Remedial Law I

Atty. Zehan Loren Tocao, REB

• General Principles
Concept of Remedial or Procedural Law

• Alfonso Singson Cortal vs Inaki Larrazabal, G.R. No. 199107. August 30,
2017

• Vivencio, Eugenio, Joji and Myrna, All Surnamed Mateo vs. Department of
Agrarian Reform, Land Bank of the Philippines and Mariano T. Rodriguez, et
al., G.R. No. 186339, February 15, 2017

• Priscilla Alma Jose v. Ramon C. Javellana, et al., G.R. No. 158239, January
25, 2012
• Nature of remedial law
Ateneo v. De La Rosa, G. R. No. L-286, March 28, 1946
• Substantive law vis a vis remedial law
Rodante Guyamin, et.al. v. Jacinto Flores, et.al., G.R. No.
202189, April 25, 2017
Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2086, March 8, 1949
• Procedural laws applicable to actions pending at the
time of promulgation

• Panay Railways Inc. v. Heva Management and Development

Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 154061, January 25, 2012

• Liberal construction of procedural rules

Felix Martos, et al. v. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No.
192650, October 24, 2012
Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual v. Sps. Marilyn Lim, et al., G.R.
No. 191837, September 19, 2012
• Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao Corporation, G.R. No.

159593, October 12, 2006

• Salvador Estipona, Jr. v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017
• SM Land, Inc., et al. v. City of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 197151, October 22, 2012
• Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, June 30, 2006

• In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of
Lilibeth Ladaga v. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, et al., G.R. No. 189689/G.R.
No. 189691, November 13, 2012
• Nature of Philippine Courts
• BP Oil and Chemicals International Philippines, Inc., Petitioner vs.Total
Distribution Logistic Systems, Inc., Respondents, G.R. No. 214406, February
6, 2017

• Classification of Philippine Courts

• Principle of judicial Hierarchy

• Senator Leila de Lima vs Hon. Juanita Guerrero, et al, G.R. No. 229781,
October 10, 2017
• Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007
• Delos Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 138297, January 27, 2006
• COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002
• Transcendental importance
• United Claimants Association of NEA v. National Electrification Administration, G.R. No.
187107, January 31, 2012

• Doctrine of non-interference or judicial stability

• Sinter Corporation and Phividec Industrial Authority v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light
Co., Inc., G.R. No. 127371, April 25, 2002

• Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction

• Omictin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007

• Republic v. Lacap, 517 SCRA 255 [2007]

• Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction/continuing jurisdiction
• Abad, et al. v. RTC of Manila, et al., G.R. No. L-65505, October 12, 1987
• Jurisdiction
Vivencio Villagracia v Fifth Sharia District Court GR
188832, April 23, 2014
Pacific Rehouse Corpo v. CA GR 199687 and GR
201537, March 24, 2014
Spouses Sabitsana v Juanito Muertegul GR 181359
August 5, 2013
Jesus Garcia v The Honorable Ray Alan Drilon GR
179267, June 25, 2013
• Over the parties
• How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
• How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired

• Optima Realty Corporation v. Hertz Phil., Exclusive, Inc., G.R.

No. 183035, January 9, 2013
• Afdal & Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379, December 1, 2010
• How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

• Joseph Regalado vs Emma de la Rama vda. de la Pena, Jesusa de la Pena, Johnny

de la Pena, Johanna de la Pena, Jose de la Pena,

• Jessica de la Pena, and Jaime Antonio de la Pena, G.R. No. 202448, December 13,
2017
• Union Bank of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Regional Agrarian Reform
Officer, G.R. No. 200369, March 1, 2017
• Jonathan Y. Dee v. Harvest All Investment Limited, et al., v. Alliance Select Foods
• Fe V. Rapsing, et al. v. Hon. Judge Maximino R.Ables, et al., G.R. No. 171855,
October 15, 2012
• Mendoza v. Germino & Germino, G.R. No. 165676, November 22, 2010
• Remedios Antonino v. The Register of Deeds of Makati City, et al., G.R. No.
185663, June 20, 2012
• Loloy Unduran, et.al. v. Ramon Aberarturi, et.al., G.R. No. 181284, April 18, 2017
• Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
• Lasmis v. Dong-E, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010

• Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction

• De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 166 [1995]
• Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29
• Atty. Cudiamat, et al. v. Batangas Savings & Loan Bank, et al., G.R. No. 182403, March 9, 2010

• Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment

• First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 171989, July 4, 2007

• Over the issues

•
• TGN Realty Corporation v. Villa Teresa Homeowners Association (VTHA), G.R. No. 164795, April 19,
2017
• De Joya v. Marquez, et al., G.R. No. 163416, January 31, 2006

• Over the res or property in litigation

• Ferdinand Marcos, Jr, v. Republic, G.R. No. 189505, March 12, 2014
•
• Jurisdiction of Courts
• Supapo v. Sps. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015

• Supreme Court
• Court of Appeals

• Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 168065/G.R. No. 168070.
September 6, 2017

• Sandiganbayan
• Regional Trial Courts

• Philippine Bank of Communications, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Honorio
E. Guanlao, Jr., In his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City,
Branch 56, Traveller Kids Inc., Cely L. Gabaldon-Co and Jeannie L. Lugmoc, Respondents,
G.R. No. 218901, February 15, 2017

• Mercedita C. Coombs v.Victoria C. Castaneda, Virgilio Veloso Santos, Sps. Pancho & Edith
Leviste, BPI Family Savings Bank and the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City, G.R. No.
192353 March 15, 2017
• Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Court

• Shari’a Court

• The Municipality Of Tangkal, Province Of Lanao Del Norte, Petitioner, Vs. Hon.
Rasad B. Balindong, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Shari’a District Court,
4th Judicial

• District, Marawi City, and Heirs Of The Late Macalabo Alompo, represented
by Sultan Dimnang B. Alompo, Respondents, G.R. No. 193340, January 11,
2017

• Jurisdiction over Small Claims

• A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma Mondejar, et al., G.R. No. 200804, January 22,
2014
•
• Rule on Summary Procedure

• Fiorello R. Jose v. Roberto Alfuerto, et al., G.R. No. 69380, November 26, 2012

• Republic of the Philippines v. Valentina Espinosa, Registrar of Deeds of Negros

Occidental et.al., G.R. No. 186603, April 5, 2017
•
• Barangay conciliation

• 1. Jose Audie Abagatnan et al vs.Spouses Jonathan Clarito And Elsa Clarito, G.R. No.
211966. August 7, 2017
• 2. Gegare v. CA, G.R. No. 83907, September 13, 1989
• 3. Sanchez v. Tupaz, G.R. No. 76690, February 29, 1988
• 4. Vda. De Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L-63277, November 29, 1983
• 5. Peregrina v. Panis, 133 SCRA 75
• 6. Librada M. Aquino v. Ernest Aure, G.R. No. 153567, February 18, 2008
• 7. Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel v. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012
• Totality rule
Flores v. Mallare-Phillips, 144 SCRA 377
• Revised Rules on Continuous Trial
 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (RULE 110 to RULE 127)

• RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Jurisdiction Determined by Allegations in
Information
Amando Inocentes v. People, et al GR 205963-64, July 7, 2016
• Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255
• Khitri v People GR 210192 July 4, 2016
• David v Marquez GR 209859 June 5, 2017
• Valderama v People GR 220054 March 27, 2017
• Joshua Casanas v. People GR 223833 December 11, 2017
• People v. Feliciano, Jr GR 196735 August 3, 2016
• SEC. 1. Institution of criminal actions –

A. Where P.I. required – file complaint (complaint-affidavit) with

proper officer for the conduct of P.I., Sec. 1(a)
- P.I. mandatory where penalty prescribed is at least
4 years, 2 months, 1 day
RTC jurisdiction: more than 6 years imprisonment

- Proper officer: City/Provincial Prosecutor, Regional State

Prosecutor, DOJ, Ombudsman

- Exception: Warrantless arrest/Inquest, Sec. 6, Rule 112

• B. All other offenses (not requiring P.I.)
•
• C. In Manila and chartered cities (RTC, MetTC) – file complaint with the City Prosecutor,
Sec. 1(b)
•
• (No direct filing in MetTC Manila, chartered cities)
• Exception: Unless otherwise provided in charter
•
• Interruption of prescription of offense (statute of limitations),
•
• Sec. 1, last par.; Cf. Sec. 3(g), Rule 117 (Quashal of complaint/
• information where criminal action/liability extringuished
• Article 90, R.P.C. – Prescription of crime
• Article 91, R.P.C. – Computation of prescription of offenses
• Rule: Filing of complaint with prosecutor’s office will suspend
• running of prescriptive period
•
• People v. Olarte, G.R. No. L-22465, Feb. 28, 1967
(J.B.L. Reyes ponencia; doctrinal)
• Exception: “unless otherwise provided in special laws”

• Act No. 3326: for violations of special acts and municipal

Ordinances

• Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277

• Sanrio Co., Ltd. v. Lim, G.R. No. 168662, Feb. 19, 2008
• SEC v. Intrport Resources Corp., G.R. No. 135808, Oct. 6, 2008
• Panaguiton Jr. v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008
• SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions

• A. All criminal actions prosecuted under the direction and control

• of a public prosecutor (City Prosecutor, Provincial Prosecutor,
Regional State Prosecutor, State Prosecutor)

• Baviera v. Paglinawan, G.R. No. 168380, Feb. 8, 2007

• Ledesma v. CA, 278 SCRA 656
Cf. Crespo v. Mogul, Supra
• Republic v. Sunga, L-38634, June 20, 1988
• Pinote v. Ayco, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944, Dec. 13, 2005
• Caes v. IAC, 179 SCRA 54 (J. Cruz)
• B. A private prosecutor, under following conditions:
(a) heavy work schedule of public prosecutor or lack of public
prosecutors
• (b) with authority in writing from Chief of Prosecution Office
• or Regional State Prosecution
• (c) subject to approval by the Court
• (d) authority may be revoked/withdrawn by public prosecutor
• (e) to represent private offended party for recovery of civil liability, Sec.
16; Cf. Sec. 1, Rule 111
• People v. Dacudao, 170 SCRA 489
•
•
• C. In MTC/MCTC, offended party, any peace officer, public officer
charged with enforcement of law violated (OCA Circular No. 39-2002, restored this
in Sec. 5)

• D. In appeal of criminal cases before CA, SC, the Office of Solicitor

General (OSG) is appellate counsel for the People (Sec. 35(1), 1987 Administrative
Code)
• People v. Dacudao, Supra.
•
• Only upon complaint by offended party in: (Private crimes, cannot be
prosecuted de oficio)

• A. Adultery and concubinage – by the offended spouse, and must

include all guilty parties
•No prosecution: if offended party consented to offense or
pardoned the offenders
•B. Seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness:
(a) by offended party or her parents, grand parents, guardian
•No prosecution: if offender is expressly pardoned by offended
party or parents, grandparents, guardian
•(b) Minor offended party has right to initiate prosecution
independently of her parents, grandparents, or guardian
•Unless: minor is incompetent or incapable of initiating
(c) by minor’s parents, grandparents, guardian (exclusive of all
other persons and exercised successively in that order),
where minor offended party fails to file complaint
(b) State shall initiate criminal action, where:
1. offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before
she can file complaint; and
2. offended party has no known parents, grandparents or
guardian
(Note: Under R.A. 8353, rape is no longer a crime against
chastity and can now be prosecuted de oficio)
• C. Defamation (imputation of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, and acts of
lasciviousness) – by offended party
• D. Libel, slander, defamation – by offended party (Article 360, Par. 5, R.P.C.)

• SEC. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action –

• Where civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted
• In the criminal action, pursuant to Rule 111

• Community Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) v. Talavera, 455 SCRA 34

Cabral v. Puno, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-41692, April 30, 1976
Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,452 SCRA 736

• SEC. 2. The complaint or information – Form

• SEC. 3. Complaint defined –
- Sworn written statement; subscribed by offended party, any
peace officer, public officer charged with enforcement of
the law violated (Cf. OCA Circular No. 39-2002)

• SEC. 4. Information defined –

- Accusation in writing; subscribed by the prosecutor; filed with the Court
• SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information –
• SEC. 13. Duplicity of the offense –
• Right of accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
• accusation against him, Sec. 14(2), Article III, 1987
• Constitution; Sec. 1(b), Rule 115
• Complaint or information may be quashed if “it does not
• conform substantially to the prescribed form”, Sec. 3(e),
• Rule 117
•
• People v. Mendoza, 175 SCRA 743
• Cf. People v. Aspili, 191 SCRA 530
• Licyayo v. People, G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008
• SEC. 7. Name of the accused –
• SEC. 8. Designation of the offense: Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
expressly and specifically alleged in complaint or information

• People v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 136164, April 20, 2001

• Cf. Old rule: Qualifying circumstance not alleged but proved will be considered as
aggravating
•
• SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation –
• Where information fails to allege qualifying or aggravating
• circumstances, same cannot be considered in imposition
• of penalty

– People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 132923, June 6, 2002

– Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008
– People v. Ubina, G.R. No. 176349, July 10, 2007
– People v Danilo Feliciano GR 196735 May 5, 2014
• SEC. 10. Place of commission of the offense –
•
• Lopez v. The City Judge, Supra.
• People v. Taroy, 657 SCRA 349
•
• Where place of commission is essential element of offense, it must be alleged with particularity (e.g., Robbery in an
inhabited house)
•
• SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense –
• Precise date of offense not necessary to be stated in complaint or information
• Exception: When date is a material ingredient of offense
• (e.g., Infanticide, which requires victim to be less than three days old; physical injuries)
•
• SEC. 12. Name of the offended party –
• Juridical person as offended party: sufficient to state its name
• U.S. v. Kepner, 1 Phil. 519
• U.S. v. Lahoylahoy, 38 Phil. 330
• (Also in Libel, People v. Uba, 99 Phil. 134)
•
• SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution –
• Amendment as matter of right (without leave of court) – at any
• time before accused enters his plea
• Amendment before plea which downgrades offense or excludes
• any accused:
• (a) only upon motion by the prosecutor
• (b) with notice to offended party
• (c) with leave of court
• After plea and during trial:
• (a) formal amendments only (e.g., real name of accused)
• (b) with leave of court
• (c) must not cause prejudice to the rights of the accused
•
• Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736
• Substantial amendment
•
• SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted –
• A. General rule: Court of municipality or territory where
• offense was committed or where any of its essential
• ingredients occurred
• Not applicable to:
• a. Libel (Art. 360, R.P.C.)
• b. Felonies stated in Art. 2, R.P.C. (Extraterritorial crimes)
• c. Piracy (Arts. 122, 123, R.P.C.), triable anywhere
• d. Continuing offenses (e.g., kidnapping or illegal detention, abduction with rape
• e. cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan
• f. change of venue ordered by SC (Section 5[4], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
•
• B. Offense committed in train, aircraft, other
public/private
vehicle in the course of its trip - “passed during its trip,
including place of departure and arrival”
• C. Offense committee on board a vessel in the course of
its voyage –“first port of entry” or “where vessel passed
during the voyage”, subject to principles of international
law
• D. Extraterritorial crimes (Art. 2, R.P.C.) – where first filed
• RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
•
• Domingo vs Sps Singson GR 203287 and 207936 April 5, 2017
• Caterpillar Inc v Samson GR 205972 and 164352 November 9, 2016
•
• Art. 100, R.P.C: Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable
• SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions –
• General rule: Civil action deemed instituted with criminal,
• (civil liability arising from the offense charged: damages
• ex delicto)
•
• Exceptions: (a) waiver; (b) reservation; (c) prior institution
• (Also, independent civil actions)
•
• Exception to exception: Violation of BP 22, no reservation
• Allowed
• (Cf. Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177,
• Jan. 28, 2008: prior filing of civil action was allowed)
• Reservation to file separate civil action:
• - before prosecution presents evidence
• - separate civil action filed before filing of criminal
• Statute of limitations (prescription) on civil liability is
• deemed interrupted during pendency of criminal
•
• Rule on filing fees:
• a. Actual damages – no filing fees
• b. Moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages – when amount specified
in information/complaint, offended part pays filing fees upon filing in court
• c. Moral, etc. – when not specified, and offended party seeks to enforce, no
filing fees, but first lien on the judgment award
• Litigation of counterclaim in separate civil action by accused
• Art. 2177, Civil Code, quasi-delict
• Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, Aug. 26, 2002
• Consolidation of civil action with criminal - separate civil action has not yet commenced
• Does not apply to independent civil actions (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176, Civil Code)
• General rules of venue in civil actions apply
• Exception: Libel (Art. 360, R.P.C.)
•
• SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended –
• Damages ex delicto only (arising from offense)
• Does not apply to independent civil actions (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176, Civil Code)
• Extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction
• of the civil liability – where acquittal was based on
• reasonable doubt, as only preponderance of evidence is
• required (Alferez v. People, 641 SCRA 116; Lim v.
• MindanaoWines & Liquor Galleria, G.R. 17551, July 4, 2012)
•
• However, a final judgment in criminal action finding that the
• act or omission from which civil liability may arise did
• not exist shall deem extinguished the civil action
• SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently –
• Art. 31, Civil Code: Obligation not arising from felony
• Independent civil actions (Arts. 32, 33, 34, and 2176, Civil
• Code) – Civil liability arises from violation of specific provisions of the Civil Code
• Art. 32: Violation of rights and liberties
• Art. 33: Defamation, fraud, physical injuries
• Art. 34: Refusal or failure to render aid or protection by police
• Art. 2176: Quasi-delict/culpa aquiliana – damage caused by act
• or omission, there being fault or negligence
• Not deemed instituted
• No reservation required
• Not suspended, culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict)
• Limitation: Offended party cannot recover twice (Art. 2177, Civil Code; Sec. 3)
•
• SEC. 4. Effect of death (of accused) on civil actions –
• a. Before arraignment: criminal case dismissed, without pre-
• judice to civil action by offended party against estate
• b. After arraignment: civil liability arising from the delict is
• extinguished
• c. Independent civil action: may be continued against the
• estate or legal representative (heirs) of accused after
• proper substitution; order of substitution within 30
• days from notice
• Final judgment in favor of offended party shall be enforced
• under Rules 86 (Claims against estate) and 87 (Actions
• by and against executors and administrators)
•
• SEC. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar –
• In independent civil action, result of the criminal action is entirely irrelevant
•
• Heirs of the Late Teodoro Guaring v. CA, Philippine Rabbit, 269 SCRA 283
•
• Doctrine of Prejudicial Question
• Definition: “One based on a fact distinct and separate from the
• crime but so intimately connected with it that it deter-
• mines the guilt or innocence of the accused”
• Rationale: To avoid conflicting decisions
•
• Te v. CA, G.R. No. 126746, Nov. 29, 2000
•
• SEC. 7. Elements of prejudicial question –
• (a) Previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
• or intimately related to the issue raised in subsequent
• criminal action
• (b) Resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
• criminal action may proceed
• SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question –
• Petition for suspension of criminal action, where filed:
• (a) During P.I.: Office of prosecutor or court conducting the P.I.
• (b) If filed in court for trial: court hearing criminal action
• at any time before the prosecution rests
• Art. 40, Family Code: Absolute nullity of a previous marriage
• may not be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless
• there is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void
•
• Landicho v. Relova, 22 SCRA 731
• Beltran v. People, G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000
• Zapanta v. Montesa, G.R. No. L-14534, Feb. 28, 1962
• Ras v. Rasul, G.R. No. 50441, Sept. 18, 1980
•
•
• Doctrine does not apply where no civil, but only an
administrative, case is involved
• Flordelis v. Castillo, 58 SCRA 301
• La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Hon. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-63796-97, May 2,
1984
• WARRANTLESS ARREST and INQUEST
• General rule: No peace officer or person has the power or
authority to arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest,
except those cases expressly authorized by law.

• Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)

• Warrantless Arrest, Sec. 5, Rule 113 (In flagrante delicto)
• (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has comitted, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (e.g., arrest after an entrapment)

• (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it;

• (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

• Compliance with these conditions: (a) probable cause; and (b) good faith of arresting
officers (Umil v. Ramos)
• Also, warrantless arrest valid:
• (a) Where a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes or
• is rescued, Sec. 13, Rule 113;
• (b) Where arrest is by the bondsmen for the purpose of
• surrendering an accused out on bail, Sec. 23, Rule 114;
• (c) Where the accused out on bail attempts to leave the country
• without permission of the court, Sec. 23, Par. 2, Rule 114

People v. Aminnudin,163 SCRA 402 (J. Cruz)

• People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557

• Method of arrest by officer without warrant, Sec. 8, Rule 113

• Method of arrest by private person, Sec. 9, Rule 113 (Citizen’s arrest)

• Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, Sec. 26, Rule 114
• Overturns
• Rolito Go v. CA (That once the accused has posted bail, he waived his right to question any defect in the issuance of
the warrant of arrest)
• Almonte v. Judge Bien, 461 SCRA 218
• Search incident to lawful arrest, Sec. 13, Rule 126
• - A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may
have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without search warrant
• - Scope of search should be limited to the area within which the arrestee can reach for a
weapon or for evidence in order to destroy it
•
(Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752)
• People v. Mortos, G.R. No. 103632, Sep. 1, 1993: Buy-bust operation
• People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401
•
• Inquest, Sec.6, Rule 112, When accused lawfully arrested without
warrant.
• Inquest, defined: “An informal and summary investigation
• conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases
• involving persons arrested without the benefit of a
• warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of
• determining whether or not said persons should remain
• under the custody and correspondingly be charged before
• the court.” (2008 Revised Manual of Prosecutors)
• - Involves an offense which requires a P.I. (mandatory)
• - Accused lawfully detained without a warrant
• - He refuses to sign a waiver of Art. 125 of R.P.C.
• Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation, R.A. No. 7438 (April 27, 1992)
• “Custodial investigation” includes practice of issuing an “invitation” to a suspected person
•
• Waiver of Art. 125 of R.P.C. (Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities) 12-18-36
hours
•
• - In the presence of accused’s counsel
• - P.I. must be conducted and terminated within 15 days from inception
•
• Bail during P.I., Sec. 17(c), Rule 114: Any person in custody
• who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with
• any court in the province, city or municipality where he
• is held.
•
• Motion for Reinvestigation or Motion for P.I., Sec. 6, Par. 3,
• Rule 112
• - Must be filed within five (5) days from the time the
• accused learns of the filing of information or complaint
• without a P.I. conducted
• RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

• People v Pastrana GR 196045 Feb 21, 2018

• People v Castillo Sr gr 204419 November 7, 2016
• Gasul Petron LPG v Elena Lao GR 205010 July 18, 2016
•
• 1987 Constitution: Sec. 2, Art. III: Right against unreasonable search
• and seizures shall be inviolable
• Sec. 3(2), Art. III: Exclusionary Rule, “inadmissible for any
• purpose in any proceeding”

• General rule: Search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant
•
• Reasonable warrantless searches and seizures, per jurisprudence:
• 1. Search incident to lawful arrest, Sec. 13
• 2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view”
• Padilla v. CA, G.R. No. 121917, Mar. 12, 1997
• Elements of Plain View Doctrine:
• (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
• arrest in which the police are legally present in the
• pursuit of their official duties;
• (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
• Police who had the right to be where they are;
• (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
• (d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence with-
• out further search
• 3. Search of a moving vehicle (also, vessels and aircrafts)
• Reason: vessel, aircraft, motor vehicle can quickly move
• out of the jurisdiction before a warrant is secured
• Qualification for motor vehicles: Officers to conduct the
• extensive search had probable cause to believe that
• they will find instruments/evidence of a crime on
• the vehicle (People v. Bagista, G.R. No. 86218,
• Sep. 18, 1992)
•
• 4. Consented warrantless search
• People v. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936)
•
• 5. Customs search
(Under the Tariff and Customs Code: persons exercising police authority
under the customs laws, in the enforcement of customs laws)
• Exception: search of a dwelling house
• 6. Stop and frisk (Terry searches, from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) –
conducted to prevent occurrence of crime
Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, Sep. 29, 1989 (En Banc)
• 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances
• Definition of “probable cause” for warrantless searches: “a reasonable
• ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
• strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that
• the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
• charged”, People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 (1998)
•
• Cases where police officers, using their senses, observed facts that led
• to the suspicion:
• Manalili v. CA, 345 Phil. 632 (1997)
• People v. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811 (1996)
•
• Search warrant defined, Sec. 1
• “An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
• the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
• officer, commanding him to search for personal property des-
• cribed therein and bring it before the court.”
•
• Requisites for issuing search warrant, Sec. 4

• (a) It must be issued upon probable cause;

(b) Such probable cause must be determined by the issuing
magistrate personally;
(c) The issuing magistrate must have personally examined,
in the form of searching questions and answers, the
applicant and his witnesses and taken down their written
depositions;
(d) The search warrant must particularly describe or identify
the property to be seized as far as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow;
(e) It must particularly describe the place to be searched;
(f) It shall issue for only one specific offense;
(g) It must not have been issued more than 10 days prior to the
search made pursuant thereto
• Examination of Complainant, Sec. 5
• Personal examination by the judge of complainant and his
witnesses required; reliance on depositions taken by the
clerk of court is not sufficient

• Issuance and form of search warrant, Sec. 6

• Personal property to be seized, Sec. 3
• (a) Subject of the offense;
• (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the
• offense; or
• (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
• offense.
• This enumeration is exclusive.
•
• Court where application for search warrant shall be filed, Sec. 2
• (a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
• committed;
• (b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court
• within the judicial region where the crime was committed
• if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or
• any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall
• be enforced.
• Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249

• If criminal action already filed: With the court where the criminal action is pending
• Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to file, Sec. 14
• Where to file motion:
• (a) In the court where the criminal action is instituted;
• (b) If no criminal action instituted, in the court that
• issued the search warrant;
• (c) If court that issued the warrant fails to resolve the
• motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in
• another court, in the latter court
•
• The Exclusionary Rule (Sec. 3(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
• or Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
• Stonehill v. Diokno, 126 Phil. 738 (1967, per C.J. Concepcion, En Banc)
• - Abandoned Moncado v. People’s Court, 80 Phil.
• 1, which allowed admissibility of unlawfully
• seized evidence (American common law rule)
• - Prohibits the issuance of general warrants that
• encourage law enforcers to go on fishing
• expeditions (“A fishing expedition is indicative of
• the absence of evidence to establish probable cause”)
• People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, Jul. 30, 2014
• Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to immunity of
one’s person from interference by government; it cannot be extended to acts committed by
private individuals. People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
•
• A corporation is entitled to immunity against unreasonable
• searches and seizures, but the legality of the seizure can
• be contested only by the party whose rights have been
• impaired thereby and such objection cannot be availed
• of by third parties.
•
• Right to break door or window to effect search, Sec. 7
• Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses, Sec. 8
• Requisites for search with warrant: (mandatory)
• (a) Presence of the lawful occupant, or any member of
• his family; or
• (b) Presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
• discretion residing in the same locality, in the absence
• a member of his family
• People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743: Violation of this rule led to acquittal of the accused
• Time of making search, Sec. 9
• General rule: Warrant must direct that it be served at day time
• Exception: Where complainant’s affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or
in the place to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served
at any time of the day or night
•
• Validity of search warrant, Sec. 10
• Search warrant valid for ten (10) days from its date; thereafter, It shall be void
• - Cannot be used every day for the period of 10 days
• - Once articles have been seized under the warrant, it cannot
• be used again for another search and seizure
• - But when the search conducted on one day was interrupted,
• the same may be continued under the same warrant on
• the following day
•
• Receipt for the property seized, Sec. 11 (mandatory)
•
• (a) Officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a
• detailed receipt to the lawful occupant present during the
• search; or
• (b) In the absence of lawful occupant, officer must leave a
• receipt in the place where the seized property is found, in the
• presence of at least two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
• discretion residing in the same locality
•
• Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and
• proceedings thereon, Sec. 12
• - Violation or non-compliance constitutes contempt of court
• (Cf., Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, chain in the custody of evidence)
•
• RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
• (Amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, October 3, 2005)
Alfredo Mendoza v People GR 197293 April 21, 2014
• Reyes v Ombudsman GR 212593-94 March 15, 2016
• Maza v Turla GR 187094 February 15, 2017
• Quisay v People GR 216920 January 13, 2016
• Fortaleza v Gonzales GR 179287 and 182090 February 1, 2016
• People v Delos Santos GR 220685 November 29, 2017
Sales v Adapon GR 171420 October 5, 2016Ient v Tullett Prebon GR 189158 and
189530 January 11, 2017
Pemberton v Delima GR 217508 April 18, 2016
Young v People GR 213910 February 3, 2016
Wilson Fenix v CA GR 189878 July 11, 2016
Napoles v Delima GR 213529 July 13, 2016
• Preliminary investigation defined; when required, Sec. 1
• Definition: An inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that (a) a crime has been committed and (b) therespondent is
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
• Quantum of evidence required: existence of “probable
cause”
• Buchanan v. Vda. De Esteban, 32 Phil. 365 (1915)
• Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995)
• NBI Microsoft Corp. v. Hwang, 460 SCRA 429 (2005)
• Mandatory or matter of right in cases cognizable by RTC; and in MTC where
penalty for offense is at least 4 years, 2 months, 1 day (prision correccional,
maximum)
• Where the law provides for P.I. and such right is claimed by the accused, denial
thereof is denial of due process
• Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736
• Cojuangco v. PCGG, 190 SCRA 226 (1990)
•
• Right to P.I. is a personal right, which may be waived expressly or impliedly (e.g.,
failure to demand such right; non- appearance at the investigation)
• - Entry of plea on arraignment is waiver of right to P .I.
• - In warrantless arrest, refusal to waive Art. 125, R.P.C.
• is waiver of right to P.I.
• Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349 (1993)
• Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations, Sec. 2
• As amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, October 3, 2005:
Judgesof MTC/MCTC are no longer included

• Other officers as may be authorized by law:

• (a) Ombudsman, under R.A. No. 6670; primary jurisdiction in
cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan
• (b) PCGG, under E.O. Nos. 1 and 14 Cojuangco v. PCGG, Supra.
• (c) COMELEC, in cases involving election offense; People v.
Inting, 187 SCRA 788
• Procedure, Sec. 3
• Within 10 days from filing of complaint, investigating officer
• shall either: (a) dismiss; (b) issue subpoena to respondent
• Within 10 days from receipt of subpoena: Counter-affidavits
• of respondent and witnesses;

• No motion to dismiss allowed

• Presence of respondent not indispensable (i.e., cannot be subpoenaed or
does not submit counter-affidavit)
• Clarificatory hearing: questions to be submitted to and asked by
investigating officer; no right to cross-examination
• P.I. is not the occasion for full and exhaustive display of the parties'
evidence
• Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review, Sec. 4
• DOJ authority over Chief Prosecutors
• Sec. 39, 1987 Administrative Code
• Ledesma v. CA, Supra.
• Community Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) v. Talavera, Supra.
• DOJ Circular No. 70 (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal)
• Appeal by filing verified Petition for Review before the
• Secretary of Justice within 15 days from receipt of
• Resolution or denial of M.R.
• If Information already filed in Court, copy of Motion to
• Defer Proceedings must be attached to the petition
• Ground for a Motion to Suspend Arraignment, where suspension shall not exceed 60 days
from filing of petition in DOJ, Sec. 11(c), Rule 116
• Filing of Information
• Crespo v. Mogul, Supra.
• Roberts Jr. v. CA, 254 SCRA 307 (1996)
• Warrant of arrest can only be issued by a judge, Sec. 2, Article III,
• 1987 Constitution
• When warrant of arrest may issue, Sec. 5
• (a) By the Regional Trial Court
• Judicial determination of probable cause: within 10 days from filing of complaint or
information
• (b) By the Municipal Trial Court
•
• (c) When warrant of arrest not necessary
• 1. Accused is already detained by virtue of MTC warrant
• 2. Warrantless arrest, under Sec. 6
• 3. Offense is penalized by fine only
• Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation, Sec.
26, Rule 114
•
•
• RULE 113 – ARREST
•
• People v Rivera GR 208837 July 20, 2016
• People v Magno GR 212340 August 17, 2016
• Sindac v People GR 220732 September 6, 2016
• Definition of Arrest, Sec. 1
• The taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
• bound to answer for the commission of an offense
•
• Jurisdiction over the person of the accused acquired:
• (a) when he is arrested by virtue of a warrant
• (b) voluntary surrender
• (c) when he files a motion to quash raising grounds other
• jurisdiction over his person
• Invalidity of arrest and detention can be cured by filing of information and issuance of warrant of arrest
• Larranaga v. CA, 287 SCRA 581 (1998)
• Also, by entering a plea on arraignment and participating in the trial
•
• People v. Macam, 238 SCRA 306
•
• Arrest; how made, Sec. 2
• (a) by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested
• (b) submission of person to be arrested to the custody of the
• person making the arrest
•
• Duty of arresting officer, Sec. 3
• Execution of Warrant, Sec. 4
• Must be executed within 10 days from receipt; if not executed, officer must make a return within 10
days from lapse;
• But warrant remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled,
• Quashed, or otherwise specifically provided in warrant
• Time of making arrest, Sec. 6
• On any day and at any time of the day or night
• Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant, Sec. 7
• Officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time
• of the arrest
•
• Mallari v. CA, 265 SCRA 456
•
• Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested, Sec. 14
• Attorney has the right to visit and confer privately with person
• arrested at any hour of the day or night
•
• Right to have competent and independent counsel, Sec. 12(1), Art. III
• 1987 Constitution
•
• RULE 114 – BAIL
•
• Right to bail, Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987 Constitution
• Bail defined, Sec. 1
• Bail, a matter of right, Sec. 4
• (a) MeTC, MTC, MTCC, MCTC: before or after conviction
• (b) RTC: before conviction, of an offense not punishable by
• Reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (bailable)
• Exceptions:
• 1. in offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua (or life
• imprisonment), when evidence of guilt is strong, Sec. 7;
• 2. Right to bail not available in the military:
•
• Comendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80 (1991)
• People v Escobar GR 214300 July 26, 2017
• Cruz v People GR 224974 June 3, 2017
• People v Sobrepena, Sr GR 204063 December 5, 2016
• Juan Ponce Enrile v Sandiganbayan and People GR 213847 July 12, 2016
•
• Bail, when discretionary, Sec. 5
• (a) upon conviction by RTC of bailable offense, file in RTC
• (b) where conviction by RTC changed offense from non-
• bailable to bailable, file in CA
•
• Bail can be availed of only by person in custody of the law or deprived of his liberty:
• Comia v. Antona, 337 SCRA 656
• Any person in custody not yet charged in court may apply for
• bail with any court in the province, city, or municip[ality
• where he is held, Sec. 17(c)
•
• Application for Bail/Petition for Bail/Motion for Admission to Bail
• Hearing is mandatory:
• Docena-Caspe v. Judge Bugtas, 400 SCRA 37 (2003)
• Prosecution must be notified of hearing (Sec. 18)
• Hearing may be summary or otherwise
• Prosecution has burden of proof (Sec. 8)
• Evidence presented automatically reproduced at trial, but Court
• may recall any witness
• Provisional bail granted by SC:
•
• Enrile v. Salazar, G.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990 (En banc)
•
• Purpose of bail: to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial:
• Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, Aug. 18, 2015
•
• A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails
• By Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to
• Speedy Trial (March 18, 2014)
•
• Forfeiture of bail, Sec. 21
• Appearance of accused required:
• (a) arraignment, Sec. 1(b), Rule 116
• (b) when required by Court for identification
• (c) promulgation of judgment, Sec. 6, Rule 120
•
• Bail to secure appearance of material witness, Sec. 14, Rule 119
• Where material witness (for prosecution or accused) will not testify when required, court may
order witness to post
• bail – upon motion by either party, upon proof or oath
• RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
•
• Sec. 14, Art. III, 1987 Constitution
• Rights of accused at the trial, Sec. 1
• A. Presumption of innocence
• Rationale: to lighten and even reverse the heavy odds against the accused
who is confronted by the full panoply of State authority
•
• People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676 (En banc)
• Remulla v Sandiganbayan GR 218040 April 17, 2017
• Torres v Sandiganbayan GR 221562-69 October 5, 2016
• People v Sandiganbayan GR 199151 July 25, 2016
•
• This presumption must be overcome with proof beyond
• reasonable doubt
• People v. Villaran, 269 SCRA 630
• Any doubt as to the guilt of the accused must be resolved
• in favor of the constitutional presumption of innocence
•
• Equipoise Rule: People v. Urzais, G.R. No. 207662, April
• 13, 2016 (Cabanatuan City case)
•
• B. Right to be informed of accusations
• See discussions on Information under Rule 110
• Safeguards to this right: provisions of the Rules on prelimi-
• nary investigation, arraignment, requirements for suffi-
• cient allegations in the information, bill of particulars,
• and rules against duplicity
•
• People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. L-43833, Nov. 28, 1980
• C. Right to be present and to defend in person or by counsel
Both a right and a duty (Accused may waive his presence, except when his
appearance is required)
• Trial in absentia, Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution
•
• Conditions: (a) accused is arraigned; (b) duly notified of
• trial hearing; (c) failure to appear is unjustified
•
• Right to Counsel
• Right to effective counsel who can be made to act in protection of accused’s
rights

• People v. Rodolfo dela Cruz, 279 SCRA 245

• During custodial investigation
Counsel of own choice: Pp v. dela Cruz, Supra.
• Waiver of right to counsel: must be in the presence of counsel
and in writing
• People v. Antonio Enrile, G.R. No. 74189, May 26 1993 (J. Cruz)
• During arraignment
• Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel, Sec. 6,
Rule 116
• Appointment of counsel de oficio, Sec. 7, Rule 116
Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment, Sec. 8, Rule
116
• During trial
• Public attorney’s duties where accused is imprisoned, Sec. 7, Rule 119
• On appeal
• Appointment of counsel de oficio for accused on appeal, Sec. 13, Rule 122
• Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused, Sec. 2, Rule 124
Right to counsel covers the period beginning from custodial investigation, well into
the rendition of judgment, and even on appeal: People v. Serzo, 274 SCRA 553
• Denial of the right to counsel is reversible error
• People v. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752 (1950, En banc)
•
• D. Right to remain silent
• Miranda doctrine, Sec. 12(1), Art. III, 1987 Constitution
• People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
• E. Right against self-incrimination
• Sec. 17, Art. III, 1987 Constitution. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
The essence of the privilege is testimonial compulsion; but also includes furnishing of evidence by other means of any fact that
the accused has the right to keep secret
• (e.g., handwriting sample, unless he takes the witness
• stand and denies handwriting as his)
• Purely mechanical acts not included in this privilege (e.g., paraffin test, police line-up, photographed or
measured)
•
• F. Right to confrontation
• Purpose: to secure opportunity of cross-examination (main)
• and to enable the judge to observe the demeanor of wit-
• nesses (secondary): U.S. v. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 (1918)
• (J. Malcolm, En banc)
•
• Right is limited to proceedings before the trial court, at trial
• Confrontation applied only to witnesses who testify during trial, and not to complainant who does not take the
stand
•
• G. Right to compulsory processes
• Includes right to subpoena duces tecum
• Available and must be invoked during trial
•
• H. Right to speedy, impartial, and public trial
• A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (Supra.)
•
• Conde v. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650: Case dismissed because the
• accused was made to “dance attendance on courts”
• (J. Malcolm)
• People v. Cloribel, 11 SCRA 805
• Inordinate delay in terminating P.I. and filing of Information
• against the accused by Tanodbayan violated his right to
• speedy disposition of his case: Tatad v. Sandiaganbayan,
• G.R. No. 72335-39, Mar. 21, 1988 (En banc)
• Prejudicial publicity
• Webb v. De Leon, Supra.
• Larranaga v. CA, Supra
• I. Right to appeal
• Statutory right, not Constitutional; Strict compliance with all
the requirements of the Rules is a requisite for those who will
avail of it
Automatic review by CA of RTC judgment imposing death
penalty, Sec. 3(d), Sec. 10, Rule 122
•