Crimpro Deleon2015

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
(Rules 110-127, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)
a r
B
I. GENERAL MATTERS
e s
b l
A. Distinguish jurisdiction over subject matter from jurisdiction over person of the
accused
Ro
an ar
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter - the power to hear and determine cases of the
B
Ch
general class to which the proceedings in question belong;
e s
l
- conferred by law (either by the Constitution or statute and those necessarily implied to make
b
the express powers effective), parties cannot choose, consent to, or agree as to what court or
o
tribunal should decide their disputes; important to determine the nature of the cause of action
R
and of the relief sought.
an ar
- lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be raised at any time even for the
B
Ch
first time on appeal as the right to question such jurisdiction is never waived.
e s
Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused - the person charged with the offense
bl
must have been brought into its forum for trial; an accused must first be placed in the
custody of the law forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the
court;
R o
an ar
- the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial; an
B
accused must first be placed in the custody of the law forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his
voluntary submission to the court;
C h s or through his
l e
- may be acquired either through compulsory process, such as warrant of arrest,
voluntary appearance;
b
oby a court of jurisdiction
R
-objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition
an r
over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised before he enters his plea;
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
B a
C h
Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc. (G.R. No. 172505, October 1, 2014)
s
l e
imposable penalty of the crime charged in the information determines the court b
- Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is vested by law. In criminal cases, the
o
that has
R
jurisdiction over the case.
a
- that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be conferred or waived byn the parties. Even
h
on appeal and even if the reviewing parties did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the
C
reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the
case.
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
- trial court's lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties' silence on the matter. The
failure of the parties to raise the matter of jurisdiction also cannot be construed as a waiver
of the parties. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived by the parties.
B. Requisites for exercise of criminal jurisdiction
(1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of (juris
diction over the subject matter),
(2) the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction (jurisdiction
a r
over the territory), - territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try
the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused
B
s
earrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court (jurisdiction
(3) the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial,
over the person ofl

forcibly by warrant of
Exceptions: o
b the accused).
R Offenses Article 2, RPC)

to the Jurisdiction over the Territory
n rship or airship
(Extraterritorial
1.a a
h 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin orBcurrency note of the Philippine Islands or
Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
C obligations and securities issued by thes

l
3. Should be liable for acts connected ein thewithpresiding
Government of the Philippine Islands;
the introduction into these islands of the
o b
obligations and securities mentioned number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
R
anBook Two of this Code. r
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of
B a
h
Cof criminal courts s
C. Jurisdiction
l e
- authority to hear and try a particular offense and b
o
R 25, 2012)
impose the punishment for it.
n
Treas vs. People (G. R. No. 195002, January
a committed determines not only the venue a rof the

- The place where the crime was
h B that for
C
action but is an essential element
s
of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule
ehave taken place
l
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have
b
been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should
o
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
D. When injunction may be issued to restrain criminalR

a n prosecution
a r
h
(Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hon. Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014) B
- as a general rule, the Court will not issueC e s
or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. However, the following exceptions
b l
writs of prohibition or injunction, preliminary
to
the rule have been recognized:
R o
an
1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional
rights of the accused;
2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justiceh

multiplicity of actions; C or to avoid oppression or
3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
r
10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to
a
quash on that ground has been denied.
B
e s
II. PROSECUTION OF l CRIMINAL OFFENSES
o b
R
A. Criminal actions, how instituted Sec. 1, Rule 110
a n a rinvestigation, the criminal action is

B for preliminary investigation.
Institution
h
for offenses which require a preliminary
C s
instituted by filing the complaint with the proper officer
l e
Commencement when the complaint or information
b
is filed in court.
R o
anwith proper officers (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule r
Where preliminary investigation is required (penalty at least 4 years, 2 months and 1
day) - complaint filed
B a112)
C
Proper officerofficers h s
authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation:
l e
b
1. provincial or city prosecutor
o
2. national and regional state prosecutor
R
3. Ombudsman offenses that fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
n r
4. Chief Legal Officer of Comelec with respect to election officers
a a
N.B. MTC and MCTC Judges no longer authorized to conduct preliminary investigation.
All other offenses those which h

(A.M. No. 05-8-26, Oct. 3, 2005)
B
C e s
are penalized lower than at least 4 yrs 2 mos and 1 day
without regard to the fine.
b l
Where preliminary investigation is not required complaint
with MTC or complaint with office of the prosecutor.
R o or information filed
Complaint or information filed directly with MTCn r

or information defined in Secs. 3 and 4 and musta a
and MCTC similar to complaint
h allege facts necessary to comply with

B
sufficiency requirements in Sec. 6.
C e s
Complaint with the office of the prosecutor similar to complaint filed for purposes
b l of
o1 (b), last
preliminary investigation.
R
an
Effect of institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period (Sec.
par.)
C h
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense
charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.
Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. vs. Hon. Judge Nelson F. Lidua Sr. (G.R. No. 169588, ctober
7, 2013)
- In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should be
considered: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; 2) the time the period
of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time the prescriptive period was interrupted.
- commencement of the prescription period, Art. 91 of RPC
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of
r
prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is
a
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be
B
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to
s
run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being
l e
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him.
ob
- when the Complaint is filed with the Office of the Prosecutor who then files the
R
Information in court, this already has the effect of tolling the prescription period.
an B ar
- doctrine in Zaldivia vs. Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, En Banc (running of
Ch s
the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and
e
not on any date before that), is applicable to ordinances and their prescription period.
b l June 13, 2012)

People vs. Pangilinan (G.R. No. 152662,
Rofotheunder
- No distinction between cases the RPC and those covered by special laws with
- the institution a
n
respect to the interruption period of prescription.
a ragainst the accused

interrupts the h B
of proceedings for preliminary investigation
C period of prescription.
s
e of the accused before the
b
- commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution l
o
Office of the City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the
R
offenses they had been charged under BP Blg. 22.
a
People vs. Bautista (G.R. No. 168641, n April 27, 2007)
a r
h B
C s
Slight physical injuries - Manila
l e
Filing of complaint with prosecutors office suspends running of prescriptive period, not
b
approval of the investigating prosecutors recommendation for filing of information.
Ro
Rule of prescription for violation of special law
an B a r
C h s
e
Panaguiton, Jr. vs. DOJ, .G R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008 - BP 22
- Filing of complaint with prosecutors office interrupted the period of prescription.

b l
DOJ and CA
R o
an in 4 years
- offense already prescribed under Act 3326 under which offenses prescribe
Form of complaint or information (WNA) Sec. 2

C h
Section 2. The Complaint or information. - The complaint or information shall be
a) in writing,
b) in the name of the People of the Philippines and
c) against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.
In all criminal prosecutions, the real offended party is the People of the Philippines for a
crime is an outrage against, and its vindication is in favor of, the people in a sovereign state.
However, a crime is also an outrage against the offended or aggrieved party, the victim
of the crime. Thus, he is entitled to intervene in its prosecution in cases where the civil action
is impliedly instituted therein.
a r
Hence, complaint which is filed with the MTC or prosecutor for preliminary investigation is
Bbetween complaint and information Secs. 3 and 4

usually in the name of the offended party as complainant.
e s
Definition and distinction
b l
Section 3.o
Ra person with an offense, subscribed
Complaint defined. A complaint is a sworn written statement
n officer, or other public officer chargedr

charging by the offended party, any
a (3)
peace
Ba
with the enforcement of the law
h violated.
Filed in court for the commencementsof a criminal prosecution for a crime, usually
C cognizable
l eby peace officer or other public officer charged with
b
by the MTC, subscribed
o
the enforcement of the law violated. OR
Filed by offended party R
a-n r
in private crimes or those which cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
B a
h
Sworn written statement must be under oath.
Section 4. C Information defined. An informationsis an accusation in writing

l e prosecutor and filed with the
b
charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
Charge sheet filed by the prosecutor in court. o

court. (4a)
R Unlike complaint, which must be under oath
an r
and filed either in the MTC or with the prosecutors office, the information does not have to
be under oath and is always filed in court.
B a
C h s
B. Who may file criminal actions, crimes that cannot be prosecuted l e de oficio
b
Ro
Criminal actions in general Sec. 5, first par. (as amended by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC,
April 10, 2002, effective May 1, 2002)
an B a r
h
All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall bes
C
prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work
l ethe
schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors,
private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
o b or
R
the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court.
an of a public
Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall
continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence
prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn
Ch.
Prosecution of private crimes (adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness, defamation imputing said crimes) Sec. 5, 2nd to 5th pars.
- correlate with Art. 344 and Art. 360, last par.,(RPC)
Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions x x x
The crimes of adultery and concubinage SHALL NOT BE PROSECUTED except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both alive, nor, in any case, if the
offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders (MAY BE
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED).
The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness SHALL NOT BE

PROSECUTED except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
a r
grandparents or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been EXPRESSLY
PARDONED by any of them. If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before
B
she can file the complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents or guardian, the
e s
State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf.
b labduction
The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of the
o
offenses of seduction, and acts of lasciviousness independently of her
R party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents,

parents, grandparents, or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so.
grandparents, or guardian may file the same. Ther

n
Where the offended
parents, a a right to file the action granted to
h B except
grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be
C
exercised
e s
successively in the order herein provided, as stated in the preceding
l
paragraph.
No criminal action for defamationb
R
mentioned above shall be brought o which consists in the imputation of the offenses
except at the instance of and upon complaint filed by
the offended party.
n
a of special laws shall be governed a r by the provisions
h B
The prosecution for violation
thereof.
C e s
Art. 344, Art. 360, last par., Revised Penal Code l
b
Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of o
R adultery, concubinage, seduction,
n except upon a complaint filedabyr the
abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. The crimes of adultery and
a B
concubinage shall not be prosecuted
offended spouse.
C h s
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without
l eincluding both
the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case,
o b if he shall have
R
consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts n

be prosecuted except upon a complaint filedaby the offended party or her
of lasciviousness, shall not
a r
parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in h any case, if the offender has been B
C as the case may be. e s
l
expressly pardoned by the above named persons,
b
of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminalo
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage
R paragraph
action or
remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this
a
shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessoriesn after
the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
C h
Art. 360, last par.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime

which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of
and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A.
1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965).
Nature of requirement in Sec. 5, Rule 110 and Art. 344
N.B. 1. Crimes prosecuted upon complaint of offended party:
a. Adultery and concubinage can only be filed by offended spouse
a r
b Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness exclusive and successive rule: offended
B
party, parents, grandparents, guardian
c. Criminal actions s
mentioned above. e
for defamation which consist in the imputation of an offense
b l
2. Rape waso
(took effectR
excluded as a private crime in view of RA 8353, Anti-Rape Law of 1997
on October 22, 1997) reclassifying rape as a crime against persons and is now
a n
a public crime.
a r
h B theoutoutrage
s
3. Complaint required in Art. 344 has been imposed of consideration for the offended
Cthrough the scandal of a public trial (People
party and her family who might prefer to
e
suffer in silence rather than go
l vs. Tanada, 166 SCRA 361 [1988].
4. Compliance with Rule 110, b

R o Section 5 is jurisdictional and not merely a formal
requirement (People vs. Sunpongco, G.R. No. 42665, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 222).
Who may file complaints committed against children under Sec. r

n
a Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination B a 27, RA 7610 (Special
C h
Protection of Children Against
s
Act)
a) Offended party;
l e
b
b) Parents or guardians;
o
c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity;
e) Officer or social worker of the Department ofR

d) Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution
Social Welfare and Development;
an a r
f) Barangay chairman; or
h B
g) At least three (3) concerned responsible citizens where the violation occurred.
C e s
b l
Punzalan vs. Plata (G.R. No. 160316, September 2, 2013) - slight oral defamation,
R o
other light threats, attempted homicide, malicious mischief, and theft
of probable cause is a function that belongs to the n r

- the conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence
a
crimes lies with the executive department of the government whose principal B
public prosecutor; prosecution of
a
C h s
e
power and responsibility is to see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed.
b l of
- it a sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary
investigations and to leave the DOJ a wide latitude of discretion in the determination
the supposed offenders. The rule is based not only upon the respect
R o for the
what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of
an
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the executive
department but upon practicality as well.
People vs. Go (G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014) - h

commercial documents Cestafa thru falsification of
- a petition for certiorari which sought the dismissal of the criminal cases should
not have been resolved by the CA, without the People, as represented by the
OSG, having first been impleaded. This stems from the recognition that the People is
an indispensable party to the proceedings.
- While the failure to implead an indispensable party is not per se a ground for the
dismissal of an action, considering that said party may still 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, it remains essential as it is jurisdictional that any
indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings before the court renders
judgment. This is because the absence of such indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to
r
the absent parties but even as to those present.
Ba
Villalon vs. Chan (G.R. No. 196508, September 24, 2014) bigamy
e s
l
- failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a party-respondent is not a
ob
fatal defect warranting the outright dismissal of her petition for certiorari and
prohibition before the CA because: (1) a petition for certiorari and prohibition under
R
Rule 65 is directed against any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
an r
judicial functions alleged to have acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or
a
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) the
B
Ch petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by the respondent is a special civil action
s
separate and independent from the bigamy case filed against the petitioners. For these
e
reasons, the People of the Philippines need not be impleaded as a party in a
l
b
petition for certiorari and prohibition.
R o
Worldwide Web Corp vs. People (G.R. No. 161106, January 13, 2014)
an r
- an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action; conformity of the
a
public prosecutor is not necessary to give the aggrieved party personality to
B
h
question an order quashing search warrants.
C e s
under Art. 315, par. 2(a[2].
bl
Francisco vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 177720, February 18, 2009) - Estafa
R o
-A crime is an offense against the State, and hence is prosecuted in the name of
an r
the People of the Philippines. The participation of the private offended party is not
essential to the prosecution of crimes, EXCEPT in cases that cannot be
B a
Ch
prosecuted de oficio (adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of
e s
lasciviousness), or in the prosecution of the civil action deemed instituted with
bl
the criminal action. A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the
prosecutor need not be filed by the offended party but may be filed by any competent
Ro
person, unless the offense subject thereof cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
n r
Uy vs. People (G.R. No. 174899, September 11, 2008) Estafa
aletter was for alleged violation of BP B

a
h
Claim accused denied due process when he was convicted of estafa instead pf BP 22
C
violation because private complainants demand
e s
l
22.
Held Criminal actions are under the direction and control of the prosecutor.
After going over the complaint, prosecutor found probable cause to charge o
b
R
accuse with
an
estafa, not violation of BP 22.
h
Adaza vs.Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007- Estafa
When accused has already been arrigned, DOJ must C not give due course to
appeal or petition for review and must dismiss the same. When accused
unconditionally pleaded to the charge, she effectively waived the reinvestigation of the
case by the prosecutor as well as the right to appeal the result thereof to the DOJ
secretary. Crespo vs. Mogul, Roberts vs.CA and Marcelo vs. CA not applicable
because accused therein had not yet been arraigned when the appeal or petition for
review was filed with DOJ.
Crespo vs. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, 152 SCRA 462) Estafa
Issue: Whether the trial court, acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the
Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary ot Justice to whom a case was
elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and
trial on the merits.
- It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint
a r
or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
B
fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the
e s
fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or not follow that
presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is
b l
sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
o
- The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the
R
an r
fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. It
a
cannot be controlled by the complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power vested in
h B
them by law, not only have the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons who,
C s
according to the evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a
l e
crime committed within the jurisdiction of their office. They have equally the legal duty
not to prosecute when after an investigation they become convinced that the evidence
b
adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
o
R
- Once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as
an ar
its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
B
discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the
h s
prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose
C e
his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the
bl
case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed
R o
to the Court which has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if
this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed
an r
after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
records of the investigation.
a
Justice who reviewed the C
h a situation whereby the opinion of sthetrialBSecretary
- In order therefor to avoid such of
Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain l

e
action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the court, the
petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, b

from entertaining a
information has already been filed in Court. The mattero

when the complaint or
R should be left entirely for

the determination of the Court.
a n a r
C. Criminal actions, when enjoined h B
C e s
(Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hon. Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014) l
- as a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition oro
b
preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution.R
injunction,
n
However, the
following exceptions to the rule have been recognized:
a
Ch
1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional
rights of the accused;
2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or

multiplicity of actions;
3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
10
4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
r
9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
Ba
10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on
s
that ground has been denied.
l e
ob
De Jesus vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 164166 & 164173-80, October 17, 2007)
R
an r
- settled rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through a preliminary
a
or final injunction or a writ of prohibition, except in the following instances:
B
Ch s
e
1) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
b l
2) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
Ro which is sub-judice;
multiplicity of actions;
anare without or in excess of authority;Bar

3) When there is a prejudicial question
h
4) When the acts of the officer
C is under an invalid law, ordinanceeorsregulation;

5) Where the prosecution
b l
Ro
6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
an prosecution;
8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than
B a r
9) Where the charges are manifestly h
s
C false and motivated by lust for vengeance;
e
10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and l
b a motion to quash on
Roto prevent the threatened

that ground has been denied;
an r
11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court
unlawful arrest of petitioners.
B a
C h s
l e
D. Control of prosecution (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
b
Who must prosecute criminal actions all criminal actions commenced byo
R complaint
an
or information shall be under the direction and control of the prosecutor.
C h
Matters within the control and supervision of the Prosecutor:
1. what case to file;
2. whom to prosecute;
11
3. manner of prosecution; and
4. right to withdraw information before arraignment even without notice and hearing
Hasegawa vs. Giron (G.R. No. 184536, August 14, 2013)

- the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the
accused depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor. Courts will not
interfere with the conduct of preliminary investigations, or reinvestigations, or in the
a r
determination of what constitutes sufficient probable cause for the filing of the
corresponding information against an offender.
B
- the matter of whether to prosecute or not is purely discretionary on his part,
e s
courts cannot compel a public prosecutor to file the corresponding information,
b l
upon a complaint, where he finds the evidence before him insufficient to warrant
the filing of an action in court; prosecutors findings on the existence of probable
Ro
cause are not subject to review by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have
been made with grave abuse of discretion.
a n a r
People vs. Diu (G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013) Ponente: Leonardo - De Castro, J.
h B
C s
- robbery with homicide
- prosecutors have a wide range of discretion

l e in determining whether, what, and whom
appreciated by prosecutors.
o b
to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best
R
n
Leviste vs. Alameda (G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010)
a a r
- All criminal actions commenced by a complaintBor information shall be
C h the direction and control of the spublic prosecutor. The private
e and not a party to the case and
prosecuted under
complainant in a criminal case is merely a witness
l
filed in court, the proper party for that being theb
cannot, by himself, ask for the reinvestigation of the case after the information had been
the prosecution of the case.Thus, in cases o

public prosecutor who has the control of
Rand is granted the authority to prosecute,the

where the private complainant is allowed to
private complainant, by counsel andn r can

intervene by counsel in the criminal action,
a a
with the conformity of the public prosecutor,
B
C h
file a motion for reinvestigation.
s
l e
Matters within the control of the Court after the case is filed: b
Ro
an r
1. suspension of arraignment;
B a
h
2. reinvestigation;
3. prosecution by the fiscal; C e s

4. dismissal of the case; and b l
5. downgrading of offense or dropping of accused even before plea
Ro
an
Limitations of control by the Court:
Ch
1. Prosecution is entitled to notice and hearing;
2. Prosecution's stand to maintain prosecution should be respected by the court ; and
3. court must make its own assessment of evidence in granting or dismissing
12
Department of Justice vs. Alaon (G.R. No. 189596, April 23, 2014)
- once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as
its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of
the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he
cannot impose his opinion on the trial court.
- a motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the
Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is
done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after
a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the
records of the investigation.
a r
B
s
E. Sufficiency of complaint or information (Sec. 6, Rule 110)
e
A complaint orl
o b information is sufficient if it states the
R
N a) name of the accused; (Sec. 7)
a n a r8)
B
D b) designation of the offense given by the statute; (Sec.
A c) h
C e s
acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; (Sec. 9)
b
N d) name of the offended party; (Sec. 12) l
R o of the offense (see Sec 11); and
A e) approximate date of the commission
P f) place where the offensen r

a was committed. (Sec. 10) B a
C h s
l e all of them shall be included in
b
When an offense is committed by more than one person,
Ro 18, 2015)
the complaint or information.
n recognizes the right of the accused rto be

People vs. Bayabos (G.R. No. 171222, February
a a
B charging
h
- Section 14, Article III of the Constitution,
C s
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. As a manifestation
of this constitutional right, the Rules
e of a sufficient
of Court requires that the information
persons with an offense be sufficient. One of the key components
l
information is the statement of the acts or omissions constituting
o b the offense
R
charged, subject of the complaint. The information must also be crafted in a language
n is intended to allow them to ar

ordinary and concise enough to enable persons of common understanding to know
suitably prepare for their defense, as they areapresumed to have no independent

the offense being charged against them. This approach
information need not be in the same kind of C

knowledge of the facts constituting the offense hthey have purportedly committed. Thes B
language used in the law relied upon
l e
Enrile vs. Manalastas (G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014) - less serious physical
injuries
o b
Rcomplaint or
information is, therefore, whether the facts alleged therein, n
- fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the averments in a
a if hypothetically
Ch
admitted, constitute the elements of the offense; To meet the test of sufficiency,
therefore, it is necessary to refer to the law defining the offense charged.
- complaints only needed to aver the ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the
details of why and how the illegal acts allegedly amounted to undue injury or damage, for
such matters, being evidentiary, were appropriate for the trial.
13
Rosaldes vs. People (G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014) - child abuse, violation of
Republic Act No. 7610
- Court should no longer entertain the petitioner's challenge against the

sufficiency of the information in form and substance. Her last chance to pose the
challenge was prior to the time she pleaded to the information through a motion to
quash on the ground that the information did not conform substantially to the
prescribed form, or did not charge an offense. She did not do so, resulting in her
waiver of the challenge.
r
Name of the accused (Sec. 7, Rule 110)
Ba
Su Zhi Shan @ Alvin Ching So vs. People (G.R. No. 169933, March 9, 2007)- drug
pushing/selling
e s
if it is clearly provenb
- erroneous designation lin the Information of the name of the accused does not vitiate it
o
that the person accused and brought to court is the person who
R
committed the crime; the information charging petitioner was prepared after he was arrested
arrested andn r
and while he was in custody. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the person who was
athere lived another person with the same aname as the accused in the area where
brought to court is the same person charged in the information.
h B
Cbuy-bust operation was conducted is immaterial,s having
- whether
the
l e the identity of the therein accused as the
b
person who sold the marijuana to the poseur-buyers been established.
o
People vs. Cagadas Jr. (G.R. No. 88044, Jan 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 216)
R
n proven that he was part of the group rthat killed the victim
- Where the accused Roberto Cultura was indicted in the information as Jose Cultura, his
fathers name, but it was a a
Bto raise
clearly
h
and did not raise the question of his identity at the arraignment
C s
and acquiesced to be
e
tried under that name, he is deemed to have waived the right the question of his
identity for the first time on appeal.
b l
- For the accused is deemed to have acquiesced to the
R
in the information,and he is estopped, after the trial o and his conviction under said name, to
name by which he had been identified
raise the question of his identity on appeal.

a n a r
h
San Diego vs. Hernandez(24 SCRA 110 (1968)- Frustrated murder
B
Cbeen sued as John Doe in an information e s filed in due
linvestigation
- Where the accused has
form, and after due investigation by the fiscal his identity became
name may be inserted without further need of preliminary
o b known, his true
where
R
one had already been properly conducted pursuant to the charter of Quezon City and
an r
the nature of the crime is not changed.
B a
h s
F. Designation of offense (Sec. 8, Rule 110)C e
b l
People vs. Feliciano, Jr. (G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014) - murder
R o
a n is whether it
-An information is sufficient when the accused is fully apprised of the charge against
him to enable him to prepare his defense; test of sufficiency of Information
Ch 424 Phil. 482 (2002)

enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the
court to render judgment properly. (citing People v. Wilson Lab-eo,
- every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the

information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance, even if duly proven at
trial, will not be appreciated as such.
Matrido vs. People (G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009) - Qualified theft
14
- Credit and collection manager of Empire East Land Holdings failed to remit payments
received from its clients.
Claim on appeal to CA from her conviction despite her indictment for qualified theft, the
prosecution was trying to prove estafa during trial, thus violating her right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.
Held: Allegations in the information determine the nature of the offense, not the
technical name given by public prosecutor. The recital of facts and circumstances in
the information sufficiently constituted the crime of qualified theft.
a r
Guy vs. People (G.R. No. 167088, March 20, 2009) - Violation of Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019, Anti
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
B of City Engineers Office, Barangay Chairman and
s
e with owner of Amago Construction in the construction of 3
- Accused are officers and employees
b l
Treasurer, Tacloban City, conspired
infrastructure projects which had material defects and were
overpriced.
Ro
- Convictedn r
a by Sandiganbayan. B a
h
C factual allegations to indicate connection s
e between discharge of their official duties and
Claim: SB failed to acquire jurisdiction over them because the 3 informations failed to state the
specific
commission of the offenses charged.
b l
Ro notwhatbe hedescribed
Held: Specific acts of accused need in detail sufficient particularity to
a n
make sure accused fully understands is being charged with.
a r
public records NFAh B
Flores vs. Layosa (G.R. No. 154714, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 337) - Falsification of
C e s
Falsified daily time record of security guard
b l
If the offense is stated in such a way that o
R
a person of ordinary intelligence may
n r the
immediately know what is meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law,
a
the inevitable conclusion is that the information
a
is valid. It is not necessary to follow
B
the
Ch
language of the statute in the information. The information will be sufficient if it describes
crime defined by law.
e s
b l
G. Cause of the accusation (Sec. 9, Rule 110)
Ro
an
Constitutional Basis - Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
B a r
Statutory Basis Section 1(b), Rule 115
C h s
l e
People vs. Umawid (G.R. No. 208719, June 9, 2014)
b
o process
R
- In criminal cases, where the life and liberty of the accused is at stake, due
against him. An accused cannot be convicted of an offenseaunless n it is clearly

requires that the accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
Ch
charged in the complaint or information. (citing Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
123144, October 15, 2003, 413 SCRA 385)
Consigna vs. People (G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014) - estafa as penalized under
Art. 315 (2)(a) of the RPC
15
- the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or
preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of law
alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual
recital of the facts in the complaint or information.
- What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense
charge or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere
conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged
and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be
alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
a r
know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
judgment. (citing People v. Dimaano, 506 Phil. 630, 649-650 (2005)
B10, Rule 110)

Place of commission (Sec.
s
eL-8267, Dec. 27,1913, 26 Phil 376
U.S. vs. Cunanan (GR No. l
bas a seaman.
R
Abandoning steamship o
Then place of commission of the offense must ber
a a
stated in the complaint or information
h B or information
when it is a material ingredient of the offense charged or is necessary for its
C s
identification. The failure to show that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction
of the trial court is a fatal defect, and
l ethe complaint may be quashed.
People vs. Navarro, 63 SCRA 264 (1975)

b
Light threat, frustrated thefto
R
a n
Unless the particular place of commission is an essential element
a r of the offense
h B
charged, conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at
C of the court
the place alleged
e s
in the information, provided the place of actual commission was within
the jurisdiction
b l
dwelling (Art. 280, RPC) and violation of domicile
R o
N.B. There are crimes which make the place of commission essential, such as trespass to
(Art. 129, RPC). In such cases, the
n
specific place must be alleged in the information.
a (Sec. 11, Rule 110) a r

B
Date of commission of the offense
Ch e s
l
People vs. Delfin (G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014) - murder
- In crimes where the date of commission is not a materialb

o or certainty in the
element, like murder, it
information. The Rules of Court merely requires, for theR

is not necessary to allege such date with absolute specificity
n r
sake of properly informing an
a a
accused, that the date of commission be approximated.
h in the date of commission of the B

Cas established in evidence becomes fatal s
The foregoing rule, is not absolute. Variance
when such discrepancy is so great that it induces the perception that e

offense as alleged in the information and
b lsame
the
o deemed
information and the evidence are no longer pertaining to one and the
supplanted by the evidence nor can it be amended but must be struck R

offense. In this event, the defective allegation in the information is not
an
down for being
violative of the right of the accused to be informed of the specific charge against him.
C h
The proof shows that the carabao was lost on July 25, 1947 and not on June 18, 1952
as alleged in the information. The period of almost five years between 1947 and 1952
covers such a long stretch of time that one cannot help but be led to believe that another
theft different from that committed by the Defendants in 1952 was also perpetrated by
them in 1947. Under this impression the accused, who came to court prepared to face a
16
charge of theft of large cattle allegedly committed by them in 1952, were certainly caught
by sudden surprise upon being confronted by evidence tending to prove a similar offense
committed in 1947. The variance is certainly unfair to them, for it violates their
constitutional right to be informed before the trial of the specific charge against them and
deprives them of the opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, they cannot be
convicted of an offense with which they are not charged.(People vs. Opemia, 98 Phil.
698 (1956) Reiterated in People v. Hon. Reyes,195 Phil. 94, 100-101 (1981)
People vs. Balinog (G.R. No. 194833, July 2, 2014)
r
- In statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the victim
a
was a minor below twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
B180016, April 29, 2014) - Article 315(Estafa) paragraph 1,

s
Corpuz vs. People (G.R. No.
(b) of the RPC
l e
element ofo
- aside from theb fact that the date of the commission thereof is not an essential
R not render the Information ipso facto defective.

the crime herein charged, the failure of the prosecution to specify the
n is legally viable as long as it distinctly r states the statutory designation

exact date does
of theh
a
- an information a
B thereof.
C s
offense and the acts or omissions constitutive
Bacasmas vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. e

Corrupt practices of public officers, (e) of l
189343, July 10, 2013) - violation of Section 3-
o b Republic Act No. 3019
R atheperiod
- date is not a material ingredient of the crime, not having been committed on one
n nature and cause of ther accusation against

day alone, but rather within of time;
petitioners,namelya ause of the -three

- it adequately describes
h Bnegligence
the violation of the aforementioned law. The phrases
Cdoes not mean that three distinct offenses

manifest partiality,
swerethrough
evident bad faith and inexcusable
e
in the same
l
Information thereby charged but only
b
implied that the offense charged may have been committed any of the modes
People vs. Garcia , G.R. No. 159450, Marcho

provided by the law.
R 30, 2011 - Qualified theft

- accused teller of Prudential Bank,
an Angeles Main Branch; Date notBaamaterial r
ingredient of offense.
C h s
Name of offended party (Sec. 12, Rule 110)
l e
Senador vs. People, G.R. No. 201620, March 6, 2013 estafa
b
- variance between the allegations of the information and the
Roevidence offered by the
a n formal defect, which does not ar

prosecution does not of itself entitle the accused to an acquittal, more so if the variance
B
relates to the designation of the offended party, a mere
prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.h
Cand not identifiable, such as the money e s
unlawfully taken as in Lahoylahoy, an error in the designation of the offended l
- if the subject matter of the offense is generic
is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused.

o b party
R
Kepner, or a check, such as in Sayson and Ricarze, an error in the n
- if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, such as a warrant, as in
a designation of the
offended party is immaterial
- the subject matter of the offense herein does not refer toC
h
money or any other generic
property. Instead, the information specified the subject of the offense as "various kinds of
jewelry valued in the total amount of P705,685.00." The charge was thereafter
sufficiently fleshed out and proved by the Trust Receipt Agreement signed by Senador
and presented during trial, which enumerates these "various kinds of jewelry valued in
the total amount of PhP 705,685
17
- it is the doctrine elucidated in Kepner, Sayson, and Ricarze that is applicable to the
present case, not the ruling in Uba or Lahoylahoy. The error in the designation of the
offended party in the information is immaterial and did not violate Senadors
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.
H. Duplicity of the offense; exception (Sec. 13, Rule 110)
Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. A complaint or information must charge
a r
but one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses.
B
Duplicitous informations- single complaint or information that charges more than one
l e
b 3, Rule 120
offense
R o
Correlate with - Section
charged a
n
in a single complaint or information but a
r
Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. When two or more offenses are
trial, h B outas separately

the accused fails to object to it before
C s
the court may convict him of as many offenses are charged and proved, and
impose on him the
and law in each offense.
penalty for each
e
offense,
l
setting the findings of fact
o b
General Rule: one offense, one complaint" rule
R
Exceptions:
a n a r
h B
1. compound crimes where the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses
C (Art. 48) e s
2. complex crimes
b l
Ro
3. special complex crimes
n r
4. continuous crimes or delito continuado
5. crimes susceptible of being committeda a

B
Cish
in various modes
e s
l
6. crimes of which another offense an ingredient
Soriano vs. People (G.R. NO. 159517-18, June 30, 2009)

o b
- Rules prohibit the filing of a duplicitous information to R
n r
avoid confusing the accused
a a
in preparing his defense.
h B
I. Amendment or substitution of complaint or information
C
(Sec. 14, Rule 110)
e s
- correlate with Sec. 4, Rule 117 (Motion to Quash)
b l
BEFORE PLEA - Amendments in form and substance:
R o
General rule must be made before the accused enters his plean
a
Exception:
C h
if the amendment/s downgrade/s the nature of the offense charged in, or excludes
any accused from the complaint/information, it can be made only upon motion of
the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court.
AFTER PLEA - ONLY formal amendment and with leave of court, and such amendment
18
will NOT prejudice the rights of the accused.
Substantial amendments can never be made after the accused has pleaded.
Mendez vs. People (G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014) - estafa
- there is no precise definition of what constitutes a substantial amendment.

According to jurisprudence, substantial matters in the complaint or information
consist of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. Under Section 14, however, the
r
prosecution is given the right to amend the information, regardless of the nature of
a
the amendment, so long as the amendment is sought before the accused enters his
Band enters his plea, however, Section 14 prohibits the

plea, subject to the qualification under the second paragraph of Section 14.
prosecution from seekinge

- once the accused is arraigned s
b l a substantial amendment, particularly mentioning those that
o the nature and cause of accusation against him, a right which is

may prejudice the rights of the accused. One of these rights is the constitutional right of the
given life duringR

accused to be informed of
is that sincen the accused officially begins to prepare hisr

the arraignment of the accused of the charge of against him. The theory in law
basis of a the recitals in the information read to him a

defense against the accusation on the
must h B
during arraignment, then the prosecution
s
C Leviste vs. Alameda (G.R. No. 182677,e August 3, 2010)
establish its case on the basis of the same information.
b l
Ro of the court.
- substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged
and determinative of the jurisdiction
- The following haven r (1) new allegations

a B a
been held to be mere formal amendments:
of conviction; h
which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event
s
C that charged in the original one; (3) additional
e allegations which do not
(2) an amendment which does not charge another offense different or
distinct from
l
and affect the form of defense he has or will b
alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused
not adversely affect any substantial right o assume; (4) an amendment which does
R vagueness in the information and not

of the accused; and (5) an amendment
n
that merely adds specifications to eliminate
a a r
B
to introduce new and material facts, and merely states with additional precision
essential for conviction for theh

something which is already contained in the original information and which adds nothing
C crime charged. s
ea defense under
b
- test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether l
R
whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable o
the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and
to the information in
the one form as in the other (DAEA)
a n a r
Formal Amendments
h B
C2014) e s
l
Mendez vs. People (G.R. No. 179962, June 11,
- amendments that do not charge another offense different from that charged
o b in the
R
original one; or do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause
n
surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume are
considered merely as formal amendments
a
- the jurisprudential test on whether a defendant is prejudiced
an information pertains to the availability of the same defenseC hbyandtheevidence
amendment of
that the
accused previously had under the original information. This test, however, must be read
together with the characteristic thread of formal amendments, which is to maintain the
nature of the crime or the essence of the offense charged.
19
- amendments sought by the prosecution pertain to (i) the alleged change in the date in
the commission of the crime from 2001 to 2002; (ii) the addition of the phrase doing
business under the name and style of Mendez Medical Group; (iii) the change and/or
addition of the branches of petitioners operation; and (iv) the addition of the phrase for
income earned. Court held that these are mere formal amendments, as the nature of
the crime or the essence of the offense charged under the amended information
remained consistent, thus petitioner could not have been surprised at all.
- citing Almeda v. Judge Villaluz, prosecution wanted to additionally allege recidivism and
habitual delinquency in the original information. In allowing the amendment, the Court
r
observed that the amendment sought relate only to the range of the penalty that the court
Ba
might impose in the event of conviction. Since they do not have the effect of charging an
offense different from the one charged (qualified theft of a motor vehicle) in the
s
information, nor do they tend to correct any defect in the trial courts jurisdiction over the
e
l
subject-matter, the amendment sought is merely formal.
ob
- citing Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, the prosecution sought during trial to amend the
R
information from frustrated to consummated murder since the victim died after the
an r
information for frustrated murder was filed. The accused refused to be arraigned under the
a
amended information without the conduct of a new preliminary investigation. In sustaining
h B
the admission of the amended information, the Court reasoned that the additional
C s
allegation, that is, the supervening fact of the death of the victim was merely supplied to
l e
aid the trial court in determining the proper penalty for the crime. Again, there is no
change in the nature of offense charged; nor is there a change in the prosecutions
b
theory that the accused committed a felonious act with intent to kill the victim; nor
o
R
does the amendment affect whatever defense the accused originally may have.
an a r
Kummer vs. People (G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013)
h
is not great, is more formal than substantial. Such ans
- A mere change in the date of the commission of the crime, B if the disparity of time
C e would not alter the nature of the
amendment would not prejudice
offense.
b l
the rights of the accused since the proposed amendment
Rounder
- The test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a
a n
complaint or information is when a defense
r any
the complaint or information, as it
originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, when
a
made, and when any evidenceh B to the
evidence the accused might have would no longer be available after the amendment is
C e s
the accused might have would be inapplicable
l
complaint or information, as amended. DAEA
Substantial amendments
o b
Leviste vs. Alameda (G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010) R
- whether the amendment of the Information froma

n a r
h in the present case consists of B
homicide to murder is considered a
Cof treachery, evident premeditation, andes

substantial amendment. Amendment involved
cruelty, which qualify the offense charged from homicide to murder. It being alnew
additional averments of the circumstances
and material element of the offense, petitioner should be given the chance tob
evidence on the matter. Not being merely clarificatory, the amendmento
adduce
Rjust the form

essentially
n
varies the prosecution's original theory of the case and certainly affects not
but the weight of defense to be mustered by petitioner
a
157472, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 338) wherein the C
- factual milieus in Buhat v. CA (333 Phil. 562 (1996) and Pacoy h v. Cajigal (G.R. No.
amendment of the caption of
the Information from homicide to murder was not considered substantial because there
was no real change in the recital of facts constituting the offense charged as alleged in the
body of the Information, as the allegations of qualifying circumstances were already clearly
embedded in the original Information. Buhat pointed out that the original Information for
homicide already alleged the use of superior strength, while Pacoy states that the
20
averments in the amended Information for murder are exactly the same as those already
alleged in the original Information for homicide. None of these peculiar circumstances
obtains in the present case.
J. Venue of criminal actions
Place where action is to be instituted (Sec. 15, Rule 110)
General rule:
a r
B
In the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.
e s
Offense committed in al
In the court of anyo

b train, aircraft, or vehicle in the course of its trip:
its trip, includingR

municipality or territory where said train, aircraft, or vehicle passed during
n rof its voyage:

the place of departure and arrival.
Offensea a
h committed on board a vessel in the course
B
InCthe court of the first point of entry or of any s
l e municipality or territory where the vessel passed
b
during such voyage.
R
Crime committed outside of Philippineso but punishable under Art. 2 of RPC:
a n
Court where the criminal action is first filed. (Sec.15, Rule 110).
a r
h B 28, 2012)
saffidavit under Article 183 of the
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People (G.R. No. 192565, February
C e
- the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false
b
RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears l to his or her affidavit since it is
R o
at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury
committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that
are executed. - When the crime is
a n
is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is
a r
hto the actual testimony made in a proceeding B that is
C
given. If in lieu of or as supplement
e s
l taking of the
neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at the
oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the crime b
place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath was taken as the
R o
determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information
committed. In all cases,
to be constitutive
n r
of the crime committed.
a May 5, 2010) - libel B a

h
Bonifacio vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati (GR. No. 184800,
- Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions C such that the place where the crime wass
l e
b
committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential
Ro
element of jurisdiction. This principle acquires even greater import in libel cases, given that
Article 360, as amended, specifically provides for the possible venues for the institution of
n
the criminal and civil aspects of such cases.
a
h
- In order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal action for written
the time the offense was committed, the offended party was aC
defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether, at
public officer or a private
individual and where he was actually residing at that time.
Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first
published should likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine qua non if the
21
circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first published is used as the basis of
the venue of the action.
- the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited
to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was
printed and first published. The Amended Information in the present case opted to lay
the venue by availing of the second.
r
Foz, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No 167764, October 9, 2009)
Ba
Libel - information filed in RTC Iloilo City. Panay News Foz, as columnist, portrayed Dr.
s
Portigo as an incompetent doctor and an opportunist who enriched himself at the expense
e
of the people. Accused convicted, appealed to CA, affirmed, petition for review with SC.
l
b
Venue of libel - place (1) where publication was first printed and published or province
o
R
(2) where offended party actually resided at time of commission of the offense.
Information failed to comply with venue requirements for libel under Art. 360. Decision
an ar
convicting petitioners should be aside for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to its filing
h B
with the court of competent jurisdiction
C e s
Rigor vs. People (G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004) EXAMPLES
- violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang

b l22 are categorized as transitory or continuing
R
consummation occur in one municipality o or territory and some in another, in which event, the
crimes. In such crimes, some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their
n the other. Hence, a person chargedawith r a transitory crime

court of either has jurisdiction to try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking
a B
cognizance of the case excludes
C h
may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part
s
e
committed.
b l
Ro action (Sec. 16, Rule 110)
K. Intervention of the offended party in criminal
- correlate with Sec. 12, Rule 110 (Name aofnthe offended party) B a r
C h s
l e
Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee vs. Chua Pue Chin Lee (G.R. No. 181658, August 7, 2013 ) -
perjury
o b
R
- citing Garcia v. Court of Appeals (334 Phil. 621, 631-632 (1997), from the language of
anparty r
Section 12, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, it is reasonable to assume that the offended party
in the commission of a crime, public or private, is the to whom the offender is
B a
h
civilly liable, and therefore the private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is
C es
the offended party.
- Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended l
b
party
o of.or
may also be a private individual whose person, right, house, liberty or property was
R
actually or directly injured by the same punishable act or omission of the accused,
nif thematter
that corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the delictual acts complained
a
Such party must be one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in the subject of the
h
action as will entitle him to recourse under the substantive law, to recourse evidence is
Cexpectancy, subordinate or
sufficient or that he has the legal right to the demand and the accused will be protected by the
satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such interest must not be a mere
inconsequential. The interest of the party must be personal; and not one based on a desire to
vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party (citing Ramiscal, Jr. v. Hon.
Sandiganbayan, 487 Phil. 384 [2004])
22
- where the private prosecution has asserted its right to intervene in the proceedings, that right
must be respected. The right reserved by the Rules to the offended party is that of
intervening for the sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability born of the criminal act
and not of demanding punishment of the accused. Such intervention, moreover, is always
subject to the direction and control of the public prosecutor.
When private offended party may bring special civil action of certiorari in criminal
proceedings
a r
Perez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank, G.R. No. 126210, March 9, 2000, 327 SCRA 588
B
Estafa Hagonoy, Bulacan
e s
b l
- In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of
o
Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
R
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that
the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties
an ar
are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an
h B
interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action questioning
C s
the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the
l e
complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines.
The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant."
o b
- Thus, while it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf
R
an r
of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal
a
proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the private
B
C h
offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in his own
s
e
name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law.
bl
R o
Who represents People in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court
an
Ong vs. Genio, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009
B ar
Robbery Makati City
C h s 6 (a). Private
l e
b
RTC dismissed case for lack of probable cause pursuant to Rule 112, Sec.
obefore the CA or SC on
complainant Elvira Ong filed petition for certiorari and mandamus with CA.
R
n r
Held: Only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions
a a
behalf of the People of the Philippines. However, offended party may appeal the
h qjestioning the decision of the trial B

civil aspect despite acquittal of accused. The complainant has an interest in the civil
C prosecuted in the name of saids

aspect of the case. He may file certiorari petition
court on jurisdictional grounds. The action may be
l e
b
complainant.
R o
III. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
an
Ch
A. Rule on implied institution of civil action with criminal action
Civil liabilities that may arise from a criminal act
- correlate with: Arts. 100-113, Revised Penal Code
23
Arts. 29, 32, 33, 34, 2176, 2180, 2184, Civil Code
Daluraya vs. Marla Oliva (G.R. No. 210148, December 8, 2014)
- Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The acquittal of an accused
of the crime charged, however, does not necessarily extinguish his civil liability.
Two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law and their concomitant effects on the civil
liability of the accused
First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or
a r
omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person
who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and
B
can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil
e s
liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be
b l
instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is
the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
R o
Second is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been
an r
satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be
proved by preponderance of evidence only.
B a
Ch - The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against him on
s
e
the civil aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
l
the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable
o b
doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the
liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not
R
arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted.
an r
However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding
a
on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil
B
C h
liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or
omission imputed to him.
s
l e
b
Ways of instituting civil actions in criminal cases
Ro
General Rule: deemed instituted with criminal action.
Exceptions: an B ar
(1) waiver
Ch e s
(2) reservation of right to institute separately,
bl
(3) prior institution of civil action (Sec. 1.)
Ro
an B a r
Exception to these exceptions:
Ch e s
b
claims arising out of a dishonored check under BP22 where no reservation l to
o (Sec. 4,
file such civil action shall be allowed.
R
an
claims arising from an offense which is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249)
C h
Co vs. Muoz (G.R. No. 181986, December 4, 2013)
- procedural rules provide for two modes by which civil liability ex delicto may be
enforced: (1) through a civil action that is deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal
action; (2) through a civil action that is filed separately, either before the criminal
action or after, upon reservation of the right to file it separately in the criminal action
24
When to reserve Sec. 1, 2nd par.
- No reservation required and civil action not suspended when act constituting a
crime is at the same time a violation of Arts. 32, 33, 34 (independent civil actions)
and 2176 (quasi-delicts) of Civil Code.
Criminal actions for violation of BP 22, civil action is deemed included and that a
reservation to file such separately is not allowed.
a r
Nissan Gallery-Ortigas vs. Felipe (G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013 )
- if the judgment is convictionB

s of the accused, then the necessary penalties and civil
judgment is of acquittal, thenethe imposition of the civil liability will depend on whether or not the
liabilities arising from the offense or crime shall be imposed. On the contrary, if the
b lit might arise exists.

o
act or omission from which
- Felipe was R acquitted because the element of notice of dishonor was not sufficiently
a n a r
established. Nevertheless, the act or omission from which her civil liability arose, which was the
h B
making or the issuing of the subject worthless check, clearly existed. Her acquittal from the
C s
criminal charge of BP 22 was based on reasonable doubt and it did not relieve her of the
corresponding civil liability.
l e
o b
B. When civil action mayR proceed independently (Sec. 3, Rule 111)
Standard Insurance a
n a r 10, 2014), citing
h B
Co., Inc. vs. Cuaresma (G.R. No. 200055, September
C
Casupanan vs. Laroya, 436 Phil. 582 (2002)
s
- There is no question that the offended party inethe criminal action can file an
l
independent civil action for quasi-delict against thebaccused. Section 3 of the present Rule
111 expressly states that the "offended party"o
Rto the offended
may bring such an action but the "offended
n r
party" may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal
a a
action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers party in the criminal action, not
h B
to the accused.
- as a result of a vehicularC
e s
accident, a party involved therein filed a criminal case for
filed a civil suit against the party instituting the criminal action, Web l that the party filing
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property against the other party, who, in turn,
held
R o111) expressly allow the

the separate civil action cannot be liable for forum shopping because the law (Arts.
2176 & 2177 of the Civil Code), and the rules (Sec. 1, Rule
a ncan file a separate civil action ar

filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal
under these articles. There is nothing in theh law or rules that state only the private B
action. ; Either the private complainant or the accused
complainant in a criminal case may invoke these C articles.

e s
b l
C. When separate civil action is suspended (Sec. 2, Rule 111) Ro
anarising therefrom
cannot be instituted until FINAL JUDGMENT has been enteredh
- After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action
(Deferment) C in the criminal action.

- If the criminal action is filed after the separate civil action has already been instituted, the
latter shall be SUSPENDED in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits.
The suspension shall last until FINAL JUDGMENT is rendered in the criminal action.
(Suspension)
25
- Before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of
the offended party, be CONSOLIDATED with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal
action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be
deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the
prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal
case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil
actions shall be tried and decided jointly. (Consolidation)
- During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of the
civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended
shall be tolled. (Tolling of prescriptive period)
r
- Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However,
Ba
the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist.
Romero vs. People, G.R.l e s

- acquittal ofban accused of the crime charged will not necessarily extinguish
No. 167546, July 17, 2009
R o unless the court declares in a final judgment that the fact from
his civil liability,
a n doubt but still order payment of civil

reasonable
a rdamages in the same case. It is not
which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Courts can acquit an accused on
h B
even necessary that a separate civil action be instituted.
C Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc. (G.R. e s

l
No. 172505, October 1, 2014)
b
acquitting the accused and o
if the state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the trial court
separate civil action, theR

private complainant/s failed to reserve the right to institute a
The appeal of the civil liability exr

anpetition
civil liability ex delicto that is inherently attached to the offense
is likewise appealed.
B a delicto is impliedly
h
instituted with the for certiorari assailing the acquittal
C the doctrine of non-forum shopping.es

of the accused.
Private complainant cannot anymore pursue a separate appeal from that of the state
l reserved the right to institute

without violating
o
the conclusion is different if private complainant b
Rofprior
the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto before the Regional Trial
n rforum
Court or institute a separate civil action to the filing of the criminal case in
appeal as to the civil aspectaof the case cannot be considered as a

accordance with Rule 111 of the Rules Court. In these situations, the filing of an
B
shopping.
Ch e s
b l
D. Effect of death of the accused or convict on civil actiono (Sec. 4, Rule 111)
R
n
The accuseds death after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action
shall extinguish the civil liability arisingafrom the crime. However, the a r
h is thereafter is instituted may be B
C accused after proper substitutions
independent civil action instituted or which
continued against the legal representative of the
or against said estate, as the case may be. The accuseds heirs may be substituted
l e
for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator
the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
o b and
R
Cabugao vs. People (G.R. No. 163879, July 30, 2014)
a n
C h
- the effect of death, pending appeal of his conviction of petitioner Dr. Ynzon with regard
to his criminal and pecuniary liabilities should be in accordance with People v. Bayotas,
G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239, wherein the Court laid down the
rules in case the accused dies prior to final judgment:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As
opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to
26
final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex
delicto in senso strictiore."
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the
death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these
other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of
the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
r
c) Quasi-contracts
d) x x x x x x x x x
e) Quasi-delicts
Ba
s
3.Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an
e
l
action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a
b
separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules
o
on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be
R
enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the
an r
accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is
a
based as explained above.
h B
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to
C s
file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the
e
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-
l
b
offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the
o
statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during
R
the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of
an r
Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension
a
on a possible privation of right by prescription.
h B
C the recovery of civil liability subsists s as the same is not based on
- death of the accused Dr. Ynzon pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability. However,
e
lcivil action may be enforced either
b
delict but by contract and the reckless imprudence he was guilty of under Article 365 of
o
the Revised Penal Code. For this reason, a separate
source of obligation upon which the sameR

against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the
is based and in accordance with Sec. 4, Rule
111.
a n a r
damages from the same act or omission complained of, the party may file a B
h
- upon the extinction of the criminal liability and the offended party desires to recover
C s Rule 111 If
separate civil
the same act or omission complained of arises from quasi-delict, e

action based on the other sources of obligation in accordance with Section 4,
b l of the estate of
separate civil action must be filed against the executor or administrator
as in this case, a
Ro
the.
*** Datu vs. People (G.R. No. 169718, December 13, 2010)n r
a
which occurred while petitioners appeal B
- TDC
a
h
C before this Court, we are constrained
In light of this supervening event (death of petitioner)
s
of the judgment of his conviction was pending resolution
l e
b
by both law and jurisprudence to dismiss the present case for the appeal has been rendered
o
moot.1avvphi1
R
Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code instructs us that criminal liability is totally extinguished
by the death of the offender, to wit:
a n
C h
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final
judgment.
It is therefore evident from the foregoing discussion that venturing into the merits of petitioners
appeal given the circumstance of his untimely demise has become superfluous because, even
assuming this Court would proceed to affirm the lower courts judgment of conviction, such a
27
ruling would be of no force and effect as the resultant criminal liability is totally extinguished by
his death. Consequently, his civil liability arising from the crime, being civil liability ex
delicto, is likewise extinguished by his death. Since his appeal was still pending before this
Court, there was no final judgment of conviction upon which an award of civil indemnity could
be based.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the death of petitioner extinguished his criminal liability
and the civil liability based solely on the act complained of, i.e., acts of lasciviousness.
Thus, the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated March 31, 2005, affirming petitioners
conviction by the trial court, had become ineffectual.
a r
Ba bar Sec. 5
s
Judgment in civil action not
e in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is
l
NOT A BAR toba criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission
A final judgment rendered
R o
subject of the civil action. (4a)
a
E. Prejudicialn question
a r
h B question Sec. 6, Rule 111.
C
Suspension
s
ecriminal action based upon the pendency of a
of criminal action by reason of prejudicial
prejudicial question in a civilb

A petition for suspension of the l
the court conducting theo
action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or
criminal action atn

R preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has
r
been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same
a any time before the prosecution rests.
B a
h
C instituted civil action involves an issue
Elements of prejudicial question Sec. 7, Rule 111
s
(a) the previously
l eandsimilar or intimately related to
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether
o b
the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action,
or not the criminal action may
proceed.
R
a n a r
hcomes into play in a situation where sa civilBaction and
Sps. Gaditano vs. San Miguel Corporation (G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013)
C e which must be
- A prejudicial question generally
preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because l

a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue
raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative jurisb

howsoever the issue
Robehind the principle of

et de jure of the guilt or
innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationale
anThe r
prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
-material facts surrounding the civil case bear no relation to the criminal
a
civil case involves the dishonor of anotherh check. SMC is not privy to the nature of B
investigation being conducted by the prosecutor. prejudicial question in the
C to its dishonor and the eventual e s

land
the alleged materially altered check leading
garnishment of petitioners savings account. The source of the funds of petitioners
savings account is no longer SMCs concern. The matter is between petitioners
o b
AsiaTrust Bank. On the other hand, the issue in the preliminary investigation
- If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the issue n
whether petitioners issued a bad check to SMC for the payment of beer products. R is
ainwould
one is intimately
provided that the other element or characteristic is satisfied. It h

related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question likely exist,
the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal C prosecution would be
must appear not only that
based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be
necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution of
the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the
accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity
that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case
28
does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil
and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.
Pimentel vs. Pimentel (G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010)
- Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question in criminal case for Parricide
- There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively
resolved before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue
raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or
r
innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
a
B
- relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of
e s
parricide, which punishes any person "who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether
b l
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse." The
relationship between the offender and the victim distinguishes the crime of
R o
parricide from murder or homicide. However, the issue in the annulment of
marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for
an r
parricide. Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is not
a
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
B
h
C Family Code is whether petitioner e is s
- The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the
l The issue in parricide is whether the accused

psychologically incapacitated to comply with
killed the victim. In this case,b

the essential marital obligations.
Ro but which,
since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide,
the issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution which would have killed
causes independentn r dissolution

respondent as a consequence nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of
crime, petitioner a a
of petitioners will. At the time of the commission of the alleged
h and respondent were married. The subsequent

B of their
C crime that was committed at the time of s

marriage, in case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no effect
on the alleged
l e the subsistence of the marriage.
could still be held criminally liable since at thebtime of the commission of the alleged
In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner
crime, he was still married to respondent. o

R
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Jacintoa
n a r315)
h
(G.R. No. 154622, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA
B
- A prejudicial question C generally exists in a situation where a civil s
e issue that must
action and a
be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, b

criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former an
l
o
because howsoever the
R case. The elements of a

issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure
prejudicial question are provided under Section 7, n r

of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal
Criminal Procedure, as amended, as follows: (i)athe previously instituted civil action a

Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of
criminal action, and (ii) the resolution ofC

involves an issue similar or intimately related hto the issue raised in the subsequent B
such issue determines whether or not thes
l e
b
criminal action may proceed.
- A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the

criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be
R o
a n
rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected. Not
every defense raised in a civil action will raise a prejudicial question to justify
C h
suspension of the criminal action. The defense must involve an issue similar or
intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal case and its resolution should
determine whether or not the latter action may proceed. If the resolution of the issue
in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in
the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the
civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case
29
does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the
civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.
De Zuzuarregui vs. Villarosa(G.R. No. 183788, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 377)
- For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend a criminal action, it must appear
not only that said civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the
criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or
issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is
r
to avoid two (2) conflicting decisions.
Ba
- The determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the basis of a
e s
prejudicial question rests on whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the
civil case are so related with the issues raised in the criminal case such that the
b l
resolution of the issues in the civil case would also determine the judgment in the
o
criminal case.
R
Abunado vs. People (G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 562)
an ar
- A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate
h B
from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or
C s
innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not
l e
only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised
o b
in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial
R
question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
a n a r was immaterial
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage
because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had B
h already been consummated.
Cthat an accused could simply file a petitionesto declare his previous marriage
Moreover, petitioners assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases
void and invoke the pendency of that action as l

considering
case.
o b a prejudicial question in the criminal
R
an r
F. Rule on filing fees in civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action
B a
(Sec. 1 (b), 2nd par. , Rule 111 h
C e s
General Rule: No filing fees are required for amounts of actual damages
b l
Exception:
R o
the filing fees based on the face value of the check asa
criminal actions for for violation of B.P. 22, in which the noffended party shall pay in full ar
h the actual damages.
B
C damages, other damages), other thans
actual damages, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filinglfees
Where the amount of damages (moral, exemplary
e
shall be paid by the offended party upon filing thereof in court.
o b
In any other case, that is, when the amount of damages is not so alleged, theR
filing fees need NOT be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien n
corresponding
a on the judgment,
Ch
EXCEPT on an award for actual damages.
30
Simon vs. Chan (G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011) citing Hyatt Industrial
Manufacturing Corporation v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corporation, G.R. No. 163597, July
29, 2005, 465 SCRA 454, 459-461
- Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but because of the
inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of B.P. 22, the Rules require
the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the complaint. This rule was enacted to
help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the
courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for
actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to
a r
collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even
B
informed thereof. The inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected
s
to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection
l e
based on dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these
ob
cases. Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil,
only a single suit shall be filed and tried.
R
an
IV. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
B ar
h
C there s
e well-founded belief that a crime has been
Definition: Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
committed and the respondent is l

is sufficient ground to engender a
st
(Sec. 1, 1 par., Rule 112)
o b probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
R
n
Ocampo vs. Abando (G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014)
a a r
h B While the right to have a
- A preliminary investigation is not a casual affair. It is conducted to protect the innocent
preliminary C
from the embarrassment,
s
e in the administration of criminal
expense and anxiety of a public trial.
l
investigation before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a
substantive right and a component of due process
justice. b
othe right to due process of law entails
R
ntoaccusation. rofficerof
- In the context of a preliminary investigation,
athe
the opportunity to be heard. It serves
a
accord an opportunity for the presentation
Bbelief that a
crime has been committed,C
h and defenses lead to a reasonable
the respondents side with regard to
shall decide whether the allegations
Afterwards, the investigating
s
l
and that it was the respondent who committed
e it. Otherwise,
b
the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint.
When required:
R o
Preliminary investigation is required to be conductedn r
a a
before the filing of a complaint or
h
information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years,
B
C s
nd
two (2) months and (1) day without regard to the fine.(Sec. 1, 2 par., Rule 112)
l e
b
Ro
Exception: when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant. (Sec. 6, Rule 112 as
amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC)
a nmay be asked by
h
Exceptions to the exception: (Instances when preliminary investigation
the accused)
C
1. Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a PI,
but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC, as amended, in the
presence of his counsel.
31
2. After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary

investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing,
ask for a preliminary investigation.
Estrada vs. Bersamin (G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015)
Four instances in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure where probable cause is needed to
be established:
In all these instances, the evidence necessary to establish probable cause is based only on
r
the likelihood, or probability, of guilt.
a
(1) In Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the investigating officer, to determine whether there is
B
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
s
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. A preliminary investigation is
e
required before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
l
b
prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day without regard to the fine;
R o
(2) In Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine whether a warrant of arrest or
a commitment order, if the accused has already been arrested, shall be issued and that there is
an ar
a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the
h B
ends of justice;
C e s
(3) In Section 5(b) of Rule 113: By a peace officer or a private person making a warrantless
b l
arrest 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; and
R o
an r
(4) In Section 4 of Rule 126: By the judge, to determine whether a search warrant shall be
a
issued, and only upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined
B
C h
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
s
e
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things
to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
bl
R o
an r
A. Nature of right
B a
C h
s
- the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation areemerely statutory
rights, not constitutional due process rights. An investigation to
b ldetermine probable
operation Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution. It iso
cause for the filing of an information does not initiate a criminal action so as to trigger into
R the filing of a complaint or
information in court that initiates a criminal action.
a n a r
right of an accused to confront the witnesses h
- Thus, a preliminary investigation can be taken away by legislation. The constitutional
B
C investigation be an infringementeofs
against him does not apply in preliminary
l
investigations; nor will the absence of a preliminary
his right to confront the witnesses against him. A preliminary investigation may
b be
Ro
done away with entirely without infringing the constitutional right of an accused
under the due process clause to a fair trial.
Enrile vs. Manalastas (G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014)

an
- preliminary investigation, the occasion for the submission h
C of the parties respective
affidavits, counter-affidavits and evidence to buttress their separate allegations, is merely
inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be
reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare the information. It is
not yet a trial on the merits, for its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been
committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty
thereof. The scope of the investigation does not approximate that of a trial before the
32
court; hence, what is required is only that the evidence be sufficient to establish probable
cause that the accused committed the crime charged, not that all reasonable doubt of the
guilt of the accused be removed.
***Agdeppa vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 146376, April 23, 2014 citing Uy v. Office of the
Ombudsman (578 Phil. 635, 655 (2008) (Leonardo-De Castro, J.:)
- A preliminary investigation is held before an accused is placed on trial to secure the

innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution; to protect him from an
open and public accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble, expenses, and anxiety
r
of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and
a
expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a component of
B
due process in administering criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary investigation
s
conducted before being bound for trial and before being exposed to the risk of
l e
incarceration and penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right.
To deny the accuseds claim to a preliminary investigation is to deprive him of the
o b
full measure of his right to due process.
R cannot insist that a preliminary investigation be held when the complaint

n r
- A complainant
anda purpose of preliminary investigation to still a

was dismissed outright because of palpable lack of merit. It goes against the very nature
rigors of such an investigation so as toB

h
drag the respondent/accused through the
C s
aid the complainant in substantiating an
l e 18, 2012)
accusation/charge that is evidently baseless from the very beginning.
b
Arroyo vs. DOJ (G.R. No. 199082, September
o is the crucial sieve in the criminal justice system
R
- A preliminary investigation
n jail term, on the one hand, and rpeace of mind and

which spells for an individual the difference between months if not years of
a a
B
agonizing trial and possibly
h
liberty, on the other hand. Thus, we have characterized
s
the right to a preliminary
due processC e
investigation as not a mere formal or technical right but a substantive one, forming part of
in criminal justice.
b lguarantee the petitioners basic due

o a copy of the complaint, the affidavits,
- In a preliminary investigation, the Rules of Court
Rright
process rights such as the right to be furnished
supporting documents in her defense. n r

and other supporting documents, and the to submit counter-affidavits, and other
a a
C hNO. 170288, September 22, 2006) s B
Budiongan, Jr. vs. Dela Cruz, Jr. (G.R.
l e
validity of the Information or otherwise render the same o
conferred by statute. The absence of a preliminary investigation b does not impair the
- The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but is merely a right
Information. If absence of a preliminary investigationn

R defective. It does not affect
r
the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constitute a ground for quashing the
a does not render the Information
Information or oust the court of its B

a
reinvestigation cannot likewise invalidate the
C h
invalid nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, then the denial of a motion for
s
jurisdiction over the case.
l e
b
Ro
an
Waiver of right to preliminary investigation.
h
Roallos vs. People (G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013)
C
-the absence of a proper preliminary investigation must be timely raised. The accused is
deemed to have waived his right to a preliminary investigation by entering his plea and
actively participating in the trial without raising the lack of a preliminary investigation. This
is to allow the trial court to hold the case in abeyance and conduct its own investigation or
require the prosecutor to hold a reinvestigation, which, necessarily involves a re-
examination and re-evaluation of the evidence already submitted by the complainant and
33
the accused, as well as the initial finding of probable cause which led to the filing of the
Informations after the requisite preliminary investigation.
B. Purposes of Preliminary Investigation

People vs. Yecyec (G.R. No. 183551, November 12, 2014) citing Ledesma v. Court of
Appeals 344 Phil. 207, 226 (1997)
- The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free respondent from the
inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending himself/herself in the course of
a formal trial, until the reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a more or less summary
r
proceeding by a competent office designated by law for that purpose. Secondarily, such
Ba
summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden of the unnecessary expense
an effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous or
groundless charges.
e s
l
Such investigation is not part of the trial. A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties'
b
evidence is not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief than an
o
offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. By reason of
R
the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, a dismissal of the charges as a result
n r
thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. Hence, no double
a a
jeopardy attaches.
h B 10, 2014)
CThe purpose of a preliminary investigation s
Pestilos vs. Generoso (G.R. No. 182601, November
l e is to determine whether a crime has been
b
committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of the
Ro of facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in

crime and should be held for trial.
anguiltyonofthe rthe prosecutor, that

- probable cause - the existence
a reasonable mind, acting facts within the knowledge of
B a
C h
the person charged was the crime for which he was prosecuted.
s
l e People vs. Andrade (G.R. No.
Two Kinds of Determination of Probable Cause:
b
The executive determination of probableo
187000, November 24, 2014)
investigation. It is a function that properlyR

cause is one made during preliminary
given a broad discretion to determine n r

pertains to the public prosecutor who is
a a
Bthus
whether probable cause exists and to charge
h
those whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and
C or not a criminal case must be filed sin court.
e
should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial
Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged lby the public
authority to determine whether
o
prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment b of the
R
existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not
The judicial determination of probable cause, onn r

and may not be compelled to pass upon.
a the other hand, is one made
B a
accused. The judge must satisfy himself that h
by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the
C custody in order not to frustrate the es

based on the evidence submitted,
ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot bel
there is necessity for placing the accused under
forced to issue the arrest warrant.

o b
RThe judicial
The difference is clear: The executive determination of probable cause concerns itself
an a warrant of
with whether there is enough evidence to support an Information being filed.
determination of probable cause, on the other hand, determines whether
Ch
arrest should be issued.
Shu vs. Dee (G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014)

- It is well-settled that in order to arrive at a finding of probable cause, the elements
of the crime charged should be present. In determining these elements for
purposes of preliminary investigation, only facts sufficient to support a prima facie
case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty. Thus,
34
probable cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more
than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction.
C. Who may Conduct Determination of Existence of Probable Cause
Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations: (Sec. 2, Rule 112, as

amended by A.M. No 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on October 3, 2005)
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
a r
(b) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
Bauthorized by law.
s
(c) Other officers as may be
e Officers in NCR, Provincial Election Supervisors, Regional
COMELEC (Election l
b Assistant Regional Election Directors, Regional Election Directors
and lawyerso
Election Attorneys,
R
of the Law Department.
a n
Ombudsman
a r
h B
s
PCGG
C e (G.R. No. 115906, September 29,
l
Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan
b
1994, 237 SCRA 242)
R o
a n not committed by the respondentaror defendant in close
- PCGG has the power to conduct preliminary investigation of cases for forfeiture of
allegedly ill-gotten wealth although
h
association with former President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
B
C
People vs. Borje (G.R. No. 170046, December 10, 2014) e
s
b lthe determination of probable cause
o
- in crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
R which is empowered to determine, in the

during the preliminary investigation, or reinvestigation for that matter, is a function that
belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman,
a nas defined by law.

exercise of its discretion, whether probable cause exists, and to charge the person
a r
h B and
believed to have committed the crime
C s
- courts do not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the
that the accused is probably guilty thereof necessitating the filing ofe
presence or absence of probable cause believing that a crime has been committed
information with the appropriate courts. This rule is based not only
b l on respect for the
the corresponding
Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. ; unless it is shown

R o that the Ombudsmans
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the
namounting to lack or excess of ar

finding of probable cause was done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
a B
evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion
Ejercito vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 212398,C

h
jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere with the same.
s
November 25, 2014)
l e
- Under COMELEC Resolution No. 9386, all lawyers in the COMELEC who are Election
Officers in the National Capital Region ("NCR"), Provincial Election Supervisors, b
o Election
Regional Election Attorneys, Assistant Regional Election Directors, Regional
R
may be filed directly with them, or which may be indorsed to them a
n laws which
Directors and lawyers of the Law Department are authorized to conduct preliminary
investigation of complaints involving election offenses under the election
h by the COMELEC.
Agdeppa vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 146376, April 23, C 2014) citing M.A. Jimenez
Enterprises, Inc. vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 155307, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 381, 392-394.)
- determination of probable cause against those in public office during a

preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Ombudsman. The
Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or
35
upon the complaint of any person, any act or omission which appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient. It has the discretion to determine whether a criminal
case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not.
Shu vs. Dee (G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014)

- The determination of probable cause is essentially an executive function, lodged
in the first place on the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation.
The prosecutors ruling is reviewable by the Secretary who, as the final determinative
authority on the matter, has the power to reverse, modify or affirm the prosecutors
determination.
a r
- It is well-settled that the findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to
interference by the courts, save only when he acts with grave abuse of discretion
B
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; when he grossly misapprehends facts;
s
when he acts in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
e
l
duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law; or when he acts outside the
b
contemplation of law.
o
R
Pea Vs. Martizano (A.M. No. Mtj-02-1451, May 30, 2003)
an r
- When the facts stated in the complaint plainly described an election offense,
a
only the Commission on Elections (Comelec) had the exclusive power to
B
Ch preliminarily investigate and to prosecute election offenses; Comelec, through its
s
authorized legal officers, has the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigations
l e
of all election offenses and to prosecute them (Sec. 265, Omnibus Election Code)
Procedure (Sec. 3)
o b
R
an r
a. Filing of the complaint accompanied by the affidavits and supporting documents
B a
h
b. Within 10 days from filing The investigating officer issues a subpoena
-
C officer dismisses the complaint e s

lsubmit a counter-affidavit and other
c. The investigating
o
d. Within 10 days from receipt - Respondent shall b
supporting documents
R
an
e. Within 10 days from receipt of counter-affidavit
a r of
OR from the expiration of the period
B
Ch
their submission
e s
l
f. Clarificatory Hearing (OPTIONAL)
g. Resolution of the investigating prosecutor

o b
R
an investigation has no right to Bar
cross-examine the witnesses which the complainant h

- It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary
Rules of Court expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right tos
C may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the
l e
and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the partiesb
submit a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant
witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right too

or their
R examine or
n
cross-examine.
a
D. Resolution of investigating prosecutor (Sec. 4, Rule 112)
If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the C
h
respondent for trial, he shall
prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in the information
that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the
complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime
has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused
36
was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he
was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
If the investigating prosecutor finds no ground to continue with the inquiry he

shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.
Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of the case to the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy
in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction. They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof
r
and shall immediately inform the parties of such action.
Ba
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor
s
without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief
e
l
state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
ob
R
Soriano vs. Marcelo (G.R. No. 160772, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 394)
an r
- Conducting a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining whether
a
there exists probable cause to prosecute a person for the commission of a crime,
h B
including the determination of whether to conclude, reopen or dismiss the criminal
C s
complaint subject of the preliminary investigation, is a matter that rests within the sound
e
discretion of the provincial or city prosecutor. This is clear from the provision of
l
b
Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which specifically states
o
that no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without
R
the prior written authority of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor or the
n r
Ombudsman or his deputy
a
Plopinio vs. Liza Zabala-Cario
March 22, 2010) h
(A.M. No. P-08-2458 (Formerlya
B
OCA IPI No. 08-2755-P),
C
- A person shall be considered formally charged:
e s
xxxx
b l
In criminal proceedings - (a) upon the finding of the existence of probable cause by the
R oprovincial or city prosecutor or chief state

investigating prosecutor and the consequent filing of an information in court with the
required prior written authority or approval of the
a n or by the judge in cases not requiring

prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy; (b) upon the finding of the existence of
a r a
preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure; orB
probable cause by the public prosecutor
C h s
(c) upon the
e
finding of cause or ground to hold the accused for trial pursuant to Section 13 of the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
b l
Ro
Manlavi vs. Gacott Jr. (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293, May 9, 1995)
The provision that no complaint or information may be
a
investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority n filed or dismissed by an
or approval of the provincial
a r
h
or city prosecutor applies to the conduct of the preliminary investigation which is within the
B
C
control of the public prosecutor. It has no application in a case where the information is
e s
already filed before the proper court
b l
Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the
complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the provincial or
R ocity
an
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy on the
ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the information
Ch
against the respondent, or direct another assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to
do so without conducting another preliminary investigation.
Guidelines for the documentation of a resolution by an investigating prosecutor, who

after conducting preliminary investigation, finds no probable cause and recommends a
dismissal of the criminal complaint: Abanadovs. Bayona [A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804 (Formerly
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-2179-MTJ), July 30, 2012]
37
1. the investigating prosecutor prepares a resolution recommending the dismissal and

containing the following:
a. summary of the facts of the case;
b. concise statement of the issues therein; and
c. his findings and recommendations.
2. within five days from the date of his resolution, the investigating fiscal shall forward his
resolution to the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor, as the case may be, for review;
3. if the resolution of the investigating prosecutor is reversed by the provincial, city or chief
state prosecutor, the latter may file the information himself or direct another assistant
prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so;
r
4. the resolution of the investigating prosecutor shall be strictly confidential and may not be
Ba
released to the parties, their counsels and/or any other unauthorized person until the same
shall have been finally acted upon by the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor or his duly
s
authorized assistant and approved for promulgation and release to the parties; and
e
l
5. that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the complainant's affidavit, the sworn
b
statements of the prosecution's witnesses, the respondent's counter-affidavit and the sworn
Ro
statements of his witnesses and such other evidence, as far as practicable, shall be attached to
the information
a
E. Review n a r
h B
s
CIRCULAR NO. 70
C Scope - appeals from resolutionse of the Chief State Prosecutor, Regional State
SUBJECT: 2000 National Prosecution Service (NPS) RULE ON APPEAL
b
Prosecutors and Provincial/City l Prosecutors in cases subject of preliminary
R
Where to Appeal - Secretary o of Justice
investigation/ reinvestigation. (Sec. 1)
n for reconsideration/reinvestigation if aonerhas been filed within

Period to appeal - within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution, or of the
a B
denial of the motion
h s
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed resolution.
C
Only one motion for
How appeal taken - by filing a verified petitionefor review with the Office of the
reconsideration shall be allowed.
l copies thereof to the adverse

party and the Prosecution Office issuing theb
Secretary, Department of Justice, and by furnishing
Action on the petition - Secretary of R

o appealed resolution.
n r
Justice may:
a B a
h
Dismiss the petition outright if he finds the same to be patently without merit or
C consideration. s
manifestly intended for delay, or when the issues raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require
l e
If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the b
petition shall not be given due course if the accused hado
appealed resolution, the
R
already been arraigned.
n
a of review.
Note: Any arraignment made after the filing of the petition shall not bar the
a r
h B
Secretary of Justice from exercising his power
C e s
b
Effect of the appeal - Unless the Secretary of Justice directs otherwise, the appeall
Ro
shall not hold the filing of the corresponding information in court on the basis of the
finding of probable cause in the appealed resolution.
anof the
The appellant and the trial prosecutor shall see to it that, pending resolution
appeal, the proceedings in court are held in abeyance.

Ch
Disposition of the appeal - The Secretary may reverse, affirm or modify the
appealed resolution. He may, motu proprio or upon motion, dismiss the petition for
review on any of the following grounds:
That the petition was filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 3 hereof;
38
That the procedure or any of the requirements herein provided has not been
complied with;
That there is no showing of any reversible error;
That the appealed resolution is interlocutory in nature, except when it suspends
the proceedings based on the alleged existence of a prejudicial question;
That the accused had already been arraigned when the appeal was taken;
a r
B
That the offense has already prescribed; and
s
e - The aggrieved party may file a motion for
That other legal or factual grounds exist to warrant a dismissal.
b l
Motion for reconsideration
R o
reconsideration within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the
n
aconcerned a
resolution on appeal, furnishing the adverse r party and the Prosecution Office
h B
with copies thereof and submitting proof of such service. No second or
C e s
further motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
b l
When DOJ Secretary reverses
R oor modifies prosecutors resolution Sec. 4, last par.
a
He shall direct the prosecutor concerned either
r investigation;
ninformation without conducting anotherapreliminary
Bwith notice to the parties.
a. to file the corresponding
or
C h s
e conducted by the officers of the
b. to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information
b l
Note: SAME rule shall apply in preliminary investigations
Ro
Office of the Ombudsman.
an8, 2010) citing Ledesma v. Court ofBar

Ch 5, 1997, 278 SCRA 656)
Verzano, Jr. vs. Paro (G.R. No. 171643, August
Appeals (G.R. No. 113216, September

e s
b l of an information
- the justice secretary's power of review may still be availed of despite the filing
in court;
R o
been filed, trial courts should defer or suspend arraignment
a nand further proceedings until the ar
- where the secretary of justice exercises his power of review only after an Information has
appeal is resolved.
h B
C e s
b l
F. When Warrant of Arrest may Issue (Sec. 5, Rule 112)
R o
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supportinga
Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, n the judge shall
h
evidence.
He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record

cause.
C fails to establish probable
If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order.
39
In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor
to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be
resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.
Hao vs. People (G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014)
- Section 5(a) of Rule 112, grants the trial court three options upon the filing of the
criminal complaint or information. He may: a) dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly failed to establish probable cause; b) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable
a r
cause; or c) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from
B
notice in case of doubt on the existence of probable cause.
e s
Mendoza v. People (G.R.
b l No. 197293, April 21, 2014)
- the option to o
The courts R
order the prosecutor to present additional evidence is not mandatory.
evidencen r
first option under the above is for it to immediately dismiss the case if the
a on record clearly fails to establish probable a cause.
B any disposition of the case, whether as to
h
Cits dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal
- once
s
a complaint or information is filed in court,
l e of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of

the court.
b
Ro
G. Cases NOT Requiring an
a Preliminary Investigation (Sec. 8, B ar
Rule 112)
C h s covered by the Rule on

e
1. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor
Summary Procedure (Sec. 8, Rule 112)
b l
If filed with the prosecutor (par. a)
R o
one (1) day, the procedure outlined n r The
offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4) years, two (2) months and
a a
in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed.
B
Ch within ten (10) days from itsefiling.
prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other supporting
documents submitted by the complainant
s
b l
If filed with the Municipal Trial Court, the procedure laid
Ro down in Sec. 3(a), Rule
an for trial, he shall dismiss the Bar
112 of the Rules shall be observed.(par. b)
complaint or information.
C h
If the judge finds no sufficient ground to hold the respondent
s
l e
arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold the b
If the judge finds sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial, he shall issue a warrant of
Ro
latter for
trial.
a n
arrest if he does not find it necessary to place the accused C
Note: the judge is given the discretion to merely issue summons hinstead of a warrant of
under custody.
2. If the complaint or information was filed after the accused was lawfully arrested
without warrant.
40
3. If the offense is punishable by fine only.
H. Remedies of accused if there was no preliminary investigation
1. Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a PI,
but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC, as amended, in the
presence of his counsel; (Sec.6, 2nd par., Rule 112)
r
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. The
a
B
penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer
or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver
e s
such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of
b l or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;

12 hours, for crimes
18 hours,o
R andfor crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their
n
equivalent,
a a r
h B
36 hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
C equivalent.
e s
b l
2. The waiver by the persono
Rapplying for bail;
lawfully arrested of the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC
n rwithout a preliminary
does not preclude him from
3. After the filingaof the complaint or information in court a

h Btime he learns of its filing,
C s
investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the
e
rd
ask for a preliminary investigation. (Sec.6, 3 par., Rule 112)
I. Inquest b l
Ro conducted by a public prosecutor in
Definition: an informal and summary investigation
arrest issued by the court for the a

criminal cases involving persons arrested rshouldof
n and detained without the benefit of a awarrant
h B Rules on
purpose of determining whether said persons
C
remain under custody and correspondingly
s
be charged in court. [Sec. 1, New
e
l
Inquest, DOJ Department Circular No. 61 (September 21, 1993)]
b
oOffice of the Ombudsman
R
n r
Note: Memorandum of Agreement between the DOJ and the
Effective April 29, 2012.
a
the Sandiganbayan shall be conducted B
a
by the OMB; Provided, that inquest of suchC
Inquest of complaints for crimes cognizable by h
complaints for crimes committed outside thes
l e
b
National Capital Judicial Region may be conducted by the city/provincial prosecutors
Ro
who are authorized to approve and file the Information before the respective Clerks of
Court of RTC, pursuant to Ombudsman Adm. Order No. 11-94.
an
V. ARREST
Ch
Definition: (Sec. 1, Rule 113)
Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 204589, November 19, 2014)
41
- Arrest is defined under Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court as the taking of
a person into custody that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an
offense. Under Section 2, of the same rule, an arrest is effected by an actual restraint
of the person to be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest.
A. Arrest, how made (Sec. 2, Rule 113)
r
by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested; or
a
by that persons voluntaryB
s force shall be used; person arrested shall not be subject to
submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
a greater restraintl
e
no violence or unnecessary
b than is necessary for his detention
Pestilos vs.o
R Generoso (G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014)
- Ann arrest is made by an actual restraint of r
a a the person to be arrested, or by his
Brestraint
h submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. Thus, application of actual
C not required. It is enough that there besan intention on the part of one of the parties to
force, manual touching of the body, physical or a formal declaration of arrest is
arrest the other and the intent of l

e
that submission is necessary. b
the other to submit, under the belief and impression
Ro
a n a r
h
B. Arrest Without Warrant, When Lawful (Sec. 5, Rule 113)
B
s
C (a) Sec. 5 - When in his presence,e the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing or is l
Par.
b attempting to commit an offense (IN
Ro
FLAGRANTE DELICTO)
an a r
Elements:
C h must execute an overt act indicatingsthatBhe has just

e and
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit alcrime;
(1) the person to be arrested
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the o

b
R
view of the arresting officer.
Peope vs. Usman (G.R. No. 201100, February 4, 2015) n r

a
proven procedure, sanctioned by law, B
a
h
C Since accused-appellant was caught
- a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and
s
for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors.
by the buy-bust team in flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also validly made.
l e
The accused was caught in the act and had to be apprehended on the spot.
o b
R
Valid Arrests:
a n
-Araza was clearly apprehended in flagrante delicto as heh
People vs. Araza (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)
crime (sniffing shabu) in the presence of PO1 Talacca; C

was then committing a
his warrantless arrest is valid
pursuant to Section 5(a) of the above-quoted Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
People vs. Adriano (G.R. No. 208169, October 8, 2014)

- A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in
flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized
42
but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have
been part of or used in the commission of the crime."[
- Adriano was caught in the act of committing an offense, in flagrante delicto, when
Adriano was caught selling illegal shabu through a buy-bust operation, within the plain
view of the arresting officers.
People vs. Marcelo (G.R. No. 181541, August 18, 2014)
-appellant was apprehended after she exchanged the shabu in her possession for
the marked money of the poseur-buyer. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, the
a r
police officers were not only authorized but were even duty-bound to arrest her even
B
without a warrant.
e s
b
People vs. Tancinco l (G.R. No. 200598, June 18, 2014)
R o without a warrant after information of his being armed and engaging
-lawfully arrested
a n and pursued the lead of the Barangay

investigated
a rIntelligence Network (BIN) informant.
in a pot session with other persons was given to the police officers who then
h B possession of shabu.
Incident to the lawful warrantless arrest of Tancinco is a search on his person made by
C e s
the police officers which then yielded his illegal
b l
Zalameda vs. People (G.R.o
R citizen that a "pot session" was in progress at the
No. 183656, September 4, 2009)
a nthe police did not have enough time toa

- a "tip" from a concerned r
h
petitioner's house;
Ba pot session may not be
secure a search warrant
C
considering the
s
"time element" involved in the process (i.e.,
e
l
for an extended period of time and it was then 5:15 a.m.); police immediately proceeded
and Villaflor "sniffing smoke" or "sumisinghot ngb

to the identified place and verified from a slightly opened door and saw the petitioner
ofor the police officers to believe that the

shabu".
R
n r
- There was sufficient probable cause
a to
a illegally possessed drug paraphernalia,Bcontrary
petitioner and Villaflor were then and there committing a crime. As it turned out, the
h
petitioner indeed possessed a prohibited drug and, together with Villaflor, was even
C caught in flagrante delicto, the police s

using a prohibited drug and likewise
law. When an accused is
l e officers are not
b
only authorized but are duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant
R o
Invalid Arrests:
a n a r
h B
s
C physical act could be properly attributed e
- The evidence on record reveals that no overt
to Sanchez as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the police operatives that he had
b l just
committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Sanchez was merely
seen by the police operatives leaving the residence of a known drug peddler,
R o and
an
boarding a tricycle that proceeded towards the direction of Kawit, Cavite. Such
acts cannot in any way be considered criminal acts.
Ch
People vs. Andaya (G.R. No. 183700 October 13, 2014)
- confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated to be the poseur
buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on
the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal
43
signified to the members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had been
consummated between the poseur buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not
present the confidential informant/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how
exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had taken place. There would
have been no issue against that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust team
had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer
due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the
moment of the supposed transaction.
a r
People vs. Cogaed, (G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014)
B Cogaed has not committed, was not committing,

s
- At the time of his apprehension,
ebe affected, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be
l
or was about to commit a crime. As in People v. Chua, for a warrantless arrest of in
arrested must b
flagrante delicto to
committing,o
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
Rwasor within
or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
n There were no overt actsr

presence the view of the arresting officer.; Both elements were missing when
asuggested that Cogaed was in possession Baof drugs at that time.

Cogaed arrested. within plain view of the police officers
h
that
C e s
People vs. Edao, (G.R. No. 188133, July
b l07, 2014)
- In the present case, there was no
R oovert act indicative of a felonious enterprise that could
a n was actually committing, or was attempting
a r to commit a crime.
be properly attributed to the appellant to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Corbe that he
In fact, PO3 Corbe testified that the appellant and the informant B
(appellant) had just committed,
C h
other when he approached them;there was no exchange s
were just talking with each
e
of money and drugs when he
approached the car.
b l
Rowarrantless arrest; a previous arrest or
People vs. Villareal, (G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013)
existing criminal record, even for n r the

- NOT a case of an in flagrante delicto
a a
the same offense, will not suffice to satisfy
B
Ch
exacting requirements provided under Section 5, Rule 113 in order to justify a lawful
warrantless arrest.
e s
b l
-Absent any other circumstance upon which to anchor a lawful
Rosuspicion
arrest, no other overt
a along the street and examining Bar

n
act could be properly attributed to appellant as to rouse in the mind of
PO3 de Leon that he (appellant) had just committed, was committing, or was about to
something in ones hands cannot in any wayh

commit a crime, for the acts per se of walking
C be considered criminal acts. e s

b l
Par. (b) Sec. 5 - When an offense has just been committed and he
R oknowledge
(officer or
n
private person) has probable cause to believe based on personal
of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested
a has committed it
Ch
(HOT PURSUIT )
Elements:
Pestilos vs. Generoso (G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014)
(1) an offense has just been committed; and
44
(2) the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
- following must be present for a valid warrantless arrest: 1) the crime should have been
just committed; and 2) the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the
standard of probable cause to be determined from the facts and circumstances within
his personal knowledge. The requirement of the existence of probable cause
objectifies the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for purposes of compliance
r
with the Constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrests.
Ba
- an offense has just been committed means that there must be a large measure of
s
IMMEDIACY between the time the offense was committed and the time of the
e
l
arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission
b
of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured.
R o
- the arresting officer's determination of probable cause under Section 5(b), Rule
an r
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on his personal knowledge
a
of facts or circumstances that the person sought to be arrested has committed the
h B
crime. These facts or circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw evidence, i.e.,
C s
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable
e
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be
l
b
founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers
making the arrest.
R o
- personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited
an ar
provision, does not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being
h B
committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent commission of the crime is
C s
patent (as in this case) and the police officer has probable cause to believe based
has recently committed the crime

l e
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested
b
o sufficiently strong in themselves to
- probable cause to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily signifies a reasonable
R
ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
n or reasonable ground of suspicion, abased
which he is charged, or an actualabelief r on
warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with
h B
s
actual facts.
C
- In determining the reasonableness of the warrantless arrests, ite
l is incumbent upon
under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminalb

the courts to consider if the police officers have complied with the requirements set
R
the (a) requirement of immediacy; the (b) police officer's opersonal knowledge of
Procedure, specifically,
an committed the crime. r

facts or circumstances; and lastly, the (c) propriety of the determination of
probable cause that the person sought to be arrested
B a
The arresting officers went to the scene of the crimeh
his alleged mauling; the police officers respondedC to the scene of the crime less than onee (1)s
upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of
hour after the alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community wherelAtty.
o b as
Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners
R by the
those responsible for his mauling and, notably, the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived almost
anAtty. Generoso,
in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the petitioners were confronted
arresting officers, they did not deny their participation in the incident with
h
87
although they narrated a different version of what transpired. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
C
With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered and which they have
personally observed less than one hour from the time that they have arrived at the scene of
the crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we deem it reasonable to conclude that
the police officers had personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners'
warrantless arrests. These circumstances were well within the police officers' observation,
perception and evaluation at the time of the arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police
45
officers' personal observation, which are within their personal knowledge, prompting them
to make the warrantless arrests.
Notwithstanding the term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest, SP02 Javier could not but
have the intention of arresting the petitioners following Atty. Generoso's account. SP02
Javier did not need to apply violent physical restraint when a simple directive to the petitioners
to follow him to the police station would produce a similar effect. In other words, the application
of actual force would only be an alternative if the petitioners had exhibited resistance.
To be sure, after a crime had just been committed and the attending policemen have acquired
r
personal knowledge of the incidents of the crime, including the alleged perpetrators, the arrest
Ba
of the petitioners as the perpetrators pointed to by the victim, was not a mere random act but
was in connection with a particular offense. Furthermore, SP02 Javier had informed the
s
petitioners, at the time of their arrest, of the charges against them before taking them to
e
l
Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
b
People vs. Villareal, G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013
o
R knowledge of past criminal records is insufficient; to interpret personal
n as referring to a persons reputation r
- Personal
aa a
knowledge or past criminal citations would create
h Brigorous requisites
dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police
s
knowledge of a persons previous
C
officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on
criminal infractions, rendering
e
nugatory
l
the laid out under Section 5.
o b
R
Par. (c) Sec. 5 - When a person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
a nconfined while his case is pending or a rescaped while being

from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or
transferred from one confinement to anotherB(ARREST OF ESCAPED

temporarily has
Ch
PRISONER)
e s
-Reason: escapee is in continuous commission
b l of a crime (evasion of service of
Ro
sentence)
anhot pursuit exceptions, where to deliver B a r

arrested Sec. 5, last par.
C h
In cases falling under in flagrante and
s
person
xxx persons arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith deliveredl

e
o b
station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section
to the nearest police
6, Rule 112.
Rescapes or is rescued Sec.

n r
Fourth instance when person previously lawfully arrested
13
aarrested escapes or is rescued, any B
a
h
C a warrant at any time and in any place
Arrest after escape or rescue - If a person lawfully
s
person may immediately pursue or retake him without
l e
b
within the Philippines
R o
C. Method of Arrest
a n
Ch
a. By officer with a warrant
Duty of arresting officer Sec. 3
to arrest the accused and deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without
unnecessary delay
execution of warrant
Execution of warrant Sec. 4
46
head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered shall cause the warrant
to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt; and
the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who
issued the warrant within ten (10) days after the expiration of the period
- In case of his failure to execute, he shall state the reasons therefor.
Method of arrest of officer by virtue of a warrant Sec. 7

the officer shall inform the person to be arrested:
(1) the cause his arrest; and
(2) the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest
Exceptions:
a r
he flees;
B
s
forcibly resists before the officer had an opportunity to inform him; and
e
l
when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest
b
Note: the officer need not have the warrant of arrest in his possession at the time
o
of the arrest BUT must show the same after the arrest, if the person arrested so
R
requires.
a n a r
b. Byh officer without warrant - Sec. 8 B
s
C The officer shall inform the person toebe arrested of:
b l
his authority
R o
a n
the cause of the arrest
a r
Exceptions: h B
C e s
-If the person to be arrested:
b l
is engaged in the commission of the crime
R o
n
is pursued immediately after the commission
a a r
h B him
escapes, flees or forcibly resists before the officer has the opportunity to inform
-Giving him such C e s

information will imperil the arrest
b l
R o
c. By private person Sec. 9
a n a r
The private person shall inform the person toh B
C s
be arrested of:
the intention to arrest him

l e
the cause of the arrest
o b
R
an
Exceptions: (same in Sec. 8)
Time of making arrest Sec. 6 Ch

When arrest may be made any day and at any time of the day or night
Colorado vs. Agapito (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1658 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1014- MTJ], July 3,
2007)
47
Complainant faults respondent for having been arrested on a Friday, causing

him to languish in jail for two days and two nights. Respondent cannot be held
administratively liable for this particular matter; It is of no moment that the warrant
of arrest was issued by respondent on a Friday, because it is clear from the
foregoing that an arrest may be made on any day regardless of what day the
warrant of arrest was issued. Nowhere in the Rules or in our jurisprudence
can we find that a warrant of arrest issued on a Friday is prohibited.
r
I. Requisites of a Valid Warrant of Arrest
a
Sec. 2, Art. III, ConstitutionB
Section 2. The right e

s
purpose shall beb
l of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
R
upon probable o cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
a n
and particularly
a r and the persons or things to
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
describing the place to be searched
h be seized.
B
C e s
b l
Requisites:
(1) Issued upon probable R

o
an by the judge; r
cause;
a
B documents showing the
h
(2) Determined personally
C
(3) After evaluation of the prosecutors report and
e s
supporting
existence of probable cause;
b l
R o
(4) Particularly describe the person to be arrested; and
a n
(5) In connection with the specific offense or crime
a r
h BGrey, G.R.
s
Ocampo vs. Abando, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014, citing People v.
C
No. 180109, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 523, 536.
e
- Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be
b l determined by the
judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the
witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not necessary o complainant and the
R and the witnesses is not
for the determination
thereof; Judges personal examination of the complainant
a n a r
arrest; It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutors report and B
mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of
supporting documents showing the existenceh

C e s
of probable cause for the indictment or if,
b
resolution and require the submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid him l in
on the basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to disregard the prosecutor's
Ro
determining its existence.
a n
E. Determination of Probable Cause for Issuance of Warrant of Arrest
C h
- correlate with Sec. 5, Rule 112 (Procedure in determining the existence of probable
cause for issuance of Warrant of Arrest)
48
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such
facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
person to believe that an offense was committed by the person sought to be
arrested. This must be distinguished from the prosecutors finding of probable cause
which is for the filing of the proper criminal information. Probable cause for warrant of
arrest is determined to address the necessity of placing the accused under
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
Aguinaldo vs. Ventus (G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015)

- Pendency of a motion for reconsideration, motion for reinvestigation, or petition for review
a r
is not a cause for the quashal of a warrant of arrest previously issued because the
B
quashal of a warrant of arrest may only take place upon the finding that no probable
s
cause exists. Moreover, judges should take note of the following:
e
1 If there is a pending motion for reconsideration or motion for reinvestigation of the
b l
resolution of the public prosecutor, the court may suspend the proceedings upon
motion by the parties. However, the court should set the arraignment of the
R o
accused and direct the public prosecutor to submit the resolution disposing of the
motion on or before the period fixed by the court, which in no instance could be
an r
more than the period fixed by the court counted from the granting of the motion to
a
suspend arraignment, otherwise the court will proceed with the arraignment as
B
h scheduled and without further delay.
C 2 If there is a pending petition foresreview before the DOJ, the court may suspend
b l by the parties. However, the court should set the
o
the proceedings upon motion
R
arraignment of the accused and direct the DOJ to submit the resolution disposing
of the petition on or before the period fixed by the Rules which, in no instance,
a n the court will proceed with the arraignment

a r as scheduled and
could be more than sixty (60) days from the filing of the Petition for Review before
h B
the DOJ, otherwise,
s
without further delay.
C e
F. Distinguish probable cause of fiscal from that ofla judge
b
o 21, 2015)
RJanuary
n r
Estrada vs. Bersamin (G.R. Nos. 212140-41,
a B a
probable cause by the prosecutor h
- Judicial determination of probable cause is considered separate from the determination of
Cin a preliminary investigation. s
ewhich determines
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the b
- Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry l
proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held foro
preliminary investigation
R proceeding, there should be

trial or released. Even if the
no confusion about the objectives. The determination of

a n
two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and the same
probable cause for the warrant
a r
there is reasonable ground to believe that h the accused is guilty of the offense B
of arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper whether or not
C be subjected to the expense, rigors e s

l
charged and, therefore, whether or not he should
and embarrassment of trial is the function of the Prosecutor.
o b
- The determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose
R different
an for trial
from that which is to be made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable ground to
believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held is what
warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, h

the prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a
C i.e. whether there is a

necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice. Thus, even if both should base their findings on one and the same
proceeding or evidence, there should be no confusion as to their distinct objectives.
49
- To be valid, these warrants must have been issued after compliance with the requirement
that probable cause be personally determined by the judge. Notably at this stage, the judge
is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the
accused. In doing so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing; he only needs to
personally review the prosecutor's initial determination and see if it is supported by
substantial evidence.
Second, since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely on the report
r
of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of
Ba
arrest. Obviously and understandably, the contents of the prosecutor's report will support
his own conclusion that there is reason to charge the accused of an offense and hold him for
s
trial. However, the judge must decide independently. Hence, he must have supporting
e
l
evidence, other than the prosecutor's bare report, upon which to legally sustain his
b
own findings on the existence (or nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an arrest
o
order. This responsibility of determining personally and independently the existence
R
or nonexistence of probable cause is lodged in him by no less than the most basic
an r
law of the land. Parenthetically, the prosecutor could ease the burden of the judge and
a
speed up the litigation process by forwarding to the latter not only the information
B
Ch
and his bare resolution finding probable cause, but also so much of the records and
s
the evidence on hand as to enable His Honor to make his personal and separate
l e
judicial finding on whether to issue a warrant of arrest.
o b
- Lastly, it is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the
R
preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge. We do not intend
an r
to unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to examine the complete records of every
a
case all the time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of an accused. What is
h B
required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as
C s
the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or
e
l
transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent
b
judgment or, at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as
o
to the existence of probable cause. The point is: he cannot rely solely and entirely on the
R
prosecutor's recommendation, as Respondent Court did in this case. Although the
an r
prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties
a
and functions, which in turn gives his report the presumption of accuracy, the Constitution
B
Ch
we repeat, commands the judge to personally determine probable cause in the issuance
s
of warrants of arrest. This Court has consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty
e
if he relies merely on the certification or the report of the investigating officer.
o bl
VI. BAIL R
a
Definition: bail is the security given for the release of n a person in custody of the law,
a r
h Bail may be given in the form of B
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as
corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit,C s

required under the conditions hereinafter specified.
or recognizance. (Sec. 1, Rule 114)
l e
David vs. Agbay (G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015)
o b
R
- distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person.
Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the
a n application for
defendant where the mere application therefor constitutesh

bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the
of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender.
C a waiver of the defense
Custody of the law is
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a
50
warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one
can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the
custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has
commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who
is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to
the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the
accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.
A. Nature
r
Sec. 13, Art. III, Constitution
Ba
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
s
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
e
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
l
b
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
R o
Leviste vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010
Bail a
n
is the answer of the criminal justice systema
r
h B Bail
to a vexing question: what is to be done
years long, between arrest and final s

Cto accommodate both the accused'seinterest in pretrial
with the accused, whose guilt has not yet been
adjudication?
proven, in the "dubious interval," often
acts as a reconciling mechanism
b l liberty and society's interest
o (Sec. 4, Rule 114)

in assuring the accused's presence at trial.
B. When a matter of right; Rexceptions

Bail is a matter of n r
a right, when:
B a
h
a. before or after conviction by the MTC or
C perpetua s
e
b. before conviction by RTC of all offenses punishable by a penalty lower than
reclusion
Exceptions: b l
R o
n r
1. When the evidence of guilt is strong in capital offenses or offenses punishable
a a
by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
hwhen accused charged with a capital Boffense is a

minor, he is entitled to bailC s
Exception to the exception:
l e
regardless of whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
2. Bail in extradition proceedings

b
3. Right to bail is not available in the military.
Ro
4. After judgment has become final. (Sec. 24)
an B a r
5. After the accused has commenced to serve his h
C sentence
e s
b l
C. When a matter of discretion (Sec. 5, Rule 114)
Ro
an
h
Bail is discretionary, when:
a. Before conviction, in offenses punishable by death,

imprisonment.
C reclusion perpetua or life
b. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable by death, reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment
51
Note: Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on
provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the
consent of the bondsman.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years,
the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing
by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar
r
circumstances: (Bail-Negating Circumstances)
a
B
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the
crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; RECIDIVIST
e s
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated
b l
the conditions of his bail without a valid justification; ESCAPED
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
PROBATION
R o
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail;
an r
FLIGHT RISK or
a
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the
B
Ch
appeal. CRIME RISK
s
e
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of
l
the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case.
b
R o
Qui vs. People (G.R. No. 196161, September 26, 2012)
an ar
- pursuant to the tough on bail pending appeal policy, the presence of bail-negating
B
C h
conditions mandates the denial or revocation of bail pending appeal such that those
s
circumstances are deemed to be as grave as conviction by the trial court for an offense
l e
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment where bail is prohibited.
b
- In the exercise of that discretion, the proper courts are to be guided by the
o
fundamental principle that the allowance of bail pending appeal should be exercised
R
not with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong reasons, considering that
n r
the accused has been in fact convicted by the trial court.
a 189122, March 17, 2010 B a

- Bail is either a matter of right orh
Leviste vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.
C of discretion.
e s
bl
It is a matter of right when the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.
Ro
On the other hand, upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of
an r
discretion.
Similarly, if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years
B a
Ch
then bail is a matter of discretion, except when any of the enumerated
circumstances under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, then bail shall
es
l
be DENIED.
b
- In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, if none
o
of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present,
R
the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for bail pending
an
appeal may be denied even if the bail-negating circumstances in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. In other words, the appellate court's denial of bail pending
Ch
appeal where none of the said circumstances exists does not, by and of itself, constitute
abuse of discretion.
- In the second situation, the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion, that is,
to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so
determines, it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal.
Conversely, if the appellate court grants bail pending appeal, grave abuse of discretion will
thereby be committed.
52
- Given these two distinct scenarios, therefore, any application for bail pending appeal
should be viewed from the perspective of two stages: (1) the determination of
discretion stage, where the appellate court must determine whether any of the
circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present; this will establish
whether or not the appellate court will exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in
resolving the application for bail pending appeal and (2) the exercise of discretion stage
where, assuming the appellant's case falls within the first scenario allowing the exercise of
sound discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant circumstances, other than
those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including the demands of
equity and justice; on the basis thereof, it may either allow or disallow bail.
r
- if the appellant's case falls within the second scenario, the appellate court's stringent
Ba
discretion requires that the exercise thereof be primarily focused on the determination of
the proof of the presence of any of the circumstances that are prejudicial to the allowance
s
of bail. This is so because the existence of any of those circumstances is by itself sufficient
e
l
to deny or revoke bail. Nonetheless, a finding that none of the said circumstances is
b
present will not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding will simply
Ro
authorize the court to use the less stringent sound discretion approach.
n
D. Hearing of application for bail in capital offenses
a a r
h vs. Clapis (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257, JulyB
C s
Gacad 17, 2012) citing Gacal vs. Infante (A.M. No.
RTJ-04-1845, October 5, 2011, 658
e
SCRA
l
535)
- The respondent judge in that case b

o of a petition for bail from the accused. The Court
was held guilty of gross ignorance of the law and the
R
rules when he granted bail to the accused charged with murder without conducting a
nreclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,awithoutr a hearing upon

hearing and despite the absence
a
emphasized that bail cannot be allowed to a person charged with a capital offense, or an
h otherwise, a violation of due processB

offense punishable with
C s for his failure to hear and

notice to the prosecution; occurs.
e
lbail to the accused. Therefore, we
- Judge Clapis had already been administratively sanctioned,
consider the evidence of the prosecution in granting
o
now impose upon him the extreme administrative penaltyb of dismissal from the service.
R[FORMERLY A.M. NO. IPI NO. 03-1831-RTJ],
Gacal vs. Infante (A.M. No. RTJ- 04-1845
a n a r
October 5, 2011 ]
h B
(1) In all cases whether bail C
Duties of a judge in case an application for bail is filed:
e s
l
is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the
b
hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18,
(2) Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearingo

Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended);
R
of the application for bail
n r
regardless or whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the
a
guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound
based on the summary of evidence of B

a
h
discretion (Sections 7 and 8, id); and
C
(3) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
e s
l
the prosecution;
b
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval
o
of the [bail bond], otherwise, petition should be denied.
R
an
Villanueva vs. Buaya (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2241-RTJ),
November 22, 2010)
- The Court has always stressed the indispensable nature of ah

C bail hearing in petitions
for bail. Where bail is a matter of discretion, the grant or the denial of bail hinges on
the issue of whether or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong and
the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial
discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the judge to properly exercise this
discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is
strong. This discretion lies not in the determination of whether or not a hearing should be
53
held, but in the appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the prosecution's evidence of
guilt against the accused.
- whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is
required in order for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. This Court has repeatedly held in
past cases that even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an
application for bail of an accused, the court may still require the prosecution to answer
questions in order to ascertain, not only the strength of the State's evidence, but also the
adequacy of the amount of bail.
a r
B
s
Burden of Proof in Bail application
Gacad vs. Clapis, Jr. (A.M.e

b l No. RTJ-10-2257, July 17, 2012, 676 SCRA 534)
who is in R
o
Section 8 of Rule 114 provides that at the hearing of an application for bail filed by the person
custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
a a r that: (1) an application for bail

nof guilt is strong. x x x. This rule presupposes
perpetua or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that
h B of theandaccused.
evidence
C s
was filed, and (2) the judge notified the prosecutor conducted a bail hearing for the
prosecution to adduce evidence to prove
l e the guilt
b
Roof bail (Sec. 9, Rule 114)
E. Guidelines in fixing amount
a n a r
h but not limited to, the following factors: B
The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of
C
bail considering primarily,
e s
a) Financial ability of the accused.
b l
b) Nature and circumstances of the offense.
R o
c) Penalty for the offense charged.
a n a r
h B
s
d) Character and reputation of the accused.
C e
e) Age and health of the accused.
b l
Ro
f) Weight of the evidence against the accused.
an r
g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial.
B a
h) Forfeiture of other bail.
h
C when arrested. s
i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice
l e
b
Ro
j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Note: Excessive bail shall not be required. an

Ch
F. Bail when not required (Sec. 16, Rule 114)
54
1) Violation of an ordinance, a light felony, or a criminal offense punishable by a penalty

not exceeding 6 months imprisonment, and/or a fine of P2,000 where the person is
unable to post the required cash or bail bond. (S1 RA No. 6306).
2) Criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except:
when the accused failed to appear when required;
when the accused is a recidivist; a fugitive from justice; charged with physical injuries; has no
known residence (Sec. 10, 12, RSP)
a r
3) When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible
B
maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offense charged, he shall be released
s
immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. If
e
l
the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be
b
released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment. (S16 R114).
R o
4) In cases not requiring preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary
an r
Procedure where the MTC judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the
a
accused under custody, in which case he may issue summons instead of a warrant of
h B
arrest. (Sec 8(b), Rule 112).
C e s
Cervantes vs. Pangilinan (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1709 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1225-MTJ],
July 31, 2009)
b l
R o
- bail is not generally required for violation of municipal or city ordinances, and
for criminal offenses when the prescribed penalty is not higher than arresto
an ar
mayor or fine of P2,000 or both, as in the case for Slander against complainant which
B
is covered by Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code.
C h s
G. Increase or reduction of bail (Sec. 20, Rule 114)
l e
o
Court may either increase or reduce the amount of bail b after the accused is admitted to bail
R
and upon good cause.
Increased Bail:
a n a r
B increased
Ch s
- the accused may be committed to custody if he does not give bail in the
amount within a reasonable period.
l e
b
H. Forfeiture and cancellation of bail (Secs. 21-22, Rule 114) Ro
an B a r
Forfeiture:
When the presence of the accused is requiredC

h
by the court or these Rules, his bondsmens
shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. l
e
accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared or b
If the
o
ordered
forfeited
R
produce their principal and to show cause why no judgment shoulda
In the order of forfeiture of the bail, the bondsmen shall be given 30 days nwithin which to
C
them for the amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen hmust:
be rendered against
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production; and
(b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.
55
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen,
jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise
mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.
Cancellation:
Upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be
canceled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death.
a r
Note: The bail shall be be deemed automatically canceled upon a) acquittal of the
B
accused, b) dismissal of the case, or c) execution of the judgment of conviction.
e s
lb
o
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro (G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010)
R 21,renders
n r
- Under Section Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant's
a a
absence merely his bondsman potentially liable on its bond (subject to
h B heIndeed,
cancellation should the bondsman fail to produce the accused within 30 days); the
Cbondsman to produce the accused underscores s

defendant retains his standing and, should fail to surrender, will be tried in
absentia and could be convicted or
e
acquitted. the 30-day period granted to the
l status to that of a fugitive without standing.
b
the fact that mere non-appearance does
Ro
not ipso facto convert the accused's
I. Application not a bar a

n r
to objections in illegal arrest, lack of orairregular preliminary
investigation (Sec.h
B
C 26, Rule 114)
e s
b l
An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging or assailing
the:
R o
validity of his arrest; or
a n a r
legality of the warrant issued; or
h B
C e s
l
regularity of the preliminary investigation; or
questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation

o b
Note: Provided that he raises them before entering his plea. R
Borlongan vs. Pena (G.R. No. 143591, May 5, 2010) a

n a r
h B
afters
C questioning the legality of the arrest trial,
arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates duringl
- The principle that the accused is precluded from
e
without previously invoking his objections thereto.
o b
R shall be
- Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is intended to modify
forn
previous rulings that an application for bail or the admission to bail by the accused
considered as a waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued a his arrest on the
legalities or irregularities thereon. The new rule has reverted to h
People vs. Red. The new rule is curative in nature becauseC
the ruling of this Court in
precisely, it was designed
to supply defects and curb evils in procedural rules. Hence, the rules governing
curative statutes are applicable. Curative statutes are by their essence retroactive in
application. Besides, procedural rules as a general rule operate retroactively, even
without express provisions to that effect, to cases pending at the time of their effectivity, in
56
other words to actions yet undetermined at the time of their effectivity. Before the appellate
court rendered its decision on January 31, 2001, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
was already in effect. It behoved the appellate court to have applied the same in resolving
the petitioner's petition for certiorari and her motion for partial reconsideration.
- When the court a quo entered a plea of not guilty for them, there was no valid
waiver of their right to preclude them from raising the same with the Court of
Appeals or SC. The posting of bail bond was a matter of imperative necessity to avert
their incarceration; it should not be deemed as a waiver of their right to assail their arrest.
a r
J. Hold departure order & Bureau Bof Immigration watchlist
e s
b l
(DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 41, JUNE 7, 2010)
Section 1. Hold
R o Departure Order. The Secretary of Justice may issue an HDO,
n
under any of the following instances:
a a r in criminal cases falling within
h
(a)
BTrial Courts (RTCs).
Against the accused, irrespective of nationality,
C interested party must be supported by:e

the jurisdiction of courts below the Regional
s
l or information and
If the case against the accused is pending trial, the application under oath of an
o b
(i) a certified true copy of the complaint
R
(ii) a Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned that criminal case is still pending.
or witness in a a
(b) Against the alien n whose presence is required either as a r
civil or labor case pending litigation, a
defendant, respondent,
h B by:
or any case before an
C s
administrative agency of the government.
The application under oath of an interested party must
l e issued against the alien, &
be supported
(ii) a certified true copy complaint in civil, b

(i) a certified true copy of the subpoena or summons
o
labor or administrative case where the
R
presence of the alien is required.
proprio, or upon the request by a

n
The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue an HDO against any person, either motu
a r
Head of a Department of the h B
the
C s
Government; the
Head of a constitutional body or commission; the
l e
Senate President or the House Speaker for the Legislature, b
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the Judiciary; the
when the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or

instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security,
o
R public safety or public
an a r
health.
h B
Cperiod of any HDO/WLO issued pursuantetos
this Circular shall be reckoned from the date of its issuance. The HDO shall bel
Section 4. HDO/WLO Validity. The validity
for five (5) years unless sooner terminated. On the other hand, the WLO shall b
valid
for sixty (60) days unless sooner terminated or extended, for a non-extendible
R o be valid
an
period of not more than sixty (60) days.
C h
VII. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
A. Rights of Accused at the Trial (Sect. 1, Rule 115)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
57
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may,
however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in
his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which
he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an
r
accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be
Ba
present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion,
the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to
s
the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.
e
b l
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on
o
matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice
R
him.
a n r
Ba against him at the trial.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
h
C Either party may utilize as part ofeitssevidence the testimony of a witness who is
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses
b
deceased, out of or cannot with duel diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable,
administrative, involving theo
or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or
R samehim.parties and subject matter, the adverse party having
n
the opportunity to cross-examine
a a r
h B
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses
C
and production of other evidence in his behalf.
e s
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. l
b
Romanner prescribed by law.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
an B a r
a. To be presumed innocent
C h s
l e
SEC. 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offenseb
Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987Constitution:
without due process of law.

R o
an r
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and x x x
B a
h
C doubt finds basis not only in the due s
e
Macayan, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015)
process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused l

- Requiring proof beyond reasonable
"presumed innocent until the contrary is proved." "Undoubtedly, itbis the

to be
constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burdeno

prosecution." Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden,R
upon the
an
it follows, as a
matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted.
People vs. Estibal (G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014)h

(320 Phil. 324 (1995) C citing People v. Ganguso
- An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of
Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be
acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause
of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof
58
beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which
he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges
that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be
entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean
such degree of proof as excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the
accused is responsible for the offense charged.
Atienza vs. People (G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014)
r
- The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the
Ba
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to
overcome such presumption of innocence, failing which, the presumption of
s
innocence prevails and the accused should be acquitted. This, despite the fact that
e
l
his innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength
b
of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness or even absence
o
of defense. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
R
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
an r
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
a
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction, Courts should be guided by
h B
the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably
C s
guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did
e
l
not commit.
o b
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
R
an r
B a
h
SEC. 14..
C s
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall x x x be be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him
l e
Patula vs. People (G.R. No. 164457, April 11, b
oof alleging the nature and cause of the
2012)
R
aofnannever rin the
- The importance of the proper manner
accusation in the information should
a
be taken for granted by the State.
B charged
An
complaint or information.h
accused cannot be convicted offense that is not clearly charged
C s
To convict him of an offense other than that
e
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Indeed,l
in the complaint or information would be violative of the Constitutional right to
b
the accused cannot
o
be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless the crime is alleged or
R
necessarily included in the information filed against him.
a
- charging appellants with illegal possession when nthe information filed against them
a r
h brought against them. The rule B
charges the crime of importation does not violate their constitutional right to be
C the offense charged in the complaint

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
e s
l be
is that when there is a variance between
b
or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense
convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged.o

as charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall
R
An offense
elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged inn

charged necessarily includes that which is proved, when some of the essential
a
the complaint or
h
information, constitute the latter.
- where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he C is duly informed not only of
such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein
c. To be present and defend in person OR by counsel
59

SEC. 14.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused x x x shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel x x x
Right to counsel Sec. 11, Art. III, Philippine Constitution
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
a r
Tanenggee vs. People (G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013) citing Remolona v. Civil
B
Service Commission [414 Phil. 590, 599 (2001]
e s
l
- the right to counsel applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation
b
but not to those made in an administrative investigation.
R o
People vs. Lara (G.R. No. 199877, August 13, 2012)
an ar
- The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial
h B
investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the
C s
starting point or a part of custodial investigation; because during a police line-
e
up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is
l
b
usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a
statement in the course of the line-up
R o
Belleza vs. Macasa (A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009)
a n a r
B process which basically
- accused is guaranteed the right to counsel under the Constitution. The right to
means thath
C is a part of a person's basic rights; iteis snot a mere formality that may be
counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due
a person must be heard before being condemned. The due process
requirement
dispensed with or performed perfunctorily.
b l
Libuit vs. People (G.R. No. 154363, September 14,o
R 2005)
a
- The duty of the court to appoint na counsel de oficio for the accusedawho r has
h No such duty exists where thes accused
no counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one is mandatory
B has
C
proceeded to arraignment and then trial with a counsel ofehis own choice.
only at the time of arraignment.
Worth noting, when the time for the presentation of evidence for
b lofthehisdefense arrived,
and the defendant appeared by himself alone, the absence
inexcusable.
R o counsel was
Gutang vs. People (G.R. No. 135406, July 11, 2000)

a n a r
h a person is taken into custody and B
placed under investigation for theC commission of a crime, i.e., when thes
The right to counsel begins from the time
l eor
b
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confession
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. o

admissions from the accused. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and
R
a n
d. To testify as a witness in his own behalf
C h
subject to cross-examination ; and
his silence will not prejudice him
e. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
60
Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
People vs. Fieldad (G.R. No. 196005, October 1, 2014)
- the taking of paraffin tests does not violate the right of the accused against
self incrimination; His right against self incrimination is not violated by the taking
r
of the paraffin test of his hands. This constitutional right extends only to
a
testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the accused is proposed to
B
be examined as in this case.
e s
b
Dela Cruz vs. People (G.R. lrightNo.of200748, July 23, 2014)
o or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused

- constitutional an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use
andR
of physical
an r as the accused does not thereby

not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely
a
mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition
B
h speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required.
C f. To confront and cross-examine the s

l e witnesses against him
o b
Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987Constitution
(2) In all criminalR
n face to face xxx r
prosecutions, the accused xxx shall enjoy the right x x x to
a
meet witnesses
a
B2015
h
Estrada vs. Bersamin G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21,
C investigation is not a part of the trial sand it is only in a trial where an
e
accused can demand the full exercise of hislrights, such as the right to confront
- A preliminary
and cross-examine his accusers to establish

o b his innocence. Thus, the rights of a
R
respondent in a preliminary investigation are limited to those granted by procedural
law.
n
a July 18, 2012) a r
h
Go vs. People (G.R. No. 185527,
B
C s
e to test the
l
- right of confrontation, is held to apply specifically to criminal proceedings and to
testimony of witnesses by cross-examination, and (2)bto allow the judge to

have a twofold purpose: (1) to afford the accused an opportunity
observe the deportment of witnesses; the constitutional

R o requirement insures
noutto cross-examination, r
that the witness will give his testimony under oath, thus deterring lying by the threat
of perjury charge; it forces the witness to submit
a a valuable
B a
instrument in exposing falsehood and bringing
C
court to observe the demeanor of the witness h the truth; and it enables the
and assess his credibility.
s
- right of confrontation is intended to secure the accused in the right l toe
tried as far as facts provable by witnesses as meet him face to face atb
be
o againstan
the trial
R
who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused
n
opportunity of cross-examination, it is properly viewed as a guarantee
a
the use of unreliable testimony in criminal trials.
Victoriano vs. People (G.R. Nos. 171322-24, November 30, 2006) h

C
-the right to confront and cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses, the
same is indeed a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the
right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct
amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party
has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he
61
necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct
examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. In the
instant case, petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses
due to his failure to cooperate in preparing his defense.
g. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses

and production of other evidence in his behalf.

SEC. 14.
a r
B
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused xxx shall enjoy the right xxx have
e s
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of
b l evidence in his behalf xxx
See Rule 21 R
o
an r
(Subpoena) of Rules of Court
B a
C h s
h. To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
l e
b
oArticle III of the 1987Constitution
R
Section 14 (2) and Sec. 16,
SEC. 14.
a n prosecutions, the accused xxx shall aenjoy r the right to have a
h
(2) In all criminal
B
C
speedy, impartial, and public trial xxx
e s
b l
SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to
o
R bodies.
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
a speedy disposition of their cases
a n a r
h B
C
RA 8493 or Speedy Trial Act of 1998
s
e2014)
Co vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products (G.R. No. 183994, June 30,
b l
- speedy trial is a relative term and necessarily o a flexible concept. In
determining whether the accused's right to speedyRtrial was violated, the delay
should be considered in view of the entirety ofn r
balance are the following: (a) duration of a a
the proceedings. The factors to
h it; and (d) prejudice caused by such B

the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c)
Cthe time involved would not suffice as thedos

assertion of the right or failure to assert
realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which, after all,e
delay; mere mathematical reckoning of
b land
circumstances peculiar to each case. While the Court recognizes theo
not exist in a vacuum, and that particular regard must be given to the facts
R
accused's
nthe trial for an

right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of
a
justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly
unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of theh

prosecute criminals. Unjustified postponements which prolong
C
accused to speedy trial
Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases against
Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, et al. (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, June 14, 2011)
62
- the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, that
pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair
trial, and that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge
to render a bias-free decision. Mere fear of possible undue influence is not
tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial.
i. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
r
See Rule 122 of the Rules of Court
Ba
B. Rights of persons under custodial investigation
e s
l
Sec.12 (1), Art. III of the Constitution (Miranda Rights)
b
R o
SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
an r
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
a
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
B
Ch waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
s
e
l Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or
b
Republic Act No. 7438 (An Act Defining
oPenalties for Violations Thereof)
Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and
R
Investigating Officers, and Providing
a n or under custodial investigationar

Sec. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation
B
(a) Any person arrested detained shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.
C h s
(b) x x x inform the latter (person being investigated),ein a language known to and
understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to
b lhave competent and independent
R o
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with
the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford
counsel by the investigating officer. an a r

the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent
h
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by s
B
C eperson
the investigating
officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumb-marked if the
or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read
b l arrested
and adequately
investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such

R o arrested or detained
explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the
a n
person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
a r
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial B
h
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsels
C
or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
l e
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise,
o b such
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

R
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions ofn
a Article 125 of the
C h
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no
effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by
or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest
or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his
63
counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the

Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly
accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or
her spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild,
uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
NOTE: "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an

"invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer
for any violation of law.
a r
De Castro vs. People (G.R. No. 171672, February 2, 2015)
Bpeculiarly rights in the context of an official proceeding for

s
e and trial for a criminal offense; They arise at the very
- These cherished rights are
l
the investigation and prosecution for crime. They exist and may be invoked when he
inception of theb
faces a formal indictment
R o
a criminal offense.
criminal process when a person is taken into custody to answer to
For what a person says or does during custodial investigation
not, n r His trialandbecomes

will eventually be used as evidence against him at the trial and, more often than
a willenjoy a
be the lynchpin of his eventual conviction. a parody if he
B doctrine; We must, therefore, be careful

hcannot
C totraditional
from the start the right against self-incrimination
logic behind what we now call as the Miranda
s
to counsel. This is the
l eto investigate crime involving persons not under

note what the Miranda doctrine does not say. It was never intended to hamper the
b
law-enforcement function
o
restraint.
R not even being investigated by anybypolice

- The accused in the case before us may not be said to be under custodial
n r
investigation. She was or law
in a private firma
Bawasnotno restrained
enforcement officer. She was under administrative investigation her superiors
h
and in purely voluntary manner. She was of her
was forcedC
freedom in any manner. She was free to stay or go. There
e sconscience that compelled her
evidence that she
to speak, a true mental and moral catharsis that l

or pressured to say anything. It was an act of
b
religion and psychology recognize to
o
have salutary effects on the soul. In this setting, the invocation of the right to remain
R
silent or to counsel is simply irrelevant.
Luspo vs. People (G.R. No. 188487,n r

a any questioning initiated by law enforcement a
October 22, 2014)
authorities after a person h

- custodial investigation involves
B of his
C is taken into custody or otherwise deprived
e s
begins to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be al
freedom of action in any significant manner. The rule on custodial investigation
b
general inquiry into
who has been taken into custody and to whom theo

an unsolved crime and the interrogation is then aimed on a particular suspect
R
police would then direct
n r
interrogatory questions that tend to elicit incriminating statements.
People vs. Chavez (G.R. No. 207950, September 22, 2014)
a B a
- The purposes of the safeguards prescribed h
do not coerce or trick captive suspectsC
by Miranda are to ensure that the police
e s
compelling pressures generated by the custodial setting itself, which work
b l to
into confessing, to relieve the inherently
the task of scrutinizing individual cases to try to determine, after the fact,
R o whether
undermine the individuals will to resist, and as much as possible to free courts from
in-custody questioning of persons suspected of misdemeanorsn

particular confessions were voluntary. Those purposes are implicated as much by
a as they are by
questioning of persons suspected of felonies
C h
- even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be apprised
of their Miranda rights.
VIII. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA (Rule 116)
64
Kummer vs. People (G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013)
- Arraignment is indispensable in bringing the accused to court and in notifying him

of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. The importance of
arraignment is based on the constitutional right of the accused to be informed.
Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be
informed of the reason for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face, and the
corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted against him. It is at this stage that
the accused, for the first time, is given the opportunity to know the precise charge
that confronts him. It is only imperative that he is thus made fully aware of the possible
r
loss of freedom, even of his life,depending on the nature of the imputed crime.
Ba
- The need for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended information or
complaint. This however, we hastily clarify, pertains only to substantial amendments
s
and not to formal amendments xxx.
e
b
Taglay vs. Daray (G.R. l No. 164258, August 22, 2012)
-Arraignment iso
R
the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right
nevenofofarraignment rofaccused
of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
a a
The purpose is, thus, to apprise the of the possible loss of
h
freedom,
B arm of the State is mobilized against
his life, depending on the nature the crime imputed to him, or at
Cregarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily.

the
s
very least to inform him of why the prosecuting
e
l before theOtherwise,
him. As an indispensable requirement of due process, an arraignment cannot be
b
absence of arraignment
Ro
results in the nullity of the proceedings trial court.
a
Options of the accused before n arraignment and plea a r
h B
C s
a. Bill of particulars Sec. 9
l e him properly to plead

and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify theb
The accused may, xxx move for a bill of particulars to enable
o
alleged defects of the complaint or
R
information and the details desired.
b. Suspension of Arraignment Sec.n r

a a
11 (See discussion below)
h B
C
A. Arraignment and Plea, how made (Sec. 1, Rule 116)
e s
b l
Ro
Arraignment:
Sec. 1 (a), Rule 116
shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk bya

n a r
h furnishing the accused with a copy of
B
the complaint or information;
C e s
reading the same (complaint or information) in the language or dialect known to him;l
b
and
asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.

R o
an
Note: The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the
Ch
complaint or information.
Plea:
Sec. 1 (b), Rule 116
65
the accused must be present at the arraignment and
must personally enter his plea.
Note: Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect
the validity of the proceedings.
Private offended party at the arraignment (Sec. 1[f], Rule 116)
a r
The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for purposes of
Bdespite due notice, the court may allow the accused to

plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring his presence.
s
e offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged
In case of his failure to appear
b l
enter a plea of guilty to a lesser
Ro
with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.
B. Whena
n
should plea of not guilty be entered a
r
h B
CWhen the accused so pleaded. e s
l
1.
b
2. When the accused refuses to plead.
Ro
3. When the accused enters a conditional plea of guilty or one entered
n pleads guilty but presents exculpatory r evidence or

subject to the provision that a certain penalty be imposed upon him.
4. When the accused
a B a
h
introduces evidence of self-defense.
s
Cadmitting the act charged, he sets eup matters of defense or lawful
5. Where in
justification.
b l
6. When the plea is indefinite or ambiguous. Ro
C. When may accused enter a plea of a
n
guilty to a lesser offense (plea bargaining)a
r
h with the consent of the offendedsparty B
C
prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guiltyl
1. At arraignment, the accused
e and the
b
to a lesser offense
o
which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea ofn

R
r
2. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty
a not guilty. No amendment of the
B a
h
complaint or information is necessary.
C only when the prosecution does enots

3. After prosecution rested its case, allowed
have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged.
b l
R o
D. Accused pleads guilty to capital offense, what the court should do n
a(Sec. 3, Rule 116)
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, court shall:h
C
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea; and
shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability.
66
Note: accused may also present evidence on his behalf (People vs. Lopit, G.R. No.
177742, December 17, 2008)
People vs. Gambao (G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013)
Duties of the trial court when the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. The trial court is
mandated:
1. to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the plea of guilt,
a r
2. to require the prosecution to still prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree
B
of his culpability, and
him to do so if he desires. e
3. to inquire whether or not sthe accused wishes to present evidence in his behalf and allow
b l
R o
E. Searching
a n inquiry
a r
h B2013)
C - searching inquiry determines whether
People vs. Gambao (G.R. No. 172707, October 1,
s
e the plea of guilt was based on a free and
l
b must focus on the voluntariness of the plea and
the full comprehension ofo
informed judgement. The inquiry
R
the consequences of the plea.
a n a r
h B
Although there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge must
C
conduct a searching
s
inquiry, we have held that the following guidelines should
e
be observed:
b l
Rolaw;counsel during the custodial and
1. Ascertain from the accused himself
(a) how he was brought into the custody of the
n
(b) whether he had the assistance of a competent
(c) under what conditionsahe was detained and interrogated duringa

preliminary investigations; and r
investigations. This is h B the
C s
intended to rule out the possibility that the accused
e or simply
l
has been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual
b
threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters
o
because of the judges intimidating robes.
R consequences
2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred
n r
with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and
3. Elicit information about the personality profile ofathe accused, such as his age, a
of a plea of guilty.
h B
trustworthy index of his capacity to give aC
socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a
4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty e
s
l
free and informed plea of guilty.
infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment oro

under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. For not b
bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties ofR
upon
penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty ofn

a lighter
a
the judge to
h
ensure that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions
C
because a plea of guilty carries with it not only the admission of authorship of
the crime proper but also of the aggravating circumstances attending it, that
increase punishment.
5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully
explain to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment.
Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of his fundamental right
67
to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a denial
of his right to due process.
6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and
understood by the latter.
7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty, is truly
guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime
or furnish its missing details.
People vs. Janjalani (G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011)
- searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the rules to
r
satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress;
a
B
mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and
s
consequences of their guilty plea. This requirement is stringent and mandatory.
F. Improvident Plea
l e
b
Ro
- a plea without information as to all the circumstances affecting it; based upon a mistaken
an r
assumption or misleading information or advice
B a
ChAt s
an improvident plea of guilty to beewithdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not
anytime before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit
guilty. (Sec. 5, Rule 116)

b l
R o
a n a r
B
People vs. Gambao (G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013)
- As a generalh
the casesC are remanded for further proceedings e
s
rule, convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside and
judgement. If the trial court, however, relied onlsufficient and credible evidence to
if such plea is the sole basis of
convict the accused, as it did in this case, theb

then it is predicated not merely on the o
conviction must be sustained, because
R manner by which the plea of guilty is made,

guilty plea but on evidence proving the
commission of the offense charged. The
a n significance where the conviction canaberbased
whether improvidently or not, loses legal
h
on independent evidence proving the commission of the crime by the accused.
B
C e s
G. Grounds for suspension of arraignment (Sec. 11, Rule 116)
b l
Ro
Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following
cases:
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from ana

n a r
effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead B
h
unsound mental condition which
intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, ifs
C e
necessary, his confinement for such purpose.
b l
(b) There exists a prejudicial question.
R o
n
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either
a
suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the filing of the h
the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of
office. C petition with the reviewing

Aguinaldo vs. Ventus (G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015)
- while the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the
arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the deferment of the arraignment to a
68
period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
It follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the trial court is bound
to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.
- it did not sanction an indefinite suspension of the proceedings in the trial court. Its
reliance on the reviewing authority, the Justice Secretary, to decide the appeal at the
soonest possible time was anchored on the rule provided under Department
Memorandum Order No. 12, dated 3 July 2000, which mandates that the period for the
disposition of appeals or petitions for review shall be seventy- five (75) days.
r
Ba
- the right of an accused to have his arraignment suspended is not an unqualified
s
right; while the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the
e
l
arraignment, the Rules limit the deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60 days
b
reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
o
IX. MOTION TO QUASH
R
an ar
-the mode by which an accused, before entering his plea, challenges the complaint or
B
Ch information for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects apparent on its face.
s
e
(Enrile vs. Manalastas, G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014)
b l
R o
Time to Move to Quash (Sec. 1, Rule 117)
an ar
- at any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint
B
C h
or information
s
l e
Form and Contents (Sec. 2, Rule 117)
o b
R
n r
shall be in writing
aand B a
Ch
signed by the accused or his counsel;
shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds

e s
bl
A. Grounds (Sec. 3, Rule 117) Ro
an B a r
Ch
(a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
es
l
(b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
o
(c) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;b
R
an
(d) the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
Ch
(e) the complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses
is prescribed by law;
(g) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
69
(h) the complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
excuse or justification; and
(i) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Absence of preliminary investigation not a ground for motion to quash

Torralba vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 101421-22, February 10, 1994)
a r
The incomplete preliminary investigation in this case, however, does not warrant the quashal
B
of the information, nor should it obliterate the proceedings already had. Neither is the court's
s
jurisdiction nor validity of an information adversely affected by deficiencies in the preliminary
e
l
investigation. Instead, the Sandiganbayan is to HOLD IN ABEYANCE any further proceedings
b
therein and to REMAND the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for the completion of the
o
preliminary investigation, the outcome of which shall then be indorsed to Sandiganbayan for its
R
appropriate action.
a n a r
h
B. Distinguish from demurrer to evidence B
C
Motion to Quash (Rule 117) compared l to e
s
b
Demurrer to Evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119)
MOTION TO QUASH Ro
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Filed before the defendant

an B a r
Filed after the prosecution has rested its case
enters his plea
C h s
Does not go into the
l e
Based upon the inadequacy of the evidence adduced by the prosecution
b
merits of the case but is in support of the accusation
Ro
anchored on matters not
directly related to the
question of guilt or
an r
innocence of the accused
B a
Ch
Governed by Rule 117 of Governed by Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
the Rules on Criminal
Procedure
e s
Does not require a prior
b l
May be filed by the accused either with leave or without leave of court
Ro
leave of court
a n a r
h
Amendment of complaint or information (Sec. 4, rule 117) B
C e s
can be cured by amendment court shall order that an amendment be made.
b l
If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which
If the motion to quash is based on the ground that the fact charged does noto
R constitute
by amendment
a n
an offense prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect
C
Note: The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to makehthe amendment, or the
complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment
People vs. Andrade (G.R. No. 187000, November 24, 2014)
70
- If the defect in the information is curable by amendment, the motion to quash shall
be denied and the prosecution shall be ordered to file an amended information.
Generally, the fact that the allegations in the information do not constitute an offense,
or that the information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form, are
defects curable by amendment. Corollary to this rule, the court should give the
prosecution an opportunity to amend the information.
- the RTC judge outrightly dismissed the cases without giving the prosecution an
opportunity to amend the defect in the Informations; even granting that the information in
question is defective, it appearing that the defects thereof can be cured by amendment,
r
the lower court should not have dismissed the case but should have ordered the
Ba
Fiscal to amend the information. When there is any doubt about the sufficiency of
the complaint or information, the court should direct its amendment or that a new
s
information be filed, and save the necessity of appealing the case on technical
e
l
grounds when the complaint might easily be amended.
o b
People vs. Odtuhan (G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013)
R
n would rtherein,
- The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an
a
Information is whether or not the facts alleged
aliunde or matters extrinsic of the B

a which are hypothetically
h
admitted, establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law.
Evidence
s
Cevident on its fact. Thus, if the defect ecan be cured
information are not to be considered. To be
l
sure, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is
b
by amendment or if it is based on the
o
ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the
Ron the groundcomplaint

court the opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. If the motion to quash is
n r
sustained, the court may order that another or information be filed except when
a Ba
the information is quashed of extinction of criminal liability or double
h
jeopardy.
C e s
C. Effects of sustaining the motion to quash (Sec. 5) b l
Ro or information be filed
n r
General Rule: Court may order that another complaint
Exceptions: if the Motion to Quash wasa a

h extinguished
based on the ff:
B
Cbeen
criminal action or liability has
e s
b l
Ro
double jeopardy
If in custody, the accused shall not be discharged unlessa

n a r
h
admitted to bail
B
Exceptions: C e s
when there is no order sustaining the motion is made b l
when there is an order sustaining the motion, no new information is filed R
o
within the time
an
specified in the order or within such further time as the court may allow for good cause
C h
Exception to the exceptions:
if accused is also in custody for another charge.
71
D. EXCEPTION to the rule that sustaining the motion is not a bar to another
prosecution (Sec. 6, Rule 117)
Motion to quash was based on the grounds:
that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished (Sec. 3(g), Rule 117;
that the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or
the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent. (Sec. 3 (i), Rule 117)
a r
B
e s
Note: if motion to quash is based on the ground of prescription - Article 89 of the RPC
b l
provides that the prescription of crime has the effect of totally extinguishing the criminal
o
liability.
R
a n a r
h
E. Double jeopardy (Sec. 7, Rule 117)
B
C 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitutione s
Sec.
l
No person shall be twiceb
R
If the act is punished byoa law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
an r
either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
B a
h
CJeopardy: (People v. Quijada, G.R. Nos. s
Kinds of Double
l e 115008-09, July 24, 1996, 259
SCRA 191)
b
o of the same act, provided that
double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense
R
- one may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
included in, or does not include, a

n
he is charged with different offenses, or the offense charged in one case is not
a r
hfor the same act. B
the crime charged in the other case.
C s
applies, even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing toethe fact that
double jeopardy of punishment
b lof a statute. If
o
one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation
R
the two charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal
n r
under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other.
a a
Incidentally, such conviction or acquittal is not indispensable to sustain the
jeopardy has been attached under one of the h B

plea of double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. So long as
C s
informations charging said offense,
the defense may be availed of in the other case involving the
there has been neither conviction nor acquittal in either case.
same offense, even if
l e
o b
Requisites of Double Jeopardy: (Quiambao vs. People, G.R. No. 185267, R
n
September 17,
2014)
a
(1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second;
C h
A first jeopardy attaches only
(a) after a valid indictment;
(b) before a competent court;
72
(c) after arraignment;
(d) when a valid plea has been entered; and
(e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
(2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and
(3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.
a r
B
s
Note:
l e
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution
o b
for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former
complaint or information under any of the following instances:
act orn
R offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same
omission constituting the former charge; r
(a) the graver
(b)a a became known or were discovered

h the facts constituting the graver charge
B
C only s was made without the consent of the
after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or
e
l except as provided in section 1 (f) of Rule 116.
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense
b
prosecutor and of the offended party
o
the judgment, he shall beR
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part
n r
credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver
offense.
a B a
C h s
eaccuseds right to a speedy trial
Bonsubre, Jr., vs. Yerro (G.R. No. 205952, February 11, 2015)
- a dismissal on the ground of the denial of the

b l
for the same offense. Thus, we have held o
will have the effect of acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the accused
R of the order of dismissal and the court

that where after such dismissal the
a n
prosecution moved for the reconsideration
re-set the case for trial, the accused can successfully claim double jeopardy
a r as
People vs. Judge Hernandez, h
B
the said order was actually an acquittal, was final and cannot be reconsidered. (citing
C 531 Phil. 289 (2006). e s

Rimando vs. Sps. Aldaba (G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014)
b l
the provisions of the RPC, as amended, on estafa,R
o of BP 22 and under
- while filing of the two sets of Information under the provisions
an r
may refer to identical acts
committed by the petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one
a
and where there is variance or differencesh between the elements of an offense is B
offense, because a single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses
C at bar there will be no double jeopardy e s

l in
one law and another law as in the case
because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements
b
Roof the two
the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution for the same act is not prohibited.
What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. Hence, the mere filing
an
(2) sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy.
People vs. Torres (G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014)
- when an accused appeals from the sentence of theC

h
trial court, he waives the
constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case
open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such
judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the
appellant. In other words, when appellant appealed the RTCs judgment of conviction
for murder, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition on
73
double jeopardy since it became the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as may
be found in the appealed judgment. Thus, appellant could not have been placed
twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the RTC by finding him
guilty of robbery with homicide as charged in the Information instead of murder.
Quiambao vs. People (G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014)
- void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the
r
source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. No legal rights can emanate from a
B
for a claim of double jeopardy.a
resolution that is null and void. Therefore xxx and cannot constitute a proper basis
Villareal vs. Aliga (G.R.s

l e No. 166995, January 13, 2014)
deprivationo
- double jeopardyb is not without exceptions, which are: (1) Where there has been
Rbeen a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.
of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where
n r20, 2013)
there has
aSandiganbayan a
Bor more separate and distinct offenses; and
h
Braza vs. (G.R. No. 195032, February
s
C that no double jeopardy attachese as long as there is variance between the
- same criminal act may give rise to two
b
elements of the two offenses charged.l The doctrine of double jeopardy is a revered
twice for the same offense, o
constitutional safeguard against exposing the accused from the risk of being prosecuted
R and not a different one.
a ndouble jeopardy when the subsequent a rinformation charges
B same act or set of acts.
- there is simply no
h
Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What issforbidden is the prosecution for
another and different offense, although arising from the
C
the same offense.
l e
b
comparison of the elements of violation ofo
- there is no dispute that the two charges stemmed from the same transaction. A
R will disclose that there is neither identity

Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 and those of
nor exclusive inclusion between the two offenses. Although violation of Sec. 3(g) r
n
violation of Sec. 3(e) of the same law, however,
a of the same law share a common Belement, a of R.A.
h
No. 3019 and violation of Sec. 3(e)
C among or do not form part of thoseeenumerated

accused being a public officer,
s
the latter is not inclusive of the former. The essential
the
lon double jeopardy

elements of each are not included in the
other. For double jeopardy to exist, the elements of one offense
encompass or include those of the other. What the rule
o b should ideally
prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two offenses.

R
Bangayan vs. Bangayan (G.R. No. 172777, October
an19, 2011) a r
h from invoking his right against B
C that the trial court acted withs
- only instance when the accused can be barred
double jeopardy is when it can be demonstrated
l eas
where the prosecution was not allowed the opportunity to make its caseb
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such
the accused or where the trial was a sham. For instance, there is o
against
R of the
no double
prosecution's evidence and forthwith dismissed the information n

jeopardy (1) where the trial court prematurely terminated the presentation
acase was not ready

for insufficiency of
Ch
evidence; and (2) where the case was dismissed at a time when the
for trial and adjudication.
F. Provisional dismissal (Sec. 8, Rule 117)
74
Definition: a case is dismissed without prejudice to its being refiled or revived;

dismissal without prejudice to the reinstatement thereof.
Requisites: Bonsubre, Jr., vs. Yerro (G.R. No. 205952, February 11, 2015)
a. The prosecution with the express conformity of the accused, or the accused, moves for
a provisional dismissal (sin perjuicio) of his case; or both the prosecution and the accused
move for its provisional dismissal;
b. The offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case;
a r
c. The court issues an Order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally;
and
B
e s
l
d. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the Order of provisional dismissal of the
b
case.
o
When dismissal becomes permanent:
R
an r
one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived of
a
offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
B
Ch amount, or both
s
two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived of
l e
offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years
o b
R
Co vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products (G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014)
a n a r or of the hearing
B three days before said
- In this case, no notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal
h
hearing; fact is that it was only in open court that Co s
thereon which was served on the private complainant at least
considering C that, as per records, complainant had noteshown any interest to pursue her
moved for provisional dismissal
complaint.
b l
- Importance of a prior notice to the offended
R o party of a motion for provisional
through the private prosecutor, if there
a nis one, or through the public prosecutor
dismissal: Such notice may be served on the offended party or the heirs of the victim
a rwho
B
Chhearing or appear in court during theehearing.
in turn must relay the notice to the offended party or the heirs of the victim to enable
them to confer with him before the
s
The proof of such service must be shown during the hearing
b l on the motion,
Rtheovictim the opportunity to

otherwise, the requirement of the new rule will become illusory.
seasonably and effectively comment on or object n r

Such notice will enable the offended party or the heirs of
including: (a) the collusion between the prosecutionaand the accused for the provisional a
to the motion on valid grounds,
dismissal of a criminal case thereby depriving h the State of its right to due process; (b) B
attempts to make witnesses unavailable; or C (c) the provisional dismissal of the case withs
l e
the consequent release of the accused from detention would enable him to > threaten
kill the offended party or the other prosecution witnesses or >flee from Philippine
o bphysical
and
R
jurisdiction, provide opportunity for the > destruction or loss of the prosecutions
an property or the
and other evidence and > prejudice the rights of the offended party to recover on the civil
liability of the accused by his concealment or furtive disposition of his
Los Baos vs. Pedro (G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009) Motion C hto Quash vs. Provisional
consequent lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment against his property.
Dismissal
- A first notable feature of Section 8, Rule 117 is that it does not exactly state what a
provisional dismissal is. The modifier "provisional" directly suggests that the dismissals
which Section 8 essentially refers to are those that are TEMPORARY in character
75
(i.e., to dismissals that are without prejudice to the re-filing of the case), and not the
dismissals that are permanent (i.e., those that bar the re-filing of the case). Based on the
law, rules, and jurisprudence, permanent dismissals are those barred by the principle of
double jeopardy by the previous extinction of criminal liability, by the rule on speedy trial,
and the dismissals after plea without the express consent of the accused. Section 8, by
its own terms, cannot cover these dismissals because they are not provisional.
A second feature is that Section 8 does not state the grounds that lead to a
provisional dismissal. This is in marked contrast with a motion to quash whose
grounds are specified under Section 3. The delimitation of the grounds available in a
r
motion to quash suggests that a motion to quash is a class in itself, with specific and
Ba
closely-defined characteristics under the Rules of Court. A necessary consequence is that
where the grounds cited are those listed under Section 3, then the appropriate remedy is to
s
file a motion to quash, not any other remedy. Conversely, where a ground does not
e
l
appear under Section 3, then a motion to quash is not a proper remedy. A motion for
b
provisional dismissal may then apply if the conditions required by Section 8 obtain.
R o
nof anmotion r the question of whether the
A third feature, closely related to the second, focuses on the consequences of a
a
meritorious
information can be treated as aa
to quash. This feature also answers
B consequences of a meritorious motion to

h
quashal provisional dismissal. Sections 4, 5, 6,
Cquash relates to a defect curable byeamendment.

and 7 of Rule 117 unmistakably provide for the
s
l
quash. Section 4 speaks of an amendment of the complaint or information, if the motion to
b
Section 5 dwells on the effect of
o
sustaining the motion to quash - the complaint or information may be re-filed, except for the
R
instances mentioned under Section 6. The latter section, on the other hand, specifies the
on extinction of criminaln r
limit of the re-filing that Section 5 allows - it cannot be done where the dismissal is based
a provided under Section 3(i) and the exceptionBa stated in Section 6.

liability or double jeopardy. Section 7 defines double jeopardy and
h
complements the ground
C e s
Failure to Move to Quash or to Allege Any Ground
b l Therefor (Sec. 9)
General Rule:
o of a motion to quash before
he pleads to the complaint or information,R
The failure of the accused to assert any ground
to quash or failed to allege the same

a nin said motion, shall be deemed a waiver
either because he did not file a motion
a r
of any objections.
h B
Exceptions: MTQ is based on
C e s
l
(a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(c) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;

o b
(b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(d) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted R
an r
of the offense charged, or the
a
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
h B
CRomars International Gases Corporation e s
ltake
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs.
(G.R. No. 189669, February 16, 2015)
- In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, therefore, the trial court could only b
oissue was
not available or existent when they filed the motion to quash the searchR
cognizance of an issue that was not raised in the motion to quash if, (1) said
n
warrant; or (2)
the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter.
a
- Does the omnibus motion rule cover a motion to quash search warrants?
omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 8, Rule 15, in relation
demands that all available objections be included in a party's C hmotion,
to Section 1, Rule 9,
otherwise, said
objections shall be deemed waived; and, the only grounds the court could take
cognizance of, even if not pleaded in said motion are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter; (b) existence of another action pending between the same parties for the
same cause; and (c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations.
76
- omnibus motion rule is applicable to motions to quash search warrants; that the
motion to quash the search warrant which the accused may file shall be governed by
the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not available, existent
or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in
the hearing.
X. PRE-TRIAL
Pre-trial in criminal cases is mandatory;
r
Objective: to achieve an expeditious resolution of the case
a
B
When : after arraignment and within 30 days from the time the court acquires jurisdiction over
e s
the person of the accused, the Court shall order a pretrial conference.
b
Exception: unless a shorterl st
period is provided by law (Sec. 1, 1 par. , Rule 118)
R o
Nationaln r
2498-a a
Power Corporation vs. Adiong [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-
h
RTJ), July 27, 2011]
B conference itself. It is elementary and
Respondent judge failed to conduct the s
Cplain that the holding of such a pre-trialeconference is mandatory and failure to do so is
pre-trial
b l is so elementary, such as the provisions of the

Rules of Court, not to know o
inexcusable. When the law or procedure
ignorance of the law. SuchR

it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross
an r
ignorance of a basic rule in court procedure, as failing to
a
conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to gross ignorance and warrants a corresponding penalty.
h B
C s
e 118)
A. Matters to be considered during pre-trial (Sec. 1, Rule
bl
a. Plea bargaining;
R o
b. stipulation of facts;
a n a r
h B
C s
c. marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
d. waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;

l e
b
Ro
e. modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
defense; and
f. such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of n r

a the criminal and civil aspects of the
B a
case.
C h s
l e
B. What the court should do when prosecution and offended party agree o
b
R to the plea
offered by the accused
a n
Form
C h
Court approval is required as to the matters referred in Sec. 1, Rule 118
Must be in writing
Signed by the accused
77
Signed by the counsel
Effect
Binding on the parties who made
Become judicial admissions of the facts stipulated
a r
C. Pre-trial agreement B
e s
b l
Agreements or admissions made and entered during the pre-trial conference; court approval is
required on matters referred to in Sec. 1.
R o
Plea bargaining (except those which the law do not allow plea bargaining i.e. Sec. 23, RA
a n
9165 or Dangerous Drugs Act)
a r
h
Stipulation of facts B
s
C for identification of evidence ofethe parties;
marking
b l
o
waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
modification of the order of R

an r
trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful
defense; and
a
B criminal and civil aspects
C
such matters as will h s
promote a fair and expeditious trial of the
of the case.
l e
o b
People vs. Likiran (G.R. No. 201858, JuneR
n r
4, 2014)
a is allowed by Rule 118 of the Reviseda

B or
hRule 118, meanwhile, prescribes that allsagreements
Stipulation of facts during pre-trial Rules of
C
Criminal Procedure. Section 2 of
and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannotlbe

admissions made or entered
eused against
during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing
b was signed only

the
by the prosecution and defense counsel, the same mayo

accused. In this case, while it appears that the pre-trial agreement
R
nevertheless be admitted
n r
given that the defense failed to object to its admission.
a B a
h
C 118) s
D. Non-appearance during pre-trial (sec. 3, Rule
l e
Court may sanction or penalize counsel for the accused if the following concur:
o b
R
an
(1) counsel does not appear at the pre-trial conference AND
Ch
(2) counsel does not offer an acceptable excuse.
Garayblas vs. Ong (G.R. Nos. 174507-30, August 3, 2011)
- Pre-trial is meant to simplify, if not fully dispose of, the case at its early stage; during pre-
trial, attorneys must make a full disclosure of their positions as to what the real issues
78
of the trial would be. They should not be allowed to embarrass or inconvenience the court
or injure the opposing litigant by their careless preparation for a case; or by their failure to
raise relevant issues at the outset of a trial.
E. Pre-trial order (Sec. 4, Rule 118)
Issued by the court after pre-trial conference reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated,
and evidenced marked
a r
B
Purpose:
oBind the parties

e s
oLimit the trial to matters l
b not disposed of
oControl the courseo

R of the action during trial
anmodified by the court to prevent manifest
Note: can be
B a r injustice
C h s
l eSeptember 1, 2010)
b
People vs. Villanueva (G.R. No. 181829,
o
Rrequirement
- to bind the accused the pre-trial order must be signed not only by him but his counsel as
n rmay have waived

well. The purpose of this is to further safeguard the rights of the
counsel may have a a

accused against improvident or unauthorized agreements or admissions which his
presence at theh
entered into without his knowledge, as he
Bon the conformity of the his
C s would show that the Pre-trial

pre-trial conference; eliminate any doubt
e
l
accused of the facts agreed upon. In this case, records
b
Order was not signed by both appellant and his counsel.
R o
F. Referral of some cases for court annexed
a n mediation and judicial dispute resolution
a r
(A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA) h B
C s
eof the parties and
Purpose
b
to put an end to pending litigation through a compromise agreement l
to empower the parties to resolve their own disputes ando
thereby help solve the ever-passing problem of court docket congection
State Policy, viz: to actively promote party autonomy in R

give practical effect to the
anto resolve disputes. r

the resolution of disputes or the
freedom of the parties to make their own arrangement
B a
Three (3) Stages
C h s
1. Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) e
l by
trained and accredited mediators.
o b
The judge refers the parties to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for mediation
R
2. Failing to secure a Settlement in the first stage, Second Attempt JDR Stage
anjudge
JDR Judge sequentially becomes a mediator conciliator-early neutral evaluator in a
continuing effort to secure a settlement
who will try to settle the case.

C
Note: The trial judge shall continue with the pre-trial proper
hand proceed to try and
still failing this attempt, the mediator-judge must turn-over the case to another
decide the case.

3. Appeal
referred to PMC- Appeals Court Mediation (PMC-ACM)
79
Cases covered by CAM and JDR
All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure,
except those which by law may not be compromised (e.g.,
Annulment of Marriage)
Cases covered by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law
(P.D. No. 508, as amended by R.A. No. 7160)
Civil aspect of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg.22.
a r
B
The civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code
Civil aspect of Estafa and s

PHILJA, dated October 16,e200I. AM. No. 04-2-04-SC, dated July 20, 2004 and effective
Libel cases where damages are sought. (A.M. No.0I-I0-5-SC-
August 16, 2004).

b l
Ro for the settlement of estates
Special proceedings
All habeasn r absence of the RTC judge, that are

a B a
corpus decided by the first level courts in the
C h
brought up on appeal from the special jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Dec. 35
s
e
of Judiciary Reorgamization Act of 1980.
b l
Cases may be referred to o
R willingness to discuss a possible compromise.
JDR even during the trial stage upon written motion of one
n r counsels, shall
or both of the parties indicating
If full settlementa a
h Bto the court for judgment
is reached, the parties, assisted by their respective
C s
draft the compromise agreement which shall be submitted
upon compromise

or other appropriate actions.
e
lassisted by their respective counsels,
b
If partial settlement is reached the parties shall,
submit the terms thereof for the appropriateo
R
actions of the court.
XI. TRIAL a n a r
h B
Definition: examination beforeC
facts put in issue in a case for the purpose of determining such issue. e
the competent tribunal according to the laws s of the land, of
b l
When: after a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have
prepare for trial. The trial shall commence WITHIN 30 DAYSR
o AT LEAST 15 DAYS to
an r
from receipt of the pre-trial
a
order. (Sec. 1,Rule 119)
h B
C e s
A. Instances when presence of accused is required by law
b l
Upon arraignment and in entering plea;
R o
During the pre-trial conference, when required by the court;
an
C h
During the trial, when required by the court for purposes of identification;
During the promulgation of the judgment, unless it is for a light offense in which case the
accused may appear by counsel or representative.
80
B. Requisite before trial can be suspended on account of absence of witness
1. the witness is material and appears to the court to be so;
2. party who applies has been guilty of no neglect;
3. witnesses can be had at the time to which the trial is deferred and no similar evidence
could be obtained; and
4. affidavit showing the existence of the above circumstances must be filed.
a r
B
s
Factors in granting continuance (Sec. 4, Rule 119)
eto grant a continuance in the proceeding would likely make a
continuation of such b
Whether or not the failure l
o proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of justice; and
Rthe case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to the
number of accused or the nature of the prosecution,r
n
Whether or not
adequatea a or that it is unreasonable to expect
h B therein.
preparation within the periods of time established
C e s
b l Jr. (G.R. No. 201061, July 03, 2013)
oof a motion for continuance or postponement is not a
Go-Bangayan vs. Benjamin Bangayan,
R
n rwaivedby herhercontinued
- It is well-settled that a grant
matter of right but is
a a
addressed to the discretion of the trial court;
continued failure to present her evidenceB

h
refusal to present her evidence, she was deemed to have right to
Ctrial court showed her lack of interestetosproceed with the case.

present them; despite the opportunities
l
given by the
b
C. Trial in absentia Ro
a nConstitution a r
Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987
" x x x after arraignment, h B
C s
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure
l e to appear is
b
unjustifiable."
Requisites: (Bernardo vs. People, G.R. No. 166980, April 3,o

R
2007)
(1) the accused has already been arraigned,
(3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable, are, asa

(2) he has been duly notified of the trial, and n a r
h
reflected above, present in the
B
case.
Cbe brought to trial e s
Time limit within which the accused must
b l
R o
an
The arraignment of the accused shall be held within 30 days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (S1[g] R116).
The trial shall commence within 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial
C h order. (S1 R119) as
extended (Sec. 6, Rule 119).
81
D. Remedy when accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed period (Sec. 9,
Rule 119)
The information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of
his right to speedy trial.
Note: the accused shall have the burden of proving the motion, BUT the prosecution
shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence to establish the exclusion/s of time
under Sec. 3 Rule 119.
a r
Brules on double jeopardy
Dismissal shall be subject to the
e s
Note: provided that thel
dismissal would amount b requisites of double jeopardy under Sec. 7 Rule 117 are met, the
o on whether there was a violation of the right to a speedy trial is of

to an acquittal.
R to review by the special civil action r

anamounting
The judges decision
course subject
B a for certiorari if made with grave abuse
C h
of discretion to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
s
l e
Failure of the accused to move for b dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of
Ro
the right to dismiss under this section.
an a r
B (Sec. 17)
h
E. Requisites for discharge
C of accused to become a state witness
s
l e of an offense;
b
1. Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission
o
2. The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its case;
proposed state witness at a hearing in supportR

3. The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of each
4. The accused gives his consent to be a n r

of the discharge;
a a
state witness; and
h B
5. The trial court is satisfied that:
C sof the offense

a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;
l e
b
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution
o in its material points

committed, except the testimony of said accused;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and R

c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated
e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any

a n offense involving moral
a r
h B
turpitude
C e s
Jimenez, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014)
b l
- it is still the trial court that determines whether the prosecutions o
R
preliminary
ntrialitscourt,
assessment of the accused-witness qualifications to be a state witness satisfies the
procedural norms. This relationship is in reality a symbiotic one as the
a by the
based on the prosecutors findings and evaluation.

C h
very nature of its role in the administration of justice, largely exercises prerogative
- in requiring a hearing in support of the discharge, the essential objective of the law is
for the court to receive evidence for or against the discharge, which evidence shall
serve as the courts tangible and concrete basis independently of the fiscal's or
prosecution's persuasions in granting or denying the motion for discharge. We
82
emphasize, in saying this, that actual hearing is not required provided that the parties have
both presented their sides on the merits of the motion.
People vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 185729-32, June 26, 2013)

- Rules do not require absolute certainty in determining those conditions; the Judge has
to rely in a large part upon the suggestions and the considerations presented by the
prosecuting officer; A trial judge cannot be expected or required to inform himself with
absolute certainty at the very outset of the trial as to everything which may be developed in
the course of the trial in regard to the guilty participation of the accused in the commission
of the crime charged in the complaint. If that were practicable or possible, there would be
a r
little need for the formality of a trial. In coming to his conclusions as to the necessity for
B
the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested, as to the availability or
s
non-availability of other direct or corroborative evidence; as to which of the accused
e
is the most guilty one; and the like, the judge must rely in a large part upon the
l
suggestions and the information furnished by the prosecuting officer.
b
R o
Pontejos v. Desierto (G.R. No. 148600, July 7, 2009, 592 SCRA 64)
- Sec. 17, Rule 119 is applicable only to cases already filed in court. The trial court is
an r
given the power to discharge an accused as a state witness only because it has already
a
acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused; power to choose who to discharge as
B
Ch state witness is an executive function. Essentially, it is not a judicial prerogative. The fact
s
e
that an individual had not been previously charged or included in an information does not
l
prevent the prosecution from utilizing said person as a witness.
b
R o
Two modes by which a participant in the commission of a crime may become a state
witness (Ampatuan, Jr. vs. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013)
an r
a
a. the offense in which his testimony will
B
h
Sec. 17, Rule 119, Rules of Court
C
be used is a grave felony as defined under
s
e
the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent
l
The discharge by the trial court of one or under special laws;
more of several accused with their
consent so that they can be witnesses
o b
b. there is absolute necessity for his
testimony;
for the State is made upon motion by the
R c. there is no other direct evidence
an r
Prosecution before resting its case. The available for the proper prosecution of the
trial court shall require the Prosecution to offense committed;
B a
Ch
present evidence and the sworn d. his testimony can be substantially
statements of the proposed witnesses at
e s
corroborated on its material points;
bl
a hearing in support of the discharge. e. he does not appear to be most guilty;
The trial court must ascertain if the and
Ro
following conditions fixed by Section 17 f. he has not at any time been convicted of
of Rule 119 are complied with, namely: any crime involving moral turpitude.
an r
(a) there is absolute necessity for the
testimony of the accused whose An accused discharged from an information
B a
Ch
discharge is requested; (b) there is no or criminal complaint by the court in order that
other direct evidence available for the he may be a State Witness pursuant to
proper prosecution of the offense Section 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of the Revised
es
committed, except the testimony of said Rules of Court may upon his petition be
b l
o
accused; (c) the testimony of said admitted to the Program if he complies with
R
accused can be substantially the other requirements of this Act. Nothing in
an
corroborated in its material points; (d) this Act shall prevent the discharge of an
said accused does not appear to be most accused, so that he can be used as a State
Ch
guilty; and (e) said accused has not at Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules
any time been convicted of any offense of Court.
involving moral turpitude.
Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 6981
83
Other Modes to be state Witness
Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 6981
a r
B
Sec. 17 of R.A. 6770, Power of the Ombudsman to grant immunity
es
Immunity under P.D. No. 749
lb
o
Immunity under E.O. No. 14-A
Immunity under RComprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or R.A. 9165

nProtection under the Human Security Act
aand a rof 2007 or R.A 9372
B
Immunity
C h s
l e
F. Effects of discharge of accused as b state witness
1. evidence adduced in supportR

o
nthe motion for discharge of the accused ras state witness, his
of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial
a a
hbe inadmissible as evidence. s B
Note: if the court denies
C
sworn statement shall
l e for further prosecution for the

b
2. Discharge of the accused operates as an acquittal and bar
o
same offense.
R
a n a r
B with
Exceptions:
C h s
his sworn statement constituting the basis of his discharge.
l e
1. Unless accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance
o
2. Failure to testify refers exclusively to defendant's will or fault.
b
R evidence on a promise of
3. Extrajudicial confession: when an accused who turns state's
a n a r
B
immunity but later retracts and fails to keep his part of the agreement, his confession of his
h
participation in the commission of the crime is admissible as evidence against him.
C s
4. Once discharged even if one or all of the conditions required for his discharge did e
really exist, that fact does not affect the legal consequences of the discharge and
b l not
the
Ro
admissibility of his testimony if otherwise admissible and credible.
an
Ch
84
G. Demurrer to evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119)
An objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his
adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case
a r
or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence
to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a
B
demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence
e s
to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
After the prosecution l

b rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of
Ro after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard; or

insufficiency of evidence:
n
(1) on its own initiative
(2) upona a r
h demurrer to evidence filed by the accused
B with or without leave of court.
s
C The motion for leave of court to fileeaperiod
l
Note: demurrer shall specifically state the grounds
b
and shall be filed within a non-extendible of five (5) days after the prosecution
Ro
rests its case.
an a r
B accused may ADDUCE
hof court and was denied by the court
Effects:
If filed with leave C e s

EVIDENCE in his defense
b l
If filed without leave of court and was denied o by the court accused WAIVES the right
Rjudgment on the basis of the evidence for
n r
to present evidence and submits the case for
a a
the prosecution.
If granted accused shall file theh B within

C s
demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period
of 10 days from notice. The prosecution
similar period from its receipt.
may oppose the demurrer to
l e
evidence a
b
Ro
Order denying the motion for leave of court to file a demurrer is not reviewable by
appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
an Ba r
People vs. Go (G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014)
Ch e s
- Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is lsuch
o baction
evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official
R degree of
demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the
evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise
n
a to warrant the
participation therein by the accused. Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court
conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

C h
must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough
85
- grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the

trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave
abuse of such discretion. As to effect, the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts
to an acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused in
r
double jeopardy. The order is reviewable only by certiorari if it was issued with
a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. When grave
B
abuse of discretion is present, an order granting a demurrer becomes null and void.
e s
b l September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 668)
People vs. Uy (G.R. No. 158157,
R othe trial court committed not only gross reversible error of judgment but
This Court finds that
holding thatn r that the execution thereof was

a a
also was actuated with grave abuse of discretion, exceeding the parameters of its jurisdiction, in
Panangins retracting of his confession shows
h Bas it was "a fruit of [a] poisonous tree."
s of the defense that the confession was not
involuntary and that in any event it was inadmissible
C The trial court blindly accepted the eclaim
more than 5 months after hisb
made voluntarily on the basis of an laffidavit executed by Panangin on July 1, 2002 or
o affidavit Panangin was not even called to identify
sworn statement-confession was given and after the
and affirm at the witnessR

prosecution rested its case, which
n
acourt
stand, hence, hearsay.
a r
h
The decision of the trial
B alleged
undoubtedly deprived the prosecution of due process as
C
it was not given the opportunity
s
to check the veracity of Panangins retraction
e of conviction, the judge may,
l
motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in b
Reopening At any time before finality of the judgment
o either case, reopen the proceedings to
days from the order granting it.(Sec. 24) R

avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30)
an B a r
C h s
XII. JUDGMENT l e
o b
Definition (Sec. 1, Rule 120)
R
- is the adjudication by the court that the accused isn r
a guilty or not guilty of the offense
Ba
C h
charged and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any.
s
Sec. 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
l e
o b the
No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
facts and the law on which it is based."
R
a n
C h
86
A. Requisites of a judgment
1. must be written in the official language;
r
2. personally and directly prepared by the judge;
a
3. signed by him; and
B
es
l
4. contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.
o b
R
B. Contents of judgment (Sec. 2)
a n a r
h
If it is of CONVICTION, the judgment shall state:
B
(a)C
s
e attending
b l
the legal qualification of the offense constituted
and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances
by the acts committed by the accused,
the commission thereof, if there
Roin the commission of the offense, whether as principal,

are any;
an the fact; r
(b) the participation of the accused
accomplice, or accessory after
B a
Chupon the accused; and
(c) the penalty imposed
e s
(d) the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful l
separate action has been reserved or waived. o

b
by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement
act to be recovered from the accused
of the civil liability by a
R
a n
If it is of ACQUITTAL, the judgment shall state:
a r
h Baccused or
C reasonable doubt.
(a) whether the evidence of the prosecution
s
absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
e
l
merely failed to prove his guilt beyond
act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist o
(b) the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from the judgment b determine if the
shall
R
a and the person reading the Bar
n
People vs. Lizada (G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003)
hafter consideration of the evidence ofs

- purpose of the provision is to inform the parties
C eof
decision on how it was reached by the court
l
the parties and the relevant facts, of the opinion it has formed on the issues, and
of the applicable laws. The parties must be assured from a reading of the decision
the trial court that they were accorded their rights to be heard by an impartial
o b and
responsible judge.
R
Judgment for two or more offenses (Sec. 3, Rule 120)
a n
General Rule: (Sec. 13, Rule110)
Complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when h
C the law prescribes a
87
single punishment for various offenses.
General Rule: (Sec. 3(f), Rule 117)

The accused may move to quash the complaint or information xxx on the
r
ground (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single
Exception:
B a
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law.
es
Defect is waived when the accused fails to move for quashal
b l
o
Where the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may:
R
1. Convict him of as many offenses as there are charged and proved;
an r
Exception: if one of the offenses has been a necessary means for committing the other
a
offense and where both have been the result of a single act
and
h B out separately the findings of fact and law
in C
2. Impose
s
on him the penalty for each offense, setting
eshould be in accordance with the three-fold rule
l
each offense.
b of the principal penalty which the herein

Exception: maximum duration of the offense
on the penalty. the maximum duration
petitioner has to serve under o
R1 day, or 18 months and 3 days, the maximum
his conviction in the 17 cases in question is
threefold of 6 months and
a n
duration of his sentence cannot exceed threefold the
a r length of time
corresponding to h the most severe of the penalties imposed B upon him
C e s
Variance Doctrine
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation
b l and proof. When there is a
R o includes the offense proved, the
variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved,
and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily
an a r
accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense
B charged
charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
C h s
e constitutes
Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. An offense
necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information,
b l elements or
the
Ro constituting the latter.

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
a n homicide) 2. robbery charged, ar

theft proved (conviction: theft) 3. homicide charged,h murder proved (conviction: homicide) 3. B
Examples: 1. murder charged, homicide proved (conviction:
theft charged, robbery proved (conviction: theft) 4.Crape charged, acts of lasciviousness proveds
l e
b
(conviction: acts of lasciviousness)
People vs. Noque (G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010) o

Rthe sale and
n
The only issue raised by the appellant in this petition is that his conviction for
possession of ephedrine, violated his constitutional right to be informed ofa

possession of shabu, despite the fact that what was established and proven was the sale and
C h the nature and cause
88
of the accusations against him since the charges in the Informations are for selling and
possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride.
As correctly observed by CA, the offenses designated in the Informations are for violations of
Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, which define and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and
a r
possession of regulated drugs. The allegations in the Informations for the unauthorized sale and
B
possession of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride are immediately followed by the
s
qualifying phrase which is a regulated drug. Thus, it is clear that the designations and
l e
allegations in the Informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of
regulated drugs. Ephedrine has been classified as a regulated drug by the Dangerous Drugs
b
Board in Board Resolution No. 2, Series of 1988.
o
R
On March 17, 1988, pursuant to Section 20(8) of RA 6425, as amended, the Dangerous Drugs
an r
Board in its Board Regulation No. 2, S. 1988, classified as regulated drug all raw materials of
a
ephedrine, as well as preparations containing the said drug. The chemical formula of ephedrine
B
Ch
is C10 H15 NO, whereas that of methamphetamine is C10 H15 N. The only difference
s
between ephedrine and methamphetamine is the presence of a single atom of oxygen in
e
l
the former. The removal of the oxygen in ephedrine will produce methamphetamine. With
b
ephedrine containing fifty percent (50%) of methamphetamine hydrochloride if the oxygen
o
content in the former is removed, the nearly 680 grams of ephedrine seized from the appellant
R
contains about 340 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
an a r
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, can be applied by analogy in convicting the
B
Ch
appellant of the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. Under these
s
provisions, the offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the
e
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.
l
b
At any rate, a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the
nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a
R o
discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. In other words, his right to
be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is
an a r
charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of
B
lesser crimes or offenses included therein.
Ch
People vs. Leonardo (G.R. No. 181036, July 6, 2010)
e s
6 counts of rape and 5 counts of acts of lasciviousness performed on ab
Accused charged with 13 counts of rape of 12 year old girl in relation to RAl 7610. Convicted of
and vagina constitutes sexual abuse under Sec. 5 (b), Art. III of RA o
child. Touching breasts
R7160, which was the offense

an r
proved, following the variance doctrine.
Ba
People vs. Rellota (G.R. No. 18103, July 3, 2010)
C h s
Accused sentenced to 2 counts of rape and 1 count of attempted rape of 12 year old girl.
l e
Supreme Court modified the judgment. 1 count is only for acts of lasciviousness as defined
o b
under Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 5, Art. III of RA 7160, following variance doctrine.
R
n
*** People vs. Cuaycong (G.R. No. 196051, October 2, 2013) - TDC
aknowledge
h
Accused convicted of 2 counts of statutory rape of 7 year old daughter of live-in patner.
C
Supreme Court modified judgment because one count of rape by carnal not proved
89
only penile penetration of victims anus. First mode (rape by carnal knowledge) not
necessarily included in second mode (rape thru sexual assault) and vice versa. Charge is rape
by carnal knowledge so accused cannot be convicted of rape thru sexual assault without
violating his right to be informed of nature and cause of the accusation against him.
a r
Ricalde vs.People (G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015)
BRevised
smentioned in paragraph
Accused convicted of rape thru sexual assault by inserting penis into anus of 10-year old boy
e
nd
under 2 paragraph of Art. 266-A, Penal Code, committed "[b ]y any person who,
l
under any of the circumstances
banal orifice of another person."
assault by inserting his penis
1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
o
object, into the genital or
R between the offense charged and the offense proved because the
a n
There is no variance
prosecuted proved beyond reasonable doubt all elelaments
a r of rape thru sexual assault.
h affirmed but penalty modified from B
C as minimum to 8 years of prisionemayor
Conviction
s 4 asyears, 2 months and 1 day of prision
lwhich is the penalty for lascivious conduct when the

correccional maximum (imposed by RTC), to
b
Ro
reclusion temporal in its medium period,
victim is below 12 years old, under Sec. 5 (b), Art. III, RA 7160 (child prostitution and other
n r
sexual abuse).
Teves vs. Sandiganbayana a

h
(G.R. No. 154182, December 17, 2004)
Bwith violation of Section 3(h)
The pivotal issue inC s
e as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
this petition is whether a public official charged
of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known
b l
o
Practices Act, for unlawful intervention, in his official capacity, in the issuance of a license in
R
favor of a business enterprise in which he has a pecuniary interest may be convicted, together
n r
with his spouse, of violation of that same provision premised on his mere possession of such
a a
interest.
h in this case, which is unlawful intervention Bare in the

issuance of a cockpit license in C s
The elements of the offense charged
e
violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law,
l
1. The accused is a public officer;
o b
R
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or
transaction, whether or not prohibited by law; and
n
a with such interest. a r
h
3. He intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection
B
C eofs
prohibited interest in violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law, are as follows: l
On the other hand, the essential ingredients of the offense proved, which is possession
o b
R
1. The accused is a public officer;
2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction; and
a n
C h
90
3. He is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or any law.

It is clear that the essential ingredients of the offense proved constitute or form part of those
constituting the offense charged. Put differently, the first and second elements of the offense
charged, as alleged in the information, constitute the offense proved. Hence, the offense
a r
proved is necessarily included in the offense charged, or the offense charged
necessarily includes the offense proved. The variance doctrine thus finds application to this
B
case, thereby warranting the conviction of petitioner Edgar Teves for the offense proved.
es
b l
o
C. Promulgation of judgment (Sec. 6, Rule 120)
R
a n a r
is an official proclamation or announcement of the decision of the court
h of reading the judgment in the presence Bof the accused and any judge of the court
s
consists
in C
which it was rendered
l e
Who may promulgate the judgment
o b
R
1. Judge of the court in which it was rendered
2. Clerk of the said court in n

athe absence of the judge who renderedBjudgmentar
3. Executive Judge ofh
Corthedetained and upon the request of the e
s
RTC having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention if
accused is confined
b lJuly 25, 2011)

judge who rendered judgment.
Payumo vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 151911,
R o
a
Promulgation signifies that on the ndate it was made, the judge or justices
- Promulgation of the decision is an important part of the decision-making process.
a rwho
h his vote despite being able to do so. B
signed the decision continued to support it which could be inferred from his
C such, only from the moment of its promulgation.

silence or failure to withdraw
e s A decision or
l
resolution of the court becomes
- A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after itb

before. It is an elementary doctrine that for a judgment too
is promulgated and not
signed and promulgated during the incumbency of theR

be binding, it must be duly
who pens the decision is still an incumbent judge,n r

judge who penned it; the judge
judge who died, resigned, retired, had beenh

a that is, a judge of the same court,
dismissed, promoted to a higher court or B

albeit now assigned to a different branch, at the time the decision is promulgated; a a
C e s
l
appointed to another office with inconsistent functions, would no longer be considered
invalid. Indeed, one who is no longer a member of the court at the time b
an incumbent member of the court and his decision written thereafter would be
decision or resolution is signed and promulgated cannot validly take o

the final
decision or resolution; when a judge or a member of the collegiate R

part in that
n
court, who had
a withdrawn or
earlier signed or registered his vote, has vacated his office at the time of the
Ch
promulgation of the decision or resolution, his vote is automatically
cancelled.
91
Instances of promulgation of judgment in absentia
r
Two instances when a Judgment may be Promulgated in absentia (Sec. 6, Rule 120
a
B
1 . when the judgment is for light offense, in which case, the accused's counsel or
s
representative may stand for him; and
e
lb
2. in cases where despite due notice to the accused or his bondsman or warden and
o
counsel, the accused failed to appear at the promulgation of the decision.
R (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1575, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 27)

n r
Reyes vs. Mangino
a two instances when judgment may be a

Bis forfor him;
h
There are promulgated even without the personal
C s
presence of the accused: (1) when the judgment a light offense, in which case, the
counsel for the accused or a representative
e
may stand and (2) in cases where despite
l The evident purpose of this latter exception is to
b
due notice to the accused or his bondsman or warden and counsel, the accused failed to
appear at the promulgation of the decision.
R o
afford the offended party the opportunity to enforce the award of civil indemnity which could not
otherwise be effected if the decision cannot be pronounced on account of the absence of the
an a r
accused.
h B
C e s
Requisites for promulgation in absentia
l
1. recording the judgment in the criminal docket b
R o
n
2. serving a copy thereof on the accused at their last known address or through counsel.
r
Note: If the judgment is foraconviction and the failure to appear was a
h B forwithout
trial or reconsiderationC
justifiable cause, the accused
e s
shall lose the remedies of filing a motion a new
l
(Rule 121) and an appeal from the judgment of conviction
(Rule 122) and the court shall order his arrest.
o b
R
Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment however, the accused
a n
may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies.
a r
B
He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he
h
proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail
C s
e
of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Villena vs. People (G.R. No. 184091, January 31, 2011)
b l
Petitioners mere filing of notices of appeal through their new counsel, therein only o
R28,of surrender,
explaining
n
their absence during the promulgation of judgment, cannot be considered an act
a
despite the fact that said notices were filed within 15 days from September 2007, the
from the RTC. The term surrender under Section 6, Rule 120h
purported date when their new counsel personally secured a copy of the judgment of conviction
C
of the Rules of Court
92
contemplates an act whereby a convicted accused physically and voluntarily submits

himself to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer the consequences of the verdict against
him. The filing of notices of appeal cannot suffice as a physical and voluntary submission of
petitioners to the RTCs jurisdiction. It is only upon petitioners valid surrender, and only after
r
proper motion, that they can avail of the remedy of appeal. Absent compliance with these
a
requirements, their notices of appeal, the initiatory step to appeal from their conviction, were
B
properly denied due course.
es
bl
D. When does judgment become final (four instances LSWP) (Sec. 7)
o
R final:
n r
A judgment becomes
a
2. When the sentence has been partially orB
1. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an a appeal; or
Ch s his right to appeal; or

totally satisfied or served; or
e
3. When the accused has waived in writing
l
4. When the accused has applied for probation.
b
A judgment of conviction may, o
Modification of Judgment (Sec. 7)
R upon motion of the accused, be modified or set
an a r
aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected.
h B
VillarealC vs. People (G.R. No. 151258, December 01,s
l e 2014)
o
- Coupled with Section 7 of Rule 117 and Section b1 of Rule 122, it can be culled from the
criminal case, especially if the relief R
foregoing provisions that only the accused may appeal the criminal aspect of a
the judgment therein. This rule wasn r It is

being sought is the correction or review of
a a
instituted in order to give life to the constitutional
h
edict against putting a person twice
Btoif theincrease
in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
C s
beyond contention that the accused would be exposed to double jeopardy state
le as when
appeals the criminal judgment in order to reverse an acquittal or even
criminal liability. Thus, the accuseds waiver of the right to appeal
applying for probation makes the criminal judgment b
o
immediately final and
R
executory.
a n
- It must be clarified, however, that the finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of
a r
h the very jurisdiction of the court B
Rule 120 does not confer blanket invincibility on criminal judgments; that this rule
C s
is inapplicable to cases in which the state assails
whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excesseof

that issued the criminal judgment; or where the court has appropriate jurisdiction,
jurisdiction. In other words, the review is on the question of whether there has been
b l a
Ro
validly rendered decision, not on the question of the decisions error or correctness.
a n
Ch
People vs. Banig (G.R. No. 177137, August 23, 2012)
93
- A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable; a verdict of acquittal is

immediately final and a reexamination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the
appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense. True, the
finality of acquittal rule is not one without exception as when the trial court
r
commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In
a
such a case, the judgment of acquittal may be questioned through the extraordinary writ
B
of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
es
l
b
De Vera vs. De Vera G.R. No. 172832, April 6, 2009)
o
R of conviction, errors in the decision cannot be corrected unless
- in judgments
a a r Rules retained the phrase "upon

n from, the decision; Significantly, the present
the accused consents thereto; or he, himself, moves for reconsideration of, or
h B anew
appeals
s
C penalties which the prosecution or theecourt may have overlooked.
motion of the accused." Obviously, the requisite consent of the accused is intended to
protect him from having to defend himself from more serious offenses or
b l
R o
Entry of Judgment Sec. 8
a n a r
Section 8. Entryh of judgment. After a judgment hasB
s
become final, it shall be
C
entered in accordance with Rule 36.
e
b l
R o
XIII. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
a n a r
Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon h B
C s
(G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011)
l
- New trial is a remedy that seeks to "temper the severity of a judgmente oraddressed
prevent the
b
failure of justice; The grant or denial of a new trial is, generally speaking, to
Ro
the sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse
thereof is shown.
New trial or reconsideration may be granted at any timeabefore n the judgment of conviction ar
h B
s
becomes final:
C e
oOn motion of the accused; or
b l
o
oOn motion of the court but with the consent of the accused
R
A. Grounds for New Trial (Sec, 2, Rule 121) a n
C h
94
1. Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have
been committed during the trial;
2. New and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with
r
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced
a
and admitted would probably change the judgment.
Payumo vs. SandiganbayanB

s as to the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy,
(G.R. No. 151911, July 25, 2011)
e
l of a certain evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of
- mistakes of the attorney
o b
materiality or immateriality
proof are not proper grounds for a new trial.
R vs. People (G.R. No. 156248, August 28, 2007)
n
Ceniza-Manantan
a a r
h Bmay be presented; foregoing rule admits of
- Error of the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial is neither an error of law nor an
s
C exceptions. Hence, in cases where (1)ethe counsel's mistake is so great and serious that
irregularity upon which a motion for new trial
the client is prejudiced and deniedlhis day in court, or (2) the counsel is guilty of gross
o bbydeprivation
negligence resulting in the client's of liberty or property without due process
R
of law, the client is not bound his counsel's mistakes, and a new trial may be
n r
conducted.
a (Sec. 3) B a
C h
B. Grounds for Reconsideration
s
l e
a. Errors of law in the judgment, which require no further proceedings
o
b. Errors of fact in the judgment, which require no further b proceedings
Form of motion and notice to the prosecutorR
a n a r
h
Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court : Bto all parties
C
concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing e
s
l
SEC. 5. Notice of hearing. The notice of hearing shall be addressed
b
which must not be
o
later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
R and notice thereof. The

n r
Section 2, Rule 37:
a a
SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration
h B
motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefore, a written
C s
notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.
l e
Section 4, Rule 121:
SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. The motion for ao
b
Rit is based. x
new trial or
n
reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which
x x. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall
a be given to the
h
prosecutor.
95
Posadas vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000, July 17, 2013)
- Sec. 2 of Rule 37 and Sec. 4 of Rule 121 should be read in conjunction with Sec.
5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.. Basic is the rule that every motion must be set for
hearing by the movant except for those motions which the court may act upon without
r
prejudice to the rights of the adverse party. The notice of hearing must be addressed
a
to all parties and must specify the time and date of the hearing, with proof of
service.
B
s
- under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the requirement is
e
b l
mandatory. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the motion defective.
As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not
o
affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading.
R
an r
C. Requisites before a new trial may be granted on ground of newly-discovered
B a
Ch
evidence
e s
February 20, 2013)
bl
Requisites for newly discovered evidence: (Tadeja vs. People, G.R. No. 145336,
R o
(a) evidence is discovered after trial;
an a r
(b) could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the
B
C h
exercise of reasonable diligence;
s or impeaching; and
e
l the judgment if admitted.
(c) is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative
o b
(d) is of such weight that it would probably change
discovered and produced at then

R
ar the
Note: The most important requisite is that the evidence could not have been
a trial even with reasonable diligence;Bhence,

Ch
term newly discovered.
e s
Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon (G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011,
b l citing Custodio v.
Sandiganbayan 493 Phil. 194, 203-204 [2005])
R o
evidence is whether the [proffered] evidence is in fact an r
- The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered
a a
"newly discovered evidence which
h one, i.e., when was the evidences B

could not have been discovered by due diligence." The question of whether evidence is
discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., whenC

newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal
to the latter that the requirement of due diligence has relevance. We have held thatein
should or could it have been discovered. It is
b l to
o
order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered
sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge ofR
justify new trial, what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first
the party now
a n trial but had

submitting it; what is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable
Ch
diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during
nonetheless failed to secure it.
96
Rules do not give an exact definition of DUE DILIGENCE, and whether the movant has
exercised due diligence depends upon the particular circumstances of each case.
Nonetheless, it has been observed that the phrase is often equated with "reasonable
promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant." In other words, the concept of due
r
diligence has both a time component and a good faith component. The movant for a
B a
new trial must not only (a) act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of
the motion; he must (b) act reasonably and in good faith as well. Due diligence
s
contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the
e
l
evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him.
o b
R
D. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration
a n B a r
C h If granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed during the
s
e
trial
oAll the proceedings and l

errors and irregularities b
evidence not affected by the commission of such
o shall stand, but those affected thereby shall be set
R evidence.
aside and take anew. The court may in the interest of justice, allow the
aornirregularity goes into the jurisdiction, r

introduction of additional
B a
C h
oIf the error
s
entire proceeding
l e
If granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence
o
oThe evidence already taken shall stand, b and the newly discovered and such
R with the evidence already in the record.
other evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced,
n r
shall be taken and considered together
a B a
h
Cthe court grants a trial or reconsideration, s
NOTE: In all cases, when
l e the original
b
judgment shall be set aside and a new judgment rendered accordingly.
E. Application of Neypes doctrine in criminal cases

Ro
nfor new trial may be availed of at ar
any time before a judgment of conviction becomesa
the remedies of motion for reconsideration and motion
from the promulgation of the judgment (Sec. 1,h

final, which is within fifteen (15) days
B
C Rule 121) e s
b l
In Neypes v. Court of Appeals, the Court allowed a fresh period of 15o
which to file a notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court to be countedR
days within
n
from receipt of
a (fresh period
the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
Ch
rule)
97
o Neypes ruling applicable to criminal cases (Yu vs. Samson-Tatad, G. R. No. 171979,
February 9, 2011; Rodriguez vs. People, G.R. No. 192799, October 24, 2012)
Correlate with Section 6 of Rule 122
XIV. APPEAL (Rule 122)

a r
B
s
An appeal confers upon the appellate court jurisdiction to examine the records,
e
l
revise the judgment appealed from, increase (or reduce) the penalty, and cite the
o b
proper provision of the penal law. The appellate court may, and generally does, look
into the entire records to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been
R
overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court. (Geroche vs. People, G.R.
an r
No. 179080, November 26, 2014)
a
Bin accordance with the law. The party who
hThe right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a
C seeks s
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only
l e
to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do
b
so, the right to appeal is lost.
Who may Appeal

R o
in double jeopardya
Any party may appeal n from a judgment or final order, unless ther
a
accused will be placed
B
Ch
(Sec. 1, Rule 122)
s
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People (G.R. No.b
le
oappeal a criminal case, but the government
147703, April 14, 2004)
Both the accused and the prosecution may R

a nthat the accused should have been givenara more
may do so only if the accused would not thereby be placed in double jeopardy. The
h B to their
prosecution cannot appeal on the ground
C s
severe penalty. The offended parties may also appeal the judgment with respect
offended parties should have the same right to appeal as much of the
l e judgment as is
right to civil liability. If the accused has the right to appeal the judgment of conviction, the
prejudicial to them.
o b
R
a n
The State cannot file a motion for reconsideration nor appeal from a
a r
B
Ch
judgment of acquittal based on the merits of the case due to double
jeopardy.
s
ethe

accused under double jeopardy, violating Section 21, Article IIIbof the
A judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places l
R o twice
Constitution. To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused
absolved. (People vs. Lejano, G.R. No. 176389, January n

in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been
a18, 2011)
Ch
98
The rule is that a judgment acquitting the accused is final and immediately
executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the State may not
seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy. Such
acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy
r
whether it happens at the trial court or on appeal at the CA. (People vs.
a
Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006;
B
People vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 127444, September 13, 2000)
es
Exceptions:
b l
o
R are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the
On occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But the
ngrounds
a accused a r in loss of jurisdiction, or when a
gravely abused its discretion, resulting
h B
mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may assail the decision by
C 176389, January 18, 2011) e
s
special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. (People vs. Lejano, G.R. No.
b lbe assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari

Ro
A judgment of acquittal may
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double
excess or a
n without jurisdiction or grave abuse ofadiscretion
jeopardy. However,
court a quo acted r Division),
in such case, the People is burdened to establish that the
amounting to
h B
lack of jurisdiction. (People vs. Sandiganbayan(First G.R.
C
Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006)
e s
grave abuse of discretion amounting tob
l in a petition for certiorari for
A judgment or order of acquittal may be challenged
o
lack or excess of jurisdiction due to a
R
violation of due process, i.e., the prosecution was denied the opportunity to
nclearly demonstrate that the trial courtpowerr to

present its case or that the trial was a sham. In such cases, double jeopardy will
abused its authority to a a point so grave as to deprive it of its verya

not attach. The petitioner must blatantly
h B2005).
C s
dispense justice. (Sanvicente vs. People, G.R. No. 132081, November 26, 2002;
Philippine Savings Bank vs. Bermoy, G.R. No. 151912
e
September
l
26,
A review of the sufficiency of evidence and of the propriety

o b of acquittal lies
R
outside the function of certiorari (People vs. Bans, G.R. No. 104147, December
8, 1994). Whether or not the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the
a n G.R. No. 144332, June 10, ar

guilt of the accused cannot be resolved in a special civil action of certiorari
2004). Certiorari will only lie to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of B
Ch
(People vs. Court of Appeals (Eleventh Division),
judgment.
e s
l or
errors of law cannot be raised and be reviewed in a Rule 65 petition. b
Purported errors of judgment or those involving misappreciation of evidence
certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those involving theo

A writ of
R commission
a n
of grave abuse of discretion, not those which call for the evaluation
and factual findings. (Villareal vs. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January
of evidence
13, 2014)
C h
99
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed instead
of herein petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The People may assail a
judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If
the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of
the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against
a r
double jeopardy would be violated (Villareal vs. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January
B
13, 2014)

es
Unfortunately, what petitioner People of the Philippines filed with the Court is an
b l
appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising a pure
question of law, which is different from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. For
R o
being the wrong remedy taken by petitioner People of the Philippines in this
case, this petition is outrightly dismissible. The Court cannot reverse the assailed
an r
dismissal order of the trial court by appeal without violating private respondents
B a
right against double jeopardy.(People vs. Laguio, G.R. No. 128587, March 16,
Ch
2007)
e s
A. Effect of an Appeal
b l
o
Appeal in criminal cases throws
R or unassigned.
the whole case open for review and it is the duty of
n r is atandstakethoroughly
the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment
no less than the a a

whether they are assigned Considering that what here is
reviewed and h B that there is merit in the

liberty of the accused, this Court has meticulously
C s
examined the records of the case and finds
appeal. (People vs. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January
e
12, 2015).
lbe resolved by the appellate court.
Issues whether raised or not by the parties may
Hence, accused-appellants appeal conferred o b
upon the appellate court full jurisdiction
R
n r
and rendered it competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from,
G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14,a a

increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. (People vs. Tibayan,
h B shall be
2015)
Upon perfection of the appeal, C the execution of the judgment or s

e for execution
final order
stayed as to the appealing party. (Sec. 11[c], Rule 122). There is no motion
pending appeal of a judgment of conviction.
b l
o
an appeal unless the person adjudged in contempt files a bond. R
Note: the execution of a judgment or final order of indirect contempt shall not be suspended by
a n (Sec. 11, Rule 71).

a r
B. Where to appeal (Sec. 2, Rule 122) h B
C
to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial l e s
b or
Court
o
(MeTC), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Trial Court (MTC),
Rcases provided
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC);
to the Court of Appeals (CA) or to the Supreme Court (SC) proper

a n
h
by law, in cases decided by the RTC
100
to the Supreme Court (SC) in cases decided by the CA
C. How appeal taken
a r
(a) The appeal to the RTC or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be by notice of appeal filed with the court which
B
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy of the notice
es
of appeal upon the adverse party.
bl
(b) The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
o
jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.
R in orcases
n roccurrence
(c) The appeal where the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua or
a
life imprisonment
a
where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the
B reclusion perpetua,
h
same occasion or which arose out of the same that gave rise to the more
C s
serious offense for which the penalty of death,
e
or life imprisonment is
lin cases where the RTC imposed the death penalty.

imposed, shall be by notice of appeal to the CA in accordance with S3(a) R122.
The CA shall automaticallyo

b
(d) No notice of appeal is necessary
R
review the judgment.
n
a be by petition for review on certiorari a r
(e) Except where the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, an
B
Ch
appeal to the SC shall under Rule 45.
s
efrom a final decision or order
Note: The above provisions contemplate of an appeal
b l
Transmission of Records to RTC
R o
a n a r
B
(within 5 days from perfection of appeal)
C h s
e
Notice to Parties
b
(by the Clerk of Court, upon receipt of the complete record, TSN and evidence) l
Submission of memoranda/briefs
R o
(within 15 days from receipt of Notice)
a n a r
h B
DECISION
C e s
(after submission of such pleadings or upon the expiration of the period to file the same)
b l
o
Appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of a criminal case shall R
double jeopardy if:
a n not constitute
1. dismissal made upon motion, or with express consent of accused h

C
101
2. dismissal not an acquittal or based upon consideration of evidence or merits of case

3. question to be passed upon by appellate court purely legal so that should dismissal be
found incorrect, case would have to be REMANDED to court of origin for further
proceedings, to determine guilt or innocence of accused

a
No double jeopardy r
B
s
1. where state is deprived of fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case
e
b l
2. where dismissal of information or complaint is purely capricious or devoid
o
of reason
R3. where there is lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard

n
a Order granting motion to quash isa
r
h B final. Prosecution may appeal an order
C s
granting motion to quash, except:
l e is that criminal action or liability has been

b
1. where ground for dismissal
extinguished.
R o
2. where ground is that accused has been previously convicted or in
a n a r
jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged.
B
ChCertiorari is appropriate remedy to assail s
e an order granting bail (Pobre
vs. CA, 463 SCRA 50).
b l
R o
Appeal from MTC to RTC
a n a r
h B of
C
Where MTC has jurisdiction
s
over offense (3 & 6, Rule 122) notice
e of final order
appeal within 15 days from promulgation or fromlnotice
appealed from.
o b
R
a n a r
B
Ch
Appeal from RTC to CA
e s
Original jurisdiction of RTC
b l
R o
- Ordinary appeal (Sec. 3 (a), Rule 122) notice of appeal within 15 days
a n
from promulgation or from notice of final order appealed from.
C h
102
Where RTC imposes reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment

or a lesser penalty for offenses committed on the same
occasion, or arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise
to the more serious offense for which reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is imposed NOTICE OF APPEAL to CA (Sec.
a r
3 (c), Rule 122, as am. by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated October
B
15, 2004 pursuant to People vs. Mateo).
e s
olIntermediate review by CA of cases where penalty imposed is
o b reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment would minimize the

R possibility of an error of judgment (People vs. Mateo, 433 SCRA
a n 640).
a r
h B
C s
eis death. [However, death penalty is prohibited by
l
Mandatory review by SC is only required for cases where the
RA 9346,b
penalty imposed
o June 24, 2006]. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion
R only when the accused files a notice

perpetua or life imprisonment, a review of the trial court decision is
nthe Decision in Mateo nor the abolition ofr

conducted of appeal. Neither
a changed this (People vs. Rocha, G.R. BaNo. 173797, August 31,
the death penalty has
C h 2007)
s
l e
Appellate jurisdiction of RTC o
b
R
a n
- Petition for review under Rule 42 (Sec. 3 (b), Rule 122).
a r
h B
C e s
Appeal from CA and SB to SC
l
b Sec. 7, PD 1616, as
am. by RA 8249).
R o
- Petition for review under Rule 45 (Sec. 3 (e), Rule 122;
a n a r
B
Exceptions:
Ch e s
CA where CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a l
penalty for offenses committed on the same occasion or arose out
o b of the
lesser
same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense

R for which
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed
n
a as am. by A.M. No.
NOTICE OF APPEAL to SC (Sec. 13 (c), Rule 124,
00-5-03-SC).
C h
103
SB where SB imposes reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment
Original jurisdiction
a r
B
Reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or lesser penalty imposed,
etc. NOTICE OF APPEAL to SC
es
l
b Appellate jurisdiction
R o
an r
Where SB finds that death penalty, reclusion perpetua or life
a
imprisonment should be imposed, will render judgment but refrain
B
Ch
from making entry of judgment and certify case and elevate entire
s
record to SC for review (Section 7, PD 1606, as amended by RA
e
l
8249 and Rule X, Revised Internal Rules of Sandiganbayan, as
b
reiterated in SC Resolution dated October 12, 2004).
o
R
an a r
Fugitive from justice waives his right to appeal -
h escaped from detention and was tried Babsentia (Moslares vs. CA,
C
Accused
s in
le
291 SCRA 340).
Accused escaped during pendency ofb

o
appeal
(People vs. Codilla, 224 SCRAR 104).
an B a r
C h s
e
Ramirez vs. People (G.R. No. 197832, October 2, 2013)
- In exceptional cases, the Court has in fact relaxed the period forlperfecting an appeal
on grounds of substantial justice or when there are other b
circumstances and issues; the Court considered the o
special and meritorious
prosecutions notice of appeal as excusable given theR

one-day late filing of the
a n
private prosecutor in following up its filing with the public
diligent efforts exerted by the
prosecutor.
a r
B
Ch e s
D. Effect of appeal by any of several accused (Sec. 11)
b l
R
An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall NOT affect those who did
o
a n
not appeal, EXCEPT insofar as the judgment of the apellate court is favorable and
h
applicable to the latter;
104
The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal
aspect of the judgment or order appealed from;
Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order
r
appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party.
B a
Benabaye vs. People (G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015)
es
- appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its
b l
aspects, including those not raised by the parties. Considering that under Section 11 (a),
Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as above-quoted, a favorable
R o
judgment, as in this case, shall benefit the co-accused who did not appeal or
those who appealed from their judgments of conviction but for one reason or
an ar
another, the conviction became final and executory, Benabaye's discharge for the
B
Ch
crime of Estafa is likewise applicable to Tupag. Note that the dismissal of the Estafa
s
charge against Tupag is similarly without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate
him.
l e
criminal charge against him as may be warranted under the circumstances pertinent to
o b
Villareal vs. People (G.R. No. 151258, December 1, 2014)
R
concerned. The courtn r case the moment
- The execution of the decision is thus stayed insofar as the appealing party is
a of origin then loses jurisdiction overBtheaentire
h including the authority to orders execution pending appeal
the other partys time to appeal has expired. Any residual jurisdiction of the court of
C
the moment the complete records of the case e
origin shall cease
court. Consequently, it is the appellate court that

b l are transmitted to the appellate
shall have the authority to wield
the power to hear, try, and decide the case
R
decisions and resolutions appurtenant thereto.o That power and authority shall remain
before it, as well as to enforce its
ousted by any subsequent event, n even if the nature of the incident wouldrhave
with the appellate court until it finally disposes of the case. Jurisdiction cannot be
a Ba
C h
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first place.
s
l e
People vs. Olivo (G.R. No. 177768, July 27, 2009)
o b
affect those who did not appeal, except insofar n
R
a pronouncements here with respect Bar
- present rule is that an appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not
as the judgment of the appellate
to the insufficiency of the prosecution evidenceh

court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Our
C to accused Joey Zafra. He should nots

to convict appellants beyond reasonable
doubt are definitely favorable and applicable
l eco-
b 11(a),of
therefore be treated as the odd man out and should benefit from the acquittal of his
o
accused. In fact, under similar conditions and on the same ratiocination, Section
Rthe trial court

Rule 122 of the Rules of Court has justified the extension of our judgment
n
acquittal to the co-accused who failed to appeal from the judgment of
which we subsequently reversed.
a
C h
105
E. Grounds for dismissal of appeal
(a) Appellant fails to file his brief within the prescribed time, except where the appellant is
represented by a counsel de oficio.
a r
(b) Appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign
B
country during the pendency of the appeal. (Sec. 8 Rule 124).
es
l
(c) Failure to file the notice of appeal within the prescribed period.
o b
(d) Failure to pay the docket or other lawful fees.
Rappellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or
n r
(e) Failure of the
memorandum
a within the time provided by the Rules.
a
to C
h of specific assignment of errorssinBthe appellants brief, or of page references
(f) Absence
the record.
l e
o
(g) Failure of the appellant to take the b necessary steps for the correction or completion
R
of the record within the time limited by the court in its order.
without justifiable cause. a

(h) Failure of the appellant n a r of the court
to comply with orders, circulars, or directives
h or judgment appealed from is not sappealable. B Sec.1,

Corder
(i) The fact that the
e
Rule 50; Sec.18, Rule 124 (application of certain rules ofl
o b civil procedure in criminal cases)
R
Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Piccio (G.R. No. 193681, August 6, 2014)r
n
a B a
h s an appeal on
there is an acquittal of theC e
- jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court or if
l is rooted in the
accused, it is only the OSG that may bring
principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal b

the criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor
not the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses. Foro

action is the People and
therefore deemed as the real parties in interest in theR

this reason, the People are
n pending in the CA or in ar
criminal case and, therefore,
the SC. In view of the corollary principle that a

only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings
C h who stands to be benefited or injureds B

every action must be prosecuted or
by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appealeof
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest
the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce
b l
dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may, however,
appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil
R oliability of
file an
anhis interest in the

the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil action for certiorari even
without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving
Ch
civil aspect of the case.
106
Diaz vs. People (G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013)
- The usage of the word may in Section 1(e) of Rule 50 indicates that the dismissal
r
of the appeal upon failure to file the appellants brief is not mandatory, but
a
B
discretionary. Verily, the failure to serve and file the required number of copies of the
s
appellants brief within the time provided by the Rules of Court does not have the
l e
immediate effect of causing the outright dismissal of the appeal. This means that
the discretion to dismiss the appeal on that basis is lodged in the CA, by virtue of which
o b
the CA may still allow the appeal to proceed despite the late filing of the
appellants brief, when the circumstances so warrant its liberality. In deciding to
R
dismiss the appeal, then, the CA is bound to exercise its sound discretion upon taking all
an a r
the pertinent circumstances into due consideration.
h B of the Appellant's Brief: Beatingo vs.

C1.(G.R.
Guidelines in confronting the issue of non-filing
s
eof Appeals to dismiss an appeal when no
l
Gasis No. 179641, February 9, 2011)
appellant's brief is filed within the b

The general rule is for the Court
o the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal is

reglementary period prescribed by the rules;
discretionary and directoryR

2. The power conferred upon
nthe toautomatic rperiod does not

and not ministerial or mandatory;
a dismissal of the appeal;a

3. The failure of an appellant file his brief within the reglementary
hfiling, the appellate court has the powerit istoBimperative

have the effect of causing
however, forC the proper exercise of the court's leniency[,] s

4. In case of late still allow the appeal;
e that:
l to the procedural rule in
(b) that strong considerations of equity justify anb
(a) the circumstances obtaining warrant the court's liberality;
o
exception
R
the interest of substantial justice;
(c) no material injury has been suffered by the appellee by the delay;
a nfiled.
(d) there is no contention that the appellee's cause was prejudiced;
a r
h B
(e) at least there is no motion to dismiss
s
5. In case of delay, the lapse must be for a reasonable period; and
C
6. Inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an adequate excuse
eclient of due
as to call
for the appellate court's indulgence except:
7. (a) where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the
b l
process of law;
R o
(b) when application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty
or property; or
a n a r
B
(c) where the interests of justice so require.
C h s
XV. SEARCH AND SEIZURE l e
Search - examination of a persons house or other buildings or premises or his person for the
o b
R
discovery of contraband or illicit or stolen property or some evidence of guilt to be used in the
prosecution of a criminal action for some offense with which he is charged.
a n
Seizure - physical taking of the thing in custody
C h
107
A. Nature of search warrant

Search warrant defined Sec. 1
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
a r
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
B
e s
Worldwide vs. People (G.R. No. 161106, January 13, 2014)
b
A search warrant is in the lremedy,
nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery.
a public necessity. o
It is a special and peculiar drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of
R
n
a Exchange
Securities and
Inc. vs. Isip, 500 Phil. 342 [2005] a
Commission vs. Mendoza (G.R. r No. 170425, April 23, 2012), citing
h - A search warrant proceeding is, inB
United Laboratories,
C commencement s no sense, a criminal action or the

eto get possession of personal property. It is a
l
of a prosecution. The proceeding is not one against any person,
o brespect
but is solely for the discovery and
special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of public
R
necessity. It resembles in some with what is commonly known as John Doe
does not make it suchn r

proceedings. While an application for a search warrant is entitled like a criminal action, it
a an action. B a
B. Distinguish from Ch warrant of arrest
e s
b l
o
Warrant of Arrest:
Order directed to the peace officer to executeR

n r
the warrant by taking the person into
a a
custody so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the crime.
h B
C s
Requisites:
l e
b
Hao vs. People, (G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014)
R o
A warrant of arrest should be issued if the judge after personal evaluation of the facts and
circumstances is convinced that probable cause exists that an offense was committed.
a n a r
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believethat an B
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and
C h This must be distinguished froms

eof
offense was committed by the person sought to be arrested.
the prosecutors finding of probable cause which is for the filing of the proper criminal
information. Probable cause for warrant of arrest is determined to address the necessity
b l
placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
o
R whether a
The judicial determination of probable cause is one made by the judge to ascertain
n
a under custody in
warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that
based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused
C h
108
order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot
be forced to issue the arrest warrant.
Ocampo vs. Abando, (G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014)
a r
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as "such facts and
B
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
s
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested." Although the Constitution
e
provides that probable cause shall be determined by the judge after an examination under oath
b l
or an affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not
necessary for the determination thereof. In fact, the judges personal examination of the
R o
complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness
of issuing a warrant of arrest.
an ar
It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutors report and supporting
B
Ch
documents showing the existence of probable cause for the indictment and, on the basis
e s
thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or if, on the basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable
l
cause, to disregard the prosecutor's resolution and require the submission of additional
b
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its existence.
o
R
Summary of requisites:
an Ba r
C h
(1) Issued upon probable cause;
s
l e
b
(2) Determined personally by the judge;
o
(3) After evaluation of the prosecutors report supporting documents showing the existence
R
an r
of probable cause;
B a
Ch
(4) Particularly describe the person to be arrested; and
(5) In connection with the specific offense or crime

es
b l
May be served on any day and at any time of the day or night
R o
an r
Does not become stale
Searching examination of witnesses is not enough
Ba
Ch
Judge is merely called upon to examine and evaluate the report of the prosecutor and
the evidence submitted.
e s
Search Warrant:
b l
R o
Order in writing in the name of the Republic of the Philippines signed by the judge and
an
directed to the peace officer to search personal property described therein and to bring it in
court
Requisites: (Secs. 4 and 5 Rule 126)

Ch
109
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Alvarez (G.R. No. 179408, March 05,
2014)
(1) the existence of probable cause;
a r
(2) the probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
Bwriting and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and

s
(3) the judge must examine, in
e
the witnesses he or she may produce;
b l witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them;

(4) the applicant and the
Ro describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

(5) the warrant specifically
an B a r
h
C person or in the place to be searched.e s
To be served only in daytime unless the affidavit alleges that the property is on the
b l
Valid for 10 days only
Must personally conduct R

o
Examination musta
n rQ & A of previous
an examination of the complainant and the witnesses
a
investigator. h
be probing; not enough to merely adopt the
B
C e s
b l
C. Application for search warrant, where filed
R o
Gen. Rule: Sec. 2 par.(a)
a n a r
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. B
C h s
Exceptions:
l e
b
Sec. 2 par (b);
oof the commission of the

(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial
crime is known, or any court within the judicialR

region where the crime was committed if the place
n r
region where the warrant shall
a a
be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed,h the application shall only be made in the B
and last par.
court where the criminal action is pending. C e s

A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC (Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the Enforceability b l
of Search Warrants)
R o involving
n
The following are authorized to act on all applications for search warrants
a
heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of
h
firearms:
110
- Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Manila and
Quezon City
Applications for search warrants are filed by:

Philippine National Police (PNP)
a r
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
B
Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF)
s
Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF)
l e
Sps. Marimla vs. People (G.R. No. 158467, October 16, 2009)
o b
Nothing in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits the heads of the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF and
REACT-TF from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing the application for search
R
warrant to their assistant heads. Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative
an r
Code of 1987, an assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau may perform such
B a
duties as may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is not inconsistent with law.
Ch e s
126
bl
Requisites for issuing search warrant Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution and Secs. 4 & 5, Rule
R o
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. - A search warrant shall not issue
an r
except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be
Ba
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
Ch
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
e s
to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
Retired SPO4 Laud vs. People (G.R. No. 199032, November

b l 19, 2014)
R
are issued for more than one specific offense.o
- was intended to prevent the issuance of scattershot warrants, or those which
nwhere several counts of the offense rof

- a search warrant that covers several counts of a certain specific offense does not
a a
B items
violate the one-specific-offense rule;
in the form of pirated video h

copyright infringement and the search warrant uncovered several contraband
C warrant herein issued does not violate e s the one-
tapes is not to be confused with the number of
offenses charged. The search
b l875 [1996
specific-offense rule (Citing Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, 329 Phil.
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Alvarez (G.R.R

o
n r
No. 179408, March 05, 2014)
Requirements for the issuance of a search warrant:a a

h by the judge; (3) the judge musts B
(1) the existence of probable cause;
examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, C

(2) the probable cause must be determined personally
l e
the complainant and the witnesses he or she
and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be b
may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them;
o
seized.
- Should any of these requisites be absent, the party aggrieved by theR

n with the
issuance and
issuing court or with the court where the action is subsequently instituted. a
enforcement of the search warrant may file a MOTION TO QUASH the search warrant
Ch
111
People vs. Tuan (G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 226)
A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant
can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it
from other places in the community. A designation or description that points out the
a r
place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads
the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness
B
es
D. Probable cause
b l
R o
***Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons
an r
supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action
a
and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. It requires facts and
B
Ch
circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been
s
committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be
e
l
searched. (HPS Software and Communication Corporation vs. Philippine Long Distance
b
Telephone Company (PLOT), G.R. No. 170217, December 10, 2012) - Ponente: J. Leonardo-
o
De Castro
R
n rand prudent man to
Disini, Jr. vs. The Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)
believe that anh

a
offense has been committed, and that the B
- Facts and circumstances a
that would lead a reasonably discreet
C sreasonable
objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched;
practical considerations of everyday life on which
l e referring to factual and
and prudent men,
not legal technicians, act.
o b
R
Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People (G.R. No. 188526, November 11, 2013)
a n a r and
Bmerits. As
- The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules
h
C The prosecution need not present atesthis stage proof
standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the
implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not
absolute or even moral certainty.
b
beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably l prudent man,
RoLong Distance Telephone
not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.
anciting Microsoft Corporation v. Bar

HPS Software and Communication Corporation vs. Philippine
Company (PLDT), G.R. No. 170217, December 10, 2012)
Maxicorp, Inc.,481 Phil. 550 (2004).
h
- The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules ands
C
l eAs
standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.
absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at thiso
implied by the words themselves, probable cause is concerned with probability, b not
man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. n
beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably R prudent
stage proof
a
Tan vs. Tiong Gue (G.R. No. 174570, December 15, 2010)
C h
112
- a search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection

with only one specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of the applicant's
personal knowledge and his or her witnesses; cannot utilize the evidence seized by
virtue of the search warrants issued in connection with the case of Robbery in a
r
separate case of Qualified Theft, even if both cases emanated from the same incident.
B a
People vs. Mamaril (G.R. No. 171980, October 6, 2010)
es
- There is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause
b l
since the same must be decided in light of the conditions obtaining in given situations
and its existence depends to a large degree upon the findings or opinion of the
o
judge conducting the examination.
R
an r
- A magistrate's determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a search
B a
warrant is paid with great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was
Ch s
substantial basis for that determination
l e
Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc. (G. R. No. 165122, November 23, 2007)
- A finding of probable cause needs b

o and that it was committed by the accused.
only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely
Probable cause demands more R

than not, a crime has been committed
an depends r or opinion of the

than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would
However, the findings of the judgea

justify conviction. The existence to a large degree upon the finding
B
Chcounter to the clear dictates of reason.es
judge conducting the examination. should not disregard the
facts before him nor run
b l
E. Personal examination by judge of the applicant
R oand witnesses
Examination of complainant by the judge n r
a Sec. 5
a
B thein
h
SEC.5. Examination of complainant; record. - The judge must, before issuing
C s on facts
e
warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers,
writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements
b l together
with the affidavits submitted.
R o
a n November 11, 2013)
Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People (G.R. No. 188526,
a r
- A core requisite before a warrant shall validlyh issue is the existence of a probable B
C
cause, meaning the existence of such facts and circumstances
e s
l
which would lead a reasonably
b
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.
R o known
an
- when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data or information personally
to the applicant and the witnesses he may present. Absent the element of personal
Ch
knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a
113
search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a
nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary.
Yao, Sr. vs. People (G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007)
a r
- The searching questions propounded to the applicant and the witnesses depend largely on
B
the discretion of the judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule governing how a judge
s
should conduct his investigation, it is axiomatic that the examination must be probing
l e
and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro forma. The
judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the
b
intent and justification of the application.
o
R
an a r
F. Particularity of place to be searched and things to be seized
B 19, 2014)
C h s
Retired SPO4 Laud vs. People (G.R. No.
eis sufficient if the officer with the warrant can,
199032,
l
November
- description of a place to be searched
bidentify the place intended and distinguish it from
other places in the community. o
with reasonable effort, ascertain and
R of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to

Any designation or description known to the locality that
it, satisfies the constitutional n r

points out the place to the exclusion
a requirement.
a
B664 SCRA 430)
Del CastilloC
h s
eto be searched and persons or
vs. People (G.R. No.185128, January 30, 2012,
l
- the warrant issued must particularly describe the place
o b
things to be seized in order for it to be valid. A designation or description that points out the
R
place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace
a n of the petitioner as the place to be a r

officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness; Here, the Search Warrant
B from the
specifically designates or describes the residence searched.
h
Incidentally, the items were seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 meters away
C s
e
residence of the petitioner.
- While it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should

b l be owned by the
person against whom the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient
property is under appellant's control or possession. The prosecution o showing that the
Rdrugs in the place under his

must prove that the
petitioner had knowledge of the existence and presence of the
n r
the nipa hut was under petitioner's control and dominion,a a
control and dominion and the character of the drugs. With the prosecution's failure to prove that
B
Ch
there casts a reasonable doubt as to
his guilt.
e s
Ty v. De Jemil (G.R. No. 182147, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 671, 689)
b l
- The law does not require that the property to be seized should be owned byo
R the person
n
against whom the search warrants is directed. Ownership, therefore, is of no
consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant
a is directed has
control or possession of the property sought to be seized.
C h
114
Yao, Sr. vs. People(G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007)
- There is nothing in the provisions of law concerning the issuance of a search warrant
which directly or indirectly mandates that the applicant of the search warrant or his
r
witnesses should state in their affidavits the fact that they used different names while
a
conducting undercover investigations, or to divulge such fact during the preliminary
B
examination.
es
b l
G. Personal property to be seized
o
R3. Personal property to be seized. A search warrant may be
Personal property to be seized Sec. 3
n
a for the search and seizure of personal
Section
a r
h issued
B property:
C (b)(a) Subject of the offense;
e s or fruits of the offense; or
l the means of committing an offense.
Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds
(c) Used or intended to be used as
b
o(G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014)
- Personal property inR
Retired SPO4 Laud vs. People
anLaud rall things

the foregoing context actually refers to the things mobility,
and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated by a particular
a person. Article 416
Bproperty. Considering
C h
of the Civil Code, which
transported from
himself cites,states that in general,
place to place are deemed to be personal
s
which can be
that
further that they qualify under the phrase subjectl ofe

human remains can generally be transported from place to place, and considering
b
the offense given that they prove
othe things that bear a direct relation to

the crimes corpus delicti, it follows that they may be valid subjects of a search warrant
R
under the above-cited criminal procedure provision.
nwouldItordinarily rbodiesis
- the description points to no other than
a
the offense committed, i.e., of Murder.
a
is also perceived that the description
B
h
already specific as the circumstances allow given that the buried
C
would have naturally decomposed over time.
e s
Worldwide vs. People (G.R. No. 161106, January 13, 2014)
b l
o
detail; warrant is valid when it enables the police R
Search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute
seized; A search warrant fulfills the requirementa

properties to be seized and leaves them with no discretionn regarding the articles to be ar
officers to readily identify the
C h are limited to those that bear as B

of particularity in the description of
e
the things to be seized when the things described
l
direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Alvarez (G.R. No. 179408, March
o b 05,
2014)
R
Does not require technical accuracy in the description of the n
a is as far as the
property to be
circumstances will ordinarily allow it to be so described. Theh

seized. Specificity is satisfied if the personal properties' description
C
nature of the description
115
should vary according to whether the identity of the property or its character is a matter
of concern. One of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to
be seized under a search warrant is when the things described are limited to those
which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
a r
H. Exceptions to search warrantB requirement
e s
a) Search incidental to l
o b lawful arrest
R
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be
n
a commission of an offense without aBsearch ar warrant.
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute
proof in the
ChPeople vs. Araza (G.R. No. 190623,eNovember s 17, 2014)

- The Constitution states that failure tob
l
consequent seizure would render it o
secure a judicial warrant prior to the actual search and
inadmissible for any purpose inR

unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
nincidental ras mentioned,

any proceeding constitutional prohibition, however, admits of
a a
the following exceptions; having been lawfully arrested, the warrantless search that
followed was undoubtedly
h
to a lawful arrest, which
B is an
C Araza is admissible in evidence to prove shis guilt of the offense charged.

exception to the constitutional prohibition on warrantless search and seizure. Conversely,
the shabu seized from
l e
People vs. Calantiao (G.R. No. 203984, June 18, b
o and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is
2014)
to protect the arresting officer n

R
- Purpose of allowing a warrantless search
afrom weapon,
being harmed by the person arrested,
a rfrom
who
h
might be armed with a concealed and to prevent the latter
B
destroying evidence within
C reach.
s
eto (1) protect law
enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on themb
- It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the States police power l
lawfully arrested; and (2) prevent evidence from being o
by a person they have
R the integrity of the evidence

destroyed by the arrestee.
n r
It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and
a
under the control and within the reach of the arrestee.
Ba
h
People vs. Nuevas (G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463)
is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. Recents
- search incidental to a lawful arrest C
l e
b a
jurisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot
o
be reversed as in this case where the search preceded the arrest. Nevertheless,
R
search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if
Buy-bust operation
a n
People vs. Collado (G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013) h
C
116
- The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court; the subsequent search and seizure made by the police officers
were likewise valid.
a r
B
People vs. Araneta (G.R. No. 191064, October 20, 2010)
es
- search warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed because it was a buy-bust
b l
operation and the accused were caught in flagrante delicto in possession of, and
selling, dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. It was definitely legal for the buy-
R o
bust team to arrest, and search, them on the spot because a buy-bust
operation is a justifiable mode of apprehending drug pushers, provided due
a n a r
regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.
hInvalid Search B
C e s
l
o b
- A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It
bears emphasis that the law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful
R
arrest. Therefore it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the
a n a rwas no arrest prior

search of a person and his belongings; the process cannot be reversed;
h B
Here, the search preceded the arrest of Sanchez. There
C s
to the conduct of the search.
b) Consented search ((waiver of right) l e

o b February 22, 2007
R
Requisites: People vs. Nuevas (G.R. NO. 170233,
(1) the right exists

a n a r
h either actual or constructive, of theB
such right; and C
(2) the person involved had knowledge,
e s existence of
b l
o
(3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
R
c) Search of moving vehicle a n a r
B
People vs. Mariacos (G.R. No. 188611, June Ch e s
l
16, 2010)
vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in whicho

Justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible bfor the
R
the warrant
n
must be sought.
a
C h
117
d) Check points; body checks in airport

Abenes vs. Court of Appeals (G. R. No. 156320, February 14, 2007)
- not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of
public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed; as
r
long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body
a
B
search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said
routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against
es
unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area,
b l
are even less intrusive. (Citing People v. Escao, 380 Phil. 719, 733-734 [2000])
- firearm was seized from the petitioner when in plain view, the policemen saw it tucked
o
into his waist uncovered by his shirt.
R
a- n a rfor as long as they are warranted by
People vs. Vicenerao (G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004)
h B in a way least intrusive to motorists

Searches conducted in checkpoints are valid
C s
the exigencies of public order and are conducted
e
e) Plain view situation b l
Elements- Sanchez vs. PeopleR
o
n officer in search of the evidence hasaa rprior justification for an
(G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)
a
(1) the law enforcement
B area;
h
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular
C apparent to the officer that the eitems he observes may be evidence
(2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
(3) it is immediately
b
of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. l
People v. Mariacos (G.R. No. 188611, Juneo
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on R
21, 2010, 621 SCRA 327)
a ntheir official duties;

are legally present in the pursuit of
a r
the valid warrantless arrest in which the police
h B
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be
where they are;
Cimmediately apparent; and; s
esearch.
l
(c) the evidence must be
b
(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
o
Applicable
R
a
Miclat, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 176077, August 31, n 2011, 656 SCRA 539)
a r
- What constitutes a reasonable orh unreasonable warrantless search or B
C determinable from the uniqueness of thes
seizure is purely a judicial question,
l ethe
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure,
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search
o bof and
seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character
R the
an
articles procured.
Ch
118
People vs. Nuevas (G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463)
- An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object

seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and
r
therefore cannot be seized without a warrant; if the package proclaims its
a
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its
B
contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view
s
and may be seized; if the package is such that an experienced observer could
l e
infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is
deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the
o b
items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure
R
an B a r
h
Not applicable
C e s
l
People vs. Calantiao (G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014)
- Plain View Doctrine thus b

officers purposely o
finds no applicability in this case because the police
R
searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not
inadvertently come across the black bag, which was in Calantiaos possession;
an a rto Calantiaos lawful

they deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident
B
Cvs.hCourt of Appeals (G.R. No. 164815, eSeptember
arrest.
Valeroso s 3, 2009)
-"plain view doctrine" may not be used to
b l launch unbridled searches and
R o
indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general exploratory search made solely
to find evidence of defendant's guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a
inadvertently comes across ana n object. a

police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
r
B
incriminating
h s
officers who conduct C e of official
Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, peace
functions.
b l
it cannot invoke regularity in the performance
R o
f) Stop and frisk situation or Terry search a n a r
B
Invalid Search Ch e s
Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014) l
b and
R o
- no valid stop-and-frisk search; coming out from the house of a drug pusher
boarding a tricycle, without more, were innocuous movements, and by themselves
any belief that he had shabu in his possession, or that he was a

n
alone could not give rise in the mind of an experienced and prudent police officer of
Ch
probably committing a
crime in the presence of the officer.
119
People vs. Cogaed, (G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
- He was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling aboard a jeepney.

There was nothing suspicious. moreover, criminal, about riding a jeepney or carrying
a bag. The assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer
a r
B
but by the jeepney driver;
e s
Two-Fold Interest:l
o b
R
the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection; and
a n
safety and self-preservation
a r
h B
s
C Esquillo vs. People (G.R. No. 182010,eAugust 25, 2010)
b
- essential is that a genuine reason lmust exist, in light of the police officer's experience
R o
and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests
unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about him.
a-n
- The search/seizure
a r wasin undertaken
of the suspected shabu initially noticed petitioner's
B a cigarette case, and

C hwas interrogated on what she placeds inside
possession
after she
later voluntarily exhibited to the police operative-
after PO1 Cruzin introduced himself to petitioner

e
lidentified himself.behavior and in fact
as a police officer. And, at
b
the time of her arrest, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious
Ro
attempted to flee after the police officer had
an B a r
g) Enforcement of customs laws
h
C customs officer to: s
Tarriff and Customs Code authorizes
l e
o
a. Enter, pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse; b
Rtrunk/ package/box/ envelope
b. Inspect/search/examine any vessel/aircraft and any
or any person on board
a n a r
dutiable/prohibited articles introduced into theC
c. Stop and examine any vehicle/boat/person h suspected of holding/conveying anys B
Philippines contrary to law.
l e
o b
R
n
Salvador vs. People (G.R. No. 146706, August 15, 2005)
a customs
h
- law enforcers who are tasked to effect the enforcement of the and tariff
C
laws are authorized to search and seize, without a search warrant, any article, cargo
120
or other movable property when there is reasonable cause to suspect that the said
items have been introduced into the Philippines in violation of the tariff and customs
law. They may likewise conduct a warrantless search of any vehicle or person
suspected of holding or conveying the said articles.
a r
h) Remedies from unlawful search B and seizure
s
e or to suppress evidence obtained by the unlawful search
1) Motion to quash search
b l
o
warrant;
Where to file R
an evidence r
General Rule: A motion to quashaa search warrant and/or to suppress
Bbe filed in and acted upon only by the
C h obtained thereby may
s
court where the action
l e
has been instituted.
Exception:
o b
If no criminalR
ntotheresolve r
action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and
a a
resolved by court that issued the search warrant. However, if such
h court, the motion shall be resolved by theB

court failed the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in
s
latter court.
C
another
l e
o b
R
Basis of Motion to suppress evidence
preceding section shall be inadmissible fora npurpose in any proceeding.

Art. III, Sec. 3 (2), 1987 Constitution. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
a r
B
any
h
Note: If no motion to suppress evidence was filed, the aggrieved party may s
evidence so obtained when theC same is offered, invoking Sec. 3(2),eArticle III of the
still object to the
Constitution.
b l
What may be raised in the Motion to Quash
Ro
a. Existence or non-existence of probable cause at the
antime of issuance of the Search Bar
Warrant
C h s
b. Compliance with procedural and substantial requirements
l e
1. Employ any means to prevent the search b
oThus, the
R
an to prevent it,
An officer cannot insist on entering private premises without a search warrant.
person to be search may resist the search and employ any means necessary
Ch
without incurring any liability.
121
2. File criminal actions against the Officer
Article 129, Revised Penal Code (Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the
service of those legally obtained)
a r
3. Replevin, if the objects are illegally possessed
Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc. (G. R.B

sthe legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party
No. 165122, November 23, 2007)
e
whose rights have beenlimpaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search and
- Well-settled is the rule that
o b and cannot be availed of by third parties.

seizure is purely personal
R
a n a r
h
XVI. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
B
A.CNature e s
l
b for the preservation or protection of his rights or
o
Those which are resorted to by a litigant
R the pendency of the principal action.

interest and for no other purpose during
an for availing of these provisional

The requisites and procedure
B a r shall be the
remedies
C h
same as those for civil actions.
s
the recovery of civil liability ex delicto has not l
e
Note: Provisional remedies under Rule 127 are proper only where the civil action for
o b in those cases where reservation

been expressly waived of the right to
institute such civil action separately is not severed
R
may be made.
B. Kinds of Provisional Remedies

a n a r
h B
C
Provisional remedies in civil actions Rules 57 to 61
e s
Attachment (Rule 57)
b l
Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58)
R o
Receivership (Rule 59)
a n a r
Delivery of Personal Property (Rule 60) h B
C e s
Support Pendente Lite (Rule 61)
b l
Provisional remedies in criminal cases (Rule 127)
R o
Attachment
a n
Rules on attachment in criminal cases Sec. 2
C h
122
Sec. 2. Attachment. When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action as
provided in Rule 111, the offended party may have the property of the accused attached
as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused
r
in the following cases:
(a) When the accused is about to

a
Babscond from the Philippines;
e sis based on a claim for money or property embezzled or
fraudulently misapplied l
(b) When the criminal action
o b
officer of a corporation,
or converted to the use of the accused who is a public officer,
attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his
R
employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful
n r
athe accused has concealed, removed,Boradisposed
violation of duty;
C h
(c) When
s
of his property, or is about
e
to do so; and
(d) When the accused resides outside l
b
the Philippines.
Ro
Note: Less grounds than those under Rule 57, Sec. 1 [Sec. 2, a, b, c, d similar to Sec. 1,
a, b, e, f]
an B a r
Ch e s
b l
R o
a n a r
h B
C e s
b l
R o
a n a r
B
Ch e s
b l
R o
a n
C h

Crimpro Deleon2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crimpro Deleon2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

(Rules 110-127, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)

B. Requisites for exercise of criminal jurisdiction

over the person ofl

R Offenses Article 2, RPC)

C obligations and securities issued by thes

a committed determines not only the venue a rof the

D. When injunction may be issued to restrain criminalR

2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justiceh

4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;

5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;

a n a rinvestigation, the criminal action is

All other offenses those which h

Complaint or information filed directly with MTCn r

h allege facts necessary to comply with

- commencement of the prescription period, Art. 91 of RPC

Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of

b l June 13, 2012)

a ragainst the accused

- Filing of complaint with prosecutors office interrupted the period of prescription.

Form of complaint or information (WNA) Sec. 2

b) in the name of the People of the Philippines and

Bbetween complaint and information Secs. 3 and 4

n officer, or other public officer chargedr

Filed by offended party R

Section 4. C Information defined. An informationsis an accusation in writing

Charge sheet filed by the prosecutor in court. o

R Unlike complaint, which must be under oath

- correlate with Art. 344 and Art. 360, last par.,(RPC)

Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions x x x

The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness SHALL NOT BE

R party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents,

grandparents, or guardian may file the same. Ther

parents, a a right to file the action granted to

No criminal action for defamationb

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts n

No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime

Nature of requirement in Sec. 5, Rule 110 and Art. 344

N.B. 1. Crimes prosecuted upon complaint of offended party:

a. Adultery and concubinage can only be filed by offended spouse

l vs. Tanada, 166 SCRA 361 [1988].

4. Compliance with Rule 110, b

Who may file complaints committed against children under Sec. r

e) Officer or social worker of the Department ofR

of probable cause is a function that belongs to the n r

People vs. Go (G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014) - h

aletter was for alleged violation of BP B

- It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint

Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain l

petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, b

information has already been filed in Court. The mattero

R should be left entirely for

2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or

3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;

4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;

5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

8) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;

anare without or in excess of authority;Bar