Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense upon the filing of
complaint by a complainant or an information by the prosecuting officer
Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or surrender; such
jurisdiction once gained cannot be lost even if accused escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno)
Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the institution of the
action and is retained even if the penalty for the offense is later lowered or raised (People vs.
Lagon)
2. Complaint sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
offended party, any peace officer or other public official charged with the enforcement of the law
violated
Information accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the fiscal and
filed with the court
Complaint Information
A sworn statement Need not be sworn to
Subscribed by the offended party, any
peace officer or other officer charged
with the enforcement of the law violated Subscribed to by the fiscal
May be filed either with the court or in
the fiscals office generally to commence
the preliminary investigation of the
charges made Filed with the court
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
ii. Vessel
5. Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an information or include
a person therein as an accused
6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are not available, EXCEPT
a. In RTC:
By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting requisite
preliminary investigation therein.
By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with the fiscals
office
In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense
charged (Rule 110, 1)
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of municipal or city
ordinances; and (4) criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000
or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties and civil liabilities]
The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary
examination or preliminary investigation.
Zaldivia vs. Reyes since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure shall be
deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, then the running of the prescriptive period
shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that.
Reodica vs. CA [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. It does not distinguish whether
the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only, or for an action on the
merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint even with the fiscals office should suspend the running
of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the
Rules on Summary Procedure, since that particular case involved a violation of an ordinance.
Therefore, the applicable law therein was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (An Act to
Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances
and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run), 2 of which provides that period of
prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment cannot be
questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs. Guevarra)
Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects the
identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if there is a variance
between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the property stolen.
Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses.
If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may be
quashed; however, the prosecution is allowed to amend the info to include the necessary facts
(People vs. Purisima)
Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used to prove
such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)
f. Place of commission
Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the place
alleged, provided that the place of actual commission was within the courts jurisdiction and
accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the information
Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be alleged as they are integral parts
of the crime. If proved, but not alleged, become only generic aggravating circumstances.
Amendment
Substitution
Involves either formal or substantial
changes Necessarily involves a substantial change
Needs leave of court as original
Without leave of court if before plea information has to be dismissed
Where only as to form, there is no need
for another preliminary investigation and Another preliminary investigation is
retaking of plea of accused entailed and accused has to plead anew
Refers to the same offense charged or
which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in original charges,
hence, substantial amendments to info Requires or presupposes that new info
after plea taken cannot be made over involves a different offense which does
objections of accused for if original info not include or is not included in the
is withdrawn, accused could invoke original charge, hence, accused cannot
double jeopardy claim double jeopardy
1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
2. Continuing offenses
3. Piracy which is triable anywhere
4. Libel (residence; or where first published)
5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry
Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the case independently of
parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent/incapable on grounds other than
minority.
If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or
guardian may do so.
If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the complaint on his own
The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case because of her
interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)
14. Procedure
1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took place
(territorial jurisdiction)
1. Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2. Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which would not be prejudicial to the
accused and should be allowed (People vs. CA)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging proper offense,
court shall dismiss original info upon the filing of a corrected one, provided that the accused will
not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution)
Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss
the case; the motion to dismiss must be addressed to the court which has discretion over the
disposition of the case (Republic vs. Sunga)
Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint must be raised at the time the
amendment is made; otherwise, deemed to have consented thereto.
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules (generally,
a flaw in the info)
If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info, the right to
question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)
b. Motion to dismiss
May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash
Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same
information/complaint
1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action independent of the criminal proceeding
to recover damages from the offender.
Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who impair the
Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the chance to
prove damages, the offended party is not barred from filing a separate civil action
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed
to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed or recognized.
San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in Rule 111
that a reservation be made prior to the institution of an independent civil action is an
unauthorized amendment to substantive law is now no longer controlling. Far from altering
substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of
suits, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in
short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action
2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or not
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action: and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings to recover civil liability arising from
crime
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did
not exist.
Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal action
7. Filing fees:
A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an information to be filed with the RTC;
complaints may be filed with the MTC without need of an information, which is merely
recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a motion to quash the information;
an information filed without a preliminary investigation is defective but not fatal; in its absence,
the accused may ask for one; it is the fiscals refusal to conduct a preliminary investigation when
the accused demands one which is a violation of the rights of the accused(Doromal vs.
Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss the info, but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1)
conduct its own investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an information
with the RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and an inquest is
conducted.
Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea
5. Procedure
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities
1. Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by subpoena complainant and respondent
to submit affidavits and counter-affidavits
1. If the investigating officer finds prima facie evidence, he prepares an information and a
resolution
i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and accused
is probably guilty thereof
Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone, unexplained and uncontradicted,
would be enough to merit a conviction of the accused
If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists and that
there is a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest
Flores vs. Sumaling What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is that while
before, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the
accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the investigating judges power to order
the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him in
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. It is therefore error for the investigating
judge to order the issuance of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without
making any finding of a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a
frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in
court
(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based on the statements of the
complainant, arresting officer and witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the accused, OR
prepares and files an information
While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once it is filed
with the court, the court acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of the case
and the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review or appeals from the
decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace officer or fiscal without preliminary
investigation.
6. Remedies
Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed without a
preliminary investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ
Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the ground that his rights to
due process of law were violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction
Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
When prohibition proper to restrain criminal proceedings:
1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
Rule 113 Arrest
1. Arrest taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of some offense, made by an actual restraint of the person or by his submission to
custody
Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for an offense.
Invitations are not arrests and are usually not unconstitutional, but in some cases may be
taken as commands (Babst vs. NBI); however, the practice of issuing an invitation to a person
who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed is considered
as placing him under custodial investigation. (RA 7438)
Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal
knowledge that the person to be arrested committed it
Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the arrest (Umil
vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with case
pending)
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must file a report and
explanation with judge within 10 days
v. If warrant served
b. Without warrant:
1. Person is arrested
1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary investigation or
inquest
Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
1. Fiscal files info
1. Probable cause
2. Signed by judge
3. Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to be arrested
John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar)
6. Remedies
Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the person detained
Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was illegally
arrested (void warrant or unlawful warrantless arrest, or warrantless arrest beyond period with no
information filed)
Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is fatally flawed
Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
Must be made in a special appearance before the court questioning only its lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested by filing a motion before the court
would be deemed a submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it whatever jurisdiction
it lacked over the person
Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdiction of
the court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation
Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)
1. Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
2. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to appeal subject to consent of bondsman
3. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment, he may be allowed temporary liberty
under his bail or recognizance
5. Procedure
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
7. Recognizance
1. Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take it,
with the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being
the appearance of the accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at the
trial,except:
1. Substitution of info (see R110, 14)
2. Court believes that material witness may not appear at the trial
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal offense not
higher that 6 month imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, or both)
1. a. Caught in flagrante
2. Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and intimidation)
3. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
4. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his recognizance)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to which the law or ordinance
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter
penalty
6. Committed offense while on parole or under conditional pardon
7. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2 times
1. Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light felony or criminal offense the imposable
penalty to which does not exceed 6 months and or P2000 fine
2. Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the imposable
principal penalty, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation and before the same has been resolved, but NO BAIL was filed
or accused is incapable of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish
bail
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal
b. Automatic cancellation
1. Case is dismissed
1. Accused is acquitted
2. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not
more than 20 years, and:
30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him
Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act of God, the obligee or the law (US
vs. Bonoan)
1. Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear
15. Remedies
For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt
17. Notes:
1. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person
(Callanta vs. Villanueva). However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of the
articles seized incidentally to such illegal arrest.
2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary
investigation when he failed to do so before entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without
prior court permission (warrantless arrest allowed).
Rule 115 Rights of Accused
In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed innocent until and unless
his conviction is affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)
The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment and later proceedings must be in a
language the accused understands (People vs. Crisologo)
If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia; the accused forfeits
his rights to be notified of proceedings in the future and to adduce evidence in his behalf (People
vs. Salas)
1. To testify as witness on his own behalf, subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
direct examination; not to be prejudiced by his silence
2. Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
3. To confront and examine the witnesses against him, including the right to use in evidence
testimony of a witness
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the RP
1. Given in another proceeding
2. With the same parties
3. Same subject matter
4. Opportunity to cross-examine
Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of informers when such informer was
crucial in the operation itself; failure to present the informer is a denial of the right to confront
the witness which merits the reversal of the conviction (People vs. Bagano)
Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of the right to a speedy trial, entitling
the accused to mandamus to compel dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if he is detained
a. To due process
b. Against self-incrimination
Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body may be allowed (Villaflor vs.
Summers)
Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of information, without which
confession made by the accused is inadmissible (People vs. Nicandro)
Confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible (People vs. Opida)
Right against self-incrimination and to counsel do not apply during custodial investigation
(People vs. Ayson)
During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form:
3. Double jeopardy
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party
5. Remedies
1. Motion to quash
2. Motion to dismiss
Both filed on the ground of violation of accuseds rights, thereby ousting the court of
jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him,
to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the same act.
1. Procedure
1. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of good
repute for probity and ability to defend accused
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before arraignment
Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially complied
with; if not, case may be remanded for re-arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
1. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to him in a language he understands
2. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3. Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
4. Accused personally makes his plea
5. Plea is entered into record
6. If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2 days to prepare for trial
People vs. Agbayani the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded. Only when
so demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and ground for new trial. Further,
such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing Speedy Trial Act of 1997), accused
must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days from
receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient; the
manner of statement of such fact is immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges, of his plea,
and its consequences
Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and determine his
degree of culpability, and accused may still establish presence of mitigating circumstances in his
favor
Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon receipt of exculpatory evidence (if
accused pleaded guilty), trial court should consider the plea withdrawn and in its place, order the
plea of not guilty
Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to quash or by
plea in abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any time before judgment is rendered
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the prosecution
of presenting evidence and still result in the conviction of the accused.
4. Remedies
Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill of
Particulars is necessary to clarify the acts for which the accused is being charged
b. Motion to quash
Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question in a
pending civil case
May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, when it can be shown
that the accused was not aware of the significance of pleading guilty to the charges
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1. No offense charged
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law, only that
it alleges that one offense was necessary to commit the other (People vs. Alagao)
1. No territorial jurisdiction
2. No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver considered even
upon failure to move to quash on such ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused
The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily appeared for
the pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs. Rodriguez)
c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy
No waiver
No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the consent of the accused (Que vs. Cosico),
unless ground for dismissal is: (a) denial of right to speedy trial; or (b) insufficiency of evidence.
If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no valid
information and there could be no double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)
Cudia vs CA it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who
should prepare informations for offenses committed within Pampanga but outside Angeles City.
An information must be prepared and presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone
authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Although failure to file a
motion to quash the information is a waiver of all objections to it insofar as formal objections to
pleadings are concerned, questions relating to want of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings. Moreover, since the complaint or information was insufficient because it was so
defective in form or substance that conviction upon it could not have been sustained, its dismissal
without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy, and will not be a bar to a
second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single punishment for
various offenses
No waiver
For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any amnesty
existing at the time
Doctrine of Jurisdiction by Estoppel: depends upon whether the lower court actually had
jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory
that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for
the same must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by
estoppel. However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon
a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it
to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position that
the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that jurisdiction
is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.
e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or necessarily includes or is necessarily
included
Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence constitutes double jeopardy to the
charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence.
5. Procedure
1. MTQ filed
2. If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded yet),
EXCEPT when the ground is:
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial
Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if necessary;
mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if there is not other plain, simple and adequate
remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such
grounds,except:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal case work
out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves
the defendants pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only some of the counts of a multi-count
indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.
Under Speedy Trial Act of 1997, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC,
RTC and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the Speedy Trial Act of 1997, an accused may plea
guilty to a lesser offense only if said offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their signatures;
these facts need not be proved by evidence in trial
3. Pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of, and controls
the course of action during the trial
4. Procedure
1. To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
2. To assail the credibility of such evidence
3. To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and adding
other evidence to cast reasonable doubt
Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits; he must
give the defendant the chance to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial,
which shall commence within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
Presentation
Cross-examination
Re-cross
Offer
5. Application (prosecution)
1. Sick or infirm
2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
8. Remedies
b. Motion to consolidate
Upon the courts discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single case if the offenses
charged arise form the same facts or form part of a series of similar offenses
Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially committed in the same manner (People
vs. David)
Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness
Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if court denies
motion for discharge, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or refuses to testify
against his co-accused in accordance with his statement (which formed the basis for his discharge)
f. Demurrer to evidence
If the court finds the prosecutions evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed
1. If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment
Case may also be dismissed motu proprio
g. Motion to reopen
Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually rendered
To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found before
The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his behalf
when his failure to adduce them during the trial was his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
Rule 120 Judgment
1. Judgment adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense
charged, and the imposition of the proper penalty and civil liability provided by law on the
accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and the acquittal
immediately becomes final and executory. If the accused is found guilty, penalty and civil
liability will be imposed on him.
4. Contents
5. Procedure
8. Remedies
a. Appeal
1. Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are prejudicial to the substantial
rights of the accused
ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before and which could change
the judgment
1. Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of sound discretion
2. Does not require consent of accused
3. May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional evidence
1. Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon issue
of credibility
2. Only corroborative evidence is offered
3. Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which such
confession can be obtained and fabricated)
4. Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be concocted
5. Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witness, due to unreliability of
such recantations, EXCEPT if no other evidence to sustain conviction aside from recanted
testimony
4. New Trial vs. Reconsideration
Motion for recon is based on the grounds of errors of law in the judgment is court is not asked
to reopen the case for further proceedings, but to reconsider its findings or conclusions of law and
make them conformable to the law applicable to the case on the judgment the court has to
render anew.
In New Trial, irregularities are expunged from the record and/or new evidence is introduced. In
modification of judgment, no new hearings or proceedings of any kind or change in the record or
evidence. A simple modification is made on the basis of what is on the record.
New trial presupposes that existence of a judgment to be set aside upon the granting of a new
trial
In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although the hearing may have already been
closed
Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require no further proceedings.
Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities stand, and those affected are set
aside. Court may allow introduction of new evidence
Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
1. Procedure
If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall render judgment
imposing said penalty, but refrain from entering judgment and then certify the case and the
entire record thereof to the SC for review (R124, 13)
CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or re-trial, or
dismiss the case
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or lesser penalty
involving offenses committed on the same occasion, or arising out of same occurrence where
graver penalty of death is available but life imprisonment is imposed; all other cases, by petition
for review on certiorari
Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a Motion for Recon or
a Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the notice perfected the appeal, and the trial court
loses its power to modify or set aside the judgment. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal is
where the accused decides to serve his sentence.
1. Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and applicable to them
2. Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of judgment
3. Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result in double
jeopardy
1. When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the maximum period of the
new penalty
Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned beyond the maximum penalty imposed
by law (Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious, certiorari lies and no double jeopardy since validity and not
correctness of dismissal is being challenged.
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
1. Search warrant an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the 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
Cannot be issued to look for evidence (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing one to be a witness against
himself (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure (US vs. Katz)
Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and unreasonable character
by which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to it, and such
is not an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Villanueva vs. Querubin)
Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if no objection is raised (Stonehill vs.
Diokno)
Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to be
effective:
Probable cause such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to
believe that a crime has been committed and the thing to be searched for and seized is in the
place to be searched
By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an offense which occurred anywhere in
the country (Malaloan vs. CA)
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions, the appellant and his
witness and took down their written depositions
Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a search warrant (Uy Khetin
vs. Villareal)
Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs. Herrera)
Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination of probable cause (Stonehill vs.
Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto (search warrant
becomes void after 10 days)
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
5. Procedure
Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case (People vs. Sy
Juco)
Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the person against whom the
warrant is issued, that the objects to be seized are fruits or means of committing a crime, and
that they belong to the same person, thus, not affecting third persons (People vs. Sy Juco)
When complainants knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are necessary (Alvarez vs.
CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of complainant and witnesses under oath to
determine probable cause
Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs. Gonzales)
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion residing in the same locality
Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same search for the same
purpose and of the same place (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
f. Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory, and surrenders items seized to
receiving court (not necessarily court which issued the warrant)
Items seized illegally must remain in custodia legis pending resolution of the case (Roan vs.
Gonzales)
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense charged (Nolasco vs. Pano)
iii. Subject in an offense which is mala prohibita cannot be summarily seized (Roan vs. Gonzales)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and surrounding under his immediate control
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in the proceeding.
Rule 127 Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases
1. Attachment as provisional remedy in criminal cases
Reference:
Remedial Law (Criminal Procedure) Memory Aid
Ateneo Central Bar Operations 2001
Posted in Remedial Law
13 Comments
Tags: Criminal Procedure Memory Aid
SEARCH HERE
Go
Search for:
SUBSCRIBE
Join 787 other followers
Subscribe by email
RECENT POSTS
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Imposition of Proper Penalty
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Grant of a Motion for Reconsideration
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Issuance of an Order of Release
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Granting of Bail
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Payment of Docket Fees in Election Cases
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Improper Imposition of the Punishment of Contempt
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Misrepresentation and Non-payment of IBP Dues
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Duty of Lawyer to Client/Proper Conduct
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Duty to Client/Accounting of Clients Money/Negligence
o Legal Ethics Case Digests Duty to the Court/Negligence of a Lawyer
o Jokes Part IV
o Jokes Part III
o Jokes Part II
o Jokes Part I
o 2014 Bar Examinations set in October
o Civil Law Property
o Civil Law Land Titles
o Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law PART 2: Constitution of Liberty 101 120
o Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law PART 2: Constitution of Liberty 91 100
o Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law PART 2: Constitution of Liberty 81 90
PAGES
o Home
o Digests
Legal Ethics Case Digests
Criminal Law Case Digests
o Reviewers
Administrative Law
Civil Law
Civil Procedure
Commercial Law
Constitutional Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Election Law
Insurance Code
Legal Ethics
Negotiable Instruments Law
Political Law
o Jokes
o Contact Me
CATEGORIES
o Administrative Law
o BAR Exam
o Civil Law
o Civil Procedure
o Commercial Law
o Constitutional Law
o Criminal Law
o Digests
o Insurance Code
o Jokes
o Legal Ethics
o Negotiable Instruments Law
o Political Law
o Remedial Law
ARCHIVES
o September 2014
o August 2014
o July 2014
o June 2014
o January 2012
o December 2011
o October 2011
o September 2011
o July 2011
o June 2011
o May 2011
ABOUT ME
Magz
First of all, I am not a lawyer. I'm a graduate of AB Political Science and went to the College of Law
but stopped going to law school for some reasons. I'm a passionate teacher who has been teaching
English to speakers of other languages and a person who likes writing and blogging. I lost some
important files and software when my computer broke down so the reason I created this website is to
preserve the notes, reviewers and digests I collected when I was at the law school and at the same
time, I want to help out law students who do not have enough time to go and read books in the
library.
Follow