Criminal Procedure

Att. Reden Bides

PHILIPPINE LAW
SCHOOL
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
ATTY. REDEN B.
BIDES
Lecturer
Saturdays, 6:00pm to
9:00pm
SYLLABUS
Course Description:
A study of the
procedural rules
governing the
investigation, trial
and disposition of
criminal cases in
court, including
jurisdiction of courts
in criminal cases and
independent civil
actions
Course
Requirements:
1. Class Standing
( includes
recitations, quizzes,
paper/s, case digest,
attendance among
others)- 30%
2. Midterm
Examination-30%
3. Final
Examination-40%
Course Outline
I. GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
A. Substantive Law
v. Remedial Law
B. Rule-making

1
power of the
Supreme Court
1. Limitations on the
rule-making power
of the Supreme
Court
2. Power of the
Supreme Court to
amend and suspend
procedural rules
C. Nature of
Philippine Courts
1. Meaning of court
2. Classification of
Philippine courts
3. Courts of original
and appellate
jurisdiction
4. Courts of general
and special
jurisdiction
5. Constitutional and
statutory courts
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
6. Courts of law and
equity
7. Principle of
judicial hierarchy
8. Doctrine of non-
interference v.
Doctrine of judicial
stability
II. JURISDICTION
A. Original v.
Appellate
1. General v. Special
2. Exclusive v.
Concurrent
B. Doctrines of
hierarchy of courts
and continuity of

2
jurisdiction
C. Jurisdiction of
various Philippine
Courts
1. Supreme Court
2. Court of Appeals (1) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal
(a) Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of
internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR;
(b) Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of IR
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters
arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR, where the NIRC or
other applicable law provides a specific period of action, in which case the
inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;
(c) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxes originally
decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
(d)
DecisionsoftheCommissionerofCustoms(1)incasesinvolvingliabilityforcustoms
duties, fees or other charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected,
fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or (2) other matters
arising under the Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws
administered by BOC;
(e)
DecisionsoftheCentralBoardofAssessmentAppealsintheexerciseofitsappellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property
originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
(f) Decision 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 Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and
Customs Code;
3. Court of Tax 1. CourtofTaxAppeals More than 1 million- tax of aPPEALS
Appeals (1) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal
(a) Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of
internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or if lower, regular court
other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR;
(b) Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of IR
taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters
arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR, where the NIRC or
other applicable law provides a specific period of action, in which case the
inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;
(c) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxes originally
decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
(d)
DecisionsoftheCommissionerofCustoms(1)incasesinvolvingliabilityforcustoms
3
 duties, fees or other charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected,
fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or (2) other matters
arising under the Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws
administered by BOC;
(e)
DecisionsoftheCentralBoardofAssessmentAppealsintheexerciseofitsappellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property
originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
(f) Decision 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 Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and
Customs Code;
(g) Decisions of Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-
agricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in
the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping
duties and counterveiling duties under Secs. 301 and 302, respectively, of the
Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under RA 8800, where
either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
4. Sandiganbayan Sandiganbayan (P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A.
7975 and R.A. 8249)
1. Violations of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 1379, and
Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the RPC,
where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the following positions in the
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 (R.A.
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;
Section Two – Bribery
Art. 210. Direct bribery. – Any public officer who shall agree to perform an
act
constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties,
in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer,
personally or
through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in
its medium
and minimum periods and a fine of not less than three times the value of the
gift in
addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same
shall have
been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an
act
which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall
suffer the
same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not
have been
accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in
its medium
period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the
public
officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he
shall suffer
the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in

4
d. Philippine Army and Air Force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of its minimum
higher rank; period and a fine of not less than three times the value of such gift.
e. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit
provincial director and shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification.
those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher; The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable
f. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any
prosecutors in the Office of other
the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 871,
g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or approved
controlled corporations, May 29, 1985.)
state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Art. 211. Indirect bribery. – The penalties of prision correctional in its medium
2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ‘27’ and and
higher under the Compensation maximum periods, suspension and public censure shall be imposed upon any
and Position Classification Act of 1989; public
3. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As
Constitution; amended by BP
4. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without Blg. 871, approved May 29, 1985.)
prejudice to the provisions of the Art. 211–A. Qualified Bribery. – if any public officer is entrusted with law
Constitution; and enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has
5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
under the Compensation and consideration of any
Position Classification Act of 1989. offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which
B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes was not
committed by the public prosecuted.
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation to If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall
their office. suffer
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive the penalty of death. (As added by Section 4, RA No. 7659.)
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, Art. 212. Corruption of Public officials. – The same penalties imposed upon
issued in 1986. the
NOTE: RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the information: officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be
a. Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or imposed upon
b. Alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or any person, who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or
closely related transactions presents as
or acts in an amount not exceeding P1,000,000. (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as described in the preceding articles.
amended by R.A. No. 10660)

Section 4. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as

follows:

"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:

5
"(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;

"(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 or
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 up

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 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 orfelonies 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

6
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

"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 or 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 jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as amended.

"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final

judgments, resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise
of their own original jurisdiction orof their appellate jurisdiction as herein
provided.

"The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions

for the issuance of 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.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the

implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter
promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals,
shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan.
In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the
Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor,
shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

"In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or

accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in
govemment-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.

"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 therefore been filed separately but

7
 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."
5. Regional Trial Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Courts 1. 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; (Sec. 20, B.P.
129)
2. Original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction,
enforceable in any part of their respective
regions; (Sec. 21(1), B.P. 129)
3. Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
the MTC within its territorial jurisdiction; (Sec.
22, B.P. 129)
4. Special jurisdiction of certain branches to
handle exclusively criminal cases as may be
determined by the Supreme Court; (Sec. 23, B.P.
129); and
5. Jurisdiction over criminal cases under specific
laws such as:
a. Criminal and civil aspects of written
defamation; (Art. 360, RPC)
b. Designated special courts over cases in
violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; (Sec. 90, R.A.
No. 9165)
c. Violation of intellectual property rights;
and (A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC)
d. All cases on money laundering. However,
those committed by public officers and
private persons who are in conspiracy
with such public officers, shall be under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
(Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9160)
6. Family Courts 1. Where one or more of the accused is/are below Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is 15≤x<18 years old, or
18 years of age but not less than 9 years of age; where one or more
2. When one or more of the victims is a minor at the of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense:
time of the commission of the offense (R.A. No. provided, that if the minor
8369, Act Establishing the Family Courts); is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil
3. Cases against minors cognizable under the liability which the

8
Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
4. Violations of R.A. No. 7610 or the Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act, as amended
by R.A. No. 7658; and
5. Cases of domestic violence against:
a. Women – involving acts of gender-based
violence that result, or likely to result in
physical, sexual or psychological harm or
suffering to women; and other forms of
physical abuse and coercion which violate a
woman’s personhood, integrity and freedom
of movement; and
b. Children – which include the commission of
all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, violence and discrimination and
all other conditions prejudicial to their
development. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 8369)
accused may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be suspended
without need of
application pursuant to the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603).
2. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to
the latter.
Petitions for adoption of children and revocation thereof.
4. 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 or
gains
5. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment.
6. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of the Family
Code of the Philippines
(E.O No. 209).
7. 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 the Child
and Youth Welfare
Code (PD 603), Authorizing the Ministry of Social Services and Development
to Take Protective
Custody of Child Prostitutes and Sexually Exploited Children, and for Other
Purposes (E.O. 56),
and other related laws.
8. Petitions for constitution of the family home.
9. Cases against minors cognizable under the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2005.
10. Violations of Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination
Act (RA 7610), as amended by RA 7658 and RA 9231.
11. Cases of domestic violence against:
a. 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 of movement; and
b. Children – which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect,
cruelty,
exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial
to their
development
9
7. Metropolitan Trial Except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
Courts, Municipal Sandiganbayan: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or
Trial Courts, municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
Municipal Trial (Sec. 32(1), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691) 2. Exclusive original
Courts in 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; (Sec. 32(2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691) 3.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence; (Sec. 32(2), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No.
7691) 4. Summary procedure in certain cases; and NOTE: The MTCs shall
have jurisdiction over the following cases falling within their jurisdiction: a.
Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations:; b. Violations of the rental
law; c. B.P. 22 cases; d. Violations 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
P1,000.00, or both; and f. Offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence where the imposable penalty does not exceed P10,000.00.
(Sec. 1(b)(4), 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) NOTE: Jurisdiction of MTC is qualified by the
phrase “except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and
of the Sandiganbayan.” Hence, not all offenses punishable with imprisonment
not exceeding 6 years shall be under the jurisdiction of MTC. (Riano, 2019
Cities and Municipal Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses 1. Reclusion Perpetua- imprisonment for at least thirty [30] years after which
Circuit Trial Courts punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 the convict becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory
years irrespective of the amount of fine, and penalties, namely: perpetual special disqualification, etc.
regardless of other imposable or accessory 2. Reclusion Temporal- 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
penalties; (Sec. 32(2), B.P. 129, as amended by 3. Prision Mayor and Temporary Disqualification- 6 years and 1 day to 12
R.A. No. 7691) years
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses 4. Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro- 6 months and 1 day to 6
involving damage to property through criminal years
negligence; (Sec. 32(2), B.P. 129, as amended by 5. Arresto Mayor- 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
R.A. No. 7691) 6. Arresto Menor- 1 day to 30 days
4. Summary procedure in certain cases; and 7. Bond to keep the peace— The bond to keep the peace shall be required to
NOTE: The MTCs shall have jurisdiction over cover such period of time as the court may determine.
the following cases falling within their
jurisdiction:
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations:;
b. Violations of the rental law;
c. B.P. 22 cases;
d. Violations 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

10
 fine not exceeding P1,000.00, or both; and
f. Offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence where the
imposable penalty does not exceed
P10,000.00. (Sec. 1(b)(4), 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)
NOTE: Jurisdiction of MTC is qualified by the
phrase “except in cases falling within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC and of the
Sandiganbayan.” Hence, not all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6
years shall be under the jurisdiction of MTC.
(Riano, 2019)
D. Criminal
Jurisdiction
E. Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter refers to the authority of the court to hear
subject matter and determine a particular criminal case. It is, in simple terms, jurisdiction
over the offense charged. (Riano, 2019) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong. (Bernabe v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652, 16
Sept. 1942) It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the
action and means not simply jurisdiction over the particular case then
occupying the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of cases to
which the particular case belongs.
F. Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused Jurisdiction over the person of the
person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or apprehension, with or without a warrant,
accused or his voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
(Valdepenas v. People, G.R. No. L-20687, 30 Apr. 1966) The voluntary
appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his
person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. (Durisol Philippines,
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 121106, 20 Feb. 2000) It cannot be fixed by the will of
the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of the parties. It
cannot be conferred upon by the accused, express waiver or otherwise, since
the jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the
court and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.
(Fukuzume v. People, G.R. No. 143647, 11 Nov. 2005) It is not conferred by a
mere administrative policy VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Downloaded by
CJ Ivanne Dichoso (dichosocjivanne@gmail.com) lOMoARcPSD|33415183
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 455 UNIV ER S IT Y O F SANT O TOM AS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW of any trial court. (Cudia v. CA, G.R. No. 110315,
16 Jan. 1998) How Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter is determined While
jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law, jurisdiction over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or information in relation to the
law prevailing at the time of the filing of the filing of complaint or
information. (Asistio v. People, G.R. No. 200465, 20 Apr. 2015) It is the
averments in the information which characterize the crime to be prosecuted
and the court before which it must be tried. (Pangilinan v. CA, G.R. No.
117363, 17 Dec. 1999) In determining whether the court has jurisdiction over
an offense, the penalty which may be imposed upon the accused and not the
actual penalty imposed after the trial shall be considered. (People v. Savellano,
G.R. No. L-39951, 09 Sept. 1982
Custody of the Law 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 where the mere application therefor constitutes
a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
(Ibid.) Custody of the Law vs. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender,
11
 motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s
jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing
bail. (David v. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, 18 Mar. 2015
G. Requisites for
exercise of criminal 2. Jurisdiction over the territory
jurisdiction 3. Jurisdiction over the subject matter - Mandates that the offense is one
which the court is, by law, authorized to take cognizance of.
Principle of GR: Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a controversy, it shall continue to
Adherence of exercise such jurisdiction until the final determination of the case and the same
Jurisdiction or is not affected by the subsequent legislation vesting jurisdiction over such
Continuing proceeding in another tribunal.
Jurisdictio XPNs: 1. When the statute expressly so provides; or 2. When the statute is
clearly intended to apply to pending actions
H. When injunction As a general rule, the courts will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction –
may be issued to whether preliminary or final – in order to enjoin or restrain any criminal
restrain criminal prosecution.[48]
jurisdiction
But there are extreme cases in which exceptions to the general rule have been
recognized, including:
(1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when it is necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3)
when there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice; (4) when the acts of the
officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) when the prosecution is under
an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) when double jeopardy is clearly
apparent; (7) when the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) when it is
a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) when 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.[49] However, the respondents did not sufficiently
show that Civil Case No. CEB-26468 came under any of the foregoing
exceptions. Hence, the issuance by the RTC of the writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin the petitioner from instituting criminal complaints for
violation of BP No. 22 against the respondents was unwarranted.
while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or
voluntary appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but not yet
subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person
arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the
warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an
accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of
the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own
will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law.
Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused. It
includes, but is not limited to, detention. (Ibid.
1. Jurisdiction over the person- Requires that the person be brought into its
forum by: 1. Arrest, with or without a warrant; or 2. GR: Voluntary submission
to the jurisdiction of the court. XPN: Making special appearance in court to
question the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. (Miranda
v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 Mar. 2006
Dismissal on Jurisdictional Grounds GR: An objection on the ground that the
court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised or considered
motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceeding or appeal. XPN: A
party may be estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the court by
reasons of public policy as when he initially invokes the jurisdiction of the
court and later on repudiates that jurisdiction. (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No.
L-21450, 15 Apr. 1968
GR: The long-standing doctrine that writs of injunction or prohibition will not
lie to restrain a criminal prosecution for the reason that public interest requires
that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the
protection of society. (Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109376, 20 Jan.
2000
XPNs: 1. To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
vindictive manner; (Ibid.) 2. To afford adequate protection to constitutional
rights; (Ibid.) 3. For the orderly administration of justice; (Hernandez v.
Albano, G.R. No. 19272, 25 Jan. 1967); 4. To avoid multiplicity of actions;
(Ibid.) 5. In proper cases, because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional, or
was held invalid; (Ibid.) 6. When the acts of the officer are without or in
excess of authority; (Planas v. Gil, G.R. No. L46440, 18 Jan. 1939) 7. When
the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (Lopez v. City Judge, G.R. No.
L-25795, 29 Oct. 1966) 8. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub
judice (before a court or judge for consideration); Where the prosecution is
under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; 10. When double jeopardy is
clearly apparent; 11. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
12. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for
vengeance; and 13. Where there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied
12
Readings:
Pp v. Mariano, GR Facts:Hermogenes Mariano, the respondent, was the Liaison Officer of the
No. L-40527 June Municipal Mayor of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.Mariano received several
30, 1976 feet of electric cables and cable power from USAID/NEC on behalf of the
Municipality.Instead of delivering these items to the Municipality, Mariano
appropriated and converted them for his own use.The Provincial Fiscal of
Bulacan filed an information charging Mariano with estafa.Mariano moved to
quash the information on several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction and
the previous conviction of the municipal mayor for malversation of public
property.The respondent court granted the motion to quash, stating that it had
lost jurisdiction over the case since the Military Commission had already taken
cognizance of the malversation case against the mayor involving the same
subject matter.
Issue:Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the estafa case
against Mariano, considering the previous conviction of the municipal mayor
for malversation of public property by the Military Tribunal.
Ruling:The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the estafa case against
Mariano.
Ratio:Estafa and malversation are two separate and distinct offenses.The
accused in the estafa case (Mariano) is different from the accused in the
malversation case (the municipal mayor).The jurisdiction of a court is
determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the
action.The law in force was the Judiciary Act of 1948, which vested
jurisdiction over estafa cases with the Court of First Instance.The Military
Commission is not vested with jurisdiction over the crime of estafa.
Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the order granting the motion to
quash and directed the respondent Judge to proceed with the trial of the estafa
case against Mariano without delay.
BPI v. Hontanosas Facts:
Jr, GR No. 157163, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and the respondents, Spouses Silverio and
June 25, 2014 Zosima Borbon, Spouses Xerxes and Erlinda Facultad, and XM Facultad &
Development Corporation, are involved in a dispute.
The respondents filed a case seeking the nullity of loan agreements,
Background and Parties Involved
The case of People v. Mariano involves Hermogenes Mariano, who was the
Liaison Officer of the Municipal Mayor.
Mariano received electric cables and cable power from USAID/NEC on behalf
of the Municipality of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
Instead of delivering these items to the Municipality, Mariano appropriated
and converted them for his own use.
The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed an information charging Mariano with
estafa.
Motion to Quash and Jurisdictional Issues
Mariano moved to quash the information on several grounds, including lack of
jurisdiction and the previous conviction of the municipal mayor for
malversation.He argued that since the case against the mayor had already been
decided by the Military Tribunal, the Court of First Instance had lost
jurisdiction over the case against him.
The respondent court granted the motion to quash, stating that since the
Military Commission had already taken cognizance of the case, it had lost
jurisdiction to pass a new judgment on the same subject matter.Supreme
Court's Disagreement with the RulingThe Supreme Court disagreed with the
respondent court's ruling.It held that estafa and malversation are two separate
and distinct offenses.The accused in the estafa case (Mariano) is different from
the accused in the malversation case (the municipal mayor).Therefore, there is
no concurrent jurisdiction between the Court of First Instance and the Military
Commission.Lack of Jurisdiction of the Military CommissionThe Court noted
that the Military Commission lacks jurisdiction over estafa cases.
Estafa is not among the offenses enumerated in General Order No. 49, which
redefines the jurisdiction of military tribunals.
Supreme Court's Decision
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the order granting the
motion to quash.The Court directed the respondent Judge to proceed with the
trial of the estafa case against Mariano without delay.
Parties Involved and Allegations Made
The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and several borrowers are involved
in a dispute.
13
promissory notes, real estate and chattel mortgages, and a continuing surety
agreement they had executed in favor of BPI.
The respondents also sought damages and attorney's fees and applied for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction to prevent
BPI from foreclosing on the mortgages against their properties.
The respondents claimed that they had been adversely affected by the
economic turmoil in Asia in 1997 and were unable to fully pay their loan
obligation to BPI.
Issue:
Whether or not Civil Case No. CEB-26468 should be dismissed for non-
payment of the correct amount of docket fee and improper venue.
Whether or not the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against BPI
was in order.
Ruling:Civil Case No. CEB-26468 was a personal action, and therefore, the
venue was properly laid.The respondents were not entitled to the writ of
preliminary injunction.
Ratio:The Court held that the complaint sought the nullification of the loan
and mortgage agreements, not the recovery of possession or title to the
properties burdened by the mortgages.
As a personal action, it was properly filed in Cebu City, where one of the
plaintiffs had its principal office.
The Court ruled that the issuance of a preliminary injunction should be based
on the satisfaction of two requisite conditions:
(1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be
enjoined are violative of that right.In this case, the respondents had executed
the mortgages to secure their loan obligation to BPI and were aware of the
consequences if the loan remained unpaid. The foreclosure of the mortgages
was the proper remedy for BPI to exact payment.The respondents failed to
establish the irreparable injury they would suffer if the injunction was not
issued.The Court emphasized that an injunction should not determine the
merits of a case or decide controverted facts but should only seek to prevent
threatened wrong, further injury, and irreparable harm or injustice until the
rights of the parties can be settled.The Court emphasized the need for caution
and sound discretion in the issuance of injunctions, as they are extraordinary
remedies that should be used with extreme caution.
The borrowers allege that they were forced to sign unfair loan agreements and
that the mortgages were based on illegal impositions of exorbitant interest and
excessive charges.They also claim that they were adversely affected by the
economic turmoil in Asia in 1997, which prevented them from fully paying
their loan obligations.Complaint and Application for Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO)The borrowers filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) seeking the nullity of the loan agreements and mortgages, as well as
damages and attorney's fees.They also applied for a temporary restraining
order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction to prevent BPI from foreclosing
on their properties.BPI's Opposition and Motion to Dismiss
BPI opposed the application for the TRO and filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.BPI argued that the venue was improperly laid and that the proper
legal fees had not been paid.BPI also argued that one of the plaintiffs had no
legal personality to sue and that another plaintiff had no authority to file the
case on behalf of a corporation.
RTC's Decision
The RTC denied BPI's motion to dismiss and granted the borrowers'
application for a preliminary injunction.
The RTC ordered BPI to cease and desist from foreclosing on the mortgages
and from taking possession of the properties and chattel subject to the
mortgages.BPI's Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA)BPI
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the
RTC's orders.
BPI argued that the complaint was a personal action and that the venue was
not properly laid.
BPI also argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the preliminary injunction.CA's DecisionThe CA upheld the RTC's orders,
ruling that the complaint was a personal action and that the venue was properly
laid in Cebu City, where one of the plaintiffs had its principal office.The CA
also held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
preliminary injunction.
BPI's Appeal to the Supreme Court
BPI appealed the CA's decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court partially granted BPI's petition, ruling that the complaint
was indeed a personal action and that the venue was properly laid in Cebu
City.However, the Supreme Court held that the RTC erred in granting the
preliminary injunction.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court emphasized that a preliminary injunction should only be
14
 issued when the applicant has a clear right to be protected and when the acts
sought to be enjoined are violative of that right.The Supreme Court found that
the borrowers had not sufficiently shown that they were entitled to the
injunction and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not
granted.Therefore, the Supreme Court annulled and set aside the preliminary
injunction and ordered the RTC to proceed with the case.The borrowers were
also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
III. PROSECUTION
OF OFFENSES
(RULE 110)
A. Criminal actions, Criminal Action One by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or There is no more Distinction between Cases under the RPC and those covered
how instituted omission punishable by law. by Special Laws

1. Where preliminary investigation is required – filing the complaint with the
proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary
investigation; or
2. For all other offenses – filing the complaint or information directly with the
MTC and MCTC, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. (Sec. 1,
Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: There is no direct filing of an information or complaint with the RTC
because its jurisdiction covers offenses which require preliminary
investigation.
The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of whether the offense
charged is punishable by the RPC or by a special penal law, it is the filing of
the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for purposes
of preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of prescription.
Except as provided in section 7 of Rule 110, 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.[31]

There is likewise no direct filing with the MeTC because in Metro Manila and
other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the
prosecutor, unless otherwise provided by their charters. In case of conflict
between a city charter and a provision of the Rules of Court, the former, being
substantive law, prevails
Effect of Institution of a Criminal Action
GR: It interrupts the running of the period of prescription of the offense
charged. (Sec. 1, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: There is no direct filing of an information or complaint with the RTC
because its jurisdiction covers offenses which require preliminary
investigation. There is likewise no direct filing with the MeTC because in
Metro Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the
office of the prosecutor, unless otherwise provided by their charters. In case of
conflict between a city charter and a provision of the Rules of Court, the
former, being substantive law, prevails.

XPN: When a different rule is provided for in special laws.

NOTE: Under Art. 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescriptive period shall
be interrupted “by the filing of the complaint or information.” The said article
does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed for preliminary
examination or investigation only or for an action on the merits. Thus, the
filing of the complaint even with the fiscal's office suspends the running of the
statute of limitations. (Reodica v. CA, G.R. No. 125066, 08 July 1998)

B. Information and SEC. 4. A complaint is a sworn written statement made to a court or

15
Complaint magistrate that a person has been guilty of designated offence. SEC. 6. A complaint or information is sufficient if it shows:

SEC. 5. An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with a
public offence, presented and signed by the promoter fiscal or his deputy and
filed with the clerk of court.
SEC. 8. A complaint or information may be substantially in the following
form:
United States against A. B.In the Court of ……………………, to
……………………Province of ………………….the ………. day of
………………, 19………. A. B. is accused by the undersigned of the crime
of (giving its legal appellation, such as murder, arson, robbery, or the like, or
designating it as a felony or misdemeanor), committed as follows: That
said A. B. on the ……… day of ………., 19….., at the …………….. Province
of ………….. (here set forth the acts or omissions charged as an offence),
contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.
(Signed)……………………………….
SEC. 9. The information or complaint may be amended in substance or form,
without leave of court, at any time before the defendant pleads; and thereafter,
during the trial, as to all matters of form, at the discretion to the rights of the
defendant.
SEC. 10. No information or complaint is insufficient, nor can the trial,
judgment or other proceeding be affected by reason of a defect in matter of
form which does not tend to prejudice a substantial right of the defendant upon
the merits.
1. The name of the defendant, or, if his name cannot be discovered,
that he is described under a fictitious name with a statement that
his true name is unknown to the informant or official signing the
same. His true name may be inserted at any stage of the
proceedings instituted against him, whenever ascertained.
2. The designation of the crime or public offence charged.
3. The acts or omission complained of as constituting the crime or
public offence in ordinary and concise language, without
repetition, not necessarily in the words of the statute, but in such
form as to enable a person of common understanding to know
what is intended and the court to pronounce judgment according
to right.
4. That the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the
court and is triable therein.
5. The names of the persons against whom, or against whose
property, the offence was committed, if known.
SEC. 7. Except when tie is a material ingredient of an offence, the precise time
of commission need not be stated in a complaint or information, but the act
may be alleged to have been committed at any time before the filing thereof.
And when an offence shall have been described with sufficient certainty to
identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured shall be
deemed immaterial.

SEC. 11. A complaint or information must charge but one offence; except
only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for
various allied offences.
SEC. 12. Every person making complaint charging the commission of a crime
or public offence, must inform the magistrate of all persons whom he believes
to have any knowledge of its commission; and the magistrate shall issue
subpoenas for such persons, requiring them to attend at a specified time and
place as witnesses.
SEC. 13. When a complaint or information alleging the commission of a crime
is laid before a magistrate, he must examine on oath, the informant or
prosecutor and the witnesses produced, and take their depositions in writing,
causing them to be subscribed by the parties making them. If the magistrate be
satisfied from the investigation that the crime complained of has been
committed, and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the party
charged has committed it, he must issue an order for his arrest. If the offence
be admitted to bail; and the defendant offer for his arrest. If the offence be
bailable, and the defendant offer a sufficient security, he shall be admitted to
bail; otherwise he shall be committed to prison.

16
 SEC. 14. If the magistrate shall believe from the evidence submitted, either
that the crime complained of was not committed, or that, if committed, the
person charged did not commit it, he must set the person at liberty; but such
release shall not prevent the filing of a new complaint or information and the
arrest of the accused thereon at any time before the prosecution of the offence
shall be barred by the statute. In case the promoter fiscal may appeal from the
order of release, the judge shall subject the accused to such inspection and
measures of vigilance as may be deemed prudent to prevent his escape.
C. Who may file The law of more immediate relevancy is Article 360 of the Revised Penal
criminal actions; Code, which states: "No criminal action for defamation which consists in the
crimes that cannot be imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de officio shall be brought
prosecuted de oficio except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended
party."
1. Party who may legally file a complaint for adultery or concubinage Only the
offended spouse may file a complaint for adultery or concubinage. (Sec. 5,
Rule 110, ROC, as amended) NOTE: The offended spouse cannot institute a
criminal action for adultery without including the guilty parties if both are
alive; or if the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the
offenders. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended) If the complainant has already
been divorced, he can no longer file the complaint. This is considered as lack
of status. (Pilapil v. Somera, G.R. No. 80116, 30 June 1989)
Filing a Complaint by a Minor for Seduction, Abduction, or Acts of
Lasciviousness (2000 BAR) GR: The offended party, even if a minor, has the
right to initiate the prosecution of such offenses independently of the said
offended party’s parents, grandparents or guardian. XPNs: If the minor is: 1.
Incompetent; or 2. Incapable of doing so. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as
amended) NOTE: If the minor fails to file a complaint, the said minor’s
parents, grandparents or guardian may file the same. The right granted to the
latter shall be exclusive and successive in the order herein provided. (Sec. 5,
Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Persons who may file a Complaint on Cases of Unlawful Acts in R.A. No.
7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Who may File them, Crimes that cannot be Prosecuted de Officio
GR: All criminal actions initiated by complaint or information are filed by the
prosecutor.
XPNs: Offenses or crimes that cannot be prosecuted de officio.
These are crimes or offenses which cannot be prosecuted except on complaint
filed by the offended party or, if the offended party is a minor, by the parents,
grandparents or the guardian. These crimes are:
1. Adultery and concubinage;
2. Seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness; and
3. Criminal actions for defamation imputing the abovementioned offenses.
(Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: These crimes are known as private crimes (which means that these
crimes cannot be prosecuted except upon the complaint initiated by the
offended party). (Art. 344, RPC)
2. Parties who may file a complaint for seduction, abduction, or acts of
lasciviousness a. The offended party; b. Parents of the offended party; c.
Grandparents of the offended party; or d. Guardian of the offended party.(Sec.
5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended) NOTE: Such crimes cannot be prosecuted if
the offender has been expressly pardoned by any of the abovementioned
parties. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC, as amended
Instances when the State may initiate the Action for Seduction, Abduction or
Acts of Lasciviousness on behalf of the Offended Party 1. When the offended
party dies or becomes incapacitated before a complaint is filed; or 2. The
offended party has no known parents, grandparents, or guardian. (Sec. 5, Rule
110, ROC, as amended) NOTE: This is pursuant to the doctrine of parens
patriae
Effect of Pardon on the Criminal Liability The crimes of seduction, abduction
and acts of lasciviousness cannot be prosecuted if the offender has been
17
 Discrimination Act) 1. Offended party; 2. Parents or guardians; 3. Ascendant expressly pardoned by any of the persons authorized to file a complaint under
or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity; 4. Officer, social Sec. 5 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. NOTE: In case where the offended
worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution; 5. Officer or party is a minor, the pardon to be effective, as to prevent prosecution of the
social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development; 6. accused, must be given by both parents and the offended party. (US v. Luna,
Barangay Chairman; or 7. At least 3 concerned, responsible citizens where the G.R. No. 892, 11 Sept. 1902)
violation occurred. (Sec. 27, R.A. No. 7610)
D. Control of "Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal actions either public prosecutor.
prosecution commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of a public 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 private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the
or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case
of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private subject to the approval of the court
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. x x x ."
E. Sufficiency of SEC. 6. A complaint or information is sufficient if it shows:
complaint or
information 1. The name of the defendant, or, if his name cannot be discovered, that
he is described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true
name is unknown to the informant or official signing the same. His
true name may be inserted at any stage of the proceedings instituted
against him, whenever ascertained.
2. The designation of the crime or public offence charged.
3. The acts or omission complained of as constituting the crime or
public offence in ordinary and concise language, without
repetition, not necessarily in the words of the statute, but in such
form as to enable a person of common understanding to know
what is intended and the court to pronounce judgment according
to right.
4. That the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the
court and is triable therein.
5. The names of the persons against whom, or against whose
property, the offence was committed, if known.
SEC. 7. Except when tie is a material ingredient of an offence, the precise
time of commission need not be stated in a complaint or information, but the
act may be alleged to have been committed at any time before the filing
thereof. And when an offence shall have been described with sufficient
certainty to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured
shall be deemed immaterial.

F. Designation of Designation of the offense. – The complaint or information shall state the Section 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall
offense designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be
made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

18

G. Cause of the Section 9. Cause of the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as
accusation 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)
Purposes of requiring that every Element must be alleged 1. To
enable the court to pronounce the proper judgment; 2. To furnish
the accused with such a description of the charge as to enable him
to make a defense; and 3. As a protection against further
prosecution for the same cause. (Herrera, 2007)
Negative Averments GR: Where the statute alleged to have been
violated prohibits generally acts therein defined and is intended to
apply to all persons indiscriminately, but prescribes certain
limitations or exceptions from its violation, the complaint or
information is sufficient if it alleges facts which the offender did as
constituting a violation of law, without explicitly negating the
exception, as the exception is a matter of right which the accused
has to prove. XPN: Where the statute alleged to have been violated
applies only to specific classes of persons and special conditions
and the exemptions from its violations are incorporated in the
language defining the crime that the ingredients of the offense
cannot be accurately and clearly set forth if the exemption is
omitted, then the indictment must show that the accused does not
fall within the exemptions. (Herrera, 2007)
The information or complaint must state or designate the following
whenever possible:
1. The designation of the offense given by the statute;
2. The acts or omissions consitituting the offense;
3. The qualifying and aggravating circumstances;
4. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it (Rule 110, Sec. 8, Rules of
Court).
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 the offense is being charged as well as the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. (Sec. 9, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Effect when one or more Elements of the Offense have NOT been
Alleged in the Information The accused cannot be convicted of the
offense charged, even if the missing elements have been proved
during the trial. Even the accused’s plea of guilty to such defective
information will not cure the defect, nor justify his conviction of the
offense charged.
Matter/s to be alleged if the Crime is “committed in relation to his
Office” Mere allegation in the information that the offense was
committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office is
not sufficient. The phrase is merely “a conclusion of law,” not a
factual averment that would show close intimacy between the
offense charged and the discharge of the accused’s official duties.
What is controlling is the specific actual allegation in the
information. (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128006, 20
Jan. 1999) NOTE: An offense is deemed committed in relation to
public office when the “office” is a constituent element of the
offense. The test is whether the offense cannot exist without the
office. (Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152398, 14 Apr.
2005) The offense need not be connected with official duties. It is
enough that it is in relation to office. (Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 130872, 25 Mar. 1999)
19
H. Duplicity of the Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or information must
offense; exception charge but one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment
for various offenses. (13a)
I. Amendment or Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be
substitution of amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before
complaint or the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal
information 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)
J. Venue of criminal Section 15. Place where action is to be instituted. —
actions
Duplicity of the Offense; Exceptions
GR: A complaint or information must charge only one offense.
XPN: When the law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses: (Sec. 13, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
1. Complex crimes;
2. Special complex crimes;
3. Continuous crimes or delito continuado;
4. Crimes susceptible of being committed in various modes; and
5. Crimes of which another offense is an ingredient.
NOTE: Should there be duplicity of offense in the information, the
accused must move for the quashal of the same before
arraignment. (Sec. 3, Rule 117, ROC, as amended) Otherwise, he or
she is deemed to have waived the objection and may be found
guilty of as many offenses as those charged and proved during the
trial. (Sec. 3, Rule 120, ROC, as amended)
Amendment
An amendment is the correction of an error or an omission in a
complaint or an information. Under Sec. 1, Rule 10 of the Rules of
Court, it is effected by adding or striking out an allegation or the
name of any party, or by correcting a mistaken or inadequate
allegation or description in any other respect, so that the actual
merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, without
regard to technicalities, and in the most and expeditious and
inexpensive manner. (Riano, 2019)
Venue for the Institution of Criminal Actions
20

(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 while 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
such 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)
GR: Subject to existing laws, criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense
was committed or any of its essential ingredients occurred. (Sec.
15(a), Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Venue is a jurisdictional matter. The court cannot exercise
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed
outside its limited territory. (Riano, 2019
XPNs:
1. An offense was committed on a railroad train, in an aircraft, or in
any other public or private vehicle in the course of trip – The
criminal action may be instituted and tried in the court of any
municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or other vehicle
passed during such trip, including the place of departure and
arrival; (Sec. 15(b), Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
2. Where the offense is committed on board a vessel on its voyage
– The criminal action may be instituted and tried in the proper
court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory
through which the vessel passed during such voyage subject to the
generally accepted principles of international law; (Sec. 15(c), Rule
110, ROC, as amended)
3. Felonies under Art. 2 of the RPC – Shall be cognizable by the
proper court where the criminal action was first filed; (Sec. 15(d),
Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
4. Continuous or transitory crimes – Such offenses may be tried by
the court of any jurisdiction wherever the offender may be found,
but the complainant should allege that the offense was committed
within the jurisdiction of the court; (Herrera, 2007)
5.Piracy – The venue of piracy, unlike all other crimes, has no
territorial limits. It is triable anywhere;
6. Libel – The action may be instituted at the election of the
offended or suing party in the municipality or city where: a. The
21

K. Intervention of Section 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action. — Where the
offended party civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action
pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the
libelous article is printed and first published; b. If one of the
offended parties is a private individual, where said private
individual actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense; or c. If the offended party is a public official, where the
latter holds office at the time of the commission of the offense.
7. B.P. 22 cases – The criminal action shall be filed at the place
where the check was drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored. In
case of crossed check, the place of the depositary or the collecting
bank;
8. Perjury – The criminal action may be instituted at the place
where the testimony under oath is given or where the statement is
submitted, since both are material ingredients of the crime
committed; (Union Bank v. People, G.R. No. 192562, 28 Feb. 2012)
9. Violation of Sec. 9 of Migrant Worker and Oversees Filipino Act
of 1995 – It shall be filed not only in RTC where the offense was
committed but it may also be filed where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. The
first court to acquire jurisdiction excludes others;
10. Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC – It may be instituted at the place
where the deceit or damage may arise;
11. Where the Supreme Court, pursuant to its constitutional
powers orders a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice; (Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines)
12. Cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan – 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
XPNs:
1. From the nature of the crime and the law defining or punishing
22
 prosecution of the offense. (16a)
Intervention of Offended Party
GR: The offended party has the right to intervene by counsel in the
prosecution of the criminal action where the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant
to Rule 111. (Sec. 16, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Readings:
Luis Panaguiton, Jr. Background of the Case
vs. DOJ, et al.,
November 25, 2008 The case involves a petitioner named Panaguiton, Jr. who is seeking to reverse
the dismissal of his petition for certiorari and subsequent motion for
reconsideration.The case revolves around the violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22) by two individuals, Rodrigo Cawili and Ramon
Tongson.The petitioner had lent money to Cawili, who issued three checks
jointly with Tongson to repay the loans.However, the checks were dishonored,
and the petitioner made formal demands for payment, which were
ignored.Preliminary Investigation and Dismissal of ChargesThe petitioner
filed a complaint against Cawili and Tongson for violating B.P. Blg.
22.During the preliminary investigation, only Tongson appeared and denied
his involvement in the case.The City Prosecutor found probable cause only
against Cawili and dismissed the charges against Tongson.
Appeal to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
The petitioner appealed to the DOJ, seeking a reinvestigation of the case
against Tongson.The DOJ directed a reinvestigation of the case against
Tongson.However, an Assistant City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint
against Tongson, stating that the case had already prescribed.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
The petitioner appealed to the DOJ, arguing that the offense had not yet
prescribed.
The DOJ initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, but later reversed its
decision, stating that the offense had already prescribed.The petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, but it was dismissed on
technical grounds.The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that
the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his petition and that the offense had
not yet prescribed.
it, no civil liability arises in favor of the offended party, e.g.,
sedition, rebellion, treason (crimes against national security);
2. The offended party waived the right to civil indemnity;
3. The offended party had already instituted separate action; or
4. The offended party reserved the right to institute it separately
Facts:Luis Panaguiton, Jr. (petitioner) filed a complaint against Rodrigo
Cawili and Ramon Tongson for violating B.P. Blg. 22 before the Quezon City
Prosecutor's Office.Cawili borrowed money from the petitioner and issued
three checks jointly with Tongson as payment.The checks were dishonored
and petitioner made formal demands for payment, but to no avail.The City
Prosecutor found probable cause only against Cawili and dismissed the
charges against Tongson.Petitioner appealed to the DOJ, which directed a
reinvestigation of the case against Tongson.Tongson's motion for
reconsideration was denied, and the case against him was dismissed by an
Assistant City Prosecutor.Petitioner appealed to the DOJ, which initially ruled
in his favor, but later reversed its decision and ordered the withdrawal of the
charges against Tongson.Issue:Whether the offense of violating B.P. Blg. 22
has already prescribed.Ruling:The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
petitioner.The Court held that the offense has not yet prescribed.The Court
cited previous cases that established that the filing of a complaint for
preliminary investigation suspends the running of the prescriptive period.The
delays in the case were beyond the petitioner's control, as he had initiated the
active prosecution of the case in a timely manner.The DOJ's reversal of its
earlier decision and the dismissal of the charges against Tongson were
erroneous.The Court ordered the DOJ to refile the information against the
petitioner.
Ratio:The Court's decision was based on the application of Act No. 3326,
which provides the rules for the prescription of violations penalized by special
acts.The Court held that Act No. 3326 applies to offenses under B.P. Blg.
22.The Court relied on previous cases that established that the filing of a
complaint for preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive
period.Ruling otherwise would deprive the injured party of the right to obtain
vindication due to delays that are not under their control.Therefore, the offense
of violating B.P. Blg. 22 has not yet prescribed, and the DOJ was ordered to
refile the information against the petitioner.
23
 Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner.The Court stated that the
offense had not yet prescribed.The Supreme Court ordered the refiling of the
information against Tongson.
Ongkingco and Case Background and Parties InvolvedThe case involves the conviction of
Ongkingco vs. Socorro F. Ongkingco for violating the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas
Sugiyama and Pambansa Bilang 22) for issuing dishonored checks.Marie Paz B. Ongkingco
People, G.R. No. was acquitted due to lack of proof of notice of dishonor.The case explores the
217787, September personal liability of corporate officers and the authority to guarantee payments
on behalf of a corporation.
The case originated from a contract agreement between respondent Kazuhiro
Sugiyama and New Rhia Car Services, Inc.
Socorro F. Ongkingco is the President and Chairperson of the Board of
Directors, and Marie Paz B. Ongkingco is a Board Director.Under the
agreement, Sugiyama would receive a monthly dividend in exchange for his
investment in the company.To cover the dividends, the petitioners issued six
checks, but three of them bounced due to insufficient funds.Socorro
Ongkingco also obtained a loan from Sugiyama and issued another check as a
guarantee and payment, which was also dishonored.Conviction and
AppealsSugiyama filed a complaint against the petitioners for violation of B.P.
22.The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found the petitioners guilty and
ordered them to pay fines and the face amount of the dishonored checks.The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC's decision, and the Court of
Appeals (CA) also affirmed the RTC's decision.Supreme Court DecisionThe
Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socorro Ongkingco but acquitted
Marie Paz Ongkingco.The Court ruled that the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that Socorro received a notice of dishonor, but failed to
prove the same for Marie Paz.Socorro should be held civilly liable for the
dishonored checks, while Marie Paz should be acquitted of the charges.Lack of
Prior Written Authority or ApprovalThe Court addressed the issue of lack of
prior written authority or approval to file the Informations against the
petitioners.The Court held that the petitioners are barred by laches for their
delay in raising the issue.The lack of written authority or approval is a
waivable ground for a motion to quash the Information.Conclusion and
PenaltiesThe Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Socorro Ongkingco
and ordered her to pay the face value of the dishonored checks.Marie Paz
Ongkingco was acquitted of the charges.The lack of prior written authority or
approval to file the Informations is a waivable ground, and the petitioners are
barred by laches from raising the issue.The Court modified the legal interest
rate awarded, in accordance with a previous decision.
18, 2019
Facts:Socorro F. Ongkingco and Marie Paz B. Ongkingco were charged with
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) or the Bouncing Checks
Law.The charges were based on the dishonor of four checks issued by Socorro
Ongkingco, who was the President and Chairman of the Board of New Rhia
Car Services, Inc.The first three checks were good, but the remaining checks
bounced due to insufficient funds.The dishonored checks were issued in
relation to a contract agreement between Socorro Ongkingco and Kazuhiro
Sugiyama, a director of New Rhia Car Services, Inc., for the payment of
monthly director's dividends and a loan.The prosecution argued that Socorro
Ongkingco received a notice of dishonor for the four checks, but there was no
evidence that Marie Paz Ongkingco received such notice.Issue:Can the
petitioners be held liable for violation of B.P. 22?Can they be held civilly
liable for the dishonored checks?Ruling:Socorro Ongkingco is convicted of the
four charges for violation of B.P. 22.Marie Paz Ongkingco is acquitted of the
charges.Ratio:A corporate officer who issues a bouncing corporate check can
only be held civilly liable when convicted.Once acquitted of the offense of
violating B.P. 22, a corporate officer is discharged from any civil liability
arising from the issuance of the worthless check in the name of the
corporation.Socorro Ongkingco should be held civilly liable for the amounts
covered by the dishonored checks, as she was convicted of the charges.Marie
Paz Ongkingco cannot be held civilly liable, as there was no evidence that she
received a notice of dishonor.The power to declare dividends lies with the
board of directors of a stock corporation and can only be declared out of
unrestricted retained earnings.Socorro Ongkingco's fixed monthly director's
dividends for five years and the loan with interest were considered
unauthorized corporate obligations.Socorro Ongkingco cannot hide behind the
separate and distinct corporate personality of New Rhia Car Services, Inc. to
evade her personal liability for these obligations.Conclusion:Socorro
Ongkingco is convicted and held civilly liable for the dishonored checks.Marie
Paz Ongkingco is acquitted due to lack of proof of notice of dishonor.The
fines imposed by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) are affirmed, but the
interest rate is modified.
24
Heirs of Delgado vs. Parties Involved and Background InformationHeirs of Federico C. Delgado
Gonzalez, G.R. No. and Annalisa PesicoLuisito Q. Gonzalez and Antonio T. BuenaflorManila
184337, 07 August Police DistrictOffice of the City Prosecutor of ManilaDepartment of
2009 JusticeInvestigating ProsecutorActing Secretary of JusticeCourt of
AppealsSupreme CourtFiling of Complaint and Dismissal for Lack of
Probable CauseThe Manila Police District filed a complaint-affidavit with the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.The complaint charged Luisito Q.
Gonzalez and Antonio T. Buenaflor with murder and frustrated murder.The
case was transferred to the Department of Justice for preliminary
investigation.The Investigating Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of
probable cause.Reversal of Dismissal and Filing of Separate InformationsThe
Acting Secretary of Justice reversed the dismissal of the complaint.The Acting
Secretary directed the filing of separate informations against Gonzalez and
Buenaflor.Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of
AppealsGonzalez and Buenaflor filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the
petition.The Court of Appeals later granted the motion for reconsideration and
ordered the dismissal of the case.Petition for Review with the Supreme
CourtThe heirs of Delgado and Pesico filed a petition for review with the
Supreme Court.They argued that the Court of Appeals committed reversible
errors in its decision.Supreme Court's RulingThe Supreme Court denied the
petition.The Court ruled that the heirs of Delgado and Pesico did not have
standing to file the petition.The Office of the Solicitor General, as the
representative of the State, did not appeal the decision of the Court of
Appeals.The Court held that the case should have been resolved on the
merits.The Court stated that the Court of Appeals should have directed the trial
court to proceed with the trial and decide the case after full presentation of
evidence.
Versoza vs. People, Case Background and Parties InvolvedThe case revolves around the issue of
et al, G.R. No. whether a bilateral vasectomy performed on an intellectually disabled man
184535, September without his consent constitutes child abuse.The petitioner is Sister Pilar
3, 2019 Versoza, who filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the
dismissal of the Information for violation of Republic Act No. 7610.The
respondents are Pedro Aguirre, Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz, and Dr.
Marissa Pascual.The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the
Information, prompting Sister Versoza to appeal to the Supreme Court.Issue of
Consent and Child AbuseThe case involves Laureano "Larry" Aguirre, a man
Facts:The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the heirs of
Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa Pesico against Luisito Q. Gonzalez and
Antonio T. Buenaflor.On March 11, 2007, the police found the dead body of
Federico C. Delgado at his residence in Malate, Manila.Annalisa Pesico, who
was present at the time of the crime and was also injured, alerted the
police.The Manila Police District filed a complaint against Gonzalez and
Buenaflor for the murder of Delgado and the frustrated murder of Pesico.The
police presented several documents, including sworn statements from Pesico,
crime and progress reports, and photographs of the suspects.The case was
transferred to the Department of Justice for preliminary investigation.The
Investigating Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable
cause.The Acting Secretary of Justice reversed the dismissal and directed the
filing of separate informations against the respondents.The respondents filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals.The Court of
Appeals initially dismissed the petition but later reversed its decision and
dismissed the charges against the respondents.Issue:Whether there was
probable cause to charge the respondents with murder and frustrated
murder.Ruling:The Court of Appeals found that there was no probable cause
to charge the respondents with murder and frustrated murder.The court
quashed and dismissed the informations filed against the respondents.Ratio:In
determining probable cause, the court must carefully evaluate the evidence and
consider the totality of the circumstances.Positive identification is preferred
over alibi and denial, but it must be supported by sufficient and credible
evidence.The court must also consider the reliability of the identification
procedure conducted by the police.The court found that the identification made
by the eyewitness was not reliable and that there were significant
improbabilities, uncertainties, and inconsistencies in her account of the
events.The court also found the identification procedure conducted by the
police to be suggestive and unreliable.Therefore, the court concluded that there
was no probable cause to charge the respondents with murder and frustrated
murder.
Facts:Larry Aguirre, an intellectually disabled individual, underwent a
bilateral vasectomy without his consent.Larry's parents, Pedro and Lourdes
Aguirre, were appointed as his co-guardians by the Regional Trial Court.The
vasectomy was performed by Dr. Juvido Agatep, a urologist, with the consent
of Larry's parents.Complaints were filed against the respondents for
falsification, mutilation, and child abuse under RA 7610.The complaints for
falsification and mutilation were dismissed, but the case for child abuse
proceeded.The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of probable
cause, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.The petitioner, Sister
25
with cognitive disability who was made to undergo bilateral vasectomy at the Pilar Versoza, appealed to the Supreme Court.Issue:Whether the bilateral
age of 24 without his consent.The Court is called upon to determine whether vasectomy conducted on Larry constitutes child abuse under RA
this procedure constitutes child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610.The case 7610.Ruling:The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on
also raises the issue of whether Sister Versoza, Larry's former guardian, has certiorari.The court held that the petitioner, who passed away during the
the legal standing to file the complaint and prosecute the case.Court's Decision pendency of the case, no longer has the legal capacity to pursue the appeal.The
and Legal CapacityThe Court denies the Petition, stating that the death of court reiterated that the role of the private complainant in a criminal case is
Sister Versoza extinguishes her legal capacity and warrants the dismissal of limited to being a witness, and only the State, through the Office of the
the case.The Court emphasizes that the criminal aspect of the case can only be Solicitor General, can appeal the criminal aspect of the case.The court held
undertaken by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General.The Court that the petitioner, as a representative of a licensed child-caring institution, had
notes that Larry, as a person with cognitive disability, is considered a child the authority to file the complaint under Section 27 of RA 7610.The court
under the law and is entitled to special protection.Importance of Protecting noted that the parental authority and responsibility over Larry were transferred
Individuals with DisabilitiesWhile the Court does not delve into the merits of to the legal guardians, and the ties between the child-caring institution and
whether the bilateral vasectomy constitutes child abuse, it acknowledges the Larry were severed after adoption.The court did not rule on the substantive
importance of the issue and the need to protect children with disabilities.The issue of whether the bilateral vasectomy constitutes child abuse, but it affirmed
Court highlights the duty of parents and legal guardians to enable their the dismissal of the case by the lower courts.Ratio:The bilateral vasectomy
children and wards, and the State's role in protecting the rights and well-being does not constitute child abuse under RA 7610.The procedure does not
of children.Definition of Child Abuse under RA 7610The Court discusses the permanently impair the reproductive capacity of the person and does not
concept of child abuse under RA 7610, which includes psychological and demean or degrade their intrinsic worth and dignity.The intent of the
physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment, and respondents was to protect Larry and prevent unwanted pregnancies.The
any act that debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a petitioner, who passed away, no longer has the legal capacity to pursue the
child.Section 10(a) of RA 7610 punishes other acts of child abuse, cruelty, appeal.The role of the private complainant in a criminal case is limited to
exploitation, or conditions prejudicial to the child's development.Larry's Status being a witness, and only the State can appeal the criminal aspect of the
as a Child and Rights of Individuals with DisabilitiesThe Court examines case.The petitioner, as a representative of a licensed child-caring institution,
Larry's status as a child under the law, noting that the definition of a child had the authority to file the complaint under Section 27 of RA 7610.The
under RA 7610 includes individuals below 18 years of age or those over 18 parental authority and responsibility over Larry were transferred to the legal
but unable to fully take care of themselves due to a physical or mental guardians, and the ties between the child-caring institution and Larry were
disability.The Court emphasizes that individuals with cognitive disabilities severed after adoption.
have the right to respect for their human dignity and the same fundamental
rights as their fellow citizens.Parents and legal guardians have a duty to enable
their children or wards and should not have the right to decide on their
reproductive rights.Society has a general duty to protect its children, especially
those with disabilities, and the State is the ultimate defender of a child's right
to a full, decent, and dignified life.Analysis of the Bilateral Vasectomy and
Child AbuseThe Court analyzes whether the bilateral vasectomy conducted on
Larry can be considered child abuse.The specific intent to debase, degrade, or
demean Larry's intrinsic worth as a human being has not been convincingly
shown.The vasectomy does not permanently impair Larry's reproductive
capacity and can be reversed.The act of the respondents, Larry's parents,
cannot be characterized as debasing, degrading, or demeaning, but rather as an
act borne out of care and love for Larry.Conclusion and Separate OpinionThe
Court concludes that there is no probable cause to hold the respondents for
trial for child abuse under RA 7610.Justice Leonen argues that Larry has a
fundamental right to procreation and parenthood, and that the vasectomy
conducted on him without his consent violates this right.Justice Leonen
suggests that the vasectomy can be considered an act of cruelty or child abuse
under RA 7610.The Court dismisses the petition and emphasizes the

26
 importance of respecting the rights and dignity of individuals with disabilities,
including their reproductive rights.Fundamental Rights and Sterilization of
Intellectually Disabled IndividualsThe case involves the issue of whether a
person with intellectual disability has a fundamental right to procreation and
parenthood, and whether sterilization performed on the individual without
their consent violates this right.The majority opinion argues that Larry has a
fundamental right to procreation and parenthood, and that the vasectomy
performed on him without his consent is an act of cruelty and a violation of
Republic Act No. 7610.Justice Jardaleza, in his concurring opinion, argues that
the vasectomy performed on Larry does not violate Republic Act No. 7610, as
there is no clear legislative intent to make sterilization of intellectually-
disabled individuals a criminal act.Justice Jardaleza suggests that the issue of
sterilization in relation to intellectually-disabled individuals should be tested in
a proper, prospective case.Dismissal of the Case and Views on Parental
AuthorityThe Supreme Court dismisses the petition as moot and academic due
to the death of Sr. Pilar Verzosa.Justice Leonen argues that the vasectomy
performed on Larry violated his fundamental right to life and liberty and
constituted an act of child abuse.Justice Caguioa and Justice Reyes, Jr. concur
with the resolution, stating that the case had become moot due to Sr. Verzosa's
death.Justice Caguioa and Justice Reyes, Jr. express their views on the scope
and limitations of parental authority, emphasizing the plenary and natural right
of parents to rear their children.The Court emphasizes the importance of
recognizing the primacy of parental responsibility in the upbringing of
children.
Marquez et al v. Case Background and Parties InvolvedMarquez v. Alejo is a Philippine Facts:Complaint for falsification of public documents and estafa through
Alejo, G.R. No. L- jurisprudence case.The case involves a complaint for falsification of public falsification of public documents filed against the petitioners, Felimon C.
40575 September 28, documents and estafa through falsification of public documents.The Marquez, Ricardo Suarez, and Anastacio Roxas.Complaint filed by Gavino R.
1987 petitioners in the case were the municipal mayor, treasurer, and another Alejo and Luis Cruz.Provincial fiscal of Bulacan conducted an
individual in Obando, Bulacan.The provincial fiscal dismissed the charges investigation.Provincial fiscal dismissed the charges against the petitioners due
against the petitioners for lack of sufficient evidence.The private respondents to lack of sufficient evidence.Private respondents filed a petition for review
filed a petition for review and/or appeal with the Secretary of Justice.Secretary and/or appeal with the Secretary of Justice.Secretary of Justice requested the
of Justice's Authority to Order ReinvestigationThe Secretary of Justice investigating fiscal to conduct a reinvestigation of the cases.Fiscal initially
requested the investigating fiscal to conduct a thorough reinvestigation of the disclaimed the inconsistency but proceeded with the reinvestigation.Petitioners
cases due to an apparent inconsistency in the resolution dismissing the filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to
charges.The fiscal conducted several hearings on the requested stop the reinvestigation.Court of First Instance of Bulacan issued a temporary
reinvestigation.The Supreme Court affirmed the authority of the Secretary of restraining order, but eventually dismissed the petition and dissolved the
Justice to order reinvestigation.The Court emphasized that the fiscal's restraining order.Issue:Whether the Secretary of Justice is a necessary and
discretion and control of the criminal prosecution should not be interfered with indispensable party to the case.Whether the third indorsement of the Secretary
by the courts.The fiscal may re-investigate a case and subsequently move for of Justice is a request or an order for reinvestigation.Whether the resolution of
dismissal if the reinvestigation shows the defendant's innocence or insufficient the provincial fiscal dismissing the cases should be maintained.Whether the
evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.Court's Jurisdiction and Secretary of Justice encroached upon the duties of the provincial
DiscretionOnce the case is filed in court, the court acquires complete fiscal.Whether the remedies taken by the private respondents are null and void
jurisdiction over the case.Any disposition of the case rests in the court's sound for lack of notice to the petitioners.Whether the private respondents, with the
discretion.The fiscal's opinion cannot be imposed on the trial court.The court aid of the Secretary of Justice, are using the law in an oppressive and
has the option to grant or deny a motion to dismiss filed by the vindictive manner.Whether the indorsement of the Secretary of Justice is null
fiscal.Dismissal of the PetitionThe Supreme Court held that the legal issues and void.Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition and

27
 raised by the petitioners were questions of law and within its exclusive
jurisdiction.The Court dismissed the petition (appeal) on the grounds of the
Secretary of Justice's authority to order reinvestigation and the court's
jurisdiction over the case.The petitioners' appeal was dismissed for failure to
include the Secretary of Justice as a necessary and indispensable party.
Enrile vs. People, et Case Background and ChargesSenator Juan Ponce Enrile and several co-
al., G.R. No. respondents are facing charges for diverting public funds through a scheme
213455, Aug. 11, involving Janet Napoles and her NGOs.The Office of the Ombudsman filed an
2015 Information for plunder against Enrile, Jessica Lucila Reyes, Janet Lim
Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John Raymund de Asis before the
Sandiganbayan.The charges allege that Enrile and Reyes conspired with
Napoles, Lim, and De Asis to amass ill-gotten wealth through criminal
acts.These acts include receiving kickbacks from Napoles in exchange for
endorsing her NGOs as recipients of Enrile's PDAF projects.The funded
projects turned out to be fictitious, allowing Napoles to misappropriate the
PDAF proceeds.Enrile's Motions and Sandiganbayan's RulingEnrile filed
motions to dismiss the charges and for a bill of particulars, but the
Sandiganbayan denied these motions and ordered his arraignment.Enrile's
Petition for CertiorariEnrile filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court, arguing that the denial of his motion for bill of particulars violated his
right to be informed of the charges against him.He claimed that the details he
requested were material facts necessary for his defense.The People of the
Philippines argued that the Information already contained the ultimate facts of
the offense.Supreme Court's RulingThe Supreme Court ruled that Enrile's right
to be informed of the charges should be protected.It held that while the
Information only needs to state the ultimate facts, a bill of particulars may be
requested for more specific details.The Court determined that Enrile was
entitled to a bill of particulars for certain specifics, such as the overt acts
constituting the criminal acts and the projects funded by Enrile's
PDAF.However, his request for details on other individuals who allegedly
gave him kickbacks and the exact amounts of his yearly PDAF allocations was
denied.The Court clarified that COA audits or field investigations did not need
to be included in the Information.The Supreme Court partially granted Enrile's
dissolving the restraining order.Ruling:Supreme Court dismissed the petition
(appeal) and affirmed the authority of the Secretary of Justice to order
reinvestigation.Court held that the issues raised by the petitioners were legal in
nature and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.Court
cited Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which empowers the Secretary
of Justice to order or perform the acts questioned by the petitioners.Court
emphasized that once a case is filed in court, the court acquires complete
jurisdiction over the case, and the disposition of the case rests in the sound
discretion of the court.Ratio:Criminal actions are prosecuted under the
direction and control of the fiscal.Fiscal has the authority and duty to prosecute
persons who are shown to be guilty of a crime.Fiscal's discretion and control
of the criminal prosecution cannot be interfered with by the court.Fiscal's
action is subject to the approval of the provincial or city fiscal or the chief state
prosecutor, and it may be elevated for review to the Secretary of Justice.Once
a case is filed in court, the court has the exclusive jurisdiction and competence
to determine the case.Court can grant or deny a motion to dismiss filed by the
fiscal.Court's determination of the case is not influenced by the fiscal's
opinion.
Facts:The case involves Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and several co-respondents
who are facing charges for diverting public funds through a complex scheme
involving Janet Napoles and her non-government organizations (NGOs).The
Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information for plunder against Enrile,
Jessica Lucila Reyes, Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John
Raymund de Asis before the Sandiganbayan.The Information alleged that
Enrile and Reyes conspired with Napoles and others to amass ill-gotten wealth
amounting to at least Php172,834,500.00 through a combination or series of
overt criminal acts.These acts included receiving kickbacks or commissions
from Napoles in exchange for endorsing her NGOs to receive Enrile's Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for fictitious projects.Enrile filed a
motion for bill of particulars, seeking specific details regarding the allegations
in the Information.The Sandiganbayan denied Enrile's motion, stating that the
details he sought were either evidentiary in nature or already addressed in his
previous opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.Enrile filed a petition
for certiorari with the Supreme Court, claiming that the Sandiganbayan's
denial of his motion for bill of particulars amounted to grave abuse of
discretion.Issue:Whether the Sandiganbayan's denial of Enrile's motion for bill
of particulars amounted to grave abuse of discretion and violated his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.Ruling:The Supreme Court partially granted Enrile's
petition.Enrile was entitled to a bill of particulars regarding the specific overt
acts that constituted the "combination" or "series" of criminal acts under the
plunder law.The Court denied Enrile's request for particulars regarding other
aspects of the case, such as the specific individuals involved and the exact
amounts of his PDAF allocations.The denial of Enrile's motion for bill of
particulars, in part, amounted to grave abuse of discretion, as it violated his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
28
petition and ordered the Sandiganbayan to provide the requested
particulars.Importance of Protecting the Accused's RightsThe Court
emphasized the importance of protecting the accused's right to be fully
informed of the charges and to prepare their defense.Case Background and
AccusationsThe case involves the alleged misuse and diversion of Senator
Juan Ponce Enrile's PDAF from 2004 to 2010.The NBI and the FIO of the
Office of the Ombudsman filed the case.The charges include violating the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.The accusations involve giving
unwarranted benefits to private individuals and organizations in the
implementation of PDAF-funded projects, causing undue injury to the
government.Counter-Affidavits and DenialsThe respondents were ordered to
file their counter-affidavits, but some failed to do so.Some respondents
claimed that the accusations were hearsay or lacked specific details.Senator
Enrile denied the charges and claimed no personal involvement in the
implementation of PDAF projects.Complex Scheme and Diversion of
FundsThe scheme involved diverting PDAF funds to private individuals and
organizations controlled by Janet Napoles.Napoles would offer to acquire the
legislator's PDAF allocation in exchange for a kickback.Once an agreement
was reached, Napoles would advance a down payment to the legislator and
request the immediate release of the PDAF.The kickbacks would be received
by the legislator or their representatives, and the funds intended for the
projects would be diverted to Napoles and her cohorts.Involvement of Various
Individuals and AgenciesThe scheme involved individuals from the legislator's
office, the DBM, IAs, and Napoles-controlled NGOs.DBM personnel
expedited the release of SAROs and NCAs for the PDAF projects.The IAs
facilitated the processing and release of the PDAF disbursements to the
NGOs.The NGOs, controlled by Napoles, would manufacture fictitious
documents to make it appear that the projects were implemented.Specific
Focus on Senator Enrile's PDAF AllocationThe case specifically focuses on
Senator Enrile's PDAF allocation and the involvement of Napoles and her
affiliated NGOs.Evidence presented includes business ledgers, COA reports,
and independent field verification reports.Conclusion and FindingsThe case
concludes that a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was
committed by the respondents.The respondents acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence.Their actions caused undue injury
to the government and gave unwarranted benefits to private individuals and
organizations.The case highlights the complex scheme used to divert and
misuse the PDAF funds and the involvement of various individuals and
agencies.
against him.Ratio:A bill of particulars is meant to clarify allegations in the
Information that are indefinite or vague and to enable the accused to properly
plead and prepare for trial.The details sought by Enrile, such as the specific
individuals involved and the exact amounts of his PDAF allocations, are
evidentiary matters that do not need to be included in the Information.Enrile is
entitled to a bill of particulars regarding the specific overt acts that constituted
the "combination" or "series" of criminal acts under the plunder law.The
Information, when read together with the preliminary investigation resolution,
provides sufficient details for Enrile to properly plead and prepare for
trial.Granting Enrile's request for particulars regarding other aspects of the
case would open the door for other accused individuals to seek re-arraignment
and new trials, causing chaos in the criminal justice system.The denial of
Enrile's motion for bill of particulars, in part, amounted to grave abuse of
discretion, as it violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him.Conclusion:Enrile was entitled to a
bill of particulars regarding the specific overt acts that constituted the
"combination" or "series" of criminal acts under the plunder law.His request
for particulars regarding other aspects of the case was denied.The denial of
Enrile's motion for bill of particulars, in part, amounted to grave abuse of
discretion, as it violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him.Facts:The case involves the misuse
and diversion of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocated
to Senator Juan Ponce Enrile from 2004 to 2010.The case was filed by the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Field Investigation Office
(FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman against Senator Enrile and several
other individuals, including government officials and employees, for their
involvement in the scheme.The scheme involved a complex process where the
PDAF funds were diverted to non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
controlled by Janet Napoles, who acted as the mastermind of the
scheme.Napoles would offer to "acquire" the legislator's PDAF allocation in
exchange for a kickback.Once an agreement was reached, Napoles would
provide a down payment to the legislator and request the immediate release of
the PDAF funds.The legislator would then endorse the request to the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM), which would issue a Special
Allotment Release Order (SARO) for the funds.The kickbacks, amounting to
around 50% of the PDAF allocation, would be received by the legislator or
their representatives in the form of cash, checks, or fund transfers.The
remaining portion of the kickback would be remitted to the legislator after the
SARO was received.The legislator would then write a letter to the
implementing agency (IA) specifying the preferred NGO to implement the
project, which would be one of the NGOs controlled by Napoles.The IA would
process the project and release the funds to the NGO.The funds would then be
withdrawn by Napoles or her employees and remitted to her, placing the funds
under her control.Fictitious documents would be created to make it appear that
the projects were implemented.The case focuses on Senator Enrile's
involvement in the scheme, as he endorsed the Napoles-affiliated NGOs to
29

People v. Arrojado, Background of the CaseThe case involves a petition for review on certiorari
G.R. No. 207041, seeking to set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA),
November 09, 2015 which affirmed the dismissal of a murder case.The dismissal was due to the
failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate her Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance in the information filed
against the accused.Filing of Murder Case against Jesus A. ArrojadoJesus A.
Arrojado was charged with murder by the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Roxas City, Capiz.The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. C-75-09 and
was assigned to Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas
City.Motion to Dismiss and Failure to Indicate MCLE Certificate of
ComplianceArrojado filed a motion to dismiss the information against him,
arguing that the investigating prosecutor failed to indicate her MCLE
Certificate of Compliance, as required by a Supreme Court
resolution.Dismissal of the Information by the RTCThe RTC of Roxas City
granted Arrojado's motion and dismissed the information without
prejudice.Arrojado filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the
trial court.Petition for Certiorari and/or Mandamus with the CAArrojado filed
a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus with the CA, challenging the
dismissal of the information.The CA denied Arrojado's petition and affirmed
the dismissal of the information.Arrojado filed a motion for reconsideration,
but it was also denied by the CA.Petition for Review on Certiorari before the
Supreme CourtArrojado filed a petition for review on certiorari before the
Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the CA's decision and resolution.Supreme
Court's Decision and RulingThe Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling and
implement his PDAF-funded projects and received kickbacks from the
scheme.His staff, including respondents Reyes and Evangelista, played a
crucial role in the preparation and execution of the PDAF documents.The
DBM, through respondents Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, and Bare, expedited
the release of the SAROs and NCAs for Senator Enrile's projects.The IAs,
including NABCOR, NLDC, and TRC, facilitated the processing and release
of the PDAF funds to the NGOs.Issue:Whether the respondents violated
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, which prohibits public officials from causing undue
injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to private
parties.Ruling:The court found that the respondents violated Section 3 (e) of
RA 3019.The respondents acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence in their involvement in the scheme.The diversion and
misuse of the PDAF funds caused undue injury to the government and gave
unwarranted benefits to Napoles and her cohorts.Ratio:The court ruled that the
respondents violated Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, which prohibits public officials
from causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to
private parties.The respondents acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or inexcusable negligence in their involvement in the scheme.The
diversion and misuse of the PDAF funds caused undue injury to the
government and gave unwarranted benefits to Napoles and her cohorts.The
court's ruling emphasizes the need for accountability and the prosecution of
those involved in corruption and the misuse of public funds.
Facts:Respondent, Jesus A. Arrojado, was charged with murder in March 2009
by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City, Capiz.The case was
assigned to Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas
City.Arrojado filed a motion to dismiss the information against him, arguing
that the investigating prosecutor failed to indicate her MCLE Certificate of
Compliance in the information.The RTC of Roxas City granted the motion and
dismissed the information without prejudice.Arrojado's motion for
reconsideration was denied by the trial court.Arrojado filed a petition for
certiorari and/or mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the
dismissal of the information.The CA affirmed the RTC's orders.Arrojado's
motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA.Issue:Whether the
failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate her MCLE Certificate of
Compliance in the information warrants the dismissal of the case.Ruling:The
Supreme Court held that the failure to indicate the MCLE Certificate of
Compliance in the information is a valid ground for dismissal.The Court
rejected the argument that the dismissal would prejudice the interests of the
State and the private offended party.The Court denied the petition for review
on certiorari and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.Ratio:An information is considered an initiatory pleading and falls
within the ambit of the Supreme Court resolution requiring practicing
members of the bar to indicate their MCLE Certificate of Compliance in all
pleadings filed before the courts.The Court cited previous rulings from other
jurisdictions that considered an information as a pleading.Therefore, the failure
to indicate the MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a valid ground for
30
 affirmed the dismissal of the information.The Court held that the failure to
indicate MCLE Certificate of Compliance in the information was a valid
ground for dismissal.The Court emphasized that an information is considered
an initiatory pleading and falls within the ambit of the Supreme Court
resolution requiring the indication of MCLE compliance in all pleadings filed
before the courts.Rejection of Arguments and Emphasis on Procedural
ComplianceThe Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the dismissal of
the information would prejudice the interests of the State and the private
offended party.The Court pointed out that the prosecution had the option to
simply re-file the information with the required indication of MCLE
compliance.The Court emphasized the importance of complying with
procedural requirements and suggested that re-filing the information with the
necessary indication would have been a more practical and efficient
solution.ConclusionThe Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the
CA's decision, upholding the dismissal of the murder case due to the failure to
indicate MCLE compliance in the information.The Court emphasized the
importance of complying with procedural requirements and suggested a more
practical solution of re-filing the information with the necessary indication.
People vs. Bali- Facts:On September 1, 1997, Ella Magdasoc, an 11-year-old girl, filed a
Balita, G.R. No. complaint for rape against Melencio Bali-balita, the common-law husband of
134266, 15 her mother. Ella alleged that on August 26, 1997, Bali-balita undressed her,
September 2000 inserted his fingers into her private part, and had sexual intercourse with her
against her will and without her consent. The accused denied the accusation
and claimed that he was attending a wake at the time of the alleged incident.
The trial court found the accused guilty of consummated rape and sentenced
him to death.Issue:The main issue raised in the case is whether the guilt of the
accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.Ruling:The court affirmed
the judgment finding the accused guilty of rape but reduced the penalty from
death to reclusion perpetua. The court held that the guilt of the accused has
been proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the clear and categorical
testimony of the victim. The defense of denial and alibi raised by the accused
was deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification of the accused
by the victim.Ratio:The court relied on the testimony of the victim, which was
corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal officer. The court noted that
the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate the commission of rape, as
healed lacerations indicate that the assault occurred more than seven days prior
to the examination. The court also rejected the accused's claim that the victim's
demeanor after the incident was contrary to human nature, stating that
reactions to traumatic events vary from person to person. The court further
held that the failure to allege the relationship of the accused to the victim as a
qualifying circumstance in the information does not affect the validity of the
conviction for rape.
dismissal.The prosecution could have simply re-filed the information with the
required information, instead of wasting time and resources by filing various
petitions in court.The dismissal of the information does not prejudice the
interests of the State and the private offended party.
Accused-appellant Melencio Bali-balita was charged, tried, and convicted of
the crime of rape against Ella Magdasoc, an 11-year-old girl. The trial court
ruled that the defense of denial and alibi raised by the accused could not
prevail over the positive assertion and identification of the accused by the
victim. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with
modifications to the penalty and damages awarded. The court found that the
filiation of the accused-appellant to the victim was not properly alleged in the
information, which prevented a judgment of conviction for qualified rape and
thus, the death penalty cannot be imposed. The court also discussed the
credibility of the victim's testimony and the importance of proving the age of
the victim beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the guilt of the
accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and reduced the penalty to
reclusion perpetua. The victim was awarded indemnity and moral
damages.The testimony of the victim was found to be credible and consistent
with the medical findings. The court emphasized that the willingness of the
victim to face police investigation and undergo a public trial is eloquent
testimony of the truth of her complaint. The court also noted that the fact that
the victim's mother did not believe her accusation does not establish that the
victim concocted the story. The court concluded that there was no reason to
disturb the trial court's findings supporting the judgment of conviction.The
court discussed the importance of proving the age of the victim beyond
reasonable doubt in order to impose the death penalty. The court noted that the
testimonies of the victim and her half-sister were inconsistent with each other
regarding the victim's age. The court emphasized that the burden of proving
the victim's age rests on the prosecution and that no independent proof was
presented to establish the victim's age. The court concluded that the
prosecution failed to prove the minority of the victim beyond reasonable doubt
and thus, the death penalty cannot be imposed.The court discussed the
31

Navaja vs. De Facts:Petitioner Ana Lou B. Navaja filed a petition for review on certiorari
Castro, G.R. No. against Hon. Manuel A. De Castro and DKT Phils., Inc.The case challenges
182926, 22 June the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the order of the Regional
2015 Trial Court (RTC) denying the motion to quash the criminal case for
falsification of private document filed against the petitioner.DKT Philippines,
Inc., represented by Atty. Edgar Borje, filed a Complaint-Affidavit against
Ana Lou B. Navaja, alleging that she falsified a receipt and claimed
reimbursement for meal expenses that she did not actually incur.Navaja is
charged with the crime of falsification of private document before the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez,
Bohol.Navaja filed a Motion to Quash and Defer Arraignment, arguing that
the MCTC had no jurisdiction over the case due to improper venue.The
MCTC denied the motion to quash and set the case for arraignment.Navaja
filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the MCTC.Navaja then
filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC, which also denied the
petition.Navaja appealed the RTC's decision to the CA, but the CA dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the RTC's decision.Navaja filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA.Aggrieved, she filed a petition for
review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.Issue:Whether the MCTC has
jurisdiction over the criminal case for falsification of private document filed
against the petitioner due to improper venue.Ruling:The MCTC has
jurisdiction over the case.Ratio:Venue in criminal cases is an essential element
of jurisdiction.In cases of falsification of private documents, the venue is the
place where the document is actually falsified.The allegations in the
Information and the complaint-affidavit make out a prima facie case that the
crime was committed in Jagna, Bohol, which falls within the territorial
jurisdiction of the MCTC.The separate filing of the falsification cases in
different jurisdictions would not result in multiplicity of actions because there
importance of properly alleging the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship in the information. The court noted that the information in this
case did not specifically allege the relationship of the accused to the victim.
The court emphasized that every element of the offense must be alleged in the
information and that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined from
the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the information. The
court concluded that the information in this case did not state the relationship
of the accused to the victim as a qualifying circumstance and thus, the death
penalty cannot be imposed.The court discussed the medical findings and
concluded that the lacerations found on the victim's private part were not
essential in establishing the crime of rape. The court emphasized that complete
penetration of the penis is not essential to consummate rape and that it is
enough that there is a slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips of the
vagina. The court cited jurisprudence to support this conclusion.The court
awarded indemnity and moral damages to the victim. The court noted that civil
indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral damages, which is
automatically granted in rape cases. The court modified the damages awarded
to the victim.
Parties Involved and Background InformationPetitioner: Ana Lou B.
NavajaRespondent: Court of Appeals (CA)Regional Trial Court
(RTC)Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)DKT Philippines, Inc.The case
involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Ana Lou B. Navaja, who is
challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the order of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying her motion to quash a criminal case
for falsification of a private document. The complaint was filed by DKT
Philippines, Inc. against Navaja, alleging that she falsified a receipt and
claimed reimbursement for inflated meal expenses. Navaja is charged with the
crime of falsification of a private document before the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC) of Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol.Jurisdictional Issue and
Motion to QuashNavaja argues that the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the
case due to improper venue.Navaja filed a motion to quash and defer
arraignment, claiming that none of the essential elements of the crime occurred
in Jagna, Bohol, and therefore, the MCTC had no jurisdiction.The MCTC
denied the motion and set the case for arraignment. Navaja filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was also denied.Navaja filed a motion to quash and
defer arraignment, arguing that none of the essential elements of the crime
occurred in Jagna, Bohol, and therefore, the MCTC had no jurisdiction.
However, the MCTC denied the motion and set the case for arraignment.
Navaja filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied.Petition for
Certiorari before the RTCNavaja filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC,
challenging the denial of her motion to quash.The RTC denied the petition,
ruling that the MCTC had jurisdiction over the case based on the Regional
State Prosecutor's finding that there were sufficient evidence indicating that
the falsification took place in Jagna.Navaja then filed a petition for certiorari
before the RTC, challenging the denial of her motion to quash. However, the
RTC denied the petition, ruling that the MCTC had jurisdiction over the case
32
are as many acts of falsification as there are documents falsified, and the venue
of such cases is where the document was actually falsified.Procedural
Issues:An order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable,
nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari, unless there are special
circumstances present such as grave abuse of discretion or when the
interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not
afford adequate and expeditious relief.The petitioner failed to prove any of
these special circumstances in this case.Therefore, the CA did not err in
affirming the RTC's ruling that the MCTC correctly denied the motion to
quash.Conclusion:The Supreme Court denies the petition and affirms the
decision of the CA.The MCTC has jurisdiction over the case for falsification
of private document filed against the petitioner, and the motion to quash was
correctly denied.
based on the Regional State Prosecutor's finding that there were sufficient
evidence indicating that the falsification took place in Jagna.Appeal to the
Court of AppealsNavaja appealed to the CA, but her appeal was dismissed.The
CA affirmed the RTC's ruling that the MCTC had jurisdiction over the
case.Navaja filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.Navaja
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but her appeal was dismissed. The CA
affirmed the RTC's ruling that the MCTC had jurisdiction over the case.
Navaja filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.Issues Raised in
the Petition for Review on CertiorariLack of jurisdiction of the MCTC over
the casePropriety of filing a petition for certiorari to question the denial of a
motion to quashIn her petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme
Court, Navaja raised several issues, including the lack of jurisdiction of the
MCTC over the case and the propriety of filing a petition for certiorari to
question the denial of a motion to quash.Supreme Court's Ruling on
Jurisdiction and VenueVenue in criminal cases is an essential element of
jurisdiction.Venue is where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.In cases of falsification of private documents,
the venue is where the document was actually falsified.The Court found that
the allegations in the information and the complaint-affidavit made out a prima
facie case that the crime was committed in Jagna, Bohol.Each act of
falsification constitutes a separate offense, and venue in criminal cases cannot
be waived.The Supreme Court held that venue in criminal cases is an essential
element of jurisdiction. It explained that the venue is where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. In cases of
falsification of private documents, the venue is where the document was
actually falsified. The Court found that the allegations in the information and
the complaint-affidavit made out a prima facie case that the crime was
committed in Jagna, Bohol. The Court also emphasized that each act of
falsification constitutes a separate offense, and venue in criminal cases cannot
be waived.Procedural Issues and Petition for CertiorariAn order denying a
motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable.It can only be questioned
through a petition for certiorari in exceptional circumstances, such as when
there is grave abuse of discretion or when the interlocutory order is patently
erroneous.Navaja failed to prove any of these circumstances.Regarding the
procedural issues, the Supreme Court held that an order denying a motion to
quash is interlocutory and not appealable. It can only be questioned through a
petition for certiorari in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is grave
abuse of discretion or when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous. The
Court found that Navaja failed to prove any of these circumstances.Supreme
Court's DecisionThe Supreme Court denied Navaja's petition and affirmed the
CA's decision, upholding the jurisdiction of the MCTC over the case.If the
evidence presented during the trial shows that the crime was committed
outside the MCTC's jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed on the ground
of improper venue.In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied Navaja's petition
and affirmed the CA's decision, upholding the jurisdiction of the MCTC over
the case. The Court also emphasized that if the evidence presented during the
33

Lee Pue Liong vs. Facts:
Chua Pue Chin Lee, Lee Pue Liong (petitioner) is the President of Centillion Holdings, Inc. (CHI),
G.R. No. 181658, 07 a company affiliated with the CKC Group of Companies.
August 2013 There are intra-corporate disputes between the petitioner and his siblings,
including Chua Pue Chin Lee (respondent), who is a majority stockholder and
Treasurer of CHI.
On July 19, 1999, the respondent and unidentified persons barricaded
themselves inside a factory owned by CKC, preventing the petitioner and other
employees from entering.
Criminal cases for perjury were filed against the respondent and others.
The petitioner filed a petition for a new owner's duplicate copy of a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) owned by CHI, claiming that the original copy was
lost.
The respondent opposed the petition and produced the owner's duplicate copy
of the TCT in court.
The respondent filed a complaint-affidavit accusing the petitioner of perjury
for making false statements in his petition, affidavit of loss, and testimony.
Perjury charges were filed against the petitioner based on the respondent's
complaint.
Issue:
Is there a private offended party in the crime of perjury?
Does the respondent, as an alleged stockholder of CHI, have the right to
intervene in the criminal case for perjury on behalf of the corporation without
its authority?
Ruling:
The presence and intervention of a private prosecutor in the perjury cases are
not prohibited by the rules.
An offended party may intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action, even
if no civil liability is involved.
The private prosecutor's intervention is subject to the direction and control of
the public prosecutor.
The respondent, as an aggrieved party, has the right to intervene in the perjury
cases.
Ratio:
The court explained that an offended party may intervene in the prosecution of
a criminal action, even if no civil liability is involved. This means that the
offended party has the right to participate in the criminal case and present
evidence to support their claim.
The court emphasized that the private prosecutor's intervention is subject to
the direction and control of the public prosecutor. This ensures that the public
prosecutor retains the prosecuting authority and supervises the private
prosecutor's actions.
The court acknowledged that the petitioner's false statements in the perjury
case were injurious to the respondent's personal credibility and reputation as a
trial shows that the crime was committed outside the MCTC's jurisdiction, the
case should be dismissed on the ground of improper venue.
Parties Involved and Background Information
Petitioner: Lee Pue Liong, President of Centillion Holdings, Inc. (CHI)
Respondent: Chua Pue Chin Lee, majority stockholder and Treasurer of CHI
CKC Group of Companies: Affiliated with CHI, subject of intra-corporate
disputes between the petitioner and his siblings
Dispute over Ownership of Company and Barricade Incident
Dispute arises between the petitioner and his siblings, including the
respondent, over ownership of the company.
Petitioner's siblings barricade themselves inside a factory owned by CKC,
preventing petitioner and other employees from entering.
Criminal cases are filed against petitioner's siblings and the respondent.
Petition for New Owner's Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT)
Petitioner files a petition for a new owner's duplicate copy of a TCT for a
property owned by CHI.
Petitioner claims the original copy of the TCT was lost.
Respondent disputes this claim and produces the owner's duplicate copy of the
TCT in court.
Perjury Charges and Private Prosecutor
Respondent files a complaint-affidavit accusing petitioner of perjury for
making false statements in his petition and affidavit of loss.
City Prosecutor files perjury charges against petitioner based on respondent's
complaint.
Respondent's lawyer appears as a private prosecutor with consent and under
the control of the public prosecutor.
Petitioner's lawyer moves to exclude the private prosecutor, arguing that
perjury is a public offense and does not involve any private offended party.
Trial court denies the motion, stating that an offended party may intervene in
the prosecution of a criminal action, even without civil liability.
Appeal to Court of Appeals (CA)
Petitioner appeals trial court's decision to the CA.
CA affirms trial court's ruling, allowing the presence of a private prosecutor
under the control and supervision of the public prosecutor in perjury cases.
CA states that the respondent, as the private complainant, has the right to
intervene in the proceedings.
Petition for Review with the Supreme Court
Petitioner files a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Petitioner argues that perjury is a crime against public interest and does not
offend any private party.
Petitioner contends that the respondent, as an alleged stockholder of CHI, does
not have the authority to intervene in the criminal case as a private
complainant on behalf of the corporation.
Supreme Court's Decision
Supreme Court rejects petitioner's arguments and affirms the CA's decision.
34
 Board Member and Treasurer of CHI. The potential injury to the corporation
itself was also recognized.
Therefore, the court concluded that the respondent, as an aggrieved party, has
the right to intervene in the perjury cases.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion
in denying the petitioner's motion to exclude the private prosecutor.
The court held that the private prosecutor's participation in the trial does not
violate the petitioner's right to a fair trial, as the public prosecutor still retains
the prosecuting authority and controls the private prosecutor.
People vs. Solar, Case Background and Prosecution's Evidence
G.R. No. 225595, The case involves the conviction of Rolando Solar for the murder of Joseph
August 6, 2019 Capinig.
The prosecution presented an eyewitness, Ma. Theresa Capinig, who testified
that she saw Rolando and Mark Kenneth hit Joseph with a baseball bat,
causing his death.
A doctor confirmed that the cause of death was traumatic injuries to the brain.
Defense and Accused's Arguments
Rolando denied the accusation and claimed that he was attending a wake at the
time of the incident.
He argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt and that there was no evidence to support a finding of conspiracy.
Trial Court's Decision
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Rolando of murder based on the
eyewitness testimony and held that the qualifying circumstance of treachery
was present in the killing of Joseph.
Court of Appeals' Decision
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but downgraded the
offense to homicide, citing the insufficiency of the Information in describing
how treachery attended the killing.
Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision and upheld the murder
conviction.
The Court held that Rolando waived his right to question the defects in the
Information by not raising the issue during the trial.
The Court also established guidelines for prosecutors to properly allege
qualifying or aggravating circumstances in an Information.
Conclusion and Final Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction of Rolando Solar based on
credible eyewitness testimony and the existence of conspiracy.
The Court modified the award of damages and upheld the sufficiency of the
Information.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Bersamin
Justice Bersamin dissented from the decision, arguing that the CA correctly
downgraded the offense because the information did not sufficiently allege the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.
Court holds that the presence and intervention of a private prosecutor in
perjury cases are allowed under the rules.
Court explains that the offended party in a criminal case can intervene through
a private prosecutor, even without civil liability.
Court emphasizes that the private prosecutor's participation is subject to the
control and supervision of the public prosecutor.
Conclusion
Supreme Court denies petitioner's petition for review and upholds the CA's
decision.
Affirms the right of the offended party to intervene in perjury cases.
Facts:
Accused-appellant Rolando Solar y Dumbrique was found guilty of murder.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but downgraded the
offense to homicide.
The information filed against the accused-appellant alleged conspiracy to
attack and assault the victim, resulting in his death.
The information did not provide specific facts and circumstances describing
how treachery attended the killing.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant can be held guilty of murder if the information
did not give him due notice of what he was being charged with.
Ruling:
The accused-appellant's conviction for murder is affirmed.
The accused-appellant had waived his right to question the defects in the
information.
The accused-appellant is deemed to have understood the acts imputed against
him by the information.
Ratio:
The accused-appellant had the opportunity to clarify any unclear matters
during arraignment.
The right to be informed of the charges against the accused continues until the
accused is formally arraigned.
The procedure requiring specific details of the qualifying or aggravating
circumstance in the information shall apply only to pending and future
criminal cases.
Additional Information:
The Court established guidelines for prosecutors to properly allege qualifying
and aggravating circumstances in the information to ensure that the accused is
sufficiently informed of the charges against him.
35
 He maintained that the accused-appellant could not be held guilty of murder if
the information did not provide him with due notice of the charges against
him.
Concurring Opinion of Justice Perlas-Bernabe
Justice Perlas-Bernabe concurred with the majority opinion, stating that the
accused-appellant had waived his right to question the defects in the
information by not filing a motion to quash or motion for bill of particulars.
She argued that his conviction for murder should be upheld.
Concurring Opinion of Justice Gesmundo
Justice Gesmundo also concurred with the majority opinion, stating that the
accused-appellant was sufficiently informed of the charges against him
through the prosecutor's resolution attached to the information.
He agreed with the proposed procedure set forth in the majority opinion,
which requires the specific allegation of qualifying or aggravating
circumstances in the information.
People vs. Rico dela Facts: Conviction of Rico Dela Peña for the crime of murder
Pena, G.R. No. The case involves the accused-appellant, Rico Dela Peña, who was charged Rico Dela Peña was convicted of murder for stabbing his brother-in-law,
238120, February with the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Olipio Gomez Amahit, multiple times while the latter was sleeping.
12, 2020 The incident occurred on December 14, 2006, at Barangay Samak, Mabinay, The court upheld the conviction, stating that attacking a sleeping victim shows
Negros Oriental, Philippines. The accused-appellant allegedly attacked and treachery, as the victim is unable to defend themselves.
stabbed his brother-in-law, Olipio Gomez Amahit, with a "pinuti" (a type of The testimony of the victim's son, who witnessed the incident, was found to be
bolo), resulting in multiple stab wounds and the death of the victim. The credible.
Information filed against the accused-appellant included the qualifying Dela Peña's claim of self-defense was not supported by the evidence, as the
circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of relationship. nature and extent of the victim's wounds contradicted his version of events.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused-appellant guilty of Murder The court ruled that the information filed against Dela Peña was sufficient, as
and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed it contained all the necessary elements of the crime.
the RTC's decision. Appeal by accused-appellant Rico Dela Peña
Rico Dela Peña appealed his conviction for murder.
Issue: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA).
The main issue in the case is whether the accused-appellant is guilty of the The accused-appellant waived his right to question the defects in the
crime of Murder. information filed against him because he did not raise any objections during
the trial.
Ruling: The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower courts was upheld by
The Court affirms the decision of the CA, finding the accused-appellant guilty the Supreme Court.
of Murder. The CA correctly concluded that the accused-appellant is guilty The death penalty has been suspended by Republic Act No. 9346.
based on the evidence presented, including the testimony of the victim's son, The Supreme Court affirmed the award of damages made by the Court of
who witnessed the stabbing incident. The Court gives deference to the findings Appeals, following the latest jurisprudence on the matter.
of the trial court and the CA, as they had the opportunity to assess the
credibility of the witnesses. The Court also upholds the imposition of the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, as the death penalty has been suspended by
Republic Act No. 9346. The Court modifies the award of damages to conform
to the latest jurisprudence.

Ratio:
The credibility of witnesses and the assessment of their testimonies are best
left to the trial court, which has the opportunity to observe their demeanor. The

36
 findings and conclusions of the trial court, supported by the CA, are accorded
high respect, if not conclusive effect.

Inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness, such as between an affidavit and

testimony in open court, do not necessarily affect the witness's credibility if
they do not detract from the essential fact that the witness saw and identified
the accused as the assailant.

When the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof is on the accused
to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of self-defense,
including unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed,
and lack of sufficient provocation.

The physical evidence, such as the location and extent of the stab wounds, can
contradict the accused's claim of self-defense. In this case, the nature and
seriousness of the wounds suffered by the victim indicate that the accused's
actions were not merely in self-defense but were acts of aggression.

When the unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to
kill or wound the former aggressor. Continuing to attack the former aggressor
after the danger has ceased constitutes retaliation, not self-defense.

Treachery qualifies the killing to murder. Treachery exists when the victim is
attacked suddenly and unexpectedly, depriving the victim of any chance to
defend themselves. In this case, the victim was asleep and lying face down,
making him defenseless against the accused's attack.

An Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the

designation of the offense, the acts constituting the offense, the name of the
offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense. In this case,
the Information complied with these requirements, as it specifically alleged the
qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Failure to object to the sufficiency of the Information during the trial and
allowing the prosecution to present evidence on the elements of the offense
constitutes a waiver of any objections against the sufficiency of the
Information.
People vs. Buca, Facts:
G.R. No. 209587, The case involves the appeal of accused-appellant Joel "Anjoy" Buca who was
Sept. 23, 2015 convicted of the crime of rape by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the
Court of Appeals (CA). On December 24, 2002, a seven-year-old girl, referred
to as AAA, was in her house in Davao City with her younger siblings.
Accused-appellant, a neighbor of their family, entered the house and ordered
AAA's siblings to go to another room. He then placed AAA on his lap, pulled
down her panties, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA's
younger brother witnessed the incident and pulled her away from accused-
Conviction of Joel "Anjoy" Buca for the crime of rape
Joel "Anjoy" Buca was convicted of the crime of rape.
The victim, a seven-year-old girl, testified that Buca forcibly inserted his penis
into her vagina.
The court found her testimony to be credible and sufficient to establish the
crime.
Dismissal of inconsistencies in testimonies
Buca argued that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim
and her brother, who witnessed the crime.

37
appellant. AAA and her mother reported it to the police and had AAA
examined by a physician, who found suspicious findings of sexual abuse.
Accused-appellant was charged with rape in three separate cases.
Issue:
The main issues raised in the case are: 1) whether accused-appellant is guilty
of rape, and 2) whether accused-appellant may be convicted of rape despite the
failure to allege the exact date of the commission of the crime in the
Information.
Ruling:
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty of rape in one of the cases and
acquitted him in the other two. The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling and
modified the penalties imposed. The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of
accused-appellant.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court finds AAA's testimony sufficient to establish the element
of carnal knowledge. The Court emphasizes that testimonies of young and
immature rape victims deserve full credence, as it is highly improbable for a
girl of tender years to fabricate a story of rape. The Court also upholds the trial
court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility, as well as the consistency
between AAA's and CCC's testimonies.
The court dismissed these inconsistencies as minor details that did not affect
the veracity of the witnesses' declarations.
Proof of victim's age
The court found that the victim's age was proven through her birth certificate.
Argument regarding the date of the crime
Buca argued that the Information stating that the crime occurred sometime
before December 24, 2002, violated the rules of criminal procedure.
The court held that this did not invalidate the conviction, as the precise date of
the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element of the offense.
As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time near the
actual date, the information is sufficient.
Clarification on the use of "without eligibility for parole"
The court clarified that the phrase "without eligibility for parole" should only
be used to qualify reclusion perpetua when circumstances warrant the
imposition of the death penalty but it is not imposed due to a law prohibiting
it.
In this case, since accused-appellant was only sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
the phrase should not be used.
Affirmation of the conviction and sentencing
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
finding accused-appellant guilty based on the testimony of the victim.
The appeal was dismissed and accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The Supreme Court finds that the failure to allege the exact date of the
commission of the crime in the Information does not affect the validity of the
charge. The court cites previous cases that have established that the precise
date of the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element of the
offense. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as
near to the actual date when the offense was committed, the information is
considered sufficient. The court also points out that Section 11, Rule 110 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for a crime to be alleged to
have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its
commission.

The court further explains that the purpose of requiring the various elements of
a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to prepare his
defense. In this case, the accused-appellant was able to testify about the
incident on the alleged date because the date alleged was not vague or
covering an unreasonable period. The court also notes that the accused-
appellant did not raise any objection about the date of the commission of the
crime during the arraignment or at any other point in the proceedings.

The court also clarifies that in cases where the death penalty is not warranted,
there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" in the
imposition of indivisible penalties. It is understood that convicted persons

38
 penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole. The court only
uses the phrase when circumstances are present warranting the imposition of
the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed due to a specific law.
People vs. Bayabos, Facts:
G.R. Nos. 171222 The case involves the school authorities of the Philippine Merchant Marine
and 174756, 18 Academy (PMMA) who were charged before the Sandiganbayan as
February 2015 accomplices to hazing.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) probed the death of a probationary
midshipman at the PMMA.
After months of investigation, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor found
probable cause to charge the school authorities as accomplices to hazing.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a criminal case against the school
authorities.
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case against the school authorities, stating
that since the case against the principal accused had already been dismissed,
there were no principal perpetrators with whom the school authorities could
have cooperated in the execution of the offense.
The Sandiganbayan also found that the Information filed against the school
authorities did not contain all the material averments for the prosecution of the
crime of accomplice to hazing.
Issue:
Whether the prosecution of the school authorities for the crime of accomplice
to hazing can proceed despite the dismissal of the case against the principal
accused.
Whether the Information filed against the school authorities contains all the
material averments for the prosecution of the crime of accomplice to hazing.
Ruling:
The court agrees with the petitioner that the dismissal of the case against the
principal accused does not automatically dismiss the case against the school
authorities. The trial of those charged as accomplices can proceed
independently of that of the alleged principal if the commission of the crime
can be duly proven.
The court affirms the quashal of the Information against the school authorities.
The Information did not include all the material facts constituting the crime of
accomplice to hazing. It failed to allege that the purported acts were employed
as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization, which is a crucial
element of the crime. Therefore, the Information must be quashed.
Ratio:
The dismissal of the case against the principal accused does not automatically
dismiss the case against the school authorities. The trial of those charged as
accomplices can proceed independently if the commission of the crime can be
duly proven.
The Information filed against the school authorities did not contain all the
material facts constituting the crime of accomplice to hazing. It failed to allege
that the purported acts were employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry
into the organization, which is a crucial element of the crime.
Background of the Case
The case involves the liability of school authorities under the Anti-Hazing Law
in the Philippines.
The case focuses on their alleged involvement in a hazing incident that
resulted in the death of a student.
The case was dismissed against the school authorities due to insufficient
information in the charges.
Charges against the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA)
The PMMA was charged with hazing after the death of a probationary
midshipman named Fernando Balidoy, Jr.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation and
found probable cause to charge certain individuals as principals to the crime of
hazing, including school authorities from PMMA.
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor endorsed the findings to the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military, who agreed with the charges and ordered
administrative proceedings against the school authorities.
Filing of Criminal Case and Motion to Quash
The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a criminal case against the school
authorities as accomplices to hazing.
The case against the principal accused was dismissed by the Regional Trial
Court of Zambales.
The school authorities filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that it
did not contain all the essential elements of the offense and that the case
against the principal accused had already been dismissed.
Quashing of the Information and Dismissal of the Case
The Sandiganbayan, a special court in the Philippines, quashed the information
and dismissed the case against the school authorities.
The court ruled that since the case against the principal accused had been
dismissed, there were no principal perpetrators with whom the school
authorities could have cooperated in the execution of the offense.
The court also found that the information charged no offense and lacked
essential averments.
Petitions with the Supreme Court and Decision
The Office of the Ombudsman filed petitions with the Supreme Court to
challenge the Sandiganbayan's decision.
The Supreme Court agreed that the case against the school authorities should
not have been dismissed solely based on the dismissal of the case against the
principal accused.
However, the court affirmed the quashal of the information because it did not
include all the material facts constituting the crime of accomplice to hazing.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The court emphasized that the information must include the essential elements
of the offense and be crafted in a language understandable to persons of
39
 The Sandiganbayan was correct in ordering the quashal of the Information and
the dismissal of the case since the Special Prosecutor did not file a new
information or correct the defect by amendment after the motion to quash was
sustained.
Conclusion:
The court denies the petition for review on certiorari and dismisses the petition
for certiorari. The dismissal of the case against the school authorities is
affirmed.
Dungo vs. People, Facts:
G.R. No. 209464, 01 This case involves a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set
July 2015 aside the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding the petitioners guilty of violation of the
Anti-Hazing Law. The petitioners, Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr.,
were charged with assaulting and using personal violence upon Marlon
Villanueva during an initiation rite of the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity,
resulting in Villanueva's death. The prosecution presented several witnesses,
including medical professionals who testified to the injuries sustained by
Villanueva and the cause of his death. The defense presented witnesses who
testified to the petitioners' alibi and their lack of involvement in the initiation
rite.
Dungo testified that he arrived at his girlfriend's boarding house in the early
afternoon of January 13, 2006. They went to the UP Los Baños Graduate
School and inquired about the requirements for a master's degree. They then
went to dinner and returned to the boarding house. Later that night, Dungo
received a call from Sibal asking for his help at Villa Novaliches Resort.
Dungo arrived at the resort and saw Villanueva unconscious. They brought
Villanueva to the hospital.
Gopez testified that he noticed Villanueva with bruises on his face during the
initiation rites. They went to Villa Novaliches Resort where Gopez instructed
Sibal to take Villanueva to the second floor. Gopez later decided to cancel the
initiation rites and told Sibal to stay with Villanueva and Castillo.
Sibal testified that he was at the fraternity's tambayan for the initiation rites.
He saw Villanueva with bruises on his face. They went to Villa Novaliches
common understanding.
The court found that the information in this case did not allege that the acts of
hazing were employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the
organization.
The court rejected the argument that the Sandiganbayan should have ordered
the filing of a new information or the correction of the defect by amendment.
The court concluded that the information must be quashed, but the Special
Prosecutor is not precluded from filing another information.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the case against the school authorities but
left open the possibility of further prosecution if the criminal action or liability
has not been extinguished or if double jeopardy has not attached.
Summary
The case of People v. Bayabos examines the liability of school authorities
under the Anti-Hazing Law in the Philippines.
The case was dismissed against the school authorities due to insufficient
information in the charges.
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal while leaving open the possibility
of further prosecution.
Conviction of the Petitioners for Violating the Anti-Hazing Law
The petitioners, Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal, were found guilty of
violating the Anti-Hazing Law in the Philippines.
They were accused of assaulting and causing the death of a neophyte, Marlon
Villanueva, during an initiation rite of the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity.
The prosecution presented witnesses who testified to the injuries sustained by
the victim and the involvement of the petitioners in the initiation rite.
The defense presented witnesses who claimed that the petitioners were not
present during the initiation ceremony.
The court found the petitioners guilty and sentenced them to reclusion
perpetua.
Circumstantial Evidence and Positive Identification as Basis for Conviction
The court relied on circumstantial evidence and the positive identification of
the accused to convict them.
The circumstantial evidence included the fact that the petitioners brought the
victim to a resort for the final initiation rites, which resulted in his death.
The positive identification was made by witnesses who testified to the
petitioners' involvement in the initiation rite.
Dungo and Sibal argued that they were charged with a different offense than
what they were convicted of, but the court found that the offense of hazing by
inducement was included in the charge.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the petitioners appealed to
the Supreme Court.
Comparison of Hazing Laws in the Philippines and the United States
This case discusses the issue of hazing in the Philippines and compares it to
the laws and jurisprudence on hazing in the United States.
It highlights the need for stronger measures to combat hazing and examines
the provisions of the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995.
40
 Resort where Sibal accompanied Villanueva upstairs. After the other
neophytes left, Sibal checked on Villanueva's condition and called Dungo for
help. They brought Villanueva to the hospital.
The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of violating the Anti-Hazing Law
based on the testimonies of witnesses and medical professionals. The CA
affirmed the decision, stating that the defense of denial and alibi failed to cast
doubt on the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the petitioners are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC finding the petitioners
guilty of violation of the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Ratio:
The court held that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the
petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, including medical professionals who examined the body of
Villanueva and determined the cause of his death, provided sufficient evidence
to prove that the injuries sustained by Villanueva were a result of hazing. The
court also considered the testimonies of witnesses who saw the petitioners at
the scene of the initiation rite and their involvement in the assault on
Villanueva. The defense's alibi and lack of involvement in the initiation rite
were not given weight by the court, as they were contradicted by the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
People vs. Court of Facts:
Appeals, G.R. No. The case involves the petitioners, People of the Philippines and AAA, and the
183652, 25 February respondents, Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station, Raymund
2015 People v. Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola.
The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, which found the respondents
guilty of rape.
The respondents were charged with raping AAA, a 16-year-old minor, on
March 25, 2004, at Alson's Palace, Maranding, Lala, Lanao del Norte.
The RTC found the respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape and sentenced them accordingly.
The Court of Appeals, however, acquitted the respondents due to the
prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in
acquitting the private respondents.
Ruling:
The court concludes that hazing is a malum prohibitum crime, meaning it is
prohibited by law regardless of the intent of the offender.
The case emphasizes the importance of addressing hazing through both
criminal and civil actions.
Conclusion
The petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the decision of the Court
of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's decision finding the
petitioners guilty of violating the Anti-Hazing Law.
The petitioners were convicted based on circumstantial evidence and positive
identification.
The case highlights the need for stronger measures to combat hazing and
compares hazing laws in the Philippines and the United States.
The court concludes that hazing is a malum prohibitum crime and emphasizes
the importance of addressing hazing through both criminal and civil actions.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and
acquitted the private respondents of the crime of rape due to the prosecution's
failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeals (CA) overturned the decision made by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) and acquitted the accused of the crime of rape.
The reason for the acquittal was the prosecution's failure to provide sufficient
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The case involved the alleged rape of a minor who was forcefully drunk and
brought to a lodging house where she was raped by the accused.
The case revolved around the rape of a minor who was intoxicated and taken
to a lodging house against her will.
The accused individuals were responsible for the rape of the victim.
The RTC found some of the accused guilty and acquitted others, while the CA
acquitted all of them.
The Regional Trial Court found some of the accused individuals guilty of the
crime of rape, while others were acquitted.
However, the Court of Appeals acquitted all of the accused individuals
41
The Court finds that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion
in acquitting the private respondents.
The Court emphasizes that due process requires the consideration of the entire
evidence presented, regardless of the party who offered it.
The Court finds that the Court of Appeals disregarded the evidence presented
by the prosecution and relied solely on the evidence presented by the defense.
The Court also notes that the Court of Appeals made its own findings to justify
its decision of acquittal, disregarding the findings of the trial court.
The Court finds that the private respondents failed to sufficiently prove that
AAA consented to the sexual acts, considering that she was heavily
intoxicated at the time of the assault.
The Court also finds that the private respondents failed to prove that AAA had
previous sexual encounters, which could explain the presence of an old
hymenal laceration.
The Court further notes that the Court of Appeals ignored the fact that AAA
positively identified the private respondents as her rapists and that she showed
physical resistance and cried during the assault.
The Court concludes that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion in disregarding the evidence presented by the prosecution and in
adopting the private respondents' version of the events.
The Court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and finds the private
respondents guilty of rape.
The Court imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua on Raymund
Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola for each count of rape.
The Court orders the private respondents to pay AAA civil indemnity, moral
damages, and exemplary damages for each count of rape.
The case is remanded to the court of origin for the execution of judgment.
involved in the case.
The CA found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and
gave more credence to the defense's version of events.
The Court of Appeals determined that the prosecution did not provide enough
evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
The CA also believed the defense's account of the events to be more credible
than the prosecution's version.
The CA relied on the medical report which showed an old hymenal laceration
on the victim's genitalia, suggesting prior sexual activity.
The Court of Appeals considered the medical report, which revealed an old
hymenal laceration on the victim's genitalia.
This finding indicated that the victim had engaged in sexual activity prior to
the alleged rape.
The victim filed a petition for certiorari questioning the CA's decision, arguing
that it was made with grave abuse of discretion. The Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) also filed a comment supporting the victim's petition.
The victim filed a petition for certiorari, challenging the decision made by the
Court of Appeals.
The victim argued that the CA's decision was made with grave abuse of
discretion.
The Office of the Solicitor General supported the victim's petition by filing a
comment.
The Court ruled that the victim has the right to bring the action and maintain
the criminal prosecution, and that a motion for reconsideration is not necessary
in this case.
The Court determined that the victim had the right to initiate legal action and
continue with the criminal prosecution.
The Court also stated that a motion for reconsideration was not required in this
particular case.
The Court found that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting
the accused, as it disregarded the prosecution's evidence and showed bias
towards the defense.
The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals had acted with grave abuse of
discretion in acquitting the accused individuals.
The CA was accused of disregarding the evidence presented by the
prosecution and displaying bias towards the defense.
The CA also failed to consider that the victim was heavily intoxicated at the
time of the assault.
The Court noted that the Court of Appeals failed to take into account the fact
that the victim was heavily intoxicated during the time of the assault.
This failure to consider the victim's state of intoxication was seen as a flaw in
the CA's decision-making process.
The Court concluded that the victim's testimony should be given weight and
that it alone is sufficient to warrant a conviction in rape cases if found credible.
The Court emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony and stated that
it should be given significant weight in rape cases.
42
 The Court believed that if the victim's testimony is found to be credible, it can
be sufficient evidence to secure a conviction in rape cases.
In this Philippine jurisprudence case, a woman, referred to as AAA, accused
several individuals of raping her.
The case discussed in this paragraph involves a woman identified as AAA who
accused multiple individuals of raping her.
The trial court found AAA's testimony to be credible and convicted the
accused based on her testimony alone.
The trial court determined that AAA's testimony was credible and relied solely
on her testimony to convict the accused individuals.
The accused claimed that the sexual encounters were consensual, but failed to
provide sufficient evidence to support their defense.
The accused individuals argued that the sexual encounters were consensual.
However, they were unable to provide enough evidence to substantiate their
claim.
The court also noted that AAA's behavior and testimony were consistent with
a victim of rape.
The court observed that AAA's behavior and testimony were in line with what
would be expected from a victim of rape.
This consistency further supported the credibility of AAA's claims.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the lack of
fresh hymenal laceration does not disprove rape, and that even if AAA had a
promiscuous reputation, it does not justify non-consensual sexual acts.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision made by the trial court.
The CA stated that the absence of recent hymenal laceration does not negate
the occurrence of rape.
The CA also emphasized that even if AAA had a promiscuous reputation, it
does not justify non-consensual sexual acts.
The court also dismissed the argument that AAA's mother hitting her after
learning about the rape indicated consent, stating that people react differently
to traumatic experiences.
The court rejected the argument that AAA's mother hitting her after
discovering the rape implied consent.
The court explained that people respond differently to traumatic experiences,
and physical reactions cannot be used as evidence of consent.
Overall, the court found the accused guilty of rape based on AAA's credible
testimony.
In conclusion, the court found the accused individuals guilty of rape based on
the credible testimony provided by AAA.
Sandiganbayan and
Recio, G.R. No.
240621, July 24,
2019
Quiambao vs. People
of the Philippines
and Star

43
Infrastructure
Development
Corporation, G.R.
No. 195957, January
15, 2020
Navaja vs. de Castro,
G.R. No. 182926, 22
June 2015
Villalon vs. Chan,
G.R. No. 196508, 24
September 2014
Gina Villa Gomez v.
People, G.R. No.
216824. November
10, 2020
People v. XXX, GR
No. 245926, July 25,
2023
IV. PROSECUTION
OF CIVIL ACTION
(RULE 111)
A. Rule on implied
institution of civil
action with criminal
action
B. When civil action
may proceed
independently
C. When separate
civil action is
suspended
D. Effect of the
death of accused or
convict on civil
action
E. Prejudicial
question
F. Rule on filing fees
in civil action
deemed instituted
with the criminal
action
Readings:
Dy vs. People, et al.,
G.R. No. 189081,

44
Aug. 10, 2016
Supreme
Transportation
Liner, Inc., et al. vs.
San Andres, G.R.
No. 200444, Aug.
15,
2018
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People v. Ayochok,
G.R. No. 175784,
August 25, 2010
Landicho vs. Relova,
L-22579, Feb. 23,
1968
People vs.
Arambulo, et al.,
G.R. No. 186597,
June 17, 2015
JM Dominguez
Agronomic
Company, Inc. vs.
Dagdagan, et al.,
G.R. No. 208587,
July
29, 2015 Ramones
vs. Sps. Guimoc,
G.R. No. 226645,
Aug. 13, 2018
V. PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
(RULE 112)
A. Nature of right
B. Purposes of
preliminary
investigation
C. Who may conduct
determination of
existence of
probable cause
1. Distinguish:
executive and
judicial
determination of
45
probable cause
D. Resolution of
investigation
prosecutor
E. Review
F. When warrant of
arrest may issue
G. Cases not
requiring a
preliminary
investigation
H. Remedies of
accused if there was
no preliminary
investigation
I. Inquest
Readings:
People vs. Bariales,
L-39962, April 7,
1976
Yusop vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 138859-60, Feb
22, 2001
Maximo and
Panganiban vs.
Villapando, Jr., G.R.
No.
214925/G.R.No.214
965, April
26, 2017
Quisay vs. People,
G. R. No. 216920,
January 13, 2016
Silver and Salcedo
vs. Judge Daray, et
al, G.R. No. 219157,
August 14, 2019
Enrile vs. People, et
al., G.R. No.
213455, Aug. 11,
2015
Corpus, et al. vs.
Pamular, et al., G.R.
46
No. 186403, Sept. 5,
2018
People vs. Casiano,
L- 15309, Feb. 16,
1961
VI. ARREST
(RULE 113)
A. Arrest, how made
B. Arrest without
warrant, when lawful
C. Method of arrest
1. By officer with
warrant
2. By officer without
warrant
3. By private person
D. Requisites of a
valid warrant of
arrest
E. Determination of
probable cause for
issuance of warrant
of arrest
Readings:
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs. Morial,
G.R. No. 129295,
Aug. 15, 2001
People vs. Velarde,
G.R. No. 139333,
July 18, 2002
Comerciante v.
People, G.R. No.
205926, July 22,
2015
Mendoza vs. People,
G.R. No. 234196,
Nov. 21, 2018
Veridiano vs.
People, G.R. No.
200370, June 7,
2017

47
Telen v. People,
G.R. No. 228107,
October 9, 2019
Lim Sr. vs. Felix, et
al G.R. Nos.
940554-57, Feb. 19,
1991
VII. BAIL (RULE
114)
A. Nature
1. Sec. 13, Article
III, 1987
Constitution
B. When a matter of
right; exceptions
C. When a matter of
discretion
D. Hearing of
application for bail
in capital offenses
E. Guidelines in
fixing amount of bail
F. Bail when not
required
G. Increase or
reduction of bail
H. Forfeiture and
cancellation of bail
I. Application not a
bar to objections in
illegal arrest, lack of
or irregular
preliminary
investigation
Readings:
People vs. Abner,
G.R. No. L-2508,
October 27, 1950
Lavides vs. CA,
G.R. No. 129670,
Feb. 1, 2000

48
Serapio vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 148468, Jan 28,
2003
Manotoc vs. CA,
G.R. No. 62100,
May 30, 1986
People vs. Raba,
G.R. No. L-10724.
April 21, 1958
Carpio vs.
Maglalang, G.R. No.
78162, April 19,
1991
Siazon vs. Presiding
Judge, L- 34156-58,
Oct. 29, 1971
Borinaga vs. Tamin,
A.M. No. RTJ-93-
936, Sept. 10, 1993
Aguirre vs.
Belmonte, A.M. No.
RTJ- 93-1052, Oct.
27, 1994
Jose Antonio Leviste
vs. Court of Appeals
and People, G.R. No.
189122, March 19,
2010
People vs. Valdez
and Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 216007-
09, Dec. 8, 2015
Enrile vs.
Sandiganbayan and
People, G.R. No.
213847, July 12,
2016
Altobano-Ruiz vs.
Pichay, A.M. No.
MTJ-17-1893, Feb.
19, 2018
Padua, et al. vs.
People, et al., G.R.
No. 220913, Feb. 4,

49
2019
People vs. Escobar,
G.R. No. 214300,
July 26, 2017
Personal Collection
Direct Selling, Inc.
vs. Carandang, G.R.
No. 206958, Nov. 8,
2017
Usares vs. People,
G.R. No. 209047,
Jan. 7, 2019
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
Okabe vs. Gutierrez,
G.R. No. 150185
May 27, 2004
VIII. RIGHTS OF
THE ACCUSED
(RULE 115)
Readings:
Article III of the
1987 Constitution
R.A. 7438 - An Act
Defining Certain
Rights of Persons
Arrested, Detained
or Under
Custodial
Investigation as well
as the Duties of the
Arresting, Detaining
and
Investigating
Officers, and
Providing Penalties
for violations thereof
R.A. 8493 - Speedy
Trial Act of 1998
SC Circular No. 38-
98 - August 11, 1998
People vs. Flores,
G.R. No. 128823-24,
50
Dec 27, 2002
People vs. Quibate,
G.R. No. 54881, July
31, 1984
Borja vs. Mendoza,
L- 45667, June 20,
1977
Gimenez v.s
Nazareno, L-37933,
April 15, 1988
People vs. Presiding
Judge, G.R. No.
64781, Oct 26, 1983
People vs. Holgado,
G.R. No. L-2809,
March 22, 1950
Delgado vs. CA, L-
46392, Nov. 10,
1986
People vs.
Ameztuzo, G.R. No.
104383, July 12,
2001
People vs.
Crisologo, G.R. No.
74145, June 17,
1987
Chavez vs. CA, L-
29169, Aug 19, 1968
People vs. Otadora,
G.R. No. L-2154,
April 26, 1950
People vs. Olvis
G.R. No. 71092,
Sept 30, 1987
Cojuangco, Jr, vs,
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 134301 Dec 21,
1998
People vs. Orsal, L-
47069, Mar 29, 1982
Tatad vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 72335-39, Mar

51
21, 1988
Dela Pena vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 144542, June
29, 2001
Licaros vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 145851, Nov 22,
2001
People vs. Gioc,
G.R. No. 48547,
October 31, 1941
Pielago vs. People,
G.R. No. 202020, 13
March 2013
Ibañez, et al. vs.
People, G.R. No.
Jan. 27, 2016
Sindac vs. People,
G.R. No. 220732,
Sept. 6, 2016
IX.
ARRAIGNMENT
AND PLEA (RULE
116)
A. How made
B. When should plea
of not guilty be
entered
C. When may
accused enter a plea
of guilty to a lesser
offense
D. Accused plead
guilty to capital
offense, what the
court should do
E. Duty of Court to
Inform Accused of
his Right to Counsel
and appointment of
Counsel de Officio
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides

52
F. Searching inquiry
G. Improvident Plea
H. Suspension of
Arraignment
Readings:
Diño vs. Olivarez,
G.R No. 170447
December 4, 2009
People vs. Perez, L-
14783, April 29,
1961
Binabay vs. People,
et al., L-31008, Jan.
30, 1971
People vs. Escalona,
L-13294, Mar.29,
1961
People vs. Palacio,
G.R. No. L-13933
May 25, 1960
People vs. Sabilul,
G.R. No. L-5520,
July 31, 1953
People vs. Strong, L-
38626, Mar. 14,
1975
People vs. Kayanan,
et al., L-30355, May
31, 1978
People vs. Aguilar,
et al., L-30932, Jan.
29, 1971
People vs. Estebia,
L-26868, July 29,
1971
People vs. Camay,
G.R. No. 51306, July
20, 1987
People vs. Mendoza,
et al., G.R. Nos.
58678-80, July 20,
1982
PAO vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 154297-300, 15
53
February 2008
Aguinaldo, et al. vs.
Ventus, et al., G.R.
No. 176033, March
11, 2015
Corpus, et al. vs.
Pamular, et al., G.R.
No. 186403, Sept. 5,
2018
Enrile vs. People, et
al., G.R. No.
213455, Aug. 11,
2015
ABS-CBN
Corporation Vs.
Gozon, G.R. No.
195956, 11 March
2015
People vs. Solar,
G.R. No. 225595,
August 6, 2019
People v. Pagal,
G.R. No. 241257.
September 29, 2020
Estipona vs.
Lobrigo, et al., G.R.
No. 226679, August
15, 2017
People v. Reafor,
G.R. No. 247575,
November 16, 2020
Nurullaje Sayre v.
Xenos, G.R. Nos.
244413 & 244415-
16, February 18,
2020
X. MOTION TO
QUASH (RULE
117)
A. Grounds
B. Effects of
sustaining the
motion to quash
C. Exception to the
rule that sustaining

54
the motion is not a
bar to another
prosecution
D. Double jeopardy
1. Sec. 1, Clause
[20], Art. III, 1935
Constitution;
2. Sec. 22, Art. IV,
1973 Constitution;
3. Sec. 21, Art. III,
1987 Constitution
E. Provisional
dismissal
Readings:
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs. Dela
Rosa, et al., L-
34112, June 25,
1980
Mill vs. People, et
al., G.R. No. L-
10427. May 27,
1957
Sanchez vs.
Demetriou, et al.,
G.R Nos. 111771-
77, Nov. 9, 1993
People vs.
Macandog, L-18601-
2, Jan. 31, 1963
Baesa, et al. vs.
Prov. Fiscal of
Camarines Sur, et
al., L-30363, Jan. 30,
1971
People vs. Manlapas,
L-17993, Aug. 24,
1962
Cabral vs. Puno, et
al., L-41692, April
30, 1976
People vs. Gomez, et
55
al., L-32815, June
25, 1980
People vs. City
Court of Manila,
Branch XI, et al., L-
36342, April 27,
1983
People vs. Balisacan,
L-26376, Aug. 31,
1966
People vs. Ylagan,
G.R. No. L-38443
November 25, 1933
Republic vs.
Agoncillo, et al., L-
27257, Aug. 31,
1971
People vs. Hinaut, et
al., G.R. No. L-
11315. March 18,
1959
People, et al., vs.
Donesa, et al., L-
24162, Jan. 31, 1973
Esmeña, et al., vs.
Pogoy, et al., G.R
No.54110, Feb. 20,
1981
Gandicela vs.
Lutero, etc., G.R.
No. L-4069 March 5,
1951
People vs. Manlapas,
L-17993, Aug. 24,
1962
Lauchengco vs.
Alejandro, et al., L-
49034, Jan. 31, 1979
Cabarroguis vs.
Diego, et al., L-
19517, Nov. 30,
1962
Galman vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R
No.72670, Sept. 12,
1986
56
People vs. Liwanag,
L-27683, Oct. 19,
1976
People vs. Castro,
G.R. No. L-6407.
July 29, 1954
Silvestre vs. Military
Commission Nos. 1,
2, 6 and 25, L-
58284, Nov. 19,
1981
Quisay vs. People,
G. R. No. 216920,
January 13, 2016
Ivler v. Modesto San
Pedro, G.R. No.
172716, November
17, 2010
Canceran vs. People,
G.R. No. 206442,
July 1, 2015
Enrile vs. People, et
al., G.R. No.
213455, Aug. 11,
2015
Guelos, et al. vs.
People, G.R. No.
177000, June 19,
2017
Lim, et al., vs.
People, G.R. No.
226590, April 23,
2018
Corpus, et al. vs.
Pamular, et al., G.R.
No. 186403, Sept. 5,
2018
People vs. Solar,
G.R. No. 225595,
August 6, 2019
People vs. Rico dela
Pena, G.R. No.
238120, February
12, 2020
XI. PRE-TRIAL
(RULE 118)
57
A. Matters to be
considered during
pre-trial
1. Art. 2034, Civil
Code
B. What the court
should do when
prosecution and
offended party agree
to the plea
offered by the
accused
C. Pre-trial
agreement
D. Non-appearance
during pre-trial
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
E. Pre-Trial Order.
Readings:
People vs. Santiago,
et al., G.R
No.80778, June 30,
1989
Daan vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 163972-77, 28
March 2008
Zaldivar vs. People,
G.R. No. 197056, 02
March 2016
Garayblas vs. Ong,
G.R. Nos. 174507-
30, 03 August 2011
Estipona vs.
Lobrigo, et al., G.R.
No. 226679, August
15, 2017 in relation
to… _
People v. Reafor,
G.R. No. 247575,
November 16, 2020
XII. TRIAL (RULE
119)
58
A. Instances when
presence of accused
is required by law
B. Requisite before
trial can be
suspended on
account of absence
of witness
C. Order of trial
D. Trial in absentia
E. Remedy when
accused is not
brought to trial
within the prescribed
period
F. Requisites for
discharge of accused
to become a state
witness
G. Effects of
discharge of accused
as state witness
H. Demurrer to
evidence
1. Distinguished
from Motion to
Quash
I. Guidelines on
continuous trial
1. Applicability
2. Prohibited and
meritorious motions
3. Arraignment and
pre-trial
4. Trial; memoranda
5. Promulgation
Readings:
People vs. Oplado, et
al., L-20146, Sept.
30, 1964
People vs. CA, et al.,
G.R No. 55533, July
31, 1984
59
People vs.
Sandiganbayan, et
al., G.R Nos.
115439-41, July 16,
1997
People vs. CA, et al.,
G.R No.62881, Aug.
30, 1983
Barreto, et al. vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R
Nos. 573333-37,
Sept. 16, 1986
Sardinia-Linco, et al.
vs. Pineda, et al.,
G.R Nos. 555939,
May 29, 1981
People vs. Marcial,
G.R. Nos. 152864-
85, 27 September
2006
Pacoy v. Cajigal,
G.R. No. 157472, 28
September 2007
People vs.
Sandiganbayan, et
al., G.R. No.
197953, Aug. 5,
2015
Remulla v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 218040, April
17, 2017
People v. Cagang,
G.R. Nos. 206438,
206458 & 210141-
42, July 31, 2018
Javier v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 237997, June
10, 2020
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs.
Dominguez, et al.,
G.R. No. 229420,

60
Feb. 19, 2018
People vs. Macasaet,
et al., G.R. No.
196094, March 5,
2018
Cuenco, et al. vs.
Risos, et al., G.R No.
152648, August 28,
2008
People vs. Sergio
and Lacanilao, G.R.
No. 240053, October
9, 2019
XIII. JUDGMENT
(RULE 120)
A. Requisites of a
judgment
B. Contents of
judgment
C. Promulgation of
judgment; instances
of promulgation of
judgment / in
absentia
D. Instances when
judgment becomes
final
E. Probation
Readings:
Villanueva vs.
Estenzo, et al., L-
30050, June 27,
1975
Marcelino vs. Cruz,
Jr., L-42428. March
18, 1983
Jimenez vs.
Republic, et al., L-
24529, Feb. 17, 1968
Jandayan vs. Ruiz, et
al., L-37471, Jan. 25,
1980
Pascua vs. CA, et al.,
G.R No. 104243,
Dec. 14, 2000

61
People vs. Español,
et al., G.R Nos.
57597-99, June 29,
1982
De Leon vs.
Salvador, et al., L-
30871, Dec. 28,
1970
Prov. Fiscal of Rizal
vs. Muñoz-Palma, et
al., G.R. No. L-
15325. August 31,
1960
People vs. CA, et al.,
G.R No. 54641,
Nov. 28, 1980
Yusi et al., vs.
Morales, et al., G.R
No.61958, April 28,
1983
Budlong, et al., vs.
Apalisok, et al., G.R
No. 60151, June 24,
1983
Baclayon vs. Mutia,
et al., G.R No.
59298, April 30,
1984
Ricalde vs. People,
G.R. No. 211002, 21
January 2015
People vs. Pareja,
G.R. No. 202122, 15
January 2014
Javier v. Gonzales,
G.R. No., 193150,
Jan. 23, 2017
Osorio vs. People,
G.R. No. 207711,
July 2, 2018
People vs. Aycardo,
G.R. No. 218114,
June 5, 2017
XIV. NEW TRIAL
OR
RECONSIDERATI
62
ON (RULE 121)
A. Grounds for new
trial
B. Grounds for
reconsideration
C. Requisites before
a new trial may be
granted on ground of
newly discovered
evidence
D. Effects of
granting a new trial
or reconsideration
Readings:
People vs. Enriquez,
et al., G.R. No. L-
4934, November 28,
1951
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs.
Concepcion, G.R.
No. L-1553. October
25, 1949
People vs. Castelo,
L-10774, Feb. 16,
1961
People vs.
Colmenares, et al.,
G.R. No. L-13284.
February 29, 1960
People vs. Alquisar,
et al., L-32080, May
22, 1975
People vs. Morales,
L-37107, April 27,
1982
People vs. Delasa, L-
36094, July 16, 1982
Ibabao vs. People, et
al., L-36957, Sept.
28, 1984
People vs. Bocar, et

63
al., L-27935, Aug.
16, 1985
People vs. Cuariano,
L-15256-57, Oct. 31,
1963
Payo vs. CA, et al.,
L-36809, Feb. 24,
1984
XV. APPEAL
(RULE 122)
A. Effect of an
appeal
B. Where to appeal
C. How appeal taken
D. Effect of appeal
by any of several
accused
E. Grounds for
dismissal of appeal
Readings:
People vs. Mateo,
G.R. Nos. 147648-
87, 07 July 2004
Sanico vs. People,
G.R. No. 198753, 25
March 2015
People vs. Feliciano,
Jr., et al., G.R. No.
196735, Aug. 3,
2016
Burgos, Jr. vs. Sps.
Naval, G.R. No.
219468, 08 June
2016
People vs.
Hernandez, G.R. No.
154218 and 154372,
28 August 2006
Antone vs. People,
G.R. No. 225146,
Nov. 20, 2017
People vs. Sison, et
al, G.R. No. 238453,
July 31, 2019

64
Salvador vs. Chua,
G.R. No. 212865,
July 15, 2015
People vs. Escobar,
G.R. No. 214300,
July 26, 2017
Antone vs. People,
G.R. No. 225146,
Nov. 20, 2017
XVI. SEARCH
AND SEIZURE
(RULE 126)
A. Nature of search
warrant
B. Distinguish from
warrant of arrest
C. Application for
search warrant,
where filed
D. Probable cause
for issuance of
search warrant
E. Personal
examination by
judge of the
applicant and
witnesses
F. Particularity of
place to be searched
and things to be
seized
G. Personal property
to be seized
H. Exceptions to
search warrant
requirement
1. Search incidental
to lawful arrest
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
2. Consented search
3. Search of moving
vehicle
65
4. Check points;
body checks in
airport
5. Plain view
situation
6. Stop and frisk
situation
7. Enforcement of
custom laws
I. Remedies from
unlawful search and
seizure
J. Cybercrime
warrants
1. Scope and
applicability
2. General
provisions
3. Preservation of
computer data
4. Disclosure of
computer data
5. Interception of
computer data
6. Search, seizure,
and examination of
computer data

7. Custody of
computer data
8. Destruction of
computer data
K. Rules on the Use
of Body-Worn
Cameras in the
Execution of
Warrants (A.M.
No. 21-06-08-SC)
Readings:
Stonehill vs. Diokno,
G.R. No. L-19550,
19 June 1967

66
Katz vs. United
States, 389 U.S. 347
(1967)
People vs. Marti,
G.R. No. 81561, 18
January 1991
Roldan, Jr., etc., et
al., vs. Arca, et
al., L-25434, July
25, 1975
Rodriquez, et al. vs.
Villamiel, et al.,
G.R. No. 44328.
December 23, 1937
Yee Sue Koy, et al.,
vs. Almeda, et al.,
G.R. No. 47021,
June 25, 1940
Uy Kheytin vs.
Villareal, etc., G.R.
No. 16009,
September 21, 1920
People vs. Rubio,
G.R. No. L-35500,
October 27, 1932
People vs. Veloso,
G.R. No. L-23051,
October 20, 1925
People vs. Marcos,
et al., L-31757, Oct.
29, 1982
Mata vs. Bayona, et
al., G.R. No. 50720,
Mar. 26, 1984
La Chemise Lacoste
vs. Fernandez, G.R.
No. L-63796-97
May 2, 1984
Pagkalinawan, et al.
vs. Gomez, et al., L-
22585, Dec. 18,
1967
People vs. Dichoso,
G.R. Nos. 101216-
18 June 4, 1993

67
People vs. Huang
Zhen Hua, G.R. No.
139301, 29
September 2004
Balayon, Jr. vs.
Dinopol, A.M. NO.
RTJ-06-1969 : June
15, 2006
Sony Computer
Entertainment, Inc.
vs. Bright Future
Technologies, Inc.,
G.R. No.
169156, 15 February
2007
People vs. Padilla,
G.R. No. 172603, 24
August 2007
Criminal Procedure
Att. Reden Bides
People vs. Mamaril,
G.R. No. 171980, 06
October 2010 SEC
vs. Mendoza, G.R.
No.
170425, 23 April
2012
People vs. Belocura,
G.R. No. 173474, 29
August 2012
People vs. Calantiao,
G.R. No. 203984, 18
June 2014 Pilipinas
Shell Petrolium
Corp.
vs. Romars Int’l
Gases Corp. G.R.
No. 189669, Feb. 16,
2015
Ogayon vs. People,
G.R. No. 188794,
Sept. 2, 2015
People vs. Punzalan,
G.R. No. 199087, 11
November 2015
68
Bulauitan vs. People,
G.R. No. 218891,
Sept. 19, 2016
People vs. Castillo,
et al., G.R. No.
204419, Nov. 7,
2016
People vs. Pastrana
et al., G.R. No.
196045, Feb. 21,
2018
People v. Sapla,
G.R. No. 244045,
June 16, 2020
XVII.
PROVISIONAL
REMEDIES IN
CRIMINAL CASES
(RULE 127)
Readings:
Erana v. Vera, G.R.
No. L-48955, July
27, 1943
Babala vs. Abaño,
G.R. No. L-4600.
February 28, 1952
Santos, Jr. et al., vs.
Flores, et al., G.R.
Nos. L-18251 and L-
18252, August 31,
1962

69