officer or fiscal without a preliminary investigation having been first
conducted; on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
arresting officer or person.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• However, before the filing of such complaint or information,
the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation by
a proper officer in accordance with this Rules
• If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary
investigation having been first conducted, the accused may
within five (5) days from the time he learns of the filing of the
information, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same
right to adduce evidence in his favor in the manner prescribed
in this Rule.
Improper remedy. Remedy is not motion to quash but merely hold
the proceedings in abeyance and the case should be remanded to the
office of the Ombudsman for him or the Special Prosecutor to conduct
a preliminary investigation.
Cojuangco v Sandiganbayan
After finding probable cause, OSG filed before PCGG an information
against Cojuangco for violating RA 3019. At the scheduled PI,
petitioner moved to inhibit PCGG. Does PCGG have jurisdiction to
Conduct PI? Yes. Under the circumstances of this case, it would be fair
and just for the PCGG to conduct the preliminary investigation? No.
Concurrent jurisdiction with OMB. Executive Order No. 1 and
Sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order No. 14, grant PCGG the power to
investigate and prosecute such ill-gotten wealth cases of the former
President, his relatives and associates. No doubt, the authority to
investigate extended to the PCGG includes the authority to conduct a
preliminary investigation. Nevertheless, the OMB, in the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction, may take over at any stage of the proceedings.
Due process in PI. An indispensable requisite of due process is that
the person who presides and decides over a proceeding, including a
preliminary investigation, must possess the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge. The PCGG, as a law enforcer, gathered evidence as to
the alleged ill-gotten wealth of petitioner and intervenors and, after
satisfying itself that there is a prima facie case sequestered and issued a
freeze order for all the properties of petitioner. Based also on the said
finding of a prima facie, the PCGG filed a civil complaint against
petitioner and intervenors for alleged ill-gotten wealth including the
alleged misuse, misappropriation, and diversion of coconut levy funds.
Doctrine: The law enforcer who conducted the criminal investigation,
gathered evidence, and filed the complaint for the purpose of
preliminary investigation, cannot be allowed to conduct the preliminary
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
investigation of his own complaint. One cannot be a prosecutor and
judge at the same time. PCGG cannot possibly conduct the PI with the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge as it has already prejudged the
matter. A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear
impartial; the same rules apply to investigating officers.
Webb v De Leon
Vizconde massacre. NBI filed before the DOJ a complaint against 3
accused for the crime of rape with homicide. DOJ found probable
cause and filed an information before the RTC. Judge de Leon issued
warrant of arrest without personally examining the witnesses.
No GADALEJ in finding probable cause. A finding of probable
cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not
a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects.
Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of
guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt
and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
• Probable cause. This refers to facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed by the person sought to
be arrested. Hence, the reference is not to a person with
training in the law such as a prosecutor or a judge but to the
average man on the street.
No GADALEJ in issuing warrant of arrest. In satisfying himself of
the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest,
the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses. But he shall:
• Personally evaluate the report and the documents submitted
by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on
the basis thereof, issue a warrant;
• If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusions as to the existence of probable cause
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT
Rule 112 Section 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary
investigations. The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
1. Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
2. Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;
53
Preliminary investigation
3. National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
4. Other officers as may be authorized by law.
Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all
crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial
jurisdictions.
DOJ-NPS Part III, Section 6. Officers Authorized to Conduct
Preliminary Investigation. Same as above.
Others authorized to conduct PI
1. COMELEC, for violations of the Omnibus Election Code
2. OMB for public officers, employees, office or agency, when
their acts are illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient
3. PCGG with the assistance of OSG and other government
agencies to investigate, file, and prosecute cases investigated
by it.
Crespo v Mogul
The fiscal filed an information for estafa against the accused. The DOJ
Secretary reversed the resolution of the fiscal and thereafter ordered the
latter to dismiss the information. The Trial court refused to grant said
motion to dismiss. Valid? Yes.
DOJ Secretary’s power of review vis-à-vis court’s jurisdiction.
Generally, all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
fiscal. The Secretary of Justice can review the actions of the fiscal. He
has the power to affirm, modify, or reverse the action or opinion of the
fiscal. But in the event that the information has already been filed with
the Court, the Court already acquires jurisdiction over the case. Given
this, any disposition of the case, its dismissal or the conviction, or the
acquittal of the accused now rests in the sound discretion of the court.
Remedy. In order to avoid a situation where the opinion of the
Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may be
disregarded by the trial court, the SoJ, should, as far as practicable,
refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action
of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed
in the Court.
Query. Trial court refuses to grant the motion to dismiss filed by the
fiscal upon the directive of the Secretary of Justice will there not be a
vacuum in the prosecution? NO.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• The role of the fiscal or prosecutor is to see that justice is done
and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person
accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to the
contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the
presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the Court to
enable the Court to arrive at its own independent judgment as
to whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted.
• Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the
prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in
Court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court.
Honasan II v The Panel of Investigators
In relation to the Oakwood Incident, an information for coup d’etat was
filed against Honassan. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the
Department of Justice issued a subpoena to petitioner for preliminary
investigation. Honassan now asserts that it is the Office of the
Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to conduct the
corresponding preliminary investigation. Proper? No.
Constitutional mandate of OMB vis-à-vis prosecutorial powers of
DOJ. The constitutional mandate of the OMB to investigate any act or
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, does not
exclude other government agencies tasked by law to investigate and
prosecute cases involving public officials. If it were the intention of the
framers of the 1987 Constitution, they would have expressly declared
the exclusive conferment of the power to the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman cases. Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses
may be subdivided into two classes: those cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and those falling under the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.
• Power to investigate. The power to investigate or conduct a
PI on any OMB case may be exercised by an investigator or
prosecutor of the OMB or by a prosecutor either in their
regular capacities or deputized by the OMB.
• Power to prosecute. For cases congnizable by SB, the
prosecution shall be under the direct and exclusive control and
supervision by the OMB. For cases cognizable by regular
courts, the law recognizes concurrence of jurisdiction between
the OMB and other investigative agencies.
Concurrent jurisdiction. The authority of the Ombudsman to
investigate offenses involving public officers or employees is
concurrent with other government investigating agencies such as
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
provincial, city and state prosecutors. However, the Ombudsman, in
the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, may take over, at any stage, from any investigating
agency of the government, the investigation of such cases.
OMB and DOJ power to investigate reconciled. In other words,
respondent DOJ Panel is not precluded from conducting any
investigation of cases against public officers involving violations of
penal laws but if the cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, then respondent Ombudsman may, in the exercise of
its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage.
DOJ panel does not need authority from OMB. The DOJ Panel
need not be authorized nor deputized by the Ombudsman to conduct
the preliminary investigation for complaints filed with it because the
DOJ's authority to act as the principal law agency of the government
and investigate the commission of crimes under the Revised Penal Code
is derived from the Revised Administrative Code
SEC v Interport Resources Inc
SEC issued an order finding that IRC violated the Old Securities Act
and the Revised Securities Act. There was a special investigating panel
to hear the case. IRC questions the jurisdiction of SEC to investigate
the case considering that SEC’s Prosecution and Enforcement
Department (PED) was already abolished when the Securities
Regulation Code took effect.
SEC retained jurisdiction. SEC retained the jurisdiction to investigate
violations of the RSA reenacted in the SRC despite the abolition of
PED. Section 53 of the Securities Regulations Code clearly provides
that criminal complaints for violations of rules and regulations enforced
or administered by the SEC shall be referred to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for preliminary investigation, while the SEC nevertheless
retains limited investigatory powers.
Refer to DOJ. Under Sec 45 of the RSA, SEC has the authority to make
such investigations as it deems necessary to determine whether any
person has violated or is about to violate any provision of this Act. After
finding that a person has committed such, the SEC may refer the case
to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and prosecution. [Doctrine of
Primary Jurisdiction]
Arroyo v DOJ
54
Preliminary investigation
To investigate the alleged election offenses and anomalies committed
during the 2004 and 2007 national elections, COMELEC issued a
resolution approving the creation of a joint committee with the DOJ
which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the same. Valid?
• History; Section 265 of the OEC. Prior to the amendment
of Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code, the Comelec
had the exclusive authority to investigate and prosecute
election offenses. Nevertheless, Congress also empowered the
COMELEC to avail of the assistance of the prosecuting arms
of the government due to practical limitations [lack of funds
and people to investigate offenses on its own].
• Present; Sec 453 of RA 9369. By virtue of Section 43 of R.A.
9369, the COMELEC now has concurrent jurisdiction with
other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the DOJ,
to conduct PI of all election offenses punishable under the
OEC.
Baltazar v Chua
Jaime Chua and Jovito Armas were originally charged before the RTC
with homicide and frustrated homicide. The surviving offended party
filed a motion for reinvestigation to the City Prosecutor to change the
offense from homicide to murder, which was granted. The SoJ
directed the Prosecutor to amend the Informations for Murder and
Frustrated Murder to Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and drop
one of the accused from the charges. This was granted by Judge Cruz.
The case was re-raffled to Judge Hidalgo who granted the motion to
reinstate the charges of murder. Accused argued that the RTC had no
authority to make its own independent findings of facts to determine
probable cause against them, apart from the findings made by the
Secretary of Justice. Proper? No.
Ruling of SoJ is persuasive but not binding. The trial court is not
bound by the Resolution of the Justice Secretary but must evaluate it
before proceeding with the trial. Reliance on the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice alone is considered an abdication of the trial
court’s duty. The trial court has to determine the merits of the same,
and not be subservient to the former.
IN CASE OF CLASH BETWEEN PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR AND THE COURT
Po v DOJ
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict petitioners for
violation of the Corporation Code. DOJ Undersecretary reversed this,
but upon MR, it was reversed again. Petitioners filed a 65, assailing
GADALEJ on the part of DOJ finding probable cause against them.
Separation of powers. The determination of probable cause, for
purposes of preliminary investigation, is an executive function. Such
determination should be free from the court’s interference save only in
exceptional cases where the DOJ gravely abuses its discretion in the
issuance of its orders or resolutions. GADALEJ not proven.
People v Yecyec
The prosecutor found probable cause to charge respondent of the
crime of theft. An information was filed, but RTC dismissed it for lack
of probable cause. Proper? No.
Determination of probable cause is an executive function. The
issue of whether or not he made a correct ascertainment of probable
cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may
not be compelled to pass upon. Thus, as the information was valid on
its face and there was no manifest error or arbitrariness on the part of
MCTC and the Provincial Prosecutor, the RTC and the CA erred when
they overturned the finding of probable cause against the respondents.
The courts should not dismiss a valid information for lack of probable
cause, because evidentiary matters should be presented and heard
during trial.
SEC v Santos
The DOJ panel found the existence of probable cause for violation of
the Securities Regulation Code against Santos. They found that Santos
sold unregistered securities in behalf of the company and did so without
the prerequisite license as a broker/salesman/dealer. The Secretary of
Justice (SOJ) reversed the decision of the DOJ panel, ruling that Santos
is a mere clerical employee of PIPC and is not an agent. The evidence
on record did not show that she was indeed an agent. GADALEJ? Yes.
General rule. The prosecutor and the SOJ have a wide discretion in
exercising their power to determine the existence of probable cause.
The courts will not meddle with its decisions, pursuant to the doctrine
of separation of powers.
Exception. If the finding of the existence of probable cause is attended
by grave abuse of discretion or a gross misapprehension of facts, the
court can interfere and correct such error thru a petition for certiorari.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Application. In this case, Santos did not even submit any evidence to
prove that she was a mere clerical employee. As an investment
consultant for PIPC, Santos gave rise to the sale of the unregistered
securities by providing information about the investment products of
the company. Thru these acts, she acted as an agent of PIPC, with an
end goal of convincing various individuals to invest in such securities.
Santos must be included in the information, alongside the various
officers and directors of PIPC.
LACK OF AUTHORITY
People v Garfin
An information for violation of the Social Security Act was filed against
Saballegue before the RTC. The certification was signed by the State
Prosecutor. Accused pled not guilty to the charge. He filed a motion to
dismiss 3 days later on the ground that the information was filed
without prior written authority or approval of the city prosecutor as
required under Section 4, Rule 112. Considering that he has already
been arraigned, did he waive the defect? No. Not waivable.
Lack of authority to file information affects jurisdiction. If the
filing officer lacks authority to file the information, jurisdiction is not
conferred on the court and this infirmity cannot be cured by silence or
waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent.
State prosecutor must obtain written authority of city prosecutor.
The Regional State Prosecutor is only vested with administrative
supervision, not supervision and control.
• Administrative supervision is limited to overseeing
operations whereas supervision and control would entail
authority to direct the performance of duty.
• As administrative supervisor, the Regional State Prosecutor
has no power to direct the city and provincial prosecutors to
inhibit from handling certain cases.
Quisay v People
Assistant city prosecutor, without approval from any higher authority,
but with a Certification claiming that he has prior written authority or
approval from the City Prosecutor, filed an information before the RTC
charging Quisay for violation of RA 7610. Petitioner moved to quash
said information on the ground that it was filed by one who had no
authority. RTC denied. Proper? NO.
55
Preliminary investigation
General rule. Complaints or informations filed before the courts
without prior written authority or approval of authorized officers
renders the same defective and subject to quashal. Filing of an
Information by an officer without the requisite authority to file
constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence,
waiver, acquiescence or even by express consent. It may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings.
Exception. City Prosecutor has the power to delegate his power to
prepare necessary information or complaint to his subordinates as he
may deem necessary in the interest of the prosecution service. In this
case, there is no showing that the information was approved either by
the City Prosecutor or any of the division chiefs of the Office of the
Prosecutor.
PROCEDURE
Cases cognizable by MTC/RTC- conducted by prosecutor
Rule 112 Section 3. Procedure. Except as provided for in Section 7
hereof, no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation
having been first conducted in the following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent and
be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as
well as other supporting documents, in such number of copies as there
are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The said
affidavits shall be sworn to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or
government official authorized to administer oath , or, in their
absence or unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he
personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
(b)Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss the same if he finds no ground
to continue with the inquiry, or issue a subpoena to the respondent,
attaching thereto a copy of the complaint, affidavits and other
supporting documents. Within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, the
respondent shall submit counter-affidavits and other supporting
documents. He shall have the right to examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant.
(c) Such counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence submitted by
the respondent shall also be sworn to and certified as prescribed in
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
paragraph (a) hereof and copies thereof shall be furnished by him to the
complainant.
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not
submit counter-affidavits within ten (10) days period, the investigating
officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the
complainant.
(e) If the investigating officer believes that there are matters to be
clarified, he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions
to the parties or their witnesses, during which the parties shall be
afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to
examine or cross-examine. If the parties so desire, they may submit
questions to the investigating officer which the latter may propound to
the parties or witnesses concerned. [Discussion: clarificatory hearing is
dispensable during PI]
(f) Thereafter, the investigation shall be deemed concluded, and the
investigating officer shall resolve the case within ten (10) days
therefrom. Upon the evidence thus adduced, the investigating officer
shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the
respondent for trial.
No right to cross-examine on PI. During the state of preliminary
investigation, the counsel of accused Rodil insisted to recall the
witnesses for the prosecution for cross-examination for clarificatory
and amplificatory matters. Proper? No. The accused is not entitled to
cross-examine the prosecutor’s witnesses presented against him in the
preliminary investigation before his arrest. This is a matter of discretion
of the Judge or investigating officer concerned. Thus, accused was not
deprived of a right, but merely refused the exercise of a privilege. Rodil
v. Garcia
Duty of the judge; personally and independently examine.
Petitioners were accused of the kidnapping with murder by the
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission. Respondent judge ordered their
arrest without bail on the basis of the certification of the prosecutor.
The judge shall personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. But if on the
basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s
report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses
to aid him in arriving at a conclusion on the existence of probable cause.
Applied to the case. The judge issued the warrant of arrest of
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
petitioners merely on the basis of the certification of the prosecutors
that probable cause existed. He did not personally examine the evidence
or call for the complainant and his witnesses. Allado v Diokno
Rule 112 Section 4. Resolution of the investigating prosecutor and
its review. If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the
respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information.
He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by
the record, an authorized officer,
- has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses;
- that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof;
- that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence
submitted against him; and
- that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.
Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record
of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor,
or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. They shall
act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof
and shall immediately inform the parties of such action.
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or
approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor
or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the
complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the provincial or
city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his
deputy on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by
himself, file the information against the respondent, or direct another
assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so without conducting
another preliminary investigation.
If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the Department
of Justice may prescribe or motu proprio, the Secretary of Justice
reverses or modifies the resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor
or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either
to file the corresponding information without conducting another
preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the
complaint or information with notice to the parties. The same rule shall
56
Preliminary investigation
apply in preliminary investigations conducted by the officers of the
Office of the Ombudsman.
Objective test of determining probable cause. The standard for
probable cause is that the facts and circumstances must be such as
would warrant a reasonably discreet and prudent man that the accused
is guilty of the crime which has just been committed.
Good faith not enough. Probable cause may not be established simply
by showing that a trial judge subjectively believes that he has good grounds
for his action. Good faith is not enough. It such alone were the test, the
constitutional protection would be demeaned and the constitutional
right of the accused would only be in the fallible discretion of the judge.
SECTION 5. Resolution of Investigating Judge and its Review.
Within ten (10) days after the preliminary investigation, the investigating
judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial or city
prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, for appropriate action. The resolution shall state the
findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the
record of the case which shall include:
(a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant;
(b) the affidavits, counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence of
the parties;
(c) the undertaking or bail of the accused and the order for his release;
(d) the transcripts of the proceedings during the preliminary
investigation; and
(e) the order of cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the
dismissal of the complaint.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records, the provincial or city
prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy, as the case may be, shall
review the resolution of the investigating judge on the existence of
probable cause. Their ruling shall expressly and clearly state the facts
and the law on which it is based and the parties shall be furnished with
copies thereof. They shall order the release of an accused who is
detained if no probable cause is found against him.
Rule 112, Section 8. Records.
(a) Records supporting the information or complaint. An
information or complaint filed in court shall be supported by the
affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and their witnesses,
together with the other supporting evidence and the resolution on the
case.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
(b) Record of preliminary investigation. The record of the
preliminary investigation, whether conducted by a judge or a
prosecutor, shall not form part of the record of the case. However,
the court, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, may order the
production of the record or any of its part when necessary in the
resolution of the case or any incident therein, or when it is to be
introduced as an evidence in the case by the requesting party. (8a)
In cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan: Conducted by
Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor
Supra Rule 112 Secs. 3, 4, 9
Administrative Order No. 07
Rule II. Rules and procedure of the office of the ombudsman
Section 1. Title – These rules shall be known as the Rules Of
Procedure Of The Office Of The Ombudsman.
Section 2. Coverage – These rules shall apply to all criminal and
administrative complaints, grievances or requests for assistance and
such other matters cognizable by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Section 4. Procedure. The preliminary investigation of cases falling
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts
shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of
the Rules of Court, subject to the following provisions:
(1) If the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports,
the investigating officer shall require the complainant or supporting
witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate the complaints.
(2) After such affidavits have been secured, the investigating officer
shall issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other
supporting documents, directing the respondents to submit, within ten
(10) days from receipt thereof, his counter-affidavits and controverting
evidence with proof of service thereof on the complainant. The
complainant may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after service
of the counter-affidavits.
(3) If the respondents do not file a counter-affidavit, the investigating
officer may consider the comment filed by him, if any, as his answer to
the complaint. In any event, the respondent shall have access to the
evidence on record.
(4) No motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction.
(5) Neither may a motion for a bill of particulars be entertained. If
respondents desires any matter in the complainant's affidavit to be
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
clarified, the particularization thereof may be done at the time of
clarificatory questioning in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(6) If the respondents cannot be served with the order mentioned in
paragraph 6 hereof, or having been served, does not comply therewith,
the complaint shall be deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of
the evidence on the record.
(7) If, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting
evidences, there are facts material to the case which the investigating
officer may need to be clarified on, he may conduct a clarificatory
hearing during which the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be
present but without the right to examine or cross-examine the witness
being questioned. Where the appearance of the parties or witnesses is
impracticable, the clarificatory questioning may be conducted in
writing, whereby the questions desired to be asked by the investigating
officer or a party shall be reduced into writing and served on the witness
concerned who shall be required to answer the same in writing and
under oath.
(8) Upon the termination of the preliminary investigation, the
investigating officer shall forward the records of the case together with
his resolution to the designated authorities for their appropriate action
thereon. 84 No information may be filed and no complaint may be
dismissed without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman
in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, or of the
proper Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases.
Section 5. Cases falling under the jurisdiction of municipal trial
courts. – Cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Office of the
Ombudsman which are cognizable by municipal trial courts, including
those subject to the Rule on Summary Procedure may only be filed in
court by information approved by the Ombudsman or the proper
Deputy Ombudsman.
Section 6. Notice to parties. – The parties shall be served with a copy
of the resolution as finally approved by the Ombudsman or by the
proper Deputy Ombudsman.
Section 7. Motion for reconsideration. Only one motion for
reconsideration or reinvestigation of an approved order or
resolution shall be allowed, the same to be filled within five (5) days
from notice thereof with the Office of the Ombudsman, or the proper
Deputy Ombudsman as the case may be, with corresponding leave of
court in cases where information has already been filed in court;
57
Preliminary investigation
The filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar
the filing of the corresponding information in Court on the basis of the
finding of probable cause in the resolution subject of the motion.
Perez v Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan admitted an amended information filed by the
Assistant Special Prosecutor. Said information was not approved by the
OMB. Proper? No. GADALEJ.
Doctrine of qualified agency. Under this doctrine, the acts of a
subordinate bears the implied approval of his superior unless actually
disapproved by said superior. As such, the acts of Department
Secretaries in the performance of their duties are presumed to be acts
of the President, unless and until the President alters, modifies, or
nullifies the same.
Doctrine not applicable to Office of the OMB. The reason is the
OMB is an apolitical agency. The Special Prosecutor is not an alter ego
of the OMB, but the OMG could make a general delegation of powers
to the Special Prosecutor if desired.
• Application to the case. No such intention was proven in
the case. Thus, it cannot be said that the actions of the
prosecutor bore the imprimatur of the OMB.
• Rationale. The OMB would be severely hampered from
exercising his power of control if we are to allow the Special
Prosecutor to authorize the filing of informations in the first
instance because once the information has been filed before
the SB, the latter has full control of the case and the
information cannot be dismissed without the approval of SB.
PROCEDURE IN CASES WHERE PI IS NOT
REQUIRED
When PI I not required:
a. Lawful warrantless arrest (inquest; but in the absence or
unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, inquest may be
dispensed with and direct filing with the proper court is
justified)
b. MTC cases [less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day] or those
covered by summary procedure- 2 options
Lawful warrantless arrests
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Note: When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant, proceed to
inquest proceedings.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) In flagrante delicto. When in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) Hot pursuit. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) Escapee. 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.
Rule 112, Section 7. When accused lawfully arrested without
warrant. When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving
an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance
with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest
prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or by a
peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit
of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign
a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver,
he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within
fifteen (15) days from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary
investigation, the accused may within five (5) days from the time he
learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right
to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.
MTC cases
Rule 112, Section 9. Cases not requiring a preliminary
investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(a) If filed with the prosecutor. — If the complaint is filed directly
with the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment
of less four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the procedure
outlined in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed.
The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and
other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within ten
(10) days from its filing.
(b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. — If the complaint or
information is filed directly with the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal
Circuit Trial Court for an offense covered by this section, the procedure
in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed.
If within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint or information,
the judge finds no probable cause after personally evaluating the
evidence, or after personally examining in writing and under oath the
complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching question and
answers, he shall dismiss the same.
He may, however, require the submission of additional evidence, within
ten (10) days from notice, to determine further the existence of
probable cause.
If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence,
he shall, within ten (10) days from its submission or expiration of said
period, dismiss the case.
When he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a
commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold
him for trial.
However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing
the accused under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant
of arrest.
RJCL Section 13. Taking Custody of a Child Without a Warrant .
The law enforcement officer or a private person taking into custody a
child in conflict with the law without a warrant shall observe the
provisions in Sections 5, 8 and 9 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure and shall forthwith deliver the child to the nearest
police station. The child shall be proceeded against in accordance with
Section 7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Verzano v Paro
Verzano was dismissed from his job due to an administrative charge
filed against him. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the
NLRC. He also filed a criminal complaint for perjury against the
employees who testified against him in the affidavit submitted by his
former employer. The City Prosecutor issued subpoenas against the
58
Preliminary investigation
company and said employees but since they did not submit any counter-
affidavit, the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint. Upon appeal to
the Regional State Prosecutor (RSP), the latter directed Verzano to file
the Information. CA ruled that the Regional Prosecutor committed
GADALEJ when he directed the filing of the Information on the
simple reason that the respondents did not submit their counter-
affidavits. Is CA correct? Yes.
RSP may reverse resolution of dismissal upon finding of probable
cause. It would have been correct for the RSP to reverse the resolution
of its subordinate on the basis of finding of probable cause. In this case,
instead of making an independent assessment of the evidence, the
reason was for failure of respondents to submit counter-affidavits.
Failure to submit counter-affidavits does not warrant finding of
probable cause.
Issuance of subpoena does not mean finding of probable cause.
The investigating prosecutor may issue subpoenas if he finds grounds
to continue with the investigation. However, the continuance of the
investigation does not necessarily mean that the result will be an
automatic conclusion of a finding of probable cause. [Hence RSP was
not justified in directing the filing of the information]
REMEDIES OF ACCUSED IF THERE WAS
NO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
San Agustin v People
A complaint charging Agustin of serious illegal detention was filed with
the NBI. The State prosecutor conducted an inquest investigation and
came out with a Resolution, on the same day, affirmed by the Assistant
Chief State Prosecutor, finding probable cause against the petitioner for
serious illegal detention. Consequently, an information was filed before
the RTC. Agustin moved to quash the information on the ground that
he was illegally arrested and subjected to an inquest investigation; hence,
he was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation. He prayed
to be released and for the NBI to refile the complaint against him with
the Office of the Prosecutor for the latter to conduct a preliminary
investigation. The RTC ordered a reinvestigation but Agustin opposed
this saying that the prosecutor should conduct a regular preliminary
investigation since the inquest investigation was void.
Inquest proceedings void. The inquest investigation conducted by
the State Prosecutor is void because under Rule 112, Section 7 of the
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an inquest investigation is proper
only when the suspect is lawfully arrested without a warrant.
Absence of PI does not make information defective. The absence
of a preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial
court but merely the regularity of the proceedings. It does not impair
the validity of the Information or otherwise render it defective. Neither
is it a ground to quash the Information or nullify the order of arrest
issued against him or justify the release of the accused from detention.
Remedy is preliminary investigation. However, the trial court
should suspend proceedings and order a preliminary investigation
considering that the inquest investigation conducted by the State
Prosecutor is null and void.
Remedy not reinvestigation. The RTC committed GADALEJ in
ordering the City Prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation which is
merely a review by the Prosecutor of his records and evidence instead
of a preliminary investigation as provided for in Section 3, Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
REMEDIES FROM PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
1. Appeal
2. Reinvestigation/Preliminary Investigation
3. Injunctions and writs of restraint in proper cases
4. Bail
Department Order No. 70-2000 NPS Rule on Appeal
The rule governing the appeals from resolutions of prosecutors.
SECTION 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from
resolutions of the Chief State Prosecutor, Regional State Prosecutors
and Provincial/City Prosecutors in cases subject of preliminary
investigation/ reinvestigation.
SECTION 2. Where to appeal. An appeal may be brought to the
Secretary of Justice within the period and in the manner herein
provided.
SECTION 3. Period to appeal. The appeal shall be taken within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution, or of the denial of the
motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation if one has been filed. Only
one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SECTION 4. How appeal taken. An aggrieved party may appeal by
filing a verified petition for review with the Office of the Secretary,
Department of Justice, and by furnishing copies thereof to the adverse
party and the Prosecution Office issuing the appealed resolution.
SECTION 5. Contents of petition. - The petition shall contain or
state:
a. the names and addresses of the parties;
b. the Investigation Slip number (I.S. No.) and criminal case
number, if any, and title of the case, including the offense
charged in the complaint;
c. the venue of the preliminary investigation;
d. the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time;
e. a clear and concise statement of the facts, the assignment of
errors, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the
allowance of the appeal; and
f. proof of service of a copy of the petition to the adverse party
and the Prosecution Office concerned.
The petition shall be accompanied by legible duplicate original or
certified true copy of the resolution appealed from together with legible
true copies of the complaint, affidavits/sworn statements and other
evidence submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation/
reinvestigation.
• If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the
appealed resolution, a copy of the motion to defer
proceedings filed in court must also accompany the petition.
• The investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor shall not
be impleaded as party respondent in the petition.
• The party taking the appeal shall be referred to in the petition
as either "Complainant-Appellant" or "Respondent-
Appellant".
SECTION 6. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The
failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall constitute sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition.
SECTION 7. Action on the petition. The Secretary of Justice may
dismiss the petition outright if he finds the same to be patently without
merit or manifestly intended for delay, or when the issues raised therein
are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
59
Preliminary investigation
• If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the
appealed resolution, the petition shall not be given due
course if the accused had already been arraigned.
• Any arraignment made after the filing of the petition shall not
bar the Secretary of Justice from exercising his power of
review.
SECTION 8. Comment. Within a non-extendible period of fifteen
(15) days from receipt of a copy of the petition, the adverse party may
file a verified comment, indicating therein the date of such receipt and
submitting proof of service of his comment to the petitioner and the
Prosecution Office concerned.
• Except when directed by the Secretary of Justice, the
investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor need not
submit any comment.
• If no comment is filed within the prescribed period, the appeal
shall be resolved on the basis of the petition.
SECTION 9. Effect of the appeal. Unless the Secretary of Justice
directs otherwise, the appeal shall not hold the filing of the
corresponding information in court on the basis of the finding of
probable cause in the appealed resolution.
• The appellant and the trial prosecutor shall see to it that,
pending resolution of the appeal, the proceedings in court are
held in abeyance.
SECTION 10. Withdrawal of appeal. Notwithstanding the
perfection of the appeal, the petitioner may withdraw the same at any
time before it is finally resolved, in which case the appealed resolution
shall stand as though no appeal has been taken.
SECTION 11. Reinvestigation. If the Secretary of Justice finds it
necessary to reinvestigate the case, the reinvestigation shall be held by
the investigating prosecutor, unless, for compelling reasons, another
prosecutor is designated to conduct the same.
SECTION 12. Disposition of the appeal. The Secretary may reverse,
affirm or modify the appealed resolution. He may, motu proprio or upon
motion, dismiss the petition for review on any of the following grounds:
a. That the petition was filed beyond the period prescribed in
Section 3 hereof;
b. That the procedure or any of the requirements herein
provided has not been complied with;
c. That there is no showing of any reversible error;
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
d. That the appealed resolution is interlocutory in nature, except
when it suspends the proceedings based on the alleged
existence of a prejudicial question;
e. That the accused had already been arraigned when the appeal
was taken;
f. That the offense has already prescribed; and
g. That other legal or factual grounds exist to warrant a dismissal.
SECTION 13. Motion for reconsideration. The aggrieved party may
file a motion for reconsideration within a non-extendible period of ten
(10) days from receipt of the resolution on appeal, furnishing the
adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned with copies thereof
and submitting proof of such service.
• No second or further motion for reconsideration shall be
entertained.
DOJ-NPS Manual Part IV. Petition for Review
SECTION 1. Subject of petition for review. Only resolutions of the
Chief State Prosecutor/Regional State Prosecutor/Provincial or City
Prosecutor dismissing a criminal complaint may be the subject of a
Petition for Review to the Secretary of Justice except as otherwise
provided in Section 4 hereof.
• A petition from the resolution of a Provincial/City Prosecutor
where the penalty prescribed for the offense charged does not
exceed prision correccional, regardless of the imposable fine, shall
be made to the Regional State Prosecutor who shall resolve
the petitions with finality. Such petitions shall also be
governed by these rules.
• The provision of the preceding paragraph on the finality of
the resolution of the Regional State Prosecutor
notwithstanding, the Secretary of Justice may, in the interest
of justice and pursuant to his residual authority of supervision
and control over the prosecutors of the Department of Justice,
order the automatic review by his office of the resolution of
the Regional State Prosecutors in the cases appealed to the
latter.
SECTION 2. Period to file petition. The petition must be filed within
a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the questioned resolution
by the party or his counsel.
• The period shall be interrupted only by the filing of a motion
for reconsideration within ten (10) days from receipt of the
resolution and shall continue to run from the time the
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
resolution denying the motion shall have been received by the
movant or his counsel.
SECTION 3. Form and contents. The petition shall be verified by
the petitioner and shall contain the following:
a. date of receipt of the questioned resolution; date of filing of
the motion for reconsideration; if any; and date of receipt of
the resolution on the motion for reconsideration;
b. names and addresses of the parties;
c. the Investigation Slip Number or I.S. No. and/or criminal
case number and the title of the case;
d. the venue of the preliminary investigation;
e. a clear and concise statement of the facts, the assignment of
errors, and the legal basis of the petition;
f. in case of a finding of probable cause, that petitioner has filed
in court a motion to defer further proceedings; and
g. proof of service of a copy of the petition to the adverse party
or his counsel and the prosecutor either by personal delivery
or registered mail evidenced by the registry receipts and
affidavit of mailing.
• The petitioner shall append to his petition copies of the
material and pertinent affidavits/sworn statements (including
their translations, if any, duly certified by the city/provincial
prosecutor) and evidence submitted in the preliminary
investigation by both parties and the questioned resolution.
• The prosecutor concerned shall immediately inform the
Department or the Regional State Prosecutor of the action of
the court on the motion to defer further proceedings. If the
accused is arraigned during the pendency of the petition, the
prosecutor concerned shall likewise immediately inform the
Department or the Regional StatE Prosecutor of such
arraignment.
SECTION 4. Cases not subject to review; exceptions. No petition
may be allowed from a resolution of the Chief State
Prosecutor/Regional State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor
finding probable cause except upon showing of manifest error or grave
abuse of discretion.
• Either complainant/offended party or respondent/accused
may file a petition.
• Notwithstanding the showing of manifest error or grave abuse
of discretion no petition shall be entertained where the
accused had already been arraigned.
60
Preliminary investigation
• Once arraigned, the petition shall be dismissed motu proprio by
the Secretary of Justice.
SECTION 5. Answer. Within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15)
days from receipt of a copy of the petition, the respondent may file a
verified answer indicating therein the date that the copy of the petition
was received with proof of service of the answer to the petitioner. If no
answer is filed, the case shall be resolved on the basis of the petition.
SECTION 6. Withdrawal of petition. The petition may be
withdrawn at any time before it is finally resolved, in which case the
questioned resolution shall stand.
SECTION 7. Motion for reinvestigation. At any time after the filing
of the petition and before its resolution, the petitioner may, with leave
of court, file a motion for reinvestigation on the ground that new and
material evidence has been discovered which petitioner could not, with
reasonable diligence, have discovered during the preliminary
investigation and which if produced and admitted would probably
change the resolution.
• The Department or the Regional State Prosecutor, as the case
may be, shall then issue a resolution directing the
reinvestigation of the case, if still legally feasible. When
reinvestigation is granted, it shall take place in the Office of
the Prosecutor from which the petition was taken.
SECTION 8. Disposition of petition. The Secretary of Justice or the
Regional State Prosecutor may reverse, affirm or modify the questioned
resolution. They may, motu proprio or on motion of the petitioner,
dismiss outright the petition on any of the following grounds:
a. that the offense has prescribed;
b. that there is no showing of any reversible error;
c. that the procedure or requirements herein prescribed have not
been complied with;
d. that the questioned resolution is interlocutory in nature,
except when it suspends the proceedings based on the alleged
existence of a prejudicial question; or
e. that other legal or factual grounds exist to warrant a dismissal.
SECTION 9. Motion for Reconsideration. The aggrieved party may
file a motion for reconsideration within a non-extendible period of ten
(10) days from receipt of the resolution on the petition, furnishing the
adverse party or his counsel and the prosecutor with copies thereof.
• No second motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
SECTION 10. Effect of filing of petition. - A petition for review,
motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation from a resolution finding
probable cause shall not hold the filing of the information in court.
• Pending resolution of the Petition for review, the accused is
entitled to a suspension of the proceedings, to the holding in
abeyance of the issuance of warrant of arrest, and deferment
of the arraignment.
Discussion
Remedies of the aggrieved party against the
decision/resolution of the prosecutor:
1. Motion for reconsideration (Sec. 3, 2000 NPS rule on appeal,
DOJ circular no. 70). The aggrieved party is not precluded from
filing a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the head of
the proper prosecution office within 15 days from receipt of the
assailed resolution.
2. Appeal to the Department of Justice through a petition for
review (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal, DOJ Department Circular
no. 70 and 70-A). This is an appeal to the Secretary of Justice of
the resolution of the head of the prosecution office (either the
Chief State Prosecutor, Regional State Prosecutors, and
Provincial/City Prosecutor)
o One cannot appeal to the Sec. of Justice if there was
no preliminary investigation
Period to file. The appeal shall be taken within 15 days from receipt of
the assailed resolution, or from the denial of the MR or denial of the
motion for reinvestigation.
How to appeal. The appeal should be made by filing a verified petition
for review with the office of the Secretary of Justice.
• The petition must be verified and copies of the same must be
furnished to the adverse party and the prosecution office
issuing the appealed resolution.
• It must also contain the matters required by the DOJ in Sec.
5 of Department Circular No. 70
Comment. Within a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt of
the copy of the petition, the adverse party may file a verified comment.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The investigating/reviewing/approving prosecutor need not submit
any comment except when directed by the Secretary of Justice.
• If no comment is filed, the appeal shall be resolved on the
basis of the petition
Q: What if the petition for review was filed after the accused had already
been arraigned, will it be given due course?
A: No. If pursuant to the appealed resolution, an information has
already been filed and the accused has already been arraigned prior to
the filing of the petition, the petition shall not be given due course
Q: What if the petition for review was filed before arraignment but the
accused was subsequently arraigned because he did not file a motion to
suspend arraignment, will the petition be given due course?
A: Yes. If the accused has been arraigned after the filing of the petition,
any arraignment shall not bar the Secretary of Justice from exercising
his power of review.
Effects of the filing of a petition for review
1. It does not bar the filing of the corresponding information in court
based on the finding of probable cause in the appeal resolution,
but the appellant and prosecutor shall see to it that, pending
resolution of the appeal, the proceedings in court are held in
abeyance
• Except when the Secretary of Justice directs otherwise.
2. The party filing a petition for review is allowed to file a motion for
the suspension of the arraignment.
• In fact, under Sec. 11c of Rule 116, upon motion by the proper
party, the arraignment shall be suspended, among others, if a
petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is
pending.
• Where the secretary of justice exercises his power of review
only after an information has been filed, trial courts should
defer or suspend arraignment and further proceedings until
the appeal is resolved.
• Such deferment or suspension, however, does not signify that
the trial court is ipso facto bound by the resolution of the
secretary of justice.
o Jurisdiction, once acquired by the trial court, is not
lost despite a resolution by the secretary of justice to
withdraw the information or to dismiss the case.
Q: Does the filing of the petition for review suspend also the issuance
61
Preliminary investigation
of a warrant of arrest once the information is filed in court?
A: No. Only arraignment is suspended, the court can still issue a warrant
of arrest.
Action of the Secretary of Justice
He may either:
1. Dismiss the petition outright if he finds the same to be
patently without merit or manifestly intended for delay, or
when the issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration.
2. Affirm the decision of the prosecutor and dismiss the petition,
based on the following grounds:
• That the petition for review was filed beyond the period
prescribed
• That the prescribed procedure and requirements
provided in Dept. Circular 70 were not complied with
• That there is no showing of any reversible error or that
the accused was already arraigned when appeal was taken
• That the appeal resolution is interlocutory in nature,
except when it suspends the proceedings based on the
alleged existence of a prejudicial question
• That the offense has already prescribed
• That there are other legal and factual grounds that exist
to warrant a dismissal.
3. Give due course to the petition and reverse or modify the resolution
of the prosecutor.
• In this case, he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to
file the corresponding information without conducting anther
preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal
of the complaint or information with notice to the parties.
4. Order the reinvestigation of the case
• He may just order the reinvestigation of the case instead of
dismissing it, if he finds it necessary to reinvestigate the case.
• The reinvestigation shall be held by the investigating
prosecutor, unless, for compelling reasons, another
prosecutor is designated to conduct the same.
The Secretary of Justice has the power of control over the
authority of the Heads of Prosecution Offices.
• In reviewing the resolutions of prosecutors, the Secretary of
Justice is not precluded from considering errors, although
unassigned, for the purpose of determining whether there is
probable cause for filing cases in court.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• He must make his own finding of probable cause and is not
confined to the issues raised by the parties during preliminary
investigation.
• Moreover, his findings are not subject to review unless show
to have been made with grave abuse.
Q: In the event the fiscal’s finding of probable cause is reviewed by the
DOJ Secretary and the latter affirms it by denying the petition for
review, the fiscal later change his mind and reinvestigate. Can the judge
order the reinvestigation of the case?
A: No. The secretary of justice, who has the power of supervision and
control over prosecuting officers, is the ultimate authority who decides
which of the conflicting theories of the complainants and the
respondents should be believed.
• The provincial or city prosecutor has neither the personality
nor the legal authority to review or overrule the decision of
the secretary.
Remedies of the aggrieved party against the
decision/resolution of the secretary of justice:
Successive remedies
1. Motion for reconsideration
2. Petition for certiorari to CA under Rule 65
3. Administrative appeal to the office of the president
4. Petition for review to CA- Rule 43
5. Petition for review on certiorari to SC- Rule 45
Motion for reconsideration
The party aggrieved by the Sec. of Justice may file an MR within a non-
extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the resolution on appeal.
Petition for certiorari under rule 65 with the CA
1. This is after a prior motion for reconsideration is filed.
2. If there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
3. A Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the decision of the
Secretary of Justice and not a petition for review under Rule 43.
4. If the criminal action involves tax and tariff cases, the petition for
certiorari should be filed with the Court of Tax Appeals under its
certiorari jurisdiction by virtue of RA 9282.
5. If it is the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause that is being
assailed, the proper remedy is to file a Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 with the Supreme Court directly.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Administrative appeal to the office of the president
Memo Circular No. 58 (1993) provides that appeals from or petition for
review of decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of Justice on
preliminary investigations of criminal cases are entertained by the
Office of the President under the following conditions which have to
be established as jurisdictional facts:
1. The offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death
2. New and material issues are raised which were not previously
presented to the DOJ
3. The prescription of the offense is not due to the lapse within
6 months from notice of the resolution; and
4. The appeal or petition for review is filed within 30 days from
notice
Petition for review to CA- Rule 43
In the event of an adverse decision from the OP against the appellant,
a verified petition for review under Rule 43 may be taken to the CA
within 15 days from notice of the final order of the OP. But it’s better to
go to the CA through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 based on
GADALEJ [Regalado].
Petitioner for review on certiorari to SC- Rule 45
The party aggrieved by the judgment, final order or resolution of the
CA may avail of an appeal by certiorari to SC under Rule 45.
Remedies of the aggrieved party against the
decision/resolution of the ombudsman
1. Motion for reconsideration
2. Petition for Certiorari to the SC- Rule 65
a. The remedy is not a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45, but rather, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
b. It should be filed with the SC and not the CA or SB.
Dimatulac v Villon
P03 Dimatulac was killed by the Yabuts for allegedly speaking against
Mayor Yabut. The Yabuts were charged with murder but the prosecutor
subsequently filed a new information charging for the lesser offense of
homicide hinged on the claim that treachery was not present. The heirs
of Dimatulac filed an appeal with the Secretary of Justice alleging that
the prosecutor erred in lowering the crime of murder to homicide
despite the presence of qualifying circumstances. Proper? Yes.
62
Preliminary investigation
Only dismissal of complaint ground for appeal to SOJ. Section 1
of DOJ Order No 223 provides that only resolutions of the Chief State
Prosecutor/Provincial State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor
dismissing a criminal complaint may be the subject of an appeal to the
Secretary of Justice except as otherwise provided in Section 4.
Lowering offense charged tantamount to dismissal of the old
information. By holding that only homicide was committed, the
Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Pampanga effectively dismissed the
complaint for murder. As such, petitioners herein were not barred from
appealing from the resolution.
Doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies. Review as an act of
supervision and control by the justice secretary over the fiscals and
prosecutors finds basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in
the initial steps of an administrative activity or by an administrative
agency should be corrected by higher administrative authorities, and not
directly by courts. As a rule, only after administrative remedies are
exhausted may judicial recourse be allowed.
No appeal when probable cause is found. Section 4 says that no
appeal may be taken from a resolution of the Chief State
Prosecutor/Regional State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor
finding probable cause except upon a showing of manifest error or
grave abuse of discretion.
When appeal of finding probable cause allowed. Notwithstanding
the showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion, no appeal
shall be entertained where the appellant had already been arraigned. If
the appellant is arraigned during the pendency of the appeal, said appeal
shall be dismissed motu proprio by the SoJ.
Note: In any case, the grant of a motion to dismiss, which the
prosecution may le after the Secretary of Justice reverses an appealed
resolution, is subject to the discretion of the court.
REINVESTIGATION/PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
Crespo v Mogul
The Assistant Prosecutor filed an information for estafa against Crespo.
The accused moved to defer arraignment on the ground that there was
a pending petition for review filed with the SoJ. The undersecretary of
justice resolved the motion and directed the fiscal to move for
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
immediate dismissal of the information for insufficiency of evidence.
The provincial fiscal filed a motion to dismiss but it was denied by the
judge, who set the case for arraignment. A petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus was filed to order the judge to dismiss the
case. Proper? No.
Duty of the fiscal. It is through the conduct of a preliminary
investigation that the fiscal determines the existence of a prima facie
case that would warrant the prosecution of a case. The Courts cannot
interfere with the fiscal's discretion and control of the criminal
prosecution. Thus, a fiscal who asks for the dismissal of the case for
insufficiency of evidence has authority to do so, and Courts that grant
the same commit no error. The fiscal may re-investigate a case and
subsequently move for the dismissal should the re-investigation show
either that the defendant is innocent or that his guilt may not be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Termination of fiscal’s powers. The preliminary investigation
conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining whether a prima
facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated
upon the filing of the information in the proper court.
Reinvestigation with leave of court. Should the fiscal find it proper
to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission
of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the finding and
recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for
appropriate action.
• While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi-judicial discretion
to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in
court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court
whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in
the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration
of the Court.
Roberts v CA
The real and ultimate test of the independence and integrity of this court
is not the filing of the aforementioned motions at that stage of the
proceedings but the filing of a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the
information on the basis of a resolution of the petition for review
reversing the Joint Resolution of the investigating prosecutor. Before
that time, the following pronouncement in Crespo is not yet applicable.
• In this case, it was not a motion to dismiss or withdraw that
was filed, but a motion to defer arraignment.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Velasquez v Tuquero
A complaint for estafa was filed against Avila before the Fiscal’s Office,
but the Assistant Fiscal dismissed the complaint. Upon review by the
Chief Prosecutor, an information was filed against Avila before the
RTC. The DOJ undersecretary ordered the reinvestigation of the case.
Proper? NO. GADALAEJ.
After filing of info, court acquires jurisdiction. A motion for
reinvestigation should, after the court had acquired jurisdiction over the
case, be addressed to the trial judge and to him alone. Neither the
Secretary of Justice, the State Prosecutor, nor the Fiscal may interfere
with the judge's disposition of the case, much less impose upon the
court their opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, for
the court is the sole judge of that.
People v Beriales
In this murder case, the public prosecutor was totally absent in the
proceedings and only the private prosecutor authorized by the fiscal
prosecuted the case. Proper? No.
Direction and control of public prosecutor. All criminal actions
either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of the fiscal. While there is nothing in
the rule of practice and procedure in criminal cases which denies the
right of the fiscal, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to turn over the
active conduct of the trial to a private prosecutor, nevertheless, his duty
to direct and control the prosecution of criminal cases requires that he
must be present during the proceedings.
In the present case, although the private prosecutor had previously been
authorized by the special counsel Rosario R. Polines to present the
evidence for the prosecution, nevertheless, in view of the absence of
the City Fiscal at the hearing on December 13, 1974, it cannot be said
that the prosecution of the case was under the control of the City Fiscal.
Santos v Orda
2 sons of the assistant city prosecutor were shot—one survived and one
died. The happenings were narrated by witnesses. Subsequently, an
information for murder was filed against 2 assailants and Brgy
Chairman Santos, who allegedly ordered the killings. The TC ordered
the issuance of warrants of arrest but the Secretary of Justice issued a
resolution directing the private prosecutor to withdraw the
informations against the accused due to the recantation of the
witnesses’ testimonies. TC granted the motion to withdraw the
information. Proper? NO. GADALEJ.
63
Preliminary investigation
May grant or deny the motion but must rely on own findings. In
resolving a motion to dismiss the case or to withdraw the Information
led by the public prosecutor on his own initiative or pursuant to the
directive of the Secretary of Justice, either for insufficiency of evidence
in the possession of the prosecutor or for lack of probable cause, the
trial court should not rely solely and merely on the findings of the public
prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice that no crime was committed or
that the evidence in the possession of the public prosecutor is
insufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the accused.
Court not bound by resolutions of SOJ. Indeed, it bears stressing
that the trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary
of Justice since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the
merits of the case and it may either agree or disagree with the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance alone on the
resolution of the Secretary of Justice would be an abdication of the trial
court’s duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.
Application. In this case, the trial court failed to make an independent
assessment of the merits of the cases and the evidence on record or in
the possession of the public prosecutor. In granting the motion of the
public prosecutor to withdraw the Informations, the trial court relied
solely on the joint resolution of the Secretary of Justice
INJUNCTION AND WRITS OF RESTRAINT
IN PROPER CASES
Brocka v Enrile
After a violent demonstration, petitioners were arrested by the police
and charged with illegal assembly. Upon an urgent petition for bail,
Brocka and friends were ordered to be released. Despite this,
respondents did not comply but instead invoked a Preventive
Detention Action, neither the original nor certified true copy of which
was presented. 2 days after said release order, Brocka and friends were
charged with Inciting to Sedition without prior notice to their counsel.
Thus, they remained in the custody of the law. Petitioners now seek to
permanently enjoin the City Fiscal from investigating charges of
Inciting to Sedition. Proper? Yes.
General rule: Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by
injunction, preliminary or final
Exceptions:
1. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
the accused
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to
avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
3. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice (De
Leon vs. Mabanag, 70 Phil. 202);
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
lust for vengeance and
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused
and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied
11. 7. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme
Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners
Case of persecution. The criminal proceedings had become a case of
persecution, having been undertaken by state officials in bad faith. The
PDA was invoked around 12 days after its issuance, when it should be
invoked within 24-48 hours. The prosecution presented only a xerox
copy of the PDA. The tenacious invocation of a spurious and
inoperational PDA and the sham and hasty preliminary investigation
were clear signals that the prosecutors intended to keep Brocka, et al. in
detention until the second offense of Inciting to Sedition could be
facilitated and justified without need of issuing a warrant of arrest anew.
Guingona Jr v City Fiscal
David and his sister made investments in Nation Savings and Loan
Association in an aggregate amount of P1.1M, but only P300K of the
placements made by them were recorded. They filed a complaint for
estafa through misappropriation and violation of CB circulars.
Petitioners now file a petition for prohibition and injunction to prohibit
the public respondents (fiscals/prosecutors) from proceeding with the
Preliminary Investigation. The petitioners claimed that their violations
were civil in nature and that the respondent fiscals lacked jurisdiction in
the said case. Proper? No. Petition should be dismissed.
Premature filing. As a general rule, an injunction will not be granted
to restrain a criminal prosecution. With more reason will injunction not
lie when the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage. This Court
should not usurp the primary function of the City Fiscal to conduct the
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
preliminary investigation. The City Fiscal's office should be allowed to
finish its investigation and make its factual findings. This Court should
not conduct the preliminary investigation. It is not a trier of facts.
Further, this case does not fall under the exceptions above.
Ladlad et al v Velasco
Inciting to sedition charge. Without a warrant and without informing
him of the charge against him, Beltran was arrested and subjected to
inquest proceedings for Inciting to Sedition based on a speech he
allegedly gave during the 20th year of the EDSA Revolution. The inquest
prosecutor indicted Beltran and filed the corresponding Information.
Rebellion charge. Beltran was subjected to a second inquest, this time
for rebellion. The was based on letters sent by Tanigue and Mendoza,
officers of the CIDG and PNP, respectively. The DOJ panel of
prosecutors issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict Beltran
and San Juan as leaders/promoters of Rebellion. Beltran was
contending that there was no probable cause against him. The other
petitioners were contending that there were irregularities which
attended the preliminary investigation done in their cases. Thus, they
filed a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari to enjoin their
prosecution. Contention proper? YES.
Proceedings tainted with irregularities. Respondent prosecutors
failed to comply with Section 3(a) of Rule 112 which provides that the
complaint be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses, subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or
government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence
or unavailability, before a notary public. Respondent prosecutors
treated the unsubscribed letters of Tanigue and Mendoza of the CIDG,
PNP as complaints and accepted the affidavits attached to the letters
even though some of them were notarized by a notary public without
any showing that a prosecutor or qualified government official was
unavailable as required by Section 3(a) of Rule 112. During the
investigation, respondent prosecutors allowed the CIDG to present a
masked Fuentes who subscribed to an affidavit before respondent
prosecutor Velasco. Velasco proceeded to distribute copies of Fuentes’
affidavit not to petitioners or their counsels but to members of the
media who covered the proceedings.
BAIL
See discussion in Rule 114
Go v CA
64
Preliminary investigation
While driving along San Juan, Go and Maguan’s cars nearly bumped
each other. Go alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan
inside his car. Go then boarded his car and left the scene. The
Prosecutor filed an information for murder since Maguan subsequently
died after suffering from the gunshot wounds. The Prosecutor certified
that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the
accused did not execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code. Go filed with the Prosecutor an
omnibus motion for immediate release on recognizance or bail and
proper preliminary investigation, alleging that the warrantless arrest of
petitioner was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been
conducted before the information was filed. His cash bond was granted.
By posting bail, did accused waive the right to preliminary investigation?
No.
Accused is entitled to PI even if posted bail. When the police filed
a complaint for frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor, the latter
should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to
determine whether there was probable cause for charging petitioner in
court for the killing of Eldon Maguan. Instead, the Prosecutor
proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112
was applicable and required petitioner to waive the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a
preliminary investigation. This was substantive error, for petitioner was
entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been
accorded him without any conditions. [Waiver of Art 125 of RPC is
required only for valid warrantless arrests]
Posting bail is not waiver of PI. In the circumstances of this case, the
Court does not believe that by posting bail petitioner had waived his
right to preliminary investigation. Petitioner had from the beginning
demanded a PI. Go asked for release on recognizance or on bail and
for preliminary investigation in one omnibus motion. He had thus
claimed his right to preliminary investigation before respondent Judge
approved the cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his release on
12 July 1991.
Entitled to PI even if trial on the merits has began. The petitioner
remains entitled to a preliminary investigation although trial on the
merits has already began. Trial on the merits should be suspended or
held in abeyance and a preliminary investigation forthwith accorded to
petitioner.
Larranaga v CA
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Larranaga is currently detained and is charged with 2 counts of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention of the Chiong sisters. Petitioner
prayed that a preliminary investigation be conducted and that he be
released from detention pending the investigation. The prosecutors
argue that petitioner is entitled only to an inquest investigation under
Section 7 of Rule 112 since he was lawfully arrested without a warrant.
Is petitioner entitled to a regular PI? Yes.
Petitioner was not arrested. When the officers attempted to arrest
him, petitioner’s lawyer was able to dissuade them and they agreed to
meet at the PNP CIG headquarters instead. Even if he was arrested, it
would not have been valid because the officers were not armed with a
warrant.
A waiver, whether express or implied, must be made in clear and
unequivocal manner. Petitioner has been vigorously invoking his
right to a regular preliminary investigation since the start of the
proceedings before the City Prosecutor. When denied, he went to CA
and to the SC.
Right to preliminary investigation is waived when the accused
fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at
arraignment. Petitioner, in this case, has been actively and consistently
demanding a regular preliminary investigation even before he was
charged in court. Also, petitioner refused to enter a plea during the
arraignment because there was a pending case in this Court regarding
his right to avail of a regular preliminary investigation. Clearly, the acts
of petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a waiver.
• Preliminary investigation is part of procedural due process. It
cannot be waived unless the waiver appears to be clear and
informed.
INQUEST
Article 125, The Revised Penal Code. The penalties provided in the
next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or
employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall
fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the
period of;
a. twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent;
b. eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by
correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
c. thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by
afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his
detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and
confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.
R.A. 7438, Rights of a Person under Custodial Investigation.
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.
• Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation
shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
• Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his
order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any
person for the commission of an offense shall inform the
latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his
rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained
or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford
the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a
competent and independent counsel by the investigating
officer.
• The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing
by the investigating officer, provided that before such report
is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained
does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and
adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting
counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language
or dialect known to such arrested or detained person,
otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and
of no effect whatsoever.
• Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing
and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in
the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence
of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse,
the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school
supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by
him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be
inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
• Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under
custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
65
Preliminary investigation
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver
shall be null and void and of no effect.
• Any person arrested or detained or under custodial
investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any
member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or
priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member
of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national
non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-
governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of
the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include
his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or
sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or
niece, and guardian or ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice
of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection
with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice
to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
Section 3. Assisting Counsel. Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except
those directly affected by the case, those charged with conducting
preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of
crimes.
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be
entitled to the following fees;
a. The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the
suspected person is chargeable with light felonies;
b. The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the
suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave
felonies;
c. The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the
suspected person is chargeable with a capital offense.
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality
where the custodial investigation is conducted, provided that if the
municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such
municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal or
City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees
of assisting counsel before the province pays said fees.
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be
conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by the
investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Section 4. Penalty Clause
a. Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating
officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice,
shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of
imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more than
ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer
who has been previously convicted of a similar offense.
• The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or
employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating
officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and
independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the
latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.
b. Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any
member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or
religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his
immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring
privately with him, or from examining and treating him, or from
ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in
urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a
fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security
officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may
undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his
safety and prevent his escape.
DOJ Circular No. 61, New Rules on Inquest
SECTION 1. Concept. Inquest is an informal and summary
investigation con-ducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases
involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant
of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether or
not said persons should remain under custody and correspondingly be
charged in court.
SEC. 2. Designation of Inquest Officers. The City or Provincial
Prosecutor shall designate the Prosecutors assigned to inquest duties
and shall furnish the Philippine National Police (PNP) a list of their
names and their schedule of assignments.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
• If, however, there is only one Prosecutor in the area, all
inquest cases shall be referred to him for appropriate action.
• Unless otherwise directed by the City or Provincial
Prosecutor, those assigned to inquest duties shall discharge
their functions during the hours of their designated
assignments and only at the police stations/headquarters of
the PNP in order to expedite and facilitate the disposition of
inquest cases.
SEC. 3. Commencement and Termination of Inquest. The inquest
proceedings shall be considered commenced upon receipt by the
Inquest Officer from the law enforcement authorities of the
complaint/referral documents which should include:
a. the affidavit of arrest;
b. the investigation report;
c. the statement of the complainant and witnesses; and
d. other supporting evidence gathered by the police in the course
of the latter’s investigation of the criminal incident involving
the arrested or detained person.
The inquest Officer shall, as far as practicable, cause the affidavit of
arrest and statements/affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses
to be subscribed and sworn to before him by the arresting officer and
the affiants.
• The inquest proceedings must be terminated within the period
prescribed under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.
SEC. 4. Particular Documents Required in Specific Cases. The
submission, presentation of the documents listed herein below should
as far as practicable, be required in the following cases by the Inquest
Officer.
Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612)
a. a list/inventory of the articles and items subject of the offense;
and
b. statement of their respective value
Illegal Possession of Explosives (PD 1866)
a. chemistry report duly signed by the forensic chemist and
b. photograph of the explosives, if readily available.
Violation of the Fisheries Law (PD 704) (now RA 8550)
a. photograph of the confiscated fish, if readily available; and
b. certification of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources;
66
Preliminary investigation
Violation of the Forestry Law (PD 705)
a. scale sheets containing the volume and species of the forest
products confiscated, number of pieces and other important
details such as estimated value of the products confiscated;
b. certification of Department of Environment and Natural
Resources/Bureau of Forest Management; and
c. seizure receipt. The submission of the foregoing documents
shall not absolutely be required if there are other forms of
evidence submitted which will sufficiently establish the facts
sought to be proved by the foregoing documents.
SEC. 5. Incomplete documents. When the documents presented are
not complete to establish probable cause, the Inquest Officer shall
direct the law enforcement agency to submit the required evidence
within the period prescribed under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended; otherwise, the Inquest Officer shall
order the release of the detained person and, where the inquest is
conducted outside of office hours, direct the law enforcement agency
concerned to file the case with the City or Provincial Prosecutor for
appropriate action.
SEC. 6. Presence of the detained person. The presence of the
detained person who is under custody shall be ensured during the
proceedings. However, the production of the detained person before
the Inquest Officer may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. if he is confined in a hospital;
b. if he is detained in a place under maximum security;
c. if production of the detained person involve security risks; or
d. if the presence of the detained person is not feasible by reason
of age, health, sex and other similar factors.
The absence of the detained person by reason of any of the foregoing
factors must be noted by the Inquest Officer and reflected in the record
of the case.
SEC. 7. Charges and counter-charges. All charges and counter-
charges arising from the same incident shall, as far as practicable, be
consolidated and inquested jointly to avoid contradictory or
inconsistent dispositions.
SEC. 8. Initial duty of the inquest officer. The Inquest Officer must
first determine if the arrest of the detained person was made in
accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5,
Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which
provide that arrests without a warrant may be effected:
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
a. when, in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; or
b. when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the
arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it. For this
purpose, the Inquest Officer may summarily examine the
arresting officers on the circumstances surrounding the arrest
or apprehension of the detained person.
SEC. 9. Where arrest not properly effected. Should the Inquest
Officer find that the arrest was not made in accordance with the Rules,
he shall:
a. recommend the release of the person arrested or detained;
b. note down the disposition of the referral document;
c. prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the
action taken; and
d. forward the same, together with the record of the case, to the
City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
Where the recommendation for the release of the detained person is
approved by the City or Provincial Prosecutor but the evidence on hand
warrant the conduct of a regular preliminary investigation, the
order of release shall be served on the officer having custody of said
detainee and shall direct the said officer to serve upon the detainee the
subpoena or notice of preliminary investigation, together with the
copies of the charge sheet or complaint, affidavits or sworn statements
of the complainant and his witnesses and other supporting evidence.
SEC. 10. Where the arrest property effected. Should the Inquest
Officer find that the arrest was properly effected, the detained person
should be asked if he desires to avail himself of a preliminary
investigation, if he does, he shall be made to execute a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with
the assistance of a lawyer and, in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a
responsible person of his choice.
• The preliminary investigation may be conducted by the
Inquest Officer himself or by any other Assistant Prosecutor
to whom the case may be assigned by the City or Provincial
Prosecutor, which investigation shall be terminated within
fifteen (15) days from its inception.
SEC. 11. Inquest proper. Where the detained person does not opt for
a preliminary investigation or otherwise refuses to execute the required
waiver, the Inquest Officer shall proceed with the inquest by examining
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
the sworn statements/affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses
and other supporting evidence submitted to him.
• If necessary, the Inquest Officer may require the presence of
the complainant and witnesses and subject them to an
informal and summary investigation or examination for
purposes of determining the existence of probable cause.
SEC. 12. Meaning of probable cause. Probable cause exists when the
evidence submitted to the Inquest Officer engenders a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that the arrested or detained
person is probably guilty thereof.
SEC. 13. Presence of probable cause. If the Inquest Officer finds
that probable cause exists, he shall forthwith prepare the corresponding
complaint/information with the recommendation that the same be filed
in court.
• The complaint/information shall indicate the offense
committed and the amount of bail recommended, if bailable.
• Thereafter, the record of the case, together with the prepared
complaint/information, shall be forwarded to the City or
Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
• The complaint/information may be filed by the Inquest
Officer himself or by any other Assistant Prosecutor to whom
the case may be assigned by the City or Provincial Prosecutor.
SEC. 14. Contents of information. The information shall, among
others, contain:
a. a certification by the filing Prosecutor that he is filing the same
in accordance with the provisions of Section 7, Rule 112 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, in cases
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court;
b. the full name and alias, if any, and address of the accused;
c. the place where the accused is actually detained;
d. the full names and addresses of the complainant and
witnesses; e. a detailed description of the recovered item, if
any; f. the full name and address of the evidence custodian;
e. the age and date of birth of the complainant or the accused, if
eighteen (19) years of age or below; and h. the full names and
addresses of the parents, custodians or guardians of the minor
complainant or accused, as the case may be.
Riano discussion.
1. Note that the complaint for the purpose of PI differs from the
complaint filed for the purpose of instituting criminal
67
Preliminary investigation
prosecution. Confusion arises because of the use of the same
term.
2. Absence of the required certification as to the holding of a PI
does not invalidate an information because the certification is
not an essential part of the information itself. What is not
allowed is the filing of information without a PI.
SEC. 15. Absence of probable cause. If the Inquest Officer finds no
probable cause, he shall:
a. recommend the release of the arrested or detained person;
b. note down his disposition on the referral document;
c. prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the
action taken; and
d. forthwith forward the record of the case to the City or
Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
If the recommendation of the Inquest Officer for the release of the
arrested or detained person is approved, the order of release shall be
served on the officer having custody of the said detainee.
• Should the City or Provincial Prosecutor disapprove the
recommendation of release, the arrested or detained person
shall remain under custody, and the correspondsing
complaint/information shall be filed by the City or Provincial
Prosecutor or by any Assistant Prosecutor to whom the case
may be assigned.
SEC. 16. Presence at the crime scene. Whenever a dead body is
found and there is reason to believe that the death resulted from foul
play, or from the unlawful acts or omissions of other persons and such
fact has been brought to his attention, the Inquest Officer shall:
a. forthwith proceed to the crime scene or place of discovery of
the dead person;
b. cause an immediate autopsy to be conducted by the
appropriate medico-legal officer in the locality or the PNP
medico-legal division or the NBI medico-legal office, as the
case may be;
c. direct the police investigator to cause the taking of
photographs of the crime scene or place of discovery of the
dead body;
d. supervise the investigation to be conducted by the police
authorities as well as the recovery of all articles and pieces of
evidence found thereat and see to it that the same are
safeguarded and the chain of the custody thereof properly
recorded; and
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
e. submit a written report of his finding to the City or Provincial
Prosecutor for appropriate action.
SEC. 17. Sandiganbayan cases. Should any complaint cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan be referred to an Inquest Officer for investigation,
the latter shall, after conducting the corresponding inquest proceeding,
forthwith forward the complete record to the City or Provincial
Prosecutor for appropriate action.
DOJ Circular No. 50
Guideline on the Application of Article 125 of the RPC
(1) Article 125 provides for the criminal liability and the corresponding
penalties of public officers or employees who detained a person arrested
without a warrant without charging that person in court after the lapse
of 12, 18 or 36 hours depending on the gravity of the crime
(2) This protection accorded by the law to individuals against undue
deprivation of liberty is in line with the provision of Article III, Section
1 of the 1987 Constitution which states that “no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws”
(3) In order to avoid confusion among criminal justice stakeholders, the
following guidelines on the application of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, are issued:
• Being a penal law, Article 125 shall be construed strictly
against the State and liberally in favor of an accused. Hence,
the counting of the prescribed "12-18-36" periods shall be
done by the hour starting from the time of detention.
However, consistent with jurisprudence, the following
circumstances may be considered in determining whether the
public officer or employee concerned can be held liable for
violating the law:
o 3.1.1. The observance of non-working holidays,
during which it becomes legally and physically
impossible to properly file an information in court.
[See Soria v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 153524-25, 31
January 2005]
o 3.1.2. Extraneous factors like
means of communication and transportation, the
hour of the arrest, or the time of surrender of an
accused, which impedes the conduct of usual law
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
enforcement and prosecution functions. [See Sayo v.
Police Chief of Manila, L-23614, 27 February 1970]
• It should be emphasized, however, that the foregoing cases
are mere exceptions to the general rule and are not in any way
to be used as grounds for abuse. They can be invoked only
when circumstances warrant extraordinary measures.
In no case should the above-mentioned factors absolve public
officers and employees from liability under Article 125 if it can
be shown that the delay in the delivery of a detained person is
attended by malice, bad faith or gross negligence.
(4) Immediately after an arrest, the person arrested shall be brought to
the nearest local law enforcement office. As soon as possible, inquest
proceedings shall be conducted by the duty inquest prosecutor
designated to act as such within the locality, even during weekends.
However, under the exceptional case where no inquest prosecutor is
available during a weekend or a non-working day, the inquest shall
immediately be conducted on the first business day following the arrest.
If the inquest prosecutor orders the arresting officers to submit
additional evidence to aid him in resolving the case, the time spent to
produce such additional evidence shall not stop the running of the "12-
18-36" periods prescribed under Article 125.
(5) The "12-18-36" rule in Article 125 are subject to the following
provisions of special laws/rules:
• 5.1. Under Rule 112, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, if an
arrested person elects to undergo a preliminary investigation,
the provisions of Article 125 have to be waived in writing and
in the presence of counsel. Hence, the "12-18-36" periods
shall no longer apply.
• 5.2. The guidelines contained in
this Department Circular shall be applicable to cases
under Republic Act No. 9372, otherwise known as
the Human Security Act, except that instead of the "12-18-36"
periods, the applicable period shall be 72 hours, pursuant to
Section 18 of the said law.
• 5.3. The guidelines contained in
this Department Circular shall be applicable to cases
under Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as
the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, except that
instead of the "12-18-36" periods, the applicable period shall
be 8 hours.
o Moreover, instead of being charged in court, the
arrested child in conflict with the law who is 15 to 18
68
Preliminary investigation
years old shall first be turned over to the local social
development officer for initial determination of the
presence or absence of discernment.
o The investigating prosecutor shall, within eight (8)
hours upon receipt of the report of the local social
development officer, immediately resolve and issue
the corresponding Resolution either by ordering the
filing of the Criminal Information in court, or
ordering the immediate release of the child in
conflict with the law, as the case may be.
The foregoing guidelines are in line with the Department's commitment
to advance the rule of law, especially the constitutional guarantee
against deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
For guidance and compliance.
Inquest proceedings in case of warrantless arrests
Rule: When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving
an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, inquest
proceedings will be conducted and an information may be filed by a
prosecutor without need of such preliminary investigation
• But in the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor,
the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace
officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the
affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
• This is another instance in which a direct filing in court may
be done.
Instances of when a valid warrantless arrest may be effected will be
discussed in Rule 113.
When inquest will apply. Inquest Proceedings will only apply if:
1. There was a lawful warrantless arrest; and
2. The arrest was pursuant to an offense which requires a
preliminary investigation (imposable penalty is at least 4 years,
2 months and 1 day)
Nature of Inquest proceedings. It is not a preliminary investigation.
It is a summary investigation and which does not follow the procedure
in Rule 112, Sec. 3.
Q: What happens if warrantless arrest but the offense does not need PI,
will inquest proceedings still be conducted?
A: No. (Remember Section 3a, in relation to Sec 8)
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Q: What if the inquest proceedings conducted was for another offense
other than for which the accused was arrested (such as when the basis
for arrest was inciting to sedition, but the inquest proceedings were
conducted for rebellion)?
‣ The inquest proceedings are void.
Preliminary investigation in case of warrantless
arrests
Inquest Proceedings is the general rule when a person is arrested
lawfully without a warrant. The accused has several options on what to
do, one of which is to ask for a PI instead of inquest proceedings.
Rule: when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an
offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the person arrested
may still ask for a preliminary investigation even when inquest
proceedings have been conducted
(1) Before the complaint or information is filed — with the office
of the prosecutor
• The fact that a person as lawfully arrested without a warrant
does NOT bar him from availing of a PI, but he must sign a
waiver of Art. 125 of the RPC, with the assistance and in the
presence of his counsel.
• Art. 125 pertains to an offense upon a public officer or
employee who, although having detained a person for some
legal ground, fails to deliver the person arrested to the proper
judicial authorities within periods of 12, 18, or 36 hours as the
case may be.
• This waiver should be in writing and signed by the person in
the presence of his counsel, otherwise will be void. (See RA
7438)
• The PI must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its
inception.
Q: Can the accused apply for bail during the preliminary investigation
notwithstanding the fact that an information is yet to be filed in court?
(remember that he is still in detention here)
A: Yes. This is allowed by the rules. While a preliminary investigation is
undertaken, the person arrested is still under detention. To effect his
release, he may apply for bail notwithstanding the waiver of Art. 125 of
the RPC and even if no information has yet been filed against him. Since
the records are still with the prosecutor and no information has been
filed, he may apply with the executive judge of the place where he is
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
currently detained. This is provided for by an SC circular to executive
judges.
• This is supported by Rule 112, Sec. 6 and Rule 114 Sec. 7(c)
which declares that “any person in custody who is not yet
charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the
province, city of municipality where he is held.
(2) After the complaint or information is filed — with the court
where the case is pending
• Even after the information is filed, the accused may still ask
for a PI, but he should address the application for PI through
a motion to the court since the court already has jurisdiction
over the case.
• This is usually called a “motion for re-investigation” or a
“motion to conduct a preliminary investigation”
• The accused must do so within five (5) days from the time he
learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the
same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in
this Rule.
This presupposes that a prior PI has not been conducted yet.
Leviste v Almeda
Leviste was charged with homicide and was placed under police custody
while confined at MakatiMed. The heirs of the victim filed for the
deferment of proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-examine
the evidence on record or to conduct a reinvestigation to determine
proper offense. TC granted, but Leviste argued that prosecution has no
right under the Rules to seek from the trial court an investigation or
reevaluation of the case except through a petition for review before the
Department of Justice (DOJ). In cases when an accused is arrested
without a warrant, Leviste contends that the remedy of preliminary
investigation belongs only to the accused. Proper? No.
Sec. 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides that when a person is
lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires
a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed
by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest
has been conducted in accordance with existing rules.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested
may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this rule, but
he must sign a waiver of the provisions of article 125 of the revised
penal code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel.
69
Preliminary investigation
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a
preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the
time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the
same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this rule.
Preliminary investigation when required. A preliminary
investigation is required before the filing of a complaint or information
for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2
months and 1 day without regard to fine.
As an exception, the rules provide that there is no need for a
preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful arrest without a warrant
involving such type of offense, so long as an inquest, where available,
has been conducted.
People v CA
Gadi was apprehended at NAIA and was charged with the violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act for possession of Marijuana. Beyond the 5-
day period, he filed a motion for reinvestigation on the ground of
seriousness of the offense charged. He contended that the said period
was not mandatory as the law merely uses the word may. RTC rejected
the argument but the CA upheld it saying that a motion for PI may be
granted even if trial on the merits had begun provided that such motion
was filed before arraignment. Proper? NO.
The provision reads: After the filing of the complaint or information in court
without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the
time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation xxx.
Five-day period is mandatory. This is in line with the intent of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure to make preliminary investigation simple
and speedy. The investigating judge or prosecuting officer acts upon
probable cause and reasonable belief, not upon proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display
of the parties' evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only
as may engender well-grounded belief that an offense has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
May refers to the option. The use of the term may in this rule relates
only to the option of filing a motion for preliminary investigation; it
does not refer to the filing of the motion after the expiration of the five-
day period.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only as may
engender well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
Discussion. When is warrant of arrest not necessary?
- Lawful warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 5
- Accused is charged with an offense punishable by fine only
- When the case is subject to the rules on summary procedure.
Action of the judge upon filing of complaint or
information
1. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or
information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution
of the prosecutor.
2. The judge may make some findings after personally evaluating
the resolution of the prosecutor. He may find that:
o Fails to establish probable cause
o Establishes probable cause
o Engenders doubt as to the existence of probable
cause
3. If the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
cause, the judge may immediately dismiss the case.
o The order of the court, dismissing a case for lack of
probable cause, is a final order since it disposes of
the case, terminates proceedings, and leaves the
court with nothing further to do with respect to the
case.
4. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. If
a complaint or information was already filed pursuant to a
lawful warrantless arrest under Sec. 6 of Rule 112, the court
shall issue a commitment order instead of a warrant of arrest.
The same rule applies if the accused has already been arrested
pursuant to a warrant previously issued.
5. In case the judge doubts the existence of probable cause, the
judge may order the prosecution to submit additional evidence
within five (5) days from notice. The issue must be resolved
by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the
complaint or information
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 70
ARREST
ARREST
GENERAL CONCEPTS
Rule 114, Section 1. 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.
Rule 114, Section 2. Arrest; how made. 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.
Essence of arrest. Whichever means is used to make an arrest, the term
necessarily implies control over the person under custody and as a
consequence, a restraint on his liberty to the extent that he is not free to
leave on his own volition.
Intention matters. To constitute an arrest, it is enough that there is an
intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that
there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief
and impression that submission is necessary.
Article 3, Section 2, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines . The right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
Purpose. To protect the privacy and the sanctity of the person and of
his house and other possessions against arbitrary intrusion by state
officers. It is aimed at preventing violations of private security in person
and property, and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of home by officers
of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction and to give remedy
against such usurpation.
Rule. It is constitutionally mandated that a warrant of arrest shall issue
only upon finding of probable cause personally determined by the judge.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Probable cause for warrant of arrest. Probable cause in connection
with the issuance of a warrant of arrest, assumes the existence of facts
that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a
crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person
sought to be arrested.
Probable cause to be determined personally by the judge. The
accurate interpretation of this provision is that the exclusive and
personal responsibility of the issuing judge is to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. However, the role varies depending on
what warrant is to be issued (warrant of arrest or search warrant).
Warrant of arrest; no need to personally examine complainant. In
satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. Sound policy dictates this procedure to
prevent judges from being unduly laden with preliminary examination
and investigation of criminal complaints. Soliven v Makasiar
• Personal determination. It is the report, the affidavits, the
transcripts of stenographic notes, and all other supporting
documents behind the certification which are material in
assisting the judge to make his determination. Lim, Sr. v Judge
Felix
• Personal determination. It is enough that the judge
personally evaluates the prosecutor’s report and supporting
documents showing the existence of probable cause for the
indictment, and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest.
Ocampo v Abando
Search warrant; must examine complainant personally. The
implementing rule in Revised Rules of Court, Sec 4, Rule 126, is more
emphatic and candid, for it requires the judge, before issuing a search
warrant, to ‘personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant
and any witnesses he may produce. Bache & Co. v Ruiz
• Stenographer’s notes; relying solely on the notes
insufficient. The determination of whether or not a probable
cause exists calls for the exercise of judgment after a judicial
appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in
the absence of any rule to the contrary. By relying solely on the
stenographer’s notes, the judge failed to personally examine
the complainant and his witness. Bache & Co. v Ruiz
Rule in making arrests. No peace officer or person has the power or
authority to arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest, except in those
cases expressly authorized by law. The law expressly allowing such is
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court (previously Section 6). Umil v
Ramos
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
ARRESTS WITH WARRANT
DOJ-National Prosecution Service Manual for Prosecutors, Part
VI, Sec. 1. Definition of probable cause as a ground for an arrest or
issuance of a warrant of arrest. Probable cause is such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to
be arrested.
Determination of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the
existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the
judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses. Sound policy dictates this procedure to prevent judges from
being unduly laden with preliminary examination and investigation of
criminal complaints. Soliven v Makasiar (1998)
Determination of PC, how made. The determination of probable
cause is a function of the judge. The preliminary inquiry made by a
prosecutor does not bind the judge. By itself the Prosecutor’s
certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the
affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes, and all other supporting
documents behind the certification which are material in assisting the
judge to make his determination. Lim, Sr. v Judge Felix
Determination of PC, how made. If a judge relies solely on the
certification of the prosecutor as is in this case where all the records of
the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not yet personally
determined probable cause. The determination is made by the provincial
prosecutor. The judge commits a grave abuse of discretion by issuing a
warrant of arrest. Lim, Sr. v Judge Felix
RA 8424, Section 15. Authority of Internal Revenue Officers to Make
Arrests and Seizures. The Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioners,
the Revenue Regional Directors, the Revenue District Officers and
other internal revenue officers shall have authority to make arrests and
seizures for the violation of any penal law, rule or regulation
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Any person so arrested
shall be forthwith brought before a court, there to be dealt with
according to law
Arrest with warrant, how effected
1. Warrant of arrest is issued by a judge
2. The warrant is delivered to the proper law enforcement agency
for execution
71
ARREST
3. The warrant shall be executed within ten (10) days from its
receipt; a report thereon must be made 10 days after the
expiration of the period. Rule 113, Section 4
4. The warrant is executed and the accused is arrested.
Rule 113, Section 3. Duty of arresting officer. It shall be the duty of
the officer executing the warrant to arrest the accused and to deliver him
to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay.
Rule 113, Section 4. Execution of Warrant. — 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. Within
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.
Rule 113, Section 6. Time of Making Arrest. — An arrest may be
made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
Rule 113, Section 7. Method of Arrest by Officer by Virtue of
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.
Rule 113, Section 10. Officer May Summon Assistance. — 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.
When duty to assist does not arise. The duty of the person
summoned does not arise when rendering assistance would cause harm
to himself.
Rule 113, Section 11. Right of Officer to Break into Building or
Enclosure. — An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of
a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, 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.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Rule 113, Section 12. Right to Break Out from Building or
Enclosure. — Whenever an officer has entered the building or
enclosure in accordance with the preceding section, he may break out
therefrom when necessary to liberate himself.
When person to be arrested is in a building. If the person to be
arrested is or is reasonably believed to be within any building or
enclosure, the Rules authorize the officer, in order to make an arrest, to:
1. break into any building or enclosure in case he is refused
admittance after announcing his authority and purpose
2. After entering the building or enclosure, he may break out
from said place if necessary, to liberate himself from the same
place
Private person cannot break into a building. The right to break into
a building or an enclosure specifically refers to an 'officer' and not to a
private person.
Rule 113, Section 14. Right of Attorney or Relative to Visit Person
Arrested. — Any member of the Philippine Bar shall, at the request of
the person arrested or of another acting in his behalf, have the right to
visit and confer privately with such person in the jail or any other place
of custody at any hour of the day or night. Subject to reasonable
regulations, a relative of the person arrested can also exercise the same
right.
John Doe Warrant
John Doe warrant. A warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed
party or a ‘John Doe’ is void, except in those cases where it contains a
desriptio personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused.
People v Veloso
Same; exception, not rule. John Doe search warrants should be the
exception and not the rule. The police should particularly describe the
place to be searched or things to be seized, wherever and whenever
feasible. People v Veloso
Descriptio personae
A 72escription personae must be a description that sufficiently:
1. Indicates clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be
served;
2. States his personal appearance and peculiarities;
3. Gives his occupation and place of residence; and
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
4. Gives any other circumstances by means of which he can be
identified.
DOJ Circular No. 50, 29 October 1990
Warrants of arrest against “John Does”, the witnesses against whom
could not or would not identify them is of the nature of general warrants
and one of a class of writs long proscribed and anathematized as “totally
subversive of the liberty of such subject.” It is violative of the
constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly
describe the person or persons to be seized.
Henceforth, as a matter of policy of this Department, whenever a
complaint implicating a “John Doe” is filed, you [prosecutors] are
hereby directed to:
1. Elicit from the witnesses other appropriate descriptions to
particularly describe a “John Doe” to distinguish him or set
him apart from others, and
2. To place a new name in the information in lieu of a “John
Doe” only when the description of this “John Doe” as
appearing in the sworn statement of a witness substantially
tallies with the description of the person placed in “John
Doe’s” stead.
ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT
Summary of when warrantless arrests may be made:
1. In flagrante delicto
2. Hot pursuit
3. Escapee
4. Arrest after escape or rescue
5. Out on bail and attempts to leave PH w/o permission
Persons authorized to make arrest:
1. Peace officer
2. Private person
Rule 113, Section 5. A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) In flagrante delicto. When in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit
an offense;
(b) Hot pursuit. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) Escapee. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
72
ARREST
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In flagrante delicto
Suspicion not enough. The rule requires that the accused perform
some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
Requisites. The following must concur:
1. 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
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer
In this type of warrantless arrest, the person making the arrest himself
witnesses the crime and hence, has personal knowledge of the
commission of the offense.
When deemed committed in his presence. When the officer sees the
offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbance created, and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he may effect an arrest without a
warrant since the offense is deemed committed in his presence. People v
Del Rosario
Hot pursuit
Requisites. The second instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by
paragraph (b) cited above necessitates two stringent requirements before
a warrantless arrest can be effected:
1. An offense has just been committed;
2. The person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Crime has just been committed. A crime must in fact or actually have
been committed first. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have
been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be
undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of
the perpetrator. People v Burgos
• One day after the commission already invalid. Immediacy
between the time of commission and the time of arrest is
absent. People v del Rosario
• 6 days after is already invalid. Rolito Go v CA
• 3 days after already invalid. Posadas v OMB
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Personal knowledge based on reasonable grounds of suspicion.
This exception does not require the arresting officers to personally
witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. Personal
knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds are
reasonable when the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
Personal knowledge based on reasonable grounds of suspicion. A
reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause,
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the
arrest
Arrest of escaping prisoner
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.
• This includes both a convicted prisoner or a detention prisoner
• If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person
may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any
time and in any place within the Philippines
• An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the
necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the
Philippines without permission of the court where the case is
pending. Rule 114, Sec. 23
Rule 113, Section 13. Arrest After Escape or Rescue. — If a person
lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately
pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place
within the Philippines. (13)
Other grounds for lawful warrantless arrest. When an accused
released in bail attempts to depart from the PH without permission.
C.A. 613, Sec. 6. Warrantless arrest of aliens. The examination of
aliens concerning their right to enter or remain in the Philippines shall
be performed by Immigrant Inspectors, with the advice of medical
authorities in appropriate cases. Immigrant Inspectors are authorized to
admit any alien complying with the applicable provisions of the
immigration laws and to enforce the immigration laws and regulations
prescribed thereunder. Immigrant Inspectors are also empowered to
administer oaths, to take and consider evidence concerning the right of
any alien to enter or reside in the Philippines, and to go aboard and
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
search for aliens on any vessel or other conveyance in which they believe
aliens are being brought into the Philippines.
Immigrant Inspectors shall have the power to arrest, without warrant,
any alien who in their presence or view is entering or is still in the course
of entering the Philippines in violation of immigration laws or
regulations prescribed thereunder.
Search incidental to a lawful arrest. 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 the offense.
Exclusionary rule
Article III, Section 2. xxx (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Example; invalid warrantless arrest. Due to threats from extremists,
GMA issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency and
commanding the AFP to suppress all forms of lawless violence.
Pursuant to said PP, Randolf David of Akbayan [UP Prof and
newspaper columnist] was arrested without a warrant. He was brought
to Camp Karingal where he was fingerprinted, photographed, and
booked like a criminal. He was charged with Inciting to Sedition. During
the inquest proceedings, the officers said that the basis was that there
were some rallyists wearing t-shirts with the words oust Gloria now and
they assumed that David was the leader of the rally. Ronald Llamas
[President of Akbayan] and other members of Kilusang Mayo uno were
likewise arrested without warrants. Warrantless arrest valid? NO. Their
arrest did not fall under Rule 113, Sec 5, which enumerates lawful
warrantless arrests. PP107 is not a declaration of Martial Law and it is
no more than a call by the President to the AFP to prevent or suppress
lawless violence. As such, it cannot be used to justify acts that only a
valid declaration of Martial Law can be done. Justice Mendoza further
stated that specifically, (a) arrests and seizures without judicial warrants;
(b) ban on public assemblies; (c) take-over of news media and agencies
and press censorship; and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees, are
powers which can be exercised by the President as Commander-in-
Chief only where there is a valid declaration of Martial Law or
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. David et al. v GMA
Example; invalid warrantless arrests. Elpidio Melvida was one of the
suspects of robbery with homicide. After receiving reports regarding the
crime, SPO Luna went to the crime scene where he found a bio-data
allegedly belonging to Melvida. He proceeded to the latter’s house and
asked him to come with him. Melvida was taken to the police station
73
ARREST
where he was interrogated by Luna and then by his fellow policemen.
Was Melvida arrested? Was the arrest valid? NO. An arrest is the taking
of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for
the commission of an offense and it is made by an actual restraint of the
person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest. In this case, Melvida’s voluntary going with Luna
upon the latter’s invitation was a submission to Luna’s custody, and Luna
believed that Melvida was a suspect in the robbery case, hence, Melvida
was being held to answer for the commission of said offense. Luna’s
basis for arrest was the bio-data with Melvida’s name found on the crime
scene. by no means can this indicate that Melvida committed the offense
charged. It does not even mean that he was at the crime scene because
it could have been there long before or after the crime was committed.
Luna, therefore, had no personal knowledge of the facts indicating
Melvida’s guilt. At best, he had an unreasonable suspicion. People v
Sequiño
Illegal warrant of arrest. In connection with the donation of P2M to
COCOFED using PCA special funds, Cojuangco was charged with a
violation of RA 3019. SB issued a warrant for his arrest, which he assails
now contending that there was no probable cause for such since it was
not determined personally by the judge. Arrest valid? NO. The issuance
of the warrant of arrest was unconstitutional because it was grounded
mainly on the Resolution of the Ombudsman recommending the filing
of information against Cojuangco and a Memorandum of the Office of
the Special Prosecutor denying the existence of a prejudicial question,
which will warrant the suspension of the criminal case. The documents
relied on were products of somebody else’s determination, insufficient
to support a finding of probable cause by the SB itself. SB did not
determine on its own the issue of probable cause based on evidence
other than such bare findings and recommendations. Cojuangco v
Sandiganbayan
Example; invalid warrantless arrests. Police officers found Atty.
Generoso badly beaten after an altercation. When Generoso pointed to
the petitioners as those who mauled him, the police officers invited the
petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police station for investigation. Was
there a valid arrest? Yes. The case falls under Section 5, Rule 113. The
case focused on 5(b). less than an hour after the report of the mauling,
police officers responded to the crime scene where the suspects did not
deny their participation albeit they narrated a different version of the
facts. Indeed, a crime has just been committed and the officer making
the arrest had personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances
justifying petitioners’ warrantless arrest. Pestilos v Generoso
Posting of bail bond is to prevent incarceration; does not bar
challenge to the warrant. The city prosecutor found probable cause to
charge petitioner with falsification. The judge subsequently issued a
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
warrant of arrest against petitioner. Petitioner questioned the legality of
said warrant but nevertheless posted bail. Is he deemed to have waived
his right to assail the validity of the warrant by posting bail? NO. The
posting of the bond was a matter of imperative necessity to avert
incarceration and should not be deemed a waiver of the right to assail
the arrest. Borlongan v Pena
Waiver must be clear and convincing. There must be clear and
convincing proof of petitioner’s actual intention to relinquish the right.
Such intention does not clearly appear in the case at bar considering that
petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall warrants of arrest,
and/or reinvestigation on the same day that they posted bail. Moreover,
the bail bonds likewise expressly contained a stipulation that they were
not waiving their right to question the validity of their arrest.
Method of arrest
Rule 113, Section 8. Method of Arrest by Officer Without Warrant.
— 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 opportunity to so inform him, or when the
giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (8a)
Rule 113, Section 9. Method of Arrest by Private Person. — When
making an arrest, a private person shall inform the person to be arrested
of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless the latter
is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued
immediately after its commission, or has escaped, flees, or forcibly
resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity to so inform
him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
Same rules as arrests with warrant. The rules applicable to an arrest
with a warrant also apply to an arrest without a warrant. Hence, the
officer may summon assistance to effect the arrest, break into a building
or an enclosure or break out from the same.
Post-arrest procedure
Rule 112, Section 7. When accused lawfully arrested without
warrant. When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving
an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance
with existing rules.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint
may be filed by the offended party or a peace office directly with the
proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may
ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he
must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the
waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated
within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a
preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the
time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the
same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.
(7a; sec. 2, R.A. No. 7438)
RIGHTS OF A PERSON ARRESTED
Article 3, Section 12, 1987 Constitution
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section
17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of
this Section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.
RA 7438, Section 2
1. The right to be assisted by counsel at all times
2. The right to remain silent
3. The right to be informed of the above rights
74
ARREST
4. The right to be visited by the immediate members of his family,
by his counsel, or by any non-governmental organization,
national or international
Part of Miranda Rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say
can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the
rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to
me?
Custodial investigation
When it begins. A custodial investigation refers to any questioning
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
way. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into
an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the
suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of
interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that
the rule begins to operate. People v Marra, citing Escobedo v Illinois.
• The rights mentioned above attach once custodial
investigation begins.
Invited for questioning. RA 7438 has extended the constitutional
guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally
arrested but has merely been invited for questioning. People v Dumantay
Right to counsel. The counsel must be one who is independent and
competent. He shall be allowed to confer at all times with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person
cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided by
the investigating officer with a competent and independent counsel.
When there is no counsel. In the absence of a lawyer, no custodial
investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be
detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions
of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Sec. 3, RA. 7438).
• Waiver of Article 125. Also, any waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, shall be in writing, and
signed by the person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation in the presence of his counsel, otherwise the
waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
Extrajudicial confession. Any extrajudicial confession made shall also
be in writing and signed by the person, detained or under custodial
investigation in the presence of his counsel, or in the latter’s absence,
upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as
chosen by him; otherwise such extrajudicial confession shall be
inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
Effect of illegal or invalid warrantless arrest
Court has no jurisdiction over person. If there is no valid arrest, then
the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
How to challenge. He can file a motion to quash the information based
on the ground that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
person of the accused. (See Rule 117, Sec. 3[c])
• Any objection involving an arrest or the procedure by which
the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused
must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived. People vs Cunanan
• The accused cannot raise the illegality of his arrest for the first
time on appeal. People vs Palma
Waiver of illegal arrest not waiver of admissibility of evidence.
When a person fails to make a timely objection to an illegal arrest, only
the right to assail the arrest is waived. He does not waive the right to
question the admissibility of the evidence seized by virtue of the illegal
arrest. De la Cruz vs People
But not basis of acquittal. The illegality of the arrest cannot, in itself,
be the basis for acquittal. It will not negate the validity of the conviction
of the accused. Even if the warrantless arrest is later proven to be invalid,
it is not sufficient cause to set aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.
Application for bail is not waiver of questioning validity of arrest.
An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from
challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued,
provided that he enters his objection before plea.
REMEDIES
1. Bail
2. Habeas corpus/writ of amparo/habeas data
3. Motion to quash/ Preliminary investigation/reinvestigation
4. Criminal liability for unlawful arrest
5. Suppression of evidence obtained
Bail
Rule 114, Sec. 26
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular
preliminary investigation. An application for or admission to bail shall
not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the
legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or
questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge
against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The
court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than
the start of the trial of the case.
Writ of habeas corpus
The writ is directed to the person detaining another, commanding him
to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with
the day and cause of his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and
receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in
that behalf.
• Actual deprivation of liberty. Hence, an essential requisite
for the availability of the writ is actual deprivation of personal
liberty.
• Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is the right to have
an immediate determination of the legality of the deprivation
of physical liberty.
• The writ does not lie when the person has been lawfully
detained. Harvey v Defensor Santiago
• The writ does not lie against those who have been released on
bail. Umil v Ramos
Writ of habeas data
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right
to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home, and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Writ of amparo
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
The Amparo rule was intended to address the problem of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances.
75
ARREST
• Extralegal killings are killings committed without due
process of law.
• Enforced disappearances are attended by the following
elements:
Elements of enforced disappearance:
1. There be an arrest, detention, abduction, or any form of deprivation
of liberty;
2. It be carried out by, or with the authorization, support, or
acquiescence of the State or political organization;
3. It be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to
acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the
person subject of the amparo petition; and
4. The intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
Motion to quash information; preliminary
investigation / reinvestigation
Rule 117, Section 1. Time to move to quash. At any time before entering
his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information.
Rule 117, Section 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the
complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense
2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged
3. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
person of the accused
4. That the officer who filed the information had no authority to
do so
5. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law
7. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished
8. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a
legal excuse or justification; and
9. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of
the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent. (double
jeopardy)
Facts alleged do not constitute an offense; do not go beyond the
information filed. The inquiry should be limited to the facts in the
information. An MTQ is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in
the information. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
the material averments in an information is whether or not the facts
alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted would establish the
essential elements of the crime defined by law. People vs Odtuhan
Facts alleged do not constitute an offense; extrinsic evidence not
considered. Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information
are not to be considered. To be sure, a motion to quash should be based
on a defect in the information which is evident on its face. Thus, if the
defect can be cured by amendment or if it is based on the ground that
the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution is given
by the court the opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. If the
motion to quash is sustained the court may order that another complaint
or information be filed except when the information is quashed on the
ground of extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy. People vs
Odtuhan
Facts alleged do not constitute an offense; MTQ not the first
remedy. If based on this ground, Court should NOT immediately grant
the MTQ but should give the prosecution the chance to correct the
defect by amendment. If despite such opportunity, the prosecution fails
to make amendment or makes amendment that still suffers from the
same defect, then the court can now grant the MTQ.
Criminal liability for unlawful arrest
Article 124, RPC. Arbitrary detention. Any public officer or employee
who, without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the detention has not
exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the detention has continued more than
three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued
for more than fifteen days but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have
exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment
requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall
be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.
Article 125, RPC. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
proper judicial authorities. The penalties provided in the next
preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee
who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to
deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period
of:
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
a. twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent;
b. eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by
correctional penalties, or their equivalent and
c. thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by
afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his
detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and
confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.
Article 126, RPC. Delaying release. The penalties provided for in
Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
delays for the period of time specified therein the performance of any
judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention
prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said
prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such
person.
Suppression of evidence obtained
Basically this is the exclusionary rule
Constitution, Art. III, Secs. 3(2), 12(3) & 12(4)
Sec 3 (2). xxx Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Sec 12(3). xxx Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Sec 12(4). xxx The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation
of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
Rule 126, Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to
suppress evidence; where to file. A motion to quash a search warrant
and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted
upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no
criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and
resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such
court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequent filed
in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court. (n)
DIPLOMATIC AND PARLIAMENTARY
IMMUNITIES FROM ARREST
76
ARREST
Article VI, Section 11, 1987 Constitution. A Senator or Member of
the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held
liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in
any committee thereof.
Article 145, RPC. Violation of parliamentary immunity. The penalty
of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall use force,
intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the National
Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from attending the meetings of
the Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from
expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of prision
correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special session,
arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such member has
committed a crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than
prision mayor.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Article 31
(1) A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal
jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its
civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
a. A real action relating to private immovable property situated
in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on
behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
b. An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent
is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a
private person and not on behalf of the sending State;
c. An action relating to any professional or commercial activity
exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside
his official functions.
(2) A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.
(3) No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic
agent except in the cases coming under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of
paragraph 1 of this article, and provided that the measures concerned
can be taken without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his
residence.
(4) The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the
receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending
State.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam CRIM PRO
Article 37 (2) Reasonable quantities of personal baggage, personal effects, and
(1) The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his other property for the personal use of United States personnel may be
household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the imported into and used in the Philippines free of all duties, taxes and
privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36. other similar charges during the period of their temporary stay in the
Philippines. Transfers to persons or entities in the Philippines not
(2) Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, entitled to import privileges may only be made upon prior approval of
together with members of their families forming part of their respective the appropriate Philippine authorities including payment by the recipient
households, shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in of applicable duties and taxes imposed in accordance with the laws of
the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in the Philippines. The exportation of such property and of property
articles 29 to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative acquired in the Philippines by United States personnel shall be free of
jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 all Philippine duties, taxes, and other similar charge.
shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties.
They shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36, paragraph 1,
in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.
(3) Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of
or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy immunity in
respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, exemption from
dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their
employment and the exemption contained in article 33.
(4) Private servants of members of the mission shall, if they are not
nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, be exempt
from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their
employment. In other respects, they may enjoy privileges and
immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However,
the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in
such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the
functions of the mission.
Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. VII
Importation and Exportation
(1) United States Government equipment, materials, supplies, and other
property imported into or acquired in the Philippines by or on behalf of
the United States armed forces in connection with activities to which
this agreement applies, shall be free of all Philippine duties, taxes and
other similar charges. Title to such property shall remain with the United
States, which may remove such property from the Philippines at any
time, free from export duties, taxes, and other similar charges. The
exemptions provided in this paragraph shall also extend to any duty, tax,
or other similar charges which would otherwise be assessed upon such
property after importation into, or acquisition within, the Philippines.
Such property may be removed from the Philippines, or disposed of
therein, provided that disposition of such property in the Philippines to
persons or entities not entitled to exemption from applicable taxes and
duties shall be subject to payment of such taxes, and duties and prior
approval of the Philippine Government.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 77
BAIL
BAIL
1987 Constitution, Article 3 Section 13
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
not be required.
Rule 114, Section 1. Bail defined. Bail is the security given for the
release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required
under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form
of:
1. corporate surety,
2. property bond,
3. cash deposit, or
4. recognizance.
Reason for bail; resumption of innocence. The right to bail springs
from the presumption of innocence accorded every accused upon whom
should not be inflicted incarceration at the outset since after trial, he
would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be established beyond
reasonable doubt. Paderanga v CA
• This presumption of innocence is rooted on the guarantee of
due process, and is safeguarded by the constitutional right to
be released on bail, and further binds the court to wait until
after trial to impose any punishment on the accused. Enrile v
Sandigan
Purpose of bail. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of
a person before any court when so required and not to prevent the
accused from committing additional crimes.
Bail may be availed of if already under custody of law. In a criminal
case, the judge already fixed bail even if the accused had yet to be
arrested. SC reiterated the principle the right to bail can only be availed
of by a person who is un custody of the law or otherwise deprived of
liberty. It is premature to file a petition for bail for someone whose
freedom has yet to be curtailed. Cortes v Catral
Bail does not cover civil liability. Bail is security given for the release
of a person under custody of law. As such, it is not intended to cover
civil liability of the accused in the same criminal case. However, the
money deposited as bail may be applied to the payment of fines and
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to
whoever made the deposit.
Object of bail. Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and
the state of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same
time, to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he
were in custody of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of
the accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law
may require of him. Defensor-Santiago v Vasquez
But right to bail can be waived. There can be a waiver of rights
provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual, are intended
for his sole benefit, do not infringe on the rights of others, and is not
forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy. The right to
bail is one of the constitutional rights which can be waived. In this case,
there was waiver on the part of the private respondents when they
agreed in the case for their petition of Habeas Corpus that will remain
in legal custody and will face trial before the court having custody over
his person. Hence, the respondent Judge then clearly acted with grave
abuse of discretion in granting bail to the private respondents. People v
Donato
Custody of law required for bail. Custody of the law is not required
for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail. Jimenez
v. Sorongon
Rationale. This is to prevent the practice where the accused could just
send another in his stead to post his bail, without recognizing the
jurisdiction of the court by his personal appearance.
Exception. An accused, who is confined in a hospital. May be deemed
to be in the custody of the law if he clearly communicates his submission
to the court while confined in a hospital. Defensor-Santiago v Vasquez
Need not wait for arrest. One need not wait to be arrested before filing
such petition. Upon receipt of a copy of the said order from the RTC,
the respondent already had the right to assail the same in an appropriate
proceeding for the said purpose. People v Hu Ruey Chun [aberrant ruling?
Conflict with Jimenez case. Ask sir!]
Extraditee allowed bail. An extradition proceeding, while
administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential
extradite may be subjected to arrest and to a prolonged restraint of
liberty. While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail
to an extraditee, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing
a motion for bail. Govt of HK v Olalia
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
Arraignment not pre-requisite to bail. Accused was charged with 9
informations for child abuse and then arrested. The TC granted the
posting of bail upon the condition, among others, that he first be
arraigned. Correct? No. Arraignment is not a requisite to applying for
bail. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment
would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between:
1. filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail
because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his
arraignment cannot be held, and
2. foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be
arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail.
These scenarios certainly undermine the accused's constitutional right
not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information
sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail. Lavides v. Court
of Appeals
Arraignment not a requisite to apply for bail. OMB found probable
cause and filed with the SB several informations such as plunder against
the accused and the other co-accused. SB issued warrants and the
accused voluntarily surrendered. Subsequently, Serapio filed a petition
for bail but was denied for his refusal to be arraigned. The People stress
that it is only when an accused pleads not guilty may he file a petition
for bail and if he pleads guilty to the charge, there would be no more
need for him to file said petition. Is his arraignment a requisite for the
conduct of hearing on a petition for bail? NO. The arraignment of the
accused is not a prerequisite for the conduct of hearings on a petition
for bail. A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived
of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused
need not wait for his arraignment before filing a petition for bail. Serapio
v. Sandiganbayan
Rule 114, Section 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal
arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation. An application
for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from
assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary
investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them
before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as
practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case.
Note. The principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the
legality of the arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters
his plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his
objections thereto. Borlogan v Peña.
Rule 114, Section 3. No release or transfer except on court order or
bail. No person under detention by legal process shall be released or
78
BAIL
transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to
bail.
Conditions for bail
Rule 114, Section 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. All kinds
of bail are subject to the following conditions:
(1) Effectivity. The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and
unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until
promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective
of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;
(2) Appearance. The accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever required by the court of these Rules;
(3) Failure to appear. The failure of the accused to appear at the trial
without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of
his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed
in absentia; and
(4) Surrender by bondsman. The bondsman shall surrender the
accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused,
the amount of the undertaking and the conditions herein required.
Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months showing
the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the
bail.
Summary of effects of failure to appear at trial:
1. Trial in absentia
2. Forfeiture of bond
3. Cancellation of bail
4. Bondsman may arrest
5. Bench warrant for arrest
Rule 114, Section 2(c). Trial in absentia. The failure of the accused to
appear at the trial without justification despite due notice shall be
deemed a waiver of his right to be present and the trial may proceed in
absentia.
Rule 114, Section 21. Forfeiture of bond. When the presence of the
accused is required by the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall be
notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. If
the accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared
forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to
produce their principal and to show cause why no judgment should be
rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said
period, the bondsmen must:
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
- produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-
production; and
- explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first
required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the
bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The court
shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen,
unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.
Rule 114, Section 22. Cancellation of bail. Upon application of the
bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled
upon:
1. surrender of the accused or
2. proof of his death.
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon:
1. acquittal of the accused,
2. dismissal of the case, or
3. execution of the judgment of conviction.
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability
on the bond.
Rule 114, Section 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. For the purpose
of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon
written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause
him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of suitable age
and discretion.
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of
a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without
permission of the court where the case is pending.
Authority of bondsman to arrest. This springs from the old principle
that once the obligation of bail is assumed, the bondsman or surety
becomes the jailer of the accused and is subrogated to all the rights and
means which the government possesses to make his control over him
effective. US v Addison and Gomez
Bench warrant. This is a writ issued directly by a judge to a law
enforcement officer, for the arrest of a person who has been held in
contempt, has disobeyed a subpoena, or has to appear at a hearing or
trial
Whether dismissal is permanent or provisional, bail is cancelled. The law does not
distinguish.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
Bail; when not available
Summary: when bail is not available
1. Capital offense/RP/LI; evidence of guilt is strong
2. Conviction judgment became final
3. Accused commenced service
4. Military
#1: Capital offense/RP/LI + evidence of guilt strong
Rule 114, Section 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. No person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence
of guilt is strong, regardless of the state of the criminal prosecution.
RJCL, Section 17. When Bail Not A Matter of Right. No juvenile
charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong.
Rule 114, Section 8. Burden of proof in Bail application. At the
hearing of an application for admission to bail filed by any person who
is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death, the prosecution has the burden of showing that
evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail
hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but
upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for
additional examination unless the witness is:
1. dead,
2. outside of the Philippines or
3. otherwise unable to testify
Rule 114, Section 6. Capital offense defined. A capital offense is an
offense which, under the law existing at the time of its commission and
of the application for admission to bail, may be punished with death.
Bail, when not a matter of right. Accused-respondent was being
charged with rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. As such, bail is discretionary and not a
matter of right. The grant or denial of an application for bail is, therefore,
dependent on whether the evidence of guilt is strong which the lower
court should determine in a hearing called for the purpose. The
determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong, in this regard,
is a matter of judicial discretion. People v Cabral
79
BAIL
Rule 114, Section 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. In the
application for bail under section 8 of this Rule, the court must give
reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to
submit his recommendation.
Duties of Judge in applications for bail where bail is not a matter
of right.
1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or
require him to submit his recommendation.
2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether
or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the
guilt of the accused strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its sound discretion.
3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt is strong based on the
summary of evidence of the prosecution.
If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the
approval of the bail bond. Otherwise, petition should be denied. Cortes v
Catral
Role of the judge upon filing of information. The rule is that the
RTC judge shall personally evaluate, within ten (10) days from the filing
of the complaint or Information, the resolution of the prosecutor and
its supporting evidence. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue,
without need of any hearing, a warrant of arrest unless the accused is
already under detention, in which case, the judge shall issue a
commitment order. People v Hu Ruey Chun
Role of the judge as to bail. If the accused is charged with an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the judge
should not grant bail for his provisional release, regardless of whether
or not the prosecutor recommends bail for the provisional release of the
accused under DOJ Department Circular No. 74 because it is not
conclusive upon the court, but merely a guide. However, if the accused
has been brought under custody of the court, he may file a petition for
bail for his provisional liberty. If, after the requisite hearing, the court
finds that the evidence of the accused is strong, the petition shall be
denied. But if the evidence of guilt of the accused is not strong, the
petition shall be granted and the accused discharged upon approval of
the bail bond, taking into consideration the recommendation of the
public prosecutor. People v Hu Ruey Chun
Hearing required when bail is discretionary. However, such
discretion may be exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the
degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of determining whether
or not he should be granted provisional liberty. Both the prosecution
and the defense must be given reasonable opportunity to prove, in the
case of the prosecution, that evidence of guilt of the applicant is strong;
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
and, in the case of the defense, that such evidence of guilt is not strong.
The accused has the right to cross-examine the witnesses presented by
the prosecution and to introduce his evidence in rebuttal to establish his
right to bail. Santos v How
Hearing required when bail is discretionary. The SC said that in all
cases where the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, whether the bail
is a matter of right or is discretionary, the prosecutor must be notified
of the hearing of the application for bail or must be required to submit
his recommendation. Where bail is a matter of discretion, the conduct
of a hearing of the application for bail is necessary regardless of whether
or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt
of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise
its sound discretion. In such hearing, the judge is to decide whether the
guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
accused upon the approval of the bail bond. Otherwise, the petition
should be denied. In this case, there was no hearing. The bail was
granted on the day Manalo applied for bail. Without any factual basis
therefor stated in the order. People v Manalo
Hearing required if bail is discretionary. By reason of the penalty
prescribed by law [life imprisonment in qualified trafficking], the grant
of bail is a matter of discretion which can be exercised only by Judge
Bitas after the evidence is submitted in a hearing. The hearing of the
application for bail in capital offenses is absolutely indispensable before
a judge can properly determine whether the prosecution’s evidence is
weak or strong. Jorda v. Judge Bitas
Hearing necessary if bail is discretionary. A criminal complaint was
filed against Miralles for Qualified Trafficking [non-bailable; punishable
by life imprisonment]. Miralles, through counsel, filed a Motion for
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Hold in
Abeyance the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest. Judge Bitas ordered
Miralles to put up a bail bond of ₱40,000.00 for each of the three (3)
cases. Respondent judge granted a reduced bail of ₱40,000.00 for
Miralles even without any petition for the fixing of bail. In fact, even
after Judge Bitas found probable cause to hold Miralles for trial, he did
not order the arrest of the accused. Instead, he summarily granted a
reduced bail in the absence of a motion to fix bail and the prosecution
was not given the opportunity to interpose its objections. Proper? NO.
Hearing is necessary when bail is discretionary. See prior discussions.
Jorda v. Judge Bitas
Nature of hearing for bail. A hearing for bail is summary in nature or
otherwise in the discretion of the court. The course of the inquiry may
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
be left to the discretion of the court which may confine itself to receiving
such evidence as has reference to substantial matters. It is true that the
weight of the evidence adduced is addressed to the sound discretion of
the court. Santos v How
Nature; bail hearing only a preliminary determination. RTC
convicted respondent Tuppal of robbery with homicide and sentenced
him to reclusion perpetua. During the bail hearing, the trial court held
that the prosecution evidence was weak. After trial, is the court estopped
from rendering a contrary ruling? NO. It is settled that the assessment
of the prosecution evidence presented during bail hearings in capital
offenses is preliminary and intended only for the purpose of granting or
denying applications for the provisional release of the accused.
People v Tuppal
Purpose of hearing. The hearing is for the purpose of enabling the
court to exercise sound discretion as to whether or not under the
Constitution and laws in force the accused is entitled to provisional
release on bail. Santos v How
Why hearing necessary; balancing of interests. A bail application
does not only involve the right of the accused to temporary liberty, but
likewise the right of the State to protect the people and the peace of the
community from dangerous elements. These two rights must be
balanced by a magistrate in the scale of justice, hence, the necessity for
hearing to guide his exercise of jurisdiction. People v Manal
Hearing for determination of probable cause is different. What the
records show is a hearing to determine the existence of probable cause,
not a hearing for a petition for bail. The hearing for bail is different from
the determination of the existence of probable cause. The latter takes
place prior to all proceedings, so that if the court is not satisfied with the
existence of a probable cause, it may either dismiss the case or deny the
issuance of the warrant of arrest or conduct a hearing to satisfy itself of
the existence of probable cause. If the court finds the existence of
probable cause, the court is mandated to issue a warrant of arrest or
commitment order if the accused is already under custody, as when he
was validly arrested without a warrant. It is only after this proceeding
that the court can entertain a petition for bail where a subsequent
hearing is conducted to determine if the evidence of guilt is weak or not.
Hence, in granting bail and fixing it at ₱20,000.00 motu proprio, without
allowing the prosecution to present its evidence, Judge Bitas denied the
prosecution of due process. Jorda v. Judge Bitas
Denial of bail requires only strong evidence of guilt and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The judge refused to release Pareja on bail
since he was charged with a capital offense [murder], and the evidence
80
BAIL
against him is strong. Evidence against him included 3 bullets from the
revolver he used as well as the revolver itself was found in his safe.
However, Pareja objected, contending that evidence against him is
purely circumstantial and fails to satisfy Sec. 98, Rule 123, ROC [re:
conviction based on circumstantial evidence]. The Court held that the
rule invoked by Pareja is inapplicable since it relates to the quantum of
evidence essential for conviction, for which guilt must be established
beyond reasonable doubt. But in the extant case, what is involved is the
forfeiture of the right to bail, which only requires that the evidence of
guilt is strong. Pareja v Gomez
Prosecution must be given opportunity to present evidence.
Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a
capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of
a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present,
within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce
before the court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal
case involved in the instant special civil action, the prosecution should
be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural
due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be
considered void on that ground. People v San Diego
People v Cabral
Judicial discretion; test when bail is discretionary. By judicial
discretion, the law mandates the determination of whether proof is
evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. The test is not whether the
evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether
it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. As such, the court
is ministerially bound to decide which circumstances and factors are
present which would show evident guilt or presumption of guilt.
• Proof evident or evident proof. This connection has been
held to mean clear, strong evidence which leads a well-guarded
dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has
been committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent,
and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is
administered.
• Presumption great. This exists when the circumstances
testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be
drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an
unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of
any other conclusion. Even though there is a reasonable doubt
as to the guilt of accused, if on an examination of the entire
record the presumption is great that accused is guilty of a
capital offense, bail should be refused.
Independence of lower court vis-à-vis judicial review. While the
lower court would never be deprived of its mandated prerogative to
exercise judicial discretion, this Court would unhesitatingly reverse the
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
trial court's findings if found to be laced with grave abuse of discretion.
In this case, the lower court did not give credence to the medical
certificate presented by prosecution, but rather showed great bias in
favor of the accused.
Summary. After the hearing, the court's order granting or refusing bail
must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. A
summary is defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or
digest of a text or statement. It must be complete, and the judge cannot
exercise discretion as to what to include in the summary. An incomplete
summary is no summary at all. Reasons for the summary:
1. Part of procedural due process. The summary of the
evidence in the order is an extension of the hearing proper,
thus, a part of procedural due process wherein the evidence
presented during the prior hearing is formally recognized as
having been presented and most importantly, considered.
2. Enables exercise of sound discretion. The summary of the
evidence in the order is the basis for the judge's exercising his
judicial discretion. Only after weighing the pieces of evidence
as contained in the summary will the judge formulate his own
conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt against the
accused is strong based on his discretion.
#2 & #3: Finality of conviction + commencement of service
Rule 114, Section 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. No
bail shall be allowed after a judgment of conviction has become final. If
before such finality, the accused applies for probation, he may be
allowed temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or the
accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on
recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the
community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has
commenced to serve sentence.
No more presumption of innocence. After one is convicted by the
trial court, the presumption of innocence, and with it, the constitutional
right to bail, ends. Qui v People
#4: Military
No bail in the military. This does not violate the EPC because military
men are not allowed the same rights as civilians. The right to speedy trial
is given more emphasis in the military. Comendador v Villa
Bail; when a matter of right
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
Rule 114, Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. All persons in
custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient
sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule:
(a) BEFORE or AFTER conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, and
(b) BEFORE conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
When bail exists as a matter of right, accused cannot be denied of
the same. The accused in this case were charged with rebellion,
punishable with prision mayor. The judge granted their application for
bail but prosecution wants to present evidence to prove that evidence
of guilt against them was strong and therefore they should not be
allowed to bail. Proper? No. because the penalty is only prision mayor
and the accused has not yet been convicted, then bail exists as a matter
of right. Accordingly, the prosecution does not have the right to present
evidence for the denial of bail. People v Donato
When bail is a matter of right, accused may not be deprived
thereof. The accused in this case jumped bail, and so the judge cancelled
his bail bond on the ground of being a flight risk. Proper? No. The
existence of a high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond
confers upon the court no greater discretion than to increase the bond
to such an amount as would reasonably tend to assure the presence of
the defendant when it is wanted, subject to the rule that it must not be
excessive. San Miguel v Judge Maceda
Remedy when bail is denied. The remedy of the petitioner from the
order of the trial court denying a petition for bail is to file a:
1. petition for certiorari if the trial court committed a grave abuse
of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in
issuing the said order
2. petition for mandamus when bail is a matter of right.
Bail; when a matter of discretion
Rule 114, Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. UPON
CONVICTION by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed
and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal,
provided it has not transmitted the original record to the appellate court.
However, if the decision of the trial court conviction the accused
changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the
application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate
court.
81
BAIL
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to
continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under
the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding
six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be
cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused,
of the following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight
if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during
the pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party,
review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the
adverse party in either case.
When discretionary, grant of bail not automatic. Duh. RTC
convicted Leviste of homicide and imposed an indeterminate penalty of
6 years and one day of prision mayor as minimum and 12 years and on
day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Pending appeal to the CA he
applied for bail and the same was denied. He contends that he had a
right to bail because none of the circumstances enumerated in Section
5, Rule 114 were present. Contention proper? No. A finding that none
of the said circumstances is present will not automatically result in the
grant of bail, but will simply authorize the court to use a less stringent
sound discretion approach. This is because upon conviction by the RTC
of an offense not punishable by death, RP, or LI, admission to bail is
discretionary. Leviste v CA
Bail was discretionary in this case. Pursuant to the Rules, the grant
of bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, RP or life imprisonment as in this case.
The CA denied the petition for bail pending appeal on the ground that
she is a flight risk, a bail-negating factor under Rule 114, Sec. 5(d). The
CA based its denial on several circumstances, pointed out by the OSG,
which showed Qui’s propensity to evade the law as stated in the facts.
The accused did not attend RTC hearings, lied about hospitalization of
her father to excuse her absence, and transferred residences without
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
informing her bondsman and the RTC. The CA properly exercised its
discretion. Qui v People
Main doctrine. Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless
of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of
the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be
injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail
despite imperiling his health and life would not. [Sobrang wtf ng case na to.
See strong dissent from Justice Leonen. He said that the Court carved
out an exception for Enrile.] Enrile v Sandiganbayan
Defensor-Santiago v Vasquez
An information dated May 9, 1991 was filed against petitioner with the
Sandiganbayan for alleged violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No.
3019 against MDS. The Sandiganbayan issued an order of arrest against
petitioner with bail for the release of the accused fixed at P15,000.00.
Petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond
for and in Behalf of Dr. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. In said petition, MDS
asked that she be considered as having placed herself under the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, for purposes of the required trial
and other proceedings and prayed that her bail bond that she is posting
in cash be accepted despite of her inability to personally appear due to
physical injuries. This was granted by SB. Because of her intention to
accept a fellowship supposedly offered by the JFK School of
Government at Harvard, SB issued an HDO against her. MDS now says
respondent court never acquired jurisdiction over her person
considering that she has neither been arrested nor has she voluntarily
surrendered and that that she has not validly posted bail since she never
personally appeared before said court. Valid? No.
Voluntary appearance. The voluntary appearance of the accused,
whereby the court acquired jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished
either by his pleading to the merits or by filing bail. On the matter of
bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the
accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of the
accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his arrest
or voluntary surrender.
• Court acquired jurisdiction. This happened when petitioner
filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond for
and in Behalf of Dr. Miriam Defensor-Santiago and where MDS
asked that she be considered as having placed herself under the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. She is now estopped
from
• Bail bond valid. It cannot be denied that petitioner has posted
a cash bail bond of P15,000.00 for her provisional release. She
also filed a motion for the cancellation of said cash bond and
for the court to allow her provisional liberty upon the security
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
of a recognizance. With the filing of the foregoing motions,
petitioner should accordingly and necessarily admit her
acquiescence to and acknowledgment of the propriety of the
cash bond she posted
Right to travel not violated. A court has the power to prohibit a person
admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary
consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.
Doctrines
Can an accused charged with a non-bailable offense not be
detained in jail? Yes, but per class discussion, this is more of an
exception rather than a general rule.
People v. Judge Maceda
Avelino Javeliana, along with 2 others, were implicated in the killing of
Javier ex-governor Javier. Javellana was arrested by the Constabulary
Security Group. IBP President entered its appearance as counsel for
private respondent with a motion that the IBP, Iloilo Chapter be allowed
to assume custody of the private respondent as his jailer and/or, in the
alternative, to confine him at the Military Stockade at Camp Delgado
and/or at the Iloilo Provincial uJail. Javeliana reasoned that there exists
a real and grave danger to his life if he were to be confined in the Antique
Provincial Jail. He was refused the right to visit and confer with his
clients by a drunk jail guard at the Antique Provincial Jail and the guard
aimed and pointed his armalite rifle twice at him. Court granted this. He
was confined at first in the PC stockade, transferred to the custody of a
probation officer, and then to the custody of his lawyers then to the
Antique RTC clerk of Court.. Proper? Yes.
Justified. The respondent Judge has to our mind sufficiently explained
the reasons behind the issuance of the aforesaid orders. There are
movements going ground, by whom is unknown yet to the court, to
compel the incarceration of accused Javellana in the Provincial Jail. The
court, however, allowed, on motion of the Provincial Commander, that
Javellana be transferred to the Binirayan Rehabilitation Center. But, on
motion of Javellana for reasons of health, as the same center is too far
away and no adequate (sic) transport facilities at certain time of the day
and night are available to convey accused should an emergency occur.
The court, however, had to be assured on the physical condition of
accused Javellana that he will be able to face trial against him.
Accordingly, the court ordered the Provincial Probation Officer, to
whom the custody of accused Javellana was entrusted, to escort the latter
to Iloilo City for the medical check-up. The Probation Officer earlier
this morning manifested that there was opportunity for accused
Javellana to escape but despite such opportunity he came back to court
82
BAIL
today to face the trial against him. This, to the mind of the court is to be
considered in his favor. The aforesaid movements directed to compel
the court to place Javellana in the Provincial Jail, is to the mind of the
court, as indication that should be place there, something may happen
to him and this court will not allow that thing to happen. And as it is the
considered view of the court that justice may be better served to
deputize, as the lawyers of accused Javellana have been deputized, as
deputies of the court.
An accused charged with a non-bailable offense can be released
without the requisite bail hearing. The OSG has given its conformity
to the provisional liberty of petitioners Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad,
who were charged with rebellion, in view of the ongoing peace
negotiations. Their provisional release from detention under the cash
bond of ₱100,000 each shall continue under the condition that their
temporary release shall be limited to the period of their actual
participation as CPP-NDF consultants in the peace negotiations with
the government or until the termination of the proceedings before the
RTC Manila, whichever is sooner. It shall be the duty of the government
to inform this Court the moment that peace negotiations are concluded.
Ocampo v. Abando
Can an accused post bond even if the court has not issued a
warrant of arrest? NO.
Must be placed under custody of law to apply for bail. Juan Ponce
Enrile was charged with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of
his purported involvement in PDAF Scam. Enrile filed an Omnibus
Motion and Supplemental Opposition, praying, among others, that he
be allowed to post bail should probable cause be found against him.
Proper? NO. The SB correctly denied Enrile’s motion on the ground of
its prematurity considering that Enrile had not yet then voluntarily
surrendered or been placed under the custody of the law. Enrile v.
Sandiganbayan
Preliminary examination required before allowing accused to post
bail. The preliminary examination is needed to determine whether or
not a warrant of arrest should be issued. Before a municipal judge issues
a warrant of arrest, he should first satisfy himself that there is probable
cause by personally examining under oath the witnesses, and by
searching questions and answers which are to be reduced to writing. This
is required in order to avoid malicious or unfounded criminal
prosecutions of persons. In this case, Judge required Redando to post
bail, which led her to be hassled with the charge as well as waste time
and expenses because the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor found no
probable cause for the case. This was also later confirmed by the CFI
when it dismissed the case. Redondo v. Judge Dimaano
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Justice Barredo’s concurring opinion. Even if a person charged
before a judge with the commission of an offense should offer to put
up a bail bond in order that a warrant may no longer be issued for his
arrest, the judge is not supposed to assume that there is probable cause
against such person just because of his offer of bail and thereby dispense
with the duty of conducting the proper preliminary examination in the
manner prescribed by the Constitution and the rules.
• The offer of a bail bond should not be deemed as an admission
of probable cause, for in many instances, it is done only to
avoid the inconvenience and embarrassment of being picked
up by the police.
• In other words, a judge should not accept any offer of a bail
bond as a matter of course, as if the person charged were
waiving the preliminary examination. No person should be
made to go thru any trouble or expense in a criminal
proceeding, such as hiring a lawyer, putting up bail, etc. as long
as the existence of probable cause against him has not been
determined in accordance with law.
Can an accused post bail even if he has not been charged in
court? YES, if the offense is bailable
May apply for bail even if not yet charged in court if offense is
bailable. A person lawfully arrested and detained, who is not formally
charged in court could apply for bail if the offense is bailable.
Nevertheless Judge Beldia still needed to grant bail according to the
established rules of procedure. In this case, the grant was irregular
because he was merely an assisting judge and there were other regular
judges available. Also, accused was detained in QC but the application
was filed in Marikina. Lastly, there was no hearing for the application
nor was the prosecutor informed.
Types of bail securities
1. Corporate surety
2. Property
3. Cash deposit
4. Recognizance
1. Corporate surety
Rule 114, Section 10. Corporate surety. Any domestic or foreign
corporation
- licensed as a surety in accordance with law and
- currently authorized to act as such,
may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by:
- the accused and
- an officer of the corporation duly authorized by its board of directors.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
2. Property
Rule 114, Section 11. Property bond, how posted. A property bond
is an undertaking constituted as lien on the REAL PROPERTY given
as security for the amount of the bail.
Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bond, the accused shall
cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title on file with the
Register of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the
Registration Book on the space provided therefor, in the Registry of
Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on the
corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and
municipal assessor concerned.
Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the court his
compliance and his failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for the
cancellation of the property bond and his re-arrest and detention.
Rule 114, Section 12. Qualifications of sureties in property bond.
The qualification of sureties in a property bond shall be as follows:
1. Each must be a resident owner of real estate within the Philippines;
2. Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least
the amount of the undertaking;
3. If there are two or more sureties, each may justify in an amount less
than that expressed in the undertaking but the aggregate of the justified
sums must be equivalent to the whole amount of bail demanded.
4. In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his
own undertaking over and above all just debts, obligations and
properties exempt from execution.
Rule 114, Section 13. Justification of sureties. Every surety shall
justify by affidavit taken before the judge that he possesses the
qualifications prescribed in the preceding section.
He shall describe the property given as security, stating the nature of his
title, its encumbrances, the number and amount of other bails entered
into by him and still undischarged, and his other liabilities.
The court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning their
sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper. No bail shall be
approved unless the surety is qualified.
3. Cash deposit
Rule 114, Section 14. Deposit of cash as bail. The accused or any
person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest:
1. collector or internal revenue or
2. provincial, city, or municipal treasurer
the amount of bail fixed by the court or recommended by the prosecutor
who investigated or filed the case.
83
BAIL
- Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written
undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of section 2 of
this Rule, the accused shall be discharged from custody.
- The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the
payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to
the accused or to whoever made the deposit.
4. Recognizance
Rule 114, Section 15. Recognizance. Whenever allowed by law or
these Rules, the court may release a person in custody to his own
recognizance or that of a responsible person.
Recognizance defined. This is an obligation of record entered into
before some court or magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the
condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal
cases being the appearance of the accused for trial.
RJCL, Section 15. Recognizance. Before final conviction, all juveniles
charged with offenses falling under the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure shall be released on recognizance to the custody of their
parents or other suitable person who shall be responsible for the
juveniles’ appearance in court whenever required.
RJCL, Section 6. Procedure in Taking a Juvenile into Custody.
Any person taking into custody a juvenile in conflict with the law shall:
xxx
(i) Hold the juvenile in secure quarters separate from that of the opposite
sex and adult offenders.
Amount of bail
Guidelines
Rule 114, Section 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. The judge who
issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable
amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following
factors:
a. Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
b. Nature and circumstances of the offense;
c. Penalty for the offense charged;
d. Character and reputation of the accused;
e. Age and health of the accused;
f. Weight of the evidence against the accused;
g. Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
h. Forfeiture of other bail;
i. The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
j. Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Amount of bail. As long as in fixing the amount of bail, the court is
guided by the purpose for which bail is required, that is, to secure the
appearance of the accused to answer charges brought against him, the
decision of the court to grant bail in the sum it deems appropriate will
not be interfered with. Cortes v Catral
Guideline. The amount should be high enough to assure the presence
of the accused when such presence is required but no higher than is
reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
Amount of bail must not be excessive. The accused was charged with
multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. He was not yet
convicted. The judge granted the bail at Php 1,195,200. Proper? No.
Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by
requiring an excessive sum so as to render the Constitutional right
meaningless. Such order reflects grim irony in an accused being told that
he has a right to bail but at the same time being required to post an
exorbitant sum. Dela Camara v Engage
Sole inability does not make bail excessive. The inability of the
accused to secure bail in a certain amount is not solely to be considered
and this fact does not by itself make bail excessive.
• But when the accused has no means to bail himself out, any
amount fixed, no matter how small would fall into the category
of excessive bail.
Condition must not deprive accused of his right to bail. Discretion
is with the court called upon to rule on the question of bail. We must
stress, however, that where conditions imposed upon a defendant
seeking bail would amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory the
constitutional right to bail, we will not hesitate to exercise our
supervisory powers to provide the required remedy. Villasenor v Abano
Increase or reduction of bail
Rule 114, Section 20. Increase or reduction of bail. After the accused
is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good cause, either increase or
reduce its amount.
- When increased, the accused may be committed to custody if he does
not give bail in the increased amount within a reasonable period.
- An accused held to answer a criminal charge, who is released without
bail upon filing of the complaint or information, may, at any subsequent
stage of the proceedings and whenever a strong showing of guilt appears
to the court, be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu
thereof, committed to custody.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
Accused may move for reduction. If the accused does not have the
financial ability to post the amount of bail that the court initially fixed,
he may move for its reduction, submitting for that purpose such
documents or affidavits as may warrant the reduction he seeks. This
hearing shall enjoy priority in the hearing of cases.
• The order fixing the amount of bail is not appealable.
When bail not required
Rule 114, Section 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or
recognizance. No bail shall be required when the law or these Rules so
provide.
- Custody, maximum prescribed penalty. When a person has been
in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment prescribe for the offense charged, he shall be released
immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the
proceedings on appeal.
- Maximum is destierro, 30 days. If the maximum penalty to which
the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty
(30) days of preventive imprisonment.
- Custody, minimum prescribed penalty. 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.
RA 6036, Section 1. Any provision of existing law to the contrary
notwithstanding, bail shall not be required of a person charged with:
1. violation of a municipal or city ordinance,
2. a light felony and/or
3. a criminal offense the prescribed penalty for which is not
higher than six months imprisonment and/or a fine of two
thousand pesos, or both,
where said person has established to the satisfaction of the court or any
other appropriate authority hearing his case that he is unable to post
the required cash or bail bond, except in the following cases:
a. When he is caught committing the offense in flagranti;
b. When he confesses to the commission of the offense unless
the confession is later repudiated by him in a sworn statement
or in open court as having been extracted through force or
intimidation;
c. When he is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or jumped bail;
d. When he is found to have previously violated the provisions of
Section 2 hereof;
84
BAIL ad majorem dei gloriam CRIM PRO
e. When he is found to be a recidivist or a habitual delinquent or Where held. Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may
has been previously convicted for an offense to which the law apply for bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality where
or ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or he is held.
more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty;
f. When he commits the offense while on parole or under Rule 114, Section 19. Release on bail. The accused must be discharged
conditional pardon; and upon approval of the bail by the judge with whom it was filed in
g. When the accused has previously been pardoned by the accordance with section 17 of this Rule.
municipal or city mayor for violation of municipal or city Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending,
ordinance for at least two times. the judge who accepted the bail shall forward it, together with the order
of release and other supporting papers, to the court where the case is
RA 6036, Section 2. Instead of bail, the person charged with any pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed.
offense contemplated by Section 1 hereof shall be required to sign in the
presence of two witnesses of good standing in the community a sworn
statement binding himself, pending final decision of his case, to report
Rule 114, Section 25. Court supervision of detainees. The court shall
exercise supervision over all persons in custody for the purpose of
to the Clerk of the Court hearing his case periodically every two weeks.
eliminating unnecessary detention.
• The Court may, in its discretion and with the consent of the
person charged, require further that he be placed under the
RTC. The executive judges of the Regional Trial Courts shall conduct
custody and subject to the authority of a responsible citizen in
monthly personal inspections of provincial, city, and municipal jails
the community who may be willing to accept the responsibility.
and their prisoners within their respective jurisdictions.
• In such a case the affidavit herein mentioned shall include a
• They shall ascertain the number of detainees, inquire on their
statement of the person charged that he binds himself to
proper accommodation and health and examine the condition
accept the authority of the citizen so appointed by the Court.
of the jail facilities.
• The Clerk of Court shall immediately report the presence of
• They shall order the segregation of sexes and of minors from
the accused person to the Court.
adults, ensure the observance of the right of detainees to
• Immediate arrest. Except when his failure to report is for confer privately with counsel, and strive to eliminate
justifiable reasons including circumstances beyond his control conditions inimical to the detainees.
to be determined by the Court, any violation of this sworn
statement shall justify the Court to order his immediate arrest First level courts. In cities and municipalities to be specified by the
unless he files bail in the amount forthwith fixed by the Court. Supreme Court, the municipal trial judges or municipal circuit trial
judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of the municipal
Bail filed with other courts jails in their respective municipalities and submit a report to the
Rule 114, Section 17. Bail, where filed. executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction therein.
Where case is pending. Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the
court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of Monthly report. A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted
the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, by the executive judges to the Court Administrator which shall state the
municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, total number of detainees, the names of those held for more than thirty
or municipality. (30) days, the duration of detention, the crime charged, the status of the
Where arrested. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or case, the cause for detention, and other pertinent information.
municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed
with any regional trial court of said place, or if no judge thereof is
available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or
municipal circuit trial judge therein.
Where case is pending. Where the grant of bail is a matter of
discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on recognizance, the
application may ONLY be filed in the court where the case is pending,
whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal.

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 85

MOTION TO QUASH
MOTION TO QUASH
GENERAL
Rule 117, Section 1. Time to move to quash. At any time before
entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or
information.
Motion to quash purpose. This is a mode by which an accused assails
the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him for
insufficiency of evidence on its face in point of law, or for defects which
are apparent in the face of the information.
Fundamental test in determining sufficiency of info. The test is
whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically
admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by
law.
• Facial test only. Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the
evidence are not to be considered, but only those which are
alleged on the face of an information.
• Exception to the facial test. A motion to quash based on
double jeopardy or extinction of criminal action or liability,
may, by their nature, be based on matters outside of the
allegations of the information or criminal complaint.
• Another exception. The court shall consider no ground other
than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over
the offense charged. Rule 117, Section 2.
Complaints only need to aver the ultimate facts constituting the
offense. Accused were charged with frustrated homicide with less
serious physical injuries and with serious physical injuries. Accused
moved to quash the complaints for the facts charged did not constitute
offense for failure to provide evidence that would ten to establish and
show that the medical attendance rendered on private complainants
actually and in fact lasted for a period exceeding 10 days. Correct? No.
The presentation of medical certificates to prove duration of the need
for medical attendance should take place only at trial and not before or
during the preliminary investigation. The issues raised in the MTQ are
matters of defense that can be threshed out in a full-blown trial. Enrile v
Judge Manalastas
Rule 117, Section 9. Failure to Move to Quash or to Allege Any
Ground Therefor. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in
said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of
section 3 of this Rule
General rule: MTQ is an omnibus motion. All the objections
available at the time the motion is filed should be invoked. The failure
of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he
pleads to the complaint or information, either because:
1. he did not file a motion to quash or
2. failed to allege the same in said motion,
shall be deemed a waiver of any objection. See Rule 117, Section 9.
Exception: grounds not waived. The exceptions to the rule above are
the following:
1. (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
2. (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged;
3. (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
4. (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted
of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed
or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Rule 117, Section 2. Form and contents. The motion to quash shall
be:
1. in writing,
2. signed by the accused or his counsel and
3. shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds.
The court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the
motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
GROUNDS
Rule 117, Section 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the
complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
a. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense
b. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged
c. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of
the accused
d. That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so
e. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
f. That more than one offense is charged except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law
g. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished
h. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or justification; and
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
i. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent. (double jeopardy)
The following are not grounds for a motion to quash:
1. Execution of affidavit of desistance
2. Absence of probable cause
3. Matters of defense
4. Absence of preliminary investigation
The following are not grounds for a motion to quash:
1. Execution of affidavit of desistance
2. Absence of probable cause
3. Matters of defense
4. Absence of preliminary investigation
1. No offense charged
Example; lack of allegation of elements that will constitute the
offense. Accused was charged with a violation of PD 1866 or Illegal
Possession of Firearms and Ammunition without license. SC said that
the information was properly dismissed as it did not constitute an
offense. At the time material to this case, EO 107 and EO 222 were in
effect. They temporarily lifted criminal liability for mere possession of
unlicensed firearms and ammunition except if they are carried outside
of one’s residence not for the purpose of surrendering the same, or used
in the commission of any other offense. In this case, there was no
allegation that the items were carried outside the residence of the
accused or used for the commission of an offense. People v Asuncion
2. No jurisdiction over the offense or person
Issue on jurisdiction over the offense may be raised at any time.
The RTC-Manila convicted accused of the BP 22 charge but acquitted
her of the estafa charge. In her petition for review, she questioned the
jurisdiction of RTC Manila because the elements of estafa took place in
Makati and Malabon. Proper? Yes. The rules provide that failure of the
accused to assert any ground of a MTQ before plea shall be a waiver
thereof, except the ground of jurisdiction over the offense, among
others. Such objection may be raised or considered motu proprio by the
court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. Uy v CA
3. No authority to file information
Court does not acquire jurisdiction if info was not filed by one who
had no authority. Sanchez, a PH Constabulary Investigator filed before
the RTC a complaint for qualified theft against Barbosa. PAO filed a
86
MOTION TO QUASH
MTQ on the ground that Sanchez had no authority to file the
information. Sanchez filed a motion to withdraw the information, which
was granted by the prosecutor. Judge Navarro issued an order setting
aside the resolution of the prosecutor and directing an assistant
prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. Order of the judge
proper? No. GADALEJ. Because Sanchez had no authority to file the
information, the court never acquired jurisdiction over the case. Hence,
in setting aside the order of the prosecutor and appointing another to
conduct a PI, the judge encroached on an executive function. the RTC
judge has no authority to conduct a PI, much less order another
prosecutor to conduct the same over the objection of his superior.
Preliminary investigation is an executive function. People v Navarro
4. Does not conform to prescribed form
Rule 110, Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. A
complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the
accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts
or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the
offense; and the place where the offense was committed. When an
offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be
included in the complaint or information.
5. More than one offense charged
Rule 110, Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. A complaint or
information must charge but one offense, except when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
6. Extinction of criminal
RPC, Article 89. Total extinguishment of criminal liability
D.A.S.A.P- P.M
1. By the DEATH of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death
of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its
effects
4. By absolute pardon
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of
this Code.
But note that the extinction of criminal liability does not automatically extinguish
civil liability.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
7. Double jeopardy
Also called res judicata in prison grey. BAR 2010
1987 Philippine Constitution, Article 3, Section 21. No person shall
be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act
is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Rule 117, Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.
- When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against
him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
- by a court of competent jurisdiction,
- upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient
in form and substance to sustain a conviction and
- after the accused had pleaded to the charge,
the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case
shall be a bar to another prosecution:
- for the offense charged, or
- for any attempt to commit the same or
- frustration thereof, or
- for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense
charged in the former complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
- the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the
same act or omission constituting the former charge;
- the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were
discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or
information; or
- the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent
of the prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in
section 1 (f) of Rule 116.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in
whole or in part the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the
event of conviction for the graver offense
Rule 117, Section 5. When an offense includes or is included in
another. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved
when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as
alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an
offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those
constituting the latter.
State guarantee. The constitutional provision against double jeopardy
guarantees that the state shall not be permitted to make repeated
attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby
subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling
him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as
enhancing that possibility that even though innocent he may be found
guilty. Co v Lim
Requisites for double jeopardy
1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
A jeopardy attaches when the accused is placed on trial with the
following conditions:
a. upon a valid complaint or information;
b. before a court of competent jurisdiction;
c. after he has been arraigned; and
d. after he has pleaded to the complaint or information. People v
Ylagan
2. The first jeopardy must have terminated;
a. By acquittal;
b. By final conviction;
c. By dismissal without express consent of the accused; and
d. By ‘dismissal’ on the merits.’
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in
the first.
Appeals; judgment of acquittal immediately final. A judgment of
acquittal is unappealable. A judgment of acquittal is immediately final
and a reexamination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate
courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense. A judgment
of conviction is final when the period for appeal has lapsed or when the
sentence has been totally or partially served or when the defendant has
expressly waived his right to appeal. Bustamante v Maceren
Verdict of acquittal immediately final. Spouses Hilario and Socorro
were charged with falsification of public documents. MCTC convicted
them both, and this was affirmed by RTC. Meanwhile, Hilario died.
Upon appeal to the CA, Socorro was acquitted. This led petitioner to
file a 65 before the SC on the ground of extrinsic fraud. Will the 65 place
Socorro on double jeopardy? Yes. No extrinsic fraud. The fact that
petitioners (private complainant) were unable to participate in the
proceedings before the CA is immaterial because they are not the real
parties in interest. Rather it is the people. It was shown that the OS had
in fact participated in the proceedings before the CA. A review of the
findings of the CA acquitting Socorro of the charge against her is not
87
MOTION TO QUASH
warranted under the circumstances as it runs afoul of the avowed
constitutional right of an accused against double jeopardy. A verdict of
acquittal is immediately final, and a re-examination of the merits will put
the accused in jeopardy of the same offense. People v CA
But a void decision cannot be a source of acquittal; no double
jeopardy. 4 accused were charged with murder and were out on bail.
They were convicted and their re-arrest was subsequently ordered but
only one of them was re-arrested. The 4 accused then filed a joint MR.
Acting on it, the RTC modified its earlier decision by acquitting 2 of the
accused and downgrading the conviction of the other to from murder
to homicide. Petitioner filed a 65 to the CA, which the CA dismissed on
the ground of double jeopardy. Can double jeopardy be invoked in this
case? No.
Under the Rules, the accused who fails to appear without justifiable
cause shall lose remedies available in the Rules against the judgement.
Hence, RTC clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the
joint MR with respect to the respondents who were at large. This is an
exception to the general rule that a judgment of acquittal can no longer
be appealed. People v de Grano
When acquittal may be reviewed. The acquittal may be reviewed
where:
1. where there has been a deprivation of due process and where
there is a finding of mistrial, or
2. where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under
exceptional circumstances
The proscription against double jeopardy only envisages appeals based
on errors of judgment, but not errors of jurisdiction. People v
Sandiganbayan
Certiorari is the proper remedy to question an acquittal. A petition
for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a
verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. In
our jurisdiction, we adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a
judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.
• Judicial review in certiorari proceedings. The evidence is
not examined or assessed. The focus of the review is to
determine whether the judgment per se is void on jurisdictional
grounds. Ysidoro v Leonardo-deCastro
• Rationale for the exception. A judgment rendered with grave
abuse of discretion or without due process of law is void, does
not exist in legal contemplation, and thus, cannot be the source
of acquittal. People v Sandiganbayan
Evidentiary considerations for acquittal cannot be appealed. The
trial court acquitted the accused for the murder and frustrated murder
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
charges filed against him. The government challenged the acquittal via
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, saying that the double jeopardy
clause permits a review of acquittals when no retrial is required, but only
examination of evidence adduced to determine culpability of accused.
Proper? NO. The petition goes into the trial court’s appreciation and
evaluation of evidence. Error of judgment is not to be confused with
error of jurisdiction. People v Velasco
Petition for certiorari does not relate to factual errors of judgment;
there must be GADALEJ. Petitioner is a municipal mayor in Leyte and
was charged for violating RA 3019 for failure to give the RATA and
productivity pay of a municipal social welfare development officer
without legal basis. SB acquitted the accused. People filed a petition for
certiorari before the SC, alleging that SB committed GADALEJ because
all elements of the offense has been established. Proper? No. While the
People was correct in filing a 65, the petition did not raise any
jurisdictional error committed by SB. On the contrary, People attempted
to have the evidence in case reviewed by the Court under the guise of a
Rule 65 petition. This much can be adduced by examining the petition
itself which does not allege any bias, partiality, or bad faith committed
in the SB proceedings. Misapplications of facts and evidence do not, by the mere
fact of error, rise to the level of GADALEJ. The abuse must in itself be grave.
There must be a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The
abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by law. Ysidro v Leonardo-de Castro
GADALEJ was proven in this case. 3 accused were charged with the
rape of a 16-year old girl. RTC convicted them. CA acquitted them,
saying that the victim was wide awake when the incident happened and
that she consented thereto. The victim, through private counsel, filed a
65 with the SC, assailing CA’s decision as having been made in
GADALEJ. Does the challenge of acquittal via 65 violate the right of
the accused against double jeopardy? No. CA merely relied on the
evidence presented by the defense and utterly disregarded that of the
prosecution. CA merely echoed the respondents’ testimonies as though
they were established facts of the case. CA never provided any reason
why the victim’s testimony deserved scant or no weight at all. People and
AAA v CA
Termination with consent; where jeopardy still attaches. The
general rule is that the dismissal must be without the express consent of
the accused, but there are two instances where termination with the
consent of the accused allows for the defense of double jeopardy:
a. dismissal with respect to the right to a speedy trial and/or
speedy disposition of cases; and
b. insufficiency of evidence
In both cases, the dismissal will have the effect of acquittal.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
Granting of demurrer is equal to acquittal. When a demurrer to
evidence in criminal cases is granted, it amounts to acquittal of the
accused. As such, the grant cannot be appealed because it would place
the accused in double jeopardy. People v Tan
Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. The discharge of an
accused as state witness] shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged
accused and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense,
unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in
accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for the
discharge. Rule 119, Section 18.
Consent must be unequivocal. The consent that would preclude
another prosecution in order to be deemed an express one should be
positive, direct, unequivocal and requiring no inference or implication
to supply its meaning. People v Vergara
Dismissal of the case with consent of the accused is waiver of
double jeopardy. Salico was charged with homicide before the CFI of
Negros Occidental. Upon petitioner of Salico, CFI dismissed the case
for lack of jurisdiction. The provincial fiscal appealed the order of the
CFI dismissing the case. Will the appeal place the accused in double
jeopardy? No. When the case is dismissed with the express consent of
the accused, the dismissal will not be a bar to another prosecution for
the same offense because his action in having the case dismissed
constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right or privilege, for the reason
that he thereby prevents the court from proceeding to the trial on the
merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against him. People v Salico
No double jeopardy in conditional arraignment; with consent. The
arraignment of Braza under the first information was conditional in
nature as it was a mere accommodation in his favor to enable him to
travel abroad without the Sandiganbayan losing its ability to conduct trial
in absentia in case he would abscond. The Sandiganbayan’s Order clearly
and unequivocally states that the conditions for Braza’s arraignment as
well as his travel abroad, that is, that if the Information would be
amended, he shall waive his constitutional right to be protected against
double jeopardy and shall allow himself to be arraigned on the amended
information without losing his right to question the same. Braza v
Sandiganbayan
Identity of offenses test. The test is whether one offense is identical
with the other or whether it is an attempt or frustration of the other or
whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
other. What this test shows is that identity of offenses does not require
one-to-one correspondence between the facts and law involved in the
two charges. Buscayno v Military Commission
88
MOTION TO QUASH
Two different statutes or two different provisions of a statute; no
double jeopardy. The rule in such cases is that if the one act results in
two different offenses, prosecution under one is not a bar to prosecution
to another.
Different elements, no double jeopardy. The same criminal act may
give rise to two or more separate and distinct offenses. No double
jeopardy attaches as long as there is a variance between the elements of
the offenses charged. There is no double jeopardy when the subsequent
information charges another and different offense, although arising
from the same act or set of acts. Prosecution for the same act is not
prohibited. What is forbidden is the prosecution for the same offense.
Braza v Sandiganbayan
Exception to same offense rule; second type of double jeopardy.
The second sentence of the provision is an exemption from the general
rule. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
the same act.
Right against double jeopardy not violated when only civil aspect
is appealed. Manantan was acquitted for the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide, but the RTC did not rule on the civil
liability. The case was appealed to the CA for the civil aspect, which later
on awarded damages to the parents of the victim. The accused says that
his right against double jeopardy has been violated. Proper? No. Only
the civil aspect of the case was elevated to the CA and the accused was
not charged anew with a second criminal offense identical to the first
one. Hence, the right was not violated. Manantan v CA
Amendment of info to charge more serious offense is not DJ if the
basis is a subsequent event. Accused was charged with rape and he
pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. The information was
subsequently amended to include the allegation that by reason of rape,
the victim has become insane. Upon re-arraignment, accused pleaded
not guilty. He was convicted and death penalty was imposed. Did the
amendment put him in double jeopardy? No. Amendment of an
information to charge a more serious offense is permissible and does
not constitute double jeopardy even where the accused has already been
arraigned, where the basis of a more serious charge did not exist, but
comes as a subsequent event. Insanity of the victim cannot be readily
discerned right after the commission of the crime. Moreover, the
accused waived the right. Trial only started after re-arraignment without
accused objecting to the amendment at any stage of the proceedings.
Hence, he is deemed to have consented thereto. People v Degamo
Samson v CA
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Petitioners were charged in 2 separate informations with complex crime
of estafa through falsification of 2 checks. They pleaded not guilty and
were convicted by CFI Manila. Upon appeal to the CA, the penalty of
the 2 accused was reduced, and petitioner Samson was only found guilty
of committing the crime through gross imprudence. Samson filed a 45
before the SC contending that the cannot be convicted of falsification
by imprudence because the information filed against him charges a
willful act of falsification, and it cannot be said that the imprudent act
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged because
deliberate intent is inconsistent with negligence. Correct? No.
Conviction in a quasi-offense may be had under an information
exclusively charging the commission of a willful offense upon the
theory that the greater includes the lesser offense. The rule is that
when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint
or information, and that proved or established by evidence, and the
offense as charged is included or necessarily includes the offense proved,
the defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved.
Necessarily included. An offense charged is necessarily included in
the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.
Necessarily includes. An offense charged necessarily includes that
which is proved when some of the essential ingredients of the former
constitute the latter. The Rules do not require that all essential elements
of the offense charged in the information be proved, it being sufficient
that some of those be established to constitute the crime proved. This
is present in this case.
Ivler v Judge San Pedro
As a result of a vehicular mishap, Ivler, the petitioner was charged before
the Metropolitan Trial Court with 2 separate informations for (a)
reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries
sustained by the respondent and (b) reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property for the death of the husband of the
respondent and damage to the vehicle. The petitioner pleaded guilty to
the charge of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries and
was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking said conviction,
the petitioner moved to quash the other information for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for placing
him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence. Proper? Yes. Petitioner was placed in double jeopardy after
having been previously been convicted of the same offense of reckless
imprudence.
Reckless imprudence under Art 365 is a single quasi-offense by
itself. The two charges against petitioner, arose from the same facts and
were prosecuted under the same provision of the RPC defining and
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
penalizing quasi-offenses. The doctrine is that reckless imprudence
under Art. 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means
to commit other crimes. Hence, conviction or acquittal of such quasi-
offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense,
regardless of its various resulting acts.
Law penalizes negligent act; do not split into different crimes. The
law penalizes the negligent or careless act and not the result thereof. The
gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the
penalty and it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the
careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one
person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one
and the same and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
When double jeopardy is not applicable
1. Double jeopardy finds no application in administrative cases
2. No double jeopardy attaches as long as there is variance
between elements of the 2 offenses charged
3. Double jeopardy is not applicable in preliminary investigations
EFFECT WHEN GRANTED
Rule 117, Section 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. If the
motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another
complaint or information be filed except as provided in section 6 of this
rule.
If the order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged
unless admitted to bail.
If no order is made or if having been made, no new information is filed
within the time specified in the order or within such further time as the
court may allow for good cause, the accused, if in custody, shall be
discharged unless he is also in custody for another charge.
Rule 117, Section 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a
bar to another prosecution; exception. An order sustaining the
motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense
unless the motion was based on the grounds specified in section 3 (g)
and (i) of this Rule.
When and order sustaining the MTQ is bar to another
prosecution:
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
MTQ distinguished from demurrer to evidence
89
MOTION TO QUASH ad majorem dei gloriam CRIM PRO

REMEDY WHEN DENIED - with notice to the offended party.

MTQ Demurrer to evidence
Filed before the accused enters a Filed after the prosecution rests The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not
Rule 117, Section 4. Amendment of Complaint or Information. —
plea. its case. exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become
If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or
Does not require a prior leave of May be filed by the accused permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case
information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order
court for the filing. either with leave or without leave having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by
that an amendment be made.
of court. imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall
If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
Grounds exclusively enumerated Ground is insufficiency of become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the
offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to
in Section 3. evidence, which is not a ground case having been revived.
correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the
for MTQ. prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or
Based on the matters found on Necessarily predicated upon information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment. Time-bar rule. Within the periods stated below, the prosecution has to
the face of the complaint or matters outside of the complaint revive the case if it desires to prevent the provisional dismissal from
information. or information such as the becoming permanent:
MTQ not the first remedy when there is a defect in the complaint
evidence or lack of it. 1. Within 1 year from issuance of order. For offenses
or information. If the defect in the information is curable by
When a motion to quash is The grant of a demurrer to punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a
amendment, the MTQ shall be denied and the prosecution shall be
granted, a dismissal of the case evidence on the ground of fine of any amount, or both.
ordered to file an amended information. Generally, the fact that the
will not necessarily follow. The insufficiency of evidence is, by 2. Within 2 years from issuance of order. For offenses
allegations in the information do not constitute an offense, or that the
court may even order the filing of jurisprudence, deemed an punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years.
information does not conform substantially to the required form, are
a new complaint or information acquittal and would preclude the defects durable by amendment. The MTQ should be granted if the
because an order sustaining the filing of another information or Reckoning point. The period begins from the issuance of the order of
prosecution fails to make the amendment or the complaint or
motion is generally not a bar to an appeal by the prosecution. dismissal.
information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment.
another prosecution. People v Andrade
Concept of provisional dismissal. Provisional dismissal contemplates
The grant of demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is a dismissal of a criminal action that is not permanent and can be revived
Remedy from denial of MTQ. When a motion to quash in a criminal
final and unappealable. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases is within the period set by the Rules of Court.
case is denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for
filed after the prosecution rests its case. When the same is granted, it petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special
calls for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and Purpose. It is aimed to enhance the administration of the criminal
defenses invoked in their motion to quash. Serana v Sandiganbayan
its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting justice system and the rights to due process of the State and the accused
in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to acquittal. Such by eliminating the deleterious practice of trial courts of provisionally
Exception. If the court, in denying the motion to quash acts without or
dismissal cannot be appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused dismissing criminal cases on motion of either the prosecution or the
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari
in double jeopardy. Exception. The only instance when double accused or jointly, either with no time-bar for the revival thereof or with
or prohibition lies. Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan
jeopardy will not attach is when RTC acted with GADALEJ. Arroyo v a specific or definite period for such revival by the public prosecutor.
People Denial of MTQ is interlocutory; not appealable. Accused were • There were times when such criminal cases were no longer
charged before the MeTC for falsification of public documents. MeTC revived or refiled due to causes beyond the control of the
Accused has right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect if granted the motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, but RTC public prosecutor or because of the indolence, apathy or the
demurrer is granted. Salazar was charged with estafa. After the reversed the order. Accused then filed a petition for review before the lackadaisical attitude of public prosecutors to the prejudice of
prosecution rested its case, petitioner filed a demurrer, which was CA. Proper? No. The decision of the RTC denying the MTQ was the State and the accused despite the mandate to public
granted. The trial court ordered petitioner to remit to the complainant interlocutory because it leaves something more to be done- the prosecutors and trial judges to expedite criminal proceedings.
the amount of the check as payment for her purchase. Petitioner filed continuation of the criminal proceedings until the guilt or innocence of • Part of the State. The inordinate delay in the revival or refiling
an MR on the civil aspect of the decision with a plea that she be allowed the accused is determined. The decision did not dispose of the case of criminal cases may impair or reduce the capacity of the State
to present evidence. This was denied. Was she denied of her right to due completely. Fenequito v Vergara to prove its case with the disappearance or non-availability of
process? Yes. Considering the dual nature of a criminal action, when its witnesses. Physical evidence may have been lost. Memories
the demurrer to evidence was granted and the accused was acquitted, he of witnesses may have grown dim or have faded.
has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case unless
PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL
• Part of the accused. On the other side of the fulcrum, a mere
the trial court also declared that the act or omission from which the civil provisional dismissal of a criminal case does not terminate a
liability may arise did not exist. Salazar v People Rule 117, Section 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be
criminal case. The possibility that the case may be revived at
provisionally dismissed except:
any time may disrupt or reduce, if not derail, the chances of the
- with the express consent of the accused and

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 90

MOTION TO QUASH
accused for employment, curtail his association, subject him to
public obloquy and create anxiety in him and his family. He is
unable to lead a normal life because of community suspicion
and his own anxiety.
Provisional dismissal is not acquittal. The provisional dismissal of
the case does not operate as an acquittal since its dismissal was made
with the express consent of the accused, thus there is no double
jeopardy. Saldariega v Panganiban. Precisely, the requirement of express
consent is intended to prevent any objection based on the rule on double
jeopardy when the provisionally dismissed case is revived.
New Rules on provisional dismissal
Section 10 of AM 12-11-2 SC
(1) Absence of essential witness; whereabouts unknown. When
delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts
are unknown or cannot be determined and therefore, are subject to
exclusion in determining compliance with the prescribed time limits
which caused the trial to exceed 180 days, the court shall provisionally
dismiss the action with the express consent of the detained accused.
(2) Absence of essential witness; whereabouts known. When the
delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose presence
cannot be obtained by due diligence though his whereabouts are known,
the court shall provisionally dismiss the action with the express consent
of the detained accused provided:
a. The hearing has been previously twice postposed
b. There is proof of service of the pertinent notices of hearings
or subpoenas at their las known postal or e-mail addresses or
mobile phone numbers
c. For above purpose, the public or private prosecutor shall first
present during trial the essential witness or witnesses to the
case before anyone else.
People v Lacson
Lacson and his other co-accused were charged as principals in murder
for the shooting and killing of members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang.
An amended information was filed wherein the participation of Lacson
was downgraded to accessory.
• The cases were transferred from SB to RTC since none of the
principals was a government official who is SG 27 or higher.
OSP filed an MR.
• Pending resolution, RA 8249 took effect, expanding SB’s
jurisdiction to include all cases where at least one of the
accused, regardless of participation, is a government official
who is SG 27 or higher.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
• Nonetheless, the cases were transferred to the RTC as the
amended informations did not allege that the offenses were
committed in relation to, or in the discharge of the official
functions of the respondent.
• Before Lacson could be arraigned, prosecution witnesses
recanted their affidavits implicating Lacson and other private
complainants executed their respective affidavits of desistance.
• Accordingly, the informations were dismissed. [March 1999]
On June 2001, 11 informations for murder were filed against Lacson
and his co-accused plus more.
• CA characterized the prior dismissal as a provisional dismissal
and the present cases as mere revival or re-opening of the
dismissed cases. More than 2 years having passed, the action
to revive the cases is not barred.
Was there provisional dismissal? NO.
See requisites below
The dismissal of the cases bears the express consent of Lacson as it was
he himself who moved for their dismissal when he filed his motion for
determination of probable cause and for examination of witnesses.
However, records do not show that the offended parties were notified
of the hearing or had knowledge thereof; that the relatives of the victims
who desisted did not appear during the hearing to affirm their affidavits;
and also, not all complainants submitted their affidavits of desistance.
Expanded requisites for the application of the time-bar rule:
1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or
the accused moves for a provisional dismissal of the case; or
both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional
dismissal of the case;
2. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional
dismissal of the case;
3. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing
the case provisionally;
4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of
provisional dismissal of the case.
Rationale behind last requirement. Although the second paragraph
of the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall become permanent
one year after the issuance thereof without the case having been revived,
the provision should be construed to mean that the order of dismissal
shall become permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal
on the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without
the criminal case having been revived.
• The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the
timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of
dismissal.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
Express consent of the accused. Express consent to a provisional
dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct,
unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its
meaning. The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a motion for a
provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to object to a provisional
dismissal does not amount to express consent.
Revival of the case. The case may be revived by the State within the
time-bar either by the refiling of the Information or by the filing of a
new Information for the same offense or an offense necessarily included
therein. There would be no need of a new preliminary investigation. But
a new PI is required when:
• the original witnesses of the prosecution or some of them may
have recanted their testimonies or may have died or may no
longer be available and new witnesses for the State have
emerged;
• if aside from the original accused, other persons are charged
under a new criminal complaint for the same offense or
necessarily included therein;
• original charge has been upgraded; or
• the criminal liability of the accused is upgraded from that as an
accessory to that as a principal
Condrada v People
Petitioner was charged with rape. Prosecution had already moved for
postponement of hearing thrice, to which the accused objected,
contending that his right to speedy trial was being violated. Later,
accused moved for a temporary dismissal of the case, which was granted
by the trial court. Within 22 days after provisional dismissal, prosecution
moved for its revival. This was granted by the trial court. Has the right
of the accused against double jeopardy been violated? No.
No double jeopardy because dismissal was consented by the
accused. The proscription against double jeopardy presupposes that
the accused has been previously charged with an offense and that the
case against him was terminated either by his acquittal or conviction, or
that the case was dismissed without his consent. This is incompatible
with a provisional dismissal, which requires consent of the accused.
Nature of provisional dismissal. A provisional dismissal of a criminal
case is a dismissal without prejudice to the reinstatement of the case
before the order of dismissal becomes final or within the period allowed
by the Rules. In this case, the RTC only ordered a temporary dismissal,
and expressly stated that the case was subject to reinstatement within 30
days from the date of temporary dismissal.
91
MOTION TO QUASH ad majorem dei gloriam CRIM PRO
Torres v Aguinaldo innocence of the accused, or . lack of due process when the
Respondent spouses Aguinaldo filed a complaint for falsification of accused was actually notified, among others.
public documents before the OCP against Torres. OCP recommended d. Motion to quash information when the ground is not one of
the filing of information before the MTC, but the SoJ reversed this and those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.
ordered the withdrawal of the information. Meanwhile, respondents e. Motion to quash information when the ground is not one of
filed a 65 before the CA, which reinstated the resolution of the OCP those stated in Sec. 3, Rule 117.
finding probable cause. Petitioner-accused now contends that an order f. Motion for bill of particulars that does not conform to Sec. 9,
dismissing a case without prejudice is final if no MR or appeal is timely Rule 116.
found. He contends that the rule on provisional dismissal applies. g. Motion to suspend the arraignment based on grounds not
Correct? No. stated under Sec. 11, Rule 116.
h. Petition to suspend the criminal action on the ground of
Motion to dismiss is not same as motion to withdraw information. prejudicial question, when no civil case has been filed, pursuant
While both put an end to an action filed in court, their legal effect varies. to Sec. 7, Rule 111.
• Withdraw. An order granting the withdrawal of information
attains finality after 15 days from receipt thereof, without
prejudice to the re-filing of the information upon
reinvestigation.
• Dismiss. An order granting motion to dismiss becomes final
15 days after the receipt thereof, with prejudice to the re-filing
of the same case once such order achieves finality.
In this case, a motion to withdraw was filed. Hence, the rule on
provisional dismissal cannot apply. Even assuming that the 2 motions
are the same, the same result will obtain because provisional dismissal
requires the consent of the accused, which consent was not given in this
case. Kaya nga siya nag-65 diba.

AM NO 15-06-10-SC, Part III(2)(b)(iv)

Prohibited Motions. Prohibited motions shall be denied outright

before the scheduled arraignment without need of comment and/ or
opposition. The following motions are prohibited:
a. Motion for judicial determination of probable cause.
b. Motion for preliminary investigation filed beyond the five (5)-
day reglementary period in inquest proceedings under Sec. 6,
Rule 112, or when preliminary investigation is required under
Sec. 8, Rule 112, or allowed in inquest proceedings and the
accused failed to participate in the preliminary investigation
despite due notice.
c. Motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor recommending
the filing of information once the information has been filed
before the court (1) if the motion is filed without prior leave of
court; (2) when preliminary investigation is not required under
Sec. 8, Rule 112; and (3) when the regular preliminary
investigation is required and has been actually conducted, and
the grounds relied upon in the motion are not meritorious,
such as issues of credibility, admissibility of evidence,

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 92

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
ARRAIGNMENT, PLEA, AND PRE-
TRIAL
ARRAIGNMENT & PLEA
Arraignment. This is formal mode and manner of implementing the
constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.
Rule 116, Section 1(a). Arraignment and plea; how made.
Where made. The accused must be arraigned before the court where
the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial.
How made. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge
or clerk by:
(1) furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information,
(2) reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and
(3) asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.
The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named
in the complaint or information.
Arraignement in Hiligaynon but accused spoke Kinaray-a; void.
Melchor Estomaca was accused of 5 counts of rape against his daughter.
Upon arraignment, the information was read to him in Hiligaynon. The
SC said that the arraignment was null and void because it was not made
in a language or dialect known to the accused. Accused was an illiterate
laborer of San Juan, Antique, where the prevalent dialect is Kinaray-a.
People v Estomaca
The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those
named in the complaint or information. Accused were charged with
murder. During trial defense counsel asked the Court to order
prosecution to furnish defendants with a list of all witnesses to be
presented against them. This was granted. Prosecution called witnesses
other than those named in the list and so the defendant objected to their
taking the stand. The court disallowed them from testifying. Proper?
No. While the defendant is entitled as matter of right to be furnished
by the prosecution with a list of witnesses, the prosecution may call at
the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or
information. Otherwise, the success of the prosecution might be
endangered because the known witnesses may be subjected to pressure
or coercion. The time for the accused to know all the witnesses against
him is when they take the stand. People v Palacio
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Rule 116, Section 1(b). Presence of accused. The accused must be
present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea. Both
arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall
not affect the validity of the proceedings.
Rule 116, Section 1(c). When the accused refuses to plead or makes a
conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (1a)
Rule 116, Section 1(d). When the accused pleads guilty but presents
exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of
not guilty shall be entered for him. (n)
Rule 116, Section 1(e). When made; accused is under preventive
detention. When the accused is under preventive detention, his case
shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the
case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information
or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from
the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held
within ten (10) days after arraignment.
Rule 116, Section 1(f). Appearance of offended party. The private
offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for
purposes of:
- plea bargaining,
- determination of civil liability, and
- other matters requiring his presence.
In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the
court may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense
which is necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity
of the trial prosecutor alone. (cir. 1-89)
Rule 116, Section 1(g). When made. Unless a shorter period is
provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall
be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The following shall be
excluded in computing the period:
1. time of the pendency of a motion to quash or
2. time of pendency for a bill of particulars or
3. other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment (sec. 2, cir. 38-
98)
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Speedy Trial Act, Section 7. Time Limit Between Filing of
Information and Arraignment and Between Arraignment and
Trial. The arraignment of an accused shall be held within thirty (30)
days from the filing of the information, or from the date the accused
has appeared before the justice, judge or court in which the charge is
pending, whichever date last occurs. Thereafter, where a plea of not
guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to
prepare for trial. Trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from
arraignment as fixed by the court.
If the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, he/she shall state
whether he/she interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative
defense shall require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense may modify the
order of trial and require the accused to prove such defense by clear and
convincing evidence.
Arraignment indispensable. It is an indispensable requirement of due
process. It consists of the judge's or the clerk of court's reading of the
criminal complaint or information to the defendant. At this stage, the
accused is granted, for the first time, the opportunity to be officially
informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation. Thus,
arraignment cannot be regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily.
People v Espinosa
Effect of absence of arraignment. If the accused is not arraigned:
1. It results in the nullity of the proceedings before the trial court
2. Accused cannot be tried in absentia
3. He cannot invoke double jeopardy
Arraignment under an amended information; substituted
information; substantial amendment. Where the accused has been
already arraigned and subsequently, the information was substantially
amended, an arraignment on the amended information is mandatory
because the accused has the constitutional right to be informed of the
accusation against him. If he is not arraigned and is convicted under the
second information, the conviction constitutes reversible error.
Cabangangan v. Concepcion
Arraignment under an amended information; formal amendment.
Where the amendment is only as to form, there is no need for another
preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea of the accused.
Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag
93
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Arraignment after submission of the case for decision. This
procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the trial
without raising any objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. In
fact, his counsel even cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. His
counsel's active participation in the hearings is a clear indication that he
was fully aware of the charges against him. The parties did not question
the procedure undertaken by the trial court. It is only now, after being
convicted and sentenced to two death sentences, that appellant cries
that his constitutional right has been violated. People v Pangilinan.
Duty of the court before arraignment
Rule 116, Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to
counsel. Before arraignment, the court shall:
(a) inform the accused of his right to counsel and
(b) ask him if he desires to have one.
The court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him unless:
(a) the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or
(b) has employed a counsel of his choice
Rule 116, Section 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio. The court,
considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions
that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de oficio:
(1) only such members of the bar in good standing who, by reason of
their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused.
(2) But in localities where such members of the bar are not available,
the court may appoint any person, resident of the province and of good
repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused.
Rule 116, Section 8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for
arraignment. Whenever a counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to
defend the accused at the arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable
time to consult with the accused as to his plea before proceeding with
the arraignment.
Mandatory duties. This duty is mandatory and the only instance when
the court can arraign without the benefit of counsel is if the accused
waives such right and the court, finding the accused capable, allows him
to represent himself in person.
Accused cannot afford lawyer and incapable to represent himself.
If the accused informs the court that he cannot afford a lawyer, and the
court has not allowed the accused to represent himself or the accused
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
is incapable of representing himself, the judge has the duty to appoint a
counsel de oficio to give meaning and substance to the constitutional right
of the accused to counsel. Gamas v Oco
Insistence of the accused not an excuse. The insistence of the
accused to be arraigned without representation is no reason for the
judge to accede readily to his wishes. Gamas v Oco
Plea
Summary of when plea of not guilty may be entered:
a. When the accused pleads not guilty
b. When the accused refuses to plead or
c. makes a conditional plea Rule 116, Section 1(d)
d. when the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory
evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of
not guilty shall be entered Rule 116, Section 1(e)
e. when a plea of guilty is not definite or is ambiguous, or not
absolute, the same amounts to a plea of not guilty. People v
Strong
f. A formal plea of not guilty should be entered if an accused
admits to the truth of some or all allegations but interposes
excuses or additional facts which, if duly established, would
exempt or relieve him in whole or in part of criminal
responsibility. People v Albert
Plea of guilty. As a rule, a plea of guilty is a judicial confession of guilt
— an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information,
including the aggravating circumstances alleged.
But aggravating circumstances may be disproved. The evidence
may disprove the existence of aggravating circumstances despite the
plea of guilty because a plea of guilty does not dispense with the
presentation of evidence.
Rule 116, Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. At
arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and
the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a
lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After
arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead
guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No
amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, circ.
38-98)
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Plea bargaining. Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby
the accused and the prosecution work a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case subject to court approval.
• It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser
offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count
indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the
graver charge.
• The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense
is not demandable by the accused as matter of right but is a
matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial
court. Daan v. Sandiganbayan
Requisites for a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. At the arraignment,
the accused may plead guilty to a lesser offense. The court shall allow
the plea provided the following requisites concur:
a. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense
charged; and
b. The plea must be with the consent of both the offended party
and the prosecutor
o The consent of the offended party will not be
required if said party, despite due notice, fails to
appear during the arraignment
Rules of plea-bargaining is within sole prerogative of the SC.
Section 23 of RA 9165, which prohibits plea bargaining, is
unconstitutional for it violates the doctrine of separation of powers by
encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under
the constitution. Plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and it is within
the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court. The power to promulgate
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts belongs exclusively
to the Supreme Court. Rules on plea bargaining neither create a right
nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to
implement an existing right by regulating the judicial process for
enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly
administering remedy and redress for disregard or infraction of them.
Estipona v Lobrigo
Plea bargaining allowed only when prosecution does not have
sufficient evidence. Carlos Garcia and his family are facing plunder
charges and violations of the AMLA. SB denied their bail because the
prosecution’s evidence of their guilt was strong, but nevertheless
entered into a plea-bargaining agreement with them. Proper? No. Plea
bargaining allowed only when prosecution does not have sufficient
94
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
evidence to establish the guilt of the accused of the crime charged.
Gonzales III v OP
Rule 116, Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of
evidence. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court
shall:
1. conduct a searching inquiry into the:
- voluntariness and
- full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and
2. require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of
culpability.
3. The accused may present evidence in his behalf.
Rule precludes court from determining guilt based on plea alone.
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, it is not proper for
the court to immediately render judgment on the basis of the guilty plea.
Rationale. The courts must proceed with more care where the possible
penalty is in its severest form, namely death, for the reason that the
execution of such sentence is irreversible.
Searching inquiry. There is no definite and concrete rule, but People v
Pastor came up with the following guidelines:
a. Ascertain from the accused himself (1) how he was brought
into the custody of the law; (2) whether he had the assistance
of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary
investigations; and (3) under what conditions he was detained
and interrogated during the investigations
b. 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.
c. 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
d. 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
e. 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
f. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language
known and understood by the latter.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
g. 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.
Example of void plea. Accused was charged with the crime of rape
with homicide. He pleaded guilty and the court ordered the prosecution
to present evidence. SC said that the plea was null and void because the
judge accepted the plea of guilt without conducting a searching inquiry
in accordance with the Rules. A cursory examination of the questions
of the TC to establish voluntariness of the plea will show their utter
insufficiency. The judge did not ask when he was arrested, where and
how he was interrogated, etc. Also, the appellant was merely informed
that he would get the mandatory death penalty and there will be some
effects on his civil rights, without informing him what mandatory means
or what the effects are or what civil rights are involved. People v Alicando
Presumption of regularity; absence of transcript of plea does not
mean no searching inquiry was made. Francisco was charged with
murder. He pleaded not guilty, withdrew it, and then pleaded guilty
again upon re-arraignment. He was convicted upon finding that
prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt BRD. He
questions the conviction on the ground that there were no records of
transcript of his plea. Correct? No. The mere absence of stenographic
notes does not necessarily connote that no searching inquiry has been
made. The courts are entitled to the presumption of regularity. Besides,
conviction will stand even if no searching inquiry was made because it
was not based solely on the guilty plea, but on evidence of the
prosecution. People v Francisco
Rule 116, Section 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception
of evidence, discretionary. When the accused pleads guilty to a non-
capital offense, the court may receive evidence from the parties to
determine the penalty to be imposed.
Less stringent duty of the judge. There is no rule which provides that
simply because the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his
conviction automatically follows. Additional evidence independent of
the plea may be considered to convince the judge that it was intelligently
made.
Rule is at most directory. 3 accused were charged with robbery with
force upon things, which is a non-capital offense. 1 pleaded guilty, but
Judge Mendoza acquitted him. Prosecution contended that the trial
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
court had no alternative but to pronounce judgment of conviction.
Proper? No. When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense,
the court may receive evidence to determine the penalty to be imposed.
But this rule is at most directory. It will be GADALEJ for the judge to
persist in holding the accused bound to his admission of guilt when
evidence points to acquittal. People v Mendoza
Rule 116, Section 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. At
any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the
court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be
substituted by a plea of not guilty.
When plea is set aside. Convictions based on an improvident plea of
guilty are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment.
When the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict
the accused, the same must be sustained because the conviction was not
based on the guilty plea of the accused. People v Ceredon
People v Oden
Accused was charged with 12 counts of rape of his 15-year old daughter,
which is a capital offense. He pleaded guilty, but upon review of his
conviction, he said that he pled guilty only because he thought that he
would be given a lighter penalty. Was the procedure on guilty plea made
properly? No. Conviction proper? Yes.
Procedure below is mandated but was not observed. The TC must:
1. Conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea
2. Require prosecution to still prove the guilt of the accused and the
precise degree of his culpability, and
3. Inquire WON the accused wished to present evidence in his
behalf and allow him to do so if he so desires.
Conviction proper when not based solely on improvident plea.
While the records are bereft of indication that the rule has been
sufficiently complied with, evidence for prosecution outside of the plea
was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, conviction is proper.
People v Magat
Accused was charged with 2 informations of rape. He pleaded guilty
but he bargained for a lesser penalty for each case. The mother of the
victim and the public prosecutor agreed, and he was sentenced to 10
years jail term 3 months later, the complainant revived the cases because
95
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
the penalty was too light. Accused now invokes his right against double
jeopardy.
First conviction void; first jeopardy did not attach. The first
conviction was void because his plea was not the plea bargaining
contemplated and allowed by law. The plea bargain must be for a lesser
offense and not a lesser penalty. Reduction penalty must only be a
consequence of plea to a lesser offense.
Accused made a conditional plea. He did not plea bargain but made
conditions on the penalty to be imposed on him. He cannot foist a
conditional plea on the court by admitting guilt provided that a certain
penalty will be meted. The TC should have vacated the conditional plea
and entered a pela of not guilty.
Options of the accused before arraignment and
plea
Before arraignment and plea, the accused may avail of any of:
a. bill of particulars
b. suspension of arraignment
c. motion to quash
d. Challenge the validity of arrest or legality of the warrant issued
or assail the regularity or question the absence of a preliminary
investigation of the charge
(1) Bill of particulars
Rule 116, Section 9. Bill of particulars. The accused may, before
arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to
plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall:
1. specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and
2. the details desired.
Note: This must be done before entering plea. Failure amounts to
waiver of the defect or detail desired in the information. People v Jalbuena
People v Arlegui
Española was charged with a violation of PD 381, in relation to Section
4(B) of PD 189, as amended, for constructing his resort on a land under
the supervision and authority of the PH Tourism Authority without the
authority of the latter. Accused moved to quash the information on the
ground that the accusation against him is not penal in nature but merely
administrative, because Section 4b did not provide for penalties but
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
merely provided for functions of Department of Trade. This was
granted. The confusion arises in this case because the Statute has Section 4B and
4b, the former providing the penalties.
No ambiguity. The accused was clearly charged with 4B as amended.
The information is sufficiently explicit. Accused created ambiguities
when there were none.
Bill of particulars proper remedy. Assuming that there was an
ambiguity, the proper remedy is a bill of particulars. The proper order
instead of granting the motion to quash was to direct the Fiscal to
amend the information because the defect, if any, was curable by
simplest of amendments or clarifications.
Why bill of particulars is unpopular. It may invite an amended
information which is not only clearer but also stronger and more
incriminating.
Rocaberte v People
Petitioner was charged with theft. The date of the information was from
1977-1983…a period of 7 years or about 2551 days. He moved to quash,
saying that the information violated his right to be informed of the
charges against him. Is this the proper remedy? No.
Bill of particulars is the remedy if indictment fails to allege the
time of commission. The Rules do not require the precise date of the
commission of the offense except when it is a material ingredient
thereof. Hence, a variance of a few months between the time in the
information and the proof of its actual commission does not constitute
a serious error so as to warrant an acquittal or dismissal. However, a
variance of several years necessitates either an amendment or dismissal
of the case. Therefore, the defect is not a ground for MTQ, as it may
still be cured by amendment. Specifically, the proper remedy against an
indictment that fails to allege the definite time of the commission of the
offense is a motion for a bill of particulars.
(2) Suspension of arraignment
Rule 116, Section 11. Suspension of arraignment. Upon motion by
the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following
cases:
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental
condition which effective renders him unable to fully understand the
charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if
necessary, his confinement for such purpose;
(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is
pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the
President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty
(60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing
office.
Example; prejudicial question. SMPI filed a complaint before the
OCP against BF Homes for violation if PD 957 for failure to deliver
the TCTs of the 20 lots that it purchased from the latter. SMPI also
sued BF Homes for specific performance before the HLURB to compel
the latter to release the 20 TCTs. Is the case before the HLURB a
prejudicial question? Yes. The resolution of the action for specific
performance would be determinative of the guilt of the accused in the
criminal case. The HLURB case resolves the issue on WON SMPI is
entitled to delivery, while the PD 957 case resolves the issue on WON
the directors of BF Homes are criminally liable for withholding the
TCTs in question. If HLURB holds SMPI not entitled to the delivery,
then the basis for the criminal liability for violating the PD would
disappear, thereby negating the need to proceed with the criminal case.
San Miguel Properties, Inc v Perez
Example; prejudicial question. Omictin (Operations Manager Ad
Interim of Saag) filed a complaint for 3 counts of estafa against Lagos
for failure to return the two company vehicles entrusted to him when
he was still the president of Saag. Lagos filed a motion to suspend
proceedings on the basis of a prejudicial question because of a pending
petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the
declaration of nullity of appointments of Tan as President and Omictin
as OM. Is there a prejudicial question? YES. Ultimately, the resolution
of the issues raised in the intra-corporate dispute will determine the guilt
or innocence of private respondent in the crime of estafa filed against
him by petitioner before the RTC of Makati. One of the elements of
the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence under Article 315, par. 1(b)
of the Revised Penal Code is a demand made by the offended party to
the offender. Since the alleged offended party is Saag Phils., Inc., the
validity of the demand for the delivery of the subject vehicles rests upon
the authority of the person making such a demand on the company’s
behalf. If the supposed authority of petitioner is found to be defective,
it is as if no demand was ever made, hence, the prosecution for estafa
cannot prosper. Omictin v CA
96
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
(3) MTQ
Motion to quash. At any time before entering his plea, the accused
may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the grounds
provided for under Section 3 of Rule 117, in relation to Section 1 of
Rule 117.
(4) Challenge validity of arrest
Challenge the validity of arrest or legality of the warrant issued or
assail the regularity or question the absence of a preliminary
investigation of the charge.
• Arrest or jurisdiction over the person. An objection against
an arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of
jurisdiction over the person of an accused should be made at
or before the arraignment, otherwise the objection is deemed
waived. People v Lozada. The accused, by entering a plea of not
guilty, submits himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court,
thereby curing any defect in his arrest.
• The arraignment of the accused constitutes a waiver of the
right to PI or reinvestigation. Such waiver is tantamount to a
finding of probable cause. Adasa v Abalos
‘ admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be:
Rule 116, Section 10. Production or inspection of material
evidence in possession of prosecution. Upon motion of the accused
showing good cause and with notice to the parties, the court, in order
to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order the
prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing of:
- any written statement given by the complainant and other witnesses
in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or
other investigating officers,
- as well as any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged,
which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in
the case and which are in the possession or under the control of the
prosecution, police, or other law investigating agencies.
People v Realon
Realon and Soliven were convicted of Murder and were sentenced to
death. They argue that there was suppression of evidence when
prosecution did not present the NBI Officers who finger-printed and
paraffin-tested them. Contention correct? NO.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Rule of suppression of evidence not applicable if such evidence is
merely corroborative. No such inference arises against a party failing
to call a witness where the only object of calling such witness is to
produce corroborative or cumulative evidence. In the instant case, the
testimony of the NBI officers would indeed be merely corroborative in
view of the overwhelming evidence on the positive identification of the
accused.
Rule of suppression of evidence not applicable where evidence is
at the disposal of both defense and prosecution. Both prosecution
and defense may avail of the services of said NBI officials.
PRE-TRIAL
Continuous Trial Guidelines
Arraignment and pre-trial must be held on the same day
Schedule based on the rules:
Once the court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
the arraignment shall be set within:
• 10 calendar days from date of the court’s receipt of the case
for a detained accused, and
• 30 calendar days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction
(either by arrest or voluntary surrender) over a non-detained
accused,
unless a shorter period is provided by law or Supreme Court Circular.
The court must set the arraignment of the accused in the commitment
order, in the case of detained accused, or in the order of approval of
bail, in any other case.
Rule 118, Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. In all
criminal cases cognizable by the:
1. Sandiganbayan,
2. Regional Trial Court,
3. Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal
Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
the court shall after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from
the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or
circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider
the following:
a. plea bargaining
b. stipulation of facts;
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
c. marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
d. waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
e. modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but
interposes a lawful defense; and
f. such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the
criminal and civil aspects of the case. (secs. 2 and 3, cir. 38-98)
AM No. 03-1-09-SC. No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and
offered during the trial other than those identified and marked during
the pre-trial except when allowed by the court for good cause shown.
AM No. 12-11-2 SC. When pre-trial shall be held. The court shall
hold the pre-trial conference within 30 days after arraignment or within
10 days if the accused is under detention.
• Provided, however, that where the direct testimonies of the
witnesses are to be presented through judicial affidavits, the
court shall give the prosecution not more than 20 days from
arraignment within which to prepare and submit their judicial
affidavits in time for the pre-trial conference.
Rule 118, Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. All agreements or
- reduced in writing and
- signed by the accused and counsel,
otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements
covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98)
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be
recorded, the transcripts prepared and the minutes signed by the parties
and/or their counsels.
Rule 118, Section 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial conference. If the
counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-
trial conference and does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of
cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties. (se. 5,
cir. 38-98)
Rule 118, Section 4. Pre-trial order. After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated,
and evidence marked. Such order shall:
(1) bind the parties,
(2) limit the trial to matters not disposed of, and
97
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
(3) control the course of the action during the trial, unless modified by
the court to prevent manifest injustice.
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. Pre-trial order. Within ten (10) days after the
termination of the pretrial, the trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order
setting forth:
a. the actions taken during the pre-trial conference,
b. the facts stipulated,
c. the admissions made,
d. the evidence marked,
e. the number of witnesses to be presented and
f. the schedule of the trial.
The Pre-trial order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not
disposed of and control the course of the action during the trial unless
modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice
Facts stipulated in the PTO bind the parties. Accused was charged
with a violation of RA 9165 for selling, possession and use of dangerous
drugs. He pleaded not guilty, and the TC convicted him. He challenges
his conviction on the ground that failure of the prosecution to present
forensic expert who prepared the NBI report is fatal to its case because
it fails to establish the corpus delicti of the crime. Correct? No. Records
show that the accused and his counsel admitted due execution and
genuineness of evidence submitted by the forensic chemist during the
pre-trial conference. This was also embodied in the pre-trial order. For
failure of the accused to interpose objections, the facts stipulated in the
PTC and embodied in the PTO bind the parties. People v Abelita
If unsigned, PTO generally not binding; but this is waivable.
Accused was caught in a buy bust operation for selling and possessing
shabu. During the PTC, parties agreed that the forensic chemist will no
longer testify. They also agreed to the marking of evidence of the
prosecution. The PTO was then issued but it was not signed by the
accused or his counsel. Is the PTO binding? In this case, Yes. Generally,
the PTO must be signed by the accused and his counsel to be valid and
binding. But this is a waivable right, and this was waived when the
accused and his counsel failed to object when prosecution formally
offered in evidence what it had marked in evidence during the pre-trial.
People v Uy
JSFD cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the accused. 3
informations for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 were filed before
the SB. The parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts and
Documents, which was duly signed by the accused and counsel. Later
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
on, the accused, represented by their new counsel, moved to withdraw a. adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference as part of the
the JSFD. Can they do that? No. Once validly entered into, stipulations pre-trial proceedings,
will not be set aside unless for a good cause. they should be enforced b. confirm the markings of exhibits, admissions of genuineness
especially when they are not false, unreasonable or against good morals and due execution of documents,
and sound public policy. When made before the court, they are c. list object and testimonial evidence,
conclusive. And the party who validly made them can be relieved d. scrutinize every allegation in the information,
therefrom only upon a showing collusion, duress, fraud, e. scrutinize affidavits and documents forming parts of the
misrepresentation as to facts and undue influence; or upon a showing records of the preliminary investigation,
of sufficient cause on such terms as will serve justice in a particular case. f. define factual issues,
Bayas v Sandiganbayan g. ask parties to agree on specific dates for the trial,
h. require the parties to submit the names, addresses and contact
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. Duty of the Branch Clerk of Court. During numbers of witnesses to be summoned, and
the preliminary conference, the Branch Clerk of Court shall: i. consider modification of the trial if the accused admits the
1. assist the parties in reaching a settlement of the civil aspect of charge but interposes a lawful defense
the case,
2. mark the documents to be presented as exhibits and copies A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. Asking questions during the pre-trial.
thereof attached to the records after comparison, During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask the questions on
3. ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admissions issues raised therein and all questions must be directed to him to avoid
on the genuineness and due execution of documents marked hostilities between the parties.
as exhibits, and
4. consider such other matters as may aid in the prompt Pre-trial in a civil case v pre-trial in a criminal case
disposition of the case Civil case Criminal case
Preceded by a motion ex parte Such motion is not required
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. Recording of minutes. The proceedings filed by the plaintiff to set the case from the prosecution in a
during the preliminary conference shall be recorded in the Minutes of for pre-trial criminal case
Preliminary Conference to be signed by both parties and counsel. The Set by the court after the requisite Pre-trial shall be held after
minutes and the exhibits shall be attached by the Branch Clerk of Court motion from the plaintiff after all arraignment and within thirty
to the case record before the pre-trial. pleadings have been served and (30) days from the date the
filed court acquires jurisdiction over
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. Duty of the judge before the pre-trial the person of the accused,
conference. Before the pre-trial conference, the judge must study the unless a shorter period is
allegations of the information, the statements in the affidavits of provided for in special laws or
witnesses and other documents which form part of the record of the circulars of the Supreme Court
preliminary investigation. Purpose of considering the Not a purpose of a pre-trial in a
possibility of amicable settlement criminal case
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. Duty of the judge when plea bargaining is or of submission to alternative
agreed upon. The court shall: modes of dispute resolution
a. issue an order to that effect Sanction for non-appearance is sanction is upon the counsel or
b. proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case; and imposed upon the non-appearing the prosecutor upon whom
c. render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the party "proper sanctions or penalties"
civil liability or damages duly established by the evidence may be imposed for non-
appearance in case of failure to
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. Duty of the judge when plea bargaining offer an acceptable excuse for
fails. When plea bargaining fails, the judge shall: lack of cooperation
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 98
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Parties are required to file and n/a parties to reconsider their prior reluctance to settle their case amicably.
serve their respective pre-trial The entire process comprises JDR.
briefs
All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded. The minutes Confidential nature. The mediation process is designed to be
of each pre-trial conference shall contain matters taken up therein confidential. In order to safeguard the confidentiality of mediation
more particularly admissions of facts and exhibits and shall be signed proceedings, the JDR judge shall not pass on any information obtained
by the parties and their counsel. This is a requirement for both. in the course of conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or mediation to
the trial judge or to any other person. All JDR conferences shall be
In a criminal case, there is a strict warning. Under Sec. 2 of Rule conducted in private. The JDR judge may, however, confer in
118, all agreements or admissions made or entered shall not only be confidence with the mediator who previously mediated the case, merely
reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel but it for the purpose of determining unresolved issues. Taking of notes is strictly
further provides that otherwise, they cannot he used against the accused. limited for the personal consumption of the judge and should not form part of the
records of the case, to preserve confidentiality.
JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Timeline. The timeline for mediation is 60 days for the second level
courts and 30 days for the first level courts.
(A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC- Philja. — Re: Philja Resolution No. 06-22, Revised
Guidelines for the Implementation of an Enhanced Pre-Trial Proceeding under the
Cases subject for mediation for JDR. The following are subject for
JURIS Project, as amended)
mediation:
The concept of Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) is an innovative
1. All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the
concept in the judicial system and by it, "it is hoped that mediation and
Rule on Summary Procedure, except those which by law may
conciliation at the level of the judge would contribute significantly to
not be compromised
the resolution of mediatable cases, thereby increasing the satisfaction of
a. Criminal cases like violation of traffic rules and
litigants in the court process and also helping to decongest the dockets
regulations and violation of municipal or city
of the judiciary." Another goal is to strengthen conciliation during the
ordinances although included in the list of cases
pre-trial stage in order to expedite the resolution of cases.
under summary procedure should not be mediated
because they cannot be compromised and might be
Stages in the judicial proceedings with JDR
a source of corruption if mediation pushes through
a. from the filing of a complaint, to the conduct of CAM (Court-
2. Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the
Annexed Mediation) and JDR during the pre-trial stage
Katarungang Pambarangay Law
b. pre-trial proper to trial and judgment
3. The civil aspect of B.P. Big. 22 cases
4. The civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the
JDR judge shall not preside over trial if mediation fails. The judge
Revised Penal Code
to whom the case has been originally raffled shall preside over the first
a. Cases covered are acts committed by reckless or
stage. He shall be called the JDR judge. Parties will be more
simple imprudence or negligence resulting for
spontaneous once they are assured that the JDR judge will not be the
example in slight, less serious or serious physical
one to try the case. As such, the general rule is that the JDR shall not
injuries;
preside over the trial of the same case when mediation did not succeed.
b. Imprudence resulting in damage to property; and,
c. Reckless or simple imprudence with violation of the
Process of JDR. As a mediator and conciliator, the judge facilitates the
motor vehicle law.
settlement discussions between parties and tries to reconcile their
5. The civil aspect of estafa and libel under the proposed circular
differences. As a neutral evaluator, the judge assesses the relative
amending AM No 04-1-12-SC
strengths and weaknesses of each party's case and makes a non-binding
6. The civil aspect of theft, under Art. 308 of the Revised Penal
and impartial evaluation of the chances of each party's success in the
Code, as part of the cases for referral to mediation.
case. On the basis of his neutral evaluation, the judge persuades the

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 99

TRIAL
TRIAL
COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL
Rule 119, Section 1. Time to prepare for trial. After a plea of not
guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days to
prepare for trial. The trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the pre-trial order.
AM No. 12-11-2 SC. The trial shall be set not later than 30 days from
the termination of the pre-trial conference.
Rule 119, Section 2. Continuous trial until
terminated; postponements. Trial once commenced shall continue
from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. It may be
postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause.
The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense
counsel, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-
term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy
trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty
(180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by
the Supreme Court.
The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding
section shall not apply where special laws or circulars of the Supreme
Court provide for a shorter period of trial.
Rule 119, Section 3. Exclusions. The following periods of delay shall
be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence:
(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings
concerning the accused, including but not limited to the
following:
1. Delay resulting from an examination of the physical and mental
condition of the accused;
2. Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to other criminal
charges against the accused;
3. Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory
orders;
4. Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings; provided, that the delay
does not exceed thirty (30) days;
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
5. Delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to
change of venue of cases or transfer from other courts;
6. Delay resulting from a finding of the existence of a prejudicial
question; and
7. Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not exceed thirty (30)
days, during which any proceeding concerning the accused is actually
under advisement.
(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or
unavailability of an essential witness. For purposes of this
subparagraph, an essential witness shall be considered absent when his
whereabouts are unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined by
due diligence. He shall be considered unavailable whenever his
whereabouts are known but his presence for trial cannot be obtained
by due diligence.
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the mental incompetence or
physical inability of the accused to stand trial.
(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution
and thereafter a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense,
any period of delay from the date the charge was dismissed to the date
the time limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent charge
had there been no previous charge.
(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial
with a co-accused over whom the court has not acquired
jurisdiction, or, as to whom the time for trial has not run and no
motion for separate trial has been granted.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any
court motu proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or
the prosecution, if the court granted the continuance on the basis of its
findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice served by taking
such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in
a speedy trial.
Rule 119, Section 4. Factors for granting continuance. The
following factors, among others, shall be considered by a court in
determining whether to grant a continuance under section 3(f) of this
Rule.
1. Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding
would likely make a continuation of such proceeding impossible or
result in a miscarriage of justice; and
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and
complex, due to the number of accused or the nature of the
prosecution, or that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation
within the periods of time established therein.
Prohibited grounds for continuance. In addition, no continuance
under section 3(f) of this Rule shall be granted because of:
1. congestion of the court's calendar or
2. lack of diligent preparation or
3. failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the prosecutor.
Rule 119, Section 5. Time limit following an order for new trial. If
the accused is to be tried again pursuant to an order for a new trial, the
trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from notice of the order,
provided that if the period becomes impractical due to unavailability of
witnesses and other factors, the court may extend it but not to exceed
one hundred eighty (180) days from notice of said order for a new
trial.
Rule 119, Section 6. Extended time limit. Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 1(g), Rule 116 and the preceding section 1, for the
first twelve-calendar-month period following its effectivity on
September 15, 1998, the time limit with respect to the period from
arraignment to trial imposed by said provision shall be one hundred
eighty (180) days. For the second twelve-month period, the limit shall
be one hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month
period, the time limit shall be eighty (80) days.
Summary of periods
Arraignment Within thirty (30) days from the date the court
acquires jurisdiction over the accused but the
time of the pendency of the motion to quash or
for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying
suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded
in computing the period.
When the accused is under preventive detention,
his case shall be raffled within three (3) days
from the filing of the complaint or information.
The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10)
days from the date of the raffle.
Pre-trial After arraignment and within thirty (30) days
from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over
the person of the accused, unless a shorter
100
TRIAL
period is provided for in special laws or circulars
of the Supreme Court
Trial The general period applicable is thirty (30) days
from receipt of the pre-trial order
Rule 119, Section 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial
within the time limit. If the accused is not brought to trial within the
time limit required by Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended
by Section 6 of this rule, the information may be dismissed on motion
of the accused on the ground of denial of his right of speedy trial.
The accused shall have the burden of proving the motion, but the
prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence
to establish the exclusion of time under section 3 of this rule.
The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy.
Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute
a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
Rule 119, Section 10. Law on Speedy Trial Not a Bar to Provision
on Speedy Trial in the Constitution. No provision of law on speedy
trial and no rule implementing the same shall be interpreted as a bar to
any charge of denial of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by section
14(2), article III, of the 1987 Constitution
When MTD must be made. The motion for dismissal must be made
prior to trial, otherwise the failure to do so shall be deemed a waiver of
the right to have the charge dismissed.
Imperial vs Joson
Right to a speedy trial, when violated. This is designed to prevent
the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution
suspended over him for an indefinite time and to prevent delays in the
administration of justice. Said right is considered violated only when the
proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.
Factors to be considered:
1. Length of delay.
2. Reason for the delay.
3. Defendant’s assertion of his right.
4. Prejudice to the defendant.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
More than mere mathematical computation. Also, courts are
required to do more than a mathematical computation of the number
of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case and to give
particular regard to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.
Period of trial. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure concededly
mandates commencement of the trial within 30 days from receipt of the
pre-trial order and the continuous conduct thereof for a period of not
exceeding 180 days. However, Section 3 a (1), Rule 119 provides that
delays resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory
orders shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must
commence.
No denial of right to speedy trial when delay caused by the
accused himself. In this case, far from being vexatious, capricious and
oppressive, however, the delays entailed by the postponements of the
aforesaid hearings were, to a great extent, attributable to
petitioner Francisco’s own pursuit of extraordinary remedies against
the interlocutory orders issued by the Sariaya MTC and the assignment
of at least three public prosecutors to the case.
Caballes vs CA
Remedy when accused is not brought to trial within the
prescribed period; habeas corpus not proper. Caballes was charged
with rape of a minor in the RTC. The crime charged was non-bailable,
so Caballes was detained. It has been more than one year since the first
hearing or close to 400 days since the trial started. Hence, Caballes filed
a petition for bail but this was denied, and so was his MR. He filed a
motion to dismiss, invoking his right to speedy trial. Hence, he filed
before the CA a petition for habeas corpus and/or certiorari and
prohibition. This was dismissed. So Caballes filed a petition for
certiorari to the SC, assailing CA’s dismissal of his petition for habeas
corpus.
Habeas corpus not the proper remedy in the first place. Habeas
corpus was not the proper remedy for the court’s denial of petitioner’s
motion to dismiss the case, the denial of the petition for bail, as well as
the voluntary inhibition of Judge Laurea.
Nature of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a summary remedy. It is
instituted for the sole purpose of having the person of restraint
presented before the judge in order that the cause of his detention may
be inquired into and his statements final. Habeas corpus does not act
upon the person seeking relief, but upon the person who holds him in
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
what is alleged to be the unlawful authority. Primary objective of
habeas corpus is to determine legality of restraint. Hence, the only
parties before the court are the petitioner (prisoner) and the person
holding the petitioner in custody, and the only question to be resolved
is WON the custodian has the authority to deprive petitioner of his
liberty.
Certiorari not proper to assail denial of habeas corpus. Accused
should have appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus within
48 hours from notice of judgment or final order. Certiorari is not
available when the aggrieved party has a plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy available—an appeal for instance. Appeal and certiorari are
mutually exclusive. Hence, when accused filed this petition before the
SC, the decision of CA was already final and executory.
Proper remedy in the denial of petition for bail is petition for
certiorari. The remedy of the petitioner from the Order of the trial
court denying his petition for bail was to file a petition for certiorari in
the CA if the trial court committed GADALEJ.
Mandamus, another possible remedy. If the trial court acted with
grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess of lack of jurisdiction
in granting the prosecution’s motion for the resetting of the trial over
the petitioner’s objections and the right of the accused to a speedy trial
is violated, the more appropriate remedy would have been to file a
petition for certiorari and/or a petition for mandamus to compel the
trial court to comply with the timeline provided for by the Rules of
Criminal Procedure for trial and termination of the case.
Habeas corpus v certiorari. The writ of habeas corpus is a collateral
attack on the processes, orders, or judgment of the trial court, while
certiorari is a direct attack of said processes, orders, or judgment on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
• Writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari reaches only
jurisdictional errors. A writ of certiorari reaches the record.
• Habeas corpus. On the other hand, a writ of habeas corpus
reaches the body but not the record; it also reaches
jurisdictional matters but does not reach the record.
When habeas corpus proper. The Court agrees with the petitioner
that a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus may be filed
if one is deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case under Article
IV, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution and of his right to due process.
101
TRIAL
But the petitioner never invoked in the trial court his constitutional right
to a speedy disposition of the case against him. What he invoked was
his right to a speedy trial under Rule 119 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure. He invoked his constitutional right to a speedy disposition
of the case against him, for the first time, only in the Court of Appeals
when he filed his petition for habeas corpus.
De Villa vs Director of New Bilibid Prisons
SC found De Villa guilty of rape and was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. 3 years after the promulgation of the said previous case,
petitioner De Villa, son of the De Villa who was convicted of rape, took
DNA samples of Leahlyn, the baby from that sexual intercourse, and
Reynaldo. The test results showed that there was an absence of match
in their samples. So De Villa (the son) filed a writ of habeas corpus for
the release of her father, and a motion for new trial to consider newly
discovered evidence.
Can a writ of habeas corpus be issued to release an individual already convicted
and serving sentence by virtue of final judgment?
Applicability of habeas corpus. The writ applies to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which a person has been deprived of his
liberty, or by which a person has been deprived of his freedom of
movement, or placed under some form of illegal restraint.
Not applicable when restraint is legal. If an individual’s liberty is
restrained via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is
unavailing. In relation to this, the writ cannot be used to directly assail
a judgment rendered by a competent court, which, having duly acquired
jurisdiction, was not deprived or ousted of this jurisdiction by some
anomaly in the conduct of proceedings.
Habeas corpus as a post-judgment remedy. Review of a judgment
of conviction is allowed in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus only in very specific instances, such as when, as a result of
judicial proceedings:
a. There has been a deprivation of constitutional right resulting
in the restraint of a person
b. The court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence or
c. An excessive penalty has been imposed
None of these were alleged to be present in the case at bar.
Habeas corpus not available to correct errors of fact and law when
court had jurisdiction. Mere errors of fact or law, which did not have
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
the effect of depriving the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case and
the person of the defendant, are not correctible in a petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. If at all, these must be corrected on
certiorari or on appeal.
TRIAL PROPER
Rule 119, Section 11. Order of trial. The trial shall proceed in the
following order:
(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in
the proper case, the civil liability.
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and
damages, if any, arising from the issuance of a provisional remedy in the
case.
(c) 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 bearing upon the main
issue.
(d) Upon admission of the evidence of the parties, the case shall be
deemed submitted for decision unless the court directs them to argue
orally or to submit written memoranda.
(e)When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the
complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of
trial may be modified.
Formal offer of evidence
Formal offer of evidence during trial. A formal offer is necessary
because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their
judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at
the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or
purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the
other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and
object to its admissibility. People v Villanueva
When formal offer of evidence is not necessary. The rule that only
evidence formally offered before the trial court can be considered is
relaxed where 2 requisites concur:
• Evidence was duly identified by testimony duly recorded
• Evidence was incorporated in the records of the case
When formal offer of evidence not necessary. Also, the rule has no
application in the following cases:
• Where the court takes judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
Section 2, Rule 129 of Rules of Court
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
• Where the court relies on judicial admissions or draws
inferences from such judicial admissions. Section 4, Rule 129
of Rules of Court
Where the trial court, in judging demeanor of witnesses, determines
their credibility even without the offer of the demeanor as evidence.
Reverse trial
Modifying order is discretionary. Prosecution made an oral motion
to reverse the order of the trial upon the ground that accused admitted
committing the acts for which they were charged in the two
informations but interposed lawful justifying circumstances. RTC
denied the motion to reverse. Is RTC mandated to modify order of trial
when a lawful defense is interposed? NO. The reversal of the order of
trial is a matter which is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
The use of the word may in the rules reflect the discretionary nature of
this procedure. In any event, the denial of a motion to reverse order of
trial is interlocutory in nature and hence, cannot be appealed. People v
Marcial
Alejandro v Pepito
Reverse trial not allowed here. Upon petitioner’s arraignment and
plea of not guilty to the crime of homicide before the CFI, the judge
issued an order stating that the accused admits in open court that he
killed the deceased, but he acted in self-defense. So, the judge required
the defense counsel to first prove evidence in self-defense and the
prosecution to present its evidence to disprove it. Correct? No.
GADALEJ
Procedural due process violated. Enshrined in our Constitution as a
protection to accused persons in criminal cases is the requirement that
no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law. It simply requires that the procedure established by law
shall be followed. Section 3 (now 11) of Rule 119 prescribes the order
of trial in criminal cases- fiscal goes first, then defense. The judge should
have followed the sequence of trial. The procedure outlined safeguards
and protects the fundamental right of the accused to be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved.
It is true that in the case of U.S. v Gaoiran, (1910), relied upon by the
prosecution and the trial Court, the defense had produced its proofs
before the prosecution presented its case, and it was held that no
substantial rights of the accused were prejudiced. There is one radical
difference, however, since in that case, no objection was entered in the
Court below to the procedure followed in the presentation of proof. In
102
TRIAL
this case, the change in order of trial made by respondent Judge was
promptly and timely objected to by the defense.
Rationale. In deciding the case upon the merits without the requisite
trial, the court not only erred in procedure but also deprived the
prosecution of its day in court and right to be heard.
Witnesses
Rule 119, Section 12. Application for examination of witness for
accused before trial. When the accused has been held to answer for
an offense, he may, upon motion with notice to the other parties, have
witnesses conditionally examined in his behalf. The motion shall state:
(a) the name and residence of the witness;
(b) the substance of his testimony; and
(c) that the witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for
believing that he will not be able to attend the trial, or resides more than
one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial and has no means
to attend the same, or that other similar circumstances exist that would
make him unavailable or prevent him from attending the trial.
The motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the accused and such
other evidence as the court may require.
No necessity for conditional examination when testimony is
merely corroborative. Petitioners filed with the Sandiganbayan before
trial to take oral depositions of 3 DEA agents before a consular official
in USA. They invoked their right to secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in their behalf. Sandiganbayan denied
this so they went to SC. The Court ruled that there was no necessity for
the conditional examination of the 3 proposed witness for the defense.
Their testimonies are merely corroborative. Other witnesses appearing
on record are available to testify on the same facts on which the
proposed deponents would testify; Petitioners failed to show that the
video tapes recording the events prior to and during the shooting
incident could not be produced except through the same deponents.
Jaylo v Sandiganbayan
Rule 119, Section 13. Examination of defense witness; how made.
If the court is satisfied that the examination of a witness for the accused
is necessary, an order will be made directing:
(a) that the witness be examined at a specified date, time and place and
(b) that a copy of the order be served on the prosecutor at least three
(3) days before the scheduled examination.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
The examination shall be taken before:
- a judge, or, if not practicable,
- a member of the Bar in good standing so designated by the judge in
the order, or
- if the order be made by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an
inferior court to be designated therein.
Absence of prosecutor. The examination shall proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the prosecutor provided he was duly
notified of the hearing. A written record of the testimony shall be taken.
Rule 119, Section 14. Bail to secure appearance of material
witness. When the court is satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a
material witness will not testify when required, it may, upon motion
of either party order the witness to post bail in such sum as may be
deemed proper.
Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall commit him to prison until he
complies or is legally discharged after his testimony has been taken.
Rule 119, Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution.
When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too
sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the order of the court,
or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, he
may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the
case is pending.
Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after
reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on him,
shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial.
Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice
shall be considered a waiver.
The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the
accused.
Rule 119, Section 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness .
When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of
any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case,
the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with
their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when, after
requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn
statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge, the court is satisfied that:
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
discharge is requested;
2. The is no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said
accused;
3. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in
its material points;
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
5. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form
part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the
accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
Does not appear to be most guilty. A state witness does not need to
be found to be the least guilty; instead, he or she should not appear to
be the most guilty. Jimenez, Jr. v People
Most guilty pertains to participation, not penalty. Most guilty
means the highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in the
commission of the offense, and not necessarily in the severity of the
penalty imposed. What must be taken into account is the level of
participation, and not penalty. People v Ocimar
Decision to employ state witness originates from public
prosecutor. Courts should generally defer to the judgment of the
prosecution; whose mission is to obtain a successful prosecution of the
several accused before the courts. Courts should deny a motion to
discharge the accused so he can be used as a state witness, only in clear
cases of failure to meet the requirements under the Rule. People v
Sandiganbayan
When motion to discharge denied. When the motion to discharge
the accused is rightfully denied, the proposed state witness shall be
prosecuted like his co-accused.
Discharge as state witness discretionary on the part of
prosecution. Ocimar, Mendoza, and Bermudez were charged with a
violation of the Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law. Ocimar and
Mendoza pleaded “Not guilty” while Bermudez pleaded “guilty”. The
fiscal moved for the discharge of Bermudez to be a state witness. The
trial court has not yet rendered a judgment against him. So, the trial
court granted the discharge of Bermudez. It convicted Ocimar and
103
TRIAL ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Mendoza. Ocimar argued that it was wrong to discharge Bermudez generally no different from an ordinary prosecutor in determining who The Supreme Court ruled that the admission of Dalandag in the
since he already pleaded guilty. Contention correct? No. The Court must be charged. He also enjoys the same latitude of discretion in Witness Protection Program of the Government as a state witness was
ruled that Bermudez could still be discharged as a state witness. The determining what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a finding of warranted by the absolute necessity of his testimony to the successful
matter of discharging a co-accused to be a state witness is left largely to probable cause and the degree of participation of those involved or the prosecution of the criminal charges.
the discretion of the trial fiscal, subject only to the approval of the court. lack thereof. His findings and conclusions are not subject to review by
The requisites in the Rules have been satisfied. Reason for discretion. the courts in the absence of GADALEJ. How accused can be a witness. There are 2 modes by which a
The fiscal knows better than the court and the defense as to who of the participant in the commission of a crime may become a state witness.
accused would best qualify to be discharged to become state witness. OMB may grant immunity under RA 6770. While the Ombudsman While seemingly alike, they are distinct and separate from each other, as
The public prosecutor is supposed to know the evidence in his has the power to grant immunity, the Ombudsman Act recognizes that can be seen below:
possession ahead of all the res. People v Ocimar the principles under Section 17, Rule 119 should apply when the
Ombudsman directly grants immunity to a witness. Hence, the 5 By discharge from the By the approval of his
Being a co-conspirator not a bar to discharge as state witness. requisites must also be present. criminal case pursuant to application for admission
What the law merely prohibits is that the most guilty will be set free Section 17 Rule 119 of the into the Witness Protection
while his co-accused who are less guilty will be sent to jail. Hence, while Source of power to grant immunity. The power to grant immunity Rules of Court Program of the DOJ in
the accused was meted with the same penalty because of conspiracy, he from prosecution is essentially a legislative prerogative. The exclusive accordance with RA 6981
may still be considered least guilty if we take into consideration his power of Congress to define crimes and their nature and to provide for Here, the person to be Here, there is no requirement
degree of participation. In this case, Bermudez was only invited to the their punishment concomitantly carries the power to immunize certain discharged to become a state under RA 6981 for the
drinking party without prior knowledge of the plot to stage a robbery. persons from prosecution to facilitate the attainment of state interests, witness must be one charged as prosecution to first charge a
Hence, he is not the most guilty. People v Ocimar such as solution and prosecution of crimes with high political, social, an accused in the criminal case. person in court as one of the
and economic impact. accused for him to qualify for
Quarto v Ombudsman Marcelo admission into the Witness
The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan several informations Authority to implement lodged with executive. While the legislature The discharge operates as an Protection Program.
charging several DPWH officials, including Quarto, with plunder, is the source of the power to grant immunity, the authority to acquittal of the discharged
Estafa thru falsification of public documents and violation of RA 3019. implement is lodged elsewhere. The decision to grant immunity from accused and shall be a bar to his Admission as a state witness in
On the other hand, the Ombudsman granted the SIT members’ request prosecution forms part of the prosecution process. WON the delicate future prosecution for the same RA 6981 also operates as an
for immunity in exchange for their testimonies and cooperation in the power should be exercised, who should be extended the privilege ,he offense, unless he fails or refuses acquittal, and said witness
prosecution of the case. [Meaning, their names were not included in the timing of its grant, are questions addressed solely to the sound to testify against his co-accused cannot subsequently be included
information filed.] Petitioner now files before the SC a petition for discretion of the prosecution. The power to prosecute includes the right in accordance with his sworn in the criminal information
mandamus, saying that before the OMB may avail of the respondents to determine who and whom not to prosecute. Every now and then, statement constituting the basis except when he fails or refuses to
as state witnesses, they must be included first in the informations filed the prosecution may err in the selection of its strategies, but such errors for his discharge. testify.
before the court, after which the OMB can ask the court for their are not for neutral courts to rectify.
discharge as state witnesses. According to petitioner, the Court has the The discharge is expressly left to Here, the immunity is granted by
sole province to determine whether the conditions laid down in the Ampatuan v De Lima the sound discretion of the trial the DOJ, and not by the trial court.
Rules exist. Contention proper? No. The Supreme Court ruled that the 196 individuals were charged with multiple murder in relation to the court.
Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting them Maguindanao Massacre based partly on the twin affidavits of Kenny a. There is absolute a. The offense in which
immunity. Dalandag. Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection necessity for the his testimony will be
Program. Petitoiner wrote to Secretary De Lima and Assistant Chief testimony of the used is a grave felony as
Mandamus is not the proper remedy to question grant of State Prosecutor Fadullon to request the inclusion of Dalandag in the accused whose defined under the RPC
immunity from prosecution. It is only used to compel the informations for murder considering that Dalandag had already discharge is requested; or its equivalent under
performance of a ministerial duty. It cannot be used to direct the confessed his participation in the massacre through his 2 sworn b. The is no other direct special laws;
manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised. declarations. De Lima denied the request. Ampatuan brought a petition evidence available for b. There is absolute
for mandamus in the RTC in Manila seeking to compel respondents to the proper prosecution necessity for his
OMB essentially the same with an ordinary prosecutor. In the charge Dalandag as another accused. of the offense testimony;
exercise of his investigatory and prosecutorial powers, the OMB is committed, except the

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 104

TRIAL ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

testimony of said c. There is no other direct of participation in the commission of the offense. The requirement is (b) Files a motion solely for delay which he knows is totally frivolous
accused; evidence available for that a state witness does not need to be found to be the least guilty; and without merit;
c. The testimony of said the proper prosecution he or she should not only “appear to be the most guilty.” (c) Makes a statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which
accused can be of the offense • In this case, although Montero was part of the preparation or he knows to be false and which is material to the granting of a
substantially committed; execution stage, he had no direct participation in the actual continuance; or
corroborated in its d. His testimony can be killing of Barrameda. (d) Willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification consistent with
material points; substantially the provisions hereof,
d. Said accused does not corroborated on its Rule 119, Section 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. the court may punish such counsel, attorney, or prosecution, as follows:
appear to be the most material points; The order indicated in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal (1) By imposing on a counsel privately retained in connection with the
guilty; and e. He does not appear to of the discharged accused and shall be a bar to future prosecution for defense of an accused, a fine not exceeding twenty thousand pesos
e. Said accused has not at be the most guilty; the same offense, unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against (P20,000.00);
any time been f. He has not at any time his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the (2) By imposing on any appointed counsel de oficio, public attorney, or
convicted of any been convicted of any basis for the discharge. prosecutor a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); and
offense involving crime involving moral (3) By denying any defense counsel or prosecutor the right to practice
moral turpitude. turpitude. before the court trying the case for a period not exceeding thirty (30)
Others days. The punishment provided for by this section shall be without
Jimenez v People prejudice to any appropriate criminal action or other sanction
Montero executed sworn statements confessing his participation in the Rule 119, Section 7. Public attorney's duties where accused is authorized under these rules. (sec. 13, cir. 38-98)
killing of Barrameda. He named Jimenez, Jimenez, Descalso, Ponce, imprisoned. If the public attorney assigned to defend a person charged
and Fernandez as his co-conspirators. These statements provided with a crime knows that the latter is preventively detained, either Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial shall constitute
details which led to the recovery of a cadaver encased in a drum and because he is charged with a bailable crime but has no means to post a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.
steel casing, practically at the place that Montero pointed to. So the bail, or, is charged with a non-bailable crime, or, is serving a term of
People filed an Information before the RTC charging Jimenez and imprisonment in any penal institution, it shall be his duty to do the Rule 119, Section 16. Trial of Several Accused. When two or more
friends for Barrameda’s murder. Montero and the People separately following: accused are jointly charged with an offense, they shall be tried jointly
filed a Motion for the Discharge of the Witness as Accused Pursuant to (a) Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for unless the court, in its discretion and upon motion of the prosecutor or
the Witness Protection Program pursuant to RA 6981. This was granted trial or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of the any accused, orders separate trial for one or more accused. (8a)
by the Judge. GADALEJ? No. absolute necessity exists. prisoner requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right to
demand trial.
Rule 119, Section 19. When Mistake has Been Made in Charging
Absolute necessity exists for the testimony of an accused sought to be (b) Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall
the Proper Offense. When it becomes manifest at any time before
discharged when he or she alone has knowledge of the crime. In other promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand
judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense
words, necessity is not there when the testimony would simply trial. If at any time thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he
and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any
corroborate or otherwise strengthen the prosecution’s evidence. Here, demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent
other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be
not one of the accused-conspirators except Montero was willing to promptly to the public attorney.
discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the
testify on the murder and their participation. He alone is available to (c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly seek
court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and
provide direct evidence of the crime. to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.
dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper information. (11a)
(d) When the custodian of the prisoner receives from the public
Testimony of the accused to be discharged must be substantially attorney a properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner
corroborated in its material points, not on all points. for purposes of trial, the prisoner shall be made available accordingly. Rule 119, Section 20. Appointment of acting prosecutor. When a
prosecutor, his assistant or deputy is disqualified to act due to any of
Most guilty refers to the highest degree of culpability in terms of the grounds stated in section 1 of Rule 137 or for any other reasons, the
Rule 119, Section 8. Sanctions. In any case in which private counsel
participation in the commission of the offense and does not necessarily judge or the prosecutor shall communicate with the Secretary of Justice
for the accused, the public attorney, or the prosecutor.
mean the severity of the penalty imposed. While all the accused may be in order that the latter may appoint an acting prosecutor.
(a) Knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that
given the same penalty by reason of conspiracy, yet one may be a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;
considered to have lesser or the least guilt taking into account his degree

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 105

TRIAL
Rule 119, Section 21. Exclusion of the public. The judge may, motu
proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be
produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals. He
may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial,
except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.
Rule 119, Section 22. Consolidation of trials of related offenses.
Charges for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a
series of offenses of similar character may be tried jointly at the
discretion of the court.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
Trial in absentia. An accused need not always be present in every
hearing although it is his right to be present, if he so desires, from
arraignment to the rendition of the judgment.
• This is subsumed under his constitutional right to meet the
witnesses against him face-to-face and other rights of the
accused guaranteed in Section 14(2) of the Bill of Rights.
Requisites. While the right to be present may be waived, the rule
should not be taken to mean that the accused may, as a rule be tried in
his absence. The following requisites must concur:
1. The accused has already been arraigned
2. The accused has been duly notified of the trial hearings; and
3. The absence or failure to appear is unjustified.
When presence of the accused is required. In the following cases,
the presence of the accused is required:
1. At arraignment or plea, whether of innocence or of guilt
2. During trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes
• Rationale. Prosecution must be offered the right to
identify the accused as the perpetrator of the offense
as the very person named or described in the
complaint or information because rights during the
trial are not designed for the accused alone.
3. At the promulgation of sentence
• Unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the
accused may appear by counsel or representative.
In the above cases, the presence of the accused is required and cannot
be waived.
Estrada vs People
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
An information for estafa was filed against Estrada. She jumped bail by
giving an incorrect address. The RTC considered her to have waived
her right to present evidence and rendered a judgement of conviction
based on the evidence of the prosecution alone. Estrada now alleges
that she was denied of her constitutional rights to be head and to be
assisted by counsel. Correct? No. The holding of a trial in absentia is
authorized under Section 14 (2) Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution as
long as the requisites are met. These were met in the case at bar.
People v Delos Reyes
Go and Val were jointly charged with rape in 2 informations. The
authorities were able to arrest only appellant Go while Val remained at
large. Go was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, but
before the prosecution could conclude the presentation of its evidence,
Go jumped bail. Then he was tried in absentia. He was convicted of
counts of rape and was meted with death penalty. In view of the penalty
imposed, the case was elevated to the SC on automatic review. Should
the case be remanded to the CA for the conduct of an intermediate
review pursuant to the ruling in People v Mateo? No.
Jumping bail = loss of standing in court. The records reveal that the
appellant jumped bail, during the proceedings before the RTC and was,
in fact, tried and convicted in absentia. There is dearth (lack) of evidence
showing that he has after jumping bail, subsequently surrendered to the
court’s jurisdiction. Thus, he has no right to pray for affirmative relief
before the court because once an accused escapes from prison or
confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country, he loses his
standing in court. And if he later on surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek
relief therefrom.
Appeal is a statutory right. Thus, even if the Court were to remand
these cases to the CA for intermediate review, the CA would only be
constrained to dismiss appellant’s appeal, as he is considered a fugitive
from justice. It bears to stress that the right to appeal is merely a
statutory privilege, and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner
and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks
to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules,
failing which, the right to appeal is lost.
Escaping is waiver of right to be present at trial. Escape of the
accused was considered a waiver of their right to be present at their trial,
and the inability of the court to notify them of the subsequent hearings
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
did not prevent it from continuing with their trial. They were deemed
to have received notice. People vs Salas
Other effects of jumping bail. Upon jumping bail, they were deemed
to have waived their right to present evidence on their own behalf and
to confront and cross-examine the witnesses.
Other effects of jumping bail. Once an accused escapes from prison
or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his
standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction
of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from
the court. People v Magpalao
No deprivation of due process. Due process is satisfied when the
parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their
respective sides of the controversy. Here, he was already afforded such
opportunity.
Promulgation of judgement in absentia is allowed under the
Rules. In Pascua vs CA, it was held that such promulgation is valid
provided the following essential elements are present:
a. that the judgement be recorded in the criminal docket; and
b. that a copy thereof be served upon the accused or counsel.
Purpose of recording the judgement with the criminal docket of
the court. Sentence imposed by the trial court cannot be served in the
absence of the accused. Hence, all means of notification must be done
to let the absent accused know of the judgment of the court. And the
means provided by the Rules are:
1. The act of giving notice to all persons or the act of recording
or registering the judgment in the criminal docket (which
Section 6 incidentally mentions first showing its
importance); and
2. The act of serving a copy thereof upon the accused (at his last
known address) or his counsel. In a scenario where the
whereabouts of the accused are unknown (as when he is at
large), the recording satisfies the requirement of notifying the
accused of the decision wherever he may be.
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Rule 119, Section 23. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may
dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence:
106
TRIAL
(1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to
be heard or
(2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without
leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court,
the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to
evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to
present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the
evidence for the prosecution. (15a)
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall
specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible
period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The
prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of
five (5) days from its receipt.
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to
evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice.
The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar
period from its receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence
or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari
before judgment. (n)
Demurrer to evidence. This is a motion to dismiss that is filed by the
accused after prosecution rests its case. It may also be filed in civil cases,
or even in special proceedings.
Valencia v Sandiganbayan
The prosecution waived its presentation of evidence. Valencia then filed
a motion for leave to file a Demurrer to Evidence because the
prosecution failed to present, mark, or offer evidence that would
substantiate the charge against him. Was the motion to file the demurrer
to evidence premature? YES.
Premature because the prosecution had yet to formally rest its
case. A demurrer to evidence tests the sufficiency or insufficiency of
the prosecution’s evidence. Hence, it must be filed after the prosecution
rests its case. But before an evidence may be admitted, the rules require
that it be formally offered, otherwise, it cannot be considered by the
court. A prior formal offer of evidence concludes the case for the
prosecution and determines the timeliness of the filing of the demurrer.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Application. The demurrer filed was premature because prosecution
had yet to formally rest its case. It had not yet marked not formally
offered the Joint Stipulation of Facts as evidence and there was absence
of the motion to rest the case
Not every motion to dismiss is a demurrer to evidence. A motion
to dismiss, not grounded upon insufficiency of evidence, is not a
demurrer.
Ground is insufficiency of evidence. A demurrer to evidence is an
objection by one of the parties in an action to the effect that the
evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law to
make out a case or sustain the issue. People v Sandiganbayan 2nd Division
Duty of the court when demurrer is filed. The court, in passing upon
the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer is merely required
to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain
the indictment or support a verdict of guilt. Singian v Sandiganbayan 3rd
Division
Grant or denial discretionary. The grant of a demurrer to evidence
amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place
the accused in double jeopardy. It is reviewable only by certiorari if it
was issued with GADALEJ. People v Go
Sufficient evidence. In order to defeat the demurrer to evidence filed,
the prosecution must show that there is sufficient evidence to sustain
the case. Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer
thereto is such evidence in character, weight, or amount as will legally
justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the
circumstances. It must prove:
1. the commission of the crime
2. the precise degree of participation of the accused
Demurrer to evidence by the court after prosecution is heard. The
court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the action without waiting for
a demurrer from the accused also on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence. The rule, however, is that the court shall do so only after
giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard.
With or without leave of court. The accused may file a demurrer with
or without leave of court. The grant of leave to the accused us addressed
to the sound discretion of the court, and the purpose is to determine
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
whether the accused, in filing his demurrer, is merely stalling the
proceedings. People v Crespo
Motion for leave. The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to
evidence shall:
o specifically state its grounds and
o shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days
after the prosecution rests its case.
The prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible
period of five (5) days from its receipt.
When leave granted. If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file
the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10)
days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to
evidence within a similar period from its receipt.
Grant of demurrer amounts to an acquittal. The grant of a demurrer
to evidence calls for the appreciation of evidence adduced by the
prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. The grant thereof results in a dismissal of the case on the merits,
and therefore amounts to acquittal of the accused. As such, the grant of
a demurrer cannot be appealed, for to do so would place the accused in
double jeopardy. People v Tan
Review of order granting a demurrer. Although the grant of
demurrer amounts to an acquittal and that the order of dismissal is not
subject to appeal, it may be reviewed through certiorari under Rule 65
on the ground of GADALEJ. Such dismissal [of the case], being a void
judgment, does not result in jeopardy. Hence, when it is set aside, the
right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated. People v
Laguio, Jr.
• GADALEJ. For the writ of certiorari to issue, the trial court
must be shown to have acted with GADALEJ such as where
the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case
or where the trial was a sham, rendering the assailed judgment
void. People v Sandiganbayan 3rd Division.
• Burden of proof on the petitioner. The burden, however, is
on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court
blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive
it of its very power to dispense justice. People v Sandiganbayan
2nd Division
Denial of demurrer. The effect depends on whether or not the
demurrer was filed with leave of court.
107
TRIAL ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

• With leave. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed without first obtaining express leave of court effectively waived her facts and the law, he is entitled to
with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his right to present her evidence. relief
defense. Requires no prior leave of court With or without leave of court
• Without leave. When the demurrer to evidence is filed People v Sandiganbayan When the demurrer is denied, The accused may adduce his
without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present Under the Rules, the Sandiganbayan is under no obligation to the defendant does not lose his evidence in his defense only
evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of require the parties to present additional evidence when a right to present his evidence. when the demurrer that was
the evidence for the prosecution. demurrer to evidence is filed. The court, in the exercise of its sound denied was filed with leave of
o Judgment includes civil aspect. At that juncture, discretion, may require or allow the prosecution to present additional court.
the court is called upon to decide the case including evidence at its own initiative or upon a motion after a demurrer is filed. If the demurrer to evidence is No appeal is allowed as a rule,
its civil aspect, unless the enforcement of the civil granted, the plaintiff may appeal when a demurrer to evidence is
liability by a separate civil action has been waived or When court may require presentation of further evidence. The and if the dismissal is reversed, granted in a criminal case
reserved. Hun Hyung Park v Eung Won Choi court may require presentation of further evidence if its action on the the defendant is deemed to have because the dismissal is deemed
demurrer would patently result in the denial of due process; if the waived his right to present his an acquittal. To allow the appeal
Denial of leave and demurrer unappealable. The order denying the evidence is newly discovered, if it was omitted through inadvertence or evidence. would be to put the accused in
motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer mistake, or if it is intended to correct the evidence previously offered. double jeopardy.
itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. Defendant invokes a demurrer. The court may, on its own
• Remedy of the accused. Therefore, remedy of the accused Application. In this case, petitioner failed to show what and how The court does not do so on its initiative, dismiss the action after
in case his demurrer is denied is to present his evidence and additional evidence could have helped the paramount interest of justice own initiative. giving the prosecution an
then appeal in case he is convicted. sought to be achieved. opportunity to be heard.

People v Sandiganbayan and Barcenas

People v Cristobal
TC ruled that appellant waived the presentation of evidence when she
filed her demurrer to evidence and motion to defer evidence without
prior leave of court. Appellant argues that prior leave of court was
obtained because her demurrer was at the same time also a motion to
defer defense evidence. Correct? NO.
Motion to defer evidence does not constitute a request for leave
to file a demurrer to evidence. The motion to defer defense evidence,
in fact, indicates that appellant wanted the trial court to consider the
demurrer before proceeding to hear her evidence. Furthermore, there
is nothing in the demurrer from which it can be inferred that he was
asking TC permission to move for the dismissal of the case.
Application. When the accused files a demurrer to evidence without
express leave of court, he waives the right to present evidence and
submits the case for judgement on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution. Under the rule, the RTC properly declared the accused to
have waived her right to present evidence because she did not obtain
the express leave of court for her demurrer to evidence, thereby
reflecting her voluntary and knowing waiver of her right to present
evidence. RTC did not need to inquire into the voluntariness and
intelligence of the waiver, for her opting to file her demurrer to evidence
This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to nullify the SB’s resolution,
REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS
granting private respondent’s demurrer to evidence. Respondent
contends that certiorari does not lie to correct the grant of demurrer. Rule 119, Section 24. Reopening. At any time before finality of the
judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion,
Respondent correct? Yes.
with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a
miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty
Grant of demurrer amounts to an acquittal. The dismissal order
arising from the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal (30) days from the order grating it.
and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused in double
jeopardy. The order is reviewable only by certiorari under Rule 65 if it Requisites for reopening of proceedings
was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess Cabarles v Maceda
of jurisdiction. 1. Reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of
conviction
Application. In this case, SB committed only an error of judgment [in 2. The order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon
applying the law] and not of jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to establish motion
that the dismissal order was tainted with GADALEJ. However 3. The order is issued only after a hearing is conducted
erroneous the order of the lower court is, and although a miscarriage of 4. The order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice
justice resulted from said order, such error cannot now be righted 5. The presentation of additional or further evidence should be
because of the timely plea of double jeopardy. terminated within 30 days from the issuance of the order.
Demurrer to evidence in civil case v in criminal case
Civil case Criminal case
Anchored upon the failure of the Predicated upon insufficiency of
plaintiff to show that upon the evidence

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 108

JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
Rule 120, Section 1. Judgment definition and form. Judgment is the:
- adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the
offense charged and
- the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any.
Requisites of a judgment. It must be:
a. written in the official language,
b. personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by
him and
c. shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and
the law upon which it is based.
Jurisdictional requirements. The following are the jurisdictional
requirements before a judgment may be validly rendered:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Jurisdiction over the territory
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Lumanog, et al v People
Substantial compliance sufficient. The court has sustained decisions
of lower courts as having substantially or sufficiently complied with the
constitutional injunction, notwithstanding the laconic and terse manner
in which they were written; and even if there (was left) much to be
desired in terms of (their) clarity, coherence and comprehensibility,
provided that they:
1. eventually set out the facts and the law on which they
were based, as when they stated the legal qualifications of the
offense constituted by the facts proved, the modifying
circumstances, the participation of the accused, the penalty
imposed and the civil liability; or
2. discussed the facts comprising the elements of the
offense that was charged in the information, and accordingly
rendered a verdict and imposed the corresponding penalty; or
3. quoted the facts narrated in the prosecution's
memorandum, but made their own findings and assessment
of evidence, before finally agreeing with the prosecution's
evaluation of the case.
A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law
on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was
reached and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to
pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.
BPI v Leobrera
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Memorandum decision okay but discouraged. The court said that
although not good practice, there is nothing illegal act of the trial court
completely copying the memorandum submitted by a party, provided
that the decision clearly and distinctly states sufficient findings of fact
and the law on which they are based.
Rule 120, Section 2. Contents of the judgment. If the judgment is of
conviction, it shall state:
(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts
committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating
circumstances which attended its commission;
(2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal,
accomplice, or accessory after the fact;
(3) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and
(4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission
to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any,
unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has
been reserved or waived.
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence
of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or
merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case,
the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist.
Court must set forth the proven facts, its conclusions, and the legal
basis; otherwise, defective. The Judgement of the RTC is being
assailed allegedly for failing to comply with the formal requirements of
the decision mandated by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. It merely
summarized the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution and of
accused-appellant on direct and cross examinations and merely made
referral to the documentary evidence of the parties then concluded that,
on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution, accused-appellant is
guilty of 4 counts of rape and sentenced him to death, on each count. Is
the judgment defective? Yes. Trial court is mandated to set out in its
decision the facts which had been proved and its conclusions culled
therefrom, as well as its resolution on the issues and the factual and legal
basis for its resolution. Trial courts should not merely reproduce the
respective testimonies of witnesses of both parties and come out with
its decretal conclusion. In this case, trial court even failed to specifically
state the facts proven by the prosecution based on their evidence, the
issues raised by the parties and its resolution of the factual and legal
issues, as well as the legal and factual bases for convicting accused-
appellant of each of the crimes charged. The trial court rendered
judgment against accused-appellant based on the evidence of the
prosecution. The trial court swallowed hook, line, and sinker the
evidence of the prosecution. It failed to explain in its decision why it
believed and gave probative weight to the evidence of the prosecution.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
Reading the decision of the trial court, one is apt to conclude that the
trial court ignored the evidence of accused-appellant. The trial court did
not even bother specifying the factual and legal bases for its imposition
of the supreme penalty of death on accused-appellant for each count of
rape. The trial court merely cited seventh paragraph, no. 1, Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code. People v Lizada
Purpose of the requirement for contents. The purpose of the
provision is to inform the parties and the person reading the decision on
how it was reached by the court after consideration of the evidence of
the parties and the relevant facts, of the opinion it has formed on the
issues, and of the applicable laws. Procedural requirements must be
complied with to assure the parties that they were accorded their right
to be heard by an impartial and responsible judge. People v Lizada
A verdict of acquittal is immediately final. People v Serrano
Judgment rendered by judge who did not hear case not
automatically void if supported by records. The fact that the trial
judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial, but merely relied on
the records of the case, does not render the judgment erroneous,
especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its
conclusion. People v Alfredo
Acquittal does not result to obliteration of the civil liability unless
decision says the act/omission from which civil liability did not
exist. CA set aside the trial court’s Decision because it convicted
petitioner of an offense different from or not included in the crime
charged in the Information. But his civil liability was sustained. He now
claims that since he was properly acquitted, he should no longer be held
civilly liable. Contention proper? Yes, but not because a judgment of
acquittal automatically cancels the civil liability, but because it was
proven in this case that his acts did not cause damage to the victim. The
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of
civil liability unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil [liability] might arise did not
exist. Abella v People
Damage; basis of civil liability. While an act or omission is felonious
because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much
because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another. What gives
rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and moral duty of everyone
to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his
own act or omission. Abella v People
2 kinds of acquittal; #1. Acquittal on the ground that the accused
is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This closes
109
JUDGMENT
the door to civil liability since the person who has been found not to be
the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held
liable for such act. No delict, no civil liability ex delicto. The civil action,
if any, must be predicated on grounds other than the delict complained
of. Manantan v CA
2 kinds of acquittal; #2. Acquittal based on reasonable doubt on
the guilt of the accused. Here, he is not exempt from civil liability
which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. Manantan v
CA
2nd type of acquittal. TC acquitted Manantan of the charge of reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide, but did not rule on his civil liability.
On appeal, family of the victim sought accused to be held civilly liable.
Manantan argued that his acquittal bars any civil action because he was
acquitted on a finding that he was neither criminally negligent or
recklessly imprudent. Decide. The TC found that a hypothesis inconsistent
with the negligence of the accused presented itself before the Court and since said
hypothesis is consistent with the record…the Court's mind cannot rest on a verdict of
conviction. The foregoing clearly shows that petitioner's acquittal was
predicated on the conclusion that his guilt had not been established with
moral certainty. Stated differently, it is an acquittal based on reasonable
doubt and a suit to enforce civil liability for the same act or omission
lies. Manantan v CA
Rule 120, Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. When two
or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but
the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him
of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the
penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and
law in each offense.
Rule 120, Section 4. Judgment in case of variance between
allegation and proof. When there is variance between the offense
charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the
offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted:
- of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or
- of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
Variance doctrine; variance between the allegation and proof.
Analysis of the foregoing codal provision would show that the accused
can only be convicted of the lesser offense between the offense charged
and the offense proved, as long as the offense for which he is convicted
is necessarily included in the other offense. This is actually an exception
to the general rule that an accused can only be convicted of the crime of
which he is charged. Mine
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Presupposes jurisdiction. The application of the above rules
presupposes that the court rendering the judgment has jurisdiction over
the case based on the allegations of the information. Pangilinan v CA
Offense charged was the same as the offense proved, but with
different qualifying circumstances. The information charged Stalin
Guevarra with Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.
However, the requisites of evident premeditation argument were not
proven. Nevertheless, Guevarra could still be convicted of murder since
treachery was aptly proved. The attack by his co-accused, with the
indispensable cooperation of the appellant, was so sudden and
unexpected as to deprive the victim of any opportunity to defend
himself or to inflict retaliation. People v Guevara
Variance between the allegations of the information and the
supporting evidence offered by the prosecution does not of itself
entitle the accused to an acquittal. Accused that he cannot be
convicted under the information charging him of attempting to defraud
Ernesto Rufino, Sr. and/or the Bank of America because the evidence
presented by the prosecution show very clearly that he allegedly
attempted to defraud Mever Films, Inc., a corporation entirely distinct
from Rufino, Sr. He contends that his conviction was in gross violation
of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Contention proper? No. In U.S. v. Kepner, this Court laid
down the rule that when an offense shall have been described in the
complaint with sufficient certainty as to Identify the act, an erroneous
allegation as to the person injured shall be deemed immaterial as the
same is a mere formal defect which did not tend to prejudice any
substantial right of the defendant. Sayson v People
Variance in the mode of commission. A variance in the mode of
commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he fails to
object to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a different
manner than what was alleged. In this case, the accused did not object
to the presentation of evidence showing that the crime was committed
in a different manner (accused awoke with titi in her mouth) than what
was stated in the information (rape by force or intimidation). The
variance is not a bar to his conviction of the crime charged in the
information. People v Corpuz
Crimes against property; subject matter of the offense described
with such particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.
In the instant suit for estafa which is a crime against property under the
Revised Penal Code, since the check, which was the subject-matter of
the offense, was described with such particularity as to properly identify
the offense charged, it becomes immaterial, for purposes of convicting
the accused, that it was established during the trial that the offended
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
party was actually Mever Films and not Ernesto Rufino, Sr. nor Bank of
America as alleged in the information. Sayson v People
An accused can be validly convicted as an accomplice or accessory
under an information charging him as a principal. Trial court
convicted Vino for being an accessory to the crime of murder. CA
affirmed the judgment. Vino now assails his conviction, saying that he
cannot be convicted as an accessory because the information filed
against him charged him as a principal. Correct? No. This is not a case
of a variance between the offense charged and the offense proved or
established by the evidence. In this case, the correct offense of murder
was charged in the information. The commission of the said crime was
established by the evidence. There is no variance as to the offense
committed. The variance is in the participation or complicity of the
petitioner. While the petitioner was being held responsible as a principal
in the information, the evidence adduced, however, showed that his
participation is merely that of an accessory. The greater responsibility
necessarily includes the lesser. An accused can be validly convicted as an
accomplice or accessory under an information charging him as a
principal. At the onset, the prosecution should have charged the
petitioner as an accessory right then and there. The degree of
responsibility of petitioner was apparent from the evidence. At any rate,
this lapse did not violate the substantial rights of petitioner. Vino v CA
Trial of accessory can proceed without awaiting result of the
separate charge against the principal. The corresponding
responsibilities of the principal, accomplice and accessory are distinct
from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly
established in evidence the determination of the liability of the
accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the
principal. Vino v CA
Acquittal of the principal does not automatically acquit the
accessory. The acquittal of the principal will only work as an acquittal
for the accessory if such acquittal was based on the finding that no crime
was committed inasmuch as the same has happened by accident. In this
case, the principal was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Vino v CA
Rule 120, Section 5. When an offense includes or is included in
another. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved
when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as
alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an
offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those
constituting the latter.
110
JUDGMENT
Example. The crime of murder includes the offense of homicide;
serious physical injuries include less serious or slight physical injuries;
robbery includes theft.
Example. Less serious physical injuries are included in serious physical
injuries; acts of lasciviousness are included in rape; theft is included in
robbery.
Example; SPI necessarily included in murder. Although the charge
in the instant case is for murder, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense
of slight physical injuries may be made considering that the latter offense
is necessarily included in the former since the essential ingredients of
slight physical injuries constitute and form part of those constituting the
offense of murder. In this case, the accused stabbed the victim and the
victim died. However, the proximate cause of the death of the victim
was the tetanus infection and not the stab wound. Note that at the time
that the victim’s wound was inflicted by the appellant, the severe form
of tetanus that killed him was not yet present.
Example; illegal possession of marijuana necessarily included in
pushing or dealing drugs. When there is a variance between the
offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or
established by the evidence, and the offense as charged necessarily
includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved included in that which is charged. Here, the SC held that
illegal possession of marijuana was “a crime that is necessarily included
in the crime of drug pushing or dealing, for which the accused have been
charged with.” Thus, when he was charged for violating the prohibition
against sale of marijuana, he was already being sufficiently given notice
that he was also to be held to account for possessing more or less 750
grams of dried marijuana leaves. The established principle is that
possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the
seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of the
prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are
probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller. People v
Manansala
Rule 120, Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. The judgment is
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge
of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for
a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his
counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside of the
province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the
judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional
Trial Court having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment. The
court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to accept the
notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided,
that if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the
nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for
bail can only be filed and resolved by the appellate court.
The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused personally or
through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be
present at the promulgation of the decision. If the accused is tried in
absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to
him shall be served at his last known address.
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation
of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by:
- recording the judgment in the criminal docket and
- serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his
counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear
was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in
these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.
Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the
accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of
these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the
scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a
justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within
fifteen (15) days from notice.
Almuete v People
Almuete, Ila, and Lloren were charged with a violation of the Revised
Forestry Code. On the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment, TC
was informed that Lloren and Almuete were ill and Ila was not notified
of the scheduled promulgation. TC nevertheless found their absence
inexcusable and proceeded with the promulgation. They were found
guilty. Upon appeal, CA acquitted Almuete. Upon review by SC, TC’s
decision was reinstated. Accused now questions the promulgation of the
RTC decision on the ground that he was not present therein. Accused
filed before the TC a motion for re-promulgation of TC’s decision but
was denied. Was the promulgation valid regardless of his absence?
Procedure in promulgation of judgment. The procedure for the
promulgation of judgments in the trial courts in criminal cases, differs
from that prescribed for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
where promulgation is effected by filing the signed copy of the judgment
with the Clerk of Court who causes true copies thereof to be served
upon the parties.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIM PRO
• Reason. It was explained in prior cases that the certified copy
of the judgment is sent by the clerk of the appellate court to
the lower court xxx not for the promulgation or reading
thereof to the defendant, but for the execution of the judgment
against him, it not being necessary to promulgate or read it to
the defendant, because it is to be presumed that accused or his
attorney had already been notified thereof xxx and that the
duty of the court of first instance in respect to such judgment
is merely to see that it is duly executed when in their nature the
intervention of the court of first instance is necessary to that
end.
Requiring the convict to appear before TC for promulgation of
judgment of appellate court should be discontinued. It is not only
an unauthorized surplusage entailing unnecessary expense, but it could
also create security problems where the convict was already under
detention during the pendency of the appeal, and the place of
confinement is at some distance from the station of the court.
• Mittimus or commitment order if already under
detention. Upon receipt of the certified copy of the judgment
of the appellate court if the convict is under detention, the trial
court should issue forthwith the corresponding mittimus or
commitment order so that the prisoner may be considered
remitted or may be transferred to the corresponding prison
facility for confinement and service of sentence.
• Surrender of accused of out on bail. When the convict is out
on bail, the trial court shall immediately order the bondsman
to surrender the convict to it within ten (10) days from notice
and thereafter issue the corresponding mittimus. In both cases,
the trial court shall submit to this Court proof of the execution
of judgment within fifteen (15) days from date of such
execution.
Almuete's attempt to assail the validity of the promulgation of the RTC's
September 8, 1998 Decision must likewise fail. There was no reason to
postpone the promulgation because Almuete's absence was
unjustifiable. Hence, no abuse of discretion could be attributed to the
RTC in promulgating its Decision despite the absence of Almuete.
Jaylo v Sandiganbayan
Incumbent upon the accused to appear on date of promulgation.
It is incumbent upon the accused to appear on the scheduled date of
promulgation, because it determines the availability of remedies against
the judgment of conviction. The reason is because when the accused on
bail fails to present himself at the promulgation of a judgment of
conviction, he is considered to have lost his standing in court. Without
his standing in court, he cannot invoke its jurisdiction to seek relief.
111
JUDGMENT ad majorem dei gloriam CRIM PRO

Rule 120, Section 7. Modification of judgment. A judgment of

conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside
before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected.

When judgment becomes final. Except where the death penalty is

imposed, a judgment becomes final:
1. after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or
2. when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or
served, or
3. when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or
4. has applied for probation.

Rule 120, Section 8. Entry of judgment. After a judgment has become

final, it shall be entered in accordance with Rule 36.

Rule 120, Section 9. Existing provisions governing suspension of

sentence, probation and parole not affected by this Rule. Nothing
in this Rule shall affect any existing provisions in the laws governing
suspension of sentence, probation or parole.

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 112

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES
Remedies from acquittal
1. Right against double jeopardy (Art 3, Section 21, 1987
Constitution)
2. Rule 65
Remedies from judgment of conviction before finality thereof
1. Modification of judgment
2. Reopening of proceedings
3. Motion for new trial
4. Motion for reconsideration
5. Appeal
REMEDIES FROM ACQUITTAL
Dimatulac v Villon
Yabuts were charged with murder but the prosecutor subsequently filed
a new information charging for the lesser offense of homicide saying
treachery was not present. So, the petitioners filed an appeal with the
Secretary of Justice, saying the prosecutor erred in considering the lower
crime of homicide. Pending appeal, the Yabuts were arraigned and
entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequent to the plea, SoJ resolved the
appeal in favor of petitioners and ruled that treachery was present.
However, he set aside this resolution and ruled that it became moot and
academic because of the arraignment of the Yabuts and their plea of
not guilty.
DOJ Secretary committed GADALEJ. The appeal made by
petitioner was an invocation of the Secretary’s power of control over
prosecutors—he may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify their rulings.
Nothing in jurisprudence forecloses the power of authority of the SoJ
to review resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases despite an
information already having been filed in court. the SoJ is merely
enjoined to refrain, as much as practicable, from entertaining a petition
for review or appeal from the action of the prosecutor once a complaint
or information is filed in court. In any case, the grant of a motion to
dismiss, which the prosecution may file after the SoJ reverses an
appealed resolution, is subject to the discretion of the court.
Application. In this case, there was on the part of the public
prosecution, indecent haste in the filing of the information for
homicide, depriving the State and the offended parties of due process.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Judge committed GADALEJ. The judge refused to decide on the
motion to defer proceedings until the accused has been arraigned.
Hence, there was undue rush in the arraignment of the accused for the
crime of homicide. This was illogical because the accused was out on
bail and had therefore all the opportunity to leave the country if they
want to. In holding that arraignment is a prerequisite for HDO issuance
defeats the purpose of the HDO. Again, the state and the offended
parties were deprived of due process.
Cannot invoke double jeopardy. When the state is deprived of due
process in a criminal case by reason of GADALEJ on the part of the
TC, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case is void and
double jeopardy cannot be invoked by the accused. In this case, the
arraignment and plea of the accused are void.
REMEDIES FROM CONVICTION- BEFORE
FINAL JUDGMENT
Modification of judgment
Rule 120, Section 7. Modification of judgment. A judgment of
conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside
before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected.
No motu proprio modification. It is clear that the modification of
judgment must be upon motion of the accused. It cannot be done on
the court’s own motion.
Reopening of proceedings
Rule 119, Section 24. Reopening. At any time before finality of the
judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion,
with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a
miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty
(30) days from the order grating it.
Court can reopen motu proprio; hearing required. Unlike a
modification of judgment which cannot be done by the court on its
motion, reopening of proceedings may be made by the judge motu
proprio. The reopening of proceedings requires a hearing. However, such
hearing is not required for the modification of judgment.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Motion to reopen only after presentation of evidence of both
parties. A motion to reopen may properly be presented only after either
or both parties have formerly offered and closed their evidence, but
before judgement. As a rule, the matter of reopening of a case for
reception of further evidence after either prosecution or defense has
rested its case is within the discretion of the trial court. People v Tee
Reopening can be done motu proprio but it requires hearing. The
prosecution rested its case and formally offered its evidence. Defense
filed a demurrer but it was denied. A day before the scheduled
promulgation, the judge motu proprio issued an order to reopen the
case. He said that because there was a mix-up in the dates specified in
the subpoena and the actual date of hearing, prosecution was unable to
present evidence in 4/5 hearing dates, resulting to a miscarriage of
justice. Cabarles said that the judge committed GADALEJ because a
case may only be reopened after a judgment of conviction has been
made but before its finality. Correct? Reasoning wrong, but there is still
GADALEJ. Although the judge is allowed to reopen a case before the
judgment is rendered, the Rules require that a hearing must first be
conducted. The judge issued an order to reopen the case without notice
and hearing and without giving the prosecution and accused an
opportunity to manifest their position on the matter. This failure
constitutes GADALEJ. Cabarles v Maceda
New Trial or Reconsideration
MNT MR
When Before finality of conviction
Who Accused or court motu proprio
initiates
Grounds Error of law or irregularities Errors of law or fact
prejudicial to substantial
rights of accused
Newly discovered material
evidence
Form Written + state grounds
If based on new evidence, add affidavits and
evidence to be presented
Notice given to prosecutor
Effects (1) If ground is errors of law/irregularities,
proceedings and evidence set aside and taken anew
(2) If ground is new evidence, existing ones shall
stand
(3) In all cases, original judgment set aside
113
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Rule 121, Section 1. New trial or reconsideration. At any time
before a judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may, on
motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of
the accused, grant a new trial or reconsideration.
Requisites:
1. Any time before finality of judgment of conviction
2. Upon motion of the accused or at the court’s own instance
3. Consent of the accused
Rule 121, Section 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a
new trial on any of the following grounds:
1. The errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights
of the accused have been committed during the trial;
2. The new and material evidence has been discovered which the
accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and
produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
probably change the judgment.
Berry Rule. Newly discovered evidence; requisites. The following
requisites must concur for a newly-discovered evidence to be a
justifiable ground for a new trial:
1. Evidence was discovered after trial
2. It could not have been previously discovered and produced at
the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence
3. It is new and material evidence
4. It introduced and admitted, it would probably change the
judgment.
But see; new trial on equity considerations as a result of gross
negligence of counsel. RTC convicted accused for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act by the RTC. This decision was based solely on
the evidence presented by prosecution, because according to the TC,
appellants had waived the right to present evidence because of their
failure to proceed with the presentation of evidence despite several
postponements granted to them. The delay was due to the unjustified
failure of defense counsel to appear. Should the defense be allowed to
present evidence? YES. Although Rule 121 Sec. 2 enumerates the
specific grounds in granting new trial or reconsideration, none of which
is present here. The Supreme Court used Sec. 6 which states that,
nonetheless the effects thereof consider the interest of justice as a gauge in
the introduction of additional evidence. In cases where reckless or gross
negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or
property or where the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded
to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable
mistake or negligence. People v Almendras
Reopening/ new trial allowed only prior to finality. The accused-
appellants prayed for the reopening of the homicide case against them
for further reception of evidence since there is newly discovered
evidence despite the fact that the judgement against them had already
attained finality. An entry of judgment had already been made. The
Supreme Court said that it cannot be reopened anymore. Cases must
attain finality at some point. Fundamental considerations of public
policy and sound practice necessitate that, at the risk of occasional
errors, the judgement or orders of courts should attain finality at some
definite time fixed by law. Otherwise, there would be no end to
litigation. Pursuant to Rule 121, a new trial may be granted by the court
at any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final. But in this
case, the judgment of conviction had already become final and
executory upon entry of judgment. Tadeja v People
Newly discovered evidence concept applicable only to reopening
proceedings and not on appeal. Petitioner was convicted of
homicide. This was affirmed by the CA. On appeal, he argues that the
CA committed a reversible error in affirming his conviction despite the
admission of Licup immediately after the incident that he stabbed the
victim; and that the res gestae statement of Licup constituted newly
discovered evidence that created a reasonable doubt as to petitioner’s
guilt. Correct? No. The res gestae statement of Licup did not constitute
newly discovered evidence that created a reasonable doubt as to the
petitioner’s guilt. The concept of newly discovered evidence is
applicable only when a litigant seeks a new trial or the reopening of the
case in the trial court, and rarely on appeal. Rationale. If this were
allowed, the court would be compelled to receive and consider the
evidence for purposes of its appellate adjudication despite its not being
a trier of facts. Moreover, the proposed evidence was not newly
discovered, in accordance with the guidelines. By exercise of reasonable
diligence, it could have been sooner discovered and easily proposed
during trial. Ladrines v People
Berry Rule not satisfied; could have been produced at trial. The
report of the forensic group may not be considered as newly discovered
evidence as petitioners failed to show that it was impossible for them
to secure an independent forensic study of the physical evidence during
the trial. Here, the report of the forensic group used the SAME physical
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
and testimonial evidence used in during the trial. They only made their
own analysis and interpretation of said evidence. The report of the
forensic group essentially reiterates the theory presented by the defense
during the trial of the double murder case. Clearly, the report is not
newly discovered, but rather recently sought, which is not allowed by
the Rules. If at all, it only serves to discredit the version of the
prosecution which had already been weighed and assessed, and
thereafter upheld by the Sandiganbayan. Custodio v Sandiganbayan
Aspects of WON an evidence can be considered as newly
discovered; temporal and predictive aspect.
• Temporal one. When the evidence was discovered
• Predictive one. When it should or could have been
discovered. It is here that the requirement of due diligence is
relevant. What is essential is that the offering party had
exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such
evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to
secure it.
• Due diligence. It is the reasonable promptness to avoid
prejudice to the defendant. It has a time component, and a
good faith component. Custodio v Sandiganbayan
Rule 121, Section 3. Ground for reconsideration. The court shall
grant reconsideration on the ground of errors of law or fact in the
judgment, which requires no further proceedings.
A motion of new trial on the ground of errors of law in the judgement
may be properly called a motion for reconsideration, because the court
is not asked to reopen the case. It is only to reconsider its findings or
conditions of law and make them conformable to the law applicable to
the case. People v Enriquez
Rule 121, Section 3. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor.
The motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be:
- in writing and
- shall state the grounds on which it is based.
- If based on a newly-discovered evidence, the motion must be
supported by affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected
to be given or by duly authenticated copies of documents which are
proposed to be introduced in evidence.
Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to
the prosecutor.
114
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Rule 121, Section 5. Hearing on motion. Where a motion for a new
trial calls for resolution of any question of fact, the court may hear
evidence thereon by affidavits or otherwise.
Rule 121, Section 6. Effects of granting a new trial or
reconsideration. The effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration
are the following:
a. Based on errors of law or irregularities. When a new trial is
granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed
during the trial, all proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be
set aside and taken anew. The court may, in the interest of justice,
allow the introduction of additional evidence.
b. Based on newly discovered evidence. When a new trial is granted
on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the evidence already
adduced shall stand and the newly-discovered and such other
evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be
introduced shall be taken and considered together with the evidence
already in the record.
c. In both cases, original judgment is set aside. In all cases, when
the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original judgment shall
be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly.
Appeal
Appeal not a natural right. The right to appeal is not a natural right
nor a part of due process but merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of
law. Estarija v People
No backsies. But while it is statutory, once it is granted by law, its
suppression would be a violation of due process. Hilario v People
Subject matter for appeal. In criminal cases, an appeal throws the case
wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors or
even revers the trial court’s decision on grounds other than those that
the parties raised as errors. Guy v People
Appeal from conviction; waiver protection against double
jeopardy. When the accused appeals his conviction, he waives the
protection on the prohibition against double jeopardy and runs the risk
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
of being sentenced to a penalty higher than that imposed by the trial
court. The appeal confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction over
the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise
the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper
provision of the penal law violated. People v Arguta
Cannot change theory on appeal. The rule is that a party cannot
change his theory on appeal, nor raise in the appellate court any
question of law or fact that was not raised in the court below or which
was not within the issue raised by the parties in their pleadings. Points
of law, theories, issues, and arguments not adequately brought to the
attention of the trial court ordinarily will not be considered by a
reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice,
and due process. People v Mamaril
Factual findings; credibility of witnesses. Factual findings of the
trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight
and respect. These factual findings should not be disturbed on appeal,
unless there are facts of weight and substance that were overlooked or
misinterpreted and that would materially affect the disposition of the
case. People v Matibag
Trial court as SC’s eyes. The trial courts have the distinct advantage
of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during the trial.
Absent any showing that certain facts of relevance and substance
bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked,
misapprehended, or misapplied, its findings must be respected. People v
Rusiana
SC not a trier of facts. Hence, factual findings of the trial courts
involving credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported
conclusions can be gathered from such findings. People v Alviz
When SC may reverse. The trial court, however, may not be sustained
at all times by the SC when discrepancies in the testimony of a witness
are apparent. Lejano v CA
Rule 122, Section 1. Who may appeal. Any party may appeal from a
judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double
jeopardy.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
State representation in criminal cases. In the case of the People of
the Philippines, only the state, through its appellate counsel, the OSG,
has the sole right and authority to institute proceedings before the CA
or the Supreme Court. People v Duca
Rule 122, Section 2. Where to appeal. The appeal may be taken as
follows:
a. To the Regional Trial Court, in cases decided by the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or
Municipal Circuit Trial Court;
b. To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases
provided by law, in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court; and
c. To the Supreme Court, in cases decided by the Court of Appeals.
Rule 122, Section 3. How appeal taken.
Notice of appeal. The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a notice of
appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
Petition for review; rule 42. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.
Notice of appeal to SC. The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases
where the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court is reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but
for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the
same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which
the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed,
shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this section.
Automatic review by CA. No notice of appeal is necessary in cases
where the death penalty is imposed by the Regional Trial Court. The
same shall be automatically reviewed by the Court of Appeals as
provided in section 10 of this Rule.
Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all
other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review
on certiorari under Rules 45.
115
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Petition for review on certiorari; rule 45. A petition for review only
raises questions of law and should raise the errors of CA and not those
of RTC. This petition refers to the mode of appeal under Rule 45, also
known as appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Question of fact Question of law
Question of fact exists when the Question of law exists when the
doubt or difference arises as to doubt or difference arises as to
the truth or the falsehood of the what the law is on a certain set of
alleged facts. facts.
Escalante v People
Accused in this case assailed the decision of the CA by using a rule 65
to have another “review” on his case because the period for filing a rule
45 has lapsed. Proper remedy? No.
Special civil action not a substitute for lost remedy of appeal. A
special civil action under Rule 65 cannot cure petitioner’s failure to
timely file a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court. It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari will not lie
as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, especially if such loss or
lapse was occasioned by one’s own neglect or error in the choice of
remedies. Consequently, the assailed decision has already attained
finality and the Court may no longer modify the penalty imposed by the
lower courts no matter how obvious the error may be.
Doctrine of finality of judgement or immutability of judgement.
Under this doctrine, a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that
rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.
Application. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the
period prescribed by law is mandatory. Failure to conform to the rules
regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory and,
hence, unappealable.
Rule 122, Section 4. Publication of notice of appeal. If personal
service of the copy of the notice of appeal cannot be made upon the
adverse party or his counsel, service may be done by registered mail or
by substituted service pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of Rule 13.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Rule 122, Section 5. Waiver of notice. The appellee may waive his
right to a notice that an appeal has been taken. The appellate court may,
in its discretion, entertain an appeal notwithstanding failure to give such
notice if the interests of justice so require.
Rule 122, Section 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be
taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or
from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for perfecting
an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion
shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time
the balance of the period begins to run.
See Neypes ruling. There is a fresh period of 15 days.
Rule 122, Section 7. Transcribing and filing notes of stenographic
reporter upon appeal. When notice of appeal is filed by the accused,
the trial court shall direct the stenographic reporter to transcribe his
notes of the proceedings. When filed by the People of the Philippines,
the trial court shall direct the stenographic reporter to transcribe such
portion of his notes of the proceedings as the court, upon motion, shall
specify in writing. The stenographic reporter shall certify to the
correctness of the notes and the transcript thereof, which shall consist
of the original and four copies, and shall file the original and four copies
with the clerk without unnecessary delay.
If death penalty is imposed, the stenographic reporter shall, within thirty
(30) days from promulgation of the sentence, file with the clerk original
and four copies of the duly certified transcript of his notes of the
proceedings. No extension of time for filing of said transcript of
stenographic notes shall be granted except by the Supreme Court and
only upon justifiable grounds.
Rule 122, Section 8. Transmission of papers to appellate court
upon appeal. Within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of
appeal, the clerk of the court with whom the notice of appeal was filed
must transmit to the clerk of court of the appellate court the complete
record of the case, together with said notice.
The original and three copies of the transcript of stenographic notes,
together with the records, shall also be transmitted to the clerk of the
appellate court without undue delay.
The other copy of the transcript shall remain in the lower court.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 122, Section 9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts.
(a) Within five (5) days from perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court
shall transmit the original record to the appropriate Regional Trial
Court.
(b) Upon receipt of the complete record of the case, transcripts and
exhibits, the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the
parties of such fact.
(c) Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the said notice, the parties
may submit memoranda or briefs, or may be required by the Regional
Trial Court to do so. After the submission of such memoranda or briefs,
or upon the expiration of the period to file the same, the Regional Trial
Court shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the case
and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed.
Rule 122, Section 10. Transmission of records in case of death
penalty. 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 motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be
forwarded within ten (10) days after the filing thereof by the
stenographic reporter.
Rule 122, Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect
those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter;
(b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not
affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.
(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or
final order appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party.
When appeal affects one who did not appeal; favorable to him;
proper interpretation of ‘did not appeal’. 3 accused were convicted
of 3 counts of murder. This was upheld by the CA. Pending appeal, one
co-accused withdrew his appeal. Later, the Court promulgated its
judgment and found the remaining appellant guilty of 3 counts of
homicide instead of murder. Subsequently, the accused who withdrew
his appeal pleaded that the judgment imposing homicide instead of
murder be applied to him. Can he use Section 11(a) of Rule 122? Yes,
because it would be favorable to him. The accused cannot be barred
from seeking the application to him of the downgrading of the crimes
committed and the resultant lighter penalties despite the finality of his
convictions due to his withdrawal of appeal. The downgrading of the
116
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
crimes committed would definitely be favorable to him. Although the
rule states that a favorable judgment shall benefit those who did not
appeal, the phrase did not appeal should not be interpreted literally to
deprive those who appealed their convictions (and later on withdrew
the same) from the benefits of the provision. The provision applies
without regard as to the filing or non-filing of an appeal by a co-accused,
as long as the judgment is favorable to him. People v Valdez
Appeal from civil aspect. The appeal period accorded to the accused
should also be available to the offended party who seeks redress of the
civil aspect of the decision. The period to appeal granted to the
offended party is the same as that granted to the accused. Ching v Nicdao
Rule 122, Section 12. Withdrawal of appeal. Notwithstanding the
perfection of the appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, may allow the
appellant to withdraw his appeal before the record has been
forwarded by the clerk of court to the proper appellate court as
provided in section 8, in which case the judgment shall become final.
The Regional Trial Court may also, in its discretion, allow the appellant
from the judgment of a Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court to
withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is filed before
rendition of the judgment in the case on appeal, in which case the
judgment of the court of origin shall become final and the case shall be
remanded to the latter court for execution of the judgment.
Rule 122, Section 13. Appointment of counsel de oficio for accused
on appeal. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the trial court, upon filing
of a notice of appeal, to ascertain from the appellant, if confined in
prison, whether he desires the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals
or the Supreme Court to appoint a counsel de oficio to defend him and
to transmit with the record on a form to be prepared by the clerk of
court of the appellate court, a certificate of compliance with this duty
and of the response of the appellant to his inquiry.
Failure to file the memorandum would warrant the denial of the
appeal only in civil cases, but not in criminal cases. MCTC
convicted accused for violation of the PH Mining Act. Counsel of the
accused filed a notice of appeal in the MCTC. Consequently, RTC
ordered accused to file his memorandum of appeal, but he did not
comply. As a result, RTC dismissed the appeal. Is the dismissal proper?
No. What happened herein was the oversight committed RTC in the
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
application of the proper governing rules. Sec. 9 (not Sec. 7) Rule 40
applies in the case at bar. Such provision states that RTC must decide
the appeal on the basis of the entire record of the case and of such
memoranda or briefs as may have been filed. Having timely perfected
his appeal by filing the notice of appeal in the MCTC, the petitioner was
entitled to expect that the RTC will resolve his appeal in due course,
WON he filed his memorandum on appeal. Sanico v People
Procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts
Rule 123, Section 1. Uniform Procedure. The procedure to be
observed in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial
Courts, except where a particular provision applies only to either of said
courts and in criminal cases governed by the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure.
Procedure in the Court of Appeals
Rule 124, Section 1. Title of the case. In all criminal cases appealed
to the Court of Appeals the party appealing the case shall be called the
"appellant" and the adverse party the "appellee," but the title of the case
shall remain as it was in the court of origin.
Rule 124, Section 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the
accused. If it appears from the record of the case as transmitted that:
- the accused is confined in prison,
- is without counsel de parte on appeal, or
- has signed the notice of appeal himself,
the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de
oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be
assigned a counsel de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the
notice to file brief and he establishes his right thereto.
Rule 124, Section 3. When brief for appellant to be filed. Within
thirty (30) days from receipt by the appellant or his counsel of the
notice from the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals that the evidence,
oral and documentary, is already attached to the record, the appellant
shall file seven (7) copies of his brief with the clerk of court which shall
be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the
appellee.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 124, Section 4. When brief for appellee to be filed; reply brief
of the appellant. Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the brief
of the appellant, the appellee shall file seven (7) copies of the brief of
the appellee with the clerk of court which shall be accompanied by
proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellant.
Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the brief of the appellee, the
appellant may file a reply brief traversing matters raised in the former
but not covered in the brief of the appellant.
Rule 124, Section 5. Extension of time for filing briefs. Extension
of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed except for good and
sufficient cause and only if the motion for extension is filed before the
expiration of the time sought to be extended.
Rule 124, Section 6. Form of briefs. Briefs shall either be printed,
encoded or typewritten in double space on the legal size good quality
unglazed paper, 330 mm. in length by 216 mm. in width.
Rule 124, Section 7. Contents of brief. The briefs in criminal cases
shall have the same contents as provided in sections 13 and 14 of Rule
44. A certified true copy of the decision or final order appealed from
shall be appended to the brief of appellant.
Rule 124, Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or
failure to prosecute. The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the
appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case,
dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time
prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a
counsel de oficio.
The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu
proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or
confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the
pendency of the appeal.
Rule 124, Section 9. Prompt disposition of appeals. Appeals of
accused who are under detention shall be given precedence in their
disposition over other appeals. The Court of Appeals shall hear and
decide the appeal at the earliest practicable time with due regard to the
rights of the parties. The accused need not be present in court during
the hearing of the appeal.
117
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Rule 124, Section 10. Judgment not to be reversed or modified
except for substantial error. No judgment shall be reversed or
modified unless the Court of Appeals, after an examination of the
record and of the evidence adduced by the parties, is of the opinion that
error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of
the appellant.
Harmless error rule. Not all errors committed by the trial court are
grounds for reversal of the appealed judgment. If the error is slight and
insignificant, the error will be disregarded because it has not caused
prejudice to a party.
Rule 124, Section 11. Scope of judgment. The Court of Appeals may
- reverse,
- affirm, or
- modify the judgment and
- increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court,
- remand the case to the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retrial, or
- dismiss the case.
Rule 124, Section 12. Power to receive evidence. The Court of
Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive
evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues
raised in cases:
(a) falling within its original jurisdiction,
(b) involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies, or
(c) where the court grants a new trial based only on the ground of newly-
discovered evidence.
Rule 124, Section 13. Quorum of the court; certification or appeal
of cases to Supreme Court. Three (3) Justices of the Court of Appeals
shall constitute a quorum for the sessions of a division. The unanimous
vote of the three (3) Justices of a division shall be necessary for the
pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution, which shall be
reached in consultation before the writing of the opinion by a member
of the division.
In the event that the three (3) Justices cannot reach a unanimous vote,
the Presiding Justice shall direct the raffle committee of the Court to
designate two (2) additional Justices to sit temporarily with them,
forming a special division of five (5) members and the concurrence of
a majority of such division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
a judgment or final resolution. The designation of such additional
Justices shall be made strictly by raffle and rotation among all other
Justices of the Court of Appeals.
Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court,
after discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall render
judgment imposing the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment as the circumstances warrant. However, it shall refrain
from entering the judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate
the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for review.
Rule 124, Section 14. Motion for new trial. At any time after the
appeal from the lower court has been perfected and before the
judgment of the Court of Appeals convicting the appellant becomes
final, the latter may move for a new trial on the ground of newly-
discovered evidence material to his defense. The motion shall conform
with the provisions of section 4, Rule 121.
Rule 124, Section 15. Where new trial conducted. When a new trial
is granted, the Court of Appeals may conduct the hearing and receive
evidence as provided in section 12 of this Rule or refer the trial to the
court of origin.
Rule 124, Section 16. Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration
shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after from notice of the decision
or final order of the Court of Appeals, with copies served upon the
adverse party, setting forth the grounds in support thereof. The
mittimus shall be stayed during the pendency of the motion for
reconsideration. No party shall be allowed a second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final order.
Rule 124, Section 17. Judgment transmitted and filed in trial court.
When the entry of judgment of the Court of Appeals is issued, a
certified true copy of the judgment shall be attached to the original
record which shall be remanded to the clerk of the court from which
the appeal was taken.
Rule 124, Section 18. Application of certain rules in civil to
criminal cases. The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56
relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court
in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Rule.
Procedure in the Supreme Court
Rule 125, Section 1. Uniform procedure. Unless otherwise provided
by the Constitution or by law, the procedure in the Supreme Court in
original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the Court of
Appeals.
Rule 125, Section 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals.
The procedure for the review by the Supreme Court of decisions in
criminal cases rendered by the Court of Appeals shall be the same as in
civil cases.
Rule 125, Section 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided. When
the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary
majority cannot be had on whether to acquit the appellant, the case shall
again be deliberated upon and if no decision is reached after re-
deliberation, the judgment of conviction of the lower court shall be
reversed and the accused acquitted.
Fresh period rule. To standardize the appeal periods provided in the
Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the
Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which
to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration. This means in case the litigant has filed an MR in the
meantime, the 15-day period for filing a notice of appeal refreshes from
the receipt of the order dismissing such motion. This is consistent with
Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules which states that the appeal shall be
taken within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed
from. Neypes v CA
Neypes rule applicable in criminal and civil cases. The
pronouncement in Neypes with respect to the fresh period rule is
applicable to criminal cases. Rodriguez v People
The fresh period rule applies to the following:
1. Rule 40. Appeals from MTC to RTC
2. Rule 42. Petitions for review from RTC to CA
3. Rule 43. Appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to CA
4. Rule 45. Appeals by certiorari to the SC.
118
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Designation of wrong court does not affect validity of notice of
appeal as long as corrected within the 15-day period. Torres was
convicted by the RTC of Malversation of Public Funds. He filed his
Notice of Appeal to the CA. Later, he filed a manifestation and motion
acknowledging that he filed the appeal before the wrong tribunal.
Petitioner eventually prayed that the case be referred to the
Sandiganbayan. CA issued a resolution dismissing the appeal and
denying the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Did the CA err in
dismissing the petitioner’s appeal outright instead of certifying the case
to the proper court? NO. CA does not have jurisdiction over the case
but the designation of the wrong court does not necessarily affect the
validity of the notice of appeal. However, the designation of the proper
court should be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Once made
within the said period, the designation of the correct appellate court
may be allowed even if the records of the case are forwarded to the CA.
Otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed outright. In this case, the
petitioner brought the correction of error in filing the appeal way
beyond the expiration of the period to appeal. Dismissal was proper.
Torres v People
Escalante v People
RTC convicted accused Of the crimes of violation of election gun ban
and illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. CA affirmed the
same. Accused filed a partial MR, and CA granted it. Another partial
MR was filed, but this time it was denied by the CA. Accused filed a 65
to SC. Proper remedy? No.
Remedy for CA decisions is 45 to SC. Decisions, final orders, or
resolutions of the CA in any case, regardless of the nature of the action
or proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Supreme Court by a
petition for review under Rule 45. It is but a continuation of the
appellate process over the original case. The proper period is 15 days
from receipt of the notice of judgment or from denial of MR. This the
accused failed to do.
Mere cover up; 65 not a remedy for lost appeal. It is apparent in this
case that the 65 is merely being used to make up for failure to promptly
interpose an appeal. However a 65 cannot cure this failure. A special
civil action is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, especially if
such loss is occasioned by one’s own neglect or error.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Petition must fail even if 65 was proper. Assuming that 65 is the
proper remedy, the petition would still be dismissed because the
accused is asking the court to overturn factual findings of the lower
court. It is well-settled that questions of fact cannot be raised in an
action for certiorari.
People v Molina
During trial and after arraignment, the defense counsel of the accused
manifested the desire of the accused to change his plea into a plea of
guilty. He was immediately re-arraigned and entered a plea of guilty.
Accused was convicted of attempted rape. However, records of the case
show that the rule that when an accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full consequences of his plea and require the
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability was
not complied with. Also, A notice of appeal to the CA is required
because the case does not fall under automatic review. However, this
was not given. Can the conviction stand even in the absence of the said
notice of appeal? No.
The omission is fatal. But still, the judgement of conviction cannot
stand upon an invalid arraignment. Since the vice of nullity affects not
only the criminal cases for incestuous rape under automatic review but
also the criminal case for attempted rape, notwithstanding the absence
of a notice of appeal in the latter, the Supreme Court ruled to set aside
that decision.
Dungo v People
CA convicted the accused for anti-hazing and imposed the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The accused assailed the CA’s decision via a petition
for review on certiorari under rule 45 with the SC but raised a question
of fact, that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy. Proper
remedy? No.
Remedy of accused. The Court ruled that when the CA imposes a
penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the accused may do
the following:
1. Notice of appeal. File a notice of appeal under Section 13
(c), Rule 124 to avail of an appeal as a matter of right before
the Court and open the entire case for review on any question;
or
2. Review on certiorari. File a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 to resort to an appeal as a matter of discretion
and raise only questions of law.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 45 was resorted. Consequently, only questions of law could be
raised. Oddly, petitioners began to assail the existence of conspiracy,
which is a question of fact that would require an examination of the
evidence presented.
Interest of justice. In the interest of justice, however, and due to the
novelty of the issue presented, the court deems it proper to open the
whole case for review.
People v Rocha
The mandatory review by Supreme Court is only required for
cases where the penalty imposed is death. Where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a review of the trial
court decision is conducted only when the accused files a notice of
appeal. In the case at bar, the review by the Supreme Court is not
mandatory because only reclusion perpetua was imposed. The granting
of a Motion to Withdraw Appeal is addressed to the sound discretion
of the Court. In the case at bar, SC see no reason to deny accused-
appellants’ Motion to Withdraw Appeal.
Villegas v CA
The source of Villegas’ civil liability in the present case is the felonious
act of libel he allegedly committed. Yet, this act could also be deemed a
quasi-delict within the purview of Article 33 in relation to Article 1157
of the Civil Code.
• If the Court ruled in Bayotas that the death of an accused
during the pendency of his appeal extinguishes not only his
criminal but also his civil liability unless the latter can be
predicated on a source of obligation other than the act or
omission complained of, with more reason should it apply to
the case at bar where the accused died shortly after the
prosecution had rested its case and before he was able to
submit his memorandum, and all this before a memorandum,
and all this before any decision could even be reached by the
trial court.
• Hence, notwithstanding the fact that he did not reserve the
right to institute a separate civil action, the private offended
party may still pursue his claim for damages.
REMEDIES FROM CONVICTION- AFTER
FINALITY OF JUDGMENT
119
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Court’s power to execute
Echegaray v Secretary of Justice
Leo Echegaray was scheduled for execution and the judgment against
him had already become final and executory. However, because
according to him some members of the Congress had either sought for
his clemency or the review or repeal of the law authorizing capital
punishment, the SC granted his application for TRO as a cautionary
measure. Respondents now question this move, saying that the judiciary
has transcended its power of review because its decision denying to
declare RA 9177 unconstitutional had already become final and
executory. Hence, it already entered the exclusive authority of the
executive.
Doctrine: Power to execute. This Court promulgated rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure which, among others,
spelled out the rules on execution of judgments. These rules are all
predicated on the assumption that courts have the inherent, necessary
and incidental power to control and supervise the process of execution
of their decisions.
• Execution and enforcement of judgment. The finality of a
judgment does not mean that the Court has lost all its powers
nor the case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court
loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.
Even after the judgment has become final the court retains its
jurisdiction to execute and enforce it.
• Particulars. The particulars of the execution itself, which are
certainly not always included in the judgment and writ of
execution, in any event are absolutely under the control of the
judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the
person of the convict except to provide for carrying out of the
penalty and to pardon.
• Supervening events. The most important part of a litigation,
whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of
decisions where supervening events may change the
circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene
and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness. It is
because of these unforeseen, supervening contingencies that
courts have been conceded the inherent and necessary power
of control of its processes and orders to make them
conformable to law and justice.
Power to execute. Even the finality of the judgment does not totally
deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is
the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and the land. However, the SC may sit en banc and give due regard to
execute it. exceptional circumstance warranting the relaxation of the doctrine of
immutability. The passage of RA 10951 in this case is an example.
Re-trial Hence, the present case as reopened not for receipt of further evidence,
People v Parazo but to modify the penalty imposed.
Accused was convicted of rape and frustrated homicide and he was
meted with death penalty. Hence, this automatic review. Affidavits from Modification of judgment when void
the doctors stress that the accused is a deaf mute, a retard, and an
imbecile. However, records show that he was tried without the benefit Void judgment never attains finality. In this case, the lower court
of a sign language expert. Absence of a qualified interpreter in sign imposed the wrong penalty on the accused because it did not consider
language and of any other means, whether in writing or otherwise, to the privileged mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused, who was
inform the accused of the charges against him denied the accused his below 15 at the time of commission. Can the penalty still be modified?
fundamental right to due process of law. The accuracy and fairness of Yes. Where the penalty imposed on the accused who did not appeal was
the factual process by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was a nullity because it was never authorized by law, that penalty can be
determined was not safeguarded. The accused could not be said to have corrected to make it conform to the penalty prescribed by law because
enjoyed to right to be heard by himself and counsel, and to be informed said penalty can never become final and executory and it is within the
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in the proceedings duty and inherent power of the court to have it conformable with law.
where his life and liberty were at stake. People v Barro, Sr.
Consequence; re-arraignment and re-trial. Movant richly deserves a
re-arraignment and re-trial, to the end that only upon proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt may he be consigned to the lethal injection
chamber.
Retroactivity of penal laws favorable to accused
Hernan v Sandiganbayan
Penal laws have retroactive effect if favorable to the accused. RA
10951 reduced the penalties for the crimes of theft, qualified theft,
estafa, robbery, malicious mischief, and such other crimes. For as long
as it is favorable to the accused, said recent legislation shall find
application regardless of whether its effectivity comes after the time
when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if service of
sentence has already begun. The accused, in these applicable instances,
shall be entitled to the benefits of the new law warranting him to serve
a lesser sentence, or to his release, if he has already begun serving his
previous sentence, and said service already accomplishes the term of the
modified sentence.
Exception to immutability of judgment. The general rule is that a
judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable,
and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification
is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whenever
it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 120
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Rule 127, Section 1. Availability of provisional remedies. The
provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are applicable, may
be availed of in connection with the civil action deemed instituted with the
criminal action.
When provisional remedy may be availed of in a criminal action;
civil liability ex delicto. To avail of a provisional remedy in a criminal
action, it must be one with a corresponding civil liability. If there is a
civil liability, the civil action must be one arising from the offense
charged and which is deemed instituted in the said criminal action.
• Hence, if the civil action has been waived, reserved, or
instituted separately, a provisional remedy may not be availed
of in the criminal action.
• Instead, the provisional remedy should be applied for in the
separate civil action instituted.
Rule 127, Section 2. Attachment. When the civil action is properly
instituted in the criminal action as provided in Rule 111, the offended
party may have the property of the accused attached as security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused in
the following cases:
a. When the accused is about to abscond from the Philippines;
b. When the criminal action is based on a claim for money or property
embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of
the accused who is a public officer, officer of a corporation, attorney,
factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such,
or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation
of duty;
c. When the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his
property, or is about to do so; and
d. When the accused resides outside the Philippines.
Note: Under Section 2(b) above, preliminary attachment may be
availed of without need for a showing that the accused has concealed,
removed, or disposed of his property or is about to do so.
Damages vis-à-vis provisional remedy. For reasons connected with
the offended party’s availment of a provisional remedy, the accused,
during the trial, may prove not only his defense but also damages he
may have sustained arising from the issuance of a provisional remedy
in the case. Section 11(b), Rule 119.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said court or any
Rule 57. Preliminary attachment member thereof.
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue.
At the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. A
judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:
adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment a. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the
that may be recovered in the following cases: whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
a. In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of,
or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a
action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or limited period or perpetually;
quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the b. That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the
Philippines which intent to defraud his creditors; act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably
b. In an action for money or property embezzled or work injustice to the applicant; or
fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a c. That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening,
public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done,
factor, broker agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
as such, or by other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding,
willful violation of duty; and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
c. In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or
fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the property,
or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed
of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an
authorized person;
d. In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in
contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which
the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;
e. In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of
his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud
his creditors; or
f. In an action against a party who does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be
served by publication.
Rule 58
Section 1. Preliminary injunction defined. Preliminary injunction is
an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the
judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person
to refrain from a particular act or acts. It may also require the
performance of a particular act or acts; in which case it shall be known
as a preliminary mandatory injunction.
Section 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. A preliminary
injunction may be granted by the court where the action or proceeding
is pending. If the action or proceeding is pending in the Court of
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 121
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
CONCEPTS
Article 3, Section 2 1987 Constitution. The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
Protection against state intrusion. The rule against unreasonable
searches and seizures does not extend to acts committed by private
individual and entities. In this case, it was the proprietor of the
forwarding agency who made the search/inspection of the packages.
Mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search
effected into a warrantless search and seizure. People v Marti
Unreasonable searches; no presumption of regularity. The
provision does not prohibit all kinds of searches and seizures – it only
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Normally, unless
authorized by a valid warrant, searches and seizures are considered
unreasonable. There is no presumption of regularity in a search and
seizure.
Reasonable searches. Reasonable searches are beyond the coverage
of the provision. An example is laid down in Saluday v People, where
passengers may be searched when they board public transportation
vehicles due to reduced expectation of privacy.
Arrest v Search
Arrest Search
Involves the taking of a person Covers a wider spectrum of
in custody matters on the search of both
persons and places and the
seizure of things found therein
In order to determine probable Probable cause to search
cause to arrest, the judge (not the requires facts to show that
prosecutor) must have sufficient particular things connected with
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
facts in his hands that would a crime are found in a specific commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial
tend to show that a crime has location. region where the warrant shall be enforced.
been committed and that a However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application
particular person committed it. shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.
Judge is not necessarily required The judge must, before issuing
to make a personal examination the search warrant, personally Ex parte application for a search warrant. An application for a
before issuing a warrant of arrest examine the complainant and search warrant is heard ex parte. It is neither a trial nor a part of the
the witnesses he may produce in trial. Action on these applications must be expedited for time is of the
determining probable cause essence. Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to the
An arrest may be made on any A search warrant is generally testimonies under oath of the complainant and the witnesses. Chemise
day and at any time of the day or served in the day time, unless Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez
night there be a direction in the
warrant that it may be served at AM 99-20-09-SC. This modified Section 2 of Rule 126 in cases
any time of the day or night involving:
Issuance of warrant of arrest A search warrant may be issued 1. Heinous crimes,
presupposes the existence of a prior to the filing of the case. 2. Illegal gambling,
pending criminal case that gave 3. Dangerous drugs, and
rise to the warrant 4. Illegal possession of firearms.
The following are authorized to act on all applications for search
Rule 126, Section 1. Search warrant defined. A search warrant is: warrants involving any of the above crimes:
- an order in writing • The executive judge and vice executive judge of RTCs of
- issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, Manila and QC
- signed by a judge and • filed by the PNP, NBI, the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime
- directed to a peace officer, Task Force (PAOC-TF) and the Reaction Against Crime Task
- commanding him to search for PERSONAL PROPERTY Force (REACT-TF).
described therein and bring it before the court. Personal endorsement. The applications shall be personally endorsed
by the Head of said agencies, for the search of places to be particularly
Search warrant not a criminal action. A search warrant is not a described therein, and the seizure of property or things as prescribed in
criminal action nor does it represent a commencement of a criminal the Rules of Court, and to issue the warrants of arrest, if justified, which
prosecution. It is not a proceeding against a person but is solely for the may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of said
discovery and to get possession of personal property. Savage v Taypin courts.
Search warrant not a criminal action; effect. Any aggrieved party Endorsement delegable. There is nothing in the rule that prohibits
may question an order quashing the same without need for the agencies mentioned from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing
conformity of the public prosecutor. Savage v Taypin the application to their assistant heads. Marimla v People
Search warrant is a judicial process incident to the main case.
Rule 126, Section 2. Court where application for search warrant
RTC Judge of Kalookan issued a search warrant sought for in
shall be filed. An application for search warrant shall be filed with the
connection with an alleged violation of PD 1866 perpetrated in Quezon
following:
City. Can Kalookan Judge take cognizance of an application for a search
1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
warrant in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial
committed.
2. For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the jurisdiction? Yes. A search warrant is merely a judicial process designed
judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the by the Rules to respond only to an incident in the main case, if one has
already been instituted, or in anticipation thereof. In anticipation of a
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 122
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
case, as in the case at bar, it would involve some judicial clairvoyance
(waw) to require observance of the rules as to where a criminal case may
eventually be filed where, in the first place, no such action has yet been
instituted. In such a case, the action may ultimately be instituted in a
territorial jurisdiction other than that where the illegal articles sought to
be seized are then located. This is aside from the consideration that a
criminal action may be filed in different venues under the rules for
delitos continuados or in those instances where different trial courts
have concurrent original jurisdiction over the same criminal offense.
Malaloan v CA
Rule when a search warrant is issued by a court, and the criminal
case is pending in another. Where a search warrant is issued by one
court and the criminal action based on the results of the search is
otherwise commenced in another court, it is not the rule that a motion
to quash the warrant or to retrieve the things thereunder seized may be
filed only with the issuing court. Such motion may be filed for the first
time in either the issuing court or in that in which the criminal action is
pending. However, the remedy is alternative, not cumulative. The court
first taking cognizance of the motion does so to the exclusion of the
other, and the proceedings thereon are subject to the Omnibus Motion
Rule and the rule against forum shopping. People v CA
MTQ and motion to suppress are alternative remedies when 2
courts are involved. Where no MTQ the search warrant was filed in
or resolved by the issuing court, the interested party may move in the
court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as evidence
of the personal property seized under the warrant of the same is offered
therein for said purpose. When two different courts are involved (one
trying the case and one issuing the search warrant), a motion to quash
and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative
remedies. In order to prevent forum shopping, a motion to quash shall
be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided however, that
objections not available, existent or known during the proceedings for
the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion
to suppress. The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress shall
likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher
court. People v CA
Rule 126, Section 3. Personal property to be seized. A search
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:
1. Subject of the offense;
2. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
3. Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Particular description. The purpose of the constitutional requirement
that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is
to limit the things to be taken to those, and only those particularly
described in the search warrant — to leave the officers of the law with
no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. A search warrant
is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a
fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles
relating to a crime. People v Nuñez.
Name of the owner not important. Failure to name the owner or
occupant of the property in the affidavit and search warrant does not
invalidate the warrant. If the name of the owner of the premises sought
to be searched is incorrectly inserted, it is not a fatal defect if the legal
description of the premises is otherwise correct that no discretion is left
to the officer making the search as to the place to be searched. Quelnan
v People
Test for particularity. A search warrant may be said to particularly
describe he things to be seized when:
1. The description therein is as specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow;
2. When the description expresses a conclusion of fact – not of
law – by which the warrant officer may be guided in making
the search and seizure; and
3. When the things described are limited to those which bear
direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being
issued. Bache & Co. v Ruiz
Wrong house address; identification. The rule is that a description
of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can,
with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or
description known to the locality that leads the officer unerringly to it
satisfies the constitutional requirement. In this case, the police officer
serving the warrant failed to correctly identify the house to be searched
because of the wrong description in the warrant. People v Francisco
General warrant. A general warrant is a search or arrest warrant that is
not particular as to the person to be arrested or the property to be
seized. It is one that allows the seizure of one thing under a warrant
describing another and gives the officer executing the warrant the
discretion over which items to take.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
General warrants; records of all transactions. The warrants were
illegal for authorizing the search for and seizure of records pertaining
to all business transactions of petitioners, regardless of whether the
transactions were legal or illegal. A general warrant violates the
constitutional requirement that the things to be seized be particularly
described. Stonehill v Diokno
When generic description allowed. The use of a generic term or a
general description in a warrant is allowed only when a more specific
description in the things to be seized is not available.
Ownership of property not required. The law does not require that
the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom
the search warrant is directed. It is sufficient that the person against
whom the warrant is directed has control and possession of the
property sought to be seized. Yao v People
Rule 126, Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search
warrant shall not issue except upon:
- probable cause in connection with one specific offense
- to be determined personally by the judge
- after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and
- particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be
seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
Probable cause in search warrant. Probable cause for the issuance of
a search warrant means such facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched.
Not absolute certainty. Probable cause does not mean actual and
positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. The determination
of the existence of probable cause is not concerned with the question
of whether the offense charged has been or is being committed in fact,
or whether the accused is guilty or innocent, but only whether the
affiant has reasonable grounds for this belief. The requirement is less
than certainty of proof, but more than suspicion or possibility.
Determination of probable cause. Sec 4, Rule 126, is more emphatic
and candid, for it requires the judge, before issuing a search warrant, to
personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any
123
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
witnesses he may produce. [In warrant of arrest, personal examination by the
judge is not necessary]
Search warrant directed against a newspaper publisher or editor;
generalization not enough. When the search warrant applied for is
directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the
publication of subversive materials, the application and/or its
supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with
particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is
intending to publish. Mere generalization or conclusions of law will not
suffice. In this case, a mere allegation that a person has in his control
printing equipment and other paraphernalia that are being used as a
means of committing the offense of subversion does not satisfy the
requirements of probable cause. Burgos v Chief of Staff
Personal knowledge. The oath required must refer to the truth of the
facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses,
because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate,
not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the
warrant of the existence of probable cause. Burgos v Chief of Staff
Place to be searched must be confined strictly to the place so
described. The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot
be amplified or modified by the officers own personal knowledge of the
premises or the evidence they adduced in support of their application
of the warrant. Such would give the officers the power to choose the
place to be searched, even if not delineated in the warrant. It would
open door to abuse of search warrant and grant to officers executing a
search warrant that discretion which the constitution has precisely
removed from them.
Rule 126, Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. The
judge must, before issuing the warrant,
- personally examine
- 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.
Probing examination. The examination must be probing and
exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable
cause is to be established. The examining magistrate must not simply
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on
the intent and justification of the application. Roan v Gonzales
Personal knowledge. The applicant or his witnesses must have
personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the commission
of the offense being complained of. "Reliable information'' is
insufficient. Mere affidavits are not enough, and the judge must depose
in writing the complainant and his witnesses. Yao, Sr. v People
When no personal knowledge. Absent the element of personal
knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the
issuance of a search warrant may be justified, the warrant is not deemed
based on probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being arbitrary in
legal contemplation. Century Chinese Medicine v Co
Rule 126, Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. If the
judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is
based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall
issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed
by these Rules.
Rule 126, Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect
search. The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search
after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any
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.
Knock and announce rule. Being armed with a warrant does not
justify outright entry or barging into the place to be searched. An officer
should knock, introduce himself and announce his purpose and only in
exceptional cases may he forego the same, like when his safety is in
danger of being jeopardized or when evidence is about to be destroyed.
Rule 126, Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made
in presence of two witnesses. No search of a house, room, or any
other premise shall be made except in the presence of:
- the lawful occupant thereof or
- any member of his family or
- in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality.
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 126, Section 9. Time of making search. The warrant must direct
that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in
which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of
the day or night.
Rule 126, Section 10. Validity of search warrant. A search warrant shall
be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void.
Post-service procedure
1. Issuance of receipt for the property seized
2. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court
Rule 126, Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. The officer
seizing property under the warrant
- must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the
premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or
- in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality,
leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property.
Issuance of receipt of property seized. Not only does the law require
the presence of witnesses when the search is conducted, but it also
imposes upon the person making the search the duty to issue a detailed
receipt for the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant,
together with a true and accurate inventory thereof duly verified under
oath. People v Gesmundo
No record of inventory being made; no evidence. The records show
that an inventory was not part of the records transmitted by the warrant
issuing branch to the trial branch. The judge who issued the search
warrant also did not have among her files the inventory supposedly
submitted by the police. If indeed an inventory of the seized items was
made, it must be part of the records of the case. But this was not so.
Having no return or inventory to the warrant-issuing court, there is no
proof that the police really found marijuana inside the house of the
accused. People v Gesmundo
Retention of seized items; judicial approval required. SC said that
tolerance by the TC of the practice that the police force in San Pablo
City retain possession of confiscated items by immediately forwarding
to the NBI does not make the said practice right. It violates the
mandatory requirements of the law and defeats the very purpose for
which they were enacted. It has been held in jurisprudence that approval
124
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
by the court that issued the search warrant is necessary for the retention
of the property seized by the police and only then will their custody be
considered custody of the court. Absent such approval, the police have
no authority to retain possession of the items, and more so, to deliver
the items to another agency, like the NBI. People v Gesmundo
Must be assisted by counsel for a valid extra-judicial admission
in signing receipt. Lacbanes was arrested and charged with a violation
of the DDA for selling marijuana. According to him, the officers forced
him to affix his signature on a piece of paper, the contents of which he
did not know at the time but which turned out to be a receipt for
property seized. The receipt showed that the 3 sticks of marijuana
cigarettes and the 2 marked 5 bills were seized from him. Is the receipt
admissible in evidence? No. The SC did not accept the receipt as
evidence that the mentioned items were seized from him because
prosecution failed to prove that he was assisted by counsel at the time.
Conforme to these documents are tacit admissions of the crime charged
since merely unexplained possession of prohibited drugs is punished by
law. This act of signing was tantamount to an extra-judicial confession
for the commission of the offense. Nevertheless, it was sufficiently
established by witnesses and records that he committed the charge
against him. It’s just that the receipt cannot be taken against him. People v
Lacbanes
Rule 126, Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to
court; return and proceedings thereon.
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge
who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly
verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge
shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon
the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain
why no return was made.
(c) If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section
11 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the
property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that
subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian
of the logbook on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of
the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Rule 126, Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
Rule 126, Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to
suppress evidence; where to file. A motion to quash a search warrant
and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted
upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no
criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and
resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if
such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequent
filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court.
Objection before plea or else waived. Any objection concerning the
issuance or service of a warrant or a procedure in the acquisition by the
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
Buenaventura v People
Who may assail legality. The legality of a seizure can be contested
only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the
objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
cannot be availed of by third parties. Santos v. Pryce Gases
Quashal of search warrant; interlocutory order; not appealable.
Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a pending criminal
case, the quashal of a search warrant is merely interlocutory. Hence, no
appeal may be taken.
Quashal of search warrant; final order; appealable. Where a search
warrant is applied for and issued in anticipation of a criminal case yet to
be filed, the order quashing the warrant is applied for and issued in
anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed, the order quashing the
warrant ends the judicial process. There is nothing left to be done.
Hence, an appeal may be properly taken therefrom.
Use of thermal imaging device. Where the government uses a device
that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
that would previously have been unknowable without physical
intrusion, the surveillance is a search and is presumptively unreasonable
without a warrant. Hence, when the police officers used a thermal
imaging device because they suspected the accused to be growing
marijuana indoor, and indeed proved the same with the use of said
device, the court ordered the suppression of the evidence obtained.
Kyllo v US
Searched when crossing the street. Pursuant to a tip that a certain
Aling Rosa will be arriving from Baguio with a large volume of
marijuana, NARCOM agents searched the woman and found dried
marijuana leaves in her bag. The SC said that this violated her
constitutional right because it cannot be said that she just committed a
crime, is committing a crime or was about to commit a crime, because
she was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner
that would engender a reasonable belief that she was committing a
crime. There being no probable cause and the accused not having been
lawfully arrested, the search was illegal and the product thereof cannot
be used against the accused. People v Aruta
VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
General rule; warrantless searches are invalid. The procurement of
a warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly search or seize
the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual. The general rule
is that all searches and seizures made without a warrant are invalid. The
illegality of a search and a seizure occurs not only from the failure to
obtain a warrant when required but also from the failure to comply with
the procedures for obtaining a warrant and in the execution of the same.
Such failure will result in the application of the exclusionary rule. That
is, whatever items are seized are inadmissible as evidence.
Exceptions. Warrantless searches and seizures
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Search of a moving vehicle
3. Seizure of evidence in plain view
4. Stop and frisk
5. Consented warrantless search
6. Customs search and seizure of goods
7. Private searches
8. Extraordinary circumstances
125
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Probable cause requirement. For a warrantless search and seizure to
be valid, there must be a probable cause. The only exception is a stop
and frisk search, but such search must still be reasonable.
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
Rule 126, Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.
Prior valid arrest. The application of the above rule presupposes that
the person searched was previously arrested lawfully. Hence, a person
illegally arrested cannot be validly searched without a warrant under this
provision. For an arrest to be lawful, the arrest may either be by virtue
of a warrant lawfully procured or by virtue of a warrantless arrest
authorized under Sec. 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The process
cannot be reversed. Omar v People
Purpose. The purposes of allowing a warrantless search and seizure
incident to a lawful arrest are:
1. to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the
person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed
weapon, and
2. to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach.
Scope of search; includes area of immediate control. In lawful
arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the arresting officer
to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect
but also within the permissible area within the latter's reach or within
the area of his immediate control.
Area of immediate control. This means the area from within which
he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
Test; area + time. The item to be searched was within the custody or
area of immediate control of the person arrested. And also, the search
was contemporaneous with the arrest.
Search of moving vehicles: Carroll Doctrine
Search of a moving vehicle. Searches and seizures without warrant
are valid if made upon probable cause that an automobile or other
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.
It is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
must be sought. People v CFI , first enunciated in Carroll v US
Gun ban; checkpoints; visual search only. Search conducted at
police or military checkpoints are not illegal per se, provided that the
vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search,
and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search.
Aniag, Jr. v COMELEC
Gun ban; checkpoints; when extensive search valid. An extensive
search without warrant could only be resorted to if the officers
conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe
before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that
they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the
commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched. Aniag, Jr. v
COMELEC
Same; search of moving vehicles. Stop-and-search without warrant
conducted by police officers on the basis of prior confidential
information which were reasonably corroborated by other attendant
matters are valid. Aniag, Jr. v COMELEC
Warrant not needed in buy-bust operations. A search warrant or
warrant of arrest is not needed in a buy-bust operation because here the
accused is caught in flagrante delicto. People v Araneta
• Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for
the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.
• On the other hand, instigation means luring the accused into
a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in
order to prosecute him.
Search of evidence in plain view; plain view
doctrine
Plain view doctrine. Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in
the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have
that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
Requisites. The following must concur for the doctrine to apply:
1. Prior valid intrusion into a place;
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had
the right to be where they are;
3. The illegality of the evidence must be readily apparent; and
4. Illegality of evidence is noticed without further search
Plain view. An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight.
Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is
not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. If
the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its
appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is
deemed in plain view People v. Nuevas
Not plain view. When the person arrested was brought out of the
room with his hands tied, a cabinet which is locked could no longer be
considered as part of "an area within his immediate control" because
there was no way for him to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence
that could be used against him. Valeroso v CA
Inadvertence. The officer must not have known in advance of the
location of the evidence, and the discovery must not have been
anticipated. Hence, the plain view doctrine will not apply if the police
officers did not just accidentally discover the evidence but actually
searched for it. Valeroso v CA
Immediately apparent. This requirement means that the
incriminating nature of the evidence becomes apparent if the officer, at
the moment of seizure, had probable cause to connect it to a crime
without the benefit of an unlawful search or seizure.
Stop and frisk; Terry Doctrine
Stop and frisk situations. A police officer may in appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for the
purpose of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there
is no probable cause to make an arrest. Terry v Ohio
Requisites.
1. Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads
him to reasonably believe that a criminal activity may be afoot
and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed
and presently dangerous;
2. Where in the course of investigation he identifies himself as a
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries; and
126
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
3. Where nothing in the initial stages of encounter serves to
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety.
Frisk stage. Then he is entitled for the protection of himself and others
in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing
of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used
to assault him.
Test of officer’s conduct; specific and articulable facts. A mere
deep suspicion by an experienced officer that criminal activity could
take place is not sufficient for the application of the Terry Doctrine.
The officer’s act must be justified by concrete facts pointing at least
towards a possible criminal activity, where no crime is still apparent to
the officer. Terry calls these as the specific and articulable facts which,
taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably
warrant that intrusion.
Test of officer’s act; genuine reason. The officer must have a genuine
reason, in accordance with his experience and the surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons
or contraband concealed about him. Esquillo v People
Buri bag; objective of stop and frisk. The petitioner was carrying a
buri bag and acting suspiciously when he was apprehended by the
police. When officers checked the bag, it contained a revolver,
ammunition, and a tear gas. The search and seizure may be justified as
akin to a ‘stop and frisk’ whose object is either to determine the identity
of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily
while the police officer seeks to obtain more information. Posadas v CA
Terry v Ohio
In the middle of the afternoon of October 31, 1963, veteran Police
Officer Martin McFadden was in his usual beat in downtown Cleveland,
a place he had covered for 30 years as member of the Cleveland police
force. McFadden saw two unknown men who later were identified as
Terry and Chilton, and who by their acts appeared to him to be engaged
in an elaborate yet casual reconnaissance of a store. At one point, a third
man, later on identified as Katz, came to confer with the first two, then
disappeared and then rejoined the other two. Suspecting them to be
armed, and fearing that the three were preparing to rob the store,
McFadden approached the men, identified himself as a police officer
and asked them to identify themselves. When they simply mumbled an
answer and did not get a clear and audible response, he patted down the
outer garment of Terry and felt a gun in his pocket and removed the
same. A gun was also recovered from Chilton.
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
Terry was subsequently convicted for carrying a concealed weapon. The
Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. In the Supreme Court,
Terry contended that there existed no probable cause for his arrest, that
since the "stop" was an arrest and that the "frisk" was a search under
America's Fourth Amendment (Freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures), probable cause is required. The argument was rejected by
the Supreme Court.
Ruling. The Court held that the acts of Officer McFadden were acts
which a reasonably prudent man would have done in believing that
Terry was armed and that he presented a threat to the officer's safety
while he was investigating his suspicious behavior. The actions of Terry
and Chilton were consistent with McFadden's hypothesis that these
men were contemplating a daylight robbery which reasonably would
have been carried out with a deadly weapon. Nothing in their conduct
from the time he first noticed them until the time he confronted them
and identified himself as a police officer gave him sufficient reason to
negate that hypothesis. Mumbling an unclear response to the officer's
distinct question did nothing to clear up the suspicion. The record,
observed the Court, evidences the tempered act of a policeman who in
the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how
to protect himself and others from possible danger, and he took limited
steps to do so.
Not overly intrusive. The Court likewise noted that Officer
McFadden's actions were not invasive and overly intrusive. He patted
down the outer clothing of Terry and his two companions. He did not
place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their
garments until he had felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and
removed the guns.
Not overly intrusive. He never did invade Katz' person beyond the
outer surfaces of his clothes, since he discovered nothing in his pat
down which might have been a weapon. Officer McFadden confined
his search strictly to what was minimally necessary to learn whether the
men were armed and to disarm them once he discovered the weapons.
He did not conduct a general exploratory search for whatever evidence
of criminal activity he might find.
Manalili v CA
The policemen chanced upon a male person in front of the cemetery
who appeared high on drugs. He was observed to have reddish eyes and
to be walking in a swaying manner. When he tried to avoid the
policemen, the latter approached him and asked him what he was
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
holding in his hands after introducing themselves as police officers. The
male person tried to resist. One of the policemen asked to see what he
had and the man showed him his wallet. Upon examination, crushed
marijuana residue was found. He was convicted of illegal possession of
drugs on the basis of the testimony of the arresting officers. Was the
search valid? Yes.
It was akin to a stop and frisk. The policemen observed that the
accused had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk man along the
Caloocan Cemetery, which according to police information was a
popular hangout of drug addicts. From his experience as member of
the Anti-Narcotics Unit, such suspicious behavior was characteristic of
drug addicts who were high. Therefore, the policemen has sufficient
reason to stop the accused to investigate if he was actually high on
drugs.
Consented warrantless search
Consented search. A consented search occurs when a person gives a
law enforcement agent permission to search in areas in which such
person has reasonable expectation of privacy.
Requisites for valid waiver (of right not to be searched)
1. The right exists
2. The person involved had actual or constructive knowledge of
the existence of such right and
3. The person had actual intention to relinquish such right. People
v Nuevas
Bus search; consented. The constitutional immunity against
unreasonable searches is a personal right, which may be waived. But the
consent must be voluntary such that it us unequivocal, specific, and
intelligently given uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. In this
case, the petitioner’s answer of “yes, just open it” constitutes a clear
consent by petitioner for the search of his bag. Saluday v People
Voluntary waiver; not inferred. Consent to a warrantless search must
be voluntary. It is not to be lightly inferred but must be shown by clear
and convincing evidence. It is the State which has the burden of
proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was
obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given. Valdez v People
It cannot be inferred from mere silence. The appellant’s silence
should not be lightly taken as consent to the search. The implied
127
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more
than mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive
circumstances, and is, thus, considered no consent at all. The waiver of
a constitutional right must be knowing, intelligent, and free from any
coercion. In all cases, waiver is not presumed. People v Cogaed
Search allowed by maid not proper consent; waiver of rights
personal in nature. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable
searches and seizures is a personal right that cannot be waived by
anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or who is expressly
authorized to do so in his or her behalf. In this case, the accused was
absent during the search and there was no showing that the helper had
the authority to open the house in his absence. People v Damaso
Illegal search and seizure; scope of consented search. The consent
of Veroy only extended as to ascertain the presence of alleged rebel
soldiers, not the room to room search of the house. The items taken
were products of an illegal search and are therefore inadmissible as
evidence. Spouses Veroy v. Layagu
Customs search and seizure of goods
Blue dodge car smuggling watches. The authority of persons duly
commissioned to enforce tariff and customs laws is quite exceptional
when it pertains to the domain of searches and seizures of goods
suspected to have been introduced in the country in violation of custom
laws. He has the power to open and examine any box or other container
wherever found when he has reasonable cause to suspect the presence
of dutiable or prohibited articles introduced into the Philippines
contrary to law, and likewise to stop, search, and examine any vehicle
or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such articles.
People v CFI
Enforcement of tariff and customs laws. When the accused were
searched, it was the mission of the PAF operatives to conduct a
surveillance operation to verify reports of drug trafficking and
smuggling by certain PAL personnel in the vicinity of the airport. In
other words, the nature of the search was a customs search. As such,
the team properly effected the search and seizure without warrant since
it exercised authority under the customs law. Law enforcers who are
tasked to effect the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are
authorized to search and seize without a warrant, any article, cargo, or
other movable property when there is reasonable cause to suspect that
the said items have been introduced into the PH in violation of the tariff
JO VALLES
ad majorem dei gloriam
and customs law. They may likewise conduct a warrantless search of
any vehicle or person suspected of holding or conveying said articles.
Salvador v people
Private searches
No governmental interference. The protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private
individuals so as to bring it within the ambit if alleged unlawful intrusion
by the government. Hence, if the search is made at the behest or
initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and
private purposes, the constitutional protection cannot be invoked. In
this case, it was the proprietor of the forwarding agency who made the
search/inspection of the packages. Mere presence of the NBI agents
did not convert the reasonable search effected into a warrantless search
and seizure. People v Marti
No governmental interference. The meter contract between VECO
and each of its consumers provides that the consumers agree to allow
properly authorized employees of the company to enter his premises at
all reasonable hours xxx for the purpose of inspecting, installing,
reading, removing, testing, replacing or otherwise disposing of its
property and/or removing the company’s property in the event of the
termination of the contract for any cause. This stipulation clothed the
employees of the company with unquestioned authority to enter the
garage to inspect the meter of Sesbreño. The team, being private
persons and having complied with the abovementioned stipulations
(location, time, objective to inspect), could not have been said to have
engaged in unlawful search and seizure. Sesbreno v CA
Extraordinary circumstances
Extraordinary circumstances; exception to the rule. Pursuant to an
intelligence report, the authorities surveilled the Eurocar Sales Office in
EDSA. When the authorities passed the group of people gathered near
the building, the latter drew their guns and fired at the authorities. 4
days later, the office was raided and dynamites, ammunitions, and
bombs were confiscated. The raid also resulted to the arrest of the
appellants, who were made to sign an inventory of the items seized. No
search warrant was secured by the raiding team because according to
them, at the time there was so much disorder considering that the
nearby Camp Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces and
there was simultaneous firing within the vicinity of office raided, aside
from the fact that the courts were consequently closed. Was the search
Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
and seizure valid? Yes. The instant case falls under one of the
exceptions to the prohibitions against a warrantless search. First, the
military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case,
had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed.
There was more than sufficient probable cause to warrant the action.
Second, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts.
under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could
lawfully be dispensed with. People v de Gracia
Canine or dog sniff test
The canine sniff test was applied by the court differently depending on
the place where the sniff was conducted—private residence, airport,
highway, or in routine traffic stops.
Private home. The employment by the police of a trained drug-
detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private
home, in the absence of the consent of the home-owner, requires a
search warrant, the dog sniff being a search within the meaning of the
4th Amendment. Florida v Jardines
Airport. A sniff by a police dog specially trained to detect the presence
of narcotics in an airport is not a search under the meaning of the 4 th
amendment. It is sui generis, intended to reveal only the presence or
absence of narcotics and thus, a warrant is generally not required. US v
Place
Traffic stops. A warrantless dog sniff of a vehicle is permissible at
routine lawful traffic stops where the stop is not unreasonably
prolonged. Illinois v Caballes
REMEDIES AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCH
1. Motion to quash search warrant
2. Motion to suppress evidence
3. Return of property illegally seized
4. Criminal liability and civil damages
Rule 126, Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress
evidence; where to file. A motion to quash a search warrant and/or
128
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES ad majorem dei gloriam CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon

only by the court where the action has been instituted.

Civil damages; criminal liability

Civil liability. The proceedings under Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
do not provide for the filing of counterclaims for damages against those
who may have improperly sought the issuance of the search warrant.
However, these aggrieved have the right to seek damages, if the
circumstances warranted, by separate civil action for the wrong inflicted
on them by an improperly obtained or enforced search warrant. Arthur
Del Rosario, et al. v. Hellenor D. Doanto, Jr., et al.,

Civil and criminal liability. There is civil liability based on the concept
of an independent civil action for violation of a person's right to be
secure in his persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures (Article 32[9], Civil Code). This liability is separate
and distinct from any criminal liability that may arise from the Revised
Penal Code like:
1. violation of domicile (Article 128, RPC)
2. search warrant maliciously obtained and abuse in the service
of those legally obtained (Article 129, RPC), or
3. searching domicile without witnesses (Article 130, RPC).

JO VALLES Honor and Excellence. Honor before Excellence. 129