Fiscal Castro Intejected Notes

(Remedial Law Review - Criminal Procedure)

I. Jurisdiction
1. Venue is jurisdictional; its an essential element of jurisdiction. -Isip vs. People
2. Motion to Quash Ad Cautelam - The special appearance in court to challenge
jurisdiction over the person is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver of the
objection and is not a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
3. Only the Regional Trial Courts can issue a Hold Departure Order
4. Family Courts have jurisdiction in cases where accused or offended party is
below 18 years of age.
5. A student regent of a state university is a public officer; as board of regents
performs similar functions to a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation.
-Serana vs. Sandiganbayan
6. Public officers under RA 3019 with respect to Government-controlled
corporations: only if the GOCC is created by virtue of an original charter; without
original charter or created out of BP 68 - they are not public officers
7. Municipal mayors (having a minimum monthly compensation corresponding to
Salary Grade 27) fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. -Esquivel vs. Ombudsman
8. A private individual can be prosecuted under the Sandiganbayan if he
conspired, or he is an accomplice, or an accessory to an offense where one or
more of the accused are officials. -DPWH vs. CA
9. The 2nd paragraph, Sec. 14, RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 is
declared unconstitutional as it has the effect of disregarding the hierarchy of
courts and increasing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advise and
concurrence. Thus, the Court of Appeals now has the power to review the
administrative orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman. -Ombudsman vs. Binay
10. The Office of the Special Prosecutor is an organic component of the Office of
the Ombudsman and shall be under the supervision and control of the
Ombudsman.
II. Rule 110
1. All municipal court judges have been deprived of their power to conduct
preliminary investigation by virtue of AM-05-8-26.
2. The ruling in Zaldivia vs. Reyes (proceedings are referred to as judicial
proceedings) is no longer controlling as to prescription in special penal laws and
the Revised Penal Code due to the strong of cases (Panaguiton vs. DOJ Secretary;
Sanrio Company vs. Lim; SEC vs, Interport Resources Corp) which declared that
mere filing of complaint-affidavit for preliminary investigation at prosecutor;s
office tolls the prescriptive period. -People vs. Pangilinan
3. The ruling in People vs. Pangilinan is not applicable for violations of ordinances.
RA 3226 applies and the filing of information in court is the one to interrupt the
prescriptive period. - Jadewell Parking vs. Lidua
4. Complaint in Rule 110 means complain filed in court; Complaint in Rule 112
means the complaint affidavit filed in the prosecutors office.
5. If the offense is a continuing crime, any of the courts where any element was
committed can hear and try the case; but when the jurisdiction is acquired, such
is to the exclusion of other courts. -Foz vs. People
6. An amendment is substantial when: (a) a defense under the original
information will not be available; (b) when an evidence a defendant might have
will not be applicable after amendment. -Ricarze vs. CA
7. What is stated om the information is qualified theft but what was proven was
estafa. The accused is acquitted because such is a violation of his right to be
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. - Matrido vs. People
III. Rule 111

1. The offended party has the right to intervene in the criminal action, except
when by nature of the crime, there is no civil liability (espionage, violation of
neutrality, etc.) - Philippine Rabbit Lines vs. People
2. The death of the accused during pendency of his appeal with the Supreme
Court totally extinguished his criminal liability. It likewise extinguished the civil
liability based exclusively on the crime he was convicted. -People v. Ayuchok.
3. Affidavits of desistance operates only as mere waiver of civil aspect of the case
and does not affect the criminal aspect it can lead only to a provisional dismissal.
IV. Rule 112
1. If the warrantless arrest was not made in accordance with the rules, the inquest
prosecutor shall:
a) Not proceed with the inquest / dismiss the inquest (convert to preliminary
investigation, if needed)
b) Recommend release of detainee
c) If recommendation is approved, release the detainee (if preliminary
investigation is needed, accused is released for further investigation)
2. The same procedure if the detainee was not delivered within the period
stipulated in Art. 125, Revised Penal Code.
3. Double jeopardy has no place in the prosecutors level, it is only with the
courts. Thus, dismissal of prosecutors are with prejudice.
4. Once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition or
dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive
jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court. Thus, the trial court may
refuse to grant the motion to dismiss of the fiscal upon instruction of the
Secretary of Justice whom the case was elevated for review. -Crespo vs. Mogul.
5. Case Elevation Flow
a) Prosecutors Resolution --> Petition for Review (Regional State Prosecutor
- if penalty is 6 years or below; Secretary of Justice - if penalty is more
than 6 years) --> motion for reconsideration --> petition for certiorari via
Rule 65
b) Prosecutors Resolution --> Petition for Review (Regional State Prosecutor
- if penalty is 6 years or below; Secretary of Justice - if penalty is more
than 6 years) --> motion for reconsideration --> Appeal to the Office of
the President* --> motion for reconsideration --> Petition for review to the
Court of Appeals via Rule 43 --> motion for reconsideration --> petition
for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court via Rule 45
*Conditions for Appeal to the Office of the President:
1. Offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death
2. New and material issues are discovered
3. Prescription is not due to lapse within 6 months from notice of
resolution
4. Filed within 30 days from notice
6. Office of the President is a quasi judicial agency, so Rule 43 can apply.
Department of Justice is not a quasi-judicial agency, so Rule 43 cannot apply.
V. Rule 113
1. Protection of Sec. 2, Art III, 1987 Constitution does not apply to private
individuals, unless the private individuals are used or in cohort with law
enforcement authorities - they shall be considered agents thereof. -People vs.
Marti
VI. Rule 126
1. Inherent in the courts power to issue search warrants is the power to quash
warrants already issued.

2. Requisites for issuance of a search warrant:

a) Issued upon probable cause
b) Probable cause determined by judge personally
c) Determination made after examination under oath or affirmation of
complainant and witnesses
d) Specifically describe the place to be searched and things to be seized particular description
e) Must refer only to one offense. -Stonehill vs. Diokno
3. Grounds for motion to quash a search warrant:
a) General warrants
b) Failure to conduct searching questions and answers
c) Not based on personal knowledge
d) Property or person to be seized is in the possession of a third person
-absence of any of the requisites of issuance of a search warrant can be a
ground for a motion to quash.
3. Search of third persons not named in the warrant is not allowed.
4. Moving vehicle searches are limited to a cursory search; visual search
VII. Rule 114
1. Where to file bail pending appeal:
a) Trial Court - when original record has not been transmitted to appellate
court
b) Appellate Court - when original record has already been transmitted; if
the decision of trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of
the offense from non-bailable to bailable
2. Application for bail pending appeal is DENIED:
a) Penalty imposed is (death), reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment because conviction with the trial court indicates strong evidence of guilt
b) Penalty imposed is not (death), reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment but
exceeding 6 years, if any of the following is present:
i.
Accused is a recidivist, quasi recidivist, habitual delinquent,
committed the crime aggravated by circumstances of reiteration
ii. Accused previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence, or violated the condition of his bail
iii. Accused committed the offense while under probation, parole, or
conditional pardon
iv. Probability of flight
v. Undue risk that he may commit another crime during pendency of
appeal
3. Application for bail pending appeal is a MATTER OF DISCRETION:
a) When application for bail is based on the fact that penalty imposed is not
(death), reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment but exceeding 6 years and
without any of the circumstances present above-mentioned
VIII. Rule 115
1. Equipoise rule - when evidence are evenly balanced, the presumption of
innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused
2. The right to speedy disposition of cases is violated when the proceedings are
attended by delays that are vexatious, capricious, and oppressive.
3. Remedy for violation of right to speedy disposition of cases is motion nolle
prosequi; if granted the court will dismiss the case with prejudice as double
jeopardy here will attach.
IX. Rule 116
1. Plea bargaining is allowed generally:
a) Before arraignment
b) After arraignment but before trial proper

2. Plea bargaining may be allowed during trial proper and even after prosecution
rests its case. -Daan vs. Sandiganbayan
X. Rule 117
1. Remedy of complainant in the granting of motion to quash:
a) Refile / file another information or complaint, except if the grounds of the
motion to quash were:
i.
Extinction of criminal liability
ii. Double jeopardy
b) certiorari under Rule 65 - if there is no appeal or needs immediate action;
if tainted with grave abuse of discretion
2. Remedy of accused in the denial of motion to quash:
a) Proceed with arraingment and trial; prove innocence
b) Appeal; with the denial of the motion to quash as one of the assignment
of errors in the appeal
c) Certiorari under Rule 65 - if tainted with grave abuse of discretion; must
be filed with preliminary injuction as the filing of certiorari does not ipso
facto stay the execution of judgment
3. Quasi-offense (reckless imprudence) is a crime in itself, not a mere mode; thus
conviction or acquittal of such will enable the operation of double jeopardy for the
other. -Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro
4. Time-bar rule in provisional dismissals:
a) Punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years - 1 year
b) Punishable by imprisonment more than 6 years - 2 years
XI. Rule 118
1. Pre-trial order binds the parties, limits the trial into matters not disposed of, and
controls the course of action.
XII. Rule 119
1. The order of trail may be modified into reversed order when the accused admits
the act of omission but interposed a lawful defense.
2. Demurrer:
a) With leave of court
i.
File motion for leave of court to file demurrer; prosecution may
oppose with in 5 days
1. Leave granted - file demurrer within 10 days; prosecution may
opposed within 10 days
a) Demurrer granted - case is dismissed; accused deemed
acquitted
b) Demurrer denied - accused adduces evidence in his defense
2. Leave denied - not reviewable by appeal or certiorari before
judgment
b) Witout leave of court
i.
File demurrer
1. Demurrer granted - case is dismissed; accused deemed acquitted
2. Demurrer denied - accused waives right to present evidence and
submits case for judgment on basis of evidence of prosecution
only
- certiorari may be availed of if denial is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion
XIII. Rule 120
1. If accused fails to appear in the promulgation of judgment:
a) Record the judgment in the criminal docket
b) Serve him a copy at his last known address

c)

If for conviction amd accised failed to appear without justifiable cause, he

shall lose the remedies available in the Rules
Unless, within 15 days from promulgation, he surrenders and files a
motion for leave of court to avail remedies

XIV. Rule 121

1. If a motion for reconsideration or a motion for new trial is denied, such denial is
to be deemed as the final order. Thus movant has another fresh period within
which to appeal. -Neypes vs. CA
2. Neypes rule is applicable only to judicial appeals and not administrative
appeals.
XV. Rules 122-125
1. Provisional remedies: preliminary injuction, preliminary attachment,
receivership, replevin, support pendente lite