ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY Rule 119: Trial (Sections 1-24)
CRIMINOLOGY DEPARTMENT Rule 121: New Trial or Reconsideration
Cauayan City, Isabela
COURSE OUTLINE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND
COURT TESTIMONY
(Second Semester, S/Y 2022-2023)
ATTY. BENTEL JELLIE C. ESTRADA
Professor
PART I - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND COURT
TESTIMONY
Principles of Criminal Procedure
General Matters
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the subject matter and Jurisdiction
over the person of the accused
Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts
Concept of Selective Prosecution
Institution of Legal Action
Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses (Sections 1-
16)
Preliminary Investigation
Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation (Sections
1-8)
Preliminary Investigation vs. Preliminary
Examination/Inquiry
Arrest and Bail
Arrest
Rule 113: Arrest (Sections 1-14)
How made
Requisites of Valid Warrant of Arrest
Lawful Warrantless Arrest
Bailable and Non-bailable offenses
Bail
Rule 114: Bail (Sections 1-26)
When bail a matter of right: exceptions
When bail is a matter of discretion
Arraignment and Plea
Rule 116: Arraignment and Plea (Sections 1-11)
Purpose of Arraignment
Quashal of Criminal action
Rule 117: Motion to Quash (Sections 1-9)
Denial of Motion to Quash vs. Granting of Motion to
Quash
Pre-trial, Trial and New Trial
Rule 118: Pre-trial (Sections 1-4)
Search and Seizure
Rule 126: Search and Seizure
The Rules in Search and Seizure of electronic data
As provided under the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants
issued by the Supreme Court pursuant to the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No.
10175)
Rules in securing warrant for communication device
Knowledge on the nature of the following writs:
Writ of Amparo
Habeas Corpus
A. Coverage of Petition
B. Who may grant the writ
C. Requisites for Application
D. Contents of Petition
E. When writ allowed and disallowed
1. Ampatuan vs. Macaraig, June 29, 2010
2. Barredo vs. Binarao, August 2, 2007
3. Kiani vs. BID, February 27, 2006
4. In the matter of the Petition for Habeas
Corpus of
Kunting, April 19, 2006
F. When writ must be granted
1. In the matter of the Petition for Habeas
Corpus of Eufemia Rodriguez, January 29, 2008
G. Habeas Corpus as Post-Judgment Remedy
1. Andal vs. People, May 26, 1999
2. Evangelista vs. Sistoza, August 9, 20012
H. Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas
Corpus in
Relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC,
April
22, 2003)
1. Pablo-Gualberto vs. Gualberto, June 28,
2005
2. Militante vs. Cada-Deapera, July 28, 2014
3. Thornton vs. Thornton, August 16, 2004
4. Madrinan vs. Madrinan, July 12, 2007
Writ of Habeas Data
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC: Rules on the Writ of
Habeas Data
Writ of Kalikasan
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC: Rules of Procedure
for Environmental
Cases
PART II
Court Testimony
Mock Trial
Court Observation
“ Never let the odds keep you from pursuing what you
know in your heart you were meant to do.”
-Leroy Satchel Paige
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
CRIMINOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Cauayan City, Isabela
COURSE OUTLINE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND
COURT TESTIMONY
(Second Semester, S/Y 2022-2023)
ATTY. BENTEL JELLIE C. ESTRADA
Professor
PART I
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Principles of Criminal Procedure General Matters
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - It is the method
prescribed by law for the apprehension and
prosecution of persons accused of any criminal
offense and for their punishment, in case of
conviction.
 It is concerned with the procedural steps
through which a criminal case passes,
commencing with the initial investigation of a
crime and concluding with the release of the
offender
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
 It is the authority to hear and try a particular
offense and impose the punishment for it
(People v. Marinao, 71 SCRA 600, 604).
REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
– is the power to hear and determine cases of the
general class to which the proceedings in question
belong (Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil 484); by virtue of the
imposable penalty or its nature, is one which the court
is by law authorized to take cognizance of; conferred
by law.
2. Jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was
committed
– the offense must have been committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court; jurisdiction over the
territory; cannot be waived.
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
- the person charged with the offense must have been
brought to its presence for trial, forcibly by warrant of
arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.
NOTE:
 The question of jurisdiction may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. The exception to this
rule is when there is estoppel and laches on the
party who raised the question of jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER vs.
JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED
1. Jurisdiction Over The Subject Matter
- Conferred by law. It cannot be acquired by the
consent of the accused.
Jurisdiction Over The Person Of The Accused
- May be acquired by consent of the accused or by
waiver of objections.
2. Jurisdiction Over The Subject Matter
-Objection that the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter may be made at any stage of the
proceeding and the right to make such objection is
never waived.
Jurisdiction Over The Person Of The Accused
- If the accused fails to make his objection in time, he
will be deemed to have waived it.
JURISDICTION
What determines jurisdiction?
- Jurisdiction is determined by the extent of the
penalty which the law imposes, on the basis of the facts
as recited in the complaint or information constitutive
of the offense charged.
Jurisdiction is not determined by:
- what may be meted out to the offender after trial
- the result of the evidence that would be presented
during the trial.
Jurisdiction is retained regardless of:
- whether the evidence proves a lesser offense than
that charged in the information,
- the subsequent happening of events, although of a
character which would have prevented jurisdiction
from attaching in the first instance.
 GENERAL RULE:
- Jurisdiction of a court to try criminal action is to be
determined by the law at the time of the institution of
the action.
EXCEPTION:
- Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed
that it is intended to operate to actions pending before
its enactment, in which case, the court where the
criminal action is pending is ousted of jurisdiction and
the pending action will have to be transferred to the
other tribunal which will continue the proceeding.
ONCE VESTED, JURISDICTION CANNOT BE
WITHDRAWN BY:
1. Subsequent valid amendment of the
Information; or
2. Subsequent statutory amendment of the rules
of jurisdiction, unless the amendatory law
provides otherwise.
Venue is jurisdictional
Thus:
Action must be instituted and tried in the municipality
or territory where the offense has been committed or
where any one of the essential ingredients thereof
took place.
GENERAL RULE:
- The question of jurisdiction may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings.
EXCEPTION:
- It may not be raised for the first time on appeal,
where there has been estoppel and laches on the party
who raises the question.
Criminal jurisdiction of MTCs
GENERAL RULE:
- MTC has jurisdiction over all offenses, the maximum
penalty of which as provided by law does not exceed 6
years (prision correccional).
EXCEPTION:
- In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a
fine, the amount whereof shall determine the
jurisdiction of the court:
- MetroTC, MTC, and MCTC: if fine is not more than
4000 pesos.
- RTC: if fine exceeds 4000 pesos, including offenses
committed by public officers and employees in relation
to their office, where the amount of the fine does not
exceed 6000 pesos. (SC Court Circular No. 09-94).
Accessory penalties and civil liabilities:
 no longer determinative of jurisdiction.
 No jurisdiction: over those cases which by
provision of special law are made triable by the
RTC or the Sandiganbayan even if the
maximum penalty prescribed by such special
law is less than 6 years. Included in such
exceptions are election offenses, libel or
written defamation, and violation of Sec. 39 of
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (RA 6425).
Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
 Offenses or felonies, whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by
the public officials and their employees
mentioned in Subsection (a) of this section in
relation to their office.
 If the last element, namely, “in relation to his
office” is absent or is not alleged in the
information, the crime committed falls within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of ordinary
courts and not the SB.
 The offense is committed in relation to the
office if the offense is intimately connected
with the office of the offender and perpetuated
while he was in the performance of his official
functions, or when the crime cannot exist
without the office, or the office is a constituent
element of the crime as defined in the statute.
Election Offenses
- Fall outside the jurisdiction of SB even if they are
committed by public officers classified as Grade 27 and
higher and in relation to their offices. It is the RTC that
has jurisdiction as provided for in the Omnibus Election
Code.
Court Martial Cases
- Offenses committed by members of the Armed
Forces and other persons subject to military law are
cognizable by court martial if such offenses are
“service connected” as expressly enumerated in RA
7055.
Jurisdiction of Family Courts
- Republic Act No. 8369 establishing the Family Court
granting them exclusive original jurisdiction over child
and family cases, namely: Criminal cases where one or
more of the accused is below 18 years of age but not
less than 9 years of age or where one or more of the
victim 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. The
sentence shall be suspended without need of an
application pursuant to the “Child and Youth Welfare
Code or P.D. 603).
Jurisdiction over Complex Crimes
- Jurisdiction is lodged with the trial court having
jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable of an offense forming part of the
complex crime.
Jurisdiction over Crimes Punishable by Destierro
- Where the imposable penalty is destierro, the case
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Court, considering that in the hierarchy of
penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code,
destierro follows arresto mayor which involves
imprisonment (People v. Eduarte, 182 SCRA).
Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction
- Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained
up to the end of litigation (Dela Cruz v. Moya, 160 SCRA
838).
Question: What is the duty of the Judge upon receipt
of the Information in his sala?
Answer: The presiding judge‘s task is to first and
foremost determine the existence or non-existence of
probable cause for the arrest of the accused. It was
incumbent upon her to assess the resolution, affidavits
and other supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor to satisfy herself that probable cause
existed and before a warrant of arrest could be issued
against the accused. If she did find the evidence
submitted by the prosecutor to be insufficient, she
could order the dismissal of the case, or direct the
investigating prosecutor either to submit more
evidence or to submit the entire records of the
preliminary investigation, or she could even call the
complainant and the witness to answer the courts
probing questions to enable her to discharge her duty.
The High Court in Marcos observed: Most probably,
she did her duty to examine and analyze the attached
documents but because she took pity on the young
accused (never mind the victim), she chose to ignore
or disregard them. Nonetheless, "when the inefficiency
springs from failure to consider so basic and elemental
a rule, law or principle in the discharge of duties, the
judge is either insufferably incompetent and
undeserving of the position she holds or is too vicious
that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in
bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority."
(Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller, supra)[Art III, Sec. 2, 1987
Constitution; Sec. 6, Rule 112, The 2000 ROCP].
RECAP!!!!
Question:
What determines the court’s jurisdiction over a
criminal case? Explain.
Answer: Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter
is vested by law. In criminal cases, the imposable
penalty of the crime charged in the information
determines the court that has jurisdiction over the
case.
The trial court‘s lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by
the parties‘ silence on the matter.
The failure of the parties to raise the matter of
jurisdiction also cannot be construed as a waiver of the
parties.
Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived
by the parties.
 Whereas, jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is acquired upon his valid arrest or
voluntary surrender. Garcia vs. Ferro
Chemicals, Inc., 737 SCRA 252, 1 October
2014)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.].
Question:
What is jurisdiction? Explain.
Answer: Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a
court to hear and determine a judicial proceeding. It is
the right and power of a court to adjudicate concerning
the subject in a given case.
Question:
What is criminal jurisdiction?
Answer: Criminal jurisdiction is the power to declare an
act a crime and to prosecute a person for its
commission. It is both a form of legislative jurisdiction,
by which a government has the authority to declare a
particular conduct to be a crime, and a form of
enforcement jurisdiction, by which the agents of that
government have the power to arrest a person for such
conduct and the courts of that government have the
power to try and to order punishment for it.
 (Cont.) It is customarily based on the location
of the conduct, the location of the harm that
occurs or is intended to occur as a result of the
conduct, the nationality of the person who
engages in it, the nationality of a person or
 entity harmed by it, and the nature of the Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses (Sections 1-16)
conduct itself. Thus, the criminal jurisdiction of
a nation/state may extend to actions by its
citizens, to acts that occur within its territory,
to acts that harm its citizens, to acts that harm
the government itself, and to acts that, by their
very nature, are likely to harm the government
of the state or to harm the interests of all
humankind.

 Therefore, the criminal jurisdiction of trial

courts was defined in B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended by R.A. No. 7691, otherwise known
as the ―Expanded Jurisdiction Act.

Question:
What is the concept of selective prosecution? Explain.

Answer: A claim of "selective prosecution" may only

prosper if there is extrinsic evidence of "clear showing
of intentional discrimination." The prosecution of one
person to the exclusion of others who may be just as Criminal Actions; How Instituted
guilty does not automatically entail a violation of the
equal protection clause. (Abubakar vs. People, 868  The institution of a criminal action generally
SCRA 489, 27 June 2018)(Third Division)[Leonen, J.]. depends upon whether the offense is one
which requires a preliminary investigation (PI)
END OF TOPIC ON JURISDICTION or not
Next topic:
RULE 110 OF THE RULES OF COURT
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

CRIMINOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Cauayan City, Isabela

COURSE OUTLINE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND

COURT TESTIMONY
(Second Semester, S/Y 2022-2023)
ATTY. BENTEL JELLIE C. ESTRADA
Professor
Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses (Sections 1-16)
Institution of Legal Action
Effect of institution
• The institution of a criminal action shall
interrupt the running of the prescription
period of the offense charged UNLESS
otherwise provided in special laws [Sec. 1, Rule
110]
Falling under the authority of the lupon
 While the dispute is under mediation,
conciliation or arbitration, the prescriptive
periods shall be interrupted upon the filing of
the complaint with the Punong Barangay [Sec.
410, LGC]
  Limitation: Interruption shall not exceed 60 initiation of the action. [People v.
days from filing of complaint with the punong Diego, G.R. No. 1626 (1937)]
barangay [Sec. 410(c), LGC].
It is not one of the causes for extinguishment of
Criminal cases required to be filed with criminal liability enumerated in Art. 89 of the Revised
lupon Penal Code.

• Offenses punishable by imprisonment not b. Desistance by offended party

exceeding one (1) year or a fine not exceeding
P5,000 [Sec. 408(c), LGC] and where the
parties actually reside in the same city or
municipality
Exceptions, when [PGP-ODP]:
1. There is no Private offended party [Sec. 408(d),
LGC]
2. One party is the Government or any
subdivision thereof [Sec. 408(a), LGC];
3. One party is a Public officer or employee, and
the dispute relates to the performance of his
Official functions [Sec. 408(b), LGC];
4. Parties actually reside in Different cities or
municipalities, EXCEPT where such barangays
adjoin each other AND the parties agree to
amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
[Sec. 408(f), LGC];
5. Accused is under Police custody or detention
Who May File; Crimes That Cannot be Prosecuted De
Officio
General rule:
 Complaint or Information may only be filed or
dismissed if there is prior written authority or
approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or
chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or
his deputy [Sec. 4, Rule 112, as amended by
A.M. 05-8-26-SC] .
Exceptions: Crimes that cannot be
prosecuted de oficio [ACSAAD]:
1. Adultery
2. Concubinage
3. Seduction
4. Abduction
5. Acts of Lasciviousness
6. Defamation
EVENTS THAT MAY OCCUR AFTER THE
FILING OF THE CASE
a. Death of offended party
Death after filing the complaint would
not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
The death of the offended party in
private crimes is essential solely for the
Desistance does not bar the People of
the Philippines from prosecuting the
criminal action, but it operates as a
waiver of the right to pursue civil
indemnity [People v. Amaca, G.R. No.
110129 (1995)].
c. Pardon by offended party
General rule: A pardon by the offended
party does not extinguish criminal
action but civil liability with regard to
the interest of the injured party is
extinguished by his express waiver [Art.
23, RPC]. If there is more than one
accused, the pardon must be extended
to all offenders.
• Exception: Seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by the
offended party or her parents, grandparents or
guardian [Art. 344, RPC] [Sec. 5, Rule 110]
When should pardon be done
• General rule: Pardon must be made before the
filing of the criminal complaint in court [People
v. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 18897 (2011)]
• *Pardon-past acts!!! Vs, Consent-future acts
• Exception: In rape, marriage between the
offender and the offended party would be
effective as pardon even when the offender has
already commenced serving his sentence
d. Subsequent marriage
General rule: In cases of seduction, abduction,
acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of
the offender with the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or remit the
penalty already imposed upon him, together
with the co-principals, accomplices, and
accessories after the fact of the
abovementioned crimes [Art. 344, RPC]
• Exceptions:
• 1. Marriage was invalid or contracted in bad
faith to escape criminal liability [People v.
Santiago, G.R. No. L-27972 (1927)]
• 2. In multiple rape, insofar as the other accused
in the other acts of rape respectively
 committed by them are concerned [People v.
Bernardo (38 O.G. 3479)]
Control of Prosecution
• General rule:
All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or
information shall be prosecuted under the direction
and control of the prosecutor
• Exception: A 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 [Sec. 5, Rule 110, as
amended by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC (2002)]
Conditions for a private prosecutor to
prosecute a criminal action
a. The public prosecutor has heavy work schedule or
there is no public prosecutor assigned in the province
or the city
b. The private prosecutor is authorized in writing by the
Chief of the Prosecutor office or the Regional State
Prosecutor
c. The authority of the private prosecutor was approved
by the Court
d. The private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute
the case up to the end of the trial unless the authority
is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. [Sec. 5, Rule 110,
A.M. No. 02- 2-07-SC (2002)]
e. In case of withdrawal or revocation of authority, the
same must be approved by the court [DOJ
Memorandum Circular No. 25 (2002)]
CONTENT REQUIRED FOR VALIDITY OF
AN INFORMATION
• A complaint or information is sufficient if it
states the [ADA-ODP]:
• a. Name and surname of the Accused; or any
appellation or nickname by which he is known
or had been known i. When an offense is
committed by more than one person, all of
them shall be included in the complaint or
information [Sec. 6, Rule 110]
• b. Designation of the offense given by the
statute
• c. Acts or Omissions complained of as
constituting the offense
• d. Name of the Offended party
• e. Approximate Date of the commission of the
offense, and
• f. Place where the offense was committed
FORM REQUIRED FOR VALIDITY
a. In writing
b. In the name of the People of the Philippines
c. Against all persons responsible for the offense
involved [Sec. 2, Rule 110]
Test for sufficiency of the information
• Whether the crime is described in intelligible
terms with such particularity as to apprise the
accused with reasonable certainty of the
offense charged [Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 180122 (2009)]
General rule: A defective information cannot support a
judgment of conviction
Exception: Where the defect in the information was
cured by evidence during the trial and no objection
appears to have been raised [Abunado v. People, G.R.
No. 159218 (2004)]
Waiver of objection to sufficiency
• General rule: An accused is deemed to have
waived his right to assail sufficiency of the
information when he voluntarily entered a plea
during arraignment and participated in the trial
[Frias v. People, G.R. No. 171437 (2007)].
• Objections relating to the form of the
complaint or information cannot be made for
the first time on appeal.
• The accused should move for a bill of
particulars or for quashal of information before
arraignment, otherwise he is deemed to have
waived his objections to such a defect [People
v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 172372 (2009)]
• Exception: When the defect consists in the lack
of authority of the prosecutor who filed the
information, as such defect would be
jurisdictional. [Sec. 9, Rule 117]
a. 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 name shall be inserted in the complaint or
information and record. [Sec. 7, Rule 110]
John Doe Informations
• When the information does not sufficiently
describe the accused and all are described as
“John Does,” the arrest warrants against them
are void. [Pangandaman v. Casar, G.R. No. L-
71782 (1988)]

Mistake in the name of the accused
• Mistake 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. [People v. Amodia,
G.R. No. 173791 (2009)]
b. 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 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 crimes 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 person against whom
or against whose property the offense was
committed is thereafter disclosed or
ascertained, the court must cause such 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 may be
identified, without need of averring that it is a
juridical person. [Sec. 12, Rule 110]
• charged with [Guy v. People, G.R. No. 166794-
c. Date of commission
• General rule: It is not necessary to state the
precise date the offense was committed. The
offense may be alleged to have been
committed on a date as near as possible to the
actual date of the commission.
• Exception: When it is an essential element of
the offense (e.g., abortion, bigamy) [Sec. 11,
Rule 110]
Variance in alleged date from proven in trial
• General rule: Allegation in an information of a
date different from the one established during
trial is not fatal to the prosecution. It is just
deemed supplanted by evidence presented
during trial or may even be corrected by a
formal amendment of the information.
• Exception: Fatal when 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. The
defective allegation in the information is struck
down for violating the right of the accused to
be informed [People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572
(2014)]
d. Place of commission
• General rule: The complaint or information is
sufficient if it can be understood from its
allegations that the offense was committed or
some of its essential ingredients occurred at
some place within the jurisdiction of the court.
• Exception: If the particular place where it was
committed constitutes an essential element of
the offense charged or is necessary for its
identification [Sec. 10, Rule 110]
Designation of Offense
• The designation of the offense given by the
statute must be stated in the complaint or
information with the averment of acts or
omissions constituting the offense and the
attendant 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. [Sec.
8, Rule 110]
Enough to describe with sufficient
particularity
• \ Specific acts of accused do not have to be
described in detail in the information, as it is
enough that the offense be described with
sufficient particularity to make sure the
accused fully understands what he is being
96 (2009)]
Allegations in the complaint prevail:
• Over the designation of the offense: The facts,
acts or omissions alleged and not its title,
determine the nature of the crime. The
designation is only the prosecutor’s conclusion
[People v. Magdowa, G.R. No. 48457 (1941)]
• Over reference to the section or subsection of
the statute punishing the
crime: What is controlling and determines the nature
and character of the crime charged are the facts alleged
in the information. [Batulanon v. People, G.R.
No.139857 (2006)]
Cause of the Accusation
• The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated:
• a. In ordinary and concise language; and
• b. Not necessarily in the language used in the
statute; but
 • c. In terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense
is being charged, as well as its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances[Sec. 9, Rule 110]
Purpose of requiring allegation of every element
• 1. To enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment
• 2. To furnish the accused with information as to
enable him to make a defense
• 3. As a protection against further prosecution
for the same cause
Failure to allege:
Any of the elements of the offense: Accused cannot be
convicted of the offense charged, even if the missing
elements have been proven during trial. Even a plea of
guilty will not cure such defect, nor justify conviction.
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances: They are not
considered even if proven during trial [Viray v. People,
G.R. No. 205180 (2013)]
• ○ If aggravating circumstances were not
alleged, they can still be the basis for awarding
exemplary damages under Art. 2229 (by way of
example or correction for public good) [People
v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106 (2009)]
• Note:
The failure to allege such cannot be cured by an
amendment of the information after the accused
entered his plea [People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 142727
(2002)]]
When habitual delinquency is alleged
• The information must specify:
a. Date of the commission of the previous crimes
b. The date of last conviction or release [People v.
Venus, G.R. No. 45141 (1936)]
Duplicity of the Offense; Exception
• Duplicity of the offense is the joinder of two or
more separate and distinct offenses in one and
the same information or complaint [Loney v.
People, G.R. No. 152644 (2006)]
• General rule:
A complaint or information must charge only one
offense.
• Exception: Multiple offenses may be charged
when the law prescribes a single punishment
for various offenses [Sec. 13, Rule 110]:
• a. Complex crimes - E.g., Acts committed in
furtherance of rebellion are crimes in
themselves but absorbed in the single crime of
rebellion [Enrile v. Salazar, G.R. No. 92163
(1990)]
• b. Special complex crimes
• c. Continuous crimes (Requisites:)
• i. Plurality of acts performed separately during
a period of time
• ii. Unity of penal provisions violated
• iii. Unity of criminal intent [People v. Ledesma,
G.R. No. L-41522 (1976)]
• d. Crimes susceptible of being committed in
various modes
• i. The allegations in the information would be
regarded as a description of only one offense
and information is not rendered defective
[Jurado v. Suy Yan, G.R. No. L-20714 (1971)]
• e. Crimes of which another offense is an
ingredient
• f. When a single act violates different statutes
[Loney v. People, G.R. No. 152644 (2006)]
Remedy to duplicity of offense
• Accused must move for the quashal of the
information before arraignment. [Sec. 1 and 3, Rule
117]
Remedy to duplicity of offense
• Accused must move for the quashal of the
information before arraignment. [Sec. 1 and 3, Rule
117]
Failure to file motion to quash
• Accused is deemed to have waived the
objection and may be convicted of as many
offenses are charged and proved. [Sec. 3, Rule
120]
Amendment or Substitution of Complaint or Information
• Amendment
• A change in either the form or substance of the
same offense in the Information. It is not a new
charge; it just supersedes the original
Information but relates back to the date at
which the original information was filed
[Teehankee Jr. v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102
(1992)]
• Not all defects in an information may be cured
by an amendment. An Information which is void
ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a
ground for quashal. An amendment which
operates to vest jurisdiction is impermissible
[Leviste v. Alameda G.R. No. 182677 (2010)]
KINDS OF AMENDMENT
• As to definition:
 • 1. FORMAL AMENDMENT- This merely states
with additional precision something which is
already contained in the original information,
and which, therefore adds nothing essential for
conviction for the crime charged [Gabionza v.
CA, G.R. No. 140311 (2001)]
• 2. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT- This consists of
the recital of facts constituting the offense
charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of
the court [Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No.
103102 (1992)]
citing Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102
(1992)]
Venue of Criminal Actions
• General rule: Venue is criminal cases is
jurisdictional. In all criminal prosecutions, the
action must be instituted and tried in the courts
of the municipality or territory where:
• a. The offense was committed, or
• b. Any of its essential ingredients occurred [Sec.
15(a), Rule 110].

Before plea or arraignment Exceptions:

• General rule: Any formal or substantial
amendment, made before the accused enters
his plea may be done without leave of court
[Sec. 14, Rule 110]
• Exception: If the amendment downgrades the
nature of the offense charged in, or excludes
any accused from, the complaint/information,
it can be made only
• 1. Upon motion of the prosecutor
• 2. With notice to the offended party and
• 3. With leave of court

After plea and during trial

• Formal Amendment: Amendment as to form
Intervention of Offended Party
can only be made under two conditions:
• General rule: An offended party has the right to
• 1. With leave of court; and
intervene in the prosecution of a crime, where
• 2. It does not cause prejudice to the rights of
the civil action for recovery of civil liability is
the accused [Sec 14, Rule 110]
instituted in the criminal action [Sec. 16, Rule
110]
After plea and during trial
• Substantial Amendment:
NOTE
• General rule:
Regardless of the intervention, the prosecution of the
• Amendment as to substance at this stage of the
case is still subject to the control of the prosecutor
case is proscribe [People
[Ricarze v. People, G.R. No. 160451 (2007)]
v. Zulueta, G.R. No. L-4017 (1951)] since:
• 1. It violates the right to be informed of the
Intervention of Offended Party
nature and cause of the accusation during his
• Exceptions:
plea [Buhat v. People, G.R. No. 119601 (1996)]
• a. Where, from the nature of the crime and the
• 2. It violates the rule
law defining and punishing it, no civil liability
• on double jeopardy.
arises in favor of a private offended party (e.g.
treason, rebellion, espionage and contempt)
• Cont.
[Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, G.R. No. 155531-34
Exception: Amendment may be allowed if it is beneficial
(2005)]
to the accused, [People v. Janairo, G.R. No. 129254
• b. Where, from the nature of the offense, the
(2007)]
private offended party is entitled to civil
indemnity arising therefrom but he has
Test Whether An Amendment Is Formal
• 1. Waived the same or
• Whether or not a defense under the original
• 2. Expressly reserved his right to institute a
information would be equally available after
separate civil action or
the amendment and whether or not any
• 3. Already instituted such action [Rodriguez v.
evidence the accused might have would be
Ponferrada, G.R. No. 155531-34 (2005)]
equally applicable in one form as in the other
[People v. Degamo, G.R. No. 121211 (2003),
Recap per section under rule 110
Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses (Sections 1-16)
• SECTION 1. Institution of criminal actions.—
Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows:
(a) 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.
• (b) 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 shall be filed with the office of the
prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their
charters.
• The institution of the criminal action shall
interrupt the running of the period of
prescription of the offense charged unless
otherwise provided in special laws. (1a)
• SEC. 2. 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. (2a)
• SEC. 2. 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. (2a)
• SEC. 3. 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. (3)
• SEC. 4. Information defined.—An information is
an accusation in writing charging a person with
an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and
filed with the court. (4a)
• SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.
— All criminal actions commenced by a
complaint or information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of the
prosecutor. 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.
• 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
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.
• The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except
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.
• 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. 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.
• 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. (5a)
• The prosecution for violation of special laws
shall be governed by the provisions thereof.
• SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or
information.—A complaint or information is
sufficient if it states the name of the accused;
the designation of the offense given by the
statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
 constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place
where the offense was committed.
When an offense is committed by more than one
person, all of them shall be included in the complaint
or information. (6a)
SEC. 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. (7a)
• SEC. 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 specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be
made to the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it. (8a)
• SEC. 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 what offense is being
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce
judgment. (9a)
• SEC. 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 its essential
ingredients occurred at some place within the
jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular
place where it was committed constitutes an
essential element of the offense charged or is
necessary for its identification. (10a)
• SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense. —
It is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information the precise date the offense was
committed except when it is a material
ingredient of the offense. The offense may be
alleged to have been committed on a date as
near as possible to the actual date of its
commission. (11a)
• SEC. 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 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 person against whom
or against whose property the offense was
committed is thereafter disclosed or
ascertained, the court must cause such 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. (12a)
• SEC. 13. Duplicity of the offense.—A complaint
or information must charge only one offense,
except when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses. (13a)
• SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution.—A
complaint or information may be amended, in
form or in substance, without leave of court, at
any time before the accused enters his plea.
After the plea and during the trial, a formal
amendment may only be made with leave of
court and when it can be done without causing
prejudice to the rights of the accused.
• However, any amendment before plea, which
downgrades the nature of the offense charged
in or excludes any accused from the complaint
or information, can be made only upon motion
by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended
party and with leave of court. The court shall
state its reasons in resolving the motion and
 copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,
especially the offended party. (n)
• If it appears at any time before judgment that a
mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original
complaint or information upon the filing of a
new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with section 19, Rule 119, provided
the accused shall not be placed in double
jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses
to give bail for their appearance at the trial.
(14a)
• SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.
— purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare
• (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. (15a)
• Notes:
• Question: What is the duty of the public
prosecutor if there is a finding of probable
cause? Explain.
• Answer:
Upon finding of probable cause, an information is filed
by the prosecutor against the accused, in compliance
with the due process of the law.
• It is enshrined in our Bill of Rights that "no
person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law." This
includes the right of the accused to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty and "to
be informed of the nature and accusation
against him." (People vs. Feliciano, Jr., et al.,
G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014) (Third
Division)[Leonen, J.].
• Question:
What is the test of the sufficiency of Complaint or
Information?
• Answer: The test of sufficiency of Information is
whether it enables a person of common
understanding to know the charge against him,
and the court to render judgment properly. The
for his defense, precluding surprises during the
trial.18 (People vs. Feliciano, Jr., et al., supra,
citing People vs. Wilson Lab-ea).
• Question:
For violations of City or Municipal ordinance, does the
filing of the Complaint with the prosecutor’s office
interrupt the running of the prescriptive period?
Explain.
• Answer: No. As provided in the Revised Rules
on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an
Information tolls the prescriptive period where
the crime charged involved is an ordinance.
(Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation vs.
Lidua, Sr., 706 SCRA 724, 7 October 2013)
(Third Division)[Leonen, J.].
• Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary
Procedure, "the complaint or information shall
be filed directly in court without need of a prior
preliminary examination or preliminary
investigation." This provision does not prevent
the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary
investigation if he wants to. However, the case
shall be deemed commenced only when it is
filed in court, whether or not the prosecution
decides to conduct a preliminary investigation.
This means that the running of the prescriptive
period shall be halted on the date the case is
actually filed in court and not on any date
before that.
• This is in consonance with Act No. 3326 which
says that the period of prescription shall be
suspended "when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty party." The proceedings
referred to are "judicial proceedings."
END OF TOPIC ON JURISDICTION

• Next topic:
Rule 112: Preliminary Investigation (Sections 1-8)
IMPORTANT!!!
 Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts
Legal Basis: B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691
MTC/MeTC/MCTC
 Jurisdiction
Except those cases falling within the jurisdiction of
higher courts, these courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over:
 Violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their territorial jurisdiction
[Sec. 32, B.P. 129, as amended]
 2. Offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of
fine, and regardless of other imposable or
accessory penalties, including civil liability
irrespective of its kind, nature, or value [Sec. 32,
B.P. 129]
 3. Offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence [Sec. 32, B.P. 129]
 4. Summary procedure in certain cases
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations
b. Violations of the rental law
c. B.P. 22 cases
d. Violation of municipal and city
ordinances
e. All other criminal cases where the
penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged is imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months, or a fine not
exceeding P1,000, or both
f. Offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence where the
imposable penalty does not exceed
P10,000 [Sec. 1(b), 1991 Rules on
Summary Procedure
 5. Special jurisdiction to decide on applications
for bail in the absence of all RTC judges in a
province or city [Sec. 35, B.P. 129, as amended
by R.A. 7691].
RTC
 Exclusive original jurisdiction in criminal cases
not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal or body, EXCEPT those under the
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan [Sec. 20, B.P. 129
 Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by
first-level courts within its territorial jurisdiction
[Sec. 22, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691
 Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific
laws such as:
1. Criminal and civil aspects of written
defamation [Art. 360, RPC]
2. Criminal cases commenced by
information against a child upon
determination of probable cause by
the prosecutor [Sec. 33, R.A. 9344, as
amended by R.A. 10630] where there
are no family courts [Sec. 4(g), R.A.
9344
3. Violence against women and children,
in the absence of an RTC designated as
a Family Court where the offense was
committed [R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC
Act)]
4. Designated special courts over cases in
violation of R.A. 9165 (Dangerous
Drugs Act) [Sec. 90, R.A. 9165]
5. Violations of intellectual property
rights [SC Admin- Circ. No. 03-03
(2003)]
6. Money laundering cases [Sec. 5, R.A.
9160] EXCEPT those committed by
public officers and private persons in
conspiracy with such public officers, as
jurisdiction is with the Sandiganbaya
 Foroffensescognizablebythe
Sandiganbayan where the information a) d o e
snotallegeanydamagetothe
government or any bribery; or b) the alleged
damage to the government or the bribery a ri s
i n g fr o m t h e o r c l o s e l y r e l a t e d
transactions are of an amount not exceeding P1
million [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A.
10660
SANDIGANBAYAN
 Violations of Book 2, Title VII, Section 2, 2 of the
RPC (Indirect Bribery, Corruption of Public
officials, etc.), where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, at the time of the
commission of the offense:
a. Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional
direction and higher, otherwise
 classified as Grade “27” and higher of
R.A. 6758 (see enumeration in RA
10660)
b. Members of Congress and officials
thereof classified as “Grade 27” and up
under R.A. 6758 (see enumeration in
RA 10660
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
CRIMINOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Cauayan City, Isabela
COURSE OUTLINE IN CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AND COURT TESTIMONY
(Second Semester, S/Y 2022-2023)
ATTY. BENTEL JELLIE C. ESTRADA
Professor
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
RULE 112
DEFINITION
 Preliminary Investigation is an inquiry or
proceeding 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 {Sec. 1, Rule 112, as
amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC}.
NATURE
 Merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only
means of discovering the persons who may
reasonably be charged with a crime, to enable
the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or
information
 This is a substantive right. To deny the
accused’s claim to a PI would be to deprive him
of the full measure of his right to due process
[Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130191
(1998)]
 It is not a trial of the case on the merits and
does not place the persons against whom it is
taken in jeopardy [Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No.
96080 (1991)]
Who determines probable cause
 •This is an executive function that the courts
cannot interfere with in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion. [Salapuddin v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 184681 (2013)]. A prosecutor
cannot then be compelled by mandamus to file
a case against an alleged criminal, except when
such prosecutor acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction [Hegerty v. CA, 409 SCRA 285
(2003)]
Statutory basis of the right to preliminary investigation
 This is NOT a constitutional right; rather, the
right thereto is of statutory character and may
be invoked only when specifically created by
statute. It is not a fundamental right and may
be waived expressly or by silence [Marinas v.
Siochi, G.R. Nos. L125707 (1981)]
WAIVER OF RIGHT
 The right to PI is a personal right which the
accused may waive either expressly or by
implication but at all times must be
unequivocal. The waiver, whether express or
implied, must be in a clear and unequivocal
manner [Larranaga v. CA. G.R. No. 130644
(1998)]
 Mere failure of a defendant and/or his counsel
to appear during PI cannot be construed as a
waiver [Larranaga v. CA, G.R. No. 130644
(1998)]
 When the accused waives his right to PI, the
fiscal may forthwith file the corresponding
information with the proper court [People v.
Perez, G.R. No. L-15231 (1960)]
NOTE:
 An application for or admission to bail shall not
bar the accused from assailing the regularity or
questioning the absence of a PI of the charge
against him provided that he raises the
challenge before entering his plea [Sec. 26, Rule
114]
When right deemed waived [W-FI-ANG]
 a. Express Waiver or by silence [Pilapil v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978 (1993)]
 b. Failure to Invoke it during arraignment
[People v. De Asis, G.R. No. 105581 (1993)]; and
 c. Consenting to be Arraigned and entering a
plea of Not Guilty without invoking the righ tto
PI [People v. Bulosan, G.R. No. L-58404 (1988)]
When right not deemed waived
 a. Failure to appear before the prosecutor
during the clarificatory hearing or when
summoned, when the right was invoked at the
start of the proceeding [Larranaga v. CA, G.R.
No. 130644 (1998)]; or
  b. When the accused filed an application for JUDICIAL DETERMINATION v. EXECUTIVE
bail and was arraigned over his objection and DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE
the accused demanded that PI be conducted
[Go v. CA, G.R. No. 101837(1992)] EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION DETERMINATION
Purposes of Preliminary Investigation
NATURE scertains whether To ascertain
• The following are the specific purposes of a criminal case whether a
preliminary investigation [IPA]: must be filed in warrant of arrest
• a. To Inquire concerning the commission of a crime court. The public should be issued
and the connection of the accused with it. This is so prosecutor is against the
that: i. the accused may be informed of the nature given a broad accused [Sec. 2,
and character of the crime charged against him, discretion to Art. III,
and, ii. if there is probable cause for believing him determine Constitution
guilty, that the State may take the necessary steps Whether
to bring him to trial; b. To Preserve the evidence probable cause
and keep the witnesses within the control of the exists and to
State; and c. To determine the Amount of bail, if charge those
whom he
the offense is bailable. [Callo-Claridad v. Esteban,
believesto Have
G.R. No. 191567 (2013)]
committed the
Who May Conduct Determination of Existence of crime
Probable Cause MADE BY PROSECUTOR JUDGE
 Probable cause pertains to facts and WHOM
circumstances sufficient to support a well
founded belief that a crime has been Procedure for Preliminary Investigation
committed and the accused is probably guilty  Filing of the complaint, which
thereof. [Shu v. Dee, G.R. No. 182573 (2014)] a. Shall state the address of the respondent
b. Shall be accompanied by the affidavits of
Quantum of Evidence the complainant and his witnesses, and
 The quantum of evidence now required in PI is other supporting documents to establish
such evidence sufficient to “engender a well probable cause. The affidavits shall be
founded belief” as to the fact of the subscribed and sworn to before any
commission of a crime and the respondent's prosecutor or government official
probable guilt thereof. A PI is not the occasion authorized to administer oath or if absent
for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ or unavailable, before a notary public, each
evidence. [Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. of whom must certify that he personally
212140 (2015)] examined the affiants and that he is
 Hearsay evidence is admissible during PI [De satisfied that they voluntarily executed and
Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781 (2017), citing understood their affidavits.
Estrada v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212140 c. Shall be in such number of copies as there
(2015)] are respondents, plus 2 copies for the
official file [Sec. 3(a), Rule 112, as amended
Who May Conduct Preliminary Investigation Under the
by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]
Rules of Court
a. Provincial/city prosecutors and their assistants Action of the investigating officer
b. National and regional state prosecutors • a. Within 10 days after the filing of the complaint,
c. Other officers as may be authorized by law [Sec. the investigating officer shall either:
2, Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26- 1. Dismiss the complaint, if he finds no ground
SC] to continue the investigation; or
2. Issue a subpoena to the respondent,
attaching the complaint and supporting
affidavits and documents [Sec. 3(b), Rule
112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC].
NOTE: Respondent has the right to examine the
evidence submitted by complainant which he may not
have furnished and to copy evidence at his expense
[Sec. 3(b), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-
SC].
Respondent’s counter-affidavit
 It must be made within ten (10) days from
receipt of subpoena with the complaint and
must comply with the same requirements as a
complaint. Respondent is not allowed to file a
motion to dismiss in lieu of counter affidavit
[Sec. 3(c), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No.
05-8-26-SC].
 If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if
subpoenaed, does not submit counter
affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the
investigating officer shall resolve the complaint
based on the evidence presented by the
complainant [Sec. 3(d), Rule 112, as amended
by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC] This situation would
have the effect of an ex-parte investigation
[Riano 210, 2016 Ed.].
Clarificatory hearing
 The investigating officer may set a hearing if
there are facts and issues to be clarified from a
party or a witness. The parties can be present
at the hearing but without the right to examine
or cross-examine. They may, however, submit
to the investigating officer questions which
may be asked to the party or witness concerned
[Sec. 3(e), Rule 112, as amended by A.M. No.
05-8-26-SC].
 The hearing shall be held within 10 days from
submission of the counter-affidavits and other
documents or from the expiration of the period
for their submission. It shall be terminated
within five (5) days [Sec. 3(e), Rule 112, as
amended by A.M. No. 05- 8-26- SC]
Determination
 Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the
investigating officer shall determine whether or
not there is sufficient ground to hold the
respondent for trial [Sec. 3(f), Rule 112, as
amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC].
Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor
 If he finds probable cause to hold respondent
for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and
information and shall certify under oath in the
information that [E-RG-I-CE]:
a. He, or as shown by the record, an
authorized officer has personally Examined
the complainant and his witnesses;
b. There is Reasonable Ground to believe that
a crime has been committed and the
accused is probably guilty thereof;
c. The accused was Informed of the complaint
and of the evidence against him; and
d. He was given opportunity to submit
Controverting Evidence
• If he finds no probable cause, he shall recommend
the dismissal of the complaint [Sec. 4, Rule 112, as
amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]
Review
• Within five (5) days from the resolution, the
investigating officer shall forward the case to the
provincial/city/chief state prosecutor, or to the
Ombudsman or his deputy in cases cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction.
• Within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution,
the Prosecutor/Ombudsman shall act on the
resolution and shall immediately inform the parties
of such action.
• No complaint/information may be filed or
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without
the prior written authority or approval of the
provincial/city/chief state prosecutor, or
Ombudsman or his deputy.
• Where the investigating prosecutor recommends
the dismissal of the complaint but the
prosecutor/Ombudsman or his deputy disapproves
his recommendation, the latter, may by himself,
file the information or direct another
assistant/state prosecutor to do so without
conducting a new PI.
• 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 apply
in preliminary investigations conducted by the
officers of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Remedies to review the resolution of the investigation
officer
1. Filing an appeal with the investigating officer.
 2. Petition for review to the SOJ, who may review
the resolutions of his subordinates in criminal
cases despite the information being filed in
court [Community Rural Bank of Guimba v.
Talavera, A.M. No. RTJ-05- 1909 (2005); see
also DOJ Circ. No. 70].
3. If the SOJ decision is adverse to the appealing
party, such decision is appealable
administratively before the Office of the
President and the decision of the latter may be
appealed before the CA pursuant to Rule 43 [De
Ocampo v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 147932
(2006)]
• (Cont).
4. The resolution of the Secretary of Justice may
also be reviewed by the Court of Appeals
through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, solely on the ground that
the SOJ committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction [Argovan v.
San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 188767,
(2013)].
5. In criminal cases, the ruling of the Ombudsman
shall be elevated to the Supreme Court by way
of Rule 65, solely under the ground of grave
abuse of discretion [Villanueva v. Ople, G.R. No.
165125 (2005)].
When Warrant of Arrest May Issue
• The PI conducted by the judge which is properly
called preliminary examination is for the
determination of probable cause for the issuance of
warrant of arrest [P/Supt. Cruz v. Judge Areola, A.M.
No. RTJ-01-1642 (2002)]
When the RTC/MTC may issue a Warrant of Arrest
a. Within 10 days from the filing of the complaint
or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and
its supporting evidence.
b. He may immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause.
• (Cont.)
c. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a
warrant of arrest or a commitment order when
the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to Sec. 7 of Rule 112, as amended by
A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.
d. In case of doubt on the existence of probable
cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to
present additional evidence within 5 days from
notice and the issue must be resolved by the
court within 30 days from the filing of the
complaint or information. [Sec. 5(a), Rule 112,
as amended by A.M. No. 05- 8-26-SC]
When warrant of arrest shall not issue
• A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the accused is
already under detention pursuant to a warrant
issued by the municipal trial court or if the
complaint or information was filed pursuant to Sec.
6, Rule 112 (When accused lawfully arrested
without warrant) or is for an offense penalized by
fine only. The court shall then proceed in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction [Sec. 5(c), Rule
112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]
Remedies of Accused If There Was No Preliminary
Investigation
Effect of denial of right
• The absence of a PI does not impair the validity of
an information or render it defective. Neither does
it affect the jurisdiction of the court or constitute a
ground for quashing the information [Villaflor v.
Vivar, G.R. No. 134744 (2001)]
Remedies of the accused if there was no PI
a. Call the attention of the court to the
deprivation of the required PI before entering
his plea [Larranaga v. CA. G.R.No. 130644
(1998)]
b. After the filing of the complaint/information in
court without a PI, the accused may within 5
days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for
a PI with the same right to adduce evidence in
his defense as provided in Rule 112 [Sec. 6, Rule
112, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC]
c. File a certiorari, if refused and such refusal is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion [Riano
186, 2016 Ed.
TAKE NOTE:
• The trial court, instead of dismissing the
information, should hold in abeyance the
proceedings and order the public prosecutor to
conduct a PI [Villaflor v. Vivar, G.R. No. 134744
(2001)]
• The right cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal [Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978
(1993)]
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 said
persons should remain under custody and
correspondingly be charged in court [Leviste v.
Alameda, G.R. No. 182677 (2010), citing Sec. 1, DOJ
Circ. No. 61 (1993)]
• In the absence of an inquest prosecutor, the
offended party or peace officer may directly file the
complaint in court [Sec. 6, Rule 112, as amended
by A.M. No. 05-8-26- SC]

The inquest proceedings must be terminated within the

period prescribed under the provisions of Art. 125, RPC

Period to deliver person

Crime or offense
arrested to proper
punishable by:
judicial authorities:
Light penalties or their
12 hours
equivalent
Correctional penalties or
18 hours
their equivalent
Afflictive or capital
penalties or their 36 hours
equivalent

Next topic : Rule 113: Arrest