JURISPRUDENCE IN

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
By CSU-College of Law Students:
 
Raizza Ryelle M. Birung
Sheena Bernadette P. Cuntapay
Glewin Nikolais L. David
Kathryn Anne A. De Chavez
Carmeline E. Domingo
Julius Anthony T. Tanguilan
Maerian A. Tejero
 
Atty. Norman Clarence T. Lasam
Professor
 Table of Contents

1 TITLE PAGE

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ASPECTS OF OFFENSE (Rules 110-111),

4-16 WITH APPLICATION FOR PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 127)

17-21 MOTION TO QUASH (RULE 117)

ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA (RULE 116), PRE-TRIAL (RULE 118), TRIAL (RULE
22-31 119) AND JUDGMENT (RULE 120)

32-33 NEW TRIAL AND RECONSIDERATION (RULE 121)

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020) Page 3 of 33

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

SC- Supreme Court RA- Republic Act

CA- Court of Appeals PD- Presidential Decree
RTC- Regional Trial Court BP- Batas Pambansa
MTC- Municipal Trial Court PDEA- Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
MeTC- Metropolitan Trial Court CIDG- Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
MTCC- Municipal Trial Court in Cities NBI- National Bureau of Investigation
DOJ- Department of Justice Sec.- Sec.
SOJ- Secretary of Justice Art.- Article
OP- Office of the President W/N- Whether or not

All errors, mistakes or wrongful interpretations

of the cases in this reviewer are solely attributable to us.

─ THE AUTHORS

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ASPECTS OF OFFENSE (Rules 110-111),
WITH APPLICATION FOR PROVISIONAL REMEDIES (Rule 127)
CASE DOCTRINE
Quimvel v. People, G.R. In criminal prosecutions, every element
No. 214497, April 18, constituting the offense must be alleged in
2017 the Information before an accused can be
convicted of the crime charged. This is to
apprise the accused of the nature of
the accusation against him and to allow
him prepare his defense. The accused
cannot be convicted of any offense unless
it is charged in the Information on which
he is tried or is necessarily included
therein. Thus, Sec 6, Rule 110, requires,
inter alia, the allegation of the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting
the offense.
Bumatay v. Sec.5, Rule 110 dictates that all criminal
Bumatay, G.R. No. actions commenced by complaint or by
191320, April 25, Information shall be prosecuted under the
2017 direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In appeals of criminal cases,
the authority to represent the State is
vested solely in the OSG. The private
offended party’s interest is limited only to
the aspect of civil liability. The only
instance when the private complainant is
allowed to pursue a
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
FACTS
Accused was charged of acts of
lasciviousness in relation to Sec. 5 (b),
RA
7610 for inserting his hand inside the
panty of AAA, a minor of 7 years old and
mash her vagina, through force and
intimidation. Accused argued that he may
be convicted only of acts of lasciviousness
under Art 336, RPC and not in relation
to Sec. 5 (b), RA
7610, for failure of the Information to
allege that the victim is involved in or
subjected to prostitution or other sexual
abuse.
On Nov. 8, 2004, accused was charged of
bigamy. Before her arraignment, accused
filed a petition for the declaration of
nullity of her 1st marriage. The RTC
granted her
petition. Accused then moved to quash the
Information. Accused’s motion was
granted. The private complainant, the
foster daughter of the 2nd husband of
accused, in her private
capacity, appealed to the CA. The CA
denied the private complainant’s appeal.
Page 4 of 33
ISSUE/S RULING
W/N the Information
Yes. Accused errs in appreciating the
sufficiently alleges the
elements of the crime charged against
element of acts of
him. Sec 5 (a) punishes acts pertaining to
lasciviousness in relation to or connected with child prostitution
Sec. 5 (b), RA 7610. wherein the child is abused primarily for
profit, while Sec. 5 (b) punishes sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct
committed on a child subjected to other
sexual abuse. Thus, a violation of Sec. 5
(b) occurs even though sexual abuse is
committed against the child victim only
once, even without a prior sexual affront
or exploitation by third person/s. Here, the
allegation that the accused sexually
abused AAA by inserting his hand inside
W/N the private complainant her
No. panty
The isprivate
sufficient.
complainant have no
may appeal the criminal personality to appeal the case, not only
aspect of the case to the CA, because she is not legally adopted by the
and eventually to the SC. 2nd husband of accused, but more
importantly, because she is not the real
party in interest and the exceptional
circumstance of denial of due process
which could give her personality to appeal
the case, do not exist in this case.
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020) Page 5 of 33

criminal action on his/her own behalf

is when there is a denial of due process.
Pfleider v. People, G.R. Criminal prosecutions may not be An Information for Murder against W/N the case may be the No. The present case does not fall under
No. 208001, June 19, restrained or stayed by injunction, accused was filed with the RTC. The RTC subject of an injunction. any of the above-cited exceptions.
2017 preliminary or final, except in those dismissed the case outright for lack of Further, with the contrasting findings of
enumerated in Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. probable cause. On appeal, the CA the CA and the RTC, it is more
Nos. 69863-65, Dec. 10, 1990: a. To directed the reinstatement of the appropriate to remand the case to the RTC
afford adequate protection to the Information for Murder against accused. for proper disposition, or for a proper
constitutional rights of the accused; determination of probable cause based
b. When necessary for the orderly on the evidence presented by the
administration of justice or to avoid prosecution.
oppression or multiplicity of actions;
c. When there is a pre-judicial
question
which is sub
judice;
d. When the acts of the officer are without
or in excess of authority;
e. Where the prosecution is under an
invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
f. When double jeopardy is clearly
apparent; g. Where the court has no
jurisdiction over the offense;
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather
than prosecution;
i. Where the charges are manifestly false
and
Rural Bank of Mabitac motivated
The by the lust
rule therefore for vengeance;
in this jurisdiction is Petitioner argues that upon filing of the W/N the trial court made its Yes. Whether the accused had been
v. Canicon, G.R. and
that once a complaint or information is information before the court, the own independent evaluation arraigned or not and whether it was due to
No. j. When
filed there any
in Court is clearly no prima
disposition of the facie
case prosecution relinquishes its full control of of the evidence when it a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review
196015, June 27, 2018 case against the accused and a motion or
as to its dismissal or the conviction to the case to the discretion of the trial court. admitted the amended by the Secretary of Justice whereby a
quash on that ground has been denied.
acquittal of the accused rests in the sound Thus, where the prosecution seeks an information dropping motion to dismiss was submitted to the
discretion of the Court. Although the amendment of the information, the RTC Espeleta as accused. Court, the Court in the exercise of its
fiscal retains the direction and control of must make its own independent discretion may grant the motion or deny it
the prosecution of criminal cases even assessment of the merits of the motion and require that the trial on the merits
while the case is already in Court, he based on an evaluation of the evidence. proceed for the proper determination of
cannot impose his opinion on the trial This, according to petitioner, it failed to the case.
court. do.

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020) Page 6 of 33

Fianza v. People, Under Sec 6, Rule 110, a complaint or Accused was charged with 2 counts of W/N the Informations are Yes. As to the date, the same is sufficient
G.R. No. 218592, Information is sufficient if it states, inter
violation of Sec. 5 (b), RA 7610 under 2 sufficient as to the allegation since it stated the approximate date of the
August 2, alia, the acts or omissions complained of Informations for ordering AAA, 11 years of the date of the commission commission of the offense to be
2017 as constituting the offense. It is sufficient
of of the offense and with “sometime during the month of Jul.
that such be alleged in ordinary and age, to masturbate him and fondle his regard to the elements of the 2010.” Further, the precise date and time
concise language and not necessarily in penis. The RTC, affirmed by the CA, crime charged. of the incidents are not among the
the language used in the statute, albeit in
convicted accused as charged. elements of sexual abuse under Sec. 5 (b),
terms sufficient to enable one of common Accused assails his conviction for the RA 7610. Moreover, the Informations not
understanding to know what offense is prosecution’s failure: (a) to specify in one only referred to the specific Sec. of RA
being charged. the Information the date of the 7610 that was violated, but also stated
commission of the offense; and (b) to that: (a) AAA was an 11-year- old minor
Meanwhile, Sec 11, Rule 110 states that it indicate in both Informations that the at the time of the offense; and (b) accused
is not necessary to state in the complaint complained acts were performed committed lascivious conduct by
or Information the precise date the offense with a child exploited in prostitution or forcing AAA to masturbate his penis.
was committed except when it is a subjected to other sexual abuse. This is constitutive of the phrase
material ingredient of the offense. The “subjected to other sexual abuse” albeit
complaint will be sustained if the proof not employing the exact language of the
shows that the offense was committed at law.
any date within the period of the statute of
People v. Caoili, G.R. limitations
Under Sec. and
14, before the commencement
Rule 110, if it appears at Accused was charged with rape through W/N the CA was correct in No. The rule is applicable only before
No. 196342, August of the action.
any time before judgment that a sexual intercourse (Art. 266-A, in relation remanding the case to the judgment has been rendered. In this case,
8, mistake has been made in charging the to Art. 266-B, RPC, as amended). RTC for the purpose of filing the trial has been concluded. The RTC
2017 proper offense, the court shall dismiss the Evidence show, however, that the accused the proper Information on the already returned a guilty verdict, which
original complaint or Information upon did not lie with AAA, but instead he basis of the last paragraph of has been reviewed by the CA whose
the filing of a new one charging the kissed her lips, touched and mashed her Sec. 14, Rule 110. decision, in turn, has been elevated to the
proper offense in accordance with Sec. 19, breast, and inserted his finger into her SC.
Rule 119, provided the accused shall not vagina and made a push and pull
be placed in double jeopardy. The court movement . The RTC convicted accused
may require the witnesses to give bail for as charged. The CA set aside the RTC
their appearance at the trial. decision and remanded the case and for
accused to be charged and tried of rape by
People v. Dasmariñas, Sec. 9, Rule 110 requires that the acts or sexual
Accusedassault.
was charged with murder, with W/N the Information is No. The acts constitutive of treachery
G.R. No. 203986, omissions complained of as constituting the allegation that he committed the crime sufficient enough so as to were not sufficiently averred in this case.
October 4, 2017 the offense must be stated in ordinary and with treachery, abuse of superior strength, convict accused of murder. The mere usage of the term treachery
concise language and not necessarily in and evident premeditation, by shooting in the Information, without anything
the language used in the statute but in Anoya in the head. The RTC, affirmed by more, did not suffice for such term was a
terms sufficient to enable a person of the CA, convicted accused of murder. conclusion of law, not a factual
common averment. Consequently,

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
understanding to know what offense is
being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. The facts
alleged in the body of the Information, not
the technical name given by the
prosecutor appearing in the title of the
Information, determine the character of
the crime.
People v. Sota, G.R. No. Secs. 8 and 9, Rule 110, requires that the
203121, November 29, qualifying and aggravating circumstances
2017 be specified in the Information in
consonance with the constitutional rights
of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against
him. Hence, even if the prosecution has
duly proven the presence of the
circumstances, the court cannot appreciate
the same if they were not alleged in the
Information.
People v. Udang, G.R. A single criminal act may give rise to a
No. 210161, January multiplicity of offenses and where there is
10, variance or differences between the
2018 elements of an offense in one law and
another law, there will be no double
jeopardy because what the rule on double
jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of
elements in the two offenses. Otherwise
stated prosecution for the same act is not
prohibited. What is forbidden is
prosecution for the same offense. The
only time that double jeopardy arises is
when the same act has already been the
subject of a previous prosecution under a
law or an ordinance. Hence, the mere
filing of the two sets of information does
not itself give rise to double jeopardy.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
The five accused were charged with arson.
It was alleged in the Information that the
five accused, conspiring, confederating
together and mutually helping one another
and with intent to destroy property and
moved by hatred or resentment, set on fire
the residential house of Eba. The RTC,
affirmed by the CA, convicted accused of
arson.
Accused was charged in two counts for
violation of Art. 266-A in relation to Sec.
5 (b), RA 7610. The RTC, however,
convicted accused of two counts of rape
through sexual intercourse. The RTC
refused to convict accused of both rape
and violation RA 7610 on the ground of
double jeopardy. The CA affirmed the
RTC ruling.
W/N the Information is
sufficient enough so as to
convict accused of arson
qualified by the aggravating
circumstance that the crime
was committed by
syndicate, i.e., it is planned or
carried out by a group of 3 or
more persons.
W/N accused may be
convicted of both rape
through sexual intercourse
and sexual abuse under RA
7610.
W/N accused is guilty of
rape by sexual intercourse.
Page 7 of 33
accused could not be properly convicted
of murder, but only of homicide.
Yes. The Information was couched
in ordinary and concise language
enough to enable the accused to know
that they were being charged with arson
perpetrated as a syndicate. To further state
a that the crime was attended by the special
aggravating circumstance that it was
committed by a syndicate would only be a
superfluity. Since there was evidence of
conspiracy, accused may be convicted of
arson with the special aggravating
circumstance that it was committed by a
syndicate.
Yes, insofar the possibility of conviction
is concerned. These two crimes are
distinct from each other and their
elements differ, especially that the “force,
threat, or intimidation” or deprivation of
reason or unconsciousness in rape is not
the same as the “coercion or influence” in
RA 7610.
No, insofar as accused’s guilt is
concerned. While the Informations state
that accused’s acts violate Art. 266-A in
relation to Sec. 5 (b), RA 7610, it,
however, alleges that accused sexually
abused AAA by having sexual
intercourse with her while she was
intoxicated, thus, debasing, degrading, or
demeaning her intrinsic worth. The
evidence supports such allegation.
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
People v. Aquino, G.R. Secs. 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Two Informations were filed charging
No. 203435, April 11, Criminal Procedure require that both accused with murder and frustrated
2018 the qualifying and aggravating murder. The information for frustrated
circumstances must be specifically murder merely alleged the qualifying
alleged in the information to be circumstance of evident premeditation.
appreciated as such. However, a perusal of the records shows
that there was not even an attempt on the
part of the prosecution to prove evident
premeditation. The testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses merely proved
abuse of superior strength which,
however, was not alleged in the
People v. Reyes, G.R. The test in determining whether the information.
An Information was filed against Reyes
No. 225736, October information validly charges an offense is accusing him of selling shabu in violation
15, whether the material facts alleged in the of RA 9165. The Information filed against
2018 complaint or information will establish the Reyes, however, makes a conclusion of
essential elements of the offense charged law– that he “did sell” dangerous drugs–
as defined in the law. without specifically stating: (1) the
identity of the buyer; (2) the amount of
dangerous drugs supposedly traded by
Reyes; and (3) the consideration for the
sale.
Ambagan v. People, G.R. The Rules of Court requires that the Two Informations were filed charging W/N the
No. 233443-44, Information allege ultimate facts accused and others for 2 counts of defective.
November 28, 2018 constituting the elements of the crime homicide. Accused argues that the
charged, with the end that the accused is allegation in the Information that he was
informed of the nature and cause of the “acting in relation to his office” does not
accusation against him sufficiently define the offense charged. He
claims that the phrase is too broad, and
that what should have been indicated was
that the act was “in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial
functions.”
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Page 8 of 33
W/N the accused may be No. In the absence of any other qualifying
convicted for murder. circumstance alleged in the information
and proved during trial, the charge against
accused must be downgraded to homicide.
W/N Reyes should be Yes. The Information filed against Reyes
acquitted. failed to sufficiently identify therein all
the components of the first element of the
crime of sale of dangerous drugs, namely:
the identity of the buyer, the object, and
the consideration. Similar to the case of
People v. Posada, G.R. No. 194445,
March 12,
2012, the prosecution deprived Reyes of
his right to be informed of the offense
charged against him. For this reason
alone,The
Information is No. Reyes should already
Informations be acquitted.
sufficiently allege
the elements for violation of Sec. 3 (e),
RA 3019. It was alleged therein that the
acts were performed by the accused in
pursuance of, and that the same
necessarily related to his functions as
Mayor. It is of no moment that the exact
nomenclature of the law has not been
used, considering that the statements
clearly indicate what offense was
committed, and enable the court to make
proper judgment. Further,the Informations
did not simply allege that the offense was
committed in relation to accused’s office
or that he took advantage of his position,
but also contain
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020) Page 9 of 33

specific factual allegations that would

indicate the close intimacy between the
discharge of the offender’s official
duties and the commission of the offense
People v. Go, G.R. No. Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of An information was filed against accused charged.
W/N the accused’s petition Yes, insofar as the defect is concerned.
210816, December 10, Criminal Procedure provides that all for reckless imprudence. A petition for for certiorari was defective. Accused’s petition for certiorari before the
2018 criminal actions are prosecuted under the certiorari was filed by accused before the CA which failed to implead the People as
direction and control of the public CA, but failed to implead the People of W/N failure to implead an a party thereto was defective. The true
prosecutor. the Philippines which is an indispensable indispensable party is a aggrieved party in a criminal prosecution
party in criminal prosecutions. The People ground for dismissal. is the People whose collective sense of
argue that the CA erred in exercising morality, decency and justice has been
jurisdiction and taking cognizance of the outraged.
petition and, thereafter, in granting the
same. No, insofar as the dismissal is concerned.
In such a case, the remedy is to implead
the non-party claimed to be indispensable.
Parties may be added by order of the
court, on motion of the party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and/or
such times as are just. If the petitioner/
plaintiff refuses to implead an
indispensable party despite the order of
the court, the latter may dismiss the
complaint/petition for the
People v. Olarte, G.R. Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of CourtAccused was separately charged for W/N the amendment is No. petitioner’s/plaintiff’s
The amendment failure
which to comply.the
reflected
No. 233209, March provides that “a complaint or information
illegal or unauthorized possession of a substantial and so correct model of the grenade merely
11, may be amended, in form or in substance,
hand grenade and an unlicensed pistol amendment is not allowed. added precision to the factual allegations
2019 without leave of court, at any time before
(later found to be a replica). The Hall of already contained in the original
the accused enters his plea, after the plea
Justice of Cagayan de Oro City was razed information. Besides, the change is an
and during the trial, a formal amendment
by a fire which burned all the records obvious correction of a clerical error, or a
may only be made with leave of court and
therein including those pertaining to the mistake in copying or writing. Even
when it can be done without causing original information and arraignment of assuming that the model number on the
prejudice to the rights of the accused.accused, as well as some of the evidence grenade is among the elements of illegal
presented by the prosecution. The accused possession of explosives, it may still be
Any amendment as to the discrepancy in was re-arraigned. The prosecution amended under the circumstances because
the description of an element alleged undertook the retaking of the testimonies accused was still afforded due process
in the and the refiling of judicial affidavits when he was apprised in the information
already executed by some of its that he was being indicted

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
information is evidentiary in nature and
only amounts to a mere formal
amendment.
Pendoy v. Court of A complaint or information must charge
Appeals, G.R. No. only one offense, except when the law
228223, June 10, 2019 prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses. Failure to comply with this rule
is a ground for quashing the duplicitous
complaint or information and the accused
may raise the same in a motion to quash
before he enters his plea, otherwise, the
defect is deemed waived.
Pili v. Resureccion, G.R.
In criminal cases, the People is the real
No. 222798, June 19, party- in interest and the private offended
2019 party is but a witness in the prosecution of
offenses, the interest of the private
offended party is limited only to the
aspect of civil liability. While a judgment
of acquittal is immediately final and
executory, either the offended party or
the accused may appeal the civil aspect of
the judgment despite the acquittal of the
accused. The real parties-in-interest in the
civil aspect of a decision are the offended
People v. party
Whileand theisaccused.
there no precise definition under
Sandiganbayan, G.R. the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
No. 240621, July 24, of what should be deemed as a substantial
2019 amendment, case law instructs that
substantial amendments consist of the
recital of facts constituting the offense
charged and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
witnesses, as part of the efforts to
reconstitute the lost records. In the
course of reconstituting the records, the
prosecution moved for the amendment of
the Information seeking to change the
reflected fuse assembly marking of the
grenade from “M204X2” to “M204A2”
which was eventually granted by the RTC.
Pendoy was charged for Rape in an
Information filed before the RTC. The
Information designated the offense
charged as one of Rape under Art. 266-A
(1) (a), RPC. A perusal of the allegations
therein would clearly show that Pendoy
was actually charged with two offenses-
rape: rape through sexual intercourse and
lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b), RA
7610 (because the victim is a minor).
Resureccion entered into an agreement
with Conpil Realty Corp. (Conpil) for the
purchase of a house and lot and issued
two checks in favor of the latter. When
Conpil deposited the checks, the same
bounced. A criminal complaint for
violation of BP 22 was filed against
Resureccion before the MTC. On appeal,
the CA held that the criminal case was
not prosecuted in the name of the real
party in interest28 as Conpil
was not included in the title of the case
An Information was filed before the SB W/N the amendment
charging accused with violation of Sec. 3 substantial.
(e), RA 3019, alleging that accused, then
Executive Dir. III of the NPDC, entered
into numerous security service
contracts with Variance from 2002 to
2010 absent the required public bidding,
thereby giving the
Page 10 of 33
for illegally possessing a hand grenade;
the model number, even the serial number,
being immaterial. The allegations in the
original and amended Informations
sufficiently cover the element of the
contraband;s existence as well as
accused’s lack of license to possess the
same.
W/N Pendoy may he Yes. Inasmuch as Pendoy failed to object
convicted to both rape and file a motion to quash anchored on the
through sexual lascivious ground that more than one offense is
conduct under Sec. 5 (b), RA charged Information before he pleads to
7610. the same, the effect is that he is deemed to
have waived such defect and he can be
convicted of rape and lascivious conduct
under Sec. 5 (b), RA 7610.
W/N Conpil was the real No. As the criminal complaint for
party in interest. violation of BP 22 was filed in the MTC,
necessarily the criminal case before it was
prosecuted “in the name of the People of
the Philippines.” This very basic
understanding of what transpired shows
ineluctably the egregious error by the CA
in ruling that the Conpil should have been
included in the title of the case.
is No. The amendment sought by the
prosecution is one of form, and not of
substance, as it adds nothing essential for
accused’s conviction of the crime charged
nor does it seek to amend the
Information’s recital of facts constituting
the offense charged. On the contrary, the
amendment
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020) Page 11 of 33

court. On the other hand, formal latter unwarranted benefits. During trial, simply sought to correct the total amount
amendments which can be made at any the prosecutor moved to amend the of the disbursement vouchers reflected in
time do not alter the nature of the crime, Information to change the amount stated the Information to make it conform to the
affect the essence of the offense, surprise, in the Information from ₱7,843,54.33 evidence on record.
or divest the accused of an opportunity to to
meet the new accusation. They are ₱7,842,941.60, whichvouchers.
in the disbursement is the amount
amendments which merely state with reflected
Accused
additional precision something which is merely formal but substantial, which
already contained in the original opposed
would arguing that the amendment is
Information, and which, therefore, adds not
the charges against
nothing essential for conviction of the him.
People v. Toukyo, G.R. crime charged. are the effects of the death
The following The accused appeal
be prejudicial withtothe
to his right SC after W/N the criminal and civil
be informed Yes. Upon accused’s death pending appeal
No. 225593, March of an accused pending appeal: being
of convicted by the CA on Jul. 3, 2015. liabilities (based on delict) of of his conviction, the criminal action is
20, It appeared, however, that accused the accused are extinguished. extinguished inasmuch as there is no
2017 (1) His death extinguishes his criminal already died on Oct. 15, 2014. longer a defendant to stand as the accused.
liability as well as the civil liability based
solely thereon
(2) Corollarily, the claim for civil liability
survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the same is predicated on a
source of obligation other than delict, i.e.,
law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and/or
quasi- delicts (Art. 1157, NCC).
(3) Where the civil liability survives, an
action for recovery therefor may be
pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action and subject to Sec. 1,
Rule 111, which may be enforced either
against the executor/ administrator or the
estate of the accused, depending on the
source of obligation upon which the same
is based.
(4) Finally, in cases where a civil action is
instituted with the criminal action, but the
private offended party has the right to
institute a separate civil action, the statute
of limitations on the civil liability is
deemed

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
interrupted during the pendency of the
criminal case (Art. 1155, NCC).
Domingo v. Singson, A prejudicial question is understood in
G.R. No. 203287, April law to be that which arises in a case the
5, resolution of which is a logical antecedent
2017 of the issue involved in said case and the
cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal. The doctrine of prejudicial
question comes into play generally in a
situation where civil and criminal actions
are pending and the issues involved in
both cases are similar or so closely related
that an issue must be pre-emptively
resolved in the civil case before the
criminal action can proceed.
Evangelista v. Screenex, In BP 22 cases, the action for the
G.R. No. corresponding civil obligation is deemed
211564, November 20, instituted with the criminal action. Sec 1
2017 (b), Rule 111 provides that the criminal
action for violation of BP 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil
action. No reservation to file such civil
action separately shall be allowed.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
The case stemmed from an ejectment suit
filed by Engracia, one of the heirs of
spouses Macario and Felicidad to the
other heirs claiming that she owned the
property left by their parents having
bought the same. On the other hand, The
defendants contended that they learned of
the sale only when they were served with
summons. The defendant then filed an
action seeking to nullify the deed of sale
of spouses Macario and Felicidad on the
ground of forged signature of their
parents. In the meantime they also filed a
criminal case for falsification of public
document, estafa and use of falsified
document. Engracia moved to suspend the
criminal case on the ground of prejudicial
question. When the issue reached the SC,
it ruled in favor of the movants
Evangelista obtained a loan from
Screenex which issued 2 checks to the
former. There were also vouchers of
Screenex that were signed by the accused
evidencing that he received the 2 checks
in acceptance of the loan granted to him.
As security for the payment, Evangelista
gave 2 open-dated checks, both pay to
order of Screenex. From the time it was
issued, they were held in safekeeping
together with the other documents and
papers of the company by Philip
Gotuaco, Sr., father-in-law of
W/N the proceedings of
criminal cases were properly
suspended on the ground of
prejudicial question.
W/N the accused is still liable
for the total amount indicated
in the checks considering that
he was already acquitted in
the criminal charged for
violation of BP 22.
Page 12 of 33
Yes. For a civil action to be considered
prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause
the suspension of the criminal proceedings
until the final resolution of the civil case,
the following requisites must -be present:
(1) the civil case involves facts intimately
related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based; (2) in the
resolution of the issue or issues raised in
the civil action, the guilt or innocence of
the accused would necessarily be
determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said
question must be lodged in another
tribunal. If the signatures of the Spouses
Domingo in the Absolute Deed of Sale are
genuine, then there would be no
falsification and the Spouses Singson
would be innocent of the offense charged.
Otherwise stated, a conviction in the
criminal case, should it be allowed to
proceed ahead, would be a gross injustice
and would have to be set aside if it were
finally decided in the civil case that
indeed
Yes. Bythedefinition,
signaturesa of the sellers
check were
is a bill of
authentic. drawn on a bank payable on
exchange
demand. It is an undertaking that the
drawer will pay the amount indicated
thereon. Sec.
119 of the NIL, however, states that a
negotiable instrument like a check may be
discharged by any other act which will
discharge a simple contract for the
payment of money. A check is therefore
subject to a
10-year prescription of actions upon
a
written contract. If the check is undated
as in the present case, the cause of
action is
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
People v. Solar, G.R. No. The test in determining whether the
225595, August 6, 2019 information validly charges an offense is
whether the material facts alleged in the
complaint or information will establish
the essential elements of the offense
charged as defined in the law.
An information which lacks certain
essential allegations may still sustain a
conviction when the accused fails to
object to its sufficiency during the
trial, and the
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
respondent Alexander Yu, until the
former’s death. Before the checks were
deposited, there was a personal demand
from the family for Evangelista to settle
the loan and a demand letter was sent by
the family lawyer. Evangelista was
charged with violation of BP 22 in a
criminal case filed with the MeTC of
Makati. The MeTC found that the
prosecution had indeed proved the first 2
elements of cases involving BP 22 but
failed to prove the 3rd element. Also,
there was failure on the part of Yu to
prove that the demand letter had actually
been received by the addressee and there
was no way to determine when the 5-day
period should start to toll, there was
failure to establish prima facie evidence
of knowledge of insufficiency of funds,
hence, the court acquitted Evangelista
of the criminal charges. Ruling on the
civil aspect, the court held that while
Evangelista admitted to having issued and
delivered the checks to Gotuaco and
having fully paid the amount, no evidence
of payment was presented. In the end,
Evangelista
An informationwas was
declared liable
filed for the for
casethe
civil obligation.
of murder qualified by the
circumstance of treachery and abuse of
superior strength. During the
arraignment, one accused pleaded not
guilty while the other remained at large
and hence was not brought to the RTC’s
jurisdiction.
The prosecution presented an eyewitness,
the wife of Joseph as well as the doctor
who conducted the medical examination
of the body of the victim.
W/N Rolando has waived his
right to question the defects
in the Information filed
against him.
Page 13 of 33
reckoned from the issuance of the check.
Assuming that Yu had authority to insert
the dates in the checks, the fact that he did
so after the lapse of more than 10 years
cannot qualify as changes made within a
reasonable period. The cause of action on
the checks has become stale, hence time-
barred. Prescription has indeed set in.
We therefore have no other recourse but
to grant the petition on the ground of
prescription. Even if the defense was
belatedly raised before the RTC for the
first time on appeal from the ruling of
MeTC, we nonetheless dismiss the
complaint, seeking to enforce civil
liability of Evangelista based on the
undated checks. Holding Evanglista liable
for the 2 checks has already
prescribed.
Yes. The Court notes that the right to
question the defects in an Information is
not absolute.
It is thus fundamental that every element
of which the offense is composed must be
alleged in the Information. No
Information for a crime will be sufficient
if it does not accurately and clearly allege
the elements of the crime charged. The
test in determining whether the
information validly charges an offense is
whether the material facts alleged
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
deficiency was cured by competent The RTC found the testimony of the wife,
evidence presented therein. Failure to the sole eyewitness of the prosecution, to
object was thus a waiver of the be clear, positive, categorical, and
constitutional right to be informed of the credible to establish Rolando's guilt for
nature and cause of the accusation. the crime charged. The RTC also held that
the qualifying circumstance of treachery
was present in the killing.
An appeal to the CA was made averring
that the prosecution failed to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt by failing to
prove the entity of the perpetrator, and
that there was lack of evidence to
support a finding of conspiracy among
the accused. He argued that since Ma.
Theresa, the wife of the victim testified
that it was Mark Kenneth who inflicted
the fatal blow on the victim, a finding of
conspiracy was necessary to convict him
and there were no facts available to
support such conclusion.
The CA downgraded the offense from
Murder to Homicide, holding that the
Information did not sufficiently set forth
the facts and circumstances describing
how treachery attended the killing.
Supreme Transportation Under Sec. 1, Rule 111, what is deemed Belchez was driving a passenger bus
Liner, Inc. v. San Andres, instituted with the criminal action is only owned by San Andres. While in transit, it
the collided
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Page 14 of 33
in the complaint or information will
establish the essential elements of the
offense charged as defined in the law. To
repeat, the purpose of the law in requiring
this is to enable the accused to suitably
prepare his defense, as he is presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the
facts that constitute the offense.
At bar, the accused did not question the
supposed insufficiency of the Information
filed against him through either a motion
to quash or motion for bill of particulars.
He voluntarily entered his plea during the
arraignment and proceeded with the trial.
Thus, he is deemed to have waived any of
the waivable defects in the Information,
including the supposed lack of
particularity in the description of the
attendant circumstances. In other words,
Rolando is deemed to have understood
the acts imputed against him by the
Information. The CA therefore erred in
modifying the accused’ conviction for he
had effectively waived the right to
question his conviction on that ground.
A number of jurisprudence held that an
information which lacks certain essential
allegations may still sustain a conviction
when the accused fails to object to its
sufficiency during the trial, and the
deficiency was cured by competent
evidence presented therein. [F]ailure to
object was thus a waiver of the
constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation
W/N STL may still Yes. STL’s cause of action in
recover damages through its
filing a counterclaim was upon a quasi-delict, and
so
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
G.R. No. 200444, August action to recover civil liability arising
15, 2018 from the crime or ex-delicto. All the other
civil actions under Arts. 32, 33, 34 and
2176, NCC are no longer deemed
instituted, and may be filed separately and
prosecuted independently even without
any reservation in the criminal action. The
failure to make a reservation in the
criminal action is not a waiver of the right
to file a separate and independent civil
action. The prescriptive period on
separate and independent civil actions
continues to run even with the filing of the
criminal action.
Alsons Development and Generally, a prejudicial question comes
Investment, Corp., v. into play only in a situation where a civil
Confesor, G.R. No. action and a criminal action are both
215671, September pending and there exists in the former an
19, issue which must be preemptively
201 resolved before the criminal action may
8 proceed because the resolution of the civil
action is determinative juris et de jure of
the guilt or innocence of the accused in
the criminal case. This, however, is not an
ironclad rule. It is imperative that the
rationale behind the principle of
prejudicial question, i.e., to avoid 2
conflicting decisions, be considered.
Revilla, Jr. v. SB, G.R. The Rules of Court state that the
No. 218232, July 24, provisional remedies in civil actions,
2018 insofar as they are applicable, may be
availed of in connection with the civil
action deemed instituted with the criminal
action.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
with the bus driven by Ruz, owned by
Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. (STL).
San Andres filed a complaint for damages
against Ruz and STL, while STL filed its
counterclaim. Prior thereto, Belchez was
convicted for reckless imprudence
resulting to damage to property. The RTC
dismissed the complaint and STL’s
counterclaim for failure of STL to reserve
the civil action in the criminal case. The
CA affirmed the RTC.
Alsons Development and Investment,
Corp. (ADIC) and the DENR entered into
an Industrial Forest Plantation
Management Agreement (IFPMA) No. 21.
Confesor filed a protest praying for the
cancellation of IFPMA No. 21 on the
ground that a large portion of the land
subject thereof was his property. The
DENR, affirmed by the OP, dismissed the
protest. Confesor appealed to the CA, and
prayed for a status quo order in view of
its pending petition for annulment of title
and reversion with the RTC. Meanwhile,
the RTC dismissed Confesor’s complaint
without prejudice. The CA then issued a
decision affirming the OP. Pending his
appeal to the CA, Confesor re-filed his
petition
Revilla, with the still
while RTC.a public officer, is
charged with plunder, committed by
amassing, accumulating, and acquiring
ill-gotten wealth, through a combination
or series of overt or criminal acts.
Sandiganbayan ordered the issuance
of the writ of
Page 15 of 33
counterclaim despite its it is based on Art. 2184, in relation to
failure to reserve the right to Arts.
file a civil action in the 2180 and 2176, NCC. The omission of the
criminal case. driver in violation of Art. 365, RPC could
give rise not only to the obligation ex
delicto, but also to the obligation based on
culpa aquiliana. Art. 2177, NCC and Sec.
3, Rule
111 allow the injured party to prosecute
both criminal and civil actions
simultaneously, subject to prohibition on
double recovery. Thus, STL must first
demonstrate that the RTC did not award
W/N the civil case for civil The
Yes. damages, in order
civil case to avoid
between double
the Republic
annulment of title and recovery.
and respondents operates as a bar to the
reversion constitutes a action for cancellation of IFPMA No.
prejudicial question to the 21. . If the RTC cancels Confesor’s TCT
action for the cancellation of for being fake and spurious, it proceeds
IFPMA No. 21. then that they do not have any right
whatsoever over the subject property and
thus, do not have the right to demand
IFPMA No. 21’s cancellation. If the RTC
will rule otherwise and uphold Confesor’s
TCT, then they would have every right to
demand IFPMA No. 21’s cancellation.
Cancellation of the IFPMA No. 21 is the
logical consequence of the determination
of Confesor’s right over the subject
property.
W/N the SB acted within its Yes. Since all the requisites for the
jurisdiction in issuing a writ issuance of a writ of preliminary
of preliminary attachment. attachment have been complied with.
Rule 127 states that the provisional
remedy of attachment on the property of
the accused may be availed of to serve as
security for the satisfaction of any
judgment that may be recovered from
the
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020) Page 16 of 33

preliminary attachment against accused when the criminal action is based

Revilla’s monies and properties.
on a claim for money or property
embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or
converted to the use of the accused who is
a public officer, in the course of his
employment as such, or when the accused
has concealed, removed or disposed of his
property or is about to do so. Clearly, the
crime of plunder is based on a claim for
public funds or property misappropriated,
converted, misused, or malversed by the
accused who is a public officer, in the
course of his employment as such. The
filing of the criminal action for plunder,
which is within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, is deemed to necessarily
carry with it the filing of the civil action.
Accordingly, the writ of preliminary
attachment is an available provisional
remedy in the criminal action for plunder.

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
MOTION TO QUASH (RULE 117)
CASE DOCTRINE
Maximo v. Villapando, As a general rule, complaints or
Jr., G.R. No. 214925, Informations filed before the courts
April 26, 2017 without the prior written authority or
approval of the authorized officers
render the same defective and, therefore,
subject to quashal pursuant to Sec. 3 (d),
Rule 117. An Information that bears the
certification that the filing of the same had
the prior authority or approval of the City
Prosecutor (CP) is defective if it was
shown that the officers filing the same
either lacked the authority to do so or
failed to show that they obtained prior
written authority from any of those
authorized officers enumerated in Sec.
4, Rule
People v. Escobar, G.R. An 112.
interlocutory order denying an
No. 214300, July 26, application for bail, in this case being
2017 criminal in nature, does not give rise to
res judicata.
As in Trinidad, even if we are to expand
the argument of the prosecution in this
case to contemplate “res judicata in prison
grey” or double jeopardy, the same will
still not apply. Double jeopardy requires
that the accused has been convicted or
acquitted or that the case against him or
her has been dismissed or terminated
without his express consent. Here, while
there was an initial ruling on Escobar's
First Bail Petition, Escobar has
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Page 17 of 33
FACTS ISSUE/S RULING
Maximo and Panganiban filed a W/N the Information should Yes. The records of the case does not
Complaint for Perjury, Incriminating be quashed. include a copy of the purported Office
Innocent Person and Unjust Vexation Order, allegedly authorizing the ACP to
against Villapando. The prosecutor only sign in behalf of the CP. In the absence
found probable cause for perjury. The thereof, there was no valid delegation of
Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) filed the the authority by the CP to the ACP.
Information. Villapando moved to quash
the Information for lack of the CP’s
approval and that the facts do not
constitute an offense. The MeTC denied
it. Meanwhile, an amended Information
was filed to include Panganiban as
complainant. The same was signed by the
ACP, with the indication that it was with
the prior authority or approval of the CP.
Escobar appealed before the CA. On W/N Res Judicata is No. Res Judicata is not applicable to bail.
March applicable to bail and is Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and
8, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed deemed a ground for motion thus has no bearing on criminal
the denial of the First Bail Petition. It to quash. proceedings.
recognized that Cubillas’ extrajudicial
confession was generally incompetent
evidence against his co-accused and was
admissible against himself only for
being hearsay and for violating
the res inter alias acta rule.
Nevertheless, the CA invoked an
exception to this rule and held that the
RTC “did not rely solely on the
extrajudicial confession of Cubillas”;
rather, the RTC also relied on Cubillas’
testimony during the bail hearing.
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
not been convicted, acquitted, or has had
his case dismissed or terminated.
De Lima v. A petition for certiorari can be resorted to
Guerrero, G.R. No. only after the court a quo has already and
229781, October actually rendered its decision. Thus, a
10, 2017 petition for certiorari to assail the
dismissal of a motion to quash filed with
the RTC is premature, unless it falls under
recognized exceptions to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
People v. Alejandro, Sec. 7, Rule 117 strictly adhere to the
G.R. No. 223099, constitutional proscription against double
January 11, jeopardy and provide for the requisites in
2018 order for double jeopardy to attach. For
double jeopardy to attach, the following
elements must concur: (1) a
valid information sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction of
the crime charged; (2) a court of
competent jurisdiction; (3) the
accused has been arraigned and
had pleaded; and (4) the accused was
convicted or acquitted or the case was
dismissed without his express consent.
Osorio v. Navera, G.R. If an accused is confined under a
No. 223272, February lawful process or order of the court, the
26, proper remedy is to pursue the ordinary
2018 remedy which is to file a motion to quash
the Information or the warrant of arrest
based on one or more of the grounds
enumerated in Sec. 3, Rule 117. With a
motion to quash,
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
The DOJ filed criminal complaints
against Sen. De Lima after several
inquiries made by the congress regarding
the proliferation of drugs inside the
National Bilibid Prison (NBP). On the
basis of the evidence presented by the
DOJ and the complaint affidavits, Judge
Guerrrero of the Muntinlupa-RTC issued
a warrant of arrest against Sen. Delima.
The senator then filed a motion to quash
the warrant and pending such motion she
also filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 alleging that the issuance of the
warrant of arrest was with grave abuse of
discretion.
Accused-appellant argues that despite the
RTC’s error and misapprehension of facts,
it still had no power to rectify such
mistake as said acquittal had attained
finality after valid promulgation. The
error committed by the RTC cannot be
validly recalled without transgressing the
accused-appellant’s right against double
jeopardy.
Osorio was charged in two Informations W/N Osorio’s filing of the
for kidnapping. Osorio then filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus is
Petition for Habeas Corpus before the CA, proper.
alleging that as a member of the AFP, it is
the courts- martial, not a civil court,
which has jurisdiction over him. The CA
denied the petition on the ground
that Osorio’s
W/N the pendency of the
Motion to Quash the
Information before the RTC
renders the instant petition
premature.
W/N the CA erred in
dismissing the case and
affirming the conviction of
the accused.
Page 18 of 33
Yes. Since De Lima is actually asking the
SC to rule on some of the grounds subject
of her Motion to Quash, the SC, if it rules
in favor of De Lima regarding the grounds
of the Motion to Quash, will be pre-
empting the judge from doing her duty to
resolve the said motion and even prejudge
the case. This causes an inevitable delay
in the proceedings in the RTC, as the
latter abstains from resolving the incidents
until the SC rules with finality on the
instant petition.
Yes. Too elementary is the rule that a
decision once final is no longer
susceptible to amendment or alteration
except to correct errors which are clerical
in· nature, to clarify any ambiguity caused
by an omission or mistake in the
dispositive portion or to rectify a travesty
of justice brought about by a moro-moro
or mock trial. A final decision is the law
of the case and is immutable and
unalterable regardless of any claim of
error or incorrectness.
No. Osorio’s proper remedy is to pursue
the orderly course of trial and exhaust the
usual remedies, the first of which would
be a motion to quash, filed before
arraignment, on the following grounds:
the facts charged do not constitute an
offense; the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
the accused assails the validity of a
criminal complaint or Information for
insufficiency on its face in a point of law,
or for defects which are apparent in the
face of the Information.
People v. The constitutionally guaranteed right
Sandiganbayan, G.R. against double jeopardy is enshrined in
No. 228494-96, March the Bill of Rights under the 1987
21, Constitution: Sec. 21. No person shall be
201 twice put in jeopardy of punishment for
8 the same offense. If an act is punished by
a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar
to another prosecution for the same act.
People v. CCC, G.R. No. The rationale behind this rule prohibiting
231925, November 19, duplicitous complaints or informations is
2018 to give the accused the necessary
knowledge of the charge against him and
enable him to sufficiently prepare for his
defense. The State should not heap upon
the accused two or more charges which
might confuse him in his defense. Non-
compliance with this rule is a ground for
quashing the duplicitous complaint or
information under Rule 117 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure and the accused
may raise the same in a motion to quash
before he enters his plea, otherwise, the
defect is deemed waived.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
arguments should have been raised in
a motion to quash.
Petitioner argued that the petition does not
place the accused at risk of double
jeopardy. Though it has long been
settled that the prosecution cannot appeal
a decision to reverse an acquittal, the
same may be questioned in an action for
certiorari when a judgment was tainted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, thus
rendering the assailed judgment void. The
petitioner argued on Sandiganbayan’s
capricious disregard that there was indeed
a misappropriation of the money which
should have been remitted to the BOT.
Moreover, Sandiganbayan failed to take
in consideration Sabio;s blatant failure to
liquidate the cash advances he received by
virtue of his position as PCGG’s
Chairperson
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Contrary to and in violation of Article
266- A, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal
Code, in relation to RA 7610.
During his arraignment on February 5,
2013, appellant, with the aid of a counsel,
entered a plea of not guilty.
Through the testimony of AAA, it was
clearly proven that appellant committed
the crime, and as such, an attack on her
credibility is futile. In People v. Malana,
his
W/n the Sandiganbayan
gravely abused its discretion
amounting to lack and/or
excess of its jurisdiction
when it ruled in all the cases
that there is insufficient
evidence that Sabio
misappropriated or converted
the funds involved.
W/N the appellant failed to
object and file a motion to
quash the information
based on the defective and
incorrect recital of the facts
stated in the same for the two
(2) counts of rape.
Page 19 of 33
charged; and the officer who filed
the
Information had no authority to do so.
No. The Court finds the petition
unmeritorious.
Generally, a judgment of acquittal is
immediately final and executory.
The prosecution cannot appeal the
acquittal lest the constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy be violated
Yes. The effect is that he is deemed to
have waived such defense. Hence, he can
be charged and convicted for two (2)
counts of rape.
The accused herein, however, cannot
avail of this defense simply because they
did not file a motion to quash questioning
the validity of the Information during
their arraignment. Thus, they are deemed
to have waived their right to question the
same. Also, where the allegations of the
acts imputed to the accused are merely
different counts specifying the acts of
perpetration of
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
Similarly, Sec. 3, Rule 120 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure further states
that when two or more offenses are
charged in a single complaint or
information but the accused fails to object
to it before trial, the court may convict
him of as many offenses as are charged
and proved, and impose upon him the
People v. Vanas, G.R. proper penalty formust
The information each offense
contain a specific
No. 225511, allegation of every fact and circumstance
March necessary to constitute the crime charged,
20,2019 the accused being presumed to have no
independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense. Under Sec. 9 of
Rule
117 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure, [failure of the
accused] to raise an objection to the
insufficiency or defect in the information
would not amount to a waiver of any
objection based on said ground or
irregularity.
People v. Cubay, G.R. Sec. 9, Rule 117 provides that the failure
No. 224597, July 29, of the accused to assert any ground of a
2019 motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because
he did not file a motion to quash or failed
to allege the same in said motion, shall be
deemed a waiver of any objections except
those based on the grounds provided for
in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Sec. 3
of this Rule.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Court ruled that when the issue is one of
credibility of witnesses, appellate courts
will generally not disturb the findings of
the trial court
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
committed against “AAA”. He argued
that the testimony of the victim could not
be relied upon since it was improbable
that he could simultaneously undress her,
hold her hands, and insert his penis into
her vagina. He claimed that there was no
evidence of force, threat and intimidation.
Notably, he shifted his defenses from
denial and alibi to consensual sex, based
on the admission of the victim that she
did not object to their sexual congress in
both cases.
Accused-appellant Dante Cubay y
Ugsalan was charged for forty four (44)
counts of rape. On arraignment,
appellant pleaded "not guilty" to all the
charges. 6 Thereafter, the cases were
consolidated and jointly tried. During the
trial, complainant AAA, her attending
doctor Rubee Ann Go -Gotil, her two
aunts BBB and CCC, SPED Teacher
DDD, and sign language experts Joshua
Asuela, Jr. and Roygie Gantalao testified
for the prosecution. On the other hand,
appellant Dante Cubay alone testified for
the defense.
W/N the information is
sufficient to make appellant
liable for the violation of
Sec.
5(b) of RA 7610 in
Criminal
Case No.
6073.
W/N the Information validly
charge the crime of rape.
Page 20 of 33
the same crime, as in the instant case,
there is no duplicity to speak of.
No. The appeal is PARTIALLY
GRANTED.
Appellant can only be convicted of
qualified
rape in Criminal Case No. 6072. He
should be acquitted for violation of Sec.
5(b) of RA
7610 in Criminal Case No.
6073.
Appellant cannot be held liable for
violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 since
the Information therein was legally infirm
for failing to state a vital element of the
said offense.
No. The Informations do not charge the
crime of rape. No matter how conclusive
and convincing the evidence of guilt may
be, an accused cannot be convicted of any
offense unless it is charged in the
information on which he is tried or is
necessarily included therein. To convict
him of a ground not alleged while he is
concentrating his defense against the
ground alleged would plainly be unfair
and underhanded The Court is not
unmindful of the rule that by his plea, an
accused is deemed to have waived all
objections to the information. This rule,
however, is correct only insofar as
formal objections to the
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020) Page 21 of 33

pleadings are concerned. By express

provision of Sec. 9, Rule 117 of the Rules
of Court and by established jurisprudence,
the validity of the Information vis - à -vis
the essential issue of whether or not it
sufficiently charges an offense goes into
the very foundation of jurisdiction, hence,
may be raised and addressed at any stage
of the proceedings.

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA (RULE 116), PRE-TRIAL (RULE 118),
TRIAL (RULE 119) AND JUDGMENT (RULE 120)
CASE DOCTRINE
De Silva Cruz v. People, GENERAL RULE- no evidence shall
G.R. No. 210266, June be allowed during trial if it was not
7, identified and pre-marked during trial.
2017 EXCEPTION: when allowed by the court
for good cause shown.
**There is no hard and fast rule to
determine
what may constitute “good cause,” though
this Court has previously defined it as any
substantial reason “that affords a legal
excuse.”
Estipona Jr. v. Lobrigo, Considering the presence of mutuality
G.R. No. 226679, of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining
August neither create a right nor take away a
15, 2017 vested right. Instead, it operates as a
means to implement an existing right by
regulating the judicial process for
enforcing rights and duties recognized by
substantive law and for justly
administering remedy and redress for a
disregard or infraction of them.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
FACTS
Petitioner was found in possession of a
Citibank Visa credit card, which bore the
name “Gerry Santos.” He used the same
credit card to purchase shoes at Duty
Free, where he was apprehended when it
was validated that the credit card was a
counterfeit.
Petitioner is the accused in a criminal case
for Possession of Dangerous Drugs. He
filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to
Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement,
praying to withdraw his not guilty plea
and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for
Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs. Prosecution moved for
the denial of the motion for being contrary
to Sec. 23 of RA 9165, which is said to be
justified by the Congress' prerogative
to
ISSUE/S
W/N alleged counterfeit
credit card be admitted as
evidence despite not being
pre-marked during pre-trial,
in accordance to A.M. No.
03-1-09-SC.
W/N Sec. 23 of RA No. 9165,
which prohibits plea
bargaining, encroaches on the
power of the Supreme Court
to promulgate rules of
procedure.
Page 22 of 33
RULING
No. The presentation of counterfeit credit
card at trial was allowed due to
prosecution's explanation that during pre-
trial, the same was still in CIDG's custody.
The prosecution was able to present and
mark during pre-trial Citibank's
certification that the access device used
was counterfeit. It is this certification that
makes the possession and use of the
access device illegal. Therefore, the
access device could still be presented at
trial since it merely formed part of an
exhibit that had already been presented
and marked
Yes. during pre-trial.
Plea bargaining is allowed during the
arraignment, the pre-trial, or even up to
the point when the prosecution already
rested its case. The plea is further
addressed to the sound discretion of the
trial court, which may allow the accused
to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense
charged. The word may denotes an
exercise of discretion upon the trial court
on whether to allow the accused to make
such plea.
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
People v. Domingo, G.R. The prosecution’s failure to present a
No. 204895, March 21, single piece of evidence in all the four
2018 Rule 118 settings given to it was an unreasonable
prolongation of the length of the trial.
Further, the reasons the prosecution
offered for the failure to present its
witnesses are not even supported by any
evidence other than the mere say-so of the
public prosecutor. The witnesses did not
even present any affidavit or any proof of
the threats to their lives which prompted
them to change their places of residence.
Lim v. Lim, G.R. No. The Judicial Affidavit Rule provides that
214163, July 1, 2019 the prosecution is mandated to submit the
judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later
than five (5) days before pre-trial. Should
they fail to submit them within the time
prescribed, they shall be deemed to
have waived their submission.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
choose which offense it would allow
plea bargaining.
Three Informations were filed against
accused-appellant, which were originally
raffled to RTC Branch 15, where accused
were arraigned and pleaded not guilty
to each charge. Subsequently, the accused
filed a Motion praying for the re-raffle of
these cases to another branch since
proceedings had not gone beyond the pre-
trial stage although they had been
detained for more than a year. The Motion
was granted and pre-trial conference
ensued. There, it was agreed that the
prosecution would present its evidence in
four settings of a joint trial, but the same
failed to present a single witness in each
of those four settings, resulting in the
dismissal of the case. The Prosecutor filed
a Motion for Reconsideration, claiming
that notices to the prosecution witnesses
had not been served because they
constantly transferred to other places due
to persistent threats to their lives as a
result of these cases. Such motion was
granted, and the trial court found the
accused
The RTC guilty.
decreed that the MTCC
committed grave abuse of discretion when
it allowed the belated submission of the
Judicial Affidavits of the prosecution’s
witnesses
W/N the court a quo
committed a serious error
when it set aside the
dismissal of the present cases
transgressing the appellant’s
constitutional right against
double jeopardy.
W/N the MTCC committed
grave abuse of discretion in
allowing the belated
submission of Judicial
Affidavits.
Page 23 of 33
Sec. 23 of RA 9165, the prohibition
against plea bargaining on drug cases, is
invalid for being contrary to the rule-
making authority of the Supreme Court.
No. The excuse of the witnesses about the
fear for their lives is also unsubstantiated
and it was incumbent upon them to
inform the RTC and the public prosecutor
of their new addresses. In fact, after the
dismissal of the cases, they went to the
public prosecutor voluntarily. They could
have done so anytime from the pre-trial
until the last day given to the prosecution
to present evidence. All this time,
accused-appellant was incarcerated and
deprived of his freedom. In instances
where the State has been given every
opportunity to present its evidence, yet it
failed to do so, it cannot claim to have
been deprived of a fair opportunity to
present its evidence. Such failure and the
resulting dismissal of the case is deemed
an acquittal of the accused even if it
is the accused who moved for the
dismissal of the case.
Yes. The MTCC allowed prosecution's
belated submission of Judicial Affidavits
despite the repeated postponements of the
scheduled pre-trial. To recall, the pre-trial
was reset thrice, in spite of that, they still
failed to submit their Judicial Affidavits
within the time prescribed by the Rule. Its
excuse-
for whatever reason”-cannot be
considered
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
People v. Caoili, G.R. The variance doctrine, which allows the
No. 196342, August conviction of an accused for a crime
8, proved which is different from but
2017 necessarily included in the crime charged,
is embodied in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec.
5, Rule 120.
Under Sec. 19, Rule 119, when it
becomes manifest at any time before
judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense and the
accused cannot be convicted of the
offense charged or any other offense
necessarily included therein, the accused
shall not be discharged if there appears
good cause to detain him. In such case,
the court shall commit the accused to
answer for the proper offense and dismiss
the original case upon the filing of the
proper Information.
Corpus, Jr. v. Rule 116, Sec. 11 of the Revised Rules of
Pamular, G.R. 186403, Criminal Procedure pertains to a
September suspension of an arraignment in case of a
5, 2018 pending petition for review before the
DOJ. It does not suspend the execution of
a warrant of arrest for the purpose of
acquiring jurisdiction over the person of
an accused.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Accused was charged with rape through
sexual intercourse (Art. 266-A, in relation
to Art. 266-B, RPC, as amended).
Evidence show, however, that the accused
did not lie with AAA, but instead he
kissed her lips, touched and mashed her
breast, and inserted his finger into her
vagina and made a push and pull
movement . The RTC convicted accused
as charged. The CA set aside the RTC
decision and remanded the case and for
accused to be charged and tried of rape by
sexual assault.
In the assailed February 26, 2009
Order, Judge Pamular denied Corpus'
motion to defer or suspend arraignment
and further proceedings. Petitioners claim
that he should have suspended action on
the issuance of a warrant considering the
pendency of their Petition for Review
before the Department of Justice, citing
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals and
Tolentino v. Bonifacio as their bases.
Furthermore, they also assert that the
assailed Order defies Rule 116, Sec. 11 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Page 24 of 33
sufficient to allow the belated submission
of the Judicial Affidavits.
W/N accused could be No, insofar as the first issue is concerned.
convicted of rape by sexual An accused charged with rape by sexual
assault, even though he was intercourse cannot be found guilty of
charged with rape through rape by sexual assault, even though the
sexual intercourse. latter crime was proven during trial due to
the substantial distinctions in their
W/N accused could be elements.
convicted of lascivious
conduct under Sec. 5 (b), Yes, insofar as the second issue is
RA concerned. Since it is undisputed that at
7610 the time of the commission of the
. lascivious act, AAA was 14 years, 1
month and 10 days old, Sec. 5 (b), RA
W/N the CA was correct in 7610, applies.
remanding the case to the
RTC for the purpose of filing No, insofar the third issue is concerned.
the proper Information on the The rule is applicable only before
basis of Sec. 19, Rule 119. judgment has been rendered. In this case,
the trial has been concluded. The RTC
already returned a guilty verdict, which
W/N the arraignment of has Yes. been reviewed
The Court’s rulebymerely
the CA whosea
requires
decision, in turn, has been elevated
petitioner Amado Corpus, Jr. maximum 60-day period of suspension to the
SC.
may proceed after the lapse counted from the filing of a petition with
of the maximum 60- day the reviewing office. Consequently,
period suspension. therefore, after the expiration of the 60-
day period, "the trial court is bound to
arraign the accused or to deny the motion
to defer arraignment. Petitioners jointly
filed their Petition for Review before the
Department of Justice on February 9,
2009. Thus, the 60- day period has already
lapsed since April 10,
2009. Hence, respondent judge can now
continue with the arraignment and further
proceedings with regard to petitioner
Corpus.
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
Pendoy v. Court of When two or more offenses are charged in
Appeals, G.R. No. a single complaint or information but the
228223, June 10, 2019 accused fails to object to it before trial,
the court may convict the appellant of as
many as are charged and proved, and
impose on him the penalty for each
offense, setting out separately the findings
of fact and law in each offense.
Villa v. Fernandez, An accused's right to “have a speedy,
G.R. No. 219548, impartial, and public trial” is guaranteed
October 17, in criminal cases by Sec. 14(2) of Article
2018 III of the 1987 Constitution. Its salutary
objective being to assure that an innocent
person may be free from the anxiety and
expense of a court litigation or, if
otherwise, of having his or her guilt
determined within the shortest possible
time compatible with the presentation and
consideration of whatsoever legitimate
defense he or she may interpose. Thus, the
right to speedy trial is deemed violated
when the proceeding is attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays; or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for
and secured; or when without cause or
justifiable motive a long period of time is
allowed to elapse without the party having
one’s case tried.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Pendoy was charged for Rape in an
Information filed before the RTC. The
Information designated the offense
charged as one of Rape under Art. 266-A
(1) (a), RPC. A perusal of the allegations
therein would clearly show that Pendoy
was actually charged with two offenses-
rape: rape through sexual intercourse and
lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b), RA
7610 (because the victim is a minor).
The present case stemmed from the death
of Leonardo "Lenny" H. Villa, a neophyte-
participant at the initiation rites of the
Aquila Legis Fraternity in 1991. Because
of his death, an Amended Information
charging 35 members of the Aquila with
the crime of Homicide was filed. Out of
the 35 members,
26 members were charged with homicide
in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91), while
9 members were charged with homicide
in Criminal Case No. C-38340. The 26
members were jointly tried, while the trial
against the remaining 9 members was held
in abeyance. After the promulgation of the
decision against the 26 members who
were tried separately, the RTC-Caloocan
City ordered for: (a) the issuance of
warrants of arrest against five of the nine
members, namely: Enrico de Vera III (de
Vera), Anselmo Adriano (Adriano),
Marcus Joel Ramos (Ramos), Fernandez,
and Cabangon; and (b) the arraignment of
four of the nine members, namely:
Crisanto Saruca, Jr. (Saruca), Manuel
Escalona II (Escalona), Reynaldo
Concepcion (Concepcion), and Ampil. All
of the nine members entered a plea of not
guilty. Fernandez, Ampil, and
W/N Pendoy may he
convicted to both rape
through sexual lascivious
conduct under Sec. 5 (b), RA
7610.
W/N the CA committed
grave, serious and reversible
errors in finding that the
delay in the proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 38340 is
of such nature that violates
the right of respondents to
speedy trial.
Page 25 of 33
Yes. Inasmuch as Pendoy failed to object
and file a motion to quash anchored on the
ground that more than one offense is
charged Information before he pleads to
the same, the effect is that he is deemed to
have waived such defect and he can be
convicted of rape and lascivious conduct
under Sec. 5 (b), RA 7610.
No. In the present petition, Villa insists
that the right to speedy trial of Fernandez,
Ampil, and Cabangon was not violated
because the reasons for the delay were
attributable to them, and they failed to
timely invoke their right, unlike Ramos,
Saruca, Escalona, and Adriano. Contrary
to Villa's assertion, the CA's ruling, as
supported by the records, reveals that the
following circumstances delayed the
proceedings against Fernandez, Ampil,
and Cabangon: (1) the prosecution failed
to comply with the Order of the RTC
Branch 130 dated 21 September 1995,
reiterated in another Order dated
27
December 1995, requiring it to secure the
records of Criminal Case No. 38340(91)
from the CA; (2) from Ampil's and
Cabangon's arraignment on 29
November
1993 and Fernandez's arraignment on
3
December 1993, the initial trial of the case
commenced only on 28 March 2005, or
more than 11 years later; (3) the RTC
Branch
130 resolved Ampil's motion to quash
filed on 10 October 1994, and Fernandez's
omnibus motion filed on 19 October
1994, only on 8 March 2005 or more than
10 years after the motions were filed; and
(4) the RTC
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
Cabangon filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss
with the RTC Branch 130, alleging that:
(1) their constitutional right to a speedy
trial was violated because the suit has
been pending for more than 15 years, or
since the filing of the Amended
Information on 15 November
1991; (2) the CA's Decision dismissing
Criminal Case No. C-38340 against
Ramos, Saruca, Escalona, and Adriano
due to the violation of their right to
speedy trial should also apply to them
because they are similarly situated with
Ramos, Saruca, Escalona, and Adriano;
and (3) their participation in the initial
stages of the trial did not preclude the
filing of a motion to dismiss on the
ground of violation of their right to
speedy trial. RTC Branch 130 issued an
Order denying the Joint Motion to
Dismiss filed by Fernandez, Ampil, and
Cabangon. CA reversed the findings of the
RTC Branch 130 and dismissed Criminal
Case No. C-38340 against Fernandez,
Ampil, and Cabangon. The CA held that
the RTC Branch 130 committed grave
abuse of discretion in denying the Joint
Motion to Dismiss filed by Fernandez,
Ampil, and Cabangon, because it failed to
recognize and uphold their constitutional
right to speedy trial.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Page 26 of 33
Branch 130 resolved Fernandez, Ampil,
and
Cabangon's Joint Motion to Dismiss filed
on
5 December 2006, only on 9 January
2012,
or more than five years after the motion
was filed. Moreover, the RTC Branch
130, in its Order, stated the reasons for the
delay of the proceedings before it, such
as: (1) the dismissal from the service of
Judge Hamoy; (2) Judge Sardillo's heavy
workload; (3) the CA's order restraining
the proceeding of the case; and (4) the
Motion for Transfer of Trial Venue and
the Motion for Inhibition filed by the
prosecution. Clearly, the reasons for the
delay of the proceedings against
Fernandez, Ampil, and Cabangon are not
attributable to them. Moreover, the
reasons for the delay in the proceedings
against Ramos, Saruca, Escalona, and
Adriano are similar to the reasons for the
delay in the proceedings against
Fernandez, Ampil, and Cabangon. In
Villareal, we held that the prosecution's
failure to comply with the Orders of the
trial court and the inaction of the trial
court for almost seven years amount to a
violation of the right to speedy trial of
Ramos, Saruca, Escalona, and Adriano. In
this case, not only were the reasons for the
delay in the proceedings against Ramos,
Saruca, Escalona, and Adriano present as
to Fernandez, Ampil, and Cabangon, but
also more unjustifiable circumstances
added delay to the proceedings against
them, such as the RTC's delayed
resolution of the motions to quash and
motion to dismiss. Thus, there is more
reason to apply our ruling in Villareal to
Fernandez, Ampil, and Cabangon, and
find that their right to speedy trial has
been violated.
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
Javier vs. Gonzales, The promulgation of judgment in
G.R. No. 193150, absentia is mandatory pursuant to
January 23, the fourth paragraph of Sec. 6, Rule 120
2017 of the Rules of Court which states that,
“In case the, accused fails to appear at the
scheduled date of promulgation of
judgment despite notice, the
promulgation shall be made by
recording the judgment in the criminal
docket and serving him a copy thereof at
his last known address or thru his
counsel.”
Sec. 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure allows a court to
promulgate a judgment in absentia and
gives the accused the opportunity to file
an appeal within a period of fifteen (15)
days from notice to the latter or the latter's
counsel; otherwise, the decision becomes
final.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Pepito Gonzales was charged with murder W/N Judge Buted’s decision
with frustrated murder and multiple convicting respondent was
attempted murder when he allegedly validly promulgated?
threw a grenade inside the house of
Leonardo Hermenigildo. The RTC
issued an Order setting the promulgation
of the case on December 15, 2005 yet
Gonzales failed to appear on such
scheduled date. It was the rescheduled to
December 22, 2005 but respondent still
failed to appear without any justification
consequently, Judge Buted appointed a
counsel de oficio in lieu of Atty. Benitez.
The Branch Clerk of Court thereafter read
the dispositive portion of Judge Buted's
Decision in the presence of the public
prosecutor, the counsel de oficio, and
the heirs of Macatiag
promulgating that Gonzales is convicted
of murder charges.
Page 27 of 33
Yes. The Court ruled in accordance with
the provision stated under Sec. 6, Rule
120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure allows a court to promulgate a
judgment in absentia and gives the
accused the opportunity to file an
appeal within a period of fifteen (15) days
from notice to the latter or the latter's
counsel; otherwise, the decision becomes
final. The records also show that the
respondent was properly informed of the
promulgation scheduled on December 15,
2005, whereby the Return of Service
states that the Order and Notice of
Promulgation were personally delivered to
respondent's address. During the
promulgation of judgment on 15
December
2005, when respondent did not appear
despite notice, and without offering any
justification for his absence, the trial court
should have immediately promulgated its
Decision. The promulgation of judgment
in absentia is mandatory pursuant to the
fourth paragraph of Sec. 6, Rule 120 of
the Rules of Court which states that, “In
case the, accused fails to appear at the
scheduled date of promulgation of
judgment despite notice, the
promulgation shall be made by
recording the judgment in the criminal
docket and serving him a copy thereof at
his last known address or thru his
counsel.” Moreover, if the accused has
been notified of the date of promulgation,
but does not appear, the promulgation
of judgment in absentia is warranted.
This rule is intended to obviate a
repetition of the situation in the past when
the judicial process could be subverted by
the accused by jumping bail to frustrate
the promulgation of judgment. The
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
People vs. Bejim, G.R. Under Sec. 4, Rule 120, n there is
No. 208835, January variance between the offense charge in the
19, complaint or information and that proved,
2018 and the offense as charged is included in
or necessarily includes the offense proved,
the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved which is included in the
offense charged, or of the offense charged
which is included in the offense proved.
Under Sec. 5 thereof, an offense charged
necessarily includes the offense proved
when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the
complaint or information, constitute the
latter. And an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of
the former constitute or form part of those
constituting the latter.
Punongbayan-Visitacion Petition for certiorari treated as an appeal
v. People, G.R. No. only applies when (a) when public
194214, January 10, welfare and the advancement of public
2019 policy dictates; (b) when the broader
interest of justice so requires; (c) when
the writs issued are null and void; or (d)
when the questioned order amounts to an
oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
On February 19, 2007, appellant was
charged before the RTC of La Trinidad,
Benguet, with seven counts of statutory
rape under seven separate Informations.
“AAA,”
”BBB” and “CCC” were physically
examined by Dra. Bernadette Valdez. The
result of her examination which was
reduced into writing shows no evident
injury at the time of her examination
though her medical evaluation does not
exclude possible sexual abuse. Appellant
denied the accusations against him
claiming that he was not in the house of
“CCC” when the alleged incidents
happened in 200l.
After trial, the RTC rendered on
December
9, 2010 its Consolidated Judgment finding
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of seven counts of rape. Nevertheless, the
Court of Appeals
Petitioner affirmed the
Marilou decision of
Punongbayan-
the
Visitacion, acting on the advice of this
RTC with modifications. Hence, her
appeal.
counsel, wrote a letter to private
respondent Carmelita P. Punongbayan to
answer the concerns Carmelita embodied
in the July 19 memo to Security Bank as
well as the July 23, memo to the office of
the treasurer. Punongbayad got insulted
with the letter and has filed a libel case
against Visitacion.
W/N the accused-appellant
may be found guilty of Acts
of Lasciviousness under
Article
336 of the RPC in relation to
Sec. 5 of RA 7610 in
Criminal Case Nos. 07-CR-
6765; 07- CR-6766; 07-CR-
6768; 07-CR-
6769 and 07-CR-
6770.
W/N Petition for certiorari
can be treated as an appeal.
W/N Petitioner can avail
remedies when she was not
present during the
promulgation.
Page 28 of 33
only essential elements for its validity are
as follows: (a) the judgment was recorded
in the criminal docket; and (b) a copy
thereof was served upon the accused or
counsel. Hence, the promulgation of
respondent’s conviction is valid.
Yes. In the criminal cases mentioned,
there is neither clear showing nor direct
proof of penile penetration or that
appellant’s penis made contact with the
labia of the victims, which is an essential
element of the crime of rape. Thus,
appellant's conviction for rape cannot be
sustained. Nonetheless, appellant can be
convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Sec.
5 of RA 7610, which was the offense
proved though he was charged with rape
through sexual intercourse in relation to
RA
7610, applying the variance doctrine
under Sec. 4 in relation to Sec. 5 of Rule
120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.33 The
crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Sec.
5 of RA 7610, which was the offense
proved is included in rape, the offense
Yes.
charged.The Court had extensively
differentiated an appeal from certiorari.
Thus, it is settled that appeal and
certiorari are two different remedies,
which are generally not interchangeable,
available to litigants. However, the
present case fits in the exception.
The Court finds that the interest
of
substantial justice warrants the relaxation
of the rules and treats Visitacion's petition
for
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
Promulgation of judgment. − The
judgment is promulgated by reading it in
the presence of the accused and any judge
of the court in which it was rendered. If
the judgment is for conviction and the
failure of the accused to appear was
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the
remedies available in these rules
against the judgment and the court shall
order his arrest. However, he shall state
the reasons for his absence at the
scheduled promulgation and if he proves
that his absence was for a justifiable
cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within fifteen (15) days from
notice.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
RTC Convicted Visitacion of libel with 1
year imprisonment and payment of
P within the reglementary period to file an
3,000,000.00 for moral
damages.
Aggrieved, Visitacion filed a petition for
certiorari with a prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary injunction before the CA
stating that she was not present during the
promulgation of her
case.
The CA dismissed Visitacion’s petition
stating that the promulgation of the
judgment despite Visitacion's absence was
proper. It explained that under Rule 120,
Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court, trial
in absentia is permitted should the
accused fail to appear during the date of
promulgation despite due notice. The CA
noted that Visitacion was notified of the
scheduled promulgation through her
previous counsel and was in fact able to
file a motion to defer promulgation of
judgment. Further, the appellate court
pointed out that the sheriff visited
Visitacion at her house on several
occasions but she was conveniently not
around during those times. Thus, it
believed that her excuse for her
absence was specious.
Page 29 of 33
certiorari as an appeal. This is especially
true considering that the same was filed
appeal. It is noteworthy that in the
litany of cases where the Court did
not consider certiorari as an appeal, the
former remedy was filed beyond the 15-
day period to interpose an appeal.
Furthermore, the matters raised in the
present petition warrant the relaxation of
the rules concerning issues raised for the
first time on appeal especially considering
the jurisprudential developments since
the RTC decision and the needs for
substantial justice. In liberally applying
the rules in the case at bar, the Court does
not wish to brush aside its importance;
rather, it emphasizes the nature of the said
rules as tools to facilitate the attainment
of substantial justice.
Yes. In case the accused fails to appear at
the scheduled date of promulgation of
judgment despite notice, the promulgation
shall be made by recording the judgment
in the criminal docket and serving him a
copy thereof at his last known address or
thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the
failure of the accused to appear was
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the
remedies available in these rules against
the judgment and the court shall order his
arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of judgment, however, the
accused may surrender and file a motion
for leave of court to avail of these
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his
absence at the scheduled promulgation
and if he proves that his
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
People v. Adajar, G.R. Under Sec. 4, Rule 120, n there is
No. 231306, June 17, variance between the offense charge in the
2019 complaint or information and that proved,
and the offense as charged is included in
or necessarily includes the offense proved,
the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved which is included in the
offense charged, or of the offense charged
which is included in the offense proved.
Under Sec. 5 thereof, an offense charged
necessarily includes the offense proved
when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the
complaint or information, constitute the
latter. And an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of
the former constitute or form part of those
constituting the latter.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
Adajar was charged with 4 counts of rape W/N CA erred in the
for raping a minor. He violated the 10- imposition of the penalty.
year old in different occasions and in
different modes like insertion of his penis
and insertion of his finger to the vagina of
the girl.
In one of the Informations of the case,
the penalty imposed by the appellate
court two (2) years, four (4) months and
one (1) day of prision correccional as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Page 30 of 33
absence was for a justifiable cause, he
shall be allowed to avail of said remedies
within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Yes. The evidences presented during trial
shows that Adajar committed sexual
assault against AAA by inserting his
finger inside her vagina. The Information
against Adajar, however, did not accuse
him of inserting his finger inside AAA's
vagina but only charged him with holding
AAA’s private parts and kissing her on the
lips. This nonetheless constitutes acts of
lasciviousness.
Thus, instead of applying the penalty
under Article 266-B of the RPC, which
is prision mayor, the proper penalty
should be that provided in Sec. 5 (b),
RA 7610, which is reclusion temporal in
its medium period. This is because AAA
was below twelve (12) years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense,
and that the act of inserting his finger in
AAA's private part undeniably amounted
to "lascivious conduct.” Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum term of the indeterminate
penalty shall be that which could be
properly imposed under the law, which is
fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and
twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal.
On the other hand, the minimum term
shall be within the range of the penalty
next lower in degree, which is reclusion
temporal in its minimum period, or twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to fourteen
(14) years and eight (8) months. Adajar
should, therefore, be meted the
indeterminate sentence of twelve (12)
years, ten (10) months and twenty-one
(21) days
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020) Page 31 of 33

of reclusion temporal, as minimum,

to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and
twenty (20) days of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. As for the
damages awarded, moreover, the Court
deems it necessary to fix the civil
indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary
damages at P50,000.00 each, in line with
our ruling in Tulagan.

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW

JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
NEW TRIAL AND RECONSIDERATION (RULE 121)
CASE DOCTRINE FACTS
Valderrama v. Except for motions which the court may The city prosecutor filed before the MeTC
People, G.R. No. act on without prejudice to the adverse of Quezon City, 4 Informations for grave
220054, March party, all motions must set a hearing. Thisoral defamation against Deogracia M.
27, 2017 includes motions for reconsideration. Valderrama
During the trial on April 12, 2012, Vigden
The notice of hearing on the motion was present but the private prosecutor was
must be directed to the adverse party and absent despite notice.
must inform him or her of the time and
date of the hearing. Failure to comply The prosecution failed to formally offer
with these mandates renders the motion its evidence within five (5) days from the
fatally defective, equivalent to a useless hearing.
scrap of paper.
Vigden filed a Very Urgent Motion to
Reconsider (Motion to Reconsider)
explaining that the private prosecutor
failed to appear because he had to manage
his high blood pressure.
Valderrama filed an opposition arguing
that the public prosecutor did not give his
conformity to Vigden’s Motion to
Reconsider, in violation of Rule 110, Sec.
5 of the Rules of Court, and the Motion to
Reconsider's Notice of Hearing "was
defective because it was not addressed to
the parties, and did not specify the date
and time of the hearing."
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
ISSUE/S
W/N the MeTC committed
grave abuse of discretion in
granting the Motion to
Reconsider to allow the
prosecution to continue its
presentation of evidence.
Page 32 of 33
RULING
Yes. The notice of hearing on the motion
must be directed to the adverse party and
must inform him or her of the time and
date of the hearing. Failure to comply
with these mandates renders the motion
fatally defective, equivalent to a useless
scrap of paper.
The notice notice did not comply with
Rule
15, Secs. 4 and 5 of the Rules of
Court:
Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for
motions which the court may act upon
without prejudicing the rights of the
adverse party, every written motion shall
be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard
and the notice of the hearing thereof shall
be served in such a manner as to ensure its
receipt by the other party at least three (3)
days before the date of hearing, unless the
court for good cause sets the hearing on
shorter notice.
Sec. 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice
of hearing shall be addressed to all parties
concerned, and shall specify the time and
date of the hearing which must not be
later
JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2017-2020)
Guelos v. People, G.R. Rules of Court proscribe the availment of
No. 177000, June 19, the remedy of new trial on the ground of
2017 newly discovered evidence during the
appeal to the SC.
CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY − COLLEGE OF LAW
MeTC granted Vigden’s Motion
to
Reconsider.
Two separate Informations were
filed before the RTC against the granted.
petitioners for Direct Assault Upon an
Agent of a Person in Authority with
Homicide. The petitioners pleaded not
guilty to the foregoing charges.
Thereafter, the joint trial of the two cases
ensued. The prosecution and the defense
presented their respective versions of
the case. The petitioners and the Police
officer had different versions with regard
to what happened in the incident.
RTC ruled against the petitioner
convicting Nester and Alfredo guilty of
Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person
in Authority with Homicide.
The CA affirmed the decision in
toto.
Hence, petition to review was raised
incorporated with a motion for a new trial
based on alleged new and material
evidence impugning the credibility
of PO2
Carandang. They averred that in the case
for Direct Assault with Attempted
Homicide which PO2 Carandang also
filed against Nestor before the MTC of
Tanauan, Batangas his testimony therein
was different from his testimony in the
case at bar.
Page 33 of 33
than ten (10) days after the filing of
the motion.
These requirements are mandatory.
W/N A new trial must be No. The petitioners assert that said
testimony should be considered as new
and material evidence which thereby
makes the findings of the trial court in the
instant case as manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible. Thus, the
petitioners moved for a new trial on the
ground of alleged newly discovered
evidence without, however, necessarily
withdrawing their petition.
At the outset, the petitioners; motion for
new trial must be denied.
Under Sec. 14 of Rule 124, a motion for
new trial on the ground of newly
discovered evidence may be filed at any
time after the appeal from the lower court
has been perfected and before the
judgment of the CA convicting the
appellant becomes final. Further, Rule 45,
Sec. 1 clearly provides that a motion for
new trial is not among the remedies which
may be entertained together with a
petition for appeal on certiorari.
More importantly, the alleged newly
discovered evidence is not worthy of the
Court’s consideration.