Crimpro 4

Page | 1
SYSTEM OF CRIMPROC:
accusatorial/adversary which contending
parties battle it out and the court renders
judgment
LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
RULES: ROC 6(1) rules are liberally
construed in order to promote their
objective of securing just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action
and proceeding.
although
the
appeal
was
erroneous,
the
appeal
involved
a
possibility of a person deprive of liberty
due to procedural lapses is great, a
relaxation of the rule is warranted.
II. When there is CHANGE OF VENUE/place

of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice
-Consti VIII 5(4);
III. Tried in a territory where: -ROC 110,
15(c)
A. The VEHICLE passed during its trip;
OR
B. The place of departure or arrival
Q: if the offense is committed in
a train, aircraft or vehicle in the
course of its trip
IV. Tried in the court:
A. where the VESSEL passed during
its voyage; OR
B. The first port of entry
Q: if the offense is committed on
board a vessel in the course of its voyage.
V. Tried where the COURT ACTUALLY SITS:

RA 8429 (2), Subido v. SDB
ELEMENTS OF CRIM CASES

1. JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY
WHERE THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED
Venue in a criminal case is an essential
element of jurisdiction. The offense should
have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients should have been taken place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (Foz jr., v.
Pp)
Q: Provided that it is cognizable in the SDB which

depends upon the nature of the offense and the
position of the accused. Provided further upon
compelling grounds.
VI. Tried in the court where:

A. The pubic officer HELD OFFICE at
the time of the commission of the
offense; OR
B. The private individual ACTUALLY
RESIDES ;
C. The
LIBELOUS
ARTICLE
IS
PRINTED AND FIRST ESTABLISH
ER: even if committed outside the territory of

the Philippines whereby an offender
I.
Where the
RPC) :
offender (Article 2 of the
i. commits any offense while

PHILIPPINE SHIP/AIR VESSEL;
on
ii. Forge
or
counterfeit
any
coin/currency
or OBLIGATIONS
AND
SECURITIES
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES;
iii. Liable with acts connected with the
INTRODUCTION
TO
THE
PHILIPPINES of those obligations
and securities mentioned above;
iv. who is a public officer and commits
an OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR FUNCTION;
v. who commits a CRIME AGAINST
NATIONAL SECURITY AND LAW OF
THE NATIONS:
(Security) treason,
(Nations) Piracy.
conspircay,
Q: if the offense is written

defamation -RPC Art. 360 as amended
2. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT

MATTER This is conferred by law and, unlike
jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be
conferred on the court by the voluntary act
or agreement of the parties
Referring to jurisdiction over the issue which is
determined by the allegations in the information
or complaint filed on court. not the evidence adduce
during trial. (Macasaet v. Pp)
IN SDB CASES: both the nature of the

offense and position occupied by the
accused must CONCUR
IN COMPLEX CRIME: jurisdiction is

imposed upon the maximum and most
serious penalty imposable.
etc;
Page 1 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
Criminal Procedure Reviewer
Page | 2
PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUING JURISDICTION:
once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that
jurisdiction continues until the court has done all
that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
1.
3.
JURISDICTION
PERSON ACCUSED
OVER
THE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF

OR PETITIONER: This is acquired by the
filing of the complaint, petition or
initiatory pleading before the court
by the plaintiff or petitioner.
JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED
acquired when accused is in custody of
the law where there is:
A. Warrant or warrantless Arrest
B. Voluntary appearance established
at arraignment
C. Filing of bail essential that the
accused submit himself to the
custody of the law
D. R: Filing of motion or affirmative
relief
ER:
affirmative
relief
expressly constituted as a special
appearance in court to question the
jurisdiction of the court. (Miranda
v.Tuliao)
i.
ii.
motion to quash the warrant

on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction
motion to quash the warrant
on the ground that the legality
of the court process is the
issue (RULE 114 sec.26)
HOW ABOUT PROVREM? (Metropolitan

Bank v. Reynaldo)
INJUNCTION will NOT lie in criminal
prosecution especially when the case is at
the
prelim
investigation
stage
or
reinvestigation
UNLESS
constitutional
rights are clearly violated.
MANDAMUS is NOT available to
control discretion. prosecution is a matter
of discretion w/n the person is probably
guilty or not. HOWEVER, when there is
grave abuse of discretion as when there is
sufficient
evidence
found
by
the
investigating but was dismissed on
Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction
and how the court acquires such
jurisdiction:
a. Jurisdiction
over
the
plaintiff
or
petitioner: This is acquired by the filing of
the
complaint,
petition
or
initiatory
pleading before the court by the plaintiff or
petitioner.
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or
respondent: This
is
acquired
by
the
voluntary appearance or submission by the
defendant or respondent to the court or by
coercive process issued by the court to him,
generally by the service of summons.
c. Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This
is conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction
over the parties, cannot be conferred on the
court by the voluntary act or agreement of
the parties.
d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case:
This is determined and conferred by the
pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or
by their agreement in a pre-trial order or
stipulation, or, at times by their implied
consent as by the failure of a party to
object to evidence on an issue not covered
by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5, Rule
10.
e. Jurisdiction over the res (or the property
or thing which is the subject of the
litigation). This is acquired by the actual or
constructive seizure by the court of the
thing in question, thus placing it in custodia
legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or
by provision of law which recognizes in the
court the power to deal with the property or
subject
matter
within
its
territorial
jurisdiction,
as
in
land
registration
proceedings or suits involving civil status or
real property in the Philippines of a nonresident defendant.
A defendant on a case cannot ask for any
relief in a court without submitting itself to its
jurisdiction, the warrant of arrest is deemed
proper.
Commission within
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
(De joya v. Marquez)
BASIC PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION

IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING:
1. JURISDICTION IS CONFERED BY
LAW
2. JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED BY
ALLEGATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION/COMPLAINT
WHEN TO QUESTION JURISDICTION:
R:
jurisdiction
issue
may
be
raised/considered motu propio by the
Page 2 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
Page | 3
court at any stage of the proceeding or
even on appeal
ER:
Raising lack of jurisdiction
does not apply when the Doctrine
of estoppel by laches applies.
(Tijam v. Sibinghanoy 22 s 29)
EER: estoppel by laches does not lie on
the state because the government is
never estopped by the error and mistake
on the part of its agents.
3. ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION
ER: when a statute changing
jurisdiction of the court ( RA 7975)
the
JURISDICTION OF MTC IN CRIM

CASES: RA. 7691 as amended by BP 129
1. Cases falling outside (a) RTC (b)
SANDIGANBAYAN
2. Criminal
Cases
Subject
To
Summary Procedure:(Section 1B of
the 1991 Summary)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Violations of TRAFFIC laws

Violations of RENTAL laws
Violation of ORDINANCE
ALL OTHER CRIMINAL OFFENSES
involving a penalty of not more than
(below) 6mos. Imprisonment, fine of
P1,000 or both
V. Offenses
involving
DAMAGE
TO
PROPERTY through criminal negligence
where imposable fines DOES NOT
exceed P10,000;
NOT COVERED: (a) if it EXCEED
P10,000 and (b) if offense charged is
related to criminal case subject to
ordinary procedure.
1. Cases not falling within any

other court or tribunal EXCEPT
those exclusive and concurrent
jurisdiction
of
the
SANDIGANBAYAN
2. Offenses
punishable
for
Imprisonment of 6 yrs. AND ABOVE
or pricion correcional
3. Jurisdiction
as
conferred
and
expressly provided by law
1. RA 9160 anti money
laundering act 2001
JURISDITION OF FAMILY COURTS IN
CRIM CASES: AM no. 99-1-13 SC
Criminal
cases
falling
within
the
jurisdiction of the FC
1. Accused involving minors within 9
to 18 yrs of age
2. Case involving minors as victim
JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN:
Section 4 of R.A. 8249 reveals that to fall
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, the following requisites
must concur: (See Lacson v. Executive
Sec)
1. The offense committed is in
VIOLATION of: (Exclusive jurisdiction)
regardless of salary grade
A.
3. Offenses
punishable
for
imprisonment
BELOW
6
yrs.
regardless of fines (BP 129, section
32 as amended by RA 7691);
4. Offense involving
damage to
properties (BP 129, section 32 as
amended by RA 7691);
5. That in case only fines are
involved, those only below P
4,000.00 but not limited to
damage on property (BP 129,
section 32 as amended by RA
7691);
JURISDITION OF RTC IN CRIM CASES:
R.A. 3019, as amended (the

Anti-Graft
and
Corrupt
Practices Act)
ACTS PUNISHABLE
1.
(a.k.a
Usurpation
of
Official
Functions)
Public
officer
who
PERSUADES,
INDUCE
or
INFLUENCE
(For
consideration or intent of personal gain REQUIRED. Pp v.
Bornales)
A. another public officer to

PERFORM an act violation of
the rules and regulations or
an offense in connection
with the latters official
function
B. allows himself to be
persuaded . . .
2. Public officer in its official
capacity INTERVENE IN ANY
CONTRACT OR TRANSACTION
BETWEEN THE GOV and ANY
OTHER PARTY (For consideration or intent of
personal gain REQUIRED.)
CONTRACT
Page 3 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
refers
to
transaction
Page | 4
10. KNOWINGLY approving or
granting any LICENSE, PERMIT,
PRIVILEGE or BENEFIT to any
person NOT QUALIFIED or its
mere rep or dummy
11.
A.
DIVULGING
confidential
information
acquired on account of official
position
to
UNAUTHORIZED
PERSON
B.
RELEASING
confidential
information in ADVANCE of its
authorize release date
involving SOME CONSIDERATION as in credit transaction.

Thus, a preliminary investigation by a fiscal is
not a contract or transaction contemplated by law.
(Soriano v. SDB)
3. Public officer in its official

capacity WHO WILL SECURE OR
OBTAIN ANY GOV PERMINT OR
LICENSE (For consideration or intent of personal
gain REQUIRED.)
4. ACCEPTING or HAVING any

member of Public officers
family EMPLOYED IN A PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE where the latter
has OFFICIAL BUSINESS:
QA: during PENDENCY OF HIS
OFFICIAL BUSINESS; or
QB: within 1 year after the
termination
of
official
business
9. A public officer who
CAUSES ANY UNDUE INJURY
TO ANY PARTY or GIVES
ANY PRIVATE PARTY ANY
UNWARRANTED
BENEFIT,
ADVANTANGES
OR
PREFERENCE
in
the
discharge
of
official
function.
Q:
acts
thru
manifest
PARTIALITY, BAD FAITH or
GROSS
INEXCUSABLE
NEGLIGENCE
9. NEGLECT or REFUSAL to
act within reasonable time
any
MATTER
PENDING
BEFORE HIM
Q1:
W/O
sufficient
justification;
Q2: For consideration or
intent of personal gain or
discrimination against other
party
7. ENTERING ON BEHALF OF
THE GOV any contract or
transaction MANIFESTLY and
GROSSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS to
the same, won offender profits
or not. (The act is malum prohibtum or the
commission of the act itself is punishable Luciano v.
Estrella)
B. R.A. 1379 (the law on illgotten wealth) over the PCGG:

civil and criminal cases filed by PCGG,
as well as incidents arising therefrom
and reviewable to the SC
Q: The PCGG must be a party to
the suit inorder that the SGBs
exclusive
jurisdiction
maybe
correctly invoked
(Holiday inn v. SGB where the PCGG is properly
impleaded on a cause of action asserted before a
court as a distinct entity, then SGB generally exercise
jurisdiction. VERIFY)
SDB jurisdiction on PCGG cases pertains to: (Uy
v. SGB)
a.
b.
Cases filed by the PCGG pursuant to its

power ( ie, recovery of ill gotten wealth)
Cases filed by those who wish to question or
challenge the PCGGs acts or order in such
case
C. CHAPTER II, SECTION 2, TITLE

VII, BOOKII RPC (art. 210.
Bribery, art. 211 Indirect bribery
and art. 212 corruption of public
officials)
8. FINANCIAL or PECUNIARY
INTEREST in any business,
contract or transaction which
the public officer INTERVENES
or TAKES PART:
QA: in his official capacity; or
QB:
is prohibited by the
Constitution
9. Public officer who is a
member of a board, panel or
group
having
PERSONAL
INTEREST IN ANY TRANSACTION
REQUIRING THEIR APPROVAL
PRESUMPTION
OF
PERSONAL INTEREST: when
a public officer approves
manifestly
unlawful,
inequitable
or
irregular
transactions
Page 4 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
RPC.
203
who
are
public
officers: any person who is a public
officer by
1. Direct provision of law;
2. Popular election;
3. Appointment by competent
authority;
4. Taking part in the PERFORMANCE
OF PUBLIC FUNCTION in the
Government
R: A public officer embraces
every public servant from the
highest to the lowest. (Maniego
v. Pp)
ER: Appointment of as a
LABORER
in
the
government is not a public
officer. (Ibid.)
EER: Nevertheless, still a public
officer
when
there
is
TEMPORARY performance of
Page | 5
II. CITY Mayor, Vice-mayor, Members of
the Sangguniang
Panglungsod, City
Treasurer, Assessor, Engineer and other
Department Heads;
public function by any person.

(Pp v. Paloma _ Pp v. Ireneo)
D.
Executive Order Nos. 1,2, 14

and 14-A, issued in 1986
(sequestration cases),
E. With
respect
to
OTHER
OFFENSE
whether
SIMPLE/COMPLEX with other
crimes (ER: crimes of rebellion and
III. Officials of the Diplomatic service

occupying positions of Consul/Higher;
IV. AFP/ Air Force Colonels, Captains and
all officers of higher rank;
V. PNP Chief Superintendent and officers
of higher rank;
VI. CITY/PROVINCIAL prosecutor and their
assistant;
coup detat)
2. The offender committing the

offenses
in
items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a PUBLIC
OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE holding any
of the positions enumerated in
paragraph a of section 4 of R.A.
8249
PUBLIC OFFICERS: Refers to all
national and local officials with
salary grade 27 and above
i. Official of the executive branch,
regional director and higher, with
Officials specially: Governors .
..
ii. Congress and its officials with
iii. Members of the judiciary
iv. Chairmen and members of the
constitutional commission
v.
Presidents,
directors
or
trustees,
or managers
of
government-owned
and
controlled
corporations
(GOCC), state universities or
educational
institutions
or
foundations.
VII.
OMB
prosecutor;
prosecutor
and
special
VIII. GOCC and STATE univ, institution or

foundation President, Director/Trustee and
manager;
IX. Other offenses/felonies committed by
Public officials in relation to their office.
(Pp v. SDB, )
A private individual assigned as
depositary of the BIR is not public official
within the jurisdiction of the SDB.
(Azarcon v. SDB, Sept. 5, 2010)
3. The offense committed

RELATION TO THE OFFICE.
is
in
ELEMENTS THEREOF:
I.
Intimately
connected
with
the
respective offices of the accused and
was perpetuated while they were in
the performance, through irregular or
improper, of their official functions
II. Accused had NO personal motive to
commit it;
III.
Accused
would
have
not
committed it had they not held their
public office and merely following
the instruction of their superior
officer.
Notwithstanding the salary grade

27,
the
law
expressly
provides
specifically includes by special
provision place therewith officials place
under the jurisdiction of the SDB . (Lacson
v. Exe) therefore even if they are
classified as Grade 26 and below, they will
still fall within the jurisdiction of SDB
provided they hold position of:
In Determining the jurisdiction

between SDB and COMELEC it should
be stressed out that It is the
NATURE OF THE OFFENSE and NOT
the personality of the offenders that
matters thus the COMELEC has
jurisdiction on all persons who in violation
or relation to election laws. (Castillejos
v, Tanodbayan)
I.
PROVINCIAL
Governor,
Vice-Gov,
Members
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan,
provincial
Treasurer,
Assessor, Engineer and other Provincial
Department Head;
R1: Any person may be charged

as
co-principal,
accomplice/
accessories under the jurisdiction
of the SDB
private
Page 5 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
When the complaint

individual either
charges the
as a co-
Page | 6
principal, accomplice or accessory of a
public officer or employee who has been
charged
with
a
crime
within
its
jurisdiction SDB will have jurisdiction.
(Azarcon v. SDB)
In sum, before the Sandiganbayan
may lawfully try a private individual under PD
1606, the following requisites must be
satisfied: (1) he must be charged with a
public officer/employee, and (2) he must
be tried jointly. (Bondoc v. SDB)
In a situation where the public officer/
employee under the SDB has already been
submitted for decision and the co-principal or
accessory which is a private individual was not
therein included, the SDB cannot be
divested from its jurisdiction even if the
law provides that they must be tried
jointly. Settled is the rule that courts should
not give a statute a meaning that would lead
to absurdities. (Ibid.)
RULE 110
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSE
RULE 110(1) Institution of criminal
actions;
How
to
interrupt
prescriptive period thereof.
(A) For Offenses requiring PI:
pursuant to Rule 112 section 1 hereof, by
R1: Generally offenses requiring PI involves penalty of
imprisonment for MORE THAN 4 yrs 2 mos. (4yrs2mos1day)
1. FILING a complaint
2.
OFFICER
Filed
through
the
PROPER
3. For PURPOSES of conducting the

required PI
(B) For all other offenses:
for offenses
involving penalty of imprisonment for 4 yrs 2 mos. OR
LESS
(a) By Filing the complaint or

information directly to the MTC or MCTC;
OR
R1: filing of the complaint in the Municipal
Court, even if it be merely for purposes
of
preliminary
examination
or
investigation,
SHOULD,
AND
DOES,
INTERRUPT THE PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION of
the criminal responsibility, even if the court
where the complaint or information is filed
cannot try the case on its merits. (See
Zaldivia, Arambulo case)
(b) Filing the complaint with the

OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR; OR
The filing of complaint to the

prosecutor
for
purposes
PI
CANNOT
INTERRUPT THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD as this
is not a judicial proceeding. The same rule
applies to summary proceeding. Act 3326
provides that it should be proceeding
instituted against the guilty party thus
referred to judicial proceeding. (Zaldivia Case)
CASES
SUBJECT
TO
SUMMARY
PROCEDURE: The MetTC, MTC and MCTC
involving cases such as but not limited to:
VI. Violations of traffic laws
VII. Violations of rental laws
VIII.
Violation of ordinance
IX. All other criminal offenses involving a
penalty of not more than (below) 6mos.
Imprisonment.
(Zaldivia Case citing SECTION 1B OF THE 1991
SUMMARY PROCEDURE)
(c)
In
MANILA
and
OTHER
CHARTERED CITIES, Filing the complaint
with the OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THEIR
CHARTER
R: Filing of the complaint interrupts the
running of the prescriptive period
ER: UNLESSS otherwise provided
by special laws
R: REASON BEHIND THE DISTINCTION:
THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT IN ORDER TO
TOLL THE RUNNING OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD
REFERS
TO
A
JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING. A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
CONTEMPLATES
AN
ADVERSARIAL
PROCEEDING.
(NO) The filing of complaint to the
prosecutor
for
purposes
PI
CANNOT
(YES) The court held that the filing of the
complaint directly to the MTC is a judicial
proceeding thus TOLL THE RUNNING OF A
PRESCRIPTION PERIOD. (Zaldivia Case)
(YES) The complaint/information filed
directly to the office of the ombudsman
TOLLS THE RUNNING OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD, thus the latter being at par with the
proper court having judicial proceeding.
(Llenes Case)
(YES)
Still
considered
a
judicial
proceeding when the complaint was filed
directly to MTC but has no jurisdiction and
immediately dismissed the case. (Arambulo
Case)
(YES) Settled is the rule that what
controls is not the designation of the
Page 6 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
Page | 7
offense the allegations contained in the
complaint or information. There is no
extinction of the offense because the filing of
original complaint [acts of lasciviousness]
although erroneous [should have been unjust
vexation] toll the running of the prescriptive
period
of
the
subsequently
amended
complaint. (Pp v. Marvilla)
RULE 110(2)
information
The
complaint
R: The complaint in RULE 110(3) refers to complaint filed in

court, thus it may be:
a.
b.
c.
or
Filed directly to the MTC by the offended party

A complaint filed to the fiscal by the offended party
and the information is filed by the former to the court
IN ADDITION, A COMPLAINT MAY BE FILED TO A FISCAL
BY ANY PERSON PRIOR TO A JUDICIAL ACTION FOR
PURPOSE OF PI. (Ebarle Case)
RULE 110(4) Information defined

ELEMENTS:
REQUISITES:
1. In writing
2. In the name of the People in the
Philippines
R1: THE DETERMINATION OF WHO TO CHARGE IS
VESTED TO THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. The law
makes it his legal duty to file charges againstwhom
evidence may show that a person is responsible for
an offense. Thus it is discretionary on his part
whether evidences justify reasonable belief
that a person committed an offense. (Socrates
Case)
3. Against all persons who appear

responsible
for
the
offense
involved
The Judge CANNOT order the fiscal to amend
information to include therein person whom he believed
also responsible. The fiscals function to administer
enforce the law prevails as he is the one investigating
case.
the
are
and
the
The principle of separation of powers dictates that the

judiciary deals with its function to interpret the law while the
executive deals with the administration and enforcement of
the law. (Alonzo v. Concepcion)
RULE 110(3) Complaint defined

ELEMENTS:
1. Sworn written statement
2. Such statement charge a person
with an offense
When the qualifying circumstances was not
stated in the information but stated in the
complaint, the complaint controls as the
accused already ascertained that he was being
charged in the complaint and therefore
complied the requirements of the law.
(Mendez Case)
3. It must be subscribed:
a. Offended party
b. Any peace officer
c. Public officer charged with
the enforcement of the law
violated
1. Accusation in writing
2. Charging a person with an offense
3. Subscribed by the prosecutor
THE RULE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN
INFORMATION TO BE UNDER OATH. The
prosecutor is charged with the special duty to
file
information
and
under
special
responsibility of his oath of office.
(Estudillo Case) Hence, there is oath of office
already
4. Filed with the court

Information filed by the fiscal WHEREAS
Complaint filed by the offended party or any
competent person
RULE 110(5) Who prosecutes

criminal
actions;
In
general;
Involving C A S A A; Involving
Defamation; Involving special laws
RULES IN THE INSTITUTION OF
CRIMINAL ACTION IN GENERAL
GR: All criminal actions shall be
prosecuted under the direction and
control of the PROSECUTOR
RATIO:
1. Reason is to prevent malicious or
prosecutions by private persons. (301s475)
unfounded
2. Absence of a public prosecutor during arraignment not

allowed. Due process requires that a public prosecutor must
be afforded an opportunity to intervene in all stages of
criminal proceedings. (Villanueva Case)
PROSECUTING OFFICER APPEARING IN BEHALF OF THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES: Public prosecutor in the
lower court Sect.1 ROC 110 WHILE the Solgen is in the
appellate court especially in:
(a) Writ of error
(b) Automatic appeal
(c) Special civil actions where the people of the Philippines is
a party. Sec. 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of
ADMINCODE
Page 7 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
Page | 8
(Salazar Case)
DUTY OF THE PROSECUTIG OFFICER: After a complaint
and information filed by the prosecutor, the latter file a
motion to dismiss because there is no probable cause, The
prosecutor is duty bound by law to proceed and
prosecute the criminal action in the best of his ability and
let the court decide the merits of the case. (Sta. Rosa
Mining Case)
ER: PRIVATE PROSECUTOR allowed

when:
1. Public prosecutor has
heavy workload or
lacking
2. Authorization
in
writing by the chief or
regional prosecutor
3. Approval of the court
PUBLIC CRIME: refers to those crimes that can be

instituted by the any person other than the offended
party as prescribed by the law. (i.e., Abduction and
seduction, also includes rape, Child abuse Act,
VAWC, Etc.,)
There is no necessity that the information be
signed by the offended party, as the complaint signed and
filed by the latter to the public prosecutor is sufficient
pursuant to this Rule of Court. In effect it is the complaint that
starts the prosecutory proceeding. (192s663)
1. IN CONCUBINAGE & ADULTERY

GR:
Only the OFFENDED SPOUSE
must file the complaint otherwise dismissed
(Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera)
ER: Instances when criminal action

cannot be instituted in adultery &
concubinage
a. if he/she does not include
the guilty parties
b. if he/she has consented to
offense or pardon the
offenders
PRESUMPTION: that official duty was regularly

performed and intervention of private prosecutor
was due to the unavailability of public prosecutor.
Failing to make timely objection is a waiver.
(Enriquez case)
WHEN
PRIVATE
PROSECUTOR
PROSECUTES UP TO THE END OF
TRIAL:
1. When there is AUTHORIZATION,
Even in the absence of the
public prosecutor; and
2. Said authority NOT revoked or
withdrawn
CRIMINAL ACTION IN GENERAL IN
MTC/MCTC
(Q:) WHERE THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT
AVAILABLE, the following may prosecute:
a. Offended Party
b. Any peace officer
c. Public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated
CRIMINAL ACTION INVOLVING C A S
AA
2. IN SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS:
AND
R2: The offended party must either be:

A. The offended party
B. The State, PROVIDED the (A)
offended party dies or becomes
incapacitated before she can file
and (B) offended party has no
known parents, grandparents or
guardian. (Public Crime by virtue of a law)
C. the offended party, even if a
minor can initiate independent
action
D. Minors Parents, Grandparents,
Guardian
successively
and
exclusively PROVIDED the former
fails to file
RELAXATION OF THE RULE: the rule is not vitiated when
the complaint was signed by the daughter of the disabled and
mentally ill victim. Otherwise the rule would be requiring the
impossible, which is absurd. (Pp v. Nicolas)
PRIVATE OFFENSES: refers to an offenses consisting of

either C A S A A including Rape and Defamation involving
allegations of C A S A A which can ONLY BE INSTITUTED BY
OFFENDED PARTY or those allowed by the rules.
A minor was raped and thereafter lost her

sanity so his father filed, thus the filing of the latter
was within the compliance of the Rules of court.
(226s527)
DE OFICIO PROSECUTION: refer to those information signed

by the public prosecutor rather than a complaint signed by
the offended party. It does not include private offense.
A victim whose a minor assisted by the aunt

is not a defect inasmuch as the minor signed it the
assistance was a superfluity. (384s375)
Page 8 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
Page | 9
R2: Criminal action of C A S A A CANNOT

be prosecuted when:
RULE
110(6)
Sufficiency
complaint or information.
a. The offended party is alive and

capacitated BUT did not file a
complaint in their own or through
their
parent,
grandparents,
guardians in case of minor
b. There express pardon by the
offended
party
or
parent,
grandparent, guardian.
CRIMINAL ACTION INVOLVING
DEFAMATION
R: criminal action for defamation shall be prosecuted
under the direction, control and even at the
instance of the PROSECUTOR (REFERRING TO LIBEL
OR SLANDER)
ER: ONLY THE OFFENDED PARTY

must file the complaint if the
defamation consists of either C A S
AA
An utterance of a grabber of another husband
in a generic sense does not directly mean an adulteress
but a flirt or temptress, it being an imputation of a vice or
condition consequently it can be filed by anyone even if not
the offended party as it is not a private offense or those that
cannot be prosecuted de oficio. (Gonzales Case)
An utterance of a grabber of another husband
in a generic sense does not directly mean an adulteress
but a flirt or temptress consequently it can be filed by
anyone even if not the offended party as it is not a private
offense or those that cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
(Gonzales Case)

CRIMINAL ACTION INVOLVING
SPECIAL LAWS
RULES PROVIDED IN SPECIAL
PREVAILS, In RA 7610 Child abuse act the
LAW
following
may file a complaint:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Offended party
Parents/guardian
Ascendant/collateral relatives within 3 rd degree
consanguinity
Officer/worker of a licensed child caring
institution
Officer/worker of DSWD
@ least 3 responsible citizens
Generally, special law specifically provides parties

who may file, moreover public crime my filed by any
competent person. Thus in Election law, does not specifically
provides who may file, hence any competent person may file.
(Agujetas Case)
of
REASON FOR THIS RULE AND ALL IN

SECTIONS RELATION HEREOF : Pursuant to due
process of law [Rights of the accused to be
informed] the accused must be enabled to
intelligently prepare for his defense for the latter is
presumed innocent until proven otherwise. (Pp v.
Arbios; Pp v. Bali-balita)
REMEDY:
1. Motion for BILL OF PARTICULARS;
2. Motion to QUASH INFORMATION on the ground
that it does not conform to prescribed form.
REQUISITE:
1.
(a) The name of the accused

(b) When committed by more than
one person, all of their names
shall be stated. Provided further in RULE
110(7)
2. Designation of the offense given by

the statute. Provided further in RULE 110(8)
The statement of the details of the
crime need not be provided in the complaint or
information for the same will be shown upon
judicial proceeding. What is required is that the
charge be set forth with particularity as will
reasonable indicate the exact offense alleged
and enable that accused to intelligently
prepare his defense. (Arbios Case)
3. Acts/commission complained of as
constituting the offense. Provided further in
RULE 110(8)
Generally, where the information
fails to provides the elements/qualification
constituting the crime, there is a presumption
from the allegations that the act was unlawful.
There is no defect when an OFFENSE WAS
GIVEN BY THE STATUE as provided therein
and the ELEMENT/S MAY BE INFERRED
FROM THE ALLEGATION. (Avecilla Case)
However, in CONSPIRACY, it must be
alleged, not just inferred in the information.
(Quitlong Case) conspired confederated
acting in conspiracy
However, in LIBEL/DEFAMATION, the
defamatory words verbatim must be set out in
the information but a defect on this regard may
be cured by presentation of evidence. Failure
to object waived the right to raise the
defect of the information. (Vasquez Case)
However, in RECIDIVISM as an
aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to
allege it in the information and to attach
certified true copies of the sentence. (Dacillo
case)
Page 9 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 10
4. Name of the offended party.
Provided
further in RULE 110(12)
5.
Approximate
date
of
commission of the offense.
the
Provided
6. The place where the offense was

committed. Provided further in RULE 110(15)
RULE 110(7) name of the accused
R1: The information must state a NAME:
a. The name and surname of the
accused
b. Any appellation or nickname which
is known.
R2: When the name of accused CANNOT
BE ASCERTAIN:
1. Accused describe under a fictitious
name
2. And accompanying statement that
true name is unknown
R3: If the NAME IS THEREAFTER
DISCLOSED OR APPEARS in some other
manner such true name shall be inserted
in the complaint/information and record.
The
belated
contention
of
erroneous
designation of the accused name is WAIVABLE. It
cannot be raised first time on appeal. (Pp v.
Cagadas)
RULE 110(8) Designation of the

offense
The complaint or information shall
1. State the designation of the offense
given by the statute
AS TO THE CRIME COMMITTED; THE
ACCUSED MUST BE CONVICTED OF THE
CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION:
thus, an accused cannot be convicted of SALE of
shabu
where
the
information
was
for
POSSESSION of shabu. Otherwise conviction is
without due process. (Pp v. Del Rosario)
The nature of accusation is determined

by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or
information. (Guiterrez Case)
THERE IS NO COMPLEX CRIME IN A
SEPARATE INFORMATION CHARGING A
DIFFERENT OFFENSE: although tried jointly
and arose out of one incident. Otherwise it
constitutes a grave violation of the right of
accused to be informed. (Pp v. Legazpi)
2.
Aver
the
acts/omissions
constituting
the
offense
(CONTROLLING)
ALLEGATIONS OF CONCLUSION OF FACT
NOT ALLOWED: it must state the specific
acts/omission complained of as constituting the
offense. The allegation did try and attempt to
rape is not sufficient and in violation of the right
of the accused to be informed. (Pp v. Dimaano)
ALLEGATIONS OF CONCLUSION OF LAW NOT
ALLOWED: Where the information charges an
alternative charge stating sexual abuse by
raping or committing acts of lasciviousness not
sufficient and in violation of the right of the
accused to be informed. (Pp v. Dela Cruz)
AS TO DATE OF COMMISSION:
R1: information is NOT defective when the
time or place is NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT
of the crime charged. In Rape case (Pp v.
Lucas)
R2: It becomes defective, when the time or
place is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of the crime
charged. In BP 22 case where the time of the
issuance of the check is an essential element
of the crime. (Alonte v. Pp)
Variance in the check control number,
the identity of the check being the first
element in BP22. (Dico v. CA)
3.
Specify
its
qualifying
and
aggravating circumstance. PURSUANT TO
THE RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO BE INFORMED (RULE 115 par. B)
Qualifying
and
Aggravating
Circumstance must be ALLEGE in the
information
so
that
the
court
will
appreciate it as prescribed by Rule 110 (8)
and (9). In this case, recidivism must be alleged
and certified true copies thereof must be
attached in the information. (Pp v. Sayaboc)
Although the designation of the

offenses was simple theft in the information,
the accused was convicted of qualified
theft. WHAT CONTROLS IS NOT THE
DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE BUT THE
DESCRIPTION THEREOF ALLEGED IN THE
INFORMATION. (Avecilla Case)
Page 10 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
REMEDY; WHEN THERE IS WAIVER

OF THE ACCUSED: Nevertheless, even
if the prosecution failed to allege the
qualifying circumstance, the accused
deemed waived it when IT WAS PROVEN
DURING
TRIAL
WITHOUT
HIS
OBJECTION. (Pp v, Orbita)
NO WAIVER; MORE THAN ONE
COUNT OF OFFENSE IS PROVEN
BUT ONLY ONE COUNT OF OFFENSE
CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION:
The 2 counts of rape, even if proven
P a g e | 11
and not objected by the accused will
not be appreciated. To do otherwise
would be contrary to public policy of the
rights of the accused to be informed.
(Pp v. Antildo)
FOR (SPECIAL LAWS) OFFENSES WHICH

HAVE NO DESIGNATION: reference
shall
be
made
to
the
section/subsection of the statute
punishing it. This usually applies to offense under
special laws. (Guiterrez Case)
RULE 110(9) Cause of accusation;

How made: refers to the narration of
the acts or omissions constituting the
offense. (ACCUSATORY PORTION OF THE INFORMATION
The
fact
of
relationship
(qualifying/aggravating circumstance) stated in
the
preamble
and
minority
(qualifying/aggravating circumstance) stated in
the accusatory paragraph does not impair the
validity
of
the
information.
THUS
THE
PARAGRAPH INSIDE THE INFORMATION IS AN
INTEGRAL PART AND SERVES AS ONE WHOLE
DOCUMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING
THE ACCUSED OF THE CHARGE ADEQUATELY AS
IN THIS CASE. (Pp v. Villanueva overturning the
decision of Pp v. Bali-Balita)
GR: Defect of the complaint or information with regard to
qualifying and aggravating circumstance of the offense may
be CURED AND WAIVABLE PROVIDED it is (1) inferred in the
allegation and (2) there is presentation of evidence in the
judicial proceeding.
ER: NOT Cured nor waived when offenses involves
either (1) Conspiracy (2) Defamation (3) recidivism
OR BODY)
R1: Not necessary to state the language

use in the statute
R2: SUFFICIENT to state in ordinary and
concise language enabling a person of
common understanding:
1. To know what offense is being
charge
2. To know its qualifying and
aggravating circumstance
3. For the Court to pronounce
judgment.
RULE 110(8) specifying the qualifying/aggravating
circumstance and (9) the accused knowledge thereof and for
the court to pronounce judgment is GIVEN RETROACTIVE
EFFECT AS IT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE ACCUSED.
Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstance must be
ALLEGE in the information so that the court will
appreciate it as prescribed by Rule 110 (8) and (9). In
this case, recidivism must be alleged and certified true copies
thereof must be attached in the information. (Pp v. Sayaboc)
EER: insofar as defamation, failure to object will cure the

defect
RULE 110(10) PLACE of commission

of the offense; How stated:
GR:
some
place
within
the
jurisdiction of the court stated
generally
and
understood
in
the
allegation that:
a. The offense was committed
within the jurisdiction of the court;
OR
b. Some of the essential
ingredients (ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME)
occurred at some place within the
jurisdiction of the court
The Information is still valid even if there is
an erroneous designation of the place in the
information, PROVIDED:
1.
2.
However, the failure to allege aggravating

circumstance in a criminal case PROVIDED it was
proven cannot be considered in a criminal case but
entitles to exemplary damages in a civil case.
(Agudez Case)
HOW TO ALLEGED CIRCUMSTANCES: Failure to specify the
nature of qualifying or aggravating circumstance cannot
impair the validity of the information. It is not necessary to
state the words aggravating/qualifying so long as the
circumstances are ACTUALLY RECITED SUFFICIENTLY AND
NARRATED IN ACCUSATORY PARAGRAPH OF THE
INFORMATION. (Pp v. Tigle)
It must be allege in the (1) caption or the
preamble and more importantly in the (2) body
or the accusatory paragraph of the
information. (Pp v. Mendoza)
3.
The specific crime charged was in fact

committed prior to the date of filing
That the filing of such information is within
the period of the statute of limitation
The facts in the information are at the place
within the jurisdiction of the court.
(People v. Lucas)
ER: it must be specific when the

particular place:
a. The essential element of the
crime charged was committed in
that place; OR
b. It is necessary for identification.
RULE 110(11) DATE
commission of the offense
Page 11 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
of
the
P a g e | 12
GR: not necessary to state the

precise date of the commission of the
offense was committed. It is sufficient to
alleged the date as near as possible to
the actual date of commission
ER: The precise date is the
material ingredient of the
offense.
R1: the complaint/information must state

the NAME:
a.
Name and
offended party
surname
of
the
In cases of bigamy, the offended party is the one

whose civil liability is rewarded, thus pursuant to RULE
110(12) in which THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DEEMED
THE OFFENDED PARTY, In addition where RPC art. 100 a
person criminally liable is civilly liable. Thus either the
first or the second spouse is the offended party. (Garcia v. CA)
b.
Any appellation or nickname

which such person has been
known.
c. Property must be described
with particularity in offense
against property and if the name of
offended party is unknown.

Lucas)
In rape cases, date of commission of the crime is not
the material ingredient of the crime. Thus the court allowed
on or about to envisage a period, months or even 2/4
years. In addition the essential element of rape cases is
the carnal knowledge without consent, thus on or about
august 1996 envisage a month so long as the offense is
alleged it is sufficient. (Pp v. Lizada; Pp v. Espinosa)
In theft case, where the date of commission was
stated as on or about period 1977 to Dec. 28 1983 which
is equivalent of more than 6 YEARS IS DEFECTIVE
INFORMATION . (Rocabarte Case)
Reason:
1.
2.
The accused cannot be deprived of the right to

be informed to the nature of the crime filed against
him
The court does not allowed unfair and
unreasonable burden towards the accused to
recall an activity for more than 6 yrs.
(Rocabarte Case)
REMEDY:
1.
2.
Accused charged with theft on trees under public forest in

which the offended party was not named [should have been
the state] being a formal defect cannot invalidate the
Information or Complaint. AS LONG AS (1) THE PROPERTY WAS
PROPERLY DESCRIBED AND (2) THE CRIMINAL ACT CHARGED
IN THE COMPLAINT/INFORMATION WAS PROPERLY IS
IDENTIFIED. (Pp v. CFI Quezon)
R2: When the offended party has NO

BETTER WAY OF IDENTIFICATION
describe under a fictitious name
R3: When the offended party is
THEREAFTER
DISCLOSED
OR
ASCERTAINED The court cause the
true
name
insert
in
the
complaint/information and the record
R4: In OFFENSE AGAINST PROPERTY
and NAME OF OFFENDED PARTY
UNKNOWN the property must be
described with particularity (see Pp v. CFI
Quezon above)
Motion for BILL OF PARTICULARS

Motion to QUASH INFORMATION on the ground that it
does not conform to prescribed form.
R5: When offended party is a JURIDICAL

PERSON it is sufficient to state:
GR: failure to make a timely objection constitutes a waiver of

the accused. (Desuyo Case)
a. Its name
b. Any name of which is known or
identified
c. No necessity to aver that it is
organized in accordance with
law
RULE 110(12)
offended party
Name
of
the
SCOPE: under this RULE the offended party is the person

against whom or against whose property, the offense was
committed. (Garcia case)
IN CASE OF FORMAL DEFECT: Mere formal defect does not
render the information or complaint invalid because it does
not prejudice any substantial rights of the accused.
RULE 110(13) Duplicity of offense;

In general; Exception thereof:
Page 12 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 13
GR:
A
complaint/information
CHARGED ONLY ONE OFFENSE
must
In one information, accused was charged

with a several and separate multiple murder and
double attempted murder. it clearly consist of
duplicity of offenses and therefore Quashable
[remedy]. HOWEVER, FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY
OBJECTION [before arraignment] CONSTITUTES A
WAIVER OF THE ACCUSED. (Pp v Nardo, see also
Dimayacyac v. CA)
g.
ER: may charge more than one

offense
when
the
(Q)
law
prescribes a single punishment
for VARIOUS OFFENSE.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME IS WITHIN THE
EXCEPTION: The crime of Special complex crime of
rape with homicide is where homicide committed
with the occasion or by reason of rape. The
former
offense
is
considered
a
qualifying
circumstance and by fiction of law merges with the
other crime becoming a special complex crime as
provided by special law. (People v. Sanchez)
RULE 110(14)
substitution
Amendment
Affirmative test to determine whether THERE

IS A FORMAL AMENDMENT is whether the
accused is NOT prejudiced by the amendment:
(applicable won before or after arraignment)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Whether the defense

under
the
original
information would be
available
after
amendment is made
Whether any evidence
of the defendant can be
equally applicable to
new information as it
is in the old one
Whether it does not
expose the accused
to charge for a higher
penalty and does not
affect the essence of
the offense.
Whether it does not
surprise or deprive
the accused of an
opportunity to meet
the new averment.
(Poblete v. Sandoval)
Whether it relates only

to
the
range
of
penalty
that
the
court might impose
in
the
event
of
conviction. (Added in
Matalam
v.
SDB,
referring
to
Pp
v.
Degamo)
Whether
it
merely
adds
specifications
and
merely
adds
precision to which is
or
something
already
contained
in
the
original information
to
eliminate
vagueness. (Added in
Matalam
v.
SDB,
referring to Poblete v.
Sandoval)
Whether it does not
charge
another
offense different or
distinct
from
that
charged in the original
one. (Added in Matalam
v. SDB, referring to
Poblete v. Sandoval)
R1: (AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT) a

complaint/information may be amended
any time in FORM or in SUBSTANCE
EVEN W/O LEAVE OF COURT BEFORE
ARRAIGNMENT. (Provided that the effects of
amendment DOES NOT FALL UNDER EXCEPTIONS BELOW)
Take note that substantial amendments referred herein is any
amendments OTHER THAN THE EXCEPTION
CASES
WHERE
THERE
IS
FORMAL
AMENDMENT BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT:
1. When it merely adds specifications and
merely adds precision to which is something
already contained in the original information.
(Poblete v. Sandoval)
2. A change from the description from
lacerated to stab is neither a substantial
amendment nor substitution. For the INJURY IS
NOT ESSENTIAL IN THE OFFENSE of murder NOR IT
DOES NOT AFFECT THE CRIME CHARGED AS AN
OFFENSE, hence there is no need for another PI or
arraignment. (Jaralba Case)
3. A change in the date of commission was
held to be an amendment in form which from
on or about August 15 1993 to in the vicinity of
1981 because it clearly refers to the date of
construction of the 46 dwelling units. Hence the
change was not referring for the unlawful
construction as penalized under PD 957 but
for the defective construction of the dwelling
where it is impossible to finish the construction in
one day. Therefore this does not prejudice the
right of the accused as this could not alter
the
nature
of
the
offense
charged.
(Panganiban v. CA)
ER: ALL AMENDMENTS HEREOF require a

(1) Motion by the prosecutor, (2)
Notice to the offended party and (3)
WITH LEAVE OF COURT, where the
amendment either: (AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF
DISCRETION)
(a) Downgrades the nature of

offense charged (upgrading it is substantial
amendment which is not allowed)
Page 13 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 14
(b) Excludes any accused from

the complaint/information
(c) SUBSTITUTION
(Galvez v. CA)
OF
2. From simple rape to statutory and qualified

rape, apparently as it exposes the accused
to a higher penalty therefore prejudicial to
him. Minority and relationship in the original
information was never stated in this case.
(Sandoval Case)
INFORMATION
3. From robbery to robbery in an uninhabited

place. It is clearly substantial as the former
refers to RPC art.209 and the latter RPC
art.302, hence there is a change in the
offense constituting a statute in effect
deprive the accused to meet the
allegation of uninhabited place and to
prepare
the
defense
thereof.
(Montenegro Case)
COURTS DUTY IN RESOLVING THE

MOTION FOR AMENDMENT: (1) State
reason of the resolution thereof (2)
Furnish copies of its orders to ALL
parties
R2: (AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION) a
complaint/information may be amended
in FORM only AFTER ARRAIGNMENT and
DURING TRIAL. (In other words, SUBSTANTIAL
REQUIREMENT OF PI: Before or After a plea,

a substantial amendment in an information
ENTITLES AN ACCUSED TO ANOTHER PI.
UNLESS, the amended information contains a
charge related to or included in the original
information. (Matalam v. SDB)
AMENDMENT IS NOT ALLOWED DURING THIS STAGE)
REQUISITE:
1. Done with WITH LEAVE OF COURT,
CASES
WHERE
THERE
IS
FORMAL
AMENDMENT AFTER ARRAIGNEMENT:
R3: THERE WILL BE SUBSTITUTION when the

complaint/information is
apparently
mistaken in charging the proper
offense BEFORE JUDGMENT.
EFFECTS:
1. In a libel case, an amendment that it was

printed and first published in Makati where
the court had earlier ruled that it has no
jurisdiction is held to be an amendment in
form, as the amendment merely adds
specification to eliminate vagueness to
the information which does not add new and
material facts. (Banal III V. Panganiban)
1.
2. When the amendment is by reason of the

rape, the victim became insane merely
raised the penalty that maybe imposed in
case of conviction and does not charge
another offense different from that
charged in the original information. (Pp v.
Degamo)
new
information
charging
the
proper offense may be filed
PROVIDED there is no Double
Jeopardy
(SUBSTITUTION
PREJUDICE
WHEN
THERE
IS
SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENT: After arraignment, the crime
charged in the original information is
amended which is prejudicial to the
accused:
1. From homicide to murder as it upgrades
the offense charged. (Buhat v. CA)
INFORMATION)
REQUISITES OF DJ (Dela Banda)

insofar as complaint/information is
concerned:
I. First
jeopardy
must
have attached prior to
the second;
II. There
is
a
valid
complaint/information;
III. It is filed in a competent
court;
IV. Accused
has
been
arraigned and pleaded
V. First
jeopardy
must
have
been
validly
terminated. i.e., As
when
the
case
is
dismissed w/o express
consent of the accused
otherwise right does not
attach
VI. Second jeopardy must
be for the (a) same
offense of for the (b)
same act.
3. GENERALLY, there is SUBSTANTIAL

amendment when the nature of the
accused participation is amended.
HOWEVER,
there
is
FORMAL
AMENDMENT in this case because his
participation [from principal to conspirator] in
the actual killing has already been alleged. His
defense/evidences under the original
information would still be available/equally
applicable after amendment is made.
(Buhat v. CA)
2. It does NOT
ACCUSED
OF
THE
2. The court shall dismiss the

original complaint/information
(therefore must be WITH LEAVE OF COURT Galvez v.
CA)
3. The court may require the

witnesses to give bail for their
appearance
Page 14 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 15
AMENDMENT
Either formal or
substantial
As to the
amendment
involved
As to the leave of
court
Can be amended
W/O leave of
court
As to necessity
of another PI
and
Arraignment
As to offense
involved
No need
SAME OFFENSE
CHARGED OR
OFFENSE which
necessarily
includes in the
original charge.
(Galvez v. CA)
SUBSTITUTION
Necessary that its
substantial
change from the
original charge
It must be done
WITH leave of
court because the
original
complaint/informat
ion
must
be
dismissed
There is
necessity
Presuppose that
new information
INVOLVES A
DIFFERENT
OFFENSE
otherwise the
accused can
invoke double
jeopardy because
he has entered his
plea.
RULE 110(15) VENUE refers to

place where the action is to be
instituted;
a.k.a
Territorial
jurisdiction: This refers to Territorial jurisdiction is
the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein
by the accused. (Macaset Case)
R1: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED IN THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION.
IF IT IS NOT DETERMINED Pp v. Panlilio, OR IF IT IS
NOT WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE TERRITORIAL JURIDICTION AS
PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES Pp v. Macasaet;Pp v. Barrameda;
Agustin v. Pamintuan, THE CASE WILL BE DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION.
When the evidence adduces by the court proved to

be shown that the offense was done somewhere else, the
latter should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
(Macaset Case)
VENUE IN GENERAL: The criminal

action shall be instituted and tried in
the court of municipality or territory
where:
REQUISITE FOR VENUE TO ATTACH:
a. The
offense
was
committed
(LOCAL OFFENSE)
b. Any
the
essential ingredients of
offense
occurred
(TRANSITORY/CONTINUING
OFFENSE)
some acts material and essential to the crime and
requisite to its consummation occurs on one
province and some in another. (Pp v. Grospe)
When an offense is violation of BP 22, the venue
or jurisdiction of offense is to determine where the
essential ingredients occurred. Consequently it could be

either (a) the place of issuance of the check (b) Knowledge on
the part of the maker/drawer on the insufficiency of funds (c)
the place of delivery to the payee, "payee" as contemplated
under the NIL. (Ibid.)
Offense under anti fencing law is not a continuing
offense and the venue must be to the property where it is
found. Fencing and robbery is separate and distinct from
each other as it does not depend towards each other the
consummation of each crime, hence it can proceed on its
own. (Pp v. De Guzman)
In a case of estafa through misappropriation,
any of its elements occurred in a place would suffice to
vest jurisdiction of the court. Thus the demand in Pasay
was recognized by the court as one of the essential
element. In this case a query on the money even if not written
was considered sufficient. (Pp v. Barrameda)
R2: an offense where one or more of the elements
occurred from one or more places to acquire proper venue
or jurisdiction is considered as transitory/continuing
offense.
ALTERNATIVE VENUE 1 when an

offense is committed in (a) TRAIN (b)
AIRCRAFT (c) OTHER PUBLIC/PRIVATE
VEHICLE in the course of its trip,
criminal action shall be instituted and
tried either in the court of:
a. The place of its departure
b.
Any
municipality/territory
where it passed during the trip
c. The place of arrival
In Panlilio case, the prosecution must determine
the place where the offense is committed in
the course of the trip, absence of which gave rise
to lack of jurisdiction.
ALTERNATIVE VENUE 2 when an

offense is committed on BOARD A
VESSEL in the course of its voyage,
criminal action shall be instituted and
tried either in the court of:
a. The First port of entry
see Calme v.
CA
b. Any municipality/territory where

it passed during the voyage
ER: Subject to generally accepted
principles of international law
ALTERNATIVE VENUE 3 Crime
committed outside the Philippines and
punishable under art.2 RPC criminal
action shall be instituted and tried
where the criminal action is filed.
Art. 2 RPC: crimes regardless of the place
of commission will be under Philippine
Page 15 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 16
offended party; and (see Rule 111, sec. 2 last
par.)
jurisdiction in the following offense

1. Offense
committed
in
Philippine ship or airship
2. Counterfeiting
of
currency,
notes and obligations issued by
the Philippines
3. Those liable in connection of
introducing
(3)
in
the
Philippines
4. Those public officer/employee
commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions
5. Commission of a crime against
national security and law of
nations.
(2) when, from the nature of the offense, the

offended parties are ENTITLED TO CIVIL
INDEMNITY, BUT (in short, opted for a
separate dependent civil action under Rule
111, sec. 1)
(a) they waive the right to institute
a civil action,
(b) expressly reserve the right to
do so or
(c) the suit has already been
instituted.
RPC, ART. 360, ALTERNATIVE VENUE FOR LIBEL

OFFENDED PARTY
ALTERNATIVE VENUES
Public officer in GENERAL (A) RTC of province or city
or
those
holding
office where the libellous article
OUTSIDE MANILA
is
printed
and
first
published
OR
(B) RTC of province or city
where
offended
party
HELD OFFICE at the time
of commission of the
offense
Public officer holding office RTC Manila
in MANILA
Private individual
(A) RTC of province or city
where the libellous article
is
printed
and
first
published; OR
(B) RTC of province or city
where
offended
party
ACTUALLY RESIDES at the
time of commission of the
(Agustin v. Pamintuan)
offense
REASON: The limitation of choice of venue is clearly intended
to minimize or limit the filing of out of town libel suits to
protect alleged offenders form hardship, inconvenience
and harassment and to protect the interest of the
public service, where offenders are public officer. (Uy Case)
In any of these instances, the private

complainants interest in the case
disappears and CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
BECOMES THE SOLE FUNCTION OF THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. (Rodriquez v. Hon.
Thelma)
When the offended party does
not initiate as the CRIMINAL and CIVIL
institution of the criminal action, STILL THE
LATTER CAN AVAIL OF RULE 110(16) by
presenting evidence damages suffered.
(Agujetas Case)
EFFECT: the offended party may

intervene
by
counsel
(private
prosecutor)
RULE 110(16) provides that a private
prosecutor may intervene in behalf of the
OFFENDED PARTY who may be a private
individual when he is damaged/injured by the
delictual acts complained of. THE OFFENDED
PARTY IS THE ONE WHO HAS THE FOLLLOWING
1.
2.
RULE 110(16) When there is

intervention of the offended party in
criminal
action
thru
private
prosecutor
APPLICABILITY:
Civil
action
for
recovery instituted in the criminal
action (ex-delictu) pursuant to RULE
111.This RULE presumes that the offended party did not
waived the civil action and so on
R: An offended party may intervene in the
prosecution of a crime. Sec. 16, CrimProc
110
ER: except in the following instances:
(APPEARANCE OF PRIVATE PROSECUTOR
PROHIBITED) Sec. 1, CrimProc 111
(1) when, from the nature of the crime and
the law defining and punishing it, NO CIVIL
LIABILITY ARISES in favor of a private
3.
The
party
must
have
the
legal
rights
A
substantial
interest in the
subject matter of
the action
That such interest
is actual NOT a
mere expectancy,
subordinate
or
consequential.
IN THIS CASE, A BENEFICIARY TO THE FUND IS

NOT AN OFFENDED PARTY
BECAUSE THEIR
RIGHTS IS MERELY INCHOATE OR INCIDENTAL.
THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO
INTERVENE.
(Ramiscal v. SDB)
The effect of desistance by the
offended party serves as a WAIVER to
pursue civil indemnity ex-delictu and all other
civil action for damages ONLY. (Amaca Case)
Appearance of a private prosecutor per
se is not an implied election that whether the
offended party instituted or not the civil aspect
in the criminal action. The determination that
it is deemed instituted is whether the
Page 16 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 17
1. Before the prosecution

starts
presenting
evidence. Take note that the
offended
party
actually
or
actively
intervene in the criminal proceeding.
(Sarmiento v. CA)
RULE 111
court held this instance as one of the

exception w/o need of reservation.
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
The court held that the

separate
civil
action
instituted
before
the
prosecution starts to present
evidence suffice even if there
has been no reservation by the
offended party.
As the judge was informed
and rendered a decision in the
criminal case not imposing
damages thereof. The purpose
of this rule requiring reservation
is to prevent the offended
party
from
recovering
damages twice for the same
act or omission. (Yakult Case)
RULE 111 (A) institution of criminal

and civil action in general; (B) in B.P.
22
RULE 111(1) Civil Action ex-delictu
deemed instituted with the criminal
action; Exception thereof:
R1: The civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense
charge (Ex-delictu) shall be DEEMED
2. Under
circumstance
affording the offended
party
reasonable
opportunity to make
the reservation.
INSTITUTED with the criminal action.

The prosecution of the civil action in
RULE 111 refers to the civil liability arising from
the crime or delict which is only civil liability
ex delictu. (Phil. Rabbit Case)
IN FACT EVEN IF RESERVED,

THE CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM
EX-DELICTU
REMAINS
IN
THE
CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION.
Consequently the offended party
my
STILL
INTERVENE
BUT
SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR in
behalf of his interest pursuant to
RULE 110(16). (Phil. Rabbit Case)
The
death
of
the
accused
necessarily calls for the dismissal of the
criminal case regardless of the institution
of the civil case with it. Consequently the
civil liability ex-delicto is also extinguished
BUT other civil liability which hinges from
other sources of obligation in art. 1157
may be prosecuted in a separate civil
action. (ABS CBN case)
Appearance of a private prosecutor per
se is not an implied election that whether the
offended party instituted or not the civil aspect
in the criminal action. The determination that
it is deemed instituted is whether the
offended
party
actually
or
actively
intervene in the criminal proceeding.
(Sarmiento v. CA)
ER: Not deemed instituted when the

offended party:
(A) waive the right to institute a civil
action
The effect of desistance by the
offended party serves as a WAIVER to
pursue civil indemnity ex-delictu and all other
civil action for damages ONLY. (Amaca Case)
(B) expressly reserve the right to

institute civil action
REQUISITE OF
RESERVATION:
(C) The civil action has already

been instituted.
R2: Payment of Docket/filing fees for
damages in the civil action deemed
instituted in a criminal action
FOR ACTUAL DAMAGE: Payments NOT
required unless the RULES expressly
provide. i.e., BP22(Rule 111, Sec. 1 [b]) , Estafa (AM No.
04-2-04) fees which is based on the amount involved
IN FACT EVEN IF RESERVED, THE
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM EX-DELICTU
REMAINS IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
Consequently the offended party my STILL
INTERVENE
BUT
SUBJECT
TO
THE
CONTROL OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR in
behalf of his interest pursuant to RULE
110(16). (Phil. Rabbit Case)
FOR MORAL, NOMINAL, TEMPERATE

& EXEMPLARY: this presupposes an institution of
criminal action when the offended party did NOT waived,
reserved or institute a separate civil action.
Page 17 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 18
(A) The amount is specified in

the complaint/information
EFFECT: Corresponding filing fee
should be paid;
the State on the criminal aspect of

the action. The second is the civil action
arising from the delict. The private
complainant is the plaintiff and the
accused is the defendant. There is a
merger of the trial of the two cases
to avoid multiplicity of suits.
(B) If the amount is NOT

specified
in
the
complaint/information.
EFFECT:
Filing
fee
therefore
constitutes
a
first
lien
on
judgment award for damages
Either the offended party or the

accused may, however, appeal the civil
aspect of the judgment despite the
acquittal of the accused. The public
prosecutor has generally no interest in
appealing the civil aspect of a decision
acquitting the accused. The acquittal
ends his work. The case is terminated
as far as he is concerned. The real
parties in interest in the civil aspect
of a decision are the offended party
and the accused.
THEREFORE THE EFFECT

OF NON-PAYMENT DOES NOT BAR
THE PROSECUTION OF THE CIVIL
ACTION. With regard to damage
whether specified or not, RULE 111(1)
provides for the procedure. (General
v. Claravall)
(Hun Hyung Park Case)

REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED:
R3: Rules on counterclaims, cross-claims

or third party complaints.
1.
Pursuant to RULE 111(1) an

accused can litigate in a separate civil
action on the same acts/omission being
accused of in the criminal case. The court
allowed it for the following reasons:
Apparently after acquittal, the court

cannot award a counterclaim in his favour as
the court trying the criminal case is
limited in determining the guilt of the
accused, and if proper civil liability exdelictu only. (Maccay v. Nobela)
1.
Accused
CANNOT
abovementioned
pleading
criminal case
file
in
1.
the
the
2. BUT the cause of action subject

thereof LITIGATED IN A SEPARATE
CIVIL ACTION.
2.
REMEDY OF THE OFFENDED PARTY:

1.
RULE 65(1)
When a judge dismissed a criminal

case upon motion of the prosecutor, the
offended party may avail of RULE 65(1) to
the lower court acting with grave abuse of
discretion. The certiorari petition may be
filed aggrieved party which is either the
(a) state or (b) the private offended
party or (c)
complainant. Verily
although the PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY IS
THE AGGRIEVED PARTY AS HE HAS
INTEREST IN THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE
CASE PROVIDED HE BROUGHT IT UNDER
HIS NAME. (Perez v. Hagonoy)
2.
Civil aspect arising

sources of obligation
from
other
there are two actions involved in a

criminal case. The first is the criminal
action for the punishment of the
offender. The parties are the People of
the Philippines as the plaintiff and the
accused. In a criminal action, the private
complainant is merely a witness for
Filing of separate civil action
Because in the criminal case, the

accused is prohibited setting up
any counterclaim in the civil aspect
deemed instituted in the criminal
case. That is why the latter is forced
to litigate separately otherwise the
prescriptive period on other
source of obligation continues to
run until filed
Pursuant to the bill of rights, the
accused is presumed innocent
thus has the right to invoke civil
remedies. To disallow him is to deny
him due process of law, access to
courts and equal protection of
law
(Casupanan v. Laroya)
RULE 111(1) B: with regard to BP 22

R1: Institution of criminal action FOR
VIOLATION OF BP22 shall be deemed to
include
the
corresponding
civil
action (REFERS TO ALL CIVIL ACTION)
R2: RESERVATION of Separate civil action
in BP22 is NOT ALLOWED.
R3: Payment of Docket/filing fees for
damages in the civil action deemed
instituted in a criminal action FOR
VIOLATION OF BP 22
Page 18 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 19
FOR ACTUAL DAMAGE: It shall be PAID

IN FULL base on the amount of check
involved. (OPPOSITE TO PREVIOUS PAR.)
FOR MORAL, NOMINAL, TEMPERATE
& EXEMPLARY: (SAME RULE APPLIES)
(A) PROVIDED, that the amount is
specified
in
the
EFFECT: Corresponding filing fee
should be paid
(B) PROVIDED, that the amount is
NOT
specified
in
the
complaint/information.
EFFECT:
Filing
fee
therefore
constitutes
a
first
lien
on
judgment award for damages
R4: When there is CONSOLIDATION of
civil and criminal action FOR VIOLATION
OF BP 22:
Civil Actions deemed instituted in the

Criminal action or those waived, reserved or
filed ahead refers to DEPENDENT CIVIL
ACTION contradistinguished to INDEPENDENT
CIVIL ACTION as expressly provided by law
under Rule 111, Sec.3 of CrimProc. (Cojuanco
Jr., v. CA)
(A)
EFFECTS
when
a
criminal
action(first filed) was filed AHEAD of the
civil action:
1.
Separate
civil
action
CANNOT BE INSTITUTED UNTIL
there is final judgement in the
criminal action
2. (SUSPENSION) The running of the
prescriptive period of the civil
action is suspended DURING THE
PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL ACTION.
(BARRED)
(B) EFFECTS when criminal action

was filed AFTER the civil action(first
filed) has already been instituted
1.
REQUISITE:
1. Civil
action
has
been
filed
separately
2. Trial of the civil action has not yet
commence
3. Application (Offended party Rule 111,Sec.2)
for consolidation with the court
trying the criminal case
The civil action shall

be SUSPENDED AT WHATEVER
STAGE UNTIL there is final
judgement in the criminal action
2. (CONSOLIDATION) Civil action may be
consolidated with the criminal
action trying the case
(SUSPENSION)
REQUISITE OF
CONSOLIDATION:
1. Civil action has been filed
separately
2. Trial of the civil action has
not yet commence
3. Application for consolidation
with the court trying the
criminal case
Rule 111, Sec. 1(B) last par.
EFFECT: Trial of both actions will proceed

in
accordance
with
RULE
111(2)
suspension of separate civil action.
PURPOSE:
1.
2.
To lower the number of cases filed for

the collection based on dishonoured
checks
Expedite disposition of the case
(Hyatt Case)
An appearance of a private
prosecutor in a criminal action in Estafa
and BP 22 is not prohibited to do otherwise
is to deprived the private complainant the
right to protect his interest in such case.
(Rodriguez Case)
RULE 111(2) (A and B)when a

separate civil action is suspended;
(C)
Effects
of
consolidation;
(D)Effects of extinction of criminal
action:
(C) EFFECTS OF CONSOLIDATION:

1. Evidence already adduce in the
civil
action
is
AUTOMATICALLY
REPRODUCE in the criminal action. BUT
subject to:
i.
ii.
Page 19 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
Right of accused to cross

examine the witness
The parties are allowed to
present
additional
evidence
P a g e | 20
2. BOTH actions shall be tried and

decided jointly
(D) EFFECTS of extinction of the

criminal action: DOES NOT EXTINGUISH
THE CIVIL ACTION. (IE, DEATH, ACQUITTAL)
ACQUITTAL DOES
NOT
PREVENT A
JUDGMENT AGAINST ACCUSED ON THE
CIVIL ASPECT: Criminal action is requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt while civil
action requires preponderance of evidence . x
x x x x x Moreover, the court can declare that
the liability of the accused is only civil x x x x
x. (Salazar v. Pp)
Acquittal of the criminal action is not
res judicata in the subsequent civil action.
(Bonite v. Zosa)
Dismissal of the complaint for
purposes of PI does not carry with it extinction
of the civil action since there is no declaration
of final judgment of the act/omission
complained of. (Bunag Jr., v. CA)
ER: Civil action based on ex-delictu

will STILL be extinguished WHEN
THERE IS FINDING THAT THE
ACT/OMISSION
WHICH
CIVIL
LIABILITY ARISES DID NOT EXISTS.
Otherwise stated, WHERE THE ACCUSED DID NOT
COMMIT THE ACTS/OMISSION IMPUTED TO HIM.
(Salazar v. Pp)
The exemption above may also

include acquittal based on (1)
EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE
but
not
to
include
circumstance where (EER)
there
is
state
necessity
under
justifying
circumstance.
REMEDY: Still offended party can file an action

based on OTHER SOURCES OF OBLIGATIONS except
ex-delictu and quasi-delict. This rule was applied
comprehensively in ABS CBN case
The duty of the CA is to review
question of law and facts. Thus when an
accused is acquitted on a crime, the latter
cannot divest the court from determining civil
liability which only requires preponderance of
evidence. (Manantan Case)
The common element in the acts

constituting unfair competition is RA 8293 is
fraud. Thus pursuant to Article 33 a civil action
for damages arising therefrom can proceed
independently from its criminal prosecution.
(Samson v. Daway)
3.
Art. 34
4.
Art. 2176
failure of a police officer to render

assistance to a person in case of danger to life and
property
Quasi delict or obligations arising
from culpa aquiliana
Aside from the separate civil action
provided in RULE 111(3) OTHER CIVIL
ACTION ME BY ALLOWED SO LONG AS
THE CIVIL LIABILITY DOES NOT ARISE
FROM THE ACT/OMISSION COMPLAINED
OF. In this case support and payment for
damages
in
legal
separation
for
concubinage is allowed since the recovery is
not base of the offense but by virtue of legal
consequences of legal separation. (Gandionico
v. Penaranda)
EFFECTS:
1.
Civil
action
PROCEEDS
INDEPENDENTLY of the criminal action;
Independent civil action provided
under RULE 111(3) MAY BE CONSOLIDATED
PROVIDED there is no final judgment criminal
action as prescribed by the rules. (Cojuanco
Jr., v. CA)
2.
Proceeding
requires
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
LIMITATION: Offended party CANNOT

RECOVER
TWICE
from
the
same
act/omission complained of
Quasi delict does not apply on
civil liability arising ex-delicto. Thus it is a
separate and independent action is
based on negligence and the employer here
is not an accused or the party thereof but the
employee. However the former may be
subsidiarily liable pursuant to RPC 102,103.
(Calang Case)
The amendment of the Rules of court
in 2000 as a consequence established
Independent civil action under Rule 111, sec. 3
are:
RULE
111(3)
when
there
is
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION; Effects
thereof; Limitation thereof: RATIO
Criminal action is requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
while civil action requires preponderance of evidence
(Bordador v. Luz)
1.
2.
Art. 32
Art. 33
only
Damage for violation of consti rights

Defamation, fraud, Physical injuries
Page 20 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
1.
2.
NOT deemed instituted in a

criminal
prosecution
and
NO
RESERVATION is needed because
they are not included in the latter
Even if it is deemed instituted, these
civil actions is NOT EXTINGUISHED.
(Philippine Rabbit v. Pp; Bermudez v.
Melencio; )
P a g e | 21
RULE 111(4) Instances and Effect

thereof if accused died in the civil
actions
especially provided in the

RULES OF COURT against the
estate of the deceased.
A.
When
death
occurs
AFTER
arraignment and DURING the pendency
of criminal action
RULE 111(5) Judgement on civil

action absolving the defendant is
not a bar to criminal action against
the
latter
for
the
same
acts/omission.
EFFECT:
1. Civil liability arising from crime or
ex-delicto is extinguished
2. Other Civil actions arising from
other sources of obligation may be
continued
The statute of limitation
on the civil liability is deemed
interrupted during the pendency of
the criminal case. (Pp v. Abungan)
B.
When
arraignment
death
occurs
AFTER
EFFECT:
1. Criminal case shall be dismissed
2. Offended party may file proper civil
action against the estate of the
accused.
PROCEDURE:
I.
PROVIDED,
there
is
substitution in behalf of the
accused,
the
offended
party may continue against
the following accused:
(a) Estate
(b) Legal representative
(c)Heirs of accused who may
be
a
substitute
w/o
appointment of exe/admin.
IN CASE OF MINOR
HEIRS,
the
court
may
appoint guardian ad litem
thereof.
II. The court to order appearance
or substitution within 30 days
from notice.
ER: (CRIMINAL ACTION BARRED) where the

civil
case
is
a
PREJUDICIAL
QUESTION RULE 111(7) Elements of prejudicial
question
RULE
111(6)
Petition
for
Suspension of criminal action by
reason of prejudicial question
APPLICABILTY: A CRIMINAL CASE MAY
BE SUSPENDED to give way for the
determination of a civil case which
involves an issue of a prejudicial
question.
WHERE TO FILE
SUSPENSION:
PETITION
FOR
Prejudicial question may ONLY BE

SUSPENDED and not dismissed. In addition, it
can only be invoked UPON PETITION and not in
the instance of the judge or investigating
officer. (Yap v. Paras _ PASI v. Lichauco)
(a) The office of the prosecutor during PI;

or
(b) The Court conducting the PI; or
( as of
the moment not allowed pursuant to a circular?)
(c) The court where the criminal case is

pending (anytime before the prosecution
rests).
RULE
111(7)
Elements
prejudicial question: RATIONALE: To
two conflicting decisions. (Tuanda v. SDB)
GR: In PQ, Criminal action takes precedence
over civil action RULE 111(7)
ER: Still there is PQ even if Civil action was
filed ahead under the following:
III. Final judgement entered in

favour of the offended party shall
be
enforced
in
a
manner
Page 21 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
1.
2.
3.
4.
RULE 111(3) Independent civil action

RULE 111 (6) Petition for Suspension
of criminal action by reason of
prejudicial question
RULE 111(1B) institution of criminal
and civil action in (B) in B.P. 22
An action for Legal separation and
thereafter concubinage.
of
avoid
P a g e | 22
Aside from the separate civil
action provided in RULE
111(3)
OTHER
CIVIL
ACTION ME BY ALLOWED
SO LONG AS THE CIVIL
LIABILITY
DOES
NOT
ARISE
FROM
THE
ACT/OMISSION
COMPLAINED OF.
In this case support and
payment for damages in
legal
separation
for
concubinage is allowed
since the recovery is not
base of the offense but by
virtue of legal consequences
of
legal
separation.
(Gandionico v. Penaranda)
(Adiak v. IAC 146 s 505)
WHEN PQ EXIST:
1. The previously instituted CIVIL
ACTION involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in
the subsequent CRIMINAL ACTION; Take
not that the amendment contemplates that a civil action is
filed ahead of a criminal action.
R1: Prejudicial question may ONLY BE
SUSPENDED and not dismissed. In addition, it
can only be invoked UPON PETITION and not in
the instance of the judge or investigating
officer. (Yap v. Paras _ PASI v. Lichauco)
R2: Although actions involved are not civil and
criminal action, THE COURT UPON PETITION OF
ANY OF THE PARTY AND IN THE INTEREST OF
GOOD ORDER, suspend action on one case
pending final outcome of another case closely
related or linked to the first. (City of Pasig v.
COMELECE, also Quimbao v. Osorio)
2. The RESOLUTION OF SUCH ISSUE

determines whether or not criminal
action may proceed;
Unless and until SUCH ISSUE IN A
(CIVIL ACTION or otherwise) is resolved with
finality, the determination of the ISSUE RAISED
IN A (CRIMINAL ACTION or otherwise) would
only be an exercise of futility. (ibid. see Apa v.
Fernandez)
the first marriage is subsisting at the time the second

marriage is contracted. (Abunado v. Pp)
IN CONCUBINAGE, the prior petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage is not a ground for PQ.
Parties to the marriage are not permitted to judge for
themselves its nullity. Therefore he who cohabit a woman not
his wife before obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of
marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
concubinage. (Beltran v. Pp)
CIVIL RELIEFS such as injunction and damages
w/ attachments thereafter estafa case does not involved
PQ because NOTWITHSTANDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE
CIVIL CASE (issues involved WON there was a duly constituted
agent; WON retrun payment and damages is propert) THE
CRIMINAL ACTION CAN STILL PROCEED (estafa thru
falsification may be convicted through conspiracy to falsify
public documents. (Pp v. Consing)
Civil case sum of money and cancellation of
mortgage; Criminal case Perjury; Issue is different. The
purchase by the petitioner of the land or his execution of real
estate mortgage has NO bearing on whether the latter
knowingly or fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss.
(Magestrado v. Pp)
Civil case annulment of sale on the ground of fraud;
Criminal case BP 22; Issue is different. WON there is fraud
and WON there was dishonour of the check upon
presentment. (Umali v. IAC)
When the Civil action is an independent civil
action pursuant to RULE 111(3) because the law expressly
provides and it shall only require preponderance of evidence.
The common element in the acts constituting unfair
competition is RA 8293 is fraud. Thus pursuant to Article 33 a
civil action for damages arising therefrom can proceed
independently from its criminal prosecution. (Samson v.
Daway)
RULE 112
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
RULE 112(1) PI defined; When PI is
required:
Preliminary investigation an inquiry
or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender
a well founded belief that:
AFFIRMATIVE CASES:
For allegedly giving false testimony in a civil action a
criminal action thereof was thereafter filed while the civil case
was still pending. Thus the criminal action must be
suspended. (Ark Travel v. Presiding Judge)
Civil case Nullity of TCT; Criminal case Squatting;
Issue is ownership. (APA v. Fernandez)
NEGATIVE CASES:
IN BIGAMY CASE, the subsequent action for
declaration of nullity of marriage of the accused is
immaterial and cannot be a ground for PQ because the issue
is not interrelated at all. For bigamy to prosper requires that
1. Crime has been committed

2. Respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.
PURPOSE: To protect the accused from
the inconvenience, expense, and burden of
defending himself in a formal trial
unless reasonable probability of his guilt
shall have been first ascertained in a
fairly summary proceeding by a
competent officer. (Yusop Case)
Page 22 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 23
PI as a component part of due
process, therefore a STATUTORY AND
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT accorded to the
accused.
In the absence of PI, the court should hold
in abeyance the proceedings and order
the public prosecutor to conduct PI.
(Villaflor Case)
PI AS AN EXECUTINVE FUNCTION: PI as
an executive function exclusively for
the prosecutor vested with discretion
in the discharge of this function. (Hegerty
Case)
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED DURING PI:
i.
ii.
as the amendment is not prejudicial and could

not surprise the accused. As in this case slight
to serious physical injuries. (Villaflor Case)
An accused may avail of the
modes discovery proceedings PROVIDED
there is finding of probable cause because
by itself the latter is subject to life, liberty
and property risk of loss or diminution.
(Webb Case)
REQUIREMENT OF PI WHEN THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL AMENEDEMNT: Before or
After a plea, a substantial amendment in an
information ENTITLES AN ACCUSED TO
ANOTHER
PI.
UNLESS,
the
amended
information contains a charge related to or
included in the original information. (Matalam
v. SDB)
Refuse to be made witness

Not to be prejudice in any way imputed to him
by such refusal
iii. Testify on their own behalf SUBJECT to cross
examination
iv. Against self incrimination
RULE 111(2) Officers authorized to

conduct PI:
(Ladiana Case)
(a) Provincial/City prosecutors and

their assistant
PI REQUIRED WHEN
1. Before the filing of the complaint or
information in COURT; and
PI does not require a presence of
counsel in behalf of the accused. To do
otherwise would make a mockery to justice
when counsel thereof does not attend such
inorder that the statute of limitation sets in. IN
EFFECT, PI IS NOT CONSIDERED A PART
OF THE TRIAL BUT A PREPARATORY
ACTION TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, THUS
RECORD OF THE FORMER DOES NOT
FORM PART OF THE LATTER. (Narca Case)
PI as not part of the judicial
proceeding the dismissal of the charges is
not equivalent to judicial pronouncement
of acquittal. (301s475)
WHEN TO OBJECT; WAIVABLE: in the
absence of PI, objection must be made
before entry of plea otherwise waived
and when there is refusal by the court,
remedy is for certiorari (RULE 65).
(Romualdez Case)
However
absence
of
which
neither impair the validity of the
information nor affect jurisdiction of
the court nor constitute a ground for
quashal. The minimum evidence required
in PI is showing that more likely than not
a crime was committed. (Serapio Case)
2.
For
offenses
where
penalty
prescribe
by
law
at
least
4yrs2mos&1day w/o regard to fine.
An amendment as to form towards
the information in effect increasing the range
penalty does not necessarily requires a PI
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF OMB AND

DOJ TO CONDUCT PI: The DOJs authority to
conduct PI being the principal law agency of
the gov to investigate the commission of a
crime.
For offenses falling within the original
jurisdiction of the SDB, prosecutor shall after
the PI transmits the records and their
resolution to the OMB. The prosecutor by
WRITTEN AUTHORITY of OMB shall either file
information to the SDB or dismiss the
complaint thereof. (Honasan v. DOJ)
(b) National
Prosecutor
and
Regional
State
(c) Other Officers may be authorized

by law
OMB- clothed with authority to conduct PI and
to prosecute all criminal cases involving
officers and employees, not only those within
the jurisdiction of SDB, but also those of
regular courts. (Uy v. SDB citing Sec. 15 & 11
of RA 6770)
COMELEC has the authority to conduct PI
although qualified because after PI, the latter
must indorsed it to the prosecuting arms
of the gov. it can be revoke or withdrawn by
them. (Margarejo v. Pp citing Sec.2 of 1993
Comelec Rules of procedure)
Additionally, it is beyond the power of
the DOJ prosecutor not to appeal a case
contrary to the decision of the COMELEC. The
Constitution provides that COMELEC has
power and function to investigate and
prosecute cases in violation of election laws.
(COMELEC v. Silva citing Consti Art XI Sec. 2
par. 6)
Page 23 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 24
SCOPE OF AUTHORITY It shall extend

to all crimes cognizable by the proper
court under their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
evidence presented by the

complainant, IF the respondent:
(a) Cannot be subpoenaed
(b) If subpoenaed, but does
not
submit
counteraffidavits within the 10 days
period
RULE 112(3) Procedure in the PI;

For
the
complainant;
For
the
prosecutor; For the Respondent:
3. (a.k.a CLARIFACATORY HEARING)

He/she may set a HEARING IF
there are facts and issues to be
clarified from a parties or witness.
REQUIREMENT OF SWORN STATEMENTS:

The complaints, affidavits and all supporting
documents must be sworn and subscribed by
duly
authorized
officers
is
mandatory
otherwise officers will be held administratively
liable. (Oporto Jr., v. Monserat)
The above defect
waivable. (Buatista v. SDB)
however
I. The parties here may:
is
(a) Be present at the

hearing;
R1: Procedure as to the complainant

1. He/she
shall
FILE
THE
COMPLAINT with the office of
the prosecutor
2. The complaint shall state:
i.
Address of the respondent
ii.
Affidavits and witnesses
iii.
Supporting documents to
established probable cause
3. Number of copies for the
complaint to produce:
i.
As many as there are
respondents
ii.
2 copies for the official
file
R2:
Procedure
as
Investigating officer
to
the
1. He/She has 10 days after

filing the complaint to either:
(a) DISMISS it when
finding no ground to continue
investigation; OR
(b) ISSUE SUBPOENA to
the
respondent
and
attached thereof:
i.
a copy of the
complaint
ii.
Supporting
affidavits
and
documents thereof
2. He/She
complaint
shall RESOLVE
based
on
(b) The parties have no

right to examine or
cross examine
(c) BUT, may submit
to the investigating
officer
questions
which may be ask to
party
or
witness
concerned witness.
TESTIMONY IN PI CANNOT BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE
WHEN THE WITNESS THEREOF DIED BEFORE HE CAN
TESTIFY AT TRIAL: Pursuant RULE 112 section 3 which
expressly provides that the adverse party in a clarificatory
hearing has no right cross examined the witness. In addition,
RULE 115 par. F further provides that the adverse party must
have cross-examined the witness in judicial or administrative
proceeding. As such testimony offered as evidence herein
must be rendered inadmissible being hearsay evidence. (See
Paderannga v. Dillon EN BANC)
However, Actual cross-examination of the witness with
presence of the accused or his attorney will be taken as
evidence. (De Leone v. Pp)
[ACCORDING TO ATTY. VALLES, De Leon v. Pp is overturned by
Paderannga v. Dillon. VERIFY ________________________]
the
the
Page 24 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
II. The hearing shall be held

within 10 days:
a. From
submission
of
counter
affidavits
and
other documents
b. From expiration of the
period for their submission
P a g e | 25
III. The hearing shall be

terminated within 5 days.
4. Within 10 days after investigation,
he/she shall DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT THERE IS SUFFICIENT GROUND TO
HOLD THE RESPONDENT FOR TRIAL
While the determination of probable
cause to charge a person of a crime is the sole
function of the prosecutor, the trial court may,
in the protection of one's fundamental right to
liberty, dismiss the case if, upon a personal
assessment of the evidence, it finds that the
evidence does not establish probable cause.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr201
4/gr_197293_2014.html
R3: Procedure as to respondent

1. Has the right with respect to their
submission of documentary evidence
I. EXAMINE the evidence those
evidence which they may have
not been furnished
II. COPY said evidence in their own
expense
III. Require complainant to
SPECIFY those evidence they
intend to present IF such is
voluminous
R: Motion to dismiss is NOT

ALLOWED lieu if a counter-affidavit.
RULE
112(4) RESOLUTION
investigating prosecutor and
REVIEW
R1: Resolution
(if the investigating officer finds

CAUSE/NO CAUSE and Approved by a superior)
THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTION IS
NOT A QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY EXERCISING
ADJUDICATORY POWERS. At most, PI does not
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused
since it is in a nature inquisitorial won there is
probable cause. The decision of the prosecutor in
PI is therefore not appealable to the CA under
Rule 43. (Filadams v. CA)
but a QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
where the court has no jurisdiction to intervene.
G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014 citing
People v. Castillo and Mejia
A. If found to have CAUSE to hold

trial, investigating officer will:
1. Prepare the RESOLUTION and
INFORMATION
2. Certify under oath in the
information as shown on the record
that
i.
Authorized
officer
personally
examined
the
complainant and witnesses
2. In object evidence:
ii.
(PROBABLE CAUSE refers to the

existence of facts and circumstances which
would lead a prudent man to have)
I. They need not be furnished by

complainant
Reasonable
ground
to
believe that crime was
committed and accused is
probably guilty thereof
II. But made available for

examination,
copying
or
photograph at their own expense
3. Within 10 days from receipt of
subpoena
with
complaint
and
documents, respondent shall SUBMIT:
iii. Informed the accused

of
the
complaint
and
evidence against him
I.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS
of
himself
and
witnesses
(subscribed and sworn to and
certified)
II. Other supporting documents
relied upon defense
of
its
iv.
Accused
given
an
opportunity
submitting
controverting evidence
3. FORWARD THE RECORD of the
case, within 5 days from
Page 25 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 26
resolution to his SUPERIOR who

may either be:
(a) Provincial/City prosecutor
(b) Chief State prosecutor
1.
If
investigating
prosecutor
recommended
DISMISSAL
BUT
DISAPPROVED by their superior/deputy:
EFFECT:
the
superior/deputy
may
(c) Ombudsman/his deputies

in offense cognizable under
SDB
(a)
himself,
information or
file
the
(b) direct another assistant

prosecutor
or
state
prosecutor to do so
If the resolution found out

cause to hold trial and approved
by superior it will proceed to the
judicial proceeding
(c.) There is NO NEED FOR

ANOTHER PI
B. If found to have NO CAUSE to hold

trial
2. If investigating prosecutor FOUND
1. Recommend dismissal
2. Forward the record of the case,
within 5 days from resolution to his
superior who may either be:
(a) Provincial/City prosecutor
(b) Chief State prosecutor
(c) Ombudsman/ his deputies in
PROBABLE CAUSE BUT DISAPPROVED by

their superior/deputy
EFFECT:
i. [REMEDY] The SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE may reverse or modify
the resolution of the superior
PROVIDED
In
view
thereof,
the
Secretary of justice is the one who
has supervision and control over the
office
of
the
prosecutor.
The
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY who decides
which of the conflicting theories of
the
complainants
and
the
respondents should be believed.
(Community Rural Bank v. Talavera)
offense cognizable under SDB

C. REVIEW of the resolution
1. A complaint or information shall
be FILED or DISMISSED UPON written
authority or approval of their superiors:
IN CASES OF OMB and

Secretary of justice, the SC is not
prevented
form
reviewing
the
formers action if there is grave
abuse of discretion under a certiorari
petition since there is no more appeal
or remedy available in the ordinary
course of law. (Maturan v. OMB; Ibid.)
Lack of authority of the prosecutor is a ground for a

motion to quash under RULE 117(3)
2. The Duty of the superior are:

i. Act on the resolution within
10 days from receipt either
(a) upon petition of the

proper party under rules of
the DOJ or
(a) Approve or;

(b) Disapprove it.
ii. Immediately notice/inform the
parties of such action
RULES WHEN RECOMMENDATION IS
DISAPPROVED OF BY THE SUPERIOR:
(b) at the instance of the

Secretary itself
POWER OR AUTHORITY OF THE
SECRETARY
OF
JUSTICE
TO
REVIEW
RESOLUTIONS OF HIS SUBORDINATES IN
CRIMINAL CASES DESPITE AN INFORMATION
ALREADY HAVING BEEN FILED IN COURT.
(Dimatulac v. Villon)
Page 26 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 27
But ONCE AN INFORMATION IS FILED
IN COURT, any disposition of the case of
the accused rest within the exclusive
jurisdiction and discretion of the trial
court. The trial court should make an
independent assessment of the merits of the
case. (Santos v. Orda)
abuse of discretion resulting to admin liability. (Talingdan v.

Eduarte)
PROCEDURE FOR RTC & MTC JUDGES

FOR CRIMINAL CASES REQUIRING PI:
ii. May direct the prosecutor

concerned to either
(a) file the information w/o
necessity of another PI
(b) Dismiss the information
with notice to the parties
R: Courts should NOT INTERFERE in the conduct of PI. The
investigating officer must have sufficient discretion to
determine probable cause.
ER: UNLESS
1. Necessary to afford adequate protection to the
consti righst of the accused;
2. Necessary for the orderly administration of justice
or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
1.
Judges
shall
PERSONALLY
EVALUATE(compared to Rule 112, sec. 8) the
resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidences (NOT the complainants and
witnesses Webb v. De leone) . This is in reference to the
determination of JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE
CAUSE or probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest
The Constitution commands the judge to
personally determine probable cause in the
issuance of warrant or arrest. (Abdula v. Guiani)
JUDICIAL PROBABLE CAUSE is the existence
of such fact and circumstances that would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent person to
believe that an offense has been committed by
the person sought to be arrested. The judge
merely
determines
probability
and
not
certainty. (Pp v. CA, Jan. 21, 1991)
10 days from the

complaint or information
filing
of
the
3. There is PQ which is sub judice;

4. Acts of the officer is without or in excess of
authority;
5. Proseuction is under an INVALID law, ordinance or
regulation;
6. DJ is clearly apparent;
7. There is a case of persecution rather than
prosecution;
EFFECT: Judge shall either

A. DISMISS if it fails to established
probable cause; or
[Therefore, in criminal cases, there is
no motion to dismiss a case since only the
judge has discretion to do the same upon
personal evaluation of the absence of
probable cause. See Pp v. SDB September
20,2004]
8. Court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

9. Charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
lust for vengeance;
10. Clearly NO prima facie case against the accused
AND a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied. (Filadams v. CA)
REMEDIES AGAINST REFUSAL TO FILE INFORMATION:
A. Action for mandamus;
B. Lodge a new complaint against the offenders before the
OMB;
C. Administrative charges OR Criminal prosecution
dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offense
for
RULE 112(5) When warrant of arrest

issued; Procedure thereof; Instances
when MTC judge need not issue
warrant of arrest: Non-compliance of this rule is
held to be unconstitutional and subject the judge to grave
B. Issue a WARRANT OF ARREST

or COMMITMENT ORDER for valid
warrantless arrest if there is
probable cause; or warrant of arrest should
particularly describe the person or persons to be
seized and as regards unidentified subject john
does should be voided. (Pangandaman v. Casar)
hence there is no requirement to notify or hear the
accused before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
(Government v. Purganan)
C. ORDER prosecutor to present

additional evidence within 5 days
from notice.
Without resorting to the calibrations of our
technical rules of evidence in reliance of the
calculus of common sense which all reasonable
man have abundance. (Webb v. De leon)
The judge should not rely solely on the report
of the investigating officer but also the evidences
submitted by the parties. (Okabe v. Guitierrez)
Page 27 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 28
Instances when MTC judge need not

issue warrant of arrest:
(A) The (INQUEST) PROSECUTOR;

or
1. Complaint or information filed

pursuant to a valid warrantless arrest;
(B) In the absence or unavailibility

thereof, either (a) OFFENDED
PARTY or (b) PEACE OFFICER
2. Accused charged for

punishable by fines only;
an
offense
3. Case is covered by Rule on Summary

procedure.
As to the purpose
EXECUTIVE
DETERMINATION
OF PROBABLE
CAUSE
JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION
OF PROBABLE
CAUSE
WON
there
is
reasonable ground
to
believe
the
accused is guilty
of
the
offense
charged
and
should be held
for trial.
WON warrant of
arrest should be
issued against the
accused or is there
necessity
for
placing him under
immediate
custody in order
not to frustrate
the ends of justice
(Pp v. CA ibid.)
*** QUASIJUDICIAL
AUTHORITY where
the court has no
jurisdiction to
intervene. G.R.
No. 197293
April 21, 2014
citing People v.
Castillo and Mejia
The inquest prosecutor as well as the

arresting officer was justified because of the
difficulties due to the consecutive days where
the office was not available there being a
Sunday and 2 official holidays.
(Soria v.
Desierto)
2. THE PERSON LAWFULLY ARRESTED

MAY ASK FOR PI:
(A)
BEFORE
is
the
filed
(otherwise stated, before inquest proceeding)
EFFECT:
1. Shall SIGN A WAIVER
under RPC art. 125 (arbitrary
detention) with the presence
of counsel
2. Can APPLY FOR BAIL
3. PI to be terminated 15
days
from
inception
thereof
(B) AFTER the
information is filed
complaint
or
(otherwise stated, after
inquest proceeding)
RULE
112(6) EFFECTS
when
accused LAWFULLY ARRESTED W/O
WARRANT
involving
an offense
requiring PI: INQUEST PROCEEDING THEREIN
EFFECT:
1. ASK FOR PI within 5 days
after learning of such
filing (NON-EXTINDIBLE Pp v. CA
March 23, 1995)
otherwise
WAIVED
2. RIGHT
TO
ADDUCE
EVIDENCE during PI and
before
arraignment
otherwise WAIVED
Inquest proceeding any investigation

based solely on the affidavit of the offended
party, police and some witnesses
1.
(INQUEST
PROCEEDING)
A
COMPLAINT/INFORMATION CAN BE FILED
W/O PI.
REQUISITE: when there is
1. There must be LAWFUL ARREST
W/O WARRANT;
2. The arrest must involve an
OFFENSE REQUIRING PI;
3. A Complaint/information must be
FILED by:
RULE 112(7) Records (A) in the

INFORMATION/COMPLAINT (B) in the
PI
A. Records in the information or
complaint SHALL BE SUPPORTED: To
assist in the executive and/or judicial determination of
probable cause. (Okabe v. Guiterrez)
Page 28 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 29
1. affidavits
and
counteraffidavits of parties and their
witnesses
2. Supporting evidences
3. Resolution of the case (this may be
on the investigating officer and his superior)
B. Records in the PI Shall NOT FORM

PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE CASE
ER: Order of production
(a) At the instance of the
court; or
(b) Motion of either party
The records of PI in the previous
dismissal by the MTC does not form part of the
RTC records unless introduce as evidence
during trial thereof. (Santos v. Pp)
The records of the case including the
complaint which was transmitted need not be
produced and formally offer as evidence since
there is already judicial notice of said
complaint as evidence. (Pp v. Rondina)
REQUISITE OF PRODUCTION
THEREOF:
a. NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL to the
resolution of the case; OR
b. INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE by the
requesting party
RULE 112(8) Procedure for criminal
action NOT requiring a PI NOR
covered by the Rule on summary
procedure
APPLICATION:
Cases
where
the
mposable penalty is within 6mos and
1day TO 4yrs. and 2mos. (Otherwise PI is
required and Rule 112. Sec 3 referring to the Procedure in
the PI governs)
MODES OF FILING OF COMPLAINT OR

INFROMATION
(A)
File a complaint with the
PROSECUTOR in accordance with Rule
112. Sec 3 referring to the Procedure in the PI
(B) File a complaint/information with the
MTC in accordance with Rule 112. Sec 3
referring to the Procedure in the PI
EFFECT: MTC judge herein shall (a)

PERSONALLY EVALUATE the evidences OR
(b) PERSONALLY EXAMINED IN WRITING
THE COMPLAINANT & WITNESSES IN A
SEARCHING QUESTION AND ANSWERS.
Thereafter the judge either:
A. DISMISS if it fails to established
probable cause; or
B.
(a) Issue a WARRANT OF
ARREST
or
COMMITMENT
ORDER for valid warrantless arrest
or
(b) Issue SUMMONS instead
of warrant of arrest if there is
probable cause;
C. ORDER submission of additional
evidences within 10 days from
notice.
The MTC judge is devoid of
jurisdiction or authority to reduce the charge
from grave oral defamation to simple slander.
Hence the judge can ONLY either dismiss,
issue a warrant of arrest or issue summon
thereof. (Villanueva v. Almazan)
MIDTERM
RULE 113 ARREST
RULE 113(1) Definition of arrest the
taking of person into custody
Purpose: In order that he may be bound
to answer for the commission of an
offense
A Commissioner of immigration to issue a
valid arrest on aliens deported requires a final
order of deportation otherwise the arrest
is void.(Dela Rosa Case)
RULE 113(2) Arrest; How made:

A. By an ACTUAL RESTRAINT of the
person arrested; or
B. By his SUBMISSION TO THE
CUSTODY of the person making
arrest
RULES:
Page 29 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 30
1. No violence or unnecessary force

shall be used in making an arrest
2. No person arrested shall be
subjected to greater restraint that
is necessary for his detention
RULE 113(3) Duty of arresting
officer:
1. Arrest the accused
2. Deliver him to the nearest police
station or jail without unnecessary
delay
Arresting officers duty to inform:
1.
2.
The REASON of arrest and to show the

WARRANT OF ARREST
Inform of his constitutional rights to remain
silent and to counsel and any statement made
maybe used against him
Inform him of his right to communicate with
his lawyer, relative or anyone he chooses
A. When in his presence, the person to

be arrested: (a.k.a IN FLAGRANTE DE LICTO) In in
flagrante delicto, the term IN HIS PRESENCE PRESUPPOSES
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE IN In flagrent de
lictu: personal knowledge of the arresting
officer must NOT solely base on reliable
information alone. It must be coupled with
ACTUAL PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the
arresting officer in the commission of the crime
such as but not limited to their prior
investigation. (Pp v. Bolasa; Pp v. Chua; Pp v.
Vinalon; Pp v. Cubcubin)
An officer has no personal knowledge when
relied only on tipped information, went there and
saw 2 people repacking marijuana search and
confiscated it without warrant. The arrest is
invalid and consequently the search as well. In
this case, the arresting officer should have
conduct surveillance to establish probable
cause and ask the court for a warrant to
effectuate valid arrest and seizure. (Pp v. Bolasa)
RULE 113(4) Execution of warrant:
To all appearance, he was like any other

passenger innocently disembarking from the
vessel. It was only when the informer pointed
him as the carrier of the marijuana that he
suddenly became suspect and so subject to
apprehension. (Pp v. Chua citing Pp v.
Aminnudin)
STEPS:
(A) Has committed a crime
3.
(Albior Case)
1. Warrant should be executed

within 10 days from receipt
The 10 days is only a directive to
execute the warrant. Generally arrest
warrant
remains
enforceable
until
executed, recalled or quashed (Givera
Case)
2. The head of the office where it is

delivered
shall
cause
the
execution of the warrant
3. The officer assigned to execute
must:
I. Report to the judge within
10 days after the expiration
II. in case of failure, state the
reasons
RULE 113(5) Modes of Arrest without
a warrant; when lawful:
In all warrantless arrest, Search incidental to
lawful arrest presupposes a VALID warrantless arrest
first and therefore the subsequent search w/o
warrant will also be valid. Thus, if the arrest is void,
the search will also be void. (Pp v. Bolasa; Pp v. Chua)
In a robbery aboard a bus a police

died and the accused was taken in the
hospital. At the hospital, passengers pointed
the accused and his cohorts. The police
recovered therein their possession of the loots.
(Pp v. Vinalon)
Police proceeded to hold-up incident.
While driving the victims described the culprit
and later on found them along the road. When
about to be apprehended the accused tried to
pulled a gun. (Cudia v. CA)
(B) Is actually committing a crime

Operation made by the arresting officer
such as buy-bust operations is valid warrantless
arrest under in flargrante delicto. (Teodosio Case)
(C) Is attempting to commit a

crime
ADDITIONAL REQUISITE
LICTU: (Pp v. Chua)
IN
IN
FLAGRANTE
DE
(1) Person to be arrested must execute an OVERT

ACT of a crime and
The overt act must constitute a clear

and apparent act that is unlawful.
(Ibid.)
(2) The overt act must be done with the

PRESENCE OR WITHIN THE VIEW of arresting officer
Page 30 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 31
Sees the offense, although at a distance

OR hears the disturbance created
thereby and proceeds at once to the
scene thereor. (Pp v. Evaristo)
Hence the running of 4 persons taking a cab

and stopped them base on mere suspicion is not
sufficient. Take note that in this case, the officer
has no personal knowledge of their crime freshly
committed. (Lapitaje Case)
accused was guilty was based entirely on what

they have been told by others. (Pp v. Cubcubin)
in short it should not be based on reliable
information alone.
EMPHISIS
ON
"LARGE
MEASURE
OF
IMMIDIACY" in freshly committed crime;
between the time the offense was committed
and the time of arrest, provided further that the
arresting officer have personal knowledge of the
crime committed.
The following offense are held to be In

flagrante delicto at all times because of its
nature of a continuing offense constituting a
direct assault against the state are (1)
Rebellion (2) Subversion repealed (3)
Conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes
or offense committed in furtherance thereof.
(Ramos Case)
i. INVALID. 19 hours after the offense.

(Manlulu Case)
ii. INVALID. 1 day after the crime (Del
Rosario Case)
iii. INVALID. 2 days after buy-bust
operation when the
accused escaped
thereof(Kimura Case)
B. When: (FRESHLY COMMITTED)
iv. INVALID. 4 days after the crime 2

eyewitnesses identified them (Posadas
Case)
(1) The offense has just been

committed; and
(2) The arresting officer has:
I. Probable cause to
believe
Probable cause actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion (1) based on
actual facts (2) coupled with goodfaith.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure does not require the
arresting officers to personally witness the
commission of the offense with their own
eyes.(Doria Case)
II.
Base
on
personal
knowledge of facts/circumstance
that a person to be arrested has
committed it
CASES where there is personal
knowledge
in
freshly
committed
warrantless arrest:
i. Police were already investigating
the offense committed 12 hours
earlier that a certain pajero were
gunned down. Informant tipped the
pajeros whereabouts. The police
went there and saw the pajero with
the accused having possession of the
key thereof. (Pp v. Sinoc)
ii.
3
hours
after
investigation
witnesses of the killing PROVIDED
THE IDENTITY of the culprit to the
police
conducting
the
investigation. (Gerente Case)
EMPHISIS
ON
"ARRESTING
OFFICER'S
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE"; WARRANTLESS
ARRES WHEN INVALID: : Relied solely on
witness who did not actually saw the killing
and made unlawful search of the house
then arrest. Their knowledge of facts and
circumstances from which they inferred that
v. INVALID. 6 days after the crime, go

to station and witness pointed him (Go
Case)
R: In Umil Case, the court held that crime
against national security being a continuing
crime has (1) a loose interpretation of time
element (2) personal knowledge may be based
on investigation and personal knowledge of
probable cause
Failure to raise the illegality of the
arrest constitute a waiver as they are estopped
thereof. Remedy: Motion to quash the
information before arraignment. (Ejandra Case)
But waiver of illegal arrest does not
deemed to include waiver of illegal search. (Pua
Case)
C. When person to be arrested is an
ESCAPEE from:
(a) Penal establishment
(b) Temporary confinement
while case pending
(c) Being transferred from one
confinement to another
WHO EXECUTE: (a) Police officer (b)
Peace officer (c) private person
PROCEDURE AFTER ARREST:
1. Deliver him to the nearest police
station or jail
2. Inquest proceeding (ROC 112.6)
Page 31 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 32
OTHER INSTANCE OF WARRANTLESS ARREST
UNDER THE RULES: When person lawfully
arrested
A. When there is Arrest after escape or
rescue (ROC 113.13)
B. for purposes of surrendering the accused
who is out on bail (ROC 114.23)
C. release on bail and attempts to depart
from the Philippines w/o permission of the
court where the case is pending (ROC
114.23)
RULE 113(6) Time of making arrest

an arrest may be made on ANY TIME of
day or night.
RULE 113(7) Method of arrest by
virtue of WARRANT
R1: The officer must INFORM the person
to be arrested of the (1) cause of the
arrest (2) fact that a warrant has
been issued for the arrest.
ER: need not inform when person
arrested (a) flees (b) forcibly resist
(c) or giving information will
imperil arrest
R2: Possession of warrant need not be
with the officer at the time of arrest BUT
after arrest, if so requires, must show the
warrant as soon as practicable.
RULE 113(8) Method of arrest
WITHOUT warrant
R1: The private person must inform the

person to be arrested (1) his intention
to arrest (2) cause of the arrest.
ER: same in RULE 113(8)
RULE 113(10) Officer may summon
assistance (a.k.a Juxi comitatus power of state doctrine)
RIGHT OF OFFICER: may orally
summon as many persons as he deems
necessary
OBLIGATION
OF
PERSONS
SUMMONED: assist the arresting officer
without detriment to himself
RULE 113(11) Right of officer to
break into the building or enclosure
REQ: (1) Person to be arrested is or is
reasonably believed to be inside said
building
(2) Arresting officer
authority and purpose
(3)
Arresting
admittance
officer
announce
is
his
refused
RULE 113(12) Right to break OUT

from building or enclosure when
making arrest
REQ: (1) WHEN THERE IS RULE 113(11) Right of officer to break into the building or enclosure
R1: The officer must inform the person to

be arrested (1) his arresting authority
(2) cause of the arrest.
ER: need not inform when person
arrested: (a) flees (b) forcibly
resist (c) giving information will
imperil arrest (d) engage in the
commission of an offense (e)
pursued immediately thereafter (f)
pursued immediately after escape
RULE 113(9) Method of arrest by
PRIVATE PERSON
(2) It is necessary to liberate himself

RULE 113(13) When there is Arrest
after escape or rescue:
1. Any person may immediately pursue
or retake him;
2. No warrant is required for this
purpose;
3. Arrest carried out at ANY TIME and in
ANY PLACE within the Philippines.
RULE 113(14) Right of attorney or
relative to visit person arrested:
Page 32 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 33
1. Any member of the Philippine Bar
There is an implied waiver of the

right to bail when an accused failed to call
the attention of the trial court in resolving the
application for bail provided there is
judgement of conviction. (Manes Case)
Q: at the request of the (a) person

arrested (b) another acting in his
behalf
RIGHT: confer privately in jail or
confinement at any hour
WHEN BAIL NOT AVAILABLE:

1. Right to bail is not available for
military men under court martial. (De Villa
Case)
Visiting hours set at business hours is valid

under RA 7438 because it does not impair the
right to counsel and pursuant to reasonable
regulation of safety and security. (Cabuay Case)
2. Relative of person arrested subject to

reasonable regulation
RULE 114 BAIL

RULE 114(1) Bail define:
The purpose of bail

which is to afford the accused provisional liberty pending trial.
(Pp v. IAC Jan. 10, 1987)
2. There is no bail for extradition

proceeding. The latter is not criminal in
nature, the extradition courts do not render
judgements of conviction or acquittal.
WHO FURNISH: (a) person in custody

whose release is sought (b) Bondsman
PURPOSE: to guarantee said persons
appearance before any court
FORMS:
Right to bail flows from the presumption of

innocence infavor of the accused who is
entitled to acquittal unless guilt is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. (Purganan Case)
DEFINITION: the security given for

release of a person in custody of the law
To avail bail, the person must be in the
custody of the law. (Bugtas Case)
There is deemed in custody of the law when;
1.
2.
3.
4.
Corporate security
Property bond
Cash Deposit
Recognizance
RULE 114(2) Conditions of the Bail;

Requirements
1. The UNDERTAKING shall be
I. Effective upon approval
(a) by virtue of warrant of arrest
II. Remain in force at all stages of

the case
(b) by virtue of warrantless arrest

(c) by voluntary submission of the
jurisdiction of the court. (Gako Case)
ER: (1) lose absolutely if

cancelled (2) judgment of
the RTC
There is constructive custody when

an accused posted bail even if the latter is in
the hospital. The court acquired jurisdiction
over the person justifying the Hold departure
order. (Vasquez Case)
In conviction on appeal,
the bail or provisional liberty can
be used only during the 15 day
period to appeal and not during the
entire period of appeal. In addition
consent of the bondsmen is
necessary.
(Magguddatu
Case
citing AM No. 12-94)
Admission of bail even before arrest

or voluntary surrender is considered as being
constructively and legally under the custody of
law. Such situation may be exemplified by the
so called house arrest. (Paderannga Case)
WAIVER:The right to bail may be expressly
waived. 2 classes of rights guaranteed to the
accused:
1.
2.
Rights which the STATE as well as the

ACCUSED is interested. These rights cannot be
waived.
Rights which are PERSONAL to the accused in
a personal nature a privilege. These rights
may be waived. (Donato Case)
2.
OBLIGATION OF ACCUSED: to
appear before the court when required
by the court or ROC
Instances when presence of accused required
Page 33 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
1.
Arraignment and plea
P a g e | 34
2.
3.
C. On Probation, parole/ conditional

pardon while committing an
offense
D. Indicated to be a PRObability of
flight
E. Having Undue risk to commit
another
offense
during
pendency of appeal
During trial necessary

for
identification
purposes
Promulgation
of
sentence unless light
offenses
Arraignment as a condition for bail is not

allowed. Well settled are the constitutional rights
to be put on trial only upon a valid complaint or
information sufficient to charge a crime and the
right to bail. (Lavides Case)
3. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OBLIGED:
RULE 114(5) When Bail AS A MATTER

OF DISCRETION:
I. waiver of right to be present

thereat
REQUISITES:
1. AFTER conviction by the RTC
II. Trial to proceed in absentia

4. WHEN BONDSMAN SURRENDER
ACCUSED: Execution of final judgement
RULE
114(3)
Persons
under
detention by legal process can ONLY
BE RELEASED OR TRANSFERRED
upon (a) Court order or (b) when
admitted to bail
RULE 114(4) When Bail AS A MATTER
OF RIGHT: P: Bail as a matter of right is absolute
1. BEFORE conviction of MTC, etc.
2. AFTER conviction of MTC, etc. pending
appeal.
HENCE in the MTC, if convicted, the effect of bail

remains until final judgment.
2. BEFORE conviction of the RTC

A. for offenses LESS than reclusion
perpetua
B. for offenses punishable by
DEATH/RECLUSION
PERPETUA
PROVIDED evidence of guilt is NOT
strong (RULE 114, SEC. 7). One who faces a
probable death sentence has a
temptation to flee. (Bravo v. Borja)
particularly
strong
Bails as a matter of right can be applied

retroactively. (Al Ghoul Case)
ER: If accused is shown to be a REProU

(RULE 114,SEC. 5)
A. A
Recidivist,
habitual
delinquent, reiteration
B. An
Escapee
from
legal
confinement
2. For Offenses punishable LESS than

reclusion perpetua/death. Take note that offense
must be within pricion correctional to not exceeding reclusion
perpetua (within 6 YRS & 1 day to 20 YRS)
3. Accused is NOT: REProU

F. A
Recidivist,
habitual
delinquent, reiteration
G. An
Escapee
from
legal
confinement
H. On Probation, parole/ conditional
pardon while committing an
offense
I. Indicated to be a PRObability of
flight
J. Having Undue risk to commit
another
offense
during
pendency of appeal
EFFECT OF DISCRETIONARY BAIL
WHILE ACCUSED FILED A NOTICE OF
APPEAL
1. The application for bail can only be
filed and resolve by the APPELLATE
COURT PROVIDED the conviction of
the RTC change the nature of
offense
FROM
non-bailable
TO
bailable
ER: Application for bail may be
acted upon the RTC provided the
original record has not yet been
transmitted to the appellate
court
Page 34 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 35
EFFECT WHEN RTC

GRANTS DISCRETIONARY
BAIL: with notice to adverse
parties, Appellate court to
REVIEW RESOLUTION OF
BAIL by the RTC (a) Moto
Propio (b) By motion of any
party
2. IF GRANTED
COURT:
BY
APPELLATE
I. Accused allowed PROVISIONAL

LIBERTY UNDER THE SAME BAIL
II. It must be with CONSENT OF
THE BONDSMAN
RULE 114(6) CAPITAL OFFENSES
refers to OFFENSES PUNISHABLE WITH
DEATH at the time of (1) commission (2)
application for admission to bail. In
determining the offense, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are not considered otherwise it will defeat the
purpose of bail which is to afford the accused
provisional liberty pending trial. (Pp v. IAC Jan. 10, 1987)
BUT MINORITY should be considered because the law
provides the penalty lower than that prescribed by
law. (Bravo v. Borja)
RULE 114(7) DENIAL OF BAIL by

reason of Capital offense/those
punishable by reclusion perpetua:
WHEN
TO
CHALLENGE
ERRONEOUS
GRANT OF BAIL: it being an interlocutory
order, Sec. 4 of Rule 65 prescribes a period of
60 days within which to file a certiorari
petition for the matter. (Pobre v. CA)
1. BEFORE conviction of the RTC for

offenses of reclusion perpetua/death
PROVIDED evidence of guilt is
STRONG
2. AFTER conviction of the RTC,
pending
appeal
for
offenses
of
reclusion perpetua/death
take note that indeterminate

penalty
which
includes
reclusion perpetua, still bail is
not allowed (Padilla Case)
3. AFTER conviction of the RTC,

pending appeal (Q1) for offenses LESS
than reclusion perpetua (2) accused

shown to be a REProU
To challenge the order granting bail
or any irregularities therein which is an
interlocutory action RULE65(4) provides a special
civil action for certiorari as an appropriate
remedy.
(Pobre , Gomez Case)
RULE 114(8) Burden of proof in bail

application; Procedure thereof:
There is a need for application and
hearing in granting bail otherwise a judge will be
liable for ignorance of the law. The purpose of
hearing is the EQUILIBRIUM INTEREST of right of an
accused for provisional liberty and public order to
protect the people against dangerous elements.
The grant of bail without due hearing deprives the
prosecution due process of law. (Tresvalles Case)
PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION OF

BAIL:
1. Application for bail FILED by a person
who is in custody
2. HEARING to determine
evidence of guilt is strong
whether
R: in hearing for application for

bail, the court may recall any
witness upon motion of either
party unless said witness is dead,
outside
the
Philippines
and
otherwise unable to testify
Bail application is a SUMMARY HEARING which
is merely to determine the weight of evidence and
receiving such evidence subject to the courts
sound discretion and not a full blown trial. (Gako
Case)
There can be no joint hearing for trial
proper and bail application. Both proceedings
having contradictory nature, the former as
extensive, the latter as summary thus prejudicial
to the applicants right to avail provisional liberty.
(Serapio case)
The resolution of the order granting
bail must state (1) summary evidence presented
by the prosecution (2) summary evidence as
basis of the judge exercising judicial
discretion. This duty is mandatory upholding the
right to a due process. (Presiding Judge Case)
3. Prosecution has the BURDEN TO

PROVE THAT EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS
STRONG
Page 35 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 36
Appearance of counsel for private
complainant may appear and intervene
alone in the application for bail. There is neither
prohibition nor need of special authority provided
by the ROC. Even on appeal, the offended party
may question the granting of bail because the
complainant or OFFENDED PARTY HAS SUFFICIENT
PERSONALITY AND VALID GRIEVANCE. (Dela
Vicrtoria, Hapa Case)
4. Evidence in bail hearing automatically

reproduce at the trial
DUTIES OF THE JUDGE IN THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL:
I.
In all cases, to notify the prosecutor or require the

latter to submit recommendation regarding the
application (ROC 114 sec 18)
II. In bail as a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing
for bail regardless of the prosecution. The purpose is
to enable the court to exercise sound discretion
III. Decide whether guilt is strong based on summary
evidence
IV. If guilt is not strong, discharge accused upon
approval of bail bond. (Cabebe Case)
RULE 114(9) Guidelines for the

amount of bail The amount of bail
should be REASONABLE thus excessive
bail shall not be required, considering
the following factors:
It should be high enough to assure
presence of the accused. What is reasonable to a
wealthy person may not be to a man charged
with like offense. 2000 bail bond guide provides
reckless imprudence fix at P30,000 regardless of
number of death. (Belosillo case)
Bail is not intended as a punishment,
nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which should
necessary await the judgement of the court. (Yap
Case)
1. Financial ability of the accused

2. Nature and circumstance of the
offense
3. Penalty of the offense charge
Principal factor
4. Character and reputation of the

accused
5. Age and health of the accused
6. Weight of evidence against the
accused
7. Probability of the accused to
appear
RULE 114(10) Corporate surety

REQ:
1. Licensed as a surety
2. Authorized to act as a surety and
its board of directors
3. Jointly subscribe by the accused
and officer of the corporation
RULE 114(11) Property bond
undertaking constituting a lien on the
real property given as security for the
amount of bail
PROCEDURE:
1. The accused shall cause the
ANNOTATION OF THE LIEN on the
I. certificate of title or if
registered in the ROD in the
registration book in the space
provided;
II. Corresponding tax declaration.
2. Accused submit to the court his
COMPLIANCE, failure to do so will
be sufficient cause (1) cancellation
of bond (2) re-arrest/detention
RULE 114(12) Qualifications of
sureties in property bond
1. Must be resident owner of real estate
in the Philippines;
2. Value of the property of surety must
be equivalent of the whole amount of bail
demanded;
3. Surety must be over and above just
debts, obligations and properties exempt
from execution.
RULE 114(13) Justification of
surities: no bail shall be approved
unless surety is qualified
RULE 114(14) Cash bond as bail
Principal factor
8. Forfeiture of other bail

9. Fact of accused as fugitive
10.
Pendency of other case
where accused is in bail
WHERE: (a) nearest internal revenue

(b) Government treasurer
Page 36 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 37
A judge under the ROC must not
received the cash bond and will be subject to
administrative liability. (Tormis Case)
2. Sentence for destierro after 30 days

of preventive imprisonment
HOW MUCH: (a) Amount fix by the

court
(b)
Recommended
by
the
prosecutor
EFFECT OF 1 & 2: accused shall

be released without prejudice to
the continuation of trial.
REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE: (1)

Proper
certificate
of
deposit
(2)
Compliance of condition set by the bail
bond
3. EQUAL TO or MORE THAN the possible

maximum imprisonment prescribed for
the offense charge
EFFECT OF 3: accused shall be
released on reduced bail OR
recognizance at the discretion of
the court.
CASH BOND SUBJECT TO:

1. Considered as bail
2. Applied as payment of fine and
cost
3. The excess returned (a) when there
is final judgement (b) whoever
made the deposit
The option to choose the kinds of bail
bond primarily belongs to the accused. (Belosillo
Case)
RULE 114(15) Recognizance:
refers to an
obligation of record, entered into before a court with the
condition to do some particular act, being the appearance of
the accused on trial.
Q: (a) when allowed by law (b) ROC

WHOSE RECOGNIZANCE: (a) by the
court on his own (b) responsible person
Recognizance ordered only by the court and under
the following circumstance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Violation of ordinance involving light offense with

imprisonment below 6mos and or fine of P2,000
Provided in RA 6036 (offenses under summary
procedure)
When custody of accused is equal to or more than
the minimum imposable principal penalty
PROVIDED without application of indeterminate
sentence law (ROC 114 sec 16)
Accused filed for probation pending resolution of
the case
Youthful offenders held for (1)physical and mental
examinations (2) unable to furnish bail (3) under PD
1603
OTHER INSTANCE FOR EXEMPTION OF BAIL:

1.
2.
3.
RA 6036 violation of ordinance

RULE 114 sec. 16 offense under summary procedure
RULE 112 sec. 9(b) Judge satisfied no necessity of
placing accused under custody involving summary
rules instead issue summon
In general, bail is exempted if it involves offenses

under summary procedure provided in RA 6036
(Martinez Case)
RULE 114(17) Where to file for bail:

take note that it is either where the case is pending or court
who has custody of the accused. The grant of bail outside
herein will hold the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.
(Espanol v. Mupas)
A. With the COURT where the case is

pending
MODES OF BAIL THAT CAN
ONLY BE GRANTED IN THE
COURT HEREIN:
I. Grant of bail as a matter of
discretion
II. Accused seeks recognizance
(Jovellanos Case)
B. ANY RTC or MTC PROVIDED the judge

where the case is pending is absent or
unavailable
RULE
114(16)
Bail
when
not
required: When he has been in custody
for a period
C. With the RTC where accused is

arrested PROVIDED arrested in a place
other than where the case is pending
1. EQUAL TO or MORE THAN the possible

maximum imprisonment prescribed for
the offense charge
D. With the MTC where accused is

arrested PROVIDED that the RTC judge
therein is not available
Page 37 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 38
EFFECT OF FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO

APPEAR:
Generally an application for bail

presupposes elements of (1) court where the
case pending (2) territorial jurisdiction over the
person. In the exception element (1) maybe
missing but element (2) must be present
otherwise a judge will be guilty of gross
ignorance of the law. (Mupas Case)
1. Bail forfeited
E. ANY COURT where accused is held

PROVIDE he is not yet charged or under
inquest proceeding
RULE 114(18) Duty of the court upon
receiving an application for bail:
1. Give reasonable notice of hearing to
the prosecutor;
2. Require prosecutor to
recommendation thereof.
submit
of
RULE 114(19) Release on Bail upon

approval of the bail
IF FILED OTHER THAN THE COURT
WHERE THE CASE IS PENDING:
1. Forward the order and papers to
the court where the case is
pending
2. The court where the case is
pending however may require a
different bail to be filed for good
reasons
RULE 114(20) Increase or reduction
of bail: by the court upon good cause
2. (after the lapse of) 30 days grace

period to the bondsman produce their
principal and show cause why no
judgment should be rendered against
him
The Mandatory compliance of 30
days grace period as provided by the ROC is
required in order for the bondsman to be liable.
A judgement of forfeiture of bond is subject to
appeal being a final order. (Amante Case)
DISMISS THE APPEAL if the accused escapes
from prison or confinement, JUMPS BAIL or
flees to a foreign country during the pendency of
the appeal. (IVLER V. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO)
3. (there will be a) Joint and solidary

liability for the amount of bail and there
will be NO reduction or mitigating
circumstance
UNLESS
(a)
accused
surrendered (b) or acquitted.
Under Section 21, Rule 114[11] of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendants
absence merely renders his bondsman potentially
liable on its bond (subject to cancellation should
the bondsman fail to produce the accused within
30 days); the defendant retains his standing
and, should he fail to surrender, will be tried
in absentia and could be convicted or
acquitted. Indeed, the 30-day period granted to
the bondsman to produce the accused underscores
the fact that mere non-appearance does not ipso
facto convert the accuseds status to that of a
fugitive without standing. (ibid)
1. If increased, and there is noncompliance, the accused may be

committed to custody
RULE 114(22) Cancellation of bail:

without prejudice to any liability on bail.
2. An accused criminally charged may be

REQUIRED TO GIVE BAIL ANYTIME or
otherwise committed into custody in lieu
thereof.
REQ:
RULE 114(21) Forfeiture of Bail:

Bondsman shall be NOTIFIED to produce
accused before the court
The obligation of the bondsman is to
produce the body of the accused whenever so
required. Failure to do so is a violation of the
condition of the bond. (Caparas Case)
Referring to cash or security bail, under ROC serves as a LIEN

AND PAYMENT OF FINES AND COST respectively RULE
114(14)
1. Filed by the bonds man

2. Due notice to the prosecutor
3. Grounds either by (a) SURRENDER
OF THE ACCUSED (b) or PROOF OF
HIS DEATH
The accused being arrested and
detained by another crime is not surrender as
contemplated by the rules. Hence, upon
failure to produce the accused as required the
bondsman will be liable. nevertheless the
Page 38 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 39
bond is subject to fine and cost. (Esteban v.
Alhambra; Pp v. Caparas)
WHEN THERE IS AUTOMATIC

CANCELLATION:
(How about being curative

effect?) The accused already
the crime of BP22 has been
that in Vaca case, violation of
by fine only.
1. ACQUITTAL of accused
2. DISMISSAL of the case
3. EXECUTION of judgement of
conviction
Other
instance
of
automatic
cancellation of bond is when performance is
rendered impossible by the act of God, obligee
or government or the act of law. (Phil. Phoenix
Case)
RULE 114(23) Arrest of accused OUT

IN BAIL:
Person who will arrest the accused
A. Bondsman; or
C. Any person of suitable age or

discretion upon written authority of the
bondsman
When
there
arrest
WITHOUT
NECESSITY OF WARRANT: where
accused attempts to depart from the
Philippines W/O permission of the court
where the case is pending.
BASIS: The right to travel of the accused is
restricted since it is a necessary consequence of
the nature and function of a bail bond whereby
the accused must make himself available at all
times wherever the court requires his presence.
(Santiago v. Vasquez)
RTC HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE HOLD
DEPARTURE ORDER: although the case is
pending in the MTC, Circular No. 39-97 provides
that ONLY RTC can issued HDO in criminal cases
falling within its exclusive jurisdiction. (Mondejar
v. Buvan)
Trial
in
RULE 114(24) NO BAIL after Final

Judgment; Exception thereof:
R: BAIL IS NOT ALLOWED
A. after final judgment; or
law has retroactive

serving sentence for
granted bail arguing
said law is imposable
The court held that the rule is PLAINT AND CLEAR

that bail after final judgment and after the convict
started sentence is not allowed. The only exception
is only through probation. Moreover, Habeas
corpus is applicable only to restrain by virtue of
criminal charges against him which does not fall in
this case. (Vicente v. Majudcon)
[The accused should have filed an MFR (RULE 121,
Sec.3) or Modification of Judgement(RULE 120,
Sec. 7) or Habeas Corpus(Villa v. CA)]
ER: BAIL IS ALLOWED IF BEFORE

FINALITY, ACCUSED APPLIED FOR
PROBATION.
EFFECT:
B. Police officer upon written authority of

the bondsman; or
WHEN ACCUSED JUMPED BAIL:

absentia follows. (RULE 120, Sec. 6)
B. after accused has commence to serve

sentence
A. Allowed temporary liberty under

his bail; or
B.
Allowed
recognizance
release
on
RULE 114(25) Court has supervision

over detainees: for the purpose of
eliminating unnecessary detention
1. There will be a monthly personal
inspection conducted by the RTC
EXECUTIVE JUDGE; (Numbers, Conditions, Rights,
Accommodations etc.,)
2. As specified by the SC, monthly

personal inspection conducted by the
MTC JUDGES;
3. The OCA will receive the submission of
monthly
visitation
reports
abovementioned.
RULE 114(26) Application for Bail is
NOT A BAR TO OBJECTIONS of (a)
Illegal arrest (b) Lack or irregular PI:
otherwise stated, bail is not a waiver thereof
The new provision is a curative law which seeks to
amend previous rulings that application for bail
constitutes a waiver to the objections above.
(Okabe v. Guiterrez)
Page 39 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 40
WHEN TO RAISE OBJECTION: Raised

the issue therein BEFORE entering his
plea
EFFECT OF APPLICATION FOR BAIL:
it shall not bar the accused from
challenging;
RULE 115 (PAR. A.)

Right
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
to
VALIDITY
OF
PRIMA
FACIE
PRESUMPTION OF GUILT PROVISIONS:
The legislature has the power to provide that
proof of certain facts can constitute prima
facie evidence of guilt PROVIDED
1. There is a rational connection between
the fact proved and the fact presumed ;
and
(a) Validity of arrest

(b) Legality of the warrant issued
2. The inference of one from fact proved and

the fact presume must NOT be arbitrary
and unreasonable. (Hizon v. CA)
(c) Regularity or absence of PI

DUTY OF THE COURT TO GRANT
BAIL: as early as possible but not later
than the start of the trial.
Arraignment of an accused is not
a prerequisite to conduct hearing for the
granting of bail. The right to bail is available at the
time the accused is deprived of his liberty by virtue
of arrest or voluntary submission. (Serapio Case)
No
inconsistencies
exist
between
an
application for bail and a motion to quash. These
relied have different objectives not contradictory to
each other. (Serapio v. SDB)
RULE 115 RIGHTS OF THE

ACCUSED
ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS:
1. The court/tribunal clothed with judicial
authority to HEAR AND DETERMINE the matter
before it. (referring to Jurisdiction)
EQUIPOISE
RULE
APPLICABLE
IN
CRIMINAL CASE: refers to the evidence at
issue whereby there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates, the party having the
burden of proof loses.
In view thereof, when an inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more
explanation, one is the innocence and other is
guilt of the accused, the prosecution will lose
its case. (Dado v. Pp)
RULE 115 (PAR. B.)

Right to be
INFORMED of the nature and caused of
accusation against him (as to the MODE/MANNER
OF COMMISSION, as to the CRIME COMMITTED, as to the DATE
OF COMMISSION) see also Pp v. Parazo accused was a deafmute
QUALIFYING
AND/OR
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE ALLEGED IN
THE INFORMATION: otherwise the same will
not be appreciated by the court even if
proven. (Pp v. Sajolga) SEE ALSO RULE 110,
Section 8
REMEDY; WHEN THERE IS WAIVER
OF THE ACCUSED: Nevertheless, even
if the prosecution failed to allege the
qualifying circumstance, the accused
deemed waived it when IT WAS PROVEN
DURING
TRIAL
WITHOUT
HIS
OBJECTION. (Pp v, Orbita) WHAT WAS
ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT WAS
PROVEN WITHOUT HIS OBJECTION. (Pp
v. Atienza)
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully ACQUIRED over

the person or property subject of the proceeding;
3. The defendant must be given the
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD;
4. Judgment rendered upon a LAWFUL
HEARING. (Aguirre v. Pp)
R1: The rights of accused can be waived if it is
purely personal to the latter such as the right to
bail.
NO WAIVER; MORE THAN ONE

COUNT OF OFFENSE IS PROVEN
BUT ONLY ONE COUNT OF OFFENSE
CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION:
The 2 counts of rape, even if proven
and not objected by the accused will
not be appreciated. To do otherwise
would be contrary to public policy of the
rights of the accused to be informed.
(Pp v. Antildo)
R2: The rights of accused may NOT be subject to

waiver when it involves when it involves the
interest of the state by reason of public policy
such as right to due process, right to be informed
of the charges against him, right to free access of
court, right against torture.
RULE 115 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

AT THE TRIAL:
AS TO MODES/MANNER OF COMMISSION;
ALLEGATIONS
OF
CONCLUSION
OF
FACT
NOT
ALLOWED: it must state the
Page 40 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 41
SPECIFIC ACTS/OMISSION complained
of as constituting the offense. The
allegation did try and attempt to
rape is not sufficient and in violation
of the right of the accused to be
informed. (Pp v. Dimaano)
to be present ON SAID DATE AND ON ALL

SUBSEQUENT TRIAL DATES UNTIL CUSTODY
IS REGAINED. (Gimenez v. Nazareno)
ER: nevertheless,
APPEARANCE IS
NECESSARY:
ALLEGATIONS
OF
CONCLUSION
OF
LAW
NOT
ALLOWED: Where the information
charges an alternative charge stating
sexual
abuse
by
raping
or
committing acts of lasciviousness
not sufficient and in violation of the
right of the accused to be informed.
(Pp v. Dela Cruz)
THERE IS NO COMPLEX
CRIME
IN
A
SEPARATE
INFORMATION
CHARGING
A
DIFFERENT OFFENSE: although
tried jointly and arose out of one
incident. Otherwise it constitutes a
grave violation of the right of accused
to be informed. (Pp v. Legazpi)
i. Specifically ORDERD
by the court for
purposes of
identification;
Non-appearance herein is not a
cause for arrest when the accused
UNQAULIFIEDLY ADMITS IN OPEN COURT
AFTER ARRAIGNMENT that he is the person
named as defendant in the case on trial.
(Carredo v. Pp)
ii. During
ARRAIGNMENT;
AS TO THE CRIME COMMITTED; THE

ACCUSED MUST BE CONVICTED OF THE
CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION:
thus, an accused cannot be convicted of SALE
of shabu where the information was for
POSSESSION of shabu. Otherwise conviction is
without due process. (Pp v. Del Rosario)
iii. During
PROMULGATION OF
JUDGMENT
PROMULGATION IN ABSENTIA: The
contention that she was not notified even if
there is prior notice of change of address is
bereft of merit. Where the whereabouts of
the accused are unknown, the RECORDING
OF JUDGMENT IN THE CRIMINAL DOCKET
SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTIFYING
the accused of the decision wherever he
may be. (Pascau v. CA in contrast with
Parada v. Veneracion involves TRIAL in
Absentia)
Lucas)
REQUISITES UNDER THE BILL

RIGHTS
FOR A
VALID TRIAL
ABSENTIA:

1. Accused had already been arraigned;

2. Accused was duly notified of the trial;
RULE 115 (PAR. C.) from arraignment

to promulgation of judgement
3. Failure to appear is unjustifiable.

There was a defect on notifying the accused
since the notice was sent to his former
address despite the fact that he notified the
court of his change of address. (Parada v.
Veneracion in contrast with Pascua v. CA
involves Promulgation in Absentia)
I. Right of accused to be PRESENT

AT HIS TRIAL:
R: The right to be present
may be WAIVED pursuant to
the stipulations set forth in
his Bail.
ABSENCE W/O JUSTIFIABLE constitutes to
a waiver to be present for trial ON SUCH
DATE ONLY AND NOT FOR THE SUCCEEDING
TRIAL DATES. (Crisostomo v. SDB)
ACCUSED UNDER CUSTODY AND ESCAPE
he shall be deemed to have waived his right
OF
IN
II. Right to a COUNSEL DURING

TRIAL it means an efficient and truly decisive legal
assistance and not a simple perfunctory
representation. (Pp v. Ferrer) it does not presuppose
an intelligent counsel but an effective one. (Pp v.
Liwanag)
WHEN MANDATORY: ONLY at the time of arraignment,
afterwards, it is discretionary to appoint
one. (Sayson v. Pp)
Page 41 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 42
1. Right to confront and crossexamine the witnesses against him

at trial;
THE RIGHT HEREIN ALSO INCLUDES the right to

present evidence with the assistance of
counsel. (Pp v. Diaz) Due process basically
means a person must be heard before
being condemned. (Pp v. Bermas)
An affiant who never took the stand is

hearsay evidence and the constitutional
right to confrontation precludes the reliance
on affidavit. (Pp v. Santos)
Defense of a fake lawyer is void. A person

accused is entitled to be represented by a
member of the bar in a criminal case filed
against him. (Pp v. Diaz) BUT VALID, when
ratified by a new bona fide lawyer. (Pp v.
Tulin)
Mere opportunity and not actual crossexamination is the essence of the right to
confrontation. Accused lost such opportunity
when he sought the deferment of his crossexamination of the witness, and he only has
himself to blame in forever losing that right
by reason of the witness demise. (Pp v.
Narca)
There is no denial of the right where a

counsel de oficio was appointed during the
absence of the counsel de parte of
accused. Pursuant to the courts desire to
finish the case as early as practicable
under the continuous trial system. (Pp v.
Larranaga)
R: The right to counsel may

be WAIVED upon motion by
person accused sufficiently
appearing that he is capable
of defend himself w/o
assistance of counsel. (see
Pp v. Sesbreno)
RULE 115 (PAR. D.)

IN HIS OWN BEHALF
Right to TESTIFY
The burden of ensuring that the witness is

cross-examined is on the counsel for the
opposing party. (Pp v. Digno Jr.)
In the interest of justice, the court should
have given the accused the opportunity to
cross-examine the witness since it is not his
fault that the previous counsel did not do
the same. The accused should not suffer to
the failure of his previous counsel. (Pp v.
Ortillas)
2. To use evidence testimony of

witnesses NOT present during trial
PROVIDED:
EFFECT: Testimony subject to

cross-examination (Considered as well as a
I. WITNESS IS EITHER:
waiver to the right against self-incrimination)
a. deceased;
RULE 115 (PAR. E.) (RIGHT AGAINST

SELF-INCRIMINATION) to be exempt from
being compelled to be a witness against
himself. The right refers to the prohibition of the use of
b. Out of or cannot with due

diligence be found in the
Philippines;
testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in

nature acquired from him under duress. (Pp v. Rondero)
c. Unavailable or otherwise
unable to testify
Self-incriminating answer in reply to searching

inquiry in the plea of guilty is not illegal since the testimony
was freely and voluntarily given by the accused himself
without any compulsion from the agents of the state. (Pp v.
Besonia)
II. HIS/HER TESTIMONY HAS

ALREADY BEEN GIVEN IN
ANOTHER:
EXCEPTION; MECHANICAL ACTS:
i. Judicial OR admin
proceeding; and
1. Taking of hair strands (Pp v. Rondero)

2. Examination of sperm specimen and blood
sample. (Pp v. Yatar)
RULE 115 (PAR. F.)

CONFRONTATION: RATIO: (1)
Right
ii. Involving the same parties

or subject matter; and
to
to secure the
opportunity to cross-examine (2) allow the judge to observe
deportment and appearance of witness while testifying. (Pp v.
Ortiz)
iii. Adverse party had the

opportunity to cross-examine
said witness.
TESTIMONY IN PI CANNOT BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE
WHEN THE WITNESS THEREOF DIED BEFORE HE CAN
Page 42 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 43
TESTIFY AT TRIAL: Pursuant RULE 112 section 3 which
expressly provides that the adverse party in a clarificatory
hearing has no right cross examined the witness. In addition,
RULE 115 par. F further provides that the adverse party must
have cross-examined the witness in judicial or administrative
proceeding. As such testimony offered as evidence herein
must be rendered inadmissible being hearsay evidence. (See
Paderannga v. Dillon EN BANC)
However, Actual cross-examination of the witness with
presence of the accused or his attorney will be taken as
evidence. (De Leone v. Pp)
[ACCORDING TO ATTY. VALLES, De Leon v. Pp is overturned by
Paderannga v. Dillon. VERIFY ________________________]
RULE 115 (PAR. G.)

(RIGHT TO
COMPULSORY PROCESS) issued to secure
attendance of witnesses and production
of evidence in his behalf.
Thus, the movant must show:
1. The evidence is really MATERIAL;
2. He is NOT GUILTY OF NEGLECT in previously
obtaining the production of such evidence;
3. Evidence will be AVAILABLE AT THE TIME
DESIRED;
4. NO SIMILAR EVIDENCE could be obtained. (Pp v.
Chua)
RULE 116 ARRAIGNMENT

AND PLEA
RIGHTS AND WAIVER THEREOF: determine
whether
A. Rights of a person accused involved where
the State has interest. (Where the State has
an active duty to ensure that there is due
process of law) NOT WAIVABLE
B. Rights of a person accused where it is
personal to accused and in its nature a
privilege. WAIVABLE
RULE 116(1) Arraignment and plea:

(Par. A) PROCEDURE ARRAINGMENT
AND PLEA:
1. Arraignment must be done where the
complaint or information is (a) filed or (b)
assigned for trial;
2. Arraignment made in open court by
the judge or clerk through:
I.
RULE 115 (PAR. H.) RIGHT TO SPEEDY,

IMPARTIAL, AND PUBLIC TRIAL. Deemed
The
procedure
of
arraignment and plea must be
STRICTLY FOLLOWED. Thus the copy
of the information with the list of
witnesses must have been provided
to the accused. (Gamas v. Oco)
violated when proceedings are attended by vexatious,

capricious,
and
oppressive
delays
OR
unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked and secured OR without
cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to
lapse without a party having his case tried.(Yulo v. Pp)
The right to speedy trial is not violated when due to
legal cause outside the prosecutions control the case did not
proceed. In addition, the supervening delay seems to have
been without his objection and implied with his acquiescence.
The right may be waived. (Sumbang v. Court Marshall)
II.
Reading the same in the

language or dialect known to
him
This is an implementation
of the Consti right of the accused
to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against
him. Thus the reading of the
complaint or info must be at a
language or dialect known to him
otherwise the criminal proceeding
is presumed to be void. (Alicando
Case)
TRIAL BY PUBLICITY: right to a fair trial is compatible with

freedom of the press. It is not enough to conjure possibility of
prejudiced but must prove actual prejudice on the part of the
investigating officer or trial court for the SC to sustain this
plea. (Pp v. Sanchez; Estrada v. Desierto)
BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST applied between the
freedom of the press, right to public information and rights of
the accused when to avoid miscarriage of justice so as to
prevent distraction in the criminal proceeding the Live
coverage thereof should be denied. Audio visual recording of
the proceeding is allowed and released only after
promulgation of judgment in SDB. (RE: Request Radio-TV. . . .)
Waiver of the reading of

complaint or information may be
waived only by the accused. Rights
personal to the accused where in
its nature a privilege is waivable.
(Ruiz case)
RULE 115 (PAR. I.) RIGHT TO APPEAL

allowed in a manner prescribed by law. A
statutory right which the party seeking the remedy must
comply to requirements under the rules (Pp v. Dela Concha)
Furnishing accused of the

copy of the complaint or
information
III.
Page 43 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
Ask the accused whether to

plead guilty or not guilty
P a g e | 44
3. The prosecution may call at the trial

witnesses other those named in the
complaint or information. (Pp v. Dela Cruz)
(Par. B) PROCEDURE FOR THE
ACCUSED IN THE ARRAIGNMENT AND
PLEA:
1. Accused must be PRESENT at the
arraignment and must PERSONALLY enter
his plea
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT ARRAIGNMENT IS
MANDATORY. Under Rule 116 section 6, if
defendant appears at arraignment without
counsel, the court has 4 important duties to
comply:
I. Inform the defendant his rights to have an
atty before his arraignment;
II. Thereafter, ask if he desires the aid of atty;
4. Pre-trial conference 10 days from

arraignment
(Par. F) PROCEDURE FOR OFFENDED
PARTY: Private offended party REQUIRED
TO APPEAR at the arraignment for
purposes:
1. Plea bargaining
Consent in plea bargaining presupposes both
prosecutor and offended party otherwise right
against double jeopardy does not attach (RULE
117 sec.7)
2. Determination of civil liability

3. Other matters requiring his
presence
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR:
(plea
bargaining)
III. if desired but is unable to employ one, the
court must assigned ATTY DE OFICIO TO
DEFEND HIM;
IV. if desired an atty of his own choice, grant
him REASONABLE TIME therefore. (Gamas v.
Oco)
2. Arraignment and plea shall be made in

record but failure does not invalidate
the proceeding
(Par. C) WHEN PLEA OF NOT GUILTY
IS DEEMED GIVEN: Plea of not guilty
shall be entered
a. accuse refuse to plead; or
b. accuse makes a conditional plea
(Par. D) EFFECTS OF ACCUSED WHO
PLEAD
GUILTY
BUT
PRESENTED
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE: Accused presents
evidence likely to prove innocence
1. Plea of guilty withdrawn; and
1. Court allows the accused to enter

plea of guilty to a lesser offense
included in the offense charged
2. The allowed entry of plea of guilty
to a lesser MUT BE Only with the
conformity
(consent)
of
trial
prosecutor required
Exception to the required consent of plea
bargaining and right against double jeopardy to
attach (RULE 117 sec.7)
(Par. G) Time of arraignment: WITHIN

30 DAYS from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person UNLESS
shorter provided by law or SC circular
Arraignment made after the trial but
before judgment was held valid because it was
non-prejudicial to the accused where there was
retrial adopting all the procedure previous to the
arraignment. Hence, the defect was cured. Take
note however that absence of arraignment is VOID.
(Cabale Case)
THE
FOLLOWING
SHALL
BE
EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE 30
DAYS:
2. Plea of not guilty entered.

(Par. E) PROCEDURE FOR PERSON
UNDER PREVENTIVE DETENTION:
1. Case raffled
2. Records of the case transmitted to
judge
3. Arraign 10 days from raffle
1. Time of pendency of (a) motion to

quash (b) bill of particulars
2. Other cause justifying suspension
of arraignment
Indefinite
suspension
valid
when
proceeding is held in abeyance until decision for
Page 44 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 45
petition for review of the SOJ questioning the
resolution of the prosecutor as provided under
RULE 116 (11) but limited not to exceed 60 days.
(How Case)
RULE 116(2) Plea of guilty to a

lesser offense: (Plea bargaining) refers
to a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work
out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to
court approval. (Pp v. Villarama)
REQ:
1. Plea made (a) DURING arraignment or
(b) AFTER arraignment but BEFORE trial,
or (c) after the prosecution had rest;
(At pre-trial)We held that the rules allow such
A PLEA ONLY WHEN THE PROSECUTION DOES
NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH
THE GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. In his
concurring opinion in People v. Parohinog (G.R.
No. L-47462, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 373,
377), then Justice Antonio Barredo explained
clearly and tersely the rationale or the law:
x x x ( Plea bargaining A)fter the
prosecution had already rested, the only
basis on which the fiscal and the court could
rightfully act in allowing the appellant to change
his former plea of not guilty to murder to guilty
to the lesser crime of homicide could be nothing
more nothing less than the evidence already in
the record. The reason for this being that Section
4 of Rule 118 (now Section 2, Rule 116) under
which a PLEA FOR A LESSER OFFENSE IS
ALLOWED WAS NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN INTENDED AS A PROCEDURE FOR
COMPROMISE,
MUCH
LESS
BARGAINING.
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/ma
rch2008/163972-77.htm
see
also
Pp
v.
Valderama)
The effect on plea of guilty to a lesser offenses
of one accused CANNOT EXONERATE HIS COACCUSED. (Pp v. Patrolla, Jr.,)
2. The lesser offense must be necessarily

included in the offense charged;
Lesser offense must be in harmony
with the essential element of the crime in
relation to the offense charge in the allegation of
the complaint/information. Thus a case of
homicide cannot be downgraded to attempted
homicide which is contrary to the fact of death
by the victim. Lesser offense does not mean
lesser penalty. (Aujero, Magat Case)
3. It must be made WITH CONSENT (i)

offended party (ii) public prosecutor.
Exception to consent: RULE 116(1F) where offended party
with due notice, failed to appear at arraignment
EFFECT: No necessity to amend the

complaint or information
RULE 116(3) Duty of the court when

there is plea of guilty to a CAPITAL
OFFENSE:
1. Conduct SEARCHING INQUIRY into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of
the consequence of his plea.
The fact that the consequences of the
plea were explained to accused-appellant does
not comply with the strict parameters of a
searching inquiry since "a mere warning
that the accused faces the supreme
penalty of death is insufficient."2 xxxxIn view
of the foregoing we have no alternative but to
set aside the plea of guilty.30xxxx (People v.
Molina Dec 21 2000)
Comprehensive interview about the
accused
custodial
investigation,
arrest,
defense cousel and personality profiles such
as but not limited to his educational
background. (Pp v. Toncayao)
2. To require prosecutor prove his guilt to

the precise degree of culpability.
Still there must be presentation of
evidence to prove proof beyond reasonable doubt
other than the plea of guilty of the accused. (Pp v.
Besonia)
3. To ask accused if he desires to present

evidence. Court must proceed with extreme care where
the imposable penalty is death

there is plea of guilty to a NONCAPITAL OFFENSE:
1. The court may receive evidence from
the parties
2. Upon receipt, the court to determine
penalty to be impose
2 accused were charged for theft. One goes to
trial while the other pleaded guilty to a lesser
offense which was held in abeyance until the
former trial ends. After such trial, the court
acquitted both accused.
REMEDY ABOVE: The court should have
considered having the plea withdrawn in its place
and ordered a plea of not guilty entered. PRO HAC
VICE CASE, ACQUITTAL SUSTAINED conti rights of
the accused shall prevail. (Pp v. Mendoza citing
Rule 114, sec. 5 withdrawal of improvident plea)
RULE
116(5)
Withdrawal
of
improvident (meaning without foresight) plea
of guilty: at ANY TIME BEFORE
JUDGEMENT of conviction becomes final
Page 45 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 46
EFFECT: plea of guilty SUBSTITUTED by

plea of NOT guilty
A CRIMINAL CASE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE
ACCUSED HAS APPLIED FOR PROBATION under PD
968 being a final judgment the accused has
therefore waived his right to withdraw his
improvident plea of guilty and his rights to appeal.
(Militante Case)
HOW MADE: There must be a CATEGORICAL
DECLARATION from the accused that he is
withdrawing his plea of guilty and substituting it
with plea of not guilty. An accused should have
filed a motion or manifestation during trial. (Pp v.
Salamillo)
RULE 116(6) Duty of the court to

inform accused of his RIGHT TO
COUNSEL
1. (Before being arraigned) Inform
accused of his right to counsel Ask him if
he desires one
2. To assign counsel de officio to defend
him UNLESS
(a) Allowed to defend himself
(there
must be a waiver made voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently)
(b) Has counsel of choice
(court grant
reasonable time therefor)
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT ARRAIGNMENT

IS
MANDATORY.
UNDER
RULE
116
SECTION 6, if defendant appears at
arraignment without counsel, the court has
4 important duties to comply:
I. Inform the defendant his rights to have an
atty before his arraignment; (RIGHT TO
WHO ARE APPOINTED:

GR: Member of the bar in good standing
with
experience
and
ability
to
competently defend accused
ER: Locals, where members of the
bar is not available with good
refute, probity and ability to defend
accused
The applicability of the duty appointing
counsel de oficio is MANDATORY ONLY AT THE
TIME OF ARRAIGNMENT PROVIDED that accused
has no counsel of choice. (Sayson Case)
RULE 116(8) Time for counsel de

oficio to prepare for arraignment:
Given reasonable time to consult with the
accused
Generally counsel is given at least 1 hour to
consult with the accused to his plea before
proceeding with the arraignment. (Mendoza Case)
RULE 116(9) Bill of particulars

WHEN FILED: Before arraignment
PURPOSE: enable accused to properly
plead and prepare for trial
CONTENT: (1) Allege defects of the
complaint or information (2) Details
desired
An action for bill of particulars cannot be
raised for the first time in appeal. Vagueness of the
information is deemed waive and is presumed to
be cured by the presentation of evidence. (Flores
Case)
COUNSEL)
II. Thereafter, ask if he desires the aid of

atty;
Bill of particular cannot be invoke against a PI,

thus the latter appear to have reference in
information filed in court. (Cinco Case)
III. if desired but unable to employ one, the

court must assigned ATTY DE OFICIO TO
DEFEND HIM;
RULE
116(10)
Production
or
inspection of material evidence in
possession of prosecution:
IV. if desired an atty of his own choice,

grant him REASONABLE TIME therefore.
(Gamas v. Oco)
PROCEDURE: (1) Accused must file a

motion showing good cause (2) Notice to
the parties
RULE 116(7) When is there

appointment of counsel de officio
PURPOSE:
To
prevent
suppression or alteration
FACTORS: (1) Gravity of offense (2)

Difficulty of question that may arise
Page 46 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
surprise,
P a g e | 47
COURT
RESOLUTION:
prosecution
order
the
1. Produce and permit inspection and
copying or photographing:
i.
ii.
Written statement provided

in
the
complaint
and
witnesses NOT PRIVILEGE
Any documents and objects
2. It should constitute material

evidence involved in the case
3. It should be under control and
possession (a) prosecution (b) Police (c)
Law investigating agencies
An accused may avail of the
modes discovery proceedings PROVIDED
there is finding of probable cause because
by itself the latter is subject to life, liberty
and property risk of loss or diminution.
(Webb Case)
@ exam overturn by Paderannga
Case testimony must be subject to cross
examination otherwise the same will be
considered hearsay.
RULE 116(11) Motion for Suspension

of arraignment; Grounds thereof:
PROCEDURE: (1) Proper party file a
motion for suspension (2) Proper ground
must be present
GROUNDS:
P: The judge can issue warrant of arrest

immediately PROVIDED finding probable
cause after personal evaluation of evidence.
(RULE 112 sec.6)
The court is not bound to adopt the
resolution of the DOJ because of its mandate
to independently evaluate or assess the
merits of the case. The courts duty and
jurisdiction to determine prima face case.
Indeed the principle of separation of powers.
(Odilao Case)
Premature motion to dismiss the case
is not allowed especially when the resolution
of the DOJ is not yet a final judgement.
(Marcelo Case)
RULE 117 MOTION TO QUASH

RULE 117(1) Time to move to quash
at R: ANY TIME BEFORE ENTERING HIS
PLEA, the accused may move to quash
the complaint or information.
ER: Where the ground is either (a) failure to
charge an offense or (b) lack of jurisdiction of
the offense charge or (c) extinction of the
offense or (d) double jeopardy MOTION TO
QUASH, EVEN AFTER ARRAIGNMENT
IS
PROPER. (Marcos v. SDB)
A motion to quash contemplates an initial
action originating ONLY from the accused. (Pp
v. Nitafan)
RULE 117(2) Forms and Contents

FORMS:
1. It must be in writing;
2. Signed by the accused or his counsel;
A. Accused suffering from UNSOUND

MENTAL CONDITION which renders him
unable to understand the charge against
him and plead intelligently thereto
Duty of the court to order mental examination
and confinement if necessary to the accused
otherwise done the case may be remanded to
the lower court. (Mala Case)
B. Existence of PQ
C. Petition for review for resolution of the
prosecutor pending at DOJ or office of the
President BUT limited not to exceed 60
days from filing
The pendency of resolution of the DOJ
for a long time of 1 year is not a bar for the
court to continue criminal proceeding.
3. The content of the motion shall

distinctly specify its factual and legal
grounds;
R: FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS NOT ALLEGED IN THE
INFROMATION CANNOT BE RAISED BY THE
ACCUSED IN A MOTION TO QUASH. This is
because of the following reasons:
I. Factual allegations can only be raised as a
defense at the trial;
II. A motion to quash is a hypothetical
admission of facts alleged in the information.
(Milo v. Salanga)
R: The court will not consider any ground

not stated in the motion.
ER: The only ground the court may
consider motu propio, even if not
Page 47 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 48
raised is lack of jurisdiction over

the offense charge.
ER: However, FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OUTSIDE
THE INFORMATION may still be considered in the
hearing thereof only when IT CONSTITUTE LACK
OF JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGE,
such as
A. The rules expressly permit it;
B. Extinction of criminal liability;
C. Prescription;
D. former jeopardy;
BASIS: Section 14, Article III of the

Constitution, recognizes the right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against them. the
Rules of Court requires that the
information charging persons with an
offense be sufficient.
In invoking this ground, the accused
CANNOT
allege
factual
allegations
different or contrary of that stated in the
information EXCEPT when such fact was
admitted by the prosecution [modes of
discovery]. (Milo v. Salanga)
(See Milo v. Salanga ; Garcia v. CA)
RULE 117(3) Grounds: (exclusive)

No motion to quash may be filed if the grounds
stated are those not enumerated under the
rules. By quasing the information on the
premise of lack of probable cause instead of
merely dismissing the case, the judge acted
with grave abuse of discretion. (Pp v. SDB Sept.
29, 2004)
1. That the facts charge do not

constitute an offense
(IN REFERENCE WITH)
RULE
110(8)Designation
of
offense:
The
complaint
or
information shall
1. State the designation of the
offense given by the statute
2.
Aver
the
acts/omissions
constituting
the
offense
(CONTROLLING)
Although the designation of the
offenses
was
simple
theft
in
the
information, the accused was convicted of
qualified theft. WHAT CONTROLS IS NOT
THE DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENSE BUT
THE DESCRIPTION THEREOF ALLEGED IN
THE INFORMATION. (Avecilla Case)
TEST WHETHER FACTS CONSTITUTE

AN OFFENSE: is to determine if the
facts averred would establish the
presence of the essential elements
of the crime as defined in the law.
(Mendoza-Ong v. Pp)
Nullum crimen Nullum

poena Sine Lage squarely
applies
2. The court trying the case has NO

JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE
charged. JURISDICTION is conferred by law; it can also
be determined in the allegations of the complaint
3. The court trying the case has NO

JURISDICTION OVER THE
PERSON
charged.
The nature of accusation is

determined by the actual recital of facts in
the complaint or information. (Guiterrez
Case)
3. Specify its qualifying

aggravating circumstance.
In the information, it was

stated that offense was
discovered in 1989 but
complainants testimony
in a case before the CSC it
stated it was on 1974.
VALID
FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS
DUE
TO
PRESCRIPTION. (Garcia v.
CA)
and
Qualifying and Aggravating

Circumstance must be ALLEGE in the
information so that the court will
appreciate it as prescribed by Rule 110
(8) and (9). In this case, recidivism must be
alleged and certified true copies thereof
must be attached in the information. (Pp v.
Sayaboc)
HENCE, IN VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION

THROUGH BAIL THE COURT IS NOT DEEMED TO
HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON BECAUSE
UNDER RULE 114(26) Bail is not a bar to
objections of (a) Illegal arrest (b) Lack or
irregular PI. Thus the motion to quash must be
raised before entering his plea for the purpose of
objecting to the courts jurisdiction over the
person. Otherwise waived. (Arnado v. Buban)
JURISDICTION
OVER THE
OFFENSE
(SUBJECT
MATTER)
FOR OFFENSES WHICH HAVE NO

DESIGNATION: reference shall be
made to the section/subsection of
the statute punishing it. This usually
As
basis
to
JURISDICTIO
N OVER THE
PERSON
Conferred by
Constitution or
Law
By virtue of
arrest or
voluntary
submission
Entire proceeding
Void, cannot be
No effect if
the accused
applies to offense under special laws. (Guiterrez Case)
As to
effect of
Page 48 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 49
defect
and
waiver
waived
an aggravating circumstance, it is
necessary to allege it in the information
and to attach certified true copies of the
sentence. (Dacillo case)
failed to
challenge it
4. Name of the offended party.

Provided further in RULE 110(12)
4.
The
officer
who
filed
information had no authority
the
The effect of lack of authority of

prosecutor
filing
information
without
approval to the chief prosecutor even if there
is plea is considered as LACK OF JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER. The proceeding will
be void. (Garfin Case)
5. The complaint or information does

not conform substantially to the
prescribe form (IN REFERENCE WITH)
RULE 110(6) Sufficiency of
complaint or information.
REASON FOR THIS RULE AND ALL IN
SECTIONS RELATION HEREOF : Pursuant
to due process of law [Rights of the accused
to be informed] the accused must be
enabled to intelligently prepare for his
defense for the latter is presumed innocent
until proven otherwise. (Pp v. Arbios; Pp v.
Bali-balita)
REMEDY:
1. Motion for BILL OF PARTICULARS;
2. Motion to QUASH INFORMATION on the
ground that it does not conform to
prescribed form.
REQUISITE:
1.
(a) The name of the
accused
(b) When committed by
more than one person, all of
their
names
shall
be
stated. Provided further in RULE 110(7)
2. Designation of the offense
given by the statute. Provided further in
RULE 110(8)
5. Approximate date of
commission of the offense.
6. The place where the offense

was committed. Provided further in RULE
110(15)
RULE 110(7) name of the

accused
R1: The information must state a
NAME:
c. The name and surname of
the accused
d. Any appellation or nickname
which is known.
R2: When the name of accused
CANNOT BE ASCERTAIN:
3. Accused describe under a
fictitious name
4. And
accompanying
statement that true name is
unknown
R3: If the NAME IS THEREAFTER
DISCLOSED OR APPEARS in some
other manner such true name shall
be
inserted
in
the
complaint/information and record.
The belated contention of erroneous
designation of the accused name is
WAIVABLE. It cannot be raised first time
on appeal. (Pp v. Cagadas)
RULE 110(13) Duplicity of

offense; In general; Exception
thereof:
GR: A complaint/information must
In one information, accused was
charged with a several and separate multiple
murder and double attempted murder. it
clearly consist of duplicity of offenses and
therefore Quashable [remedy]. HOWEVER,
FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY OBJECTION
[before
arraignment]
CONSTITUTES
A
WAIVER OF THE ACCUSED. (Pp v Nardo, see
also Dimayacyac v. CA)
The statement of the details

of the crime need not be provided in the
complaint or information for the same will
be shown upon judicial proceeding. What
is required is that the charge be set
forth
with
particularity
as
will
reasonable indicate the exact offense
alleged and enable that accused to
intelligently prepare his defense.
(Arbios Case)
ER: may charge more than

one offense when the (Q)
law prescribes a single
punishment for VARIOUS
OFFENSE.
3. Acts/commission complained
of as constituting the offense.
Provided further in RULE 110(8)
Generally,
where
the
information fails to provides the
elements/qualification
constituting
the crime, there is a presumption from
the allegations that the act was unlawful.
There is no defect when an OFFENSE
WAS GIVEN BY THE STATUE as
provided therein and the ELEMENT/S
MAY
BE
INFERRED
FROM
THE
ALLEGATION. (Avecilla Case)
However, in CONSPIRACY, it
must be alleged, not just inferred in the
information.
(Quitlong
Case)
conspired confederated acting in
conspiracy
However,
in
LIBEL/DEFAMATION, the defamatory
words verbatim must be set out in the
information but a defect on this regard
may be cured by presentation of
evidence. Failure to object waived the
right to raise the defect of the
information. (Vasquez Case)
However, in RECIDIVISM as
the
Provided

EXCEPTION: The crime of Special complex
crime of rape with homicide is where homicide
committed with the occasion or by reason
of rape. The former offense is considered a
qualifying circumstance and by fiction of law
merges with the other crime becoming a
special complex crime as provided by
special law. (People v. Sanchez)
6. More than one offense is charge

except when a single punishment for
various offense is prescribe by law
(IN REFERENCE WITH)
Page 49 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 50
RULE 110(13) Duplicity of
offense; In general; Exception
thereof:
GR: A complaint/information must
In one information, accused was
charged with a several and separate multiple
murder and double attempted murder. it clearly
consist of duplicity of offenses and therefore
Quashable [remedy]. HOWEVER, FAILURE TO
MAKE A TIMELY OBJECTION [before arraignment]
CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF THE ACCUSED. (Pp v
Nardo, see also Dimayacyac v. CA)
8. The complaint or information

contains averments which, if true
would constitute a legal excuse or
justification
9. Double jeopardy (IN REFERENCE WITH)
ER: may charge more than

one offense when the (Q) law
prescribes
a
single
punishment for VARIOUS
OFFENSE.
EXCEPTION: The crime of Special complex crime of
rape with homicide is where homicide committed
with the occasion or by reason of rape. The
former
offense
is
considered
a
qualifying
circumstance and by fiction of law merges with the
other crime becoming a special complex crime as
provided by special law. (People v. Sanchez)
7. The criminal action or liability has

been
extinguished
(extinction
of
offense or prescription)
REQUISITES OF DJ (Dela Banda) insofar

as complaint/information is concerned:
1. First jeopardy must have attached
prior to the second:
(i) There is a valid
(ii) It is filed in a competent
court
(iii)
Accused
has
been
arraigned
and
pleaded
(referring to the first jeopardy,
see Pp v.Pineda)
2. First jeopardy must have been
validly terminated. THERE IS NO
VALID TERMINATION, among others,
when there is EXPRESS CONSENT of the
accused such as a Motion to quash
sustained by the court. (Dimayacyac v.
CA)
3. Second jeopardy must be for the (a)
same offense of for the (b) same act.
WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 110 (1): THE

FILING OF THE COMPLAINT IN ORDER TO TOLL
THE RUNNING OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
REFERS TO A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING . A
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING CONTEMPLATES AN
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING.
(NO) The filing of complaint to the
prosecutor
for
purposes
PI
CANNOT
(YES) The court held that the filing of the
complaint directly to the MTC is a judicial
proceeding thus TOLL THE RUNNING OF A
PRESCRIPTION PERIOD. (Zaldivia Case)
(YES) The complaint/information filed
directly to the office of the ombudsman
TOLLS THE RUNNING OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD, thus the latter being at par with the
proper court having judicial proceeding.
(Llenes Case)
(YES)
Still
considered
a
judicial
proceeding when the complaint was filed
directly to MTC but has no jurisdiction and
immediately dismissed the case. (Arambulo
Case)
(YES) Settled is the rule that what
controls is not the designation of the
offense the allegations contained in the
complaint or information. There is no
extinction of the offense because the filing of
original complaint [acts of lasciviousness]
although erroneous [should have been unjust
vexation] toll the running of the prescriptive
period
of
the
subsequently
amended
complaint. (Pp v. Marvilla)

there
is
an
amendment
of
information complaint in a motion to
quash
1. Court shall NOT QUASH OUTRIGHT the
information or complaint instead orders
its amendment when:
Page 50 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 51
A. Information
or
complaint
is
defective and can be cured by
amendment; or
B. The Facts charge allege in the
information or complaint do not
constitute an offense
REQUIREMENT OF PI: Before or After a plea,
a substantial amendment in an information
ENTITLES AN ACCUSED TO ANOTHER PI.
UNLESS, the amended information contains a
charge related to or included in the original
information. (Matalam v. SDB)
2. But GRANT the motion to quash

PROVIDED:
A. the complaint/info still suffers
the same defects
B.
prosecution
amendments
fails
to
make
REQUISITES OF DJ (Dela Banda) insofar as

complaint/information is concerned:
1. First jeopardy must have attached prior
to the second:
(i)
There
is
a
valid
(ii) It is filed in a competent court
(iii) Accused has been arraigned and
pleaded (referring to the first
jeopardy, see Pp v.Pineda)
2. First jeopardy must have been validly
terminated.
THERE
IS
NO
VALID
TERMINATION, among others, when there is
EXPRESS CONSENT of the accused such as a
Motion to quash sustained by the court.
(Dimayacyac v. CA)
3. Second jeopardy must be for the (a)
same offense of for the (b) same act.
2. BARRED to prosecute the same

offense charged when (a) the criminal
liability
of
accused
has
been
extinguished (b) or double jeopardy
attaches.
RULE
117(5) Effect of sustaining

(GRANTING) the motion to quash
RULE 118
A.
Court
may
ORDER
complaint/info filed (referring
PRE-TRIAL
new
to
without
prejudice to refilling)
AS TO THE ACCUSED IN CUSTODY:

A. NOT DISCHARGED if a new
information
is
timely
filed
unless admitted bail
B.
DISCHARGED if NO new
information is timely filed within
time specified unless under
custody of another charge
B. Court DOES NOT ORDER a new
complaint/info
be
filed.
Accused
DISCHARGED unless under custody of
another crime
RULE 117(7) Effect of SUSTAINING
(GRANTING) the motion to quash and
ORDERING a new information or
complaint be filed:
A. NOT A BAR for prosecution of the
same offense charged. This rule presupposes that
the first jeopardy did not attach since there was no
arraignment or that the first jeopardy was not validly
terminated since there was a motion to quash sustained by
the court.
RULE 118(1) PRE-TRIAL MANDATORY

in Criminal case; When ordered;
Subject matter thereof:
WHEN COURT ORDERS PRE-TRIAL:
after arraignment and within 30 DAYS
from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
ACQUIRED THROUGH the accused
must be in custody of the law
A. Warrant or warrantless Arrest
B. Voluntary appearance established
at arraignment
C. Filing of bail essential that the
accused submit himself to the custody
of the law
R: Filing of motion or affirmative
relief
ER: affirmative relief
expressly
constituted as a special
appearance in court to
question
the jurisdiction of the court.
(Miranda v.Tuliao)
Page 51 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
motion to quash the warrant on

the
ground
of
lack
of
jurisdiction
P a g e | 52
motion to quash the warrant on

the ground that the legality of
the court process is the issue
(RULE 114 sec.26)
during pre-trial absence of his signature. Hence,

presentation of the evidence of qualifying
circumstances was dispensed with. In this case,
it is proper that the RTC did not appreciate such
qualifying circumstance. (Pp v. Ancheta)
DURING TRIAL: stipulation of facts entered into
by the
respective
counsel
alone
IS
AUTOMATICALLY REDUCED INTO WRITING AND
CONTAINED IN THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT IN THE
PROCEEDING. It this stage it will be considered
judicial admission and the counsel binds the
client. (Pp v. Hernandez)
3. It must be APPROVED BY COURT if it

covers agreement mentioned in Sec.1;
SUBJECT MATTER IN PRE-TRIAL
HEREOF:
1. Plea bargaining;
WITHDRAWAL OF STIPULATION OF FACTS IS NOT

ALLOWED. Once validly entered into, stipulations
will not be set aside UNLESS for good cause. i.e.,
collusion, contrary to law and public poicy,
vitiated. (Bayas v. SDB)
EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE: It
cannot be used against the accused.
2. Stipulation of facts;
This is to expedite trial by dispensing with the
presentation of evidence admitted by the
accused. This procedure has long been
recognized and constitutes JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS,
hence binding upon parties. (Pp v. Hernandez)
3. Marking for identification of evidences

of the parties;
4. Waiver of objections to admissibility of
evidence;
5. Modification of the order of trial if the
accused admits the charge but interpose
a lawful defense;
6. Such matters as will promote a fair
and expeditious trial of the criminal and
civil aspect of the case
Under this rule, ADOPTION OF EVIDENCE IN
ANOTHER CASE IS ALLOWED. This will promote
fair and expeditious trial. Thus accused is bound
by the pre-trial agreement and cannot belatedly
disavow its contents. (Chua-burce v. CA)
RULE
118(3)
Effect
of
nonappearance at pre-trial conference:
Court imposed proper sanctions and
penalties provided there is no offer of
acceptable excuse.
The presence of complainant, witnesses and
accused is not required in the pre-trial conference
unless directed by the court under RA 8493. (Pp v.
Tac-an)
RULE 118(4) When there is PRETRIAL ORDER; Contents thereof;

effect
thereof:
after
pre-trial
conference
CONTENTS IN THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER:
1. The Actions taken;
2. The Facts stipulated;
3. The evidence marked;
RULE 118(2) PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT:
EFFECT OF PRE-TRIAL ORDER:
REQUISITE:
1. Bind the parties;
1. It must be reduced IN WRITING;

2. It must be SIGNED BY ACCUSED AND
COUNSEL;
Duly entered stipulation of facts in the

pre-trial agreement and upon pre-trial order is
considered as judicial admissions. The issuance
of pre-trial is not necessary to bind parties for its
purpose is to emphasized supervision by the
court over the case (Pp v. Pepito; Bayas v. SDB)
The signature of accused is a

mandatory requirement even if it is admitted
Page 52 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 53
2. Limit the trial to matters not disposed

of;
3. Control the action during trial UNLESS
modified by the court to prevent
manifest injustice.
7. Any attributable period not to

exceed 30 days
II.
Absence
or
ESSENTIAL witness
unavailability
of
Absence refers to whereabouts

UNKNOWN or cannot be determined by
due diligence
FINALS
RULE 119
TRIAL
(New provisions by virtue of AC no. 38-98 Speedy
trial Act)
RULE 119 (1) TIME

PREPARE FOR TRIAL:
6. Prejudicial question
PERIODS
TO
1. PREPARATION TIME FOR TRIAL: 15

days from plea of NOT guilty
2. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL: 30 days
from receipt of pre-trial order
ER: (a) special laws (b) Circular SC
RULE 119(2) CONTINUOS TRIAL
UNTIL TERMINATED (TRIAL SHOULD BE
CONTINUOUS) Once commence it continues
from day to day until postponed
provide with good cause
GR: Trial shall not exceed 180 days
UNLESS authorized by court (a) special
laws (b) Circular SC
The requirement of continuous trial is
satisfied from day to day, is held on a weekly
or short-term trial calendar and is completed
within 180 days from the first day of trial. (Pp
v. SDB Oct. 12, 2004)
RULE 119 (3) EXCLUSION excluded

from 180 days continuous trial
I. Other proceedings concerning accused:
(NOT EXCLUSIVE)
1. Physical and mental

examination of the court
2. Proceedings with respect to
other criminal charges of the
accused
Unavailability refers to whereabouts

KNOWN or cannot be determined by due
diligence
III. Mental incompetence or physical
inability of accused to stand trial
IV. When information dismissed and
thereafter charged of the same offense
by prosecution
VI. Accused joined for trial with coaccused (a) whom the court has not
acquired jurisdiction yet or (b) Time of
trial has not run
F. Continuance upon motion granted for
the ends of justice
The right to speedy trial is a relative
one subject to reasonable delays and
postponement. (Rosete Case)
The right to speedy trial is violated
when the proceedings is attended by
vexatious, capricious and oppressive delay
through unjustified postponements. (Pp v.
Billaber)
Postponements that are reasonable are
allowed. The right to a speedy trial should not be
utilized to deprive the state of a reasonable
opportunity of fairly prosecute criminal. (Tai Lim
Case)
RULE
119
(4)
FACTORS
FOR
GRANTING CONTINUANCE (EITHER OF
THE AFFIRMATIVE TEST)
A.
whether
continuation
proceeding is impossible
of
such
B. Whether results in a miscarriage of

justice
C. Whether case is so novel, unusual and
complex
3. Extra ordinary remedies against

interlocutory order
WHEN NOT GRANTED:
4. Pre-trial proceedings PROVIDED

not to exceed 30 days
2. Lack of diligent preparation
1. Congestion of the courts calendar
5. Change of venue
Page 53 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 54
3. Prosecutors failure to obtain available

witness
RULE 119 (5) TIME LIMIT FOLLOWING
AN ORDER OF NEW TRIAL
GR: 30 days from notice granting new
trial
ER: May be extended (a) impractical due
to unavailability of witness and other
factors (b) not to exceed 180 days
arraignmen
t
RULE 119 (7) PAO duties advice
accused of his right to demand trial
RULE 119 (8) Sanction for attorney
when:
1. Knowingly allow case to proceed
without the necessary witness
RULE 119 (6) EXTENDED TIME LIMIT within 80 days from arraignment
2. Knowingly filing a motion solely for

delay
STAGES OF
PROCEEDIN
GS
3. Knowingly filing a motion for

continuance base on false basis
Arraignme
nt
Pre-trial
Trial
WHEN IT
MUST BE
HELD OR
CONDUCTE
D
Within 30
days from
the date the
court
acquires
jurisdiction
over the
person
after
arraignmen
t and within
30
DAYS
from
the
date
the
court
acquires
jurisdiction
over
the
person
of
the
accused.
R: within 30
days from
receipt of
pre-trial
order
EXTENDED
PERIOD:
within 80
days from
PERTINENT
PROVISIONS
4. Knowingly failing to proceed without

justification
RULE 116,
SEC. 1(G)
RULE 119 (9) INVOCATION OF THE

RIGTH TO SPEEDY TRIAL:
TIME LIMIT:
(refer to table)
1. Arraignment 30 days from acquisition

of jurisdiction
RULE 119,
SEC. 1
2. Pre-trial 30 days from acquisition of

jurisdiction
3. Trial R: 30 days EXTENDABLE: within
80 days from arraignment
REMEDY: Invoke the right to speedy trial
if not brought to trial within the time limit
above.
1. MOTION TO DISMISS INFORMATION
2. SAID DISMISSAL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
THE RULES ON DJ (See Sta. Rita Case)
RULE 119 (10) Law on speedy trial
NOT A BAR to provision on Speedy
trial in the Constitution
RULE 119 (11) ORDER OF TRIAL
RULE 119,
SEC. 6
1. Prosecution presents evidence

Request of issuance of Subpoena of
defense during presentation of evidence by
prosecution is allowed. The rules do not
expressly prohibit it PROVIDED order of trial is
not in any way neither altered nor substantially
delayed. As when getting a document in a bank.
(Bersamin Case)
2. Accused/defense presents evidence

3. Rebuttal evidence by the prosecution
Page 54 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 55
R: the right to present evidence is reserve to
the state no less than the accused. As such
even if both parties has rested its case
CONTENT OF THE MOTION:

I. Name and residence of witness
(Buyser Case)
II. Substance of witness testimony
4. Sur-rebuttal by the accused/defense
III. The fact

(GROUNDS)
R: rules governing the examination of witness

must be complied; as such it is necessary that
direct testimony of witness must be given
orally in court. Use of affidavit as direct
testimony is frowned upon.
5. Admission of evidence of the parties

Waiver of right to present evidence must be
voluntary or upon the instance of the accused.
Otherwise, the accused is deprived of his right to
due process. (Adorio v. Bersamin)
WHEN ORDER OF TRIAL MODIFIED

accused admits the offense charged BUT
interposes a lawful defense (REVERSE TRIAL)
P: it is essential that the accused should be given a
chance to refute the allegations in every trial on the
merits.
R: a judge must subject the prosecution and the
defense to judicial scrutiny. The court is still duty
bound to ascertain whether the accused incurred
liability even if there be admission
(Garfin Case)
R: The accused has the right to presume innocent in
connection thereof the form of trial is a matter of
public order and interest that must be complied.
There must be reverse trial PROVIDED:
1.
2.
there is failure to object on the irregular order of

trial
there is admission of offense BUT interpose a
lawful defense
(Sacay Case)
R: reverse trial, among others, presupposes that the
accused claimed self-defense. There is no reverse
trial when accused rebutted that the victim shot
himself accidentally.
(Gutierrez Case)
RULE
119
(12)
APPLICATION
CONDITIONAL
EXAMINATION
OF
DEFENSE WITNESS FOR BEFORE
TRIAL (DEPOSITION TAKING) conditional
examination of witness in behalf of the
accuse
REQ: The accused
1. Has been held to answer for an offense
2. File a motion with the court
the
witness
a. Upon reasonable ground

there is inability to attend
trial due to sickness or
infirmities
b. Resides 100 klm from
place of trial and no
means to attend the same
c. Other
similar
circumstance that make
him
unavailable
or
prevented from attending
(Sacay Case)
6. Submitted for court decision UNLESS

(a) Oral argument (b) submission of
memoranda
that
3. Serve notice to other parties .
Referring to
the motion of conditional examination and NOT THE ISSUANCE
OF SUBPOENA since the prosecution has ample opportunity to
examine it once presented in court. (Adorio v. Bersamin)
R:
The
deposition
must
be
MATERIALLY
INDEPENDENT AND NOT CORROBORATIVE. (Jaylo
Case)
RULE 119 (13) PROCEDURE

CONDITIONAL
EXAMINATION
DEFENSE WITNESS;
OF
OF
EFFECT:
1. Court order directing a witness to
be examined at a specific time,
place and date
2. Copy of the order served towards
the prosecution 3 day thereof
DEPOSITION OFFICER: successively
1. Judge
2. If not practicable, member of the
bar designated thereof
3. Inferior court to be designated in
the order
RULE 119 (14) BAIL TO SECURE
APPEARANCE OF MATERIAL WITNESS
(REFERRING TO HOSTILE WITNESS)
REQ:
1. Statement under oath of material
witness and the latter will not
testify when required
2. Motion filed by a proper party
REMEDY:
1. Order witness to post bail
Page 55 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 56
2. Commit to prison, if refuse to give

bail thereof UNTIL compliance of
bail or discharge of testimony
attend
the
same
C.
Other
similar
circumstance
that make him
unavailable or
prevented
from attending
RULE
119
(15)
CONDITIONAL
EXAMINATION OF WITNESS FOR THE
PROSECUTION (DEPOSITION)
Fact of witness (GROUNDS)
a. TOO sick or infirm to
appear at trial as directed
by the court
b. Leaving the Philippines
with no definite date of
returning
DEPOSITION OFFICER judge of the
court where case is pending
EFFECT OF FAILURE/REFUSAL OF THE
ACCUSED TO ATTEND EXAMINATION
AFTER
REASONABLE
NOTICE
SERVED:
1. Waiver of the accused;
2. Statements taken herein admitted in
BEHALF or AGAINST the accused.
As
deposition
officer
Grounds
to
CONDITIONAL
EXAMINATION
OF WITNESS
FOR THE
DEFENSE
DEPOSITION
OFFICER:
successively
1. Judge
2. If not
practicable,
member of the
bar designated
thereof
3.
Inferior
court to be
designated in
the order
CONDITIONAL
EXAMINATION
OF WITNESS
FOR THE
PROSECUTION
DEPOSITION
OFFICER:
Judge only
A. Upon
reasonable
ground there is
inability to
attend trial
due to
sickness or
infirmities
B. Resides 100
klm from place
of trial and no
means
to
A. TOO sick or
infirm
to
appear at trial
as directed by
the court
B. Leaving the
Philippines
with
no
definite date of
returning
RULE 119 (16) JOINT

SEVERAL ACCUSED
TRIAL
FOR
GR: several accused tried jointly

ER: Subject to courts discretion upon
motion (a) Prosecutor (b) any of the
accused
P: The right to speedy trial and protection life,
liberty or property afforded by the constitution
prevails. (Dacanay Case)
Motion for separate trial should be
filed before the prosecution commence to
present evidence UNLESS there is antagonism
on the respective defences of the accused.
(Talino Case)
RULE 119 (17) PROCEDURE IN

DISCHARGED OF ACCUSED TO BE
STATE
WITNESS;
REQUISITES
THEREOF:
PROCEDURE:
1. 2 OR MORE persons are JOINTLY
CHARGE with the commission of any
offense
RATIO: at least 2 discharged state witnesses are
required to meet substantial corroboration. (Pp v.
Peralta)
2. Motion to discharged filed

prosecution BEFORE resting its case
by
A MOTION TO DISCHARGED MAY BE FILED AT ANY

STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING, from the filing of the
information to the time the defense starts to offer
any evidence. Discharged of state witness is
allowed during bail hearing since the prosecution
had presented several of its witness therein
already. (Pp v. Sunga; Chua v. CA)
3. Hearing in support of the discharge for

the presentation of evidence and sworn
statement in relation thereof
4. Court satisfied to the discharge;
REQUISITES
DISCHARGED:
Page 56 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
TO
BE
P a g e | 57
i. Absolute necessity of testimony

of accused whose discharge is
requested
ER: Accuse fails or refuses to testify in

accordance with his sworn statement
constituting a basis for his discharge
The judge must rely largely in the

suggestion and the information furnished by
the prosecuting officer in determining
absolute necessity. (Chua v. CA)
ii. No other direct evidence

available other than said testimony
P: once the discharge is granted, even if erroneous,

will not be subject reversal because right to DJ
already attaches EXEPT only when recalled on failure
or refusal to testify. (Hermosa Case)
RULE 119 (19)

INSTANCE
OF
THE
ORDER OF AMENDMENT AT THE

JUDGEWHEN
iii. Substantial corroboration of the

said testimony
MADE
CHARGING
THE
OFFENSE AND WHERE THERE
DISCHAGED OF STATE WITNESS.
iv. Accused not the most guilty one
REQ:
ER: In conspiracy, the crime is committed

clandestinely. Thus, a discharge of a
conspirator is necessary to testify against
the other conspirator. For who else may
testify on what was concocted but the
conspirators themselves. (Chua v. CA)
v. Accused not convicted of crime

involving moral turpitude
Although convicted of estafa, Error of
the court does not affect the COMPETENCY
AND QUALITY OF TESTIMONY DISCHARGED.
Discharged is a matter of sound discretion
by the court. (Mangubat v. SDB)
5. Court direct discharged of qualified

accused
6. Discharge must be with the accused
consent
While it is true that the accused himself cannot
be compelled to hostile witness against himself,
HOWEVER, there is nothing wrong as when he is
TESTIFYING AS CO-ACCUSED. In this case, he
remains an accused and can be made liable if
found guilty. (Pp v. Chavez)
EFFECTS:
A. When GRANTED, Evidence derive from
discharge automatically forms part of the
trial
B. When DENIED, sworn
inadmissible as evidence
statement
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHO WILL BE

DISCHARGED AS STATE WITNESS IS AN EXECUTIVE
FUNCTION: RA 6981(WPP) is an exclusion of accused to
be state witness. The prosecution vested with the power
to the prosecution of crime and therefore an inherent
function thereof.
On the other hand, the COURT is given the power to
discharge state witness because the court already
acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused.
(Webb v. De leone)
RULE 119 (18) DISCHARGE OF

ACCUSED OPERATES AS ACQUITTAL
MISTAKE
PROPER
HAS
BEEN
1. Becomes manifest any time BEFORE

judgment
2. By reason thereof, the accused cannot
be convicted of the (a) offense charge or
(b) any other offense necessarily
included therein
R: the ground for dismissal without
prejudice to refilling under RULE 119(19)
is exclusive; otherwise the proper action
would be substitution or amendment
under RULE 110(14) such as a mistake in
stating the date of commission of crime.
(Molero Case)
3. There appears good cause to detain

the accused
EFFECT:
1. The accused will NOT BE DISCHARGED
AS STATE WITNESS
2. ORDER the prosecution to file the
proper information
3. DISMISS the original case upon the
filing of the proper information
As to the one who institute RULE 110(14)
is the prosecution unlike RULE 119(19) is the
court
As to the stages of proceeding Rule
110(14) contemplates a longer time span which
is from filing the information up to and before
trial whereas RULE 119(19) is during trial stage
only
(Galvez Case)
RULE 119 (20) APPOINTMENT OF

ACTING PROSECUTOR disqualification
for any other reasons or those under
RULE 137(1) pecuniary interest, party-6 degree,
th
counsel-4th degree, legal rep.
GR: Discharge amounts to ACQUITTAL

and a BAR FOR FUTURE PROSECUTION of
the same offense
RULE 119 (21) EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC
Page 57 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 58
A. Instance of the court, IF EVIDENCE

PRODUCE OFFENSIVE TO DECENCY OR
PUBLIC MORALS; or
certiorari.
Being an interlocutory order,

therefore not appealable.
The grant of the MOTION for leave of
court
to
file
a
demurrer
is
discretionary. (Ladiana v. Pp)
B. Motion of the accused

RULE 119 (22) CONSOLIDATION OF
TRIALS RELATED OFFENSE
As to issues
(b) When GRANTED given

non extendible 10 days for
filing DEMURRER or opposed
thereof respectively to the
parties
involved RULE 111 involves
unlike RULE
119 involves consolidation of 2 or more
cases
consolidation of criminal and civil case
As to requisite of consolidation
RESOLUTION OF THE COURT ON

THE DEMURRER ITSELF:
RULE 111 requires civil case originally files separately from
(a) When DENIED accused

may present evidence to
prove his defense
(b) When GRANTED case
dismissed accused good as
acquitted
whereas RULE 119 requires

same facts of the series of offenses of
similar character
the criminal cases
RULE 119 (23) DEMURRER TO

EVIDENCE- when the court dismisses a
criminal action on the ground of
insufficiency
of
evidence
AFTER
prosecution rest
A demurrer to evidences is an objection by
one parties in an action to the effect that
evidence of adversaries produced is insufficient
in point of law to make out a case or sustain the
issue. WON there is competent or sufficient
evidence to sustain indictment or support a
verdict of guilt. (Katigbak v. SDB)
MODES: (a) at the instance of the court

or (b) Filing of the accused
B. Demurrer to evidence WITHOUT leave

of court
PROCEDURE:
1. DEMURRER to evidence filed
directly by the accused to the
court (No motion for leave of court)
RESOLUTION OF THE COURT ON
THE DEMURRER ITSELF:
a. When DENIED:
1. accused deemed to have
waived his right to
present evidence. It is
KINDS:
A. Demurrer to evidence WITH leave of
court
deem an unqualified waiver in the

belief that the evidence is insufficient.
Therefore any need to present any
evidence is negated. (Pp v. Sayaboc)
PROCEDURE:
1. Motion of leave of court to file
demurrer:
2. court
will
render
judgment based on the
evidence of prosecution
3. order not reviewable
by appeal or certiorari.
i. Accused file a MOTION within

the non-extendible period of 5
days after PROSECUTION REST
Being an interlocutory order, therefore

not appealable.
ii. Accused state the ground

thereof
iii. Prosecution may oppose
within non-extendible period of
5 days from RECIEPT
RESOLUTION OF THE COURT OF
SAID MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT:
(a) When DENIED order not
reviewable by appeal or
b. When GRANTED case

dismissed accused good as
acquitted
There was Grave abuse of discretion as
when evidence submitted was uncertified
rendering it inadmissible. Indeed ONCE GRANTED
AT ANY STAGE, THE RIGHT AGAINST DJ ATTACHES
ABSOLUTELY. (Ong Case)
R: As a general rule dismissal of a criminal case
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF ACCUSED is
required so that the right against DJ
attaches. This constitutes valid termination of
the first jeopardy.
Page 58 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 59
ER: HOWEVER, THE GRANT OF DEMURRER
TO EVIDENCE ALTHOUGH WITH THE EXPRESS
CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED CONSTITUTES
AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. (Pp v. SDB Feb.
4, 2002)
CIVIL ASPECT: With regard to the civil aspect,
where the demurrer to evidence was granted, the
right of accused to present evidence on the civil
aspect of the case should follow in accordance
with due process of law. (Salazar Case)
RULE 119 (24) REOPENING OF CASEmoto propio or upon motion, when
imposition of proper penalty and civil

liability
Judges are guided by the rules of law and
ought to protect and enforce it without fear or favor.
Non imposition of death penalty because of religious
belief is not allowed
(Veneracion Case)
AND FORM:
1. Written in official language
1. Anytime before finality of judgment

2. After a proper hearing
Oral judgment not allowed but maybe

corrected as subsequently issued a full
judgment. Indeed judge are not required to await
transcription notes before they can render
judgment but a written judgment is necessary.
(Lascuna Case)
GROUND: avoid miscarriage of justice

TERMINATION within 30 days from order
granting it
As to when to initiate, reopening
must
be
BEFORE
rendition
or
promulgation of judgment unlike motion for
new trial it should be AFTER rendition or promulgation
of judgement
2. Personally and directly prepared by

the judge
3. Signed by the judge
4. Contain clearly and distinctly FACTS
and LAW upon which it is based
P: the parties to a litigation must be informed
how the case is decided otherwise the decision
is a nullity
As
to
grounds,
reopening as a
reception of additional evidence is based
on the paramount interest of justice
resting entirely on the sound discretion of
the court whereas motion for new trial is base
(Bellaflor Case)
As to the merits, acquittal is based on the
merits showing evidence is not sufficient to
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt unlike
dismissal not base on the merits and base on
lack of jurisdiction or irregular information. (439
S 390)
upon only specific and well define grounds provided by

ROC.
(Reyes Case)
OTHER LAWS AS FORM PART THE

RULES ON TRIAL:
1. RA 4908 Judge to speedily try
criminal case where accused is
about
to
depart
from
the
Philippines without definite date of
return
2. RA 6033 Preference over
criminal case involving indigents
3. RA
6034
Act
providing
transportation and other allowance
for indigents
4. RA
6035
Act
requiring
stenographer free services on
indigents and low income litigants
RULE 120
JUDGMENT
RULE
120
JUDGMENT
(2)
CONTENTS
OF
Judgment of conviction state:

1. Legal qualifications as well as the
aggravating
and
mitigating
circumstance
2. Participation of the accused whether
principal, accomplice or accessory
3. Penalty imposed
4. Civil liability or damages UNLESS
separate civil action has been
reserved
Judgment of acquittal state:
1.
RULE
120
(1)
JUDGEMENT;
DEFINITION- adjudication that the
accused is guilty or not and the
(pursuant to Consti VIII sec. 14)
Evidence
of
the
prosecution
absolutely or merely failed to
prove guilt
2. Determine whether civil liability did

not exist
Page 59 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 60
RATIONALE: The losing party must be
given an opportunity to analyze the decision and
if permitted consider the error thereof. (Lizada
Case)
RULE
120
(3)
EFFECT
WHEN
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATON IS
DUPLICITOUS:
GR: the accused may file a motion to
quash BEFORE trial
WHEN FAILURE:
1. Waived the defect
2. Conviction of several offenses charged
and proven. (see Pp v. Tira)
3. Impose on him the penalty for each
offense
RULE 120 (4) JUDGMENT IN CASE OF
VARIANCE BETWEEN ALLEGATION
AND PROOF
REQ:
TAKE NOTE: what controls is not the

designation of offense but the recital of facts
or description alleged in the information in
determining the offense committed by the
accused. (RULE 110)
No variance exists between simple
illegal recruitment and illegal recruitment in
large scale in the LC. BOTH CRIMES ARE
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSE. The latter
requires an element of 3 or more illegal
recruitment individually or as a group who
jointly filed a complaint. (Reyes Case)
IF THERE IS PRESCRIPTION INVOLVED: As
a rule an accused must be discharged when
he is charged with a grave offense in an
information BUT convicted of a lesser included
offense which is barred by prescription.
Circumvention of the law of prescription by the
simple expedient of accusing a graver offense
is not allowed. (Magat v. Pp citing Franciso v.
CA)
RULE 120 (5) WHEN AN OFFENSE

INCLUDES OR IS INCLUDED IN
ANOTHER
R1: to determine whether variances exist,
there must be some essential elements
similar to both offenses charged and
proven.IN
THIS
SITUATION
VARIANCE
EXIST(RULE 120 sec. 5)
1. Variance between the offense charge

in the information and the offense
proven AFTER TRIAL
2. The offense charge NECESSARILY

INCLUDED in the offense proved
(ADDITIONAL REQ) R: RULE 119(4) PRESUPPOSES
JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE CRIMES IN VARIANCE. In this
case, RTC had no jurisdiction since the lesser included offense
proven falls in the jurisdiction of the MTC. (Pangilinan v. CA)
EFFECT OF CONVICTION: accused will

be convicted of either:
POLICY: the LESSER OFFENSE charged or
proved prevails pursuant to principle that is
beneficial to the accused. The conviction must
be attempted rape as charged in the
information although what has been proven in
consummated rape. (Pp v. Lucas)
BUT when the accused failed to
object to the higher valuation of the property
stolen, he has deemed waived his right to
avail of the lower penalty under the RPC
although what was charged in the information
was a lower valuation. (Pp v. Salazar)
(a) The offense PROVEN which is

included in the offense charged in the
information; or
(b) The offense CHARGED in the
information which is included in the
offense proved
R: to determine whether variances exist, there
must be some essential elements similar
to both offenses charged and proven.IN
THIS SITUATION VARIANCE EXIST. (RULE 120
sec. 5)
Under the theory that the greater

includes the lesser offense. Accused
charged with homicide but convicted of
reckless
imprudence
resulting
to
homicide
(Magno Case)
RULE 120 (6) PROMULGATION OF

JUDGMENT; PROCEDURE THEREOF
1. Judgment promulgated by READING
IT IN THE PRESENCE of the accused and
any judge where it was rendered
RATIO: so that the accused is identified by the
court; to prevent the accused a chance to plead
or move in arrest; The opportunity of accused to
say what he can say on the judgment; As an
exemplary to deter other to commit commission
of a crime. (US v. Beecham)
The presence of counsel is not necessary in
the promulgation of judgment. As well as the
offended party is immaterial (Cuevas Case;
Imbing case)
Promulgation of judgment refers to SENTENCE
RENDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT and not any
other judgment. Appeal judgment is an
execution of the judgment against the accsued.
(Report on the On-the-spot..)
ER:
(as to the PRESENCE of accused and judge)
A. Q: If conviction for light offense

presence
of
counsel
or
representative suffices
INSTANCE
PROMULGATED
ACCUSED:
Page 60 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
WHEN
JUDGMENT
DESPIT
ABSENE
OF
P a g e | 61
iv. Prove absence

justifiable cause
1. If conviction is for a light offense;

2. There is promulgation in absentia
where the accused jumps bail or
escaped in prison. (Pascua v. CA)
3. In a verdict of acquittal since no
appeal
is
necessary
because
judgment
becomes
final
and
executor. (Cruz v. Pascual)
B. Q: When judge absent or outside

province or city clerk of court
will promulgate
for
2. The Court promulgating judgment

shall have the authority to
I. Accept the notice of appeal;
II. Approved the bail bond pending
appeal
C. Q: If accused confined or
detained in another province or city
executive judge of the RTC
therein upon request
ER: CA shall accept and

approved bail when the
nature
of
the
offense
changed FROM non-bailable
TO bailable
D. Q: If accused fails to appear

despite notice: (also includes TRIAL
IN ABSENTIA either jumped bail or
escape from prison)
DUTY OF CLERK OF COURT BEFORE

JUDGMENT give NOTICE to the
accused requiring him to be present at
the promulgation either:
I. Recording the judgment in

the criminal docket
a. personally
II. Serve a copy thereof his last

known address or his counsel
c. If in absentia. Serve notice

judgment at his last known address
PROMULGATION IN ABSENTIA: The contention

that she was not notified even if there is prior notice
of change of address is bereft of merit. Where the
whereabouts of the accused are unknown, the
RECORDING OF JUDGMENT IN THE CRIMINAL DOCKET
SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTIFYING the
accused of the decision wherever he may be. (Pascau
v. CA in contrast with Parada v. Veneracion involves
TRIAL in Absentia)
EFFECT OF CONVICTION AND

FAILURE TO APPEAR: court order
his ARREST and accused lose postjudgment remedies
i.
ii.
iii.
Motion for new trial

or reconsideration
Appeal
REMEDY: Within 15 days

from
PROMULGATION
OF
JUDGMENT the accused:
i. surrenders and
ii. Files a motion for leave of
court to avail post-judgment
remedies
This means that won the absence of
accused during promulgation is justified,
THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IS NOT LOST, the
only requirement being that the notice of
appeal must be filed within 15 days from
notice of judgment. (Moslares v. CA)
iii. Stating the reason of his

absence
b. Bondsman, warden or counsel

of
RULE
120
(7)
WHEN
THERE
MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT; WHEN
JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL (rule only
recognized that there may be modification of judgment
through post judgment remedies)
REQUISITES FOR MODIFICATION OF

JUDMGENT:
1. Judgment of conviction
2.
Accused
modification
filed
motion
for
This motion is not available to the prosecution.

This aims to protect the accused from being put
anew to defend him of the penalties overlooked
by the prosecutor. (Viernes Case)
3. The motion filed BEFORE (a) judgment

becomes final and (b) appeal is perfected
WHEN JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL:
A. Judgment of ACQUITTAL immediately
final upon promulgation
IN OUR JURISDICTION, WE ADHERE TO THE
FINALITY-OF-ACQUITTAL DOCTRINE, THAT IS, A
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS FINAL AND
UNAPPEALABLE.[8]
The rule, however, is not
without exception. In several cases,[9] the Court
has
entertained
petitions
for
certiorari
questioning the acquittal of the accused in, or
Page 61 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 62
the dismissals of, criminal cases. Thus, in People
v. Louel Uy,[10] the Court has held:
Like any other rule, however, the above said rule
is not absolute. By way of exception, a judgment
of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court upon clear showing by the
petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the
accused, committed not merely reversible
errors of judgmentbut also grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus
rendering the assailed judgment void.
xxxxx
An error of judgment is one in which the court
may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An
error of jurisdiction is one where the act
complained of was issued by the court without
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction and which error is
correctible only by the extraordinary writ of
certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to
cure errors [of judgement] by the trial
court in its appreciation of the evidence of
the parties, and its conclusions anchored
on the said findings and its conclusions of
law.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

OR RECON
POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES:
1. Motion for new trial (RULE 121 sec.2)
2. Motion for reconsideration (RULE 121 sec.3)
3. Appeal (RULE 122)
RULE 121 (1) NEW

RECONSIDERATION
TRIAL
OR
REQ:
1. Judgment of conviction
2. Motion EITHER (a) accused (b) Court
motu propio W/ CONSENT of accused
Motion of the prosecution is not allowed. This
aims to protect the accused from being put anew to
defend him of the penalties overlooked by the
prosecutor. Moreover even in MNT the consent of
accused is necessary
(Viernes Case)
3. The motion filed BEFORE (a) judgment

becomes final (b) appeal is perfected
xxxxxx
(People v .Asis)
B. Judgment of CONVICTION:
(a) After the lapse of period for
perfecting an appeal EXCEPT CA
automatic review in death penalty
RATIONALE: Post judgment remedies except appeal are

allowed for the court to correct its own mistake and to avoid
unnecessary appeals being taken.
EFFECTS: Consequently the effect of post judgment remedy
except appeal may be:
(b) Sentence partially or totally

served, even if within the period
to appeal
A. Modify or set aside original judgment. The mere grant of

the MNT operates to vacate original judgment. It as if no trial
had been hand before. (Pp v. Astudillo; Obugan v. Pp citing
RULE 121, Sec.6)
(c) waiver of right to appeal in

writing
B. The offended party may file a MFR of such dismissal or

acquittal or appeal therefrom but only insofar as civil aspect
therefrom is concerned. (Mobilia v. Umezawa)
(d) Accused applied for probation.

The application thereof deemed to have accepted the
judgment and a waiver to appeal (Cal Case)
RULE 120 (8) ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

After judgment has become final, it shall
be entered in accordance with RULE36
(8)
The court cannot convict an accused where the evidence

clearly exonerate him nor acquit the same solely on the same
ground without trial. Thus the case should be remanded in
the court a quo for new trial (Ebias case)
Acquittal is final upon promulgation is absolute
however the constitution provides the exception when grave
abuse of discretion is present.
RULE 120 (9) WHAT SHALL NOT BE

AFFECTED BY THIS RULE:
RULE 121 (2) GROUNDS FOR NEW

TRIAL
1. Laws on Suspension of sentence

2. Law on Probation
3. Law on Parole
1. Errors of law has been committed

DURING trial
RULE 121
2. Irregularities prejudicial to the

substantive rights of the accused
DURING trial
Page 62 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 63
3. Newly discovered evidence
Confession of another convict (Ebias

Case)
REQ:
i. Evidence must
discovered after trial
have
Accused convicted of death. Later an

affidavit of desistance and medical
certificate showing the victims virginity
was presented which are contrary to that
of presented by the prosecution. (Del
Mundo Case)
been
ii. Evidence could have not been

discovered even if reasonable
diligence was employed
iv. Evidence of such weight if

admitted would PROBABLY change
the judgment
WHEN NOT ALLOWED

R: Negligence negates presence of
reasonable diligence; presence thereof
renders this remedy unavailable.
ER: ABSOLUTE EXCEPTION when

1.
Lack of knowledge of the

existence DNA testing speaks of
negligence. (In re: Writ of habeas
corpus 10/17/14)
Forgotten evidence when a
paraffin test was not included in
the trial. (Ducay Case)
Passport not shown in the trial
which the defense could have
easily shown at trial. (Li Ka Kim
Case)
Error of defense counsel in trial,
the client is bound in the action
of his counsel. Inexperience,
incompetence or ignorance of
counsel is not a ground for new
trial (Almendras Case)
iii. Evidence must be MATERIAL,

not merely corroborative or impeaching
2.
Broader ground of substantial justice is present (Pp v.

Almendras citing RULE 121, sec. 6) where the
mistake of counsel is as grave and serious as to
deprive the accused due process of law.
Penalty imposed by accused is death
Accused convicted of death when there is variance

when there is affidavit of desistance and medical certificate
showing the victims virginity. (Del Mundo Case)
RULE
121
(3)
GROUNDS
FOR
RECONSIDERATION (a) ERROR OF
LAW (b) ERROR OF FACT (in contrast w/ the
grounds for MNT) both requires no further
proceeding
MFR and Modification of sentence TREATED AS
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, when the accused
seeks the retroactive application which is beneficial to
him. (Villa v. CA)
WHEN NOT ALLOWED
[see wrong remedy at Vaca case @ Rules on Bail]

Proposed
new
evidence
of
paraffin test which is easier rebut when a
person use gloves or wash hands
afterwards. (Ducay Case)
RULE 121 (4) FORM OF MOTION AND

NOTICE TO PROSECUTOR
Proposed
new
evidence
of
passport which is immaterial, the accused
positively identified by the witness. (Li Ka
Kim Case)
REQ:
Proposed new evidence of affidavit or

recantation where a witness retracts their
testimony after trial. To do otherwise
would open the door to endless litigation
and place trial at the mercy of
unscrupulous witnesses. (Garcia Case)
2. State the ground
Proposed new evidence of the

ADDRESS
OF
WITNESS
which
will
corroborate existing testimony. (Dela Cruz
Case)
WHEN ALLOWED
Proposed new evidence of NEW
WITNESS which probably change the
judgment (Amparado Case)
1. In writing
R: in case of newly discovered

evidence, must be supported with
(i) affidavits (ii) duly authenticated
copies of documents
3. Notice of motion given to prosecution
RULE 121 (5) HEARING IN MOTION
when the court is called for the resolution
of any QUESTION OF FACT
Page 63 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 64
RULE 121 (6) EFFECTS OF GRANTING

NEW TRIAL OR RECON
done. The remedy here should be RULE 65.

(Basa Case)
No express provision that SC is bound to
exclusively answer question of law which divest
CAs jurisdiction. The CA moreover can answer
both question of fact and law as provided by the
ROC. (Tan Case)
FOR
BOTH
MNT/MFR:
Original
judgment set aside or vacated and new
judgment rendered accordingly
EFFECTS: Consequently the effect of post
judgment remedy except appeal is to Modify
or set aside original judgment. The mere
grant of the MNT operates to vacate original
judgment. It as if no trial had been heard
before. (Pp v. Astudillo; Obugan v. Pp citing
RULE 121, Sec.6)
FOR MNT ONLY: Effects in case base on

MNT ground errors of law & irregularities;
1.
ALL
PROCEEDINGS
AND
EVIDENCE AFFECTED THEREOF
SET ASIDE AND TAKE ANEW
2. Allow introduction of additional
evidence in the interest of
justice
SPECIFIC PERSONS WHO MAY FILE AN APPEAL:

1. THE ACCUSED
i. Judgment of conviction
ii. with respect to the civil aspect
2. THE PROSECUTION provided the accused not be place in
DJ. The prosecution cannot appeal on the ground that the
accused should have been given a more severe penalty.
3. THE OFFENDED PARTY with respect ONLY to the civil
aspect arising ex-delictu (Heirs o Rellota v. Firme)
4. THE BONDSMAN OF ACCUSED in case the judgment
against the bond in forfeiture case
5. THE EMPLOYER OF ACCUSED INSOFAR as the order of
the court making him subsidiarily liable under RPC 103
An employer of the accused in
appealing the case is aimed to absolve the
latter. However, he cannot appeal without the
consent of the accused as it would violate his
rights against DJ since judgment against him
could become subject to modification. (Phil
Rabbit v. Pp)
R2: Effects if the grounds is NDE

1. Evidence already adduce stand
2. Newly discovered evidence and all
relating
thereof
allowed
as
evidence and considered together
with the evidence already in record
RULE 122(2) WHERE TO APPEAL:

MTC RTC
RULE 122
RTC cases as provided by law

CA or
APPEAL
(referring to sentences other than death or

life imprisonment)
RULE 122(1) WHO MAY APPEAL
SC
GR: Any person may appeal from a

judgment or final order
CA SC
AN APPEAL FROM THE SENTENCE OF

THE TRIAL COURT IMPLIES A WAIVER OF
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARD
AGAINST DJ AS IT THROWS THE WHOLE
CASE OPEN FOR REVIEW. It follows that a
penalty higher that that meted out in the trial
court will be imposed. (Phil Rabbit v. Pp)
ER: Unless accused placed in DJ

Appeal contemplates a final decision or
judgment on the merits thus interlocutory order
cannot be a subject to an appeal. An
interlocutory order does not dispose a case
completely as it leaves something more to be
(referring
imprisonment)
to
sentences
of
death
or
RULE 122(3) HOW APPEAL TAKEN

ORIGINAL JURIS
FROM
TO
MTC
RTC
NOTICE OF
APPEAL (RULE
40)
RTC
CA
NOTICE OF
APPEAL (RULE
Page 64 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
MODE
life
P a g e | 65
20 years to 40 years imprisonment. (Macalat
Case)
41)
RTC for
cases
where:
CA
(As amended accordingly

by AM no. 005-5-03-SC)
(a) death,
reclusion
perpetua or
life
imprisonm
ent is
imposed;
or
AN APPEAL TO THE CA
WHERE
DEATH,
RECLUSION
PERPETUA
OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT
IS ALLOWED: while the
fundamental law requires a
mandatory review by the
SC, nowhere, however, has
it
proscribed
an
intermediate
review.
Where life and liberty are
at stake, all possible
avenues to determine his
guilt or innocence must be
accorded to accused. All
ROC insofar as they
provide
for
direct
appeals from RTC to SC
where penalty imposed
is
death,
reclusion
perpetua
or
life
imprisonment
to
be
deemed
modified
accordingly.
(b)
where
lesser penalty
is imposed
BUT involving
offenses
committed in
the same
occasion or
occurrence
giving rise to
serious offense
which the
penalty is
reclusion
perpetua or
death
(Pp v. Mateo)
THIS INCLUDES
PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW.
Neither does the CA divest
SC
of
its
ultimate
jurisdiction
over
such
question. (Tan v. Pp)
(AM no. 0055-03-SC)
RTC for
cases
where the
death is
imposed
AUTOMATIC
REVIEW
SC
AUTOMATIC
REVIEW
Appeal in the CA as
modified by Pp v. Mateo
and AM no. 005-03-SC)
RULE 122(4) SERVICE OF NOTICE OF

APPEAL either
A. Adverse party or
B. His counsel
PROCEDURE:
GR Personal service
ER: (a) Registered mail (b) Substituted
service pursuant to ROC sec 7&8
RULE 122(5) WAIVER OF NOTICE
Appellee may waive and appellate court
may even entertain regardless thereof in
the interest of justice.
RULE 122(6) WHEN APPEAL TO BE
TAKEN 15 days from:
(b) Notice of final order appealed from

(when in absentia)
In promulgation in absentia, the period to
appeal will begin to run upon the recording
the judgment in the criminal docket under
Rule 120, section 6. (Estrada v. People)
FROM
TO
MODE
RTC
CA
PETITION
FOR
REVIEW (RULE 42)
SC
IN OUR JURISDICTION, WE ADHERE

TO THE FINALITY-OF-ACQUITTAL DOCTRINE,
THAT IS, A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.[8] unless there is grave
abuse of discretion. (Pp v. Asis)
(a) Promulgation of judgement
APPELLATE JURIS
CA
R2: Appeal contemplates a FINAL DECISION

OR JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS thus
interlocutory order cannot be a subject to an
appeal. An interlocutory order does not
dispose a case completely as it leaves
something more to be done. The remedy here
should be RULE 65. (Basa Case)
PETITION
REVIEW
CERTIORARI
R1: For purposes of determining appellate

jurisdiction in criminal case, the maximum
penalty and not the minimum is TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION. The maximum penalty as for
now is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
FOR
ON
R: Effect when accuse files MNT or MFR:

1. Period within to appeal will be
suspended from the filing of the motion
thereof
2. The balance shall begin to run from
the time the notice denying the motion
has been served
FRESH PERIOD RULE a.ka. Neypes Rule:
Provides a fresh period of 15 days within which to
Page 65 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 66
4. Appellate court decision based on

entire record and memoranda
file the notice of appeal which will be counted from

RECEIPT OF THE ORDER DISMISSING A MNT or
MFR. This rule aims to standardize the appeal
periods provided in the Rules and to afford
litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases.
(Panolino v. Tajala citing Neypes Rule)
RULE
122(8)
DUTIES
OF
STENOGRAPHER WHEN APPEAL IS
FILED:
1. Upon filing the notice of appeal,
TRANSCRIBE the notes of the proceeding
for the accused and the People of the
Philippines;
2. Certify the correctness of the notes
and furnish copies therewith without
unnecessary delay
3. if death penalty is
imposed, the
abovementioned duties must be done in
30 days non-extendible.
RULE 122(10) TRANSMISSION IN

CASE OF DEATH PENALTY: Records
forwarded in the CA for automatic review
as modified accordingly by Pp v. Mateo and AM no. 005-5-03SC
RULE 122(11) EFFECT OF APPEAL BY

ANY OF SEVERAL ACCUSED
1: The one who did not appeal cannot be
affected by the judgment of the appellate
court.
In an appeal of several accused,
additional penalties cannot prejudice an
accused who did not appeal. (Cabales
Case)
ER:
Unless
FAVORABLE
APPLICABLE to them
The court in the interest of justice should uphold

the right to appeal by the accused and not suffer
to the non-feasance of the stenographers that
caused the record on appeal to be delayed.
(Advincula v. IAC)
Acquittal of one who appealed and

the others who did not will be applicable to
the latter since it is beneficial to him. (Pp v.
Escano)
RULE 122(7) TRANSMISSIONS OF

PAPERS TO APPELLATE COURT UPON
APPEAL Clerk of court will transmit
within 5 days from the filing of notice of
appeal (otherwise administratively liable Tan v.
Coliflores)
2. The complete records of the case;

3
Even if the co-accused is in absentia

the latter shall enjoy the benefit of appeal
by the other. (Fernandez Case)
2. Appeal with respect to civil liability

shall not affect the criminal aspect of the
judgment
Deletion of damages is a modification
beneficial to the accused including those who
did not appeal. (Cabales Case)
1. The notice of appeal filed;
3. The original and

stenographic notes
AND
copies
of
3. Execution or final order appealed shall

be STAYED insofar as the appealing
party is concerned.
RULE 122(12)
APPEAL
RULE 122(9) APPEAL TO RTC

PROCEDURE:
1. Clerk of court transmit record within 5
days to the appellate court
2. Upon receipt thereof, clerk of court
notify the parties of such fact
3. Appellate court shall decide after
submission and expiration of memoranda
WITHDRAWAL
OF
R: Among all others the court of origin,

even after perfection of the appeal
PROVIDED
there
is
(Q)
NO
TRANSMISSION OF RECORDS YET under
ROC 122(8)
In appeals from MTC to RTC, (Q)
motion to withdraw appeal is required
BEFORE the RTC renders judgment.
Page 66 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 67
R2: Subject to Court discretion on

granting the motion to withdraw appeal.
V.
To allow a ministerial grant of a motion to withdraw appeal

would be to allow an error commtted by lower court which
should not be allowed. (Teodoro v. CA)
The appeal is deemed perfected upon the
filing of notice of a notice of appeal. Consequently
trial court loses its power the grant MNT or MFR,
because they lose jurisdiction over the case. (Pp v.
Dela Cruz)
HOWEVER, when the accused started to serve his
sentence [or apply for probation], while there is
a notice of appeal filed, the same will be
considered as an implied withdrawal of appeal.
(Ibid.)
RULE 122 (13) DUTIES OF THE CLERK

OF COURT IN THE TRIAL COURT
WHEN ACCUSED FILES A NOTICE OF
APPEAL; APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
DE OFICIO duty of the clerk of court
(free access to court CONSTI III sec. 11)
1. To ascertain from appellant whether

he desires to be appointed a counsel de
officio to defend him
2.
To
transmit
(i)
certificate
of
compliance (ii) response of appellant
thereof
RULE 123
PROCEDURE IN THE MTC
RULE 123(1) UNIFORM PROCEDURE:
R: Procedure to be observed in the MTC
shall be the same as that of the RTC
ER: Different procedure is either:
A. Specifically provided to either of
said courts;
B. In criminal cases governed by
Summary Rule. Referral to Barangay
conciliation is required otherwise dismissed without
prejudice to revival thereof. (Sec. 18)
CASES SUBJECT TO SUMMARY PROCEDURE: The
MetTC, MTC and MCTC involving cases such as but
not limited to:
I. Violations of TRAFFIC laws
II. Violations of RENTAL laws
III. Violation of ORDINANCE
IV. ALL OTHER CRIMINAL OFFENSES involving a
penalty of not more than (below) 6mos.
Imprisonment, fine of P1,000 or both
Offenses involving DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

through criminal negligence where imposable
fines DOES NOT exceed P10,000;
NOT COVERED: (a) if it EXCEED P10,000 and (b)
if offense charged is related to criminal case
subject to ordinary procedure.
RULE 124
PROCEDURE IN THE CA
RULE 124(1) TERMS
APPEALS TO THE CA:
TO
USE
IN
TITLE OF THE CASE: it shall be the

same as it was in the court of origin.
DESIGNATION OF PARTIES:
1. APPELLANT the party appealing the
case
2. APPELLEE the adverse party
RULE
124(2)
INSTANCES
WHEN
COUNSEL DE OFICIO FOR ACCUSED
SHALL BE APPOINTED: The clerk of
court of the CA shall designate
1. Accused confined in prison;
2. Accused who appealed w/o counsel de
parte
3. Accused signed the appeal himself
4. Accused upon request
RULE 124(3) APPELLANTS BRIEF:
filed within 30 days from notice. Furnish
7 copies 2 of which given to appellee.
RULE 124(4) APPELLEES BRIEF AND
APPELLANTS REPLY: filed within 30
days from notice. Furnish 7 copies 2 of
which given to appellant
Appellants reply brief filed within
20 days from notice abovementioned, to
traverse the matters raised in the
appellees brief.
RULE 124(5) EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR FILING BRIEF:
Page 67 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 68
R: Extension NOT allowed.

ER: Motion of extension filed for
good and sufficient cause before
the expiration of time
RULE
124(6)
FORM
OF
BRIEF:
(TECHNICAL)
RULE 124(7) CONTENTS OF BRIEF:

same contents as provided in RULE 44
section 33 and 44. (incorporate civpro notes)
Grounds for dismissal of appeal: (Pp v. Dela
Concha)
As a rule, findings of credibility of witness by

the trial court are conclusive because they have
the opportunity to observe the witness on the
stand. (Pp v. Panabang)
HOWEVER, they may be reverse when (1)
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises and conjectures (2)
inference made are manifestly mistaken (3)
grave abuse of discretion (4) based on
misapprehension of facts or premised on the
absence of evidence on record. (Pp v. Gulion)
2. Error was committed which injuriously

affected the substantial rights of
appellant.
1. Rule 56 section 5
RULE
124(11)
JUDGMENT:
2. Rule 124 section 8: GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

OF APPEAL for abandonment or failure to
prosecute
1.
REVERSE,
AFFIRM
or
judgment of the trial court;
3. Rule 125 section 1
2. INCREASE/REDUCE PENALTY imposed;
RULE
124(8)
GROUNDS
FOR
DISMISSAL
OF
APPEAL
for
abandonment
or
failure
to
prosecute: at the instance of the court
or motion of appelle,
1. Failure to file appellants brief within
30 days from receipt of notice UNLESS
represented b counsel de oficio;
2. During pendency of appeal, Appellant
(a) escapes from imprisonment (b) jump
bail or (c) flees to a foreign country.
MODIFY
3. REMAND CASE to the RTC for new trial

or retrial;
4. DISMISS the case
RULE 124(12) POWER OF THE CA
FOR
PURPOSES
OF
RECEIVING
EVIDENCE: Continuous trial herein
within 3mos UNLESS extended by the
Chief Justice
1. Try cases and conduct hearing;
RULE 124(13) CERTIFICATION OR

APPEAL OF CASES TO SC: When CA
finds that the penalty
RULE
124(10)
REQUISITE
FOR
REVERSION OR MODIFICATION OF
THE LOWER COURTS DECISION:
record
OF
3. Perform any and all acts necessary to

resolve factual issues
RULE 124(9) PRIORITIES OF HEARING

AND DISPOSITION IN APPEAL: for
those accused under detention.
the
SCOPE
2. Received evidence
WHEN THERE IS NO OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL

NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE: In appeal, the
court found out that the penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua. The accused then jumped bail.
The defense now moved for the dismissal but the
court upheld to continue the proceeding to avoid
the absurdity of rewarding the accused for his act
of jumping bail and blatant mockery of justice. (Pp
v. Castillo; Pp v. Del Rosario)
1. Examination of
evidence adduced;
CAs
and
1. Death should be imposed

2. Imposes reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
Appeal in the CA as modified by Pp v. Mateo and AM no. 00503-SC
RULE 124(14) MNT: any time AFTER

the appeal and BEFORE judgment of the
CA solely on the ground of NDE
Page 68 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 69
RULE 124(15) EFFFECT WHEN MNT

GRANTED:
A. The SC En Banc equally divided in

opinion; or
A. Conduct
evidence; or
B. The necessary majority cannot be had
hearing
and
received
COURSE OF ACTION:
B. Refer the trial to court of origin.

RULE 124(16) MFR: within 15 days
from Notice of Decision or final order of
the CA
1. Mittimus(order to commit a person for prison)
shall be stayed during pendency of the
MFR;
2. 2nd MFR shall NOT be allowed.
RULE
124(17)
JUDGMENT
TRANSMITTED AND FILED IN THE
TRIAL COURT
RULE
124(18)
APPLICATION
OF
CERTAIN RULES IN CIVPRO TO
CRIMINAL CASE: Rule 42, 44-46 and 48
to 56 relating to CA and SC shall be
applicable
as
long
as
not
inconsistent with the provision of
this rule.
RULE 125
PROCEDURE IN THE SC
RULE 125(1) UNIFORM PROCEDURE:
Procedure to be observed in SC in
original and appealed case shall be the
same as that of the CA UNLESS
OTHERWISE provided by the Constitution
or law.
RULE
125(2) PROCEDURES FOR
REVIEW OF DECISIONS FROM CA IN
CRIMINAL CASE: procedure shall be the
same as in civil case.
RULE 125(3) PROCEDURES WHEN
OPINION IS EQUALLY DIVIDED: in relation
to automatic review of the SC as modified by Pp v. Mateo and
AM no. 005-03-SC
1ST: The case shall again be deliberated;

2ND: If no decision is reached, judgment
of conviction of the lower court shall be
reversed and accused acquitted.
RULE 126
SEARC AND SEIZURE
RULE 126 (1) DEFINITION
1. Its an order in writing
2. Issued in the name of the Rep. of the
Philippines
3. Signed by the judge
PRINCIPLE BEHIND SEARCH WARRANT: this
case involves seizure of furniture design patents
in violation of RPC unfair competition.
1. (NATURE) merely a process issued by the
court in the exercise of its ANCILLIARY
JURISDICTION in contrast with a criminal action
which it may entertain pursuant to its original
jurisdiction.
2. (ONLY A JUDGE CAN ISSUES SEARCH
WARRANT) the authority to issue search
warrant is INHERENT IN ALL COURTS and may be
effected outside their territorial jurisdiction. (Roy
v. Taypan)
4. And directed to a peace officer

commanding him to (i) search for
personal
property
describe
therein
(PARTICULARITY) (ii) and bring it before the
court
RULE
126
(2)
COURT
WHERE
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
SHALL BE FILED: WHEN APPLIED:
COURT: ANY COURT within territorial
jurisdiction a crime was committed
SITUATION: WON to acquit the appellant

as when:
Page 69 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 70
ER: before ANY COURT within

judicial region for compelling
reason stated in the application:
COMPELLING REASON refers to the
determination of URGENCY and the
SUBJECT, TIME AND PLACE NECESSARY
AND JUSTIFIED in the filing the application
for search warrant other than the court
having territorial jurisdiction thereof
addressed to the sound discretion of the
court. (Pp v. Chiu)
A. where the crime was committed

B. Where the warrant shall be
enforced
When there is urgency where the shabu
might move to another place and somehow
come to the knowledge of the accused. (Chiu
Case)
prudent man to have reasonable ground to believe that crime

was committed and accused is probably guilty thereof and
that the item/s, article/s, or object/s sought in connection
with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction
by law is in the place to be searched. (Pp v. Aruta)
EXISTENCE OF NEGATIVE INGREDIENT OF
THE OFFENSE CHARGED: As when the search
warrant did not alleged the unlicensed firearm
and explosives or at least justifiable reason to
establish that there is an offense committed.
(PICOP v. Asuncion)
As when the object subject to search
merely alleged an unlicensed medicines
without proof and certification to that effect.
(Pp v. Estrada)
I.
Determine
by
the
judge
PERSONALLY (RULE 126 sec. 5)
II. After PERSONAL examination under

oath
or
affirmation
of
the
complainant or witness who testify
facts personally known to them (RULE 126 sec.
5)
WHEN APPLIED:
1.
Generally search warrant can be applied with and granted

BEFORE criminal action.
2. The application shall ONLY BE MADE IN

THE COURT WHERE THE CRIMINAL
ACTION IS PENDING if criminal action has
already been filed.
RULE 126 (3) PERSONAL PROPERTY
TO BE SEIZED
1. Property subject of the offense
2. Property stolen or embezzled and
other proceeds, or fruits of the offense
3. Property use or intended to be used as
the means of committing an offense. When
an object to be seized is apparently used for lawful purposes,
it must be alleged with SPECIFICATION AND/OR
PARTICULARITY THAT THEY WERE INSTRUMENTS IN
VIOLATION OF A CRIME CHARGED.
Property seized under a void search warrant
cannot be returned to an unlawful owner. (Estrada
Case)
RULE
126
(4)
REQUISITES
OF
ISSUING A SEARCH WARRANT (GENERAL
WARRANT defect on particularization or VOID WARRANT
lacks essential requisites)
1. Application in writing under oath

2. There must be probable cause
refers to
the existence of facts and circumstances which would lead a
PERSONAL
KNOWLDEGE
IN
THE
APPLICATION OF SEARCH WARRANT IS
REQUIRED:
In Uy v. BIR, although the name was
wrong, nevertheless the warrant remains valid
because they already conducted surveillance
and test buy operation before the search was
implemented.
This case is different; the Peace officer came
to know that the person subject to be search
was in another name because of the Brgy.
Official told them to. To make it worse said
Brgy. Official was not presented in court.
Therefore the warrant was issued based on
hearsay evidence which negates personal
knowledge. (Pp v. Del Norte)
III. Examination must be reduce into writing in

the form of searching question and answer
(RULE 126 sec. 5)(see Pendon Case)
3. Issued only in connection with ONE

Offense
SCATTER-SHOT
WARRANT
NOT
ALLOWED:
referring to a warrant issued for more than one
offense is totally null and void. (Vallejo v. CA; Pp v.
Simbahon citing Art. III sec.2 of the Consti)
Counts of offense must not be confused with
the number of offense charged. The latter is allowed
to be alleged in the search warrant. (Columbia
Pictures Case)
4. It must be particularly describe:

I. The Place to be search refers strictly to
the place stated in the warrant itself. Particularization
of the description of the place to be searched can
Page 70 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 71
ONLY be done by the JUDGE and the WARRANT
ITSELF. It cannot be left to the discretion of the police
officer conducting the search. (Pp v. CA, June 26,
1998)
RATIONALE;PREVENTION THEREOF: There
is no particularity in a search of a 55 hectare
compound which in effect vest power of the
directed peace officer UNBRIDLED AUTHORITY
TO SEARCH THE PLACE WHICH IS CONTRARY
TO LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY. (Asuncion Case)
Instance of MINOR DEFECT but the search
warrant remains valid AS LONG AS THE PEACE
OFFICERS ASCERTAINED AND IDENTIFY THE
PLACE INTENDED TO BE SEARCHED:
As when there is typo error in the
caption and body where there is different city
stated. (Uy v. BIR)
As when there was inconsistency on
the apartment description but the name of the
door for the place subject to search warrant
was apparent. (Salanguit Case)
Defect or mistake in the name of
the owner of the place subject to search
is valid PROVIDED the place to be search
is properly described. This is because
warrant was issued NOT FOR THE SEARCH OF
PERSONS owing the premise but ONLY A
SEARCH OF THE PREMISE occupied by them.
(Uy v. BIR) in contrast with Pp v. Del Norte
being a search of person
II. Objects to be seized

When an object to be seized is apparently
used for lawful purposes, it must be alleged with
SPECIFICATION AND/OR PARTICULARITY THAT
THEY WERE INSTRUMENTS IN VIOLATION OF A
CRIME CHARGED. Specific as far as circumstances
ordinarily allows.(Microsoft v. Maxicorp; Kho v.
Makalintal)
As in the case involving infringement of
intellectual property where the object involved is
TV, computer, etc. (Columbia pictures, Maxi Corp.
Case) see also RULE 126 (3)
Ledgers, journals, sales record etc. is
considered general warrant which is not allowed
for lack of particularity BUT unregistered delivery,
purchase and sales invoice sufficient to be
subjected to search warrant. Hence this refers to
private documents. (Uy case)
Judicial form 39, Blank forms of land title,
land transfer transaction without payment of
capital gains tax, etc. (Vallejo Case)
A GENERAL WARRANT is where the
term of the warrant are ALL EMBRACING with
the obvious intent of subjecting all the articles
pertaining to all transactions of the accused. A
description of such generality as to lodge in the
executing officer virtually unlimited discretion as to
what property shall be seized is repugnant to the
Constitution. (Vallejo v. CA)
PARTIAL SIEZURE IN A SEARCH WARRANT: A

SEARCH WARRANT IS SEVERABLE. The items not
sufficiently described may be cut off without
destroying the whole warrant. (Microsoft v.
Maxicorp Inc.,) see Pp v. Salanguit
VARIANCE BETWEEN ARTICLES STATED IN THE
WARRANT
AND
OBJECTS
SEIZED
IN
CONDUCTING THE SEARCH: VALID as long as
the articles seized are of the SAME KIND AND
NATURE as those items enumerated in the search
warrant. (Al ghoul v. CA)
GUIDELINES FOR PARTICULARITY OF OBJECT
TO BE SEIZED: undetermined amount of
marijuana is sufficient.
1. Specific description as the circumstance will
ordinarily allow
2. Express a conclusion of fact which the peace
officer is guided in making the search and seizure
3. Limits the things to be seized which bears direct
relation to the offense. (Pp v. Tee)
THOSE NOT STATED IN THE WARRANT SHALL
NOT BE INCLUDED: The search warrant is void
only insofar as it authorized the seizure of the
object not included in the warrant drug
paraphernalia; money and car out of the proceeds
of the drugs but it is valid to the seizure of the
object applied in the warrant shabu.
ARTICLES TO BE SEIZED SHOULD BE
THE ONLY ONES PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE
WARRANT. A search warrant is not a sweeping
authority empowering a raiding party to undertake
a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any
and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a
crime.
(Pp v. Salanguit; Pp v. Go) see Microsoft v.
Maxicorp
EXCEPTION; SEIZURE UNDER THE PLAIN
VIEW DOCTRINE: Under this seizure, it is
required that the article/s, item/s or object/s
is/are apparently observed as evidence of a
crime charge in the warrant, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure. (Pp v. Go) i.e.,
car, money, several passport and immigration
documents in a search warrant for illegal
drugs.
RULE 126 (5) REQUISITE UNDER

PROBABLE CAUSE; EXAMINATION OF
COMPLAINT AND RECORD THEREOF:
DUTY
OF
THE
JUDGE
ISSUING WARRANT
BEFORE
1. Personal examination of
(i) Complainant
(ii)
produce
Page 71 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
Witnesses
the
complainant
P a g e | 72
2. Examination in a form of:

(i)
Searching
questions
and
answer. The judge must make his own inquiry on
the intent and justification of the application and not
simply rehash the content of the application. (Pendon
v. CA)
1. Satisfaction of the existing facts based

in the application;
2. Satisfaction that there is probable
cause;
Refers to the existence of facts and
circumstances which would lead a prudent man
to have reasonable ground to believe that crime
was committed and accused is probably guilty
thereof and that the item/s, article/s, or object/s
sought in connection with said offense or
subject to seizure and destruction by law is
in the place to be searched. (Pp v. Aruta)
(ii) Writing
(iii) under oath
(iv) Facts persosnally known to
them (OTHERWISE HEARSAY)
PERSONAL
KNOWLDEGE
IN
THE
APPLICATION OF SEARCH WARRANT IS
REQUIRED:
In Uy v. BIR, although the name was
wrong, nevertheless the warrant remains valid
because they already conducted surveillance
and test buy operation before the search was
implemented.
This case is different; the Peace officer came
to know that the person subject to be search
was in another name because of the Brgy.
Official told them to. To make it worse said
Brgy. Official was not presented in court.
Therefore the warrant was issued based on
hearsay evidence which negates personal
knowledge. (Pp v. Del Norte)
3. The following must be attached to the

record
(i) Sworn statements;
Absence hereof
taints the search warrant with illegality for failure to
conform with the essential requisites. (Pp v. Mamaril)
(ii) Affidavits.
Records of deposition NOT required (Tee

case)
SEARCH WARRANT
ARREST WARRANT
As to their basis
Reliance on
records and
affidavits
Personal
knowledge base
on probable cause
As to precedence
of the institution of
criminal action
Search warrant
may be applied
AHEAD of the
institution of
criminal action
Arrest warrant
issued AFTER the
institution of
criminal action
finding probable
cause thereof.
As to duration
10 days reckon at
issuance
(RULE
126 sec. 10)
Life time
3. Substantially in the form prescribed by

these rules.
RULE 126 (7) RIGHT TO BREAK
DOOR/WINDOW TO EFFECT SEARCH:
Requisite thereof
1. The officer gives
purpose and authority;
NOTICE
of
his
KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE RULE: it is sufficient

that those inside should have been alerted that the
police wanted entry to execute the warrant. (Pp v.
Huang Zhen Hua)
EXCEPTION;
WHEN
NO-KNOCK
ENTRY
JUSTIFIED: where the police have a reasonable
ground of suspicion that knocking and announcing
their presence under particular circumstance
would be DANGEROUS or FUTILE, INHIBIT
EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION i.e., the opportunity of
destroying evidence. (Pp v. Huang Zhen Hua)
2. There is REFUSAL of admittance to the

place directed to be search;
3. WHEN:
A. executing the search warrant; or
B. Liberating themselves.
RULE 126 (8) SEARCH OF HOUSE,

ROOM
OR
PREMISE
MADE
IN
PRESENCES OF TWO WITNESSES
(SUCCESSIVE)
1st:
A. Lawful occupant
B. Any member of his family
RULE 126 (6) ISSUANCE AND FORM

OF SEARCH WARRANT: only upon
2nd: In default, 2 witnesses of sufficient

age residing in the same locality
Page 72 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 73
The above mentioned persons in the order
presented should ACTUALLY WITNESSED THE
SEARCH of the premises by accompanying the
police while the search was being done. (Pp v. Del
Castillo)
RULE 126 (9) TIME OF MAKING THE

SEARCH:
R: The warrant must be directed to be
served in the DAY TIME.
ER: (ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR
NIGHT) if the affidavits assert that
the property is in the person or in
the place ordered to be search.
RULE 126 (10) PERIOD OF VALIDITY
OF SEARCH WARRANT: 10 DAYS from
the date of issuance. Thereafter VOID
Multiple or several service of the warrant of
arrest is allowed as long as it is within the validity
period. (Mustang Lumber v. CA)
RULE 126 (11) DUTY TO ISSUE

RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY SEIZED
DURING SEARCH WARRANT:
WARRANT:
EFFECT
COMPLIANCE HEREIN:
THE
PROPERTY
SEIZED
SHOULD
BE
DELIVERED IMMEDIATELY TO THE COURT: This
is to prevent speculation to the probability of
tampering with the evidence UNLESS there is prior
approval by the court which issued the search
warrant where the retention by the police officer of
the property seized is necessary. (Pp v. Del Castillo;
Tenorio v. CA)
2. (As to the Judge) ASCERTAIN IF:

A. return is not made, SUMMON
the officer serving the warrant and
require him to explain; or
B. return is made, ASCERTAIN
FURTHER the following:
I. WON a detailed receipt
has been issued for the items
seized;
II. Property seized delivered
to him;
2. The receipt be
III. Coupled with a true

inventory thereof verified
under oath.
LAWFUL
present
The accused or person search need

NOT signed the detailed receipt of the
seizing officer which is a violation of the
constitutional right of the accused to
remain silent whereby he was made to
admit the commission of a crime without
informing him of his rights. (Pp v. Del
Castillo)
(b) In default, LEFT IN THE PLACE

with the presence of 2 witnesses of
sufficient age residing in the same
locality
In the absence of the lawful
occupant, the one who must attest to the
detailed receipt should be the 2 witnesses
contemplated by the rules and not the
raiding party himself. (Quintero v. NBI)
RULE 126 (12) DUTY AFTER VALIDITY

PERIOD AND SERVICE OF SEARCH
NON-
1. (As to the officer) After seizure, the

Officer must DELIVER to the judge the
property seized together with true
inventory thereof verified under oath;
1. Peace officer to give a DETAILED

receipt
(a)
Given
to
the
OCCUPANT which was
thereof
OF
3. (Duty of Custodian of the property

seized) In his LOGBOOK,
I. File and keep the return of the
search
warrant;
II. Entry of therein (i) date of
return (ii) result of the search
warrant and (iii) other actions of
the judge
EFFECT
OF
NON-COMPLIANCE:
constitute CONTEMPT OF COURT.
RULE
126
(13)
WARRANTLESS
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL
ARREST:
Page 73 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 74
R: Person lawfully arrested can be search

without search warrant BUT limited to:
there must be a LAWFUL ARREST BEFORE a search can be
made the process cannot be reversed. (Macalat v. CA)
I.
II.
Dangerous WEAPONS
ANYTHING which may have
been use or constitute proof in
the commission of offense
COVERAGE OF THE SEARCH HEREIN:

1. (WHEN) at about the time of the arrest or immediately
thereafter. (Pp v. Che Chun Ting)
2. (WHERE) Only the place where the suspect was arrested
or surroundings under his immediate control. (Espano v. CA;
Pp v. Ti Won Chua)
ADDITIONAL
REQUISITE
IN
IN
FLAGRANTE DE LICTU: (Pp v. Chua)
The overt act must

constitute a clear
and apparent act
that is unlawful.
(Ibid.)
RULE 126 (14) MOTION TO QUASH

SEARCH WARRANT OR TO SUPRESS
EVIDENCE; WHERE TO FILE:
A. Court where the criminal action is
instituted; or (CRIMINAL ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN
INSTITUTED)
B. Court that issued the search warrant.

(CRIMINAL ACTION HAS NOT BEEN INSTITUTED)
IF FAILED TO RESOVED, the court

where the criminal action was instituted.
(go back to A) This is to avoid any confusion regarding
jurisdiction. (Ong v. CA)
THE COURT ISSUING A SEARCH WARRANT MAY LATER
QUASH THE SAME ON THE ABSENCE OF PROBABLE
CAUSE: It should be noted further that the proceeding for
application of search warrant [being judicial] and PI [being
executive] are entirely independent of each other. (Solid
Triangle v. Sheriff)

SEARCH
AND
1. Warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest Rule

126, Section 13
2. Seizure of evidence in PLAIN VIEW; (jurisprudence)
3. Search of a MOVING VEHICLE; (jurisprudence)
4. CONSENTED warrantless search; (jurisprudence)
5. CUSTOMS search; (jurisprudence)
circumstances.
WAIVER TO THE ILLEGALITY OF THE ARREST AND THE

SEARCH AND SIEZURE INCIDENTAL THERETO: The
illegality of the arrest is waived BUT DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CARRY WITH IT WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE. It can be raised or objected
anytime.
Sees
the
offense,
although at a distance
OR
hears
the
disturbance
created
thereby and proceeds
at once to the scene
thereor. (Pp v. Evaristo)
EXCEPTION TO WARRANTLESS
SIEZURE: (Pp v. Gonzales)
EMERGENCY
WAIVER TO THE ILLEGALITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT

AND ADMISSIBALITY OF EVIDENCE THEREOF: when NO
OBJECTIONS thereof were raised during the trial of the case
[last chance to object]. (De Maisip v. Pp)
(2) The overt act must be done with the

PRESENCE OR WITHIN THE VIEW of
arresting officer
and
THERE IS NO RES ADJUDICATA IN AN ORDER FOR THE

QUASHAL OF A WARRANT: As it is, this order is in a nature
an ancillary jurisdiction and the determination of probable
cause will consequently touch the issues which should
properly threshed out in regular proceeding. Thus any
pronouncement thereof is not adjudication on the merits.
Therefore, a civil action thereof is proper. (Manly Sports v.
Dadodette Ent)
(1) Person to be arrested must execute an

OVERT ACT of a crime and
7.
EXIGENT
(Jurisprudence)
RULE 127
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN
CRIMINAL CASE
RULE
127(1)
INSTANCE
WHERE
PROVREM
AVAILABLE
IN
CIVIL
ACTION MAY BE AVAILED OF IN A
CRIMINAL CASE:
6. STOP & FRISK; (jurisprudence)

Page 74 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II
P a g e | 75
1. When applicable to criminal cases;

and
2. In connection with the civil action
deemed instituted with the criminal
action.
THEREFORE IT IS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN: (A)
offended party WAIVED the civil liability or (B)
RESERVED the right to file a separate action.
RULE
127(2)
GROUNDS
FOR
ATTACHMENT: provided under Rule
127(1) herein, the property of the
accused may be held as a security for
the satisfaction of any judgment that
may be recovered from him:
B. When criminal action is based on a

claim of money, embezzlement or fraud
where the accused is PUBLIC OFFICER,
CORPORATE OFFICER or ANY PERSON
HAVING FIDUCIARY CAPACITY in the
course of his employment;
C. When accused has CONCEALED,
REMOVED or DISPOSED OF HIS PROPERTY
or is about to do so
D. When accused RESIDES OUTSIDE THE
PHILIPPINES.
A. When accused is about to ABSCOND

from the Philippines;
Page 75 of 75
Ramon A. Taghoy II

Crimpro 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crimpro 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page | 1

II. When there is CHANGE OF VENUE/place

V. Tried where the COURT ACTUALLY SITS:

ELEMENTS OF CRIM CASES

Q: Provided that it is cognizable in the SDB which

VI. Tried in the court where:

ER: even if committed outside the territory of

offender (Article 2 of the

i. commits any offense while

Q: if the offense is written

2. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT

IN SDB CASES: both the nature of the

IN COMPLEX CRIME: jurisdiction is

JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF

motion to quash the warrant

HOW ABOUT PROVREM? (Metropolitan

BASIC PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION OF MTC IN CRIM

Violations of TRAFFIC laws

1. Cases not falling within any

R.A. 3019, as amended (the

A. another public officer to

involving SOME CONSIDERATION as in credit transaction.

3. Public officer in its official

4. ACCEPTING or HAVING any

B. R.A. 1379 (the law on illgotten wealth) over the PCGG:

Cases filed by the PCGG pursuant to its

C. CHAPTER II, SECTION 2, TITLE

public function by any person.

Executive Order Nos. 1,2, 14

III. Officials of the Diplomatic service

2. The offender committing the

VIII. GOCC and STATE univ, institution or

3. The offense committed

Notwithstanding the salary grade

In Determining the jurisdiction

R1: Any person may be charged

When the complaint

3. For PURPOSES of conducting the

(a) By Filing the complaint or

(b) Filing the complaint with the

The filing of complaint to the

R: The complaint in RULE 110(3) refers to complaint filed in

Filed directly to the MTC by the offended party

RULE 110(4) Information defined

3. Against all persons who appear

The principle of separation of powers dictates that the

RULE 110(3) Complaint defined

4. Filed with the court

RULE 110(5) Who prosecutes

2. Absence of a public prosecutor during arraignment not

ER: PRIVATE PROSECUTOR allowed

PUBLIC CRIME: refers to those crimes that can be

1. IN CONCUBINAGE & ADULTERY

ER: Instances when criminal action

PRESUMPTION: that official duty was regularly

R2: The offended party must either be:

PRIVATE OFFENSES: refers to an offenses consisting of

A minor was raped and thereafter lost her

DE OFICIO PROSECUTION: refer to those information signed

A victim whose a minor assisted by the aunt

R2: Criminal action of C A S A A CANNOT

a. The offended party is alive and