Criminal Procedure (Condensed) - Inigo

09273357168
LAW ON JURISDICTION ON CRIMINAL CASES
JURISDICTION in Criminal Cases

 the power and authority of a court to take cognizance of an offense and to pronounce the judgment or
sentence provided by law after a trial in the manner prescribed.
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction;
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
In Civil Cases: place is never part of jurisdiction; only a question of venue; waivable
In Crim Pro: no difference; the place where the trial is to be heard is not only a question of venue but also of
jurisdiction
 Venue is an element of jurisdiction in criminal cases;
 Not subject to waiver because the authority of the court to try the case is co-existent to its
seat.
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
 refers to the limits of the geographical boundaries of a place w/in w/c a court has jurisdiction to act
judicially and outside of w/c its judicial acts are null and void.
 In crim cases, it is determined by the geographical area over w/c it presides, and the fact that the crime
was committed, or any of its essential ingredients took place, w/in said area is an element of
jurisdiction. (barok!!, kinopya ko lang po sa transcription!)
‫ ټ‬The area of authority of said court is found in Sec 2 of the Interim Rules
‫ ټ‬In one province, there are many RTC branches w/c are scattered. A branch in a particular place will only
exercise jurisdiction over its designated territory.
‫ ټ‬Territory is defined in Sec 18, BP Blg 29
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

 determined by the allegations of the complaint or information in accordance w/ the law in force at the
time of the institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the offense.
Q: How do we know when the court has or no jurisdiction?
A: It is determined by the penalty provided by law for the offense as that offense is charged in the complaint
or information.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

 It is conferred upon the court either by the voluntary appearance or surrender of the accused, or by
his arrest to answer for the crime charged.
Q: Can the court approve the reduction of a bail bond if the accused is not yet arrested?
A: Yes. The court can act on incidental matters even if the accused is not yet arrested.
JURISDICTION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
SUPREME COURT (SC)

 Appeals involving pure questions of law
 Appellate jurisdiction (d)
 “Pp. vs. MATEO”-crim cases punishable by reclusion perpetua, death will go to the CA
 CA will not enter judgment. It will forward it to SC. SC will review it and will have the
final say
 SC: so that there will be a review of facts
COURT OF APPEALS (CA)

 If a case does not fall w/in the jurisdiction of the SC, then necessarily it falls w/in the CA’s jurisdiction.
 Appeals involving questions of fact or mixed question of fact and law
REG’L TRIAL COURT (RTC) & MUN. TRIAL COURTS (MTC)

 Sec 20 together with Sec 32 of BP 129
1 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
09273357168
2 things to remember:
1. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed w/in their respective territorial jurisdiction;
2. all offenses punishable w/ imprisonment of not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine.
‫ ټ‬anything above prision correctional-RTC
SC CIRCULAR 04-94
‫ ټ‬If penalty prescribed is imprisonment and/or fine or both, just consider the imprisonment
RTC JURISDICTION: above 6 years, regardless of fine

MTC JURISDICTION: 6 years and below, regardless of fine
‫ ټ‬If PURELY FINE-apply the old law before RA 7691: “it depends on the amount prescribed by law”
MTC: P4,000.00 or less

RTC: above P4,000.00
EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION:
 The rule does NOT apply when the crime is damage to property like reckless imprudence- automatic
MTC
OUTLINE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE MTC AND RTC OVER CRIMINAL CASES:
RTC MTC
1. all violations of city or municipal ordinances
1. where the prescribed penalty for the offense w/in their respective territorial jurisdiction;
is imprisonment exceeding 6 years 2. all offenses punishable w/ imprisonment of
irrespective of the amount of imposable fine; not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the
amount of the imposable fine;
2. when the prescribed penalty for the offense is 3. when the prescribed penalty is fine only and
fine only and the imposable fine exceeds P4T the imposable amount does not exceed P4T;
4. when the offense involves damage to property
thru criminal negligence irrespective of the
amount of the imposable fine.
TAKE NOTE: Jurisdiction is determined by the PRINCIPAL penalty NOT by the CIVIL liability.
‫ ټ‬Only apply Judiciary law if jurisdiction is not provided for by law
INSTANCES OF THE EXCEPTION / CASES WHEREIN THE RTC WILL TRY THE CASE EVEN IF THE PENALTY IS ONLY
SIX (6) YEARS OR LESS: (MORALES vs. CA)
1. Libel;
2. Violations of the Decree of Intellectual Property;
3. Violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act;
4. Violations of the Omnibus Election Code.
SPECIAL COURTS
FAMILY COURTS
Criminal Cases falling w/in the original jurisdiction of the Family Courts (Sec 5, RA 8369-)
1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below 18 years of age but not less than 9 years of
age, or one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense;
2. Criminal cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act;
3. Violations of RA 7610 (Child Abuse Law), as amended by RA 7658.
SANDIGANBAYAN
Guidelines in determining the jurisdiction of SB (RA 8249, Feb. 5, 1997)
1. what kind of position in the government does he occupy;

2. what criminal cases were committed by him.
09273357168
Q: WHEN IS A CRIME COMMITTED IN RELATION TO HIS OFFICE?
A:
CUNANAN vs. ARCEO 242 S
SC: an offense may be considered as committed in relation to the accused’s office if the offense cannot exist
w/o the office such that the office is a constituent element of the crime.
SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU 207 S 627

HOLDING:
The case should be tried by the RTC and not the SB. The case of Sanchez was not considered in relation
to the office.
There is no direct relation between the commission of the crime of rape w/ homicide and the
petitioner’s office as municipal mayor because public office is not an essential element of the crime charged.
The offense can stand independently of the office. Moreover, it is not even alleged in the information that the
commission of the crime charged was intimately connected with the performance of the petitioner’s official
functions to make it fall under the exception laid down in PP. vs. Montejo.
PP vs. MONTEJO
 A city mayor and several detectives were charged w/ murder for the death of a suspect as a result of a
“third degree investigation held at a police substation”
SC: Even if their position was not an essential ingredient of the offense, there was nonetheless an intimate
connection between the office and the offense, as alleged in the information, that brought it w/ in the
definition of an “offense committed in relation to the public office”. Indeed, they had no personal motive to
commit the crime and they would not have committed it had they not held the aforesaid offices.
LACSON vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 301 S 298 (1999)

HOLDING:
It is not enough to say that the crime committed is in relation w/ his office . You must make specific
allegations to show really the connection. Otherwise, it will not be tried by the SB but by the regular courts.
“While the information states that the above-named principal accused committed the crime of murder
ín relation to their public office’, there is, however, no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim
by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers.
Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that the accused arrested and investigated the innocent
victim and killed the latter while in their custody.
The mere allegation in the information that the offense was committed by the accused public officer in
relation to his office s not sufficient-the phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that would
show the close intimacy between the offense charged and the discharge of the accused’s official duties.
‫ ټ‬In instances wherein there is a conflict between the SB and the regular courts, follow the rule in Statutory
construction –“special laws prevail over general laws; a specific provision prevails over a general provision”.
CORPUZ vs. TANODBAYAN April 15, 1987

HELD:
It should be filed before the RTC. The election code prevails because there is a specific provision which
is: “crimes under the Election Code”. Whereas, the provisions of the SB is broader: “crimes committed by
public officers in relation to their duty.” That applies to public officers in general. So, the specific provision
prevails over the general provision.
‫ ټ‬Where a private individual commits a crime in conspiracy w/ a public officer, all of them should be tried in
the SB.
 Since there is a conspiracy, there should be a joint trial
 You cannot split the jurisdiction
REASON: To avoid repeated and unnecessary presentation of witnesses and exhibits against conspirators in
different venues, especially if the issues involved are the same.
BONDOC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Nov. 9, 1990

HELD:
The law requires that the private individuals accused before the SB should be tried together jointly w/
the public officer. That is really true unless the attending circumstances have made it impossible or
impracticable such a joint trial in w/c the event the trial of said private persons may proceed separately from
the public officers or employees whose own trial has been concluded thereof.
AZARCON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
09273357168
ISSUE: Does the SB have the jurisdiction over a private individual who is charged w/ malversation of public
funds or property as a principal after the said individual has been designated by the BIR as custodian of a
restrained property? Did such accused become a public officer and therefore subject to the SB’s jurisdiction as
a consequence of such designation.
HOLDING:
NO. The SB does not have jurisdiction over him. The law equivocally specifies”…the only instances
when the SB will have jurisdiction over a private individual .when the complaint charges the private individual
either as a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or employee who has been charged w/ a
crime w/in its jurisdiction.
The information does not charge Azarcon of being co-principal, accomplice or accessory to a public
officer committing an offense under the SB’s jurisdiction. Thus, unless Azarcon be proven a public officer, the
SB will have no jurisdiction over the crime charged.
Azarcon’s designation by the BIR as a custodian of distrained property does not qualify as appointment
by direct provision of law or by competent authority.
The BIR’s power authorizing a private individual to act as a depositary cannot be stretched to include
the power to appoint him as a public officer.
Q: Under the present law, the anti-graft crimes committed by public officers below grade 27, RTC has
jurisdiction. Suppose you are convicted by the RTC, where will you appeal?
A: SANDIGANBAYAN. It becomes the appellate court.
Q: How about if the case is tried by the MTC because the penalty is up to 6 years only?
A: RTC, in accordance w/ the Judiciary Law.
Q: From the RTC, convicted, where will you appeal?

A: Petition for review before the SB. Do not go to CA.
TAKE NOTE:
SB is now given the exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for issuance of writ of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
09273357168
BACKGROUND ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 the method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of any
criminal offense and for their punishment in case of conviction.
SYSTEMS OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1. Inquisitorial System;
2. Accusatorial System.
3 Parties in a criminal case:

1. the State, through the prosecutor;
2. the accused;
3. the private victim.
INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM: a gov’t show; more emphasis on the gov’ts role’; the accused & the private victim
are only incidental
ACCUSATORIAl SYSTEM: opposite of the inquisitorial system; the role or participation of the State is
secondary; gives more importance on the right or role of the accused or the private victim.
‫ ټ‬In the Phils, both systems are recognized
INQUISITORIAL ASPECTS of our system of Criminal Procedure where the emphasis is on the Gov’t’s role:
1. The prosecution of criminal cases is largely controlled by the Public Prosecutor;
2. Preliminary investigation is required;
3. In case the accused is sentenced to death, whether the accused likes it or not, there will be a review of
death sentence because that is what public interest says.
ACCUSATORIAL ASPECTS of our criminal procedure where the emphasis is on the role of the accused or the
offended party:
1. The accused is entitled to a public trial. That is NOT for the benefit of the gov’t but that of the accused;
2. It is the right of the accused to be present at every stage of the proceeding;
3. It is the right of the offended party to intervene by hiring a private prosecutor.
09273357168
RULE 110
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Q: How are criminal cases instituted?

A: Sec 1, Rule 110
COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL ACTION: generally, it is already in court, once it is filed in court

INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION: earlier; when you file a complaint in a fiscal’s office, it is already an
institution
‫ ټ‬Generally, all RTC cases require preliminary investigation. But right now, under the new rules, some cases
triable by the MTC may also require preliminary investigation.
Section 2
 The complaint shall be in writing in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons
who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.
 If the criminal complaint or information is filed in the name of the private complainant, according to
the Supreme Court the complaint is defective. But it is only a formal defect. It can be cured at any stage
of the action by amending the information. Also, it will not invalidate the proceedings.
 “Against all who appear to be responsible” means, it is the sworn duty of the policeman or fiscal to
file a case against all who appear to be responsible. The law does not state, who are guilty.
Section 3
 Section 3 defines a Complaint
 If a complaint is filed but it was not sworn to or signed, the SC said it is a formal defect and it can be
cured. Generally, the signature is not needed.
Section 4
 Section 4 defines Information.
 The following are authorized to institute or commence criminal cases, to wit:
1. Offended party;
2. Peace officer;
3. Prosecutor, and
4. Public officer charged with the enforcement of the laws.
COMPLAINT INFORMATION
Filed by the offended party, any peace officer, Prepared and signed by the prosecutor.
prosecutor or any public officer charged with
the enforcement of the law
It is filed in court is either for preliminary Filed in court only for trial.
investigation or for trial.
May be filed in court or in the office of the Always filed in court.
prosecutor.
Can be filed in court, for trial or for mere If filed, it is always filed in court and it is always
preliminary investigation, or it can even be for trial.
filed not in court but in the prosecutor’s office
preliminary.
 The complaint contemplated in section 2 could be filed in the MTC for trial (e.g. physical injuries) or it
could be a complaint (e.g. murder) in the MTC, not for trial but for preliminary investigation.
 The complaInt filed in the fiscal’s office, city or province, is known in Spanish as DENUNCIA, which is
filed for preliminary investigation.
 As distinguished from the real complaint mentioned in section 3, it is always filed by the offended party
or if the offended party died, it is the police who files the affidavit complaint before the prosecutor’s
office for preliminary investigation.
 A complaint filed under section 3 must be filed by the offended party. But a compliant filed with the
fiscal, need not be by the offended party (Evarle vs. Sucaldito, 156 S 808)
Section 5
1st paragraph (as amended):
 Once the case is in court, the complaint or information filed shall be prosecuted under the direction
and control of the public prosecutor. The fiscal has the absolute control.
 The private prosecutor may be authorized IN WRITING by the Chief of the Prosecution Office of the
Regional State Prosecution to prosecute, in case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor.
2nd-4th paragraph:
 In ADULTERY OR CONCUBINAGE, the offended party is only the husband or the wife.
09273357168
 When an information for adultery or concubinage is filed without a complaint, it is not a jurisdictional
defect. It is a condition precedent but not jurisdictional.
 The RTC can try the case even when there is no compliant by the offended party in the RTC. The
complaint filed in the MTC for preliminary investigation will already serve the purpose.
 If the offended party of a private crime in a municipality, instead of filing the complaint in the MTC,
filed it in the office of the provincial fiscal or prosecutor, the case must be dismissed because the
complaint contemplated by law, signed and sworn to by the victim, is a complaint filed IN COURT, not a
complaint filed in the fiscal’s office.
 The rule is, the complaint filed with the fiscal’s office is not the compliant contemplated by law. But an
affidavit-complaint filed in the office of the City prosecutor, containing all the elements of a valid
complaint under section 5, and was attached to the information as an integral part thereof, duly filed
with the court, such affidavit-complaint became the basis of the complaint required in section 5 (P v.
Ilarde 125 S 11)
5th paragraph:
 Generally, a case of slander can be filed in court without a complaint and sworn to by the offended
party. EXCEPT when the defamation imputes to the offended party the commission of a private offense
like adultery, concubinage, abduction, seduction, acts of lasciviousness, in this case, the criminal action
shall be brought at the instance of and upon the complaint filed by the offended party.
Last paragraph:
 Prescription for violation of a special law is not governed by the RPC but special law (Reodica v. CA)
 The institution of the complaint in the prosecutor’s office shall interrupt the period of prescription of
the offense charged under section 1 Rule 110. However, under Act # 3326, the period of prescription
shall be interrupted by the institution of judicial proceedings (Llenes v. Dicdican July 31, 1996)
Section 6:
 Any defect in the complaint or information may be cured by evidence introduced by the prosecution,
EXCEPT:
1. when the defect is jurisdictional; or
2. when the complaint or information does not charge any office. Or offense?
Section 7:
 If an erroneous name given to the accused in the complaint or information is not a fatal defect. The
error will not produce any adverse effect because what is important is the identity of the person of the
accused, not his name (P v. Ramos 85 S 683)
Section 8 & Section 9:

 The designation of the offense is NOT an essential element of a compliant or information because that
is a mere conclusion of the fiscal. What is controlling is the recital of facts appearing in the body of the
complaint or information (P v. Agito April 28, 1958)
 EXCEPTION: When the facts appearing in the complaint or information are so stated that they are
capable of two or more interpretations, then the designation of the offense in the capitol controls. (US
v. Ticzon 25 P 67)
 When the information does not contain the allegation “intent to gain” which is an element of the
crime theft, those words are presumed from the information that the accused appropriated to himself
the things the things belonging to the offended party (US v. Alabot, 38 P 698)
 The information alleges that the accused entered the house of the victim by passing through the hole
in the ceiling, an opening not intended for entrance is tantamount to use of force upon things (P v.
Lareza, 73 P 658).
 There was no allegation of treachery (alevosia) but the information says that when the accused killed
the victim, the latter was not in the position to defend himself, the SC said they mean the same (P v.
Gustahan 47 P 37)
 Although there was no statement that there was treachery, the killing of minors is equivalent to killing
by treachery and therefore qualifies the killing to murder (P v. Abuyen 213 S 569)
 The information must state that the accused have confederated to commit the crime or that there has
been a community of design, a unity or purpose or an agreement to commit the felony among the
accused. Conspiracy must be alleged, not just inferred. (P v. Quitlong, 292 S 260)
 An information for treason is insufficient if it merely alleges generally that the accused had adhered to
enemy by giving aid and protection, the charge must be specific by stating what is termed as overt act
of giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Guinto v. Veluz, 77 P 798)
 In charging libel, the prosecution must single out the libelous statements and quote verbatim in the
complaint and information. (P v. Bustos, 59 P 375)
09273357168
 Habitual delinquency must specify the dates:
1. of the commission of the previous crimes;
2. of the last conviction or release; and
3. of the other previous conviction or release of the accused.
Q: Must excepting clauses be alleged in a complaint or information?

A: IT DEPENDS. If the excepting clause forms part of the definition of the offense, it must be alleged; but if it is
a matter of defense, it need not be alleged in a complaint or information.
 In illegal possession of firearms, you have to allege that the firearm is not licensed. It is part of the
crime.
 But in Dangerous Drugs Act, it is for the accused to prove that he is authorized.
Section 10:
 The place of the commission of the crime maybe stated generally. EXCEPT when the place of the
commission of the crime constitutes an essential element of the charged.
Section 11:
 It is not necessary that the date should be very accurate. What is important is that the information
alleges that the crime was committed “on or about” a certain date.
 A variance of a few months is still covered by the phrase “on or about.” But a variance of several years
has been held to be fatally defective. (Rocaberte vs. P, 193 S 192)
 EXCEPTION: unless the date of the commission of the crime is an essential element of the crime.
Example, violation of Election Code, drinking liquor during electionday; Infanticide, it is committed by
killing a child less than 3 days old.
Section 12:
 The name of the private offended party must be allegeD.
 In crime against property, it is enough that you describe the property in the information.
 An erroneous naming of the offended is a material matter which necessarily affects the identification of
the act charged. The case should be dismissed. (P v. Uba, 99 P 134)
Section 13:
 GENERAL RULE: The complaint or information must charge only one offense. Otherwise, it is
duplicitous.
 The REMEDY if duplicitous is to file a Motion to Quash. But the defect is waivable because for failure to
file Motion to Quash, the trial can proceed and if found guilty for committing 2 or more crimes, then
there will be 2 or more penalties (Rule 120 section 3)
 EXCEPTION: When the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. Example: complex
crimes, special complex crimes and Delito Continuado.
 Rebeliion - Based on the ABSORPTION DOCTRINE, the common crimes are not to be treated as
separate crimes but are already absorbed in the rebellion. There is no crime such as rebellion
complexed with murder or homicide.
 When the accused is charged of violating 2 different sections of the same law with distinct penalties
which, if charged in a single information, would render it duplicitous. (P v. Ferrer, 101 P 234)
AMENDMENT: (Rule 110, Sec 14)

1. Before plea is entered = formal and substantial amendment is allowed
2. After plea is entered
a. Form = a matter of judicial discretion
b. Substance = prohibited
Formal Amendment:
Merely states with additional precision something which is already contained in the original
information, which, therefore, adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged (Pp v. Montenegro
159 S 236)
Substantial Amendment:
Amendment is substantial if it will prejudice the rights of the accused.
Rights of the accused are prejudiced when a defense under the complaint or information, as it
originally stood, would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence of the
accused might have, would be inapplicable to the complaint or information as amended (Pp v. Montenegro)
Illustrations of Substantial Amendments:
09273357168
1.If the amendment changes the manner of the commission of the offense; (Pp v Zulueta 89 P 752)
2.If it changes the name of the offended party; (Pp v Uba, 99 P 134)
3.If it changes the date of the commission of the offense; (Pp v Opemia, 98 P 698)
4.When the purpose of amendment is to make the information charge an offense when the original
information does not charge any offense (Wong v Yatco, 99 P 791) or
5.When it changes the fact or ground of responsibility alleged in the original information. (Pp v Labatete) –
e.g., from accomplice, he will be charged to principal
Information for homicide alleged that he killed the victim using superior strength. The prosecutor moved that
the information be amended to murder. This is allowed since this is a formal amendment because the
allegation of superior strength is already there (Buhat v. CA 265 S 701)
GR: Any amendment before plea is allowed
EXCEPTION:
If the amendment downgrades the nature of the offense charged or excludes any accused from the
complaint or information, the following are required:
1. motion of the prosecutor;
2. notice to the offended party; and
3. decree of court
SUBSTITUTION: (Rule 110, Sec 14)

Crime proven is different from the crime charged:
1. If crime proven is included in crime charged = convict accused for crime proven (e.g., charged with
murder but homicide was proven)
2. If crime proven is completely different = complaint is dismissed and new information is filed provided
double jeopardy is not applicable (Substitution of Complaint or Information)
Amendment Substitution
May involve either formal or substantial changes Involves a substantial change from original charge
Involves a substantial change from original charge Must be with leave of court as the original
information has to be dismissed
If it is only as to form, there is no need for another Another preliminary investigation is entailed and
preliminary investigation and the retaking of the the accused has to plead anew to the new
plea of the accused information
AMENDED information refers to the same offense Requires or presupposes that the new information
charged in the original information or to an offense involves a different offense which does not include
which necessarily includes or is necessarily or is not necessarily included in the original charge,
included in the original charge, hence substantial hence the accused cannot claim double jeopardy
amendments to the information after the plea has
been taken cannot be made over the objection of
the accused, for if the original information would
be withdrawn, the accused could invoke double
jeopardy
VENUE OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: (Rule 110, Sec 15)
GR: Action is instituted and tried in the court

1. Where the offense was committed; or (LOCAL OFFENSE)
2. Where any of the essential ingredients occurred (CONTINUING OFFENSE)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Libel = under Article 360 of RPC, it is to be filed where the libelous matter was printed or published, or
where the injured party resides or where he holds office;
2. Sandiganbayan Law = cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan are tried in designated
places;
3. Sec 5(4), Art VIII, 1987 Constitution = The SC may order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice
Local Offense Continuing Offense Delito Continuado

Offense which is fully Elements occur in several places A person performs a series of
consummated in one place acts but all emanating from one
criminal resolution
09273357168
Which court of what place will How many crimes were
the crime be tried? committed by the accused?
Case is filed where the crime was committed because:

1. interest of the public = secure the best results and effect in the punishment of the crimes
2. interest of the accused = secure him great inconvenience in looking for witnesses and other evidence in
another place
Illustrations:
1. Kidnapping or Abduction = continuing crime; where the victim was abducted and the victim was
brought
2. Qualified thef = local offense
3. Fencing = local offense; accused is not required to have participated in the robbery or theft
4. Bigamy = local offense; where the 2nd marriage was contracted
5. Estafa or Malversation = continuing crime; where the misappropriation was committed or where the
accused was to render his accounting
6. BP 22 = continuing crime; crime continues up to the delivery of the check to a person who takes it as a
holder or bearer of the instrument (not mere collector; knowledge of insufficiency of funds is a continuing
eventuality) [Pp v. Gorospe]
7. Falsification of Private Document = local offense; where the document was falsified REGARDLESS of
whether it was or was not put to the illegal use
8. Perjury = local offense; where the false evidence was submitted NOT in the place where false affidavit
was subscribed or sworn to
Other Rules on Territorial Jurisdiction:

1. Offense was committed in a train, aircraft, or vehicle while in the course of its trip = venue is where
such vehicle passed, including the place of its departure and arrival
2. Offense was committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage = venue is in the court of the first
port of entry or where it passed during such voyage
3. Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of RPC = court where the
criminal action is first filed
APPEARANCE OF PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (Rule 110, Sec 16)

Requisites:
1. There is civil liability arising from the crime because the purpose of the private prosecutor is to protect
the civil liability of the offended party;
2. The offended party should not waive the civil liability;
3. The offended party should not have reserved his right to file a separate civil action
4. The civil action has not been previously instituted
Rights of the offended party in a criminal action:

1. To take part in the prosecution of the offense;
2. To recover civil liability from the accused arising from the crime; and
3. To appeal from any judgment or order adversely affecting his claim to such civil liability.
Limitations to the offended party's right of intervention in a criminal action:

1. Such intervention shall be under the direction and control of the fiscal;
2. Intervention shall only be for the purpose of enforcing the civil liability of the accused arising from the
crime
The source of civil liability is the damage that the accused caused to the victim and not the crime itself. Thus,
even though BP 22 does not provide any civil liability, the offended party can still hire a private prosecutor.
There is damage since the offended party cannot get his money back. THUS, if there is damage, there is civil
liability, even though the law is silent (Banal v. Tadeo Jr.)
09273357168
RULE 111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL CASES
Prosecution of Civil Cases:

GR: When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action (Rule 111, Sec 1)
EXCEPTIONS: (Civil action not deemed instituted)

1. when the offended party has waived the civil aspect of the case;
2. when the offended party has reserved his right to file a separate civil action; or
3. when the civil action was filed or instituted ahead of the criminal action;
4. when the civil action was filed in court before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution in
the criminal actions which the judge presiding on the criminal cases was duly informed (Yakult v. CA)
The party did not waive or reserve his right to file civil action. He just filed the civil action and informed the
judge about it. The SC ruled that this is better than reservation. There is thus an automatic reservation,
although normally, reservation is done before the filing of the criminal case. (Yakult v. CA)
Reason for Consolidation:

The purpose or object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse,
prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court and save unnecessary costs or
expense; in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to litigants.
NOTE:
Civil liability includes the subsidiary liability of employer when his insolvent employee is adjudged criminally
liable for acts committed in the discharge of his duties. Employer is deemed a forced intervenor in the criminal
case filed against his employee. (Art 103 RPC)
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but
any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.
Rule on Docket Fees:

Even if the complaint is silent as to damages, the offended party has the right to claim and prove them in
the criminal case, unless a waiver or a reservation of the civil action is made.
The only difference is: if the information mentions the claim of the civil liability, the offended party is:
1. required to pay docket fees for any claims for moral, exemplary and nominal damages
2. no docket fee for actual damages except criminal cases for:
a. BP 22 = based on amount of the check
b. estafa
When separate civil action is suspended: (Rule 111, Sec 2)
General Rule:
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be
instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
The running of the prescriptive period of the civil action is suspended during the pendency of the criminal
action.
EXCEPTION:
Petition to consolidate the trial of the criminal case and civil case for them to be tried together and the
evidence already adduced in the civil case shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal case.
Consolidation is permissive except:
1. violations of BP 22 (no reservation to file civil action separately shall be allowed)
2. Libel (civil action must be filed before the court trying the criminal case)
3. mandatory consolidation under Sandiganbayan Law (civil case pending before the ordinary courts must
be consolidated with the criminal case pending before the SB)
CAÑOS V. PERALTA (115 S 843)

Even before there was a specific rule on consolidation, Digos Judge ordered consolidation of criminal
and civil cases.
SC upheld Judge Peralta’s order. The consolidation was proper under Rule 31 because there is a
common question of fact and law.
09273357168
09273357168
NAGUIAT V. IAC (164 S 505 -- 1988)
Naguiat filed a civil case for specific performance with damages against subdivision development corp
since no title was given even after he paid for his lot. He also filed a criminal case under PD 957 against the
officers of the corp. -- for failure to deliver title of the land.
The civil and criminal case cannot be consolidated since the civil case arose from a contract – ex
contractu.
Rule 111 only applies for damages arising from criminal act – ex delicto.
GR: The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action.
EXCEPTION: If the final judgment in the criminal action finds that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished.
If the accused was acquitted based on reasonable doubt or on exempting circumstance, the civil
liability arising from the crime (ex delicto) would still exist.
Rule 111 Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.
GR: It is the criminal action which takes precedence over the civil action when there is reservation. The
filing of the criminal action suspends the filing of the civil action. HOWEVER, it does not apply if the civil action
is classified as an independent civil action under Sec. 3.
Independent civil actions under the law: Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the NCC
Rule: Criminal action and civil action can be filed simultaneously and the trial of the two cases can go on
separately and independently of the other without regard to the latter.
09273357168
COJUANGCO, JR. VS. CA
Issue: May a civil action for damages arising from defamation (independent civil action) and the criminal case
for libel be consolidated?
Held: YES. They can be consolidated under Rule 31 of the Rules of Court because there is a common question
of law and fact.
Art. 360 3rd par. of the RPC states that the criminal case for libel and the civil action for damages arising
therefrom must be filed in the same court.
= AN INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION NEED NOT BE RESERVED.
CASUPANAN VS. LAROYA
Issue: W/N accused in a pending criminal action for reckless imprudence may file simultaneously an
independent civil action based on quasi delict or Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the NCC?
Held: YES. Accused is not allowed to file a counterclaim in the civil action deemed instituted in the criminal
action. Instead he can file a separate civil action for quasi-delict. If he cannot file it the prescriptive period (4
years) will run.
= the civil liability arising from crime and the independent civil action are not the same. Do not mix the two.
Hence, one can continue to file a civil action/liability arising from crime and at the same time an independent
civil action but you cannot recover twice.
NEPRON CASE 384 S 266

Held: The 2000 Rules of Court deleted the requirement of reserving independent civil action. It produced 3
direct consequences:
1. right to bring foregoing actions need not be reserved because they are not deemed included therein;
2. institution or waiver of the right to file a separate civil action arising form the crime charged shall not
extinguish the right to file a n independent civil action;
3. offended party cannot recover twice for the same act or omission charged;
Sec. 4. – Effect of death on civil actions.
Notes:
On the 3rd paragraph, if there is judgment, one can enforce it by filing a claim against the estate.
Hence, as a rule there is no execution but instead all the creditors must share equally with the assets.
With respect to the last paragraph, if before arraignment the accused died, the criminal liability is
extinguished but any possible civil action which the offended party may file must be filed against the estate of
the deceased but the assumption is, it is based on quasi delict or any other sources of obligation other than the
crime.
Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar.
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. –
a. the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
b. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Notes:
Prejudicial question – is that arising in the civil case but which is so intimately connected with the
issues involved in the criminal case as to be determinative of the innocence or guilt of the accused.
Elements of a prejudicial question:
1. the previously instituted civil action involves an issued similar or intimately related to the issue raised
in the subsequent criminal action, and
2. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
09273357168
Here, the criminal action filed in court will be suspended and the accused will have to file a motion for
the suspension of the proceeding.
There is no more Anti- Squatting Law. It has been repealed.
In a bigamy case where the defense is the nullity of the 1 st marriage, prejudicial question will not apply
anymore because of the requirement that there must first be a decree of nullity before one can marry another.
Prejudicial question can be raised as a ground to suspend the preliminary investigation. The petition for
suspension may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
When the criminal action has been filed in court, the petition for suspension must be filed in the same
criminal action.
Rule 112 Sec. 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required.
Notes:
Purpose: to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him form
an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial, and also to
protect the state from useless and expensive trials.
Preliminary investigation is required when the crime for which the respondent is charged carries a
penalty of at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day irrespective of fine.
When a case is filed in court without preliminary investigation, the accused cannot file a motion to
quash the information on the ground of absence of preliminary investigation. It is not a ground for dismissal.
The procedure is for the court to suspend the proceeding and refer the matter back to the proper officer for
preliminary investigation.
The public prosecutor has the discretion whether to prosecute or not to prosecute.
GR: The public prosecutor cannot be compelled by mandamus to prosecute a case because it is discretionary.
Exception: Grave abuse of discretion. If he abuses his discretion and refuses to include a person as a co-
accused against whom there appears to be at least a prima facie evidence.
However, this extraordinary writ is available only if the petition shows that he has exhausted all
remedies in the ordinary course of law such as a motion filed with the trial court for the indictment of the
person or persons excluded by the prosecution.
REMEDIES OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IF A FISCAL REFUSES TO FILE A CASE EVEN WHEN THERE IS SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE IN WHICH ACTION MAY BE TAKEN:
1. Take up the matter with the Secretary of Justice who may then take such measures as may be necessary in
the interest of justice, or to his superior officer, the Regional State Prosecutor;
2. File with the proper authorities or court criminal or administrative charges against the fiscal (prevaricacion).
3. File a civil action for damages under Article 27 NCC.
TEEHANKEE JR. VS. MADAYAG

Issue: Is there an amendment of the information or substitution when the information was changed from
frustrated murder to consummated murder?
Held: There is an amendment since there is an identity of offenses charged in both the original and the
amended information…and consequent thereto, the filing of the amended information for murder is proper.
Issue: What kind of amendment- formal or substantial?
Held: Formal. Nature of the offenses charged was not actually changed. Instead an additional allegation, that is,
the supervening fact of death of the victim was merely supplied to aid the trial court in determining the proper
penalty for the crime. Whatever defenses petitioner may adduce under the original information for frustrated
murder equally applies to the amended information for murder.
Issue: Is there a need of a preliminary investigation on the new charge?
09273357168
Held: No need because you have not changed the crime. If you changed the crime as when there is
substitution, preliminary investigation is needed. If the crime originally charged is related to the amended
charges such that an inquiry into one would elicit substantially the same facts that an inquiry into the other
would reveal, a new preliminary investigation is not necessary.
Sec. 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. –
The following may conduct preliminary investigations:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;

(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper
court in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
Example of “Other officers as may be authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigations.”:
Ombudsman and his deputies- authorized to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute all criminal cases
involving public officers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, but those
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well.
Sec. 3. Procedure.
TATAD VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
The 10 day period to issue a resolution is merely directory, yet on the other hand it can not be
disregarded or ignored completely with absolute impunity.
The long delay in terminating the preliminary investigation should not be deemed fatal. But an undue
delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation can not be corrected for until now man ha not yet
invented a device for settling back time.
SANTIAGO VS. GARCHITORENA
The Tatad case is inapplicable in this case. In Tatad there indeed was an unexplained inaction on the
part of the public prosecutors inspite of the simplicity of the legal and factual issues involved therein. In the
case at bench, there was a continuum of the investigatory process but it got snarled because of the complexity
of the issues involved.
SERVANTES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
Tatad ruling was applied in this case.
It is the duty of the prosecutor to speedily resolve the complaint as mandated b y the Constitution
regardless of whether Servantes did not object to the delay although the delay was with his acquiescence
provided it was not due to causes directly attributable to him. Mere fact that he was not complaining is not a
factor. What is the factor is when the delay was caused by him.
Sec. 3 par (b)
There is no mention that after the counter affidavit, the complainant can also file a reply-affidavit.
Nothing with says that it cannot be done, there is nothing which says that it can be done but Dean is of the
opinion that you can file it anyway.
If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or even if subpoenaed he does not submit his counter
affidavit, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the
complainant.
MERCADO VS. CA
The New Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require as a condition sine qua non to the validity of
the proceedings (in the preliminary investigation) the presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach
him was made, and an opportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant is accorded him. The
09273357168
obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of offenses by hiding themselves or by employing dilatory
tactics.
Sec. 4
Notes:
If the investigating prosecutor after preliminary investigation finds probable cause to hold respondent
for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information and he will certify under oath that he, or as shown by
the record an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses that there is a
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that
the accused was informed of the complaints and of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given
opportunity to submit controverting evidence. That is a standard from in the information filed by the
prosecutor.
If the prosecutor failed to make that certification in the information, the information is still valid.
“Notwithstanding the absence in the information of a certification as to the holding of a preliminary
investigation, the information is nonetheless considered valid for the reason that such certification is not an
essential part of the information itself and its absence cannot vitiate it as such.
The resolution shall be forwarded to the provincial or city prosecutor depending on who is conducting
the preliminary investigation.
The resolution of the prosecutor is appealable to the Secretary of Justice- that is if the case originally
started in the Fiscal’s office.
The DOJ can reverse or modify resolution of a city or provincial prosecutor and the procedure for
review is governed not by the Rules of Court but by a department order.
If the DOJ sustains the appeal, it will reverse the resolution of the prosecutor. If it has already been
filed, the fiscal is ordered to file a motion to dismiss the case in court and his argument is that there is no
probable cause according to the DOJ.
CRESPO VS. MOOGUL
The power of the fiscal is practically absolute whether to file or not to file. But once the case is filed in
court, the power now belongs to the judge and he is the one who will determine whether to proceed or not to
proceed. The control over the case is already shifted in the court. The court now has the absolute power and
once the court tell the fiscal to proceed, then the fiscal has to proceed. The absolute power of the fiscal ends
upon the filing of the case in court.
Reinvestigation = once the case is already in court and the accused would like to have his case reinvestigated,
the court must agree.
NOTE: NO DOUBLE JOEPARDY IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.
Sec. 5. Resolution of investing judge and its review. – Within 10 days after the preliminary investigation, the
investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor, or to the
Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, for appropriate action. The resolution shall state the findings of facts and the law supporting his
action, together with the record of the case which shall include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a
warrant; (b) the affidavits, counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking
or bail of the accused and the order for his release; (d) the transcripts of the proceedings during the
preliminary investigation; and (e) the order of cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal
of the complaint.
Within 30 days from receipt of the records, the provincial or city prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his
deputy, as the case may be, shall review the resolution of the investigating judge on the existence of probable
cause. Their ruling shall expressly and clearly state the facts and the law on which it is based and the parties
shall be furnished with copies thereof. They shall order the release of an accused who is detained if no
probable cause is found against him.
GR: MTC judges are also allowed to conduct preliminary investigation.
Exception: Metro Manila and chartered cities, MTCC judges do not conduct preliminary investigation-
everything is given to the state prosecutor.
09273357168
The provincial prosecutor will not again conduct another preliminary investigation. He will just review
the findings of the judge.
However if the fiscal is not satisfied with the preliminary investigation conducted by the judge, he may
conduct another preliminary investigation. He has 100% control.
If his decision is different from what the MTC judge believes, the fiscal’s decision will prevail.
And if the respondent has been arrested while the case is under preliminary investigation and detained
in jail, the provincial fiscal shall order the release of an accused who is detained if no probable cause is found
against him. His opinion shall prevail over that of the judge.
Reason: It is the fiscal who will prosecute the case. He is the one who will handle the case and not the judge.
09273357168
Rule 112
Preliminary Investigation
Sec. 6
Note:
 Refers to 6 yrs & 1 day cases.
 Prerogative of:
Prosecutor Judge
Determination of Probable cause to justify the Determination of probable cause to justify the issuance
filing of complaint or information. of search warrant or warrant of arrest.
Executive task Judicial task
Thus,
Fiscal prevails over the judge ONLY in the This prerogative of the judge may not be w/drawn from
determination of the existence of a PC to justify him or even only limited by statute or the RoC.
the filing of COM or INFO.
 “Personally examine” meaning:

- he (judge) cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor’s recommendation.
- is deemed complied w/ if records, reports & necessary doc supporting the fiscal’s bare
certification were forwarded to the judge.
- Roberts vs CA (1996) : Records of the case is voluminous; 20mins from filing thereof, the judge
issued WA. SC: There was sufficient det of PC, the judge is deemed to have personally
examined the records.
 It is NOT required that the entire records of the case during PI be submitted. Sufficient
document is enough upon w/c to make his (judge) independent judgment or verify findings of the
prosecutor of PC.
 (sec.6 [a] ):
- The judge can now require the fiscal to present evidence of PC in convincing him to issue WA.
- If fiscal refuses: Judge has power to DISMISS the case.
 (sec 6 [b] )
- does not apply to Chartered cities (only prosecutors can file the com/info).
- Provinces has 2 options w/ regards to PI:
Fiscal / Provincial Prosecutor MTC

Has the final say in the determination w/n to file the However, w/o waiting the conclusion of the
com/info. “if his (judge) findings & recommendations investigation, the judge MAY issue a WA if he
are affirmed by the prov./city prosecutor…” finds PC thereof.
No power to issue Warrants. Here, RTC will issue the Has the power to issue WA
warrant.
- Issuance of warrant by the MTC [2 STAGES]:

1. Preliminary Examination → to determine w/n to issue a WA. (DONE EX PARTE)
2. Preliminary Investigation Proper → to det, after you are arrested w/n you will be indicted
in the RTC.
- P.I. is required when the crime is punishable by 4y2m1d to 6 yrs.
 ( Sec. 6 [c] ):
- Instances when the court need not issue WA:
1. If the accused is already under detention pursuant to a WA issued by the MTC in

accordance w/ par (b) of Sec. 6 R112.
2. when the com or info is filed pursuant to Sec.7 of R112.

 accused is arrested for commiting a crme in the presence of a peace officer,
the fiscal will only conduct an INQUEST PI and there’s no need to issue WA as
the accused is already under detention.
09273357168
 Normally what the court issues is a COMMITMENT ORDER, to confirm the
detention of the accused.
3. If the accused is charged for an offense punished by fine only.
 E.g. Damage to property through reckless imprudence.

 Order to appear is sufficient.
Sec. 7
 Called: INQUEST PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION – conducted based only on the aff of the complainant,
or his wit or the police for the court to issue a commitment order.
 Related to R113 Sec.5[a] & [b] on warrantless arrest.
 GR: No need of PI bec there is deadline for the accused 2B detained (A125 RPC), otherwise guilty of
Arbitrary Detention.
EXCEPTION: accused insist on his right to P.I. BEFORE filing of com/info. BUT he must WAIVE his right
under A125 RPC, in the presence of his counsel (Sec.2 [e] of RA 7438-Law Protecting Rights of Persons
Under Custody).
 GR: RTC only entertains information filed by the prosecutor.

EXCEPTION: Sec 7 R112:
1. when the accused is arrested w/o a warrant; and
2. inquest prosecutor is absent or unavailable; the complaint may be filed by the offended party
or the peace officer directly w/ the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended
party or arresting officer / person.
 (last par): After the filing of com/info in court w/o a PI, the accused W/IN 5DAYS from
the time he learns of its filing (not extendible) MUST ask for a P.I. OTHERWISE such right is waived.
 GR: Once you post bail, you waived your rt to a P.I.

EXCEPTION: (last par of Sec 7); BUT there must be previous or simultaneous demand for PI upon
posting of bail bond; you must make a reservation.
Sec. 8
(just read the provision)
 Note: An information with mere certification is not enough (Lim,Sr. vs Felix)
Sec. 9
 Talks of:
1. cases cognizable only by MTC;
2. the penalty does not exceed 4y2m&1d – 6y;
3. should not be covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure. (Summary Procedure coverage: up
to 6mons penalty)
 Sec. 9 (a) : If filed w/ the prosecutor:
- Procedure in Sec3[a] of R112 shall be observed:

a.) no need for P.I.
b.) prosecutor simply find out based on the aff of the complainant & his wit w/n there is PC.
c.) There is no more counter-affidavits
 Sec.9 (b): If filed w/ the MTC directly:

- same procedure Sec3[a]
- <read the provision>
Special Cases:
PP VS NAVARRO 270 S 393

- Once the case reached the court, the court has the absolute power. Such as reinvestigation or
absence of PI, the judge is the one to approve.
09273357168
- HOWEVER, Judge cannot designate a particular assistant prosecutor to conduct the PI. PI is an
executive , not a judicial function. To allow him to do so is to authorize him to middle in the
executive and administrative functions of the provincial or city prosecutor.
BROCKA VS. ENRILE 192 S 83

- GR: Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or not
- Exceptions:
1. to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights f the accused;
2. when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
actions;
3. when there is a pre-judicial question w/c is sub judice;
4. when the act of the officer are q/o or in excess of authority;
5. when the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
6. when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7. 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
10. when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied.
09273357168
RULE 113
ARREST
SEC.1
PANGANDAMAN VS CASAR
F:
 50 persons ambushed the offended party;
 the victim file a case vs all the 50 ambusher
 the court issued WA vs the 50 “John Does”
H
 General warrant
 Therefore, NOT valid being unconstitutional
 WA should particularly describe the person(s) to be arrested.
 Unidentified subj will be considered as null and void
PP VS SALVATIERRA
H:
Objection involving a WA / Procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
→ must be made BEFOERE he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
SEC.2
 No violence or unnecessary injury in arresting an accused UNLESS he refuse to give up (LEGAL FORCE)
 Handcuff → only symbolic act.
SEC. 3
SEC.4
 WA is enforceable indefinitely until the same is enforced & recalled, although w/in 10d from the
delivery of the WA for execution a return thereon must be made to the issuing judge. (Malaloan vs CA)
09273357168
Warrant of Arrest (R126, S10) Search Warrant

Shall be valid for only 10d from its date. enforceable indefinitely until the same is
enforced & recalled
SEC 5
Person authorized to make Warrantless Arrest:
1. Peace officer;
2. Private person (citizen’s arrest)
Note:
 Sec 5 is also the situration in R112 S7 on INQUEST PI; when a case can be filed in court w/o PI;
PAR. A
 INFLAGRANTE DELICTO
“IN HIS PRESENCE”

→ when an officer sees the offense although at a distance; or hears the disturbance(s) created thereby and
proceeds at once to the scene of the crime. (Pp vs Evaristo)
PAR. B
 HOT PURSUIT ARREST
Note:
o crime is not committed in your presence;
 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE (W/O WARRANT)

→ does not mean you saw the crime.
→ refers not to what crime was committed BUT of FACTS indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
→ must be based upon probable cause w/c means an ACTUAL BELIEF or REASONABLE GROUND OF
SUSPICION. (Umil vs Ramos)
 REASONABLE SUSPICION
→ must be founded upon probable cause coupled w/ GF on the part of the peace officer making the
arrest. (Umil vs Ramos)
PP VS BURGOS 144 S 1
H: Doubt (warrantless arrest)→ should be resolved against the peace officer bec it is the constitutional rt
of a person not to be arrested w/o a warrant.
PP VS RAMOS (1990)
F:
- Information apprised some police of the presence of a drug pusher
- Officer gave the information marked money
- Informant turned over to them 2 sticks of marijuana
H
- Warrantless Arrest was Valid.
- Police officers had personal knowledge of facts impacting the appellant w/ the sale of
marijuana to the informant-poseur buyer.
- The consequent search w/c yielded 20 sticks of marijuana was lawful for being incident to
a valid arrest.
- The obligation 2 make an arrest by reason of a crime does not presuppose a necessary
requisite for the fulfillment thereof the indubitable existence of a crime
- Sufficient that the person in authority making the arrest has reasonable sufficient grounds
to believe the existence of an act having the characteristics of a crime and that the same
ground exist to believe that the person sought 2B detained participated therein.
09273357168
 “CRIME HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED”
NAZARENO VS STATION COMMANDER 187 S 312

F
- An accused was arrested 2wiks from the commission of the crime, upon questioning
pointed to N as one of his companion;
- In view thereof, police arrested N w/o a warrant
H:
- Valid warrantless arrest.
- Arrest was pursuant to sec5(b) R113 after he was positively implicated by his co-accused.
PP VS CENDAÑA 190 S 538
F: Accused was arrested 1 day after the killing of the victim and only on the basis of the information
obtained by the police officer.
H: Valid warantless arrest.
PP VS ALVAREZ 201 S 364

F:
- A cadaver was found
- The following day “A” was bragging about how he killed the victim.
- Father (former police) of A overheard them & went to police station and told the police;
- On the basis thereof the police w/o warrant arrested A.
H:
- Valid Warrantless arrest.
- The father of A initiated the arrest a day after the crime. Having been once a police is
equipped w/ knowledge of crime detector. His act of going 2d police sprang from a well grounded
belief that a crime has been committed.
- R113 s5 1964Crim Pro, a Warrantless Arrest can be effected by a peace officer or private
person when an offense has, in fact, been committed and said peace officer or private person has
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
PP VS BRIONES 201 S 364

F:
- F was tendering his sari2x store. 11pm, accused J & A ordered 4 bottles of beer,.30 min
after J & A left.
- 8m away from F store was the house of spouses G.
- F heard barking of dogs form G’s residence. Feeling that something untoward was taking
place, F went out.
- F saw J, A and B mauling Mrs.G, brought her inside the house.
- F informed the police of the incident, investigators went to the scene and subsequently
apprehended on separate occasions the culprits.
H:
- Arrest was unlawful.
- Police has no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed the crime. Its eyewitness F who had such personal knowledge.
- However, the unlawful arrest was cured.
- Settled rule: “Objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised b4 he enters his plea,
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.”
GO VS CA (1992)
F:
- G alighted from his car walked over and shot M inside his car.
- A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down G’s plate number.
- Showed that the car was registered to the wife of G
- Facsimile of the credit card used by G where he dined b4 the incident.
- The security guard positively identified G in a picture.
- Police launched a manhunt for G w/c was published in various national dailies.
09273357168
- G accompanied by 2 lawyers presented himself to the police to verify the news reports, the
police forthwith detained him.
H:
- Arrest was NOT valid
- G’s arrest took place 6days after the shooting.
- Arresting officers obviously were not present, w/in the meaning of s5(a) and neither the
arrest effected 6days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected “When the shooting in
fact just been committed” w/in the meaning of s5(b).
- Neither the arresting officers had any personal knowledge of facts indicating G as the
gunman. The information did not constitute “personal knowledge”.
PP VS MANDRIAGA 211 S 608

F:
- M was arrested for selling marijuana in a buy-bust operation.
- Poseur-buyer (police) asked M where he got the stuff, M pointed to O who is 7 to 10m
away where he was apprehended as the source.
- O was arrested, however at the he was not selling marijuana.
- Found in O’s wallet was the marked money
H
- Valid warrantless arrest.
- Both accused was validly effected under par a&b,s5 R113
- M was arrested in flagrante delicto.
- O falls under Par.b, the poseur-buyer in the buy bust operation had personal knowledge
that an offense the sale to him by M of the marijuana (had in fact been committed) . He had also
personal knowledge of facts indicating that O was the source of the prohibited drug by virtue of the
information given to him by M.
SANCHEZ VS DEMETRIOU (1993)

F:
- PNP commander R issued an invitation to Mayor S requesting him to appear for an
investigation.
- Confrontation was made and S was identified by 2 witnesses implicating S as principal in
slaying A and G.
- Mayor S questioned the arrest.
H:
- Warrantless arrest was not valid.
- BUT the defect was cured when the case was filed in court. RTC lawfully acquired juris over
the person of S by virtue of the warrant subsequently issued by it, belated but nonetheless legal.
- Assuming no warrant was issued at all: The RULE is that if the accused objects to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person he may move to quash the information, but only on that
ground. If like in this case the accused raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is deemed to
have waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
LARRANAGA VS CA (1998)
H:
The filing of charges & the issuance of the WA against a person invalidly detained will cure the defect
of that detention or at least deny him the right to be released bec of such defect.
PP VS MANLULU (1994)
F:
- Arrest and consequent search came 19hrs after the killing took place.
H:
- This instance CANNOT come w/in the purview of a valid warrantless arrest.
- “Personal gathering of information” is different from “personal knowledge”
- the rule requires that the arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense, not
some 19hrs later.
PP VS MONTILLA (1998)
H:
- Quantum of evidence required in PI→ is such evidence as suffice to engender a well
founded belier as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the respondent’s probable guilt
thereof.
09273357168
- to effect warrantless arrest the standard is the same (probable cause) unlike b4 prima
facie.
Prima facie Probable cause

Means evidence by itself, if unrebutted, e.g. 20% that you are probably guilty
thus can convict you.
Instances where there could be a valid warrantless arrest in addition to S5 R113:

1. Sec.13, R113:
“if a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately
pursue or retake him w/o a warrant at any time and in any place w/in the Phils.”
2. Sec. 23, Rule 114:

“For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon
written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested by
a police officer or amy other person of suitable age and discretion.”
3. Sec. 23, Rule 114;last par.:

“An accused released on bail may be re-arrested w/o the necessity of a warrant if he
attempts to depart from the Phils w/o permission of the court where the case is pending”
Sec. 6 – 10
Sec. 11
REQUISITES:
a. the arresting officer is refused admittance;
b. the arresting officer has authority to effect the arrest w/ or w/o a warrant
c. the arresting officer has announced his purpose in making the arrest
Sec. 11 – speaks of entrance whereas Sec. 12 talks of exit from the building
Sec. 14 – correlate this w/ RA 7438 “An Act defining certain rights of person arrested.”
RA 7438
Sec. 2(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 his counsel or by any national NGO duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights
of by any International NGO duly accredited by the office of the president
IMMEDIATE FAMILY shall include:

Spouse
Fiancée
Parent or child
Brother or sister
Grandparent or grandchild
Uncle or aunt
Nephew or niece
Guardian or ward
Sec. 4(b) – Any person who obstructs person or prohibits any lawyer or any member of the immediate family of
a person arrested detained or under custodial investigation or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister
chosen by him or by his counse for visiting and conferring privately with him or from examining him or from
ministering him at any hour of the day or in urgent cases shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less
than 4 years nor more than 6 years and a fine of 4 thousand pesos.
09273357168
09273357168
RULE 114
BAIL
Sec. 1– Primary purpose:
1. To combine the administration of criminal justice with the convenience of a person accused but not
yet proven.
2. To relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of burden of keeping him pending trial.
The right to bail exists and is not suspended even if there is a suspension of the privilege of he writ of habeas
corpus (Art. 3, Sec. 13, 1987 Constitution).
The right to bail has traditionally not been recognized and it is not available in the military as an exception to
the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights.
If accused is at large no right to bail because the definition of bail requires that the person is in custody of law.
In custody of law means:
1. physical or actual custody; or

2. constructive custody
PANDERANGA V. CA
The accused is already in constructive custody when his lawyer filed a petition for bail and manifest
that he was in the hospital the filing of his bail application with the court for purposes of hearing he deemed
voluntarily submitted his person to the custody of the law.
Sec. 2
Bail is effective only up to RTC level if convicted in RTC end of the life of bail if you want to appeal the bail is not
automatic either renew the bail or apply for a new one.
Par. B. – When is a person required by the court to appear?
a. arraignment
b. promulgation
3. Rule 15 Sec. 1© - his presence is ordered by the court for purposes of identification
Par. C – trial in absentia pursuant to Sec. 14, Article 3, Constitution.
Q: Can a court impose additional condition in bail?
A:
1. The additional condition is void if it makes the obligation of the bondsmen more onerous, in
violation of the Constitutional provision that no excessive bail shall be required. The Court may not impose
additional conditions because it might prevent or render it impossible for the accused to secure his liberty
during the trial.
Example: if the accused is ordered to pay a fine and the accused can’t pay the fine the bondsmen will pay.
2. The additional condition is valid if not contrary to law or public policy and it lightens the obligation of
the bondsmen. Conditions restricting liability on the bond when accepted by the court and not contrary to
public policy are valid.
Sec 3
09273357168
Important issues on bail:
1. When bail is a matter of right
2. When bail is discretionary
3. When bail is not available
Sec 4
*Whether before or after conviction by the MTC, bail is a matter of right
When is bail a matter of right?

A: 1. before conviction by the MTC, MetroTC, MCTC
2. after conviction by the MTC
3. before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, rec perpetua or life imprisonment
4. before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, rec perpetua or life imprisonment
when evidence of guilt is not strong
PP VS DONATO
RULING: If the offense charged is punishable by death, rec perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a
matter of discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. Once it is determined that the evidence
of guilt is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right.
Sec 5
*Under the New Rules, the application for bail may still be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the
filing of a notice. If the records are already in the appellate court, you better apply for bail before the CA.
*Bail is discretionary provided it will not fall under a,b,c,d, or e.
NOTE: Even if the accused jumps bail 100 times, you cannot deny him bail for as long as the crime is not
punishable by perpetua to death. The remedy is to increase bail.
Sec 6
NOTE: The crime is punishable by DEATH not only at the time of its commission but also at the time of the
application for bail.
Sec 7
Sec 8
*You present some of the witnesses or evidence, not all. After that, the court will now consider whether the
evidence of guilt is strong or not. Either way, the court will grant or deny bail.
TUCAY VS JUDGE DOMAGAS

RULING: Although the Prov. Prosecutor had interposed no objection to grant of bail to the accused,
respondent judge should nevertheless have set the petition for bail for hearing and diligently ascertained from
the prosecution whether the latter was not really contesting the bail application.
GUILLERMO VS JUDGE REYES

RULING: Whether the judge will deny or grant bail, there must be a court order; otherwise, the judge will be
administratively liable for not complying with the requirement.
AURILLO VS FRANCISCO
RULING: Affidavits will suffice only when it determines probable cause for purposes of search warrant. In
petition for bail, there must be hearing and presentation of evidence.
09273357168
AGUIRRE VS JUDGE BELMONTE

RULING: Whether to grant or deny bail, a hearing is 100% requisite. Otherwise, the order granting or denying
bail is defective.
Q: For bail to be denied, what are the REQUIREMENTS?

A; 1. the evidence of guilt is strong
2. the crime is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
3. if the accused is convicted in all probability the penalty will also be death, rec perpetua or life
imprisonment
BRAVO VS BORJA
PRINCIPLES:
1. In a petition for bail there should be no evidence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. It
should not be presented in a petition for bail.
2. However, despite the fact that it should not be presented, if it is alleged and presented there and the
prosecution did not dispute it, the court should consider it just the same
3. Even if the accused is charged with a crime punishable by death, perpetua or life imprisonment and the
evidence of guilt is strong, if the probable imposable penalty is less that perpetua, bail becomes a
matter of right.
Sec 9 - Sec 14 (please refer to the Codal)

Sec 15
RECOGNIZANCE is an obligation of record, entered into before some court or 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.
Instances when recognizance is allowed by the law or this Rules:

1. RA 6036 – offense charged is for violation of an ordinance, light felony or criminal offense the
imposable penalty does not exceed 6 months
2. R114 S16 last par –
3. R114 S24
4. PD603 – in case of a youthful offender held for physical and mental examination, trial or appeal, if he is
unable to furnish bail
Sec 16
Instances when accused is exempt from putting up bail bond because the law or this Rules says so:
1. RA 6036 – imposable penalty is 6 months or less
2. Crime is covered by the Summary Rules
3. R112 S9b
09273357168
Sec 17
Instances when MTC is entitled to entertain a petition for bail:
1. S17 par b
2. In cases not cognizable by it filed before it for purposes of preliminary investigation.
3. S35 Judiciary law – MTC may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for
bail in the absence of all the RTC judges
Sec 21
1st stage - order of confiscation or forfeiture of the bond
2nd stage – if the conditions are not met, there will be judgment against the bond
Sec 23
*valid warrantless arrest
MANOTOC VS CA
RULING: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines.
SILVERIO VS CA
RULING: The court has always the power to prevent an accused from leaving for abroad.
SANTIAGO VS GARCHITORENA
RULING: the court has the power to issue motu proprio a hold-departure order. It is an exercise of the court’s
inherent power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of
the accused.
MARCOS VS SB
RULING: Even in law which is already your field of expertise, the court are even allowed to seek the help of
other lawyers, lalo na when it comes to the field of medicine. Hence, the SB acted properly in denying the
motion for leave to travel abroad for medical treatment.
COJUANGCO VS SB
RULING: There is a need for strong and compelling reason to justify the continued restriction on Cojuangco’s
right to travel abroad. The risk of flight is diminished. All Cojuangco’s previous requests to travel abroad has
been granted and he has always returned to the Philippines and complied with the restrictions imposed on
him.
Sec 24-25 (read codal)
Section 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation.
 If you post bail you are not under estoppel to question:

1. the validity of the arrest;
2. the irregularity or absence of a preliminary investigation.
 Condition- as long as you have not yet entered your plea.
 Once you entered your plea, all the defects are considered waived.
09273357168
RULE 115
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Section 1. –The rights of the accused at the trial.- In all criminal prosecution the accused shall be entitled to
the following rights:
a. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Reason: To make the fight at least equal. In criminal cases, all the resources are directed against the
accused. It is the accused versus the People of the Philippines – the government has all the resources.
 The presumption of innocence is not an automatic or blanket exoneration. It is at best only an initial
protection. If the prosecution succeeds in refuting the presumption, it then becomes the outlook of the
accused to adduce evidence that will at least raise that inkling doubt that he is guilty. It is therefore a
disputable presumption only. ( People vs. Sequerra)
b. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
 Manifested during arraignment.

 It is not waivable because public interest is involved in this right, the public having an interest in seeing to it
that no person is unlawfully deprived of his life or liberty.
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 stipulation 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 as a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under
custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be 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 the court that he can properly protect his rights without the
assistance of counsel.
 GENERAL RULE :This right is waivable because the law says the accused may however waive his presence
during the trial.
EXCEPTION: The presence of the accused is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification.
 The waiver must be clear, intelligent and competent.

 Waiver of a right of the accused does not mean a release of the accused from his obligation under the
bond to appear in court whenever so required. The accused may waive his right but not his duty or
obligation to the court. ( Carredo vs. People)
 TRIAL IN ABSENTIA- “ 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.” It assumes that:
1. the court already acquired jurisdiction over your person;

2. you are arrested;
3. you must first be arraigned.
 DIFFERENCE:
 First Sentence, par. c = the accused is absent without justifiable cause during the particular trial date, and
so the trial may continue. But he can still appear in the next trial. He only waived his right to be present on
that date but he has not waived his right to be present on subsequent trial dates. He has not waived his
right to present evidence.
 Second Sentence, par. c = You escaped or you jumped bail. You are not only waiving your right to be
present on this date but on all subsequent dates. And therefore, there can be a judgment against you when
the prosecution rests.
 The prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possibly eventual conviction
provided that:
1. he has been arraigned;
2. he has been duly notified of the trial;
3. his failure to appear is unjustified.
09273357168
Note: all instances enumerated must be present.

 PRINCIPLE:
1. Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule upon the evidence presented
in court. That court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape from custody finally
decides to appear in court to present his evidence and cross- examine the witnesses against him.
2. The right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses is a personal right and
may be waived. In the same vein, his right to present evidence on his behalf, a right given to him for his
own benefit and protection may be waived by him. So an escape can be considered a waiver.
3. A judgment of conviction must still be based upon the evidence presented in court. Such evidence
must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
 Rule 110, Section 16 on whether the rights of the accused and the offended party are the same: “ Where
the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the
offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.”
Note: The offended party cannot intervene personally.
d. To testify as witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
direct-examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
 This is the right of the accused to testify on his own behalf. But he has no obligation to testify. Therefore, if
he refuses to testify, that should not be taken against him because of his right to remain silent.
 CONSEQUENCE - once he testifies on his own behalf, he waives the privilege against self-incrimination and
he can be cross-examined like any other witness.
e. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
 The right to self-incrimination is not only to testimonial compulsion but also to production by the accused
of incriminating documents and things. So you cannot be supoena his personal documents.
 REASON FOR THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION- the rule was established on the
ground of public policy, because if the accused were required to testify, he would be placed under the
strongest temptation to commit perjury, and of humanity, because it would prevent the extortion of
confession by duress.
 Mechanical act not covered by right against self-incrimination.
 The right to self-incrimination can be waived by the accused by taking the witness stand and testifying as a
witness or by freely answering the incriminating questions put to him.
f. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part
of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be
found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse
party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.
 The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him is waivable.
 REASON: to prevent the conviction of an accused upon mere depositions and affidavits, to preserve the
right of the accused to test the recollection of witnesses against him; and to enable the court to observe
the demeanor of the witnesses who are testifying.
 EXCEPTIONS to the right of the accused to confront and examine witnesses against him:
1. Second portion of paragraph (f)
2. All exceptions to hearsay rule are also exceptions to the right of the accused to confront witnesses.
3. When there is a separate civil action filed against the accused by the offended party and he made a
reservation. In this case the testimony recorded in the civil case is also admissible in the criminal case
when there is no more confrontation there.
 Note: The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against you do not include the right to know
their names and addresses in advance because the case of the prosecution might be endangered.
g. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other
evidence in his behalf.
09273357168
 SC: 100 km limitation does not apply when you are talking of witnesses for the defense in a criminal case
because of the constitutional right to have the compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses in his behalf. Provisions in the Rules of Court cannot preclude that right.
h. To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
 Speedy disposition of cases is a RELATIVE term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. Delays per se are
understandably attendant to all prosecutions and are constitutionally permissible with the monition that
the attendant delays must NOT BE OPPRESSIVE.
 The doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors
that may be considered and balanced are:
a. the length of delay;

b. the reasons for such delay;
c. the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
d. the prejudice caused by the delay.
 REMEDIES of an accused whose right to a speedy trial is being violated:
1. The accused should oppose the postponement and insist on trial. If the court denies the postponement
and directs the prosecution to proceed and cannot do so because he does not have the evidence, the
accused should move for dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute or insufficiency of
evidence. The dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal and there is no way for that case top be brought
back because it will amount to double jeopardy.
2. If the court grant the postponement everytime the fiscal asks for it, over the protest of the accused,
the latter’s remedy is mandamus to compel dismissal of the case.
3. In the accused is restrained of his liberty, his remedy is habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.
 IMPARTIAL TRIAL- there should be no bias. Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality
of an impartial tribunal or judge.
 RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL- for the benefit of the accused, that the public may see that he is fairly dealt
with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of the spectators may keep his triers keenly alive
to a sense of responsibility and to the importance of their functions.
i. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
 The right is purely statutory which may be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the state.
09273357168
RULE 116
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
SECTION 1. Arraignment and plea; how made.
a. The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed or
assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing
the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect
known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at the
trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.
 The accused must be arraigned before trial. That is the manifestation of the accused to be informed as to
the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
 The court has the undisputed right to call on a witness whose name does not appear in the list of the fiscal
unless the omission of said witness is intentional and tainted with bad faith. The established rule ids that
the prosecution may call unlisted witnesses to testify.
b. The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea. Both
arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the
proceedings.
 GENERAL RULE : If the case is tried without arraignment that is irregular because arraignment is
MANDATORY.
EXCEPTION: Where the lawyer of the accused also did not object the absence of the arraignment.
 There is no such thing as arraignment in a Preliminary Investigation. There is no law requiring an
arraignment during the preliminary investigation. Under Section 1, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court,
the arraignment must be conducted by the court having jurisdiction to try the case on its merits.
 There is no such thing as arraignment by proxy.
c. When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered
for him.
 Plea must not be conditional. If you that a plea of not guilty will be entered.
d. When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed
withdrawn and plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.
1. If the accused presents exculpatory evidence the plea of guilty is automatically withdrawn and the
court will order for the substitution of not guilty because when you plead guilty, you are not supposed
to present evidence to prove your innocence.
e. When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its record transmitted
to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information or
complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten(10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-
trial conference of his case shall be held w9ithin ten (10) days after arraignment.
f. The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea
bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring his presence. In case of failure
of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a plea
of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity
of the trial prosecutor alone.
 If the offended party will not appear during the arraignment, the consent of the prosecutor would be
enough.
g. Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or supreme court circular, the arraignment shall be
held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. The time of the pendency6 of a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes
justifying suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period.
09273357168
SECTION 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense
 PLEA BARGAINING- MAG-TAWARAN! Both the offended party and the prosecutor must give their consent.
 Plea Bargaining can be entertained at any stage of the trial provided the prosecution does not have
sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for the crime charged. The only basis for allowing a
plea of guilty to a lesser offense is nothing more and nothing less than the evidence already in the record.
1. GENERAL RULE : If an accused enters a plea of not guilty there would be no trial anymore. No more
presentation of evidence because the accused has already admitted the crime.
EXCEPTION: When he is charged with a capital offense.
 IMPLICATION OF A PLEA OF GUILTY – that the accused is admitting the essential elements of the crime as
charged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances. Especially now, under the new Rules
where the prosecution is mandated to allege also the aggravating circumstances. So, as a general rule,
judgment of conviction can proceed immediately.
 Even if there is a plea of guilty, certain facts alleged information are not deemed admitted:
1. Facts not alleged in the complaint or information;
2. Mere conclusions of facts;
3. The jurisdiction of the court;
4. The sufficiency of the complaint or information is not considered even if there has been a plea of guilty.
 When the accused pleads not guilty, then the issues are joined and the case is ready for trial. Your plea is
your answer.
09273357168
Sec. 3.
PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED WHEN A PERSON PLEADS GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE.
1. The Ct. shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full consequences of his plea. Court shall
ascertain whether he understood it or not.
2. Even if accused pleads guilty, the Ct. will still require prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.
3. The accused may still present evidence in his behalf.
PEOPLE VS. ALBERT

SC: The rationale behind the rule is that courts must proceed with more care where the possible punishment is
in its severest form – death – for the reason that the execution of such sentence is irrevocable.
Moreover, the requirement of taking further evidence would and the SC on appellate review in
determining the propriety of the plea.
PEOPLE VS. ALICANDO

SC: To show the voluntariness of the plea of guilt of accused and that the court’s questions demonstrate the full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea, the records must reveal information about the personality
profile of accused to serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilt.
The age, socio-economic status, and educational background of the accused must be plumbed by the
trial court.
PEOPLE VS. ESTOMACA

SC: Although there is no concrete rule as to how a trial judge may go about the proper “searching inquiry”, it
would be well for the court to inquire the accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges
against him, or to make him reenact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime, and to cause him to
explain the missing details of significance. According to one commentator: The plea of guilty can only be used
as supporting evidence for finding of culpability. Once an accused, in a charge of capital offense enters a plea of
guilty, a regular trial shall have to be conducted.
 The only effect of a plea of guilty, if at all, is to serve as an additional mitigating circumstance in case
the penalty imposable is less than that indispensable penalty and if the guilty plea is entered before he
prosecution starts to present evidence.
Sec. 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence, discretionary.
 Plea of guilty to a non-capital offense does not need the presentation of evidence in order to convict a
person, but if the court deems it so, he may ask for the reception of evidence.
PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA

When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense the court may receive evidence from the parties to
determine the penalty to be imposed. This rule is at most directory.
IN this case the records show that accused pleaded guilty and yet he was acquitted. The correct procedure,
according to the SC, is for the judge to order the withdrawal of the plea of guilty and substitute it with a plea of
not guilty. [Sec. 1 (d), Rule 116].
PEOPLE VS. CARCEDO

The improvident plea, followed by an abbreviated proceeding, with practically no role at all played by the
defense, is just too meager to accept as being the standard constitutional due process at work enough to forfeit
a human life.
It is essential that a searching inquiry is conducted after the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense,
and it must focus on:
1. The voluntariness of the plea
09273357168
2. The complete comprehension of the legal effects of the plea so that plea of guilt may be truly said as
being based on a free and informed judgment.
So indispensable is this requirement that a plea of guilt to a capital offense can be held null and void
where the trial court has inadequately discharged the duty of conducting the prescribed “searching inquiry”
Sec. 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty.
 Even if there is already a judgment of conviction, plea of guilty can still be withdrawn as long as
judgment of conviction is not yet final.
Sec. 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS. HOLGADO

Here the SC enumerated the duties of the court when accused appears before it without a lawyer. The court
must:
1. Inform the accused that it is his right to have an attorney before being arraigned.
2. Ask accused if he desires the aid of an attorney
3. If he so desires but is unable to employ one, the court must assign an attorney de officio to defend
him.
4. If accused desires to procure an attorney of his own, the court must grant him a reasonable time
therefor.
 Thus the judge has no choice but to postpone arraignment to allow accused to procure his own lawyer
or so that the court may appoint a counsel de oficio.
Sec. 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio.
Sec. 8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment.
Sec. 9. Bill of particulars.
 Sec. 9 is similar to Rule 12 on Bill of Particulars. If complaint is vague and ambiguous, the defendant can
move for a bill of particulars, in the same manner, if the allegations in the information are also vague
and ambiguous, the accused before arraignment may move for a bill of particulars.
Sec. 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution.
CINCO VS.SANDIGANBAYAN
SC: Sec. 9 (motion for bill of particulars) is only applicable when the case is already in the court for trial or
arraignment but not during the preliminary investigation before the fiscal.
 Sec. 10 deals also with a mode of discovery - production and inspection of material evidence in the
possession of the prosecution. Not only that, the accused may have access to all evidence in the
possession no only of the prosecution but also to those in the control of police and other law
investigating agencies.
 Applies only when the case is filed in court.
WEBB VS. DE LEON.

SC: Sec. 9 and 10 cannot be applied when the case is still in the fiscal’s office. A reading of the law tells us that it
applies only when the case is already in court. However during preliminary investigation, a mode of discovery
may be availed of.
09273357168
 This is the difference between the Cinco case with the Webb case. During preliminary investigation,
there can be no motion for a Bill of Particulars (Cinco case), but during preliminary investigation, modes
of discovery may be allowed (Webb case).
 Remedy of accused if he wants if he wants to see other evidence during preliminary investigation
before the fiscal and the fiscal refuses is to file a motion for the production of the record or any part
necessary in the resolution of the case or when it is to be introduced as an evidence in the case based
on Rule 12, Sec. 8 of the ROC.
Sec. 11. Suspension of arraignment.
 Sec. 11 enumerates the GROUNDS FOR SUSPENDING AN ARRAIGNMENT.
On Insanity:
Legal Effects of Insanity
a. Insanity at the time of commission of the crime but not during the arraignment.
- not a ground for suspension of arraignment.
b. Sanity at the time of commission of crime but insanity during arraignment.
- move for suspension of arraignment.
c. Insanity occurred only after arraignment.
- move for postponement of trial (accused cannot adequately defend himself).
d. Insanity occurred when he is already convicted and serving sentence.
- move for the suspension of the execution of sentence based on Art. 86, RPC.
On Prejudicial Question:
 Connect this with Rule 111, Sec. 6. What is a prejudicial question? Elements? When raised?
On Petitions for Review of Prosecutor’s Resolution.
 Can only be entertained by the DOJ if the accused has not been arraigned (DOJ Circular).
 Cannot be invoked to delay arraignment of cases anymore since the law sets a deadline that such
period of suspension shall not exceed 60 days from the filing of the petition with the DOJ.
09273357168
RULE 117
MOTION TO QUASH
Sec. 1. Time to move to quash.
Sec. 2. Form and contents. –
The motion to quash shall be

a. in writing,
b. signed by the accused or his counsel and
c. shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds.
The court shall consider no ground other that those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction
over the offense charged.
 Motion to quash (MTQ) partakes the nature of an omnibus motion because the court will consider no
ground other than those stated in the motion.
 This right cannot be waived.
 The only ground the court will consider motu propio is lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged,
even if not raised. (Ratio: jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law).
Sec. 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following
grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses
is prescribed by law;
(g)That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
(i) 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.
Review of Each Ground:
(A)
The allegations in the complaint shall be the basis to know if the information or complaints does not
constitute an offense.
LOPEZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

SC: As a general proposition, a MTQ on this ground should be resolved on the basis alone of said allegations
hypothetically admitted. However, additional facts not alleged in the information, admitted, or not denied may
be invoked in support of the MTQ.
(B)
09273357168
(C)
INSTANCES WHEN THE COURT HAS NOT JURISDICTION:
i. lack of jurisdiction to try the case because of the penalty.

ii. lack of jurisdiction to try the offense (territorial jurisdiction). [Sec. 3 (b)]
iii. lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. [Sec. 3 (c)]
(D)
The prosecutor has the authority to file the case. Hence if it were signed by somebody else, or complaint was
unsigned by victim or his parents, the accused may move to quash.
CUDIA VS. CA
SC: An infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence,
acquiescence, or even by express consent.
(E)
Form of complaint or information is provided by Rule 110. In addition, a certification by the fiscal is required
under Rule 112.
(F)
Under Rule 110, Sec. 13, a duplicitous complaint or information is not allowed. However it is waivable under for
failure to object before trial under Rule 120 Sec. 3. In such case accused may be convicted of as many offenses
as are charged and proved.
(G)
Modes of Extinguishing Criminal Liablity(Art. 89, RPC)
a. by death of convict
b. by service of sentence
c. by amnesty
d. by absolute pardon
e. by prescription of the crime
f. by prescription of the penalty
(H)
DANGUILAN-VITUG VS. CA
SC: For the alleged privilege to be a ground for quashing the information, the same should have been averted
in the information itself. Meaning, for example, when communication is privileged in nature, it should be
admitted in the information as such.
(I)
The most complicated ground. Discussed in Section 7.
Sec. 4. Amendment of complaint or information
 If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be
given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if
the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the
same defect despite the amendment.
 The important portion in this section relates to the second paragraph. Not all grounds for a motion to
quash are fatal. Some grounds are harmless and can be cured by amendments.
09273357168
 However, under par.2, despite the lapse of so many days, the prosecutor failed to file the amended
information or even if he filed the correct one but the defect still exists, the motion to quash shall be
granted.
Sec. 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash.
Sec. 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another prosecution; exception.
 Situation: If the court sustains the motion to quash, may it still be refilled?
GR: If motion to quash is sustained, it may still be filed.
EXC: 1. When liability has been extinguished.
2. Double Jeopardy.
 Situation: When I failed to file a motion to quash, then there has already been arraignment, can I file it
later?
GR: All defects are waived, no longer allowed to file a 2 nd motion to question it.
EXC: 1. Court has no jurisdiction

2. Information does not charge an offense
3. Criminal liability has already been extinguished
4. Double jeopardy
 If the court quashes the information by the reason that it was filed by someone not authorized to file,
it does not mean that the case cannot be re-filed.
IMPT! Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. - When an accused has been convicted or
acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal
of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for
any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which
necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea
was entered in the former complaint or information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and of the
offended party.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part the judgment,
he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver offense. (9a)
JEOPARDY– the peril in which a person is put when he is regularly charged with a crime before a
tribunal properly organized and competent to try him
Art. III, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution: "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act."
1st sentence: protection vs DJ OF punishment for SAME OFFENSE

2ND sentence: protection vs DJ OF punishment for SAME ACT
09273357168
IMPT. CASE! PP v. RELOVA 143 S 292 (1997)
FACTS: The accused installed an electrical connection w/o a permit. He was charged both for violation of the
RPC ( theft) and a municipal ordinance punishing the said act. He filed a M 2 quash the 2 nd info, stating that he
has already been charged for theft of electricity. The prosecution contended that the 1 st charge was under the
RPC and the 2nd was under the municipal ordinance.
ISSUE # 1: What is the reason why there are two rules in the provision on DJ?
HELD: If the 2nd provision on DJ had not been written into the Constitution, conviction or acquittal under a
municipal ordinance would never constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act under a national
statute. An offense penalized by a municipal ordinance is, by definition, different from an offense under a
statute. The two offenses would never constitute the same offense having been promulgated by different rule-
making authorities- though one be subordinate to the other- and the plea of DJ would never lie.
The2nd sentence was inserted precisely for the purpose of extending the constitutional protection
against DJ to a situation w/c would not o/w be covered by the first sentence.
ISSUE #2: Was there DJ?

HELD: The purpose of installing illegal connection is to steal electricity, w/c is also theft. In other words, it is
the same act of installing w/c is punishable. Since you are acquitted or convicted under the national law, you
cannot be prosecuted under a municipal law. You are protected by the 2 nd sentence of DJ.
note: Sec 7 – concerned w/ the 1st sentence.
MALLARI v. PP 168 S 422
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, - that "when a person is charged with an offense
and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the
accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.
The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the peril of second punishment but
against being tried for the same offense. Without the safeguard this rule establishes in favor of the accused, his
fortune, safety and peace of mind would be entirely at the mercy of the complaining witness who might repeat
his accusation as often as it is dismissed by the court and whenever he might see fit, subject to no other
limitation or restriction than his will and pleasure. The accused would never be free from the cruel and
constant menace of a never ending charge, which the malice of a complaining witness might hold indefinitely
suspended over his head.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE
BQ: REQTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY:
PP v. BOCAR 138 s 166; PANGAN v. PP 155 s 45; CUDIA v. CA Jan 16, 1998
HELD: To raise the defense of DJ, the 2 reqts MUST be present:
1. The 1st jeopardy must have been validly attached prior to the second;
2. The 1st jeopardy must be validly terminated;
3. The 2nd jeopardy must be for the same offense or for the same act as that of the first OR the 2 nd offense
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to
commit the same or a frustration thereof.
CUDIA v. CA Jan 16, 1998

HELD: In order to successfully invoke the defense of DJ, the 3 requisites (above) must be present.
In determining when the 1st jeopardy may be said to have attached, it is necessary to prove the
existence of the following:
(elements of double jeopardy)
a. Court of competent jurisdiction;

09273357168
b. Valid Complaint or information -sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;
c. Arraignment
d. Valid plea by the accused;
e. Conviction, acquittal, dismissal or termination of the case without the express consent of
the accused
As the fiscal had no authority to file the information, the dismissal of the first info would not be a
bar to petitioner’s subsequent prosecution. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a
defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.
PEOPLE v. VELASCO 340 s 207 ( Sept. 13, 2000)
HELD: The doctrine that DJ may not be invoked after trial may apply only when the Court finds that the
“criminal trial was a sham” because the prosecution representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was
denied due process. The court in Pp. v. Bocar rationalized that the “remand of the criminal case for further
hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the 1 st jeopardy, and does
not expose the accused to a 2nd jeopardy.”
3 PARTS of Section 7:
a) What are the reqts of DJ in order to attach?
b) In what instances may the accused invoke the protection of DJ?
c) Assuming that all the reqts of DJ are present, the accused is protected against from what offenses?
a) WHAT ARE THE REQTS OF DJ IN ORDER TO ATTACH?
Q: When does the first jeopardy attach?

A: It attaches when the ff REQUISITES are present:
1. the former complaint or information is valid;
2. it was filed in a court of competent jurisdiction;
3. the accused had been arraigned under said complaint/information; and
4. the accused had pleaded to the same.
Q: When is a complaint or information VALID w/in the meaning of the DJ rule?
A: The requisites are:

1. if it charged an offense;
2. if it is filed by a person or officer legally authorized to do so.
CASE: An info was filed vs X for theft. X pleaded not guilty and moved to quash on the ground that the
info does not charge any offense. The court agreed and the info was quashed. So, the fiscal corrected
the info and re-filed it. X moved to quash on the ground of DJ. Is there DJ?
A: NO, there is no DJ for the ff reasons:
1. the dismissal of the 1st info was on motion of the accused. Therefore it was a dismissal w/ his
express consent
2. the accused moved to quash the 1 st info on the ground that it did not charge an offense.
Therefore, it was not a valid information. So, the accused was never in jeopardy. Furthermore,
he is now estopped from claiming that the first info was sufficient when he already contended it
was not.
CASE: A case of homicide was filed vs Y in the MTC. Y pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction. So, the fiscal filed another info for homicide in the RTC. Is there DJ?
09273357168
A: None. The accused was never in jeopardy because the 1 st info was filed before the wrong court.
There was no danger of being convicted based on the case filed.
b) IN WHAT INSTANCES MAY THE ACCUSED INVOKE THE PROTECTION OF DJ?
Q: In what instances may the accused invoke the protection of DJ?

A: In the following:
1. when the accused had been previously convicted;
2. when the accused had been previously acquitted; and
3. when the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated w/o his express
consent.
CASE: The Fiscal filed a case against Z for homicide alleging that on a certain day Z killed B. While the
case is pending, the Fiscal filed a 2 nd info for the same homicide committed on the same day by the
accused. So, Z now faces 2 charges for the same homicide. Can Z move to quash the 2 nd info on the
ground of DJ?
A: PEOPLE v. PINEDA 219 S 1
HELD: Withal, the mere filing of two informations charging the same offense is not an appropriate
basis for the invocation of double jeopardy since the first jeopardy has not yet set in by a previous conviction,
acquittal or termination of the case without the consent of the accused
The ambiguity stirred by the imprecise observation in People vs. City Court of Manila, a 1983 case, can
now he considered modified in that a prior conviction, or acquittal, or termination of the case without the
express acquiescence of the accused is still required before the first jeopardy can be pleaded to abate a second
prosecution.
ACQUITTAL DISMISSAL
when a case is dismissed based on the merits when a case is dismissed other than the merits
Eg. demurrer to evidence, dismissal based on the
violation of the rt vs speedy trial
GR: When the accused himself files a motion to dismiss, he CANNOT invoke DJ because he himself
intended the dismissal of his case (it is w/ his express consent).
Q: Is the dismissal with the express consent of the accused?
PEOPLE v. VERGARA 221 s 960

ISSUE # 1: Is there a double jeopardy?
HELD: YES, there is DJ. Express consent has been defined as that which is directly given either viva
voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to
supply its meaning. 13 This is hardly what private respondents gave. What they did was merely to
move for reinvestigation of the case before the prosecutor. To equate this with express consent of the
accused to the dismissal of the case in the lower court is to strain the meaning of "express consent" too
far. Simply, there was no express consent of the accused when the prosecutor moved for the dismissal
of the original Informations.
The Solicitor General then claims that there can be no valid defense of double jeopardy since
one of the requisites for its valid defense, i.e., that there be a valid termination of the first jeopardy, is
unavailing.
ISSUE # 2: Should the motion to dismiss filed by the public prosecutor not have been entertained,
much less granted, since there was no notice of hearing, nor was it actually set for hearing?
Since it was the prosecuting officer who instituted the cases, and who thereafter moved for
their dismissal, a hearing on his motion to dismiss was not necessary at all. It is axiomatic that a
hearing is necessary only in cases of contentious motions. The motion filed in this case has ceased to
be contentious. Definitely, it would be to his best interest if the accused did not oppose the motion.
The private complainants, on the other hand, are precluded from questioning the discretion of the
09273357168
fiscal in moving for the dismissal of the criminal action. Hence, a hearing on the motion to dismiss
would be useless and futile.
On the other hand, the order of the court granting the motion to dismiss, notwithstanding the
absence of a notice and hearing on the motion, cannot be challenged in this petition for certiorari
which assails the dismissal of the two (2) cases on the ground of double jeopardy. Petitioners can no
longer question the dismissal of the previous cases as the order has already become final there being
no appeal therefrom.
It has been repeatedly held that once an Information is filed with the court, it acquires
jurisdiction over the case, and the consequent discretion to dismiss it. While the prosecutor retains full
control over the prosecution, he loses jurisdiction over the entire proceedings. Hence, what petitioners
should have done was to appeal the dismissal of the cases on the ground that the said motion failed to
include a notice of hearing, and should not have waited for the dismissal of the subsequent cases on
the ground of double jeopardy, and thereafter question the first dismissal, which by then had already
become final, erroneous though it may be.
The order of the court granting the motion to dismiss despite absence of a notice of hearing, or
proof of service thereof, is merely an irregularity in the proceedings. It cannot deprive a competent
court of jurisdiction over the case. The court still retains its authority to pass on the merits of the
motion.
The REMEDY OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY in such cases is either to have the order set aside or
the irregularity otherwise cured by the court which dismissed the complaint, or to appeal from the
dismissal order, and not certiorari.
Q: What is the usual reason why an order of dismissal is void?

A: The usual reason is when the prosecution was deprived of due process or when no matter what the
prosecution does, the acquittal of the accused was already pre-ordained. Thus, there is NO double
jeopardy.
PEOPLE V. MOGOL 131 s 26
HELD: Since the order of dismissal was without authority and, therefore, null and void, the proceedings
before the Municipal Court have not been lawfully terminated. Accordingly, there is no second
proceeding to speak of and no double jeopardy. A continuation of the proceedings against the accused
for serious physical injuries is in order
GORREON v. RTC OF CEBU 213 S 138
ISSUE: Is there DJ if the action will be filed again?
HELD: The erroneous dismissal order of 28 September 1990 wad then issued capriciously and
arbitrarily; it unquestionably deprived the State of a fair opportunity to present and prove its case.
Thus, its right to due process was violated. The said order is null and void and hence, cannot be
pleaded by the petitioner to bar the subsequent annulment of the dismissal order or a re-opening of
the case on the ground of double jeopardy. This is the rule obtaining in this jurisdiction. The dismissal
order of 28 September 1990 being null and void because the trial court lost its jurisdiction to issue the
same and violated the right of the prosecution to due process, it follows that Criminal Case No. CBU-
16726 continues to remain at that stage before the said order was issued. Consequently, the first
jeopardy was not terminated and no second jeopardy threatened the accused.
The Judge, Clerk of Court and the prosecution should shoulder the blame because unless
amnesia suddenly struck all of them simultaneously, it cannot be imagined that in a brief span of about
twenty-four (24) hours, they had all forgotten about the order dictated in open court cancelling the
hearing for 27 and 28 September 1990. For the prosecutor who orally moved for such cancellation and
the Judge himself who dictated the said order, no plausible explanation may be offered for such lapse.
Apparently, the latter did not read the calendar before the start of the session that day, and the branch
clerk of court who probably prepared the same one or two days earlier, did not bother to review it
anymore. And in the event that said clerk of court failed to attend the session, he or she did not read
the minutes of the case as prepared by a subordinate. Upon the other hand, the prosecutor literally
slept on his duty when he failed to immediately inform the court of the previous day's order of
09273357168
cancellation of hearing which obviously accounted for the absence of both the witness and the private
prosecutor, and kept his unusual silence in the face of the open court dictation of the order of
dismissal. This ineptitude cannot be condoned. Prosecutors should always be mindful of the heavy
burden of responsibility which they bear in prosecuting criminal cases because they represent no less
than the People of the Philippines and the State.
RULE: When the order of dismissal is null and void, you cannot plead DJ.
note: the court CANNOT control the legal effects of their orders & decisions. It is not for the court to
determine WON there is DJ. The presence or absence of DJ is determined by the presence of the reqts.
c) ASSUMING THAT ALL THE REQTS OF DJ ARE PRESENT, THE ACCUSED IS PROTECTED AGAINST FROM
WHAT OFFENSES?
Assuming that the accused has already been convicted, acquitted or the case is dismissed w/o his express
consent, and all the requisites of DJ are present, the accused CANNOT be convicted
for:
1. for the same offense;
2. for an attempt to commit the same offense; (if you are convicted or acquitted for a
consummated offense, you cannot be charged or convicted for the lesser stage)
3. for a frustration or attempt thereof; (the acquittal, conviction or dismissal of the consummated
crimes carries automatically the frustrated or attempted stage of the same crime) OR
4. for any other offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first offense
charged in the former complaint.
Being prosecuted for the same offense:
PEREZ v. CA 168 s 236
FACTS: Accused was charged w/ consented abduction. He was acquitted. The court said that it was
qualified seduction and not consented abduction. So, another complaint for seduction was filed against the
accused. The accused pleaded DJ.
ISSUE: Is there DJ?
HELD: NONE. Although they may have arisen form the same set of facts(and they are both crimes vs
chastity) they are not identical offenses as would make applicable the rule on DJ.
Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) that the offended party is a virgin, and, (2)
that she must be over twelve (12) and under eighteen (18) years of age. However, two elements differentiate
the two crimes. Consented Abduction, in addition to the two common elements, requires that: (1) the taking
away of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and, (2)
the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs. On the other hand, an information for
Qualified Seduction also requires that: (1) the crime be committed by abuse of authority, confidence or
relationship, and, (2) the offender has sexual intercourse with the woman (w/c is not required in abduction).
NIERRAS v. DACUYCUY 181 s 1
FACTS: A check bounced. 2 cases were filed: for estafa under Art 315 RPC and for BP 22.
ISSUE: Is there double jeopardy?
HELD: None. The two crimes are distinct. While the filing of the two sets of Information under the
provisions of BP 22 and under the provisions of the RPC, as amended, on estafa, may refer to identical acts
committed by petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense, because a single criminal
act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is variance or differences between the elements
of an offense in one law and another law as in the case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because what
the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in 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 of the two (2) sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy.
09273357168
Under the Constitution, however, if the same act is punished by a national law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal in one will constitute DJ.
Instances/ Cases where the crimes are NOT identical but DJ can be applied: DELITO CONTINUADO
SC: protection vs DJ may be extended to a case of a single criminal act impelled by a single criminal
intent resulting into two or more juridically identical offenses.
MALLARI v. PEOPLE 168 s 422
ENRILE v. AMIN 9/13/90
SANTIAGO v. GARCHITORENA 228 s 214
Being prosecuted for any other offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first
offense charged in the former complaint.
PP v. RELOVA supra
HELD: The law here seeks to prevent harassment of an accused person by multiple prosecution of
offenses which though different from one another are nonetheless each constituted by a common set or
overlapping sets of technical elements. Otherwise, an unlawful act or omission may give rise to several
prosecutions dependeing upon the ability of the prosecuting officer to imagine or concoct as many offenses as
can be justified by said act or omission by simply adding or subtracting essential elements.
09273357168
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE
Q: WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DJ RULE?
A; There are three exceptions under Sec 7:
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge; SUPERVENING FACT DOCTRINE / MELO DOCTRINE (Melo v.
PP, 45 P 766)
 there is NO DJ because a supervening fact arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge/graver offense developed due to the supervening fact
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only afer a
plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and
of the offended party.
Sec. 8. Provisional Dismissal.
Note: There is no DJ – the case is temporarily dismissed. So, there is a way for the case to be revived
in the future.
Q: Up to when is a case provisionally dismissed?

A: MTC cases – w/in 1 year to revive
RTC cases – w/in 2 years to revive;
After such period, the provisional dismissal becomes permanent.
Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor.
Q: What is the EFFECT if the person does NOT FILE ANY MOTION TO QUASH?
A: He is WAIVING the grounds for the m2 quash, EXCEPT:

1. lack of JN over the subject matter; (sec 3 [a])
2. the information does not charge any offense; (sec 3 [b])
3. the criminal liability has already been extinguished; (sec 3 [b])
4. double jeopardy. (sec 3 [i])
Thus, even if you did not raise it in the beginning, you can still raise it during the trial.
The rule in civil procedure is the same: “ Defenses and objections NOT RAISED in a motion to dismiss
are DEEMED WAIVED, EXCEPT:
1. lack of JN over the subject matter;
2. res adjudicata;
3. litis pendentia;
4. statute of limitations.
09273357168
RULE 118
PRE-TRIAL
Sec. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. –
note: Pre-trial conference is now MANDATORY in all criminal cases cognizable by the SB, RTC, MTCs
after arraignment and w/in 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
The pre-trial conference shall consider the following:

(a) PLEA BARGAINING;
CF: R 116, Sec 2 – plea of a lesser offense w/ the consent of the prosecutor and the offended party
EXCEPTION: plea bargaining is prohibited under the Dangerous Drugs Act (Sec 20-A)- when you are
charged w/ the violation of the DDA and the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
(b) STIPULATION OF FACTS;
(c) MARKING FOR IDENTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES;
(d) WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE;
(e) MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF TRIAL IF THE ACCUSED ADMITS THE CHARGE BUT
INTERPOSES A LAWFUL DEFENSE; and
note: this is trial in reverse. CF R 119, Sec 11 (e)
(f) SUCH MATTERS AS WILL PROMOTE A FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF THE CRIMINAL AND
CIVIL ASPECTS OF THE CASE.
Q: Can a settlement or compromise be discussed in a pre-trial of a criminal case?

A: YES but only as to the civil aspect.
Sec. 2. Pre-trial agreement.
Q: Is the reqt in Sec 2 mandatory?

A: YES.
FULE v. CA 162 s 446

HELD: If the lawyer makes an admission during the trial, the client is bound. GR: a client is bound by
the acts of his counsel who represents him.
Sec. 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial conference.
note: it is not the party, but the lawyer, who is penalized for not appearing in the pre-trial
conference and not offering an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation.
Sec. 4. Pre-trial order.
note: after the trial, the court will issue a pre-trial order where it will summarize what matter had
been agreed upon; what are the issues, the elements that had been established; facts stipulated; and
exhibits that had been marked.
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW (KPL) (Sec 399 – 422 LGC of 1991 (RA 7160)
note: brgy conciliation of criminal cases w/ a penalty of not more than 1 year – MANDATORY!
09273357168
Thus, it is one way of saying that compromise in criminal cases is now allowed. It is an instance where
an offer of a compromise in a criminal case is NOT an implied admission of guilt.
Under the KPL, you cannot file a case directly in court or w/ the fiscal’s office w/o first trying to settle
things w/ the Lupong Tagapamayapa, w/c is headed by the Brgy. Captain. If the case is not settled at
this level, that is the time when the Brgy. Captain would say, “We will bring this matter to court.”
KPL applies only to the ff. instances:

1. When the case is between natural persons; (does not apply to corporations and the like)
2. when the offended party and the accused reside in the same city or municipality ; (not necessarily
in the same brgy)
note: venue – residence of the respondent or the accused
3. when the crime is punishable by imprisonment NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR or fine NOT EXCEEDING
P5T (case is cognizable by the MTC)
 where the KPL rules apply, there must be a CERTIFICATION that you have first tried to settle matters
in the brgy.
KPL DOES NOT APPLY to the ff. cases:

1. where there is no offended party
2. in criminal cases where the accused is under police custody or detention (during inquest, w/c is
done after a valid warrantless arrest)
 the case can be filed directly in court w/o going through the conciliation process.
From Olivares & Feria’s “A Laymen’s Gude to Court Procedure, a Handbook on Lawsuits”:
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY - is the system, w/c promotes and implements the amicable
settlement of disputes at the brgy level before resorting to filing cases in court or in any other govt office. (PD
1508 as repealed by Sec 399 – 422 of RA 7160, or the LGC of 1991)
Only individuals actually residing in the same brgy, city, or municipality can ba parties to the proceedings.
Corporations, partnerships, and other juridical entities are not covered by RA 7160.
Each brgy constitutes a body known as the Lupong Tagapamayapa (Lupon) w/c administers the conciliation or
arbitration process. A Lupon is composed of 10-20 members chosen from the community and is headed by
the Brgy Captain. Disputes brought before the Lupon are resolved by a condition panel known as the Pangkat
Tagapagkasundo (Pangkat) consisting of 3 members chosen by agreement between the disputing parties from
the list of the membership of the Lupon.
In all proceedings, parties appear in person w/out the assistance of counsel or representative, wit the
exception of minors and physically or mentally handicapped people who may be assisted by their next of kin
(who are not lawyers). Refusal or willful failuere to appear in compliance w/ the brgy summons may result in
barring:
f. the complainant from seeking recourse in the courts for the same cause of action; or
g. the respondent from filing any counterclaim connected therewith.
Proceedings are public and formal, EXCEPT for those cases, w/c require the exclusion of the public in
the interest of public decency or morals.
CASES NOT SUBJECT TO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AT THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY: (AC 14-93,
July 15, 1993 – Guidelines for the implementation of the KPL)
All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law and prior recourse thereto is a PRE-CONDITION before filing a complaint in court or any government
offices, EXCEPT in the following disputes:
1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of
his official functions;
09273357168
3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless
the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities, since only

individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents
(Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities,
except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1)
year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); casia
7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or
further continued, specifically the following:
a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (See Sec. 412 (b)(1),
Revised KPL);
b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over
another or a person illegally deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf;
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and
d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Secs. 46 & 47,
R.A. 6657);
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo,
et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction
over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the DOLE);
12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise, which may be filed directly in court (See
Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).
DISPUTES NOT COVERED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LUPON:

1. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, EXCEPT where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
2. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities,
UNLESS the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon;
PARTIES MAY FOREGO THE BRGY CONCILIATION PROCESS AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE COURT WHEN:
1. the accused is under police custody or detention
2. habeas corpus proceedings are called for
3. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of
personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and
4. Legal Action is barred by the Statute of Limitations (the law that bars the institution of an action
after the lapse of a prescribed period.
09273357168
RULE 119
TRIAL
Sec. 1. Time to prepare for trial.
Sec. 2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements.

Note: after the accused is arraigned, there is a mionimum of 15 days to prepare for trial, then trial
continues until terminated. The trial period shall not exceed 180 days. This is taken form the Speedy
Trial Act & SC Circular 38-98.
Sec. 3. Exclusions.
Sec. 4. Factors for granting continuance. -
Sec. 5. Time limit following an order for new trial.
Sec. 6. Extended Time Limit.
Sec. 7. Public Attorney’s duties where accused is imprisoned.
Sec. 8. Sanctions.
Sec. 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit.
Sec. 10. Law on speedy trial NOT a bar to provision on speedy trial on the Constitution.
CF: Sec 1 (h) Rule 115 – rights of the accused
Sec. 11. Order of Trial.

- same pattern as in civil cases
Q: Who presents evidence first?

A: The prosecution. Under Sec 11 par (a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge
and, in the proper case, the civil liability.
Q: What does “in the proper case” mean?

A: If the civil liability has already been reserved, then you forget the evidence of the civil liability.
Otherwise, it is deemed instituted w/ the criminal case.
Under par (b), provisional remedies are allowed in criminal cases; in the same way, if a civil action is
deemed instituted, the offended party can ask for a preliminary attachment of the property under Rule 127.
Par (e) TRIAL IN REVERSE - ex. when the accused raises self-defense, the burden of proof is
automatically shifted to the accused, but this should be included in the pre-trial as provided under R 118 sec
1(e).
Sec. 12
Sec. 13
09273357168
This is like deposition taking in civil cases. Although the term used in criminal cases is Conditional
Examination. Secs. 12 and 13 govern the conditional examination of a witness for the accused. This is an
exception to the rule that a witness has to appear in court and take the stand. His deposition constitutes an
admissible evidence.
Sec. 15
Sec. 15 governs the conditional examination of a witness for the prosecution. This is an exception to
the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine the witness against him at the trial under Rule 115.
In Sec. 13, the examination of a witness shall be taken before the judge, or, if not practicable, a
member of the Bar in good standing designated by the judge in the order. While in Sec. 15, it is before the court
where the case is pending.
Sec. 14
This is the remedy of the prosecution should a material witness refuse to testify. The court may, upon
motion, order the witness to post bail. And if he refuses to bail he will be arrested until he complies with the
order. Cf: RA 6981 “the Witness Protection Program”.
Sec. 16
There can be a joint trial of 2 or more criminal cases if they arose of the same incident. But they cannot
be filed in one information only because that will be duplicitous complaint. There must be one information for
every criminal offense, then you move for a joint trial.
In civil cases, there is such a thing as joinder of causes of action or parties where there is common
question of fact or law involving 2 or more parties. But in criminal cases that is not allowed. There is no such
thing as joinder of accused in one information.
Sec.17
Sec.18
An accused may be discharged to be a state witness and once he is discharge he is now considered
acquitted. There is no way for him to be brought back again in the cases, except if he refuses to testify against
his co-accused after he is discharged. That is the only exception.
The phrase “does not appear to be the most guilty” is not the same with “he is the least guilty”. As
between the principal, accomplice and accessory – the latter two do not appear to be the most guilty, hence
qualified to be state witness bur never the principal.
PP V. OCIMAR Aug. 17 1992

When you say “he does not appear to be the most guilty”, you do not apply the rule on conspiracy that
the act of one is the act of all, therefore all are principal. By most guilty means the highest degree of culpability
in terms of participation in the commission of the offense and not the severity of the penalty imposed.
While all the accused may be given the same penalty but by reason of culpability, one does not appear
to be the most guilty in terms of participation in the perpetuation of the offense.
-----
Under the new Rules, there must be a hearing to determine whether there should be a discharge or
not. The trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each
proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court
denies the motion for the discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible
in evidence.
PP V. INSPECTOR JOE PRING 223 S 475

Hearing for the discharge means you have the opportunity to read what the witness will say and the
opportunity to object. With both litigants able to present their side, the lack of actual hearing was not a fatal
defect enough to undermine the court’s ability to determine whether the conditions prescribed were satisfied.
Normally, an accused is discharged before he testifies. However, in Rosales v. CA 215 S 102, the trial may
nevertheless sanction his discharge after his testimony if circumstances so warrant. The imminent risk to his life
justified the deviation from the normal course of procedure as a measure to protect him while the at the same
time ensuring his undaunted cooperation with the prosecution.
BOGO-MEDELLIN CO. V. PEDROSON 209 S 329
09273357168
Any witting or unwitting error of the prosecution in asking for the discharge of the accused and of the
trial court in granting the petition for the discharge, so long as no question jurisdiction involved, would not
deprive the accused of the acquittal under Sec. 18 of Rule 119 and of the constitutional guarantee against
double jeopardy.
It is also important to note that improper or mistaken discharge of the accused would not affect his
competency as a witness or render inadmissible his testimony.
Principle: Once the accused is discharged he is now acquitted even if there is a mistake or whether the
prosecution will use him or not. The only exception is when after he is discharged he refuses to testify against
his co-accused. -----
It is the duty of the prosecutor to file the information against ALL those who appear to be responsible.
The prosecutor has to include the accused in the information first before he can be a state witness. It is the
court that shall decide whether he will be state witness or not.
But in the case of Webb v. Del Leon (Aug 23, 1995), it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress
to enact RA 6981 vesting in the DOJ the power to determine who can qualify as a state witness in the program
and who shall be granted immunity. The prosecution of crimes appertains to the Executive Department whose
principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed.
Under Rule 119, Sec. 17, the court is given the power to discharge an accused as a state witness only
because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused is part
of the exercise of jurisdiction but it is not a recognition of an inherent judicial function.
Under RA 6981, the prosecutor is no longer allowed to include the accused state witness in the
information. However, once the accused is charged in court the consent of the court is necessary to discharge
him because the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person.
Sec. 19
Correlate this with the last paragraph of Sec. 14, Rule 110. The accused shall be discharge because of a
wrong information upon filing of the correct one. The distinction is that the substitution is effected during the
trial stage when the evidence presented shows that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense
while in Sec. 14, Rule 110 it is before the trial.
Sec. 20
Sec. 21
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO A PUBLIC TRIAL:

1. The court may, motu propio, exclude the public from the court room if the evidence to be produced
during the trial is offensive to decency or public moral;
2. On motion of the accused, the court may exclude the public.
Other exceptions based on American Jurisprudence:

1. To prevent disorder;
2. To prevent embarrassment;
3. To limit attendance to seating capacity.
Sec. 23
BERNARDO V. CA 278 S 782

The power to grant leave to the accused to file a demurrer is addressed to the sound discretion of the
court. Once prior leave is denied and the accused still files his demurrer to evidence, the court has no
discretion to allow the accused to present evidence. The recourse left to the court is to decide the case based
on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
The order of denial of prior leave to the demurrer to evidence is not appealable being interlocutory.
But the judgment of conviction itself may be appealed.
Distinguish: Demurrer in Civil Cases v. Demurrer in Criminal Cases

1. In civil cases when the demurrer Is denied, the defendant will now present his evidence to prove his
defense because the defendant does not waive his right to present evidence in the event the demurrer
is denied – In criminal cases, if the demurrer of the accused is denied he is no longer allowed to
present evidence if he had no prior leave;
09273357168
2. In civil cases, if the defendant’s demurrer is granted and the case is dismissed and the plaintiff appeals
to the appellate court and on appeal the court reverses the order of dismissal, the appellate court
render judgment immediately against the defendant – In criminal cases, if the demurrer is granted,
there is no more appeal by the prosecution because the accused has already been acquitted.
Otherwise, there will be a case of double jeopardy.
3. In civil cases, the court cannot, on its own initiative, dismiss the case after the plaintiff rests without
any demurrer by the defendant – In criminal cases, the court may dismiss the case on its own initiative
after giving the prosecution the chance to present its evidence.
Sec. 24
The judge may, motu propio or upon motion, reopen the proceedings. Reopening of trial is different
from motion for new trial. The latter is proper only after a decision has been and the same is not yet final and
executory. The only ground for reopening of trial is based on justice and equity. The law did not provide any
specific grounds.
Take not that according to Dean Iñigo, Sec. 24 should have been worded like this – “at any time before
judgment there can be reopening upon motu propio or motion”. This is because it is not proper to move for
reopening of trial when there is already a judgment of conviction. The correct motion is new trial.
09273357168
RULE 120
JUDGMENT
Sec. 1
Sec. 2
It is a strict compliance with the mandate of Secs. 1 and 2 that decisions of courts must be in writing
and they must set forth clearly and distinctly the facts on which they are based.
ALBAY V. GARCIA 162 v 665

The order of dismissal was equivalent to an acquittal but this order of dismissal must be in written in
the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him. In the instant case, it is
very clear that the order was merely dictated in open court by the trial judge.
Thus, it did not yet attain the effect of a judgment of acquittal, so that it was still within the power of
the judge to set it aside and enter another order, now in writing and duly signed by him, reinstating the case.
-----
The 2nd par. of Sec. 2 is just a repetition of Rule 111. Generally, if you are acquitted on reasonable
doubt, it will not bar the filing of a separate civil action. But if the judgment shall state the fact which the civil
liability might arise does not exist, then acquittal is already a bar to a future civil liability.
If the judgment of acquittal fails to state the fact from which the civil liability might arise does not exist
– then such acquittal is not a bar to a future civil liability. In such a case, the plaintiff must file a separate civil
action because unlike in the old Rules an accused may be held civilly liable in a criminal case where he is
acquitted.
Sec. 3
Duplicitous complaint or information is a ground for a motion to quash, but the defect is waivable if
the accused does not file a motion to quash, the trial can proceed and if he is found guilty for committing 2 or
more crimes, the Sec. 3 applies where there will be 2 or more penalties.
Sec.4
If the offence proven is included in the offense charged or if the offense proven includes the offense
charged
– Sec. 4 applies where the accused shall be convicted of that offense proved.
However, if the crime proved is totally different from the crime charged like for example the crime
charged is homicide and what is proved is robbery. The accused cannot be convicted of that crime proved –
the proper remedy is substitution under Sec 19 of Rule 119, not Sec. 14 of Rule 110 because we are now in the
trial stage.
Sec 5. When an offense includes or is included in another –
Illustration:
1. X is charged with murder and what is established is homicide. Homicide is included in murder. The
elements are identical. The only difference is that there are no qualifying circumstances in homicide. Case
will not be dismissed. Just convict the accused of the crime proven which is included in the crime charged.
2. Suppose the accused is charged with homicide and what was proven is murder. Convict him for the crime
charged. Do not dismiss the case.
3. Suppose the accused is charged with an offense totally different from the offense proved. Dismiss the
original complaint or information upon filing of a new one charging the proper offense.
4. Suppose the accused is charged with murder as principal by direct participation and it what is established is
that he is only an accessory. This is not a case of a variance between the offense charged and the offense
proved. There is here no mistake in charging the proper offense. The variance in the participation of the
accused in the commission of the crime is not covered by any specific provision. Nevertheless, in this case,
just convict the accused as an accessory because the greater responsibility includes the lesser
responsibility. Accessory is a lesser degree of participation.
5. Can a person charged for violating a special law be found guilty for a crime under the RPC? Yes, when the
crime as punished in the RPC is clearly alleged in the information notwithstanding its erroneous caption. In
09273357168
the interpretation of an information, what controls is not the designation but the description of the offense
charged.
Sec 6. Promulgation of Judgment –
Notes:
1. It is not necessary that the promulgation be made before the very same judge who rendered the
decision. A decision rendered by one branch of a court may be promulgated before another branch of the
same court precisely because it is the same court although of different branches.
2. Is a judgment penned by a judge detailed to the vacant branch of the court, but promulgated after the
permanent judge has been duly appointed to the vacancy, valid?
Pp v CFI of Quezon Branch 10
Facts: Accused was charged criminally in branch 10 presided by judge A who tried the case but retired w/o
deciding the case. Judge B, who was temporarily designated over branch 10, read the records and wrote
the decision. Judge C was later appointed to the said judge while Judge B went to his original sala. Deputy
clerk of court promulgated the decision of Judge B.
Held: Judgment is valid. Judge B did not retire. He is still in the same court although in another branch. It is
not necessary that he be the presiding judge of Branch 10 at the time his decision was promulgated since
even after the expiration of his temporary designation at Branch 10 he continued to be an incumbent of
Branch 3.
Remember: It would have been different if the judge whose decision was promulgated had, prior to its
promulgation, died, resigned, retired, been dismissed, promoted to a higher court, or appointed to another
office with inconsistent functions. Then, he would no longer be an incumbent member of a court of equal
jurisdiction, and his decisions written thereafter would be invalid.
3. In places where there is only one branch of the RTC and no other sala, the clerk of court promulgates
the decision in case of absence of the judge.
4. Suppose the accused has several cases in different places. After a trial in Davao, he was sent to Cebu
for another trial. Judgment of the case in Davao may be promulgated in Cebu. Davao court will send the
decision to the RTC Executive Judge of Cebu and let it be promulgated there in the presence of the
accused.
5. Presence of the complainant during the promulgation of judgment is not required.
6. General rule: Presence of the accused during promulgation of judgment is mandatory in criminal cases
Exceptions:
a. In case of acquittal
b. Conviction for a light offense
c. Promulgation in absentia
09273357168
7. If the accused was tried in absentia, the proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused
personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the
promulgation of the decision. If before the promulgation he escaped or jumped bail, notice to him shall be
served at his last known address. In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation
of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal
docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or through his counsel.
Sec 7. Modification of Judgment
Notes:
1. Only a judgment of conviction may be modified. It is only upon motion of the accused for as long as:
a. Judgment has not yet become final
b. Appeal has not been perfected.
2. When Judgment in a criminal case becomes final:

a. Judgment of Acquittal – immediately after promulgation
b. Judgment for conviction
i. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal (except: death penalty is imposed)
ii. Sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served (even within the period to appeal)
iii. Waiver in writing of the accused’s right to appeal
iv. Upon application for probation after conviction
Take note that in these instances, when the judgment of conviction becomes final, what the law
means is that what has become final is the criminal aspect, not the civil aspect. Hence, if the judgment
does not include the civil liability of the accused, it may still be modified. As long as the period for
appeal has not yet expired, even if the judgment has become final by service of sentence nor waiver
of appeal, the trial court may still modify its judgment as to its civil aspect.
Sec 8. Entry of Judgment –
Sec 9. Existing provisions governing suspension of sentence, probation and parole not affected by this Rule –
09273357168
RULE 121
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
Sec 1. New trial or reconsideration – At any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may,
on motion of the accused or at its own instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or
reconsideration.
Notes:
1. Effect of filing a motion for new trial – an accused waives the protection of double jeopardy. Hence, if the
motion is granted, he can be tried and convicted of the graver offense charged in the complaint or
information.
2. The PRO FORMA RULE in civil cases does not apply to criminal cases. In criminal cases, a general statement
of the grounds for new trial is sufficient. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration in criminal
cases will always interrupt the running of the period to appeal.
09273357168
Rule 122
APPEAL
Section 3
Where and How to appeal?
FROM TO Mode of Appeal
1. MTC RTC Ordinary Appeal by Notice of appeal (Rule 40)
2. MTC RTC (if still convicted) CA by Petition for Review (Rule 42)
3. RTC (pursuant to original CA Ordinary appeal by notice of appeal by Notice of
juriscdition) Appeal (Rule 41)
4. RTC (in its appellate CA Petition for Review (Rule 42)
jurisdiction)
5. RTC (if penalty is death CA (Mateo Case
penalty) Ruling)
 But SC has
the final say
6. RTC (if not death penalty, SC Ordinary Appeal (Rule 41)
reclusion perpetua or life)  Must file an appeal because it is not
automatic review
7. CA SC Appeal by Certiorari (Rule 45)
8. RTC (pure questions of law) SC Appeal by Certiorari (Rule 45)
9. Sandiganbayan SC Appeal by Certiorari (Rule 45)
 In view of the factual environment of this case, particularly that private respondents herein had already
taken an appeal to the CA to question the trial court’s judgment of conviction, the proper remedy for
petioner is simply ordinary appeal to the said tribunal. This is so because the award of moral and
exemplary damages by the trial court is inextricably linked to and necessarity dependent upon the
factual finding of basis therefore, namely, the existence of the crime of libel. (Manuel vs. Alfeche, Jr.,
259 SCRA 475)
 If the accused pleads guilty and the penalty imposed is death, it is automatically reviewed by the SC
even if there is no appeal. ( Pp. vs Enciso, 160 SCRA 728)
Section 6
Period to appeal: within 15 days from promulgation of the judgment; or

from notice of the order appealed from
 The filing of the motion for reconsideration will suspend the running of the 15-day period to appeal
until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served upon the accused.
When motion is granted: the counting of the 15-day period starts all over again from the time you receive
the second decision (Obugan vs. Pp, May 22, 1995)
When motion is denied: the 15-day period will not start all over again but the balance of the period begins
to run.
If accused is convicted he has two choices:

1. file a motion for reconsideration
2. if denied, the accused will file an appeal
 The accused can withdraw his motion for reconsideration and substitute it with a Notice of appeal
 But NOT vice versa or appeal first before Motion for reconsideration, because the moment you file your
notice of appeal, the appeal is already perfected and the court has lost jurisdiction already over the
case and can no longer change its own decision. (Pp. vs. dela Cruz, 201 SCRA 632)
Section 11
09273357168
General Rule: If there are 2 or more accused, one appealed and the others did not, the favorable judgment of
one who appealed does not favor the others who did not appeal because the decision has become final on
their part.
Exception: if the ruling in appeal applies to those who did not appeal (ex. When it was found out in the appeal
that no crime was committed)
 The above exception is applicable even if the one who did not appeal jumped bail (Pp vs.
Fernandez, 186 SCRA 830) or to the one who withdrew his appeal (Pp. vs. Rugay, 291 SCRA 692)
Paragraph b
General Rule: an appeal in criminal cases is handled by the Solicitor-General
Exception: if the appeal is only about the offended party like, if the appeal is only insofar as the civil aspect of
the case is concerned (Bernardo vs. CA, 190 SCRA 63)
Paragraph c
Effects of a perfected appeal:
1. the execution of the sentence is stayed;

2. the trial court loses jurisdiction over he case because it is now transferred to the higher court,CA
3. Once you appeal, the entire case is open for review and you are waiving your right to double jeopardy
Section 12
 An appeal may be withdrawn. The procedure is provided in this section
 Under this section, the withdrawal of appeal is not a matter of right, but a matter which lies in the
sound discretion of the court and the appellate court. After the parties in this case had been
required to file their memoranda and the memorandum of the prosecution had been filed and a
copy served on appellant, it was too late for Teodoro to move for the withdrawal of the appeal.
(Teodoro vs. CA, 258 SCRA 643)
Section 13
 The right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon the conviction of an acused by a trial court. It
continues, even during appeal, such that the duty of the court to assign a counsel de oficio persists
when an accused interposes and intent to appeal. (Pp vs. Rio, 201 SRA 702)
09273357168
Rule 123
PROCEDURE IN THE MTCs
General Rule: The procedure to be observed in the MTC, MTCC and MCTC shall be the same as in the RTC.
Exceptions: 1. where a particular provision applies only to either of said courts (ex.
Provision on bail)
2. in criminal cases governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
Criminal cases that should be tried based on the Revised Rules on Summary Rules:
 Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
 Violations of the rental law;
 V of municipal or city ordinances; and
 All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not exceed
six months imprisonment or a fine of 1.000 pesos or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties,
accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom;
 however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, said Rule shall
govern where the imposable fine does not exceed 10,000 pesos. So, if it is above 10,000 it is still MTC
but you follow the regular rules
 Where there is a joint trial of two criminal cases, one under the summary rules and the other one is
under the regular rules, we follow the regular rules.
 Even if the case is covered by the Summary Rules for as long as it is a felony under the RPC, the filing in
the fiscal’s office is sufficient to interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. (Reodica vs. CA, 292
SCRA 87)
How a case covered by the Summary Rules commenced: Section 11, Rules on Summary Procedure (Section 16
and 19 of the same rule are also important)
09273357168
RULE 124
PROCEDURE IN THE CA
Appellant – term applied to the party making the appeal

Appellee – term applied to the party in whose favor the decision is rendered
 The procedure in the CA is almost similar in civil cases. The accused will be required to file his brief
(appellant’s brief), to be followed by the appellee’s brief (prepared by the Solicitor General) with the
government, and if possible appellant’s reply brief
Section 8
 If appellant will not file his appellant’s brief, the case is dismissed except where the appellant is
represented by counsel de officio because the counsel de officio is really a court-appointed lawyer.
(Farolan vs. CA, Feb. 7, 1995)
Second paragraph
 Once the accused escaped from prison or confinement or jumped bail, he loses his standing in court
and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of he court he is deemed to have waived any
right to seek relief from the court (Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1)
 Section 8 of Rule 124 which authorizes the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant jumps bail, has
no application to cases where the death penalty has been imposed. In death penalty cases, automatic
review is mandatory. (PP vs. Esparas, 260 SCRA 539)
Section 13
Example: Accused was charged with murder but was convicted for homicide. So the penalty is temporal and
the appeal is to the CA. But when the CA reviewed the case, it finds that the crime should be murder.
What the CA should do: CA should still decide and lay down the facts and the law as if it is the SC. And then
the CA should really impose the death penalty. But it should not enter judgment. After imposing death or
perpetua, it shall forward the case to the SC.
RULE 125
PROCEDURE IN THE SC
 The procedure in the CA shall be the same in the SC

 A motion for new trial of a criminal case before the SC may be filed on the ground of newly discovered
evidence (Cuenca vs. CA, 250 SCRA 485
09273357168
RULE 126
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Sec 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.
Sec. 2
Q: Can a search warrant issued by let’s say, a Davao City court be enforced in any other place outside of Davao
City?
A: Yes, because a search warrant is merely a court process. (Malaloan vs. CA)
 When there is already a case filed in court – warrants in connection with a pending case can only be
issued by the court where the case is pending.
Sec. 3
 Only personal property may be seized
Sec. 4-5
Requisites for the issuance of a search warrant:

1. application under oath
2. affidavit in support of the application (based on personal knowledge of the affiant)
3. particularly describe the place or the person to be searched and the things to be seized
4. probable cause (facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the items, articles, or objects sought in
connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched)
People vs. Encinada
5. Issued in connection with but one offense
BURGOS VS. CHIEF OF STAFF

F: Search warrant for violation of Anti-Subversion Act (PD 885)
Q: Can you only seize from somebody objects which he owned?

A: No. There is no requirement that you can seize it only from its owner.
Q: Was the SW a general warrant?

A: Yes. There are many sections in the decree. You must allege the section violated.
OLAES VS. PEOPLE

F: Text of the warrant: “…That Olaes is in possession and custody of marijuana…”
H: Not a general warrant. There is only one section in marijuana. Even if it is not mentioned, it is
understood that it points to marijuana.
PRUDENTE VS. DAYRIT

F: For two different violations – firearms and explosives
H: Related offenses or belong to the same species as to be subsumed within the category of illegal
possession of firearms.
20th Century Fox vs. CA
F: SW was issued for Anti-piracy. Among those seized were video tapes, tv’s, recorders…
09273357168
H: These articles or appliances are generally connected with, or related to a legitimate business not
necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws. SW is too
general.
Sec. 6-8
Guidelines:
 Even if there is a SW, you cannot search the house without the presence of the owner or the occupant.
 If nobody is around, the searching officer must secure 2 witnesses
QUINTERO VS. NBI

F: One NBI searching the room and the other in another room.
H: Procedure is wrong.
Sec. 9-10
Lifetime of SW – 10 days
WA – only a directive that you will enforce it within 10 days
MUSTANG LUMBER VS. CA

H: A SW has a lifetime of 10 days. It could be served at anytime within the said period. It may be
continued under the same warrant the following day, provided it is still within the 10 day period.
Sec. 11-12
 After the search warrant has been implemented, officer must give a receipt to the owner or to the
witness
 Deliver the properties seized to the judge
 With a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
WASHINGTON DISTILLERS VS. CA

H: A SW proceeding is not a criminal action, much less a civil action. It is a special criminal process, the
order of issuance of which cannot and does not adjudicate the permanent status or character of the
seized property.
Q: Non-forum shopping certification apply to SW?

A: Yes.
Sec. 13
4. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for:
a. dangerous weapons
b. anything which may be used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense
 When the arrest is valid or lawful, automatically the search becomes lawful.
UY KHEY TENG VS. VILLAREAL

F:SW was for opium and other drugs. What they found were firearms
H: Firearms cannot be seized. SW can only issue for one offense.
Q: Is the seizure illegal?

A: No. It is valid because the crime is being committed in their presence. Since there is a valid warrantless
arrest, automatically, there is also a valid warrantless seizure.
PEOPLE VS. CENDANA

H: No valid arrest. Accused appellant was arrested one day after the killing of the victim and only on the basis
of information obtained by the police officers from unnamed sources.
PEOPLE VS. CATAN

H: When you say search of a person, it includes the immediate premises.
09273357168
PEOPLE VS. LI WAY CHUNG
F: Appellant’s dwelling is just a single-room unit.
H: Search without a warrant was valid as an incident of a lawful warrantless arrest. The search was conducted
in a confined place within appellant’s immediate control.
PEOPLE VS. GERENTE

F: Police received a report of a mauling incident, went to the hospital where the victim was brought,
proceeded to the scene of the mauling and were informed by the witness that she saw the killing and
pointed to Gerente. The latter was frisked, the police found in his coin purse marijuana.
H: Arrest was valid. Policemen have personal knowledge. Marijuana may be used as evidence. The search
conducted on Gerente’s person was made as an incident to a valid arrest.
PEOPLE VS. QUIZON

H: It is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings. Where a
search is first undertaken, then an arrest effected based on evidence produced by the search, both such
search and arrest would be unlawful, for being contrary to law.
INSTANCES OF VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH

1. incident to a valid arrest
2. Stop and Frisk
3. Search of moving vehicles
4. Evidence in plain view
5. Customs Searches
6. Consented search
7. Exigent searches or searches during emergency circumstances
Stop and Frisk Rule
POSADAS VS. CA
F: Police spotted Posadas carrying a buri bag. They noticed him to be acting suspiciously. When they
introduced themselves, he attempted to flee. They found a revolver and ammunitions inside the bag.
H: Valid. The search was effected on the basis of probable cause (Posadas acted suspiciously and attempted
to flee).
PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE

F: He was acting suspiciously (looking from side to side while holding his abdomen). When searched during
noontime, a revolver was found.
H: Inadmissible. Looking from side to side while holding his abdomen during noontime are certainly not
sinister acts.
PEOPLE VS. EVARISTO

F: There was somebody who fired a pistol. On of the two policemen saw that the guy’s side is bulging. When
searched, a gun was found.
H: The visual observation that his side is bulging along with the earlier report of gunfire, as well as the peace
officers’ professional instincts, are more than sufficient to pass the test of the Rules.
MALACAT VS. CA
H: Police had sufficient reason to stop Manalili, who had red eyes and was wobbing like a drunk … in a
popular hang out of drug addicts.
While probable cause is not required to conduct a stop and frisk, mere suspicion or hunch will not validate a
stop and frisk. A genuine reason must exist.
Two-fold Interest:
a. effective crime prevention and detection
b. pressing interest of safety and self-preservation.
09273357168
Search of Moving Vehicles
 Checkpoints has authority to stop the car and see anything without opening any compartments of it
– visual or ocular inspection only. But if the checkpoints receive a tip, then it is allowed.
PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT

H: Warrantless search was valid. The receipt of information by NARCOM, plus the suspicious failure of
Malmstedt to produce his passport – from these circumstances arose a probable cause.
PEOPLE VS. BAGISTA

F: NARCOM received a tip that a woman riding in a bus has marijuana. When the bus passed, agent
searched a woman and found marijuana in her bag.
H: Valid. As long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe
before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the
vehicle to be searched. The NARCOM officers had probable cause.
PEOPLE VS. AMINUDIN

F: NARCOM received a report that a vessel has Aminudin carrying with him marijuana. They frisked
him and found prohibited drugs in his maleta.
H: Not valid. NARCOM has enough time to secure a warrant. There are still 2 days before the vessel
will arrive.
PEOPLE VS. EXALA

H: But visual situation only and there is information to excite that something is wrong, then you can
effect a search without a warrant.
Exception: If the vehicle is stopped and extensively searched, it is because of some probable cause
which justifies a reasonable belief that either a motorist of the content of the vehicle is an instrument
in the commission of an offense. The presumption stands that they are regularly performing their
duties.
Evidence in Plain View
 When you stumble by accident across an object which is prohibited or illegal.
PEOPLE VS. MUSA

F: NARCOM team conducted by-bust. The team went inside the house, but unable to find the marked
money, 2 agents went to the kitchen and noticed a white cellophane, opened it and found marijuana
leaves.
H: Not valid. Objects inadmissible in evidence. Plain view doctrine is usually applied where a police
officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across
an incriminating object. The plastic bag was not within their plain view. The NARCOM agents had to
move from one portion of the house to another before they sighted the plastic bag.
Customs Searches
 Customs agents aboard a vessel to look for smuggled items. Then conduct warrantless searches for
the enforcement of customs laws.
Consented Search
 There is a waiver.
09273357168
PEOPLE VS. BURGOS
H: When a person remains silent, that is not consent.
VEROY VS. LAYAGUE

F: The military received a report that Veroy’s house is being used by rebels. They called Veroy through long
distance who gave consent. Guns were found in drawers.
H: Not valid. Where the permission to enter a residence was given to search for rebels, it is illegal to search the
rooms therein for firearms without a search warrant.
Searches Under Exigent/Extraordinary Circumstances
 This is a catch-all category. Among these situations are danger of physical harm to the officer or
destruction of evidence, danger to a third person, driving while intoxicates, and searches in hot
pursuit.
Sec. 14
Q: Suppose a SW is improper, where will you question the admissibility of evidence?
A: If there is already a case, in the court where the case is pending.
Q: When do you question the validity of the search?

A: All defects surrounding the arrest should be raised before the arraignment.
In illegal search, you may raise such issue even after arraignment. The waiver only applies on the illegality of
arrest.
09273357168
RULE 127
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES
Sec. 1-2
Condition: Offended party has not waived the civil liability or has not reserved.
 In civil cases, the defendant can ask for damages in case of an improper attachments made by the
plaintiff.
In criminal cases, accused can claim for damages for illegal or improper attachment.
FROM THE LECTURES OF:

Dean Hildegardo F. Iñigo
CONTRIBUTORS:
rea mylene gajo, ivy tomenlaco, emily zen chua, aileen aguaviva, lennie moreno, rea lynn ang, rina sacdalan,
grace legaste, ken rinehart sur, karren maricris cacabelos, christopher cabelin, lilibeth llagas, hazel plaza,
vanessa bello.
4 MANRESA -ADDU COLLEGE OF LAW 2004-2005

Criminal Procedure (Condensed) - Inigo

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Criminal Procedure (Condensed) - Inigo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

09273357168

LAW ON JURISDICTION ON CRIMINAL CASES

JURISDICTION in Criminal Cases

ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES:

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

JURISDICTION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS

SUPREME COURT (SC)

COURT OF APPEALS (CA)

REG’L TRIAL COURT (RTC) & MUN. TRIAL COURTS (MTC)

‫ ټ‬anything above prision correctional-RTC

RTC JURISDICTION: above 6 years, regardless of fine

MTC: P4,000.00 or less

Guidelines in determining the jurisdiction of SB (RA 8249, Feb. 5, 1997)

1. what kind of position in the government does he occupy;

SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU 207 S 627

LACSON vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 301 S 298 (1999)

CORPUZ vs. TANODBAYAN April 15, 1987

BONDOC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Nov. 9, 1990

AZARCON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

Q: From the RTC, convicted, where will you appeal?

SYSTEMS OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

3 Parties in a criminal case:

Q: How are criminal cases instituted?

COMMENCEMENT OF CRIMINAL ACTION: generally, it is already in court, once it is filed in court

Section 8 & Section 9:

Q: Must excepting clauses be alleged in a complaint or information?

AMENDMENT: (Rule 110, Sec 14)

Illustrations of Substantial Amendments:

GR: Any amendment before plea is allowed

SUBSTITUTION: (Rule 110, Sec 14)

VENUE OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: (Rule 110, Sec 15)

GR: Action is instituted and tried in the court

Local Offense Continuing Offense Delito Continuado

Case is filed where the crime was committed because:

Other Rules on Territorial Jurisdiction:

APPEARANCE OF PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (Rule 110, Sec 16)

Rights of the offended party in a criminal action:

Limitations to the offended party's right of intervention in a criminal action:

Prosecution of Civil Cases:

EXCEPTIONS: (Civil action not deemed instituted)

Reason for Consolidation:

Rule on Docket Fees:

When separate civil action is suspended: (Rule 111, Sec 2)

CAÑOS V. PERALTA (115 S 843)

Rule 111 Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently.

= AN INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION NEED NOT BE RESERVED.

CASUPANAN VS. LAROYA

NEPRON CASE 384 S 266

Sec. 4. – Effect of death on civil actions.

Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar.

Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question.

Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. –

Elements of a prejudicial question:

Rule 112 Sec. 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required.

3. File a civil action for damages under Article 27 NCC.

TEEHANKEE JR. VS. MADAYAG

Issue: What kind of amendment- formal or substantial?

Issue: Is there a need of a preliminary investigation on the new charge?

Sec. 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. –

The following may conduct preliminary investigations:

(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;

Example of “Other officers as may be authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigations.”:

TATAD VS. SANDIGANBAYAN