1
CHAPTER 1 Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses
Section 1 Institution of Criminal Actions
CASE FACTS
Respondents Spouses Borbon and Spouses Xerxes seek to
declare null the promissory notes they executed in favor of
BPI v.
BPI. After applying with BPI a loan in the amount of P17 M,
Hontanosas
they had only been able to pay 13 M due to the economic
turmoil in Asia in 1997. Petitioner threatened to foreclose if
(nullification of they did not issue post-dated checks on the balance.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss against respondents
foreclosure as
complaint on the ground that foreclosure was well within its
personal property)
right and that their complaint was improperly laid.
W/N the complaint was filed in the proper venue (YES).
Police found the dead body of Federico C. Delgado at his
residence in Malate. MPD charged Gonzalez and Buenaflor
for the murder of Delgado and frustrated murder of witness
Heirs of Delgado
Pesico. City Prosecutor Luyun dismissed the complaint for
v. Gonzalez lack of probable cause that respondents committed murder
and frustrated murder. Upon petition for review, Secretary
(Murder case of Justice Devanadera reversed the finding of the
prosecutor and filed separate charges for murder and LSPI.
where SolGen not
The CA, in the MR, quashed Devanaderas finding for lack
the filer) of evidence.
(W/N there was probable cause)
Contreras v. Charges of gross ignorance of the law and gross neglect of
duty were filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines
Monserate
Sur. Against Judge Eddie Monserate, for forwarding criminal
case People v. Morandarte to the Offfice of Provincial
(judge did not do Prosecutor without conducting the requisite preliminary
prelim. investigation. Monserate did so because accused was
arrested lawfully without warrant and failed to avail of his
Investigation)
right to a preliminary investigation.
RULING DOCTRINE
The declaration of nullity of a contract is personal in nature. Its
filing in the place where it was constituted was correct under
Personal actions which
Section 2, Rule 4 of the ROC. Real actions, defined as those
involve the recovery of
which affect title or interest to real property, should be tried in the
personal property shall
court having jurisdiction where the property is involved. Personal
be filed in court which
actions involve the recovery of personal property or damages.
has jurisdiction over
Respondents seek nullification of promissory notes and surety
where the party resides
agreements, not the recovery of their title as such has not yet
or works in.
transferred. Thus, filing the case in Cebu, where the one of the
plaintiffs work was, was proper.
Preliminary investigation, although executive, is part of the criminal While the public
proceeding. No criminal proceeding under the RTC is tried unless prosecutor represents
one is conducted by the City Prosecutor. It has been ruled that only the party in the trial,
the Solicitor General, under the name People of the Philippines only the Solicitor General
should be the party in a criminal proceeding and bring forth the may take personality of
actions on behalf of Republic, but a private complaint may be a the filing of the
party in a criminal case in two cases: (1) when there is denial of proceedings.
due process or refusal of prosecution to act on the case to partys
prejudice, or (2) when the offended questions the civil aspect of a Private parties may
decision of a lower court. Such do not apply in this case. They have represent themselves in
not claimed the failure of the SolGen in appealing to the CA criminal proceedings if:
resulting in denial of due process. The SolGen even refused to be (1) Denial of due
part of the oral proceedings on December 2008. Nor are they process
appealing the civil aspect of the case. Private parties in a crim case (2) Question civil
may only assail the civil aspect, and any criminal ruling would have aspect of lower
to be appealed by the Solicitor Genereal. court ruling
NO The only instance where an information for an offense which Preliminary investigation
requires a preliminary investigation may be filed directly with the may be waived only if
court is when accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant and the accused expresses in
expressly refuses to waive in writing his right to preliminary writing his refusal to
investigation under 125 of the RPC. There is no evidence that any waive his right to one
refusal was written. Also, his voluntary surrender may not be an under Article 125 of the
exception to preliminary investigation. Such is not a mere formal or RPC.
technical right but a substantive right. Under 110 of the ROC, the

(W/N the judge was correct)
Section 2 Complaint or Information
Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera requested Chief
Justice Puno to transfer the venue of the trial of
Maguindanao Massacre from Cotabato to Metro Manila to
prevent miscarriage of justice. Before the motion was
granted, the Prosecution filed 15 additional informations for
murder against petitioner in Cotabato, and some other
Ampatuan v. De
informations for murder in the QC branch. Relying on the
Lima
testimonies of Kenny Dalandag under the Witness
Protection Program, 196 other individuals were charged
with multiple murder. Petitioner requested De Lima to
(Maguindano
include Kenny to be in the informations since he has
Massacre Witness)
already confessed his participation in the massacre. When
De Lima denied, he petitioned .
(W/N respondent may be compelled by writ of mandamus
to charge Dalandag as an accused despite admission to the
Witness Protection Program of the DOJ)
Section 3 Complaint Defined
Jovenal Oporto Lourdes Senar, wife of the mayor where Monserate was
located, filed a complaint against Rada ad Oporto, for
v. Monserate
violation of Article 172 and 173 of the RPC (Estafa).
Monserate issued the arreset warrant for both accused. On
(Did not read the notion that the case fell within jurisdiction of the RTC,
complaint) he conducted the preliminary investigation and declared
existence of probable cause and ordered such to be
forwarded to the Prosecutor. The latter found that it should
be FALSIFICATION and not estafa and thus should be under
the METC. Oporto filed a comlaint against Monsarte for
ignorance and harassment.
2
proper officer shall conduct the requisite preliminary investigation,
and under 112, a METC judge is such proper officer. Though not a
judicial function, such procedure is required before it may be sent
to the Provincial Prosecutor for proper filing.
NO. PETITION DENIED Public prosecutors are solely responsible
for the determination of the evidence needed to establish probable
cause to justify filing the appropriate criminal charges against a
respondent. The Court deems it policy not to interfere with the An accused in a criminal
preliminary investigations of such Executive Department in case may be excluded
determining the sufficiency of the evidence to establish probable from the information if
cause. The exclusion of Dalandag did not amount to grave abuse of he agrees to be a state
discretion considering that under Section 2 of 110, the inclusion witness and:
of all those responsible is subject to exceptions, one of which is (a) Absolute necessity for
when a participant in the crime becomes a state witness. This may his testimony
(b) No other direct
happen:
evidence available
(a) By discharge from a criminal case pursuant to Sec. 17,
(c) Testimony can be
Rule 119
corroborated
(b) Approval of his application for admission in the WPC of the
(d) Does not appear most
DOJ.
guilty
These are intended to encourage a person who witnessed or has (e) Not convicted of
knowledge of the commission to come and testify. The discharge of moral turpitude.
an accused to be made a witness is made upon motion by the
Prosecution. Such process is vested between them and the lower
court which shall not be disturbed by the court.
While there is no basis for the charges of harassment as no Certification of a
evidence supports that Oporto was harassed by the clerk of court, complaint under oath is
Respondent should be held liable for gross ignorance of the law in a requirement on the
issuing an arrest warrant despite the complaint not being under form of the complaint
oath and the affidavits were also not certified and under oath. and does not affect
While it does not invalidate the judgment and is merely a defect in judgment.
form, a simple task of reading the complaint wouldve remedied
the problem. As a sworn statement, a complaint must be sworn to
before any fiscal, state prosecutor, or govt official authorized to
administer oath. Such is violative of the right of the accused to be
informed of the charges. Had he exercised more effort to read it, he

(W/N the case should prosper)
Section 4 Information Defined
In an information dated March 23, 2009, respondent was
charged with Murder by the office of the City Prosecutor of
People v. Roxas City, Capiz. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground that the investigation prosecutor who filed the
Arrojado
info failed to indicate the number and date of issue of her
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MLCE) certificate of
(MCLE compliance. The CA summarily dismissed the case for
Certification) failure to indicate this as per BM No. 1922.
W/N the complaint was properly dismissed
Section 5 Who Must Prosecute
Chief Inspector Villegas of the RISOO of PNP filed
applications for warrants before the QC RTC to search the
WWC v. People offices of WWC at IBM Plaza Building in Eastwood. They
alleged that petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass
operations in violation of PD 401 (Unauthorized Installation
(Illegal bypass of
of Telephone Connections). When the RTC granted the
IBM) motions to quash the warrants for them being general,
PLDT contended such but was denied for failing to acquire
conformity of the prosec.
3
would not have conducted a preliminary investigation since it falls
under the jurisdiction of his court (METC).
YES BM 1922 requires practicing members of the bar to indicate
in ALL PLEADINGS filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies
the number of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance. Pleadings are
written statements of respective claims of parties submitted for Failure to disclose the
appropriate judgment by the court, while Information is the required information in
accusation charging a person with an offense. An information is an information subjects
necessarily a pleading as it alleges a cause of action. BM 1922 also the counsel to penalty
states that failure to disclose the required information would cause and disciplinary action.
dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the (No longer dismissal)
records. Filing for certiorari was excessive on the part of petitioner
because while the info was dismissed, he couldve simply re-filed it
with the corrections.
ISSUE: W/N PLDT has personality to question the quashal of the
Application for a search
warrants
warrant is not a criminal
An application for a search warrant is NOT a criminal action. The
action which requires the
conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary to give
conformity of the city
accused personality to question an order quashing warrants. A
prosecutor in
warrant is obtained by filing a complaint or information but merely
questioning its validity
filing an application thereof. It is merely a process needed to
or quashal.
conduct further inquiry into probability of a crime.

Rosa S. Busuego filed a case of Concubinage, VAWC and
Grave Threats against her husband Alfredo. In the
Busuego v. complaint filed by Rosa, she failed to indicate Alfredos two
Office of the concubines, Sia and De Leon. Upon receiving this comment
from Alfredo, the Ombudsman conducted a clarificatory
Ombudsman
hearing to have Rosa amend the defect in her complaint.
Alfredo contends that the Ombudsmans oversight of the
(Concubines not exclusion of Sia and de Leon as party-respondents violates
impleaded) Section 5 of Rule 110 and warrants outright dismissal of the
case (W/N the case should be dismissed for failure to
implicate the concubines in the Concubinage case).
Section 6 Sufficiency of Complaint or Information
Jessie Castillo was elected mayor of Bacoor, Cavite in the
May 1998 elections. An information was filed against him
for the alleged illegal operation of Villa Esperanza dumpsite
People v. by giving unwarranted benefits to co-accused Arciaga by
allowing them to operate the dumpsite without an
Sandiganbayan
Environmental Compliance Certificate. Castillo filed a
motion to quash on the ground that the charge did not
(Operate dumpsite state how or to whom he has caused injury and that the
without permit) extent of such should be specified.
(W/N an info alleging grant of unwarranted benefits must
state the precise amount of alleged benefit and injury)
Zapanta v. Petitioner Zapanta, together with Loyao, was charged with
the crime of qualified theft. The information against him
People
indicated that the acts were committed sometime in the
month of October 2001. He was convicted for acts during
November 2001 and not during the period in the info. He
contends that this infirmity has deprived him of his right to
be informed of the accusation against him.
4
NO - Under Section 5, adultery and concubinage shall not be
prosecuted except upon complaint filed by offended spouse and
must indicate both concubine and offending spouse. Under Rule II
in Procedures for Criminal Cases, the investigating officer may
Amendment of criminal
conduct a clarificatory hearing where the parties shall be present
information is allowed
but without right to examine the witness being questioned. Rosas
without it being
complaint contained more than just Concubinage charges. The
dismissed.
Ombudsman deemed it fit to hold a hearing in order to determine
the need to implead the alleged concubines pursuant to Article 344
of the RPC. It is allowed by law to amend such defect before
institution of the trial.
YES The purpose of an Information is to ensure than an accused
is formally informed of the facts and acts constituting the charges.
If insufficient, the court must drop the case to save accused from
anxiety and inconvenience. To check for sufficiency, the court must
check three things:
(1) What must be alleged in a valid info Extent of benefit or
(2) Elements of the crime
injury need not be
(3) W/N elements are sufficiently stated
The sufficiency is important so as to (1) enable accused to prepare proven. The ultimate
facts which constitute
defense, and (2) if guilty, to plead conviction in subsequent
prosecution for same offense. In this case, dismissal by the CA was the charges are enough.
on grounds that the injury was not alleged is wrong, for as long as
the facts constituting the offense are alleged, it need not specify
the extent of the benefit or the injury cause. The benefit was
merely the grant to operate without complying with the laws. That
is all that is needed.
Section 11 of 110 dictates that the precise date need not be The precise date does
stated unless it is an essential element of the offense. Otherwise it need to be specified in
may specify the closest date to the offense. Thus, the complaint an information unless it
will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed is an essential element
at any date proximate to the offense. Petitioner was fully appraised of the crime charged.
of the charge of qualified theft since the info stated the date of The closest date is
commission sometime in the month of October 2001. He could sufficient.
reasonably deduce the nature of the crime. The precise date was

W/N the ruling is erroneous
Section 7 Name of Accused
Ella Magdasoc y Carbona, 11 years of age, assisted by her
sister, filed a complaint for rape against Melencio Bali-
People v. Bali- Balita, her mothers common-law husband. Forensics found
that Ella had deep healed lacerations consistent with rape.
Balita
Respondent contends, among other issues, that Ellas
demeanor and testimonies of the medico-legal are
(rape case did not inconsistent with the rape allegations. It is also contended
allege relationship) that the information does not state the relationship
between accused and the victim.
(W/N accused should be guilty)
Section 8 Designation of the Offense
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged
accused with 3 counts of murder of Ferndinand Sayson,
Moises Sayson, and Joselito Sayson while the 3 were
People v. Valdez
celebrating the birthday of private petitioners husband and
playing jai-alai. The information alleged that respondent
(murder jai-alai did murdered the three with treachery as they were
supposedly shot at the back, but accused contends this
not allege
was not established.
treachery)
(W/N there treachery was properly alleged in the
information)
Asilan was charged with the complex crime of Direct
Assault with Murder. The information alleges that Asilan
killed a police officer while the latter was arresting a
People v. Asilan companion of Asilan. The RTC acquitted him of DA, stating
that while Adovas was in uniform upon death, the
prosecution failed to establish that he was in the
(backstabber of
performance of his duty when he was assaulted by Asilan.
policeman) However, he was still convicted of murder relying on the
eyewitness accounts that he stabbed Asilan multiple times
at the back without warning.
(W/N murder is proper YES)
Section 9 Cause of the Accusation
5
not an essential element to the offense and qualified theft could be
alleged as near as possible to actual date.
GUILTY However, the filiation of the accused with the victim was
not properly alleged in the information. The information simply
states that undersigned accuses BALI-BALITA, common-law
The information must
husband of the complainants mother, of the crime of rape. The
allege all necessary
fact that accused was the live-in partner of the victims mother and
elements which qualify a
that he lived with the victim was not specifically stated in the
crime to inform accused
charges or in the narration of the act constituting the offense. For
of the nature of charge.
qualifying circumstances to attach, every element of the offense
must be alleged for such to apply. This is to allow the accused to be
duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
NO TREACHERY Treachery is the employment of means in the
execution of crimes which tend to ensure execution without risk to
victims defense. In charges, the information must state through Every element of the
the factual circumstances and narration how the qualifying offense must be stated
circumstance was employed. What is controlling is not the title nor in the info. What facts
designation of the offense but the description of the crime are necessary to be
charged and particular facts recited. The presumption is that the included must be
accused has no independent knowledge of the facts constituting determined by essentials
the offense. The information simply alleged with intent to kill, of specified crimes.
qualified with treachery and did not state how this was
specifically employed.
Treachery is present when the offender commits any crime against
person by employing any means to insure success without risk
An info which lacks
from victims defense. Both eyewitnesses testified how Asilan
essential allegations may
attacked Adovas from behind and the latter couldnt have
sustain conviction if
defended because he was stabbed in the back repeatedly without
accused fails to object to
warning. He also cannot assail the alleged insufficiency of the
it during trial and such
information because he never did so in lower court proceedings.
deficiency was cured by
Moreover, an info which lacks essential allegations may sustain
competent evidence
conviction if accused fails to object to it during trial and such
therein.
deficiency was cured by competent evidence therein. He failed to
object AND allowed evidence proving treachery to be presented.

Jessie Castillo was elected mayor of Bacoor, Cavite in the
May 1998 elections. An information was filed against him
People v. for the alleged illegal operation of Villa Esperanza dumpsite
Sandiganbayan by giving unwarranted benefits to co-accused Arciaga by
allowing them to operate the dumpsite without an
Environmental Compliance Certificate. Castillo filed a
(Illegal operation
motion to quash on the ground that the charge did not
of dumpsite state how or to whom he has caused injury and that the
without extent of such should be specified.
certification)
(W/N an info alleging grant of unwarranted benefits must
state the precise amount of alleged benefit and injury)
The RTC found petitioners Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio
Sibal guilty of violation of RA 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) and
sentences them to reclusion perpetua. The info alleged that
during an initiation rite of the APO fraternity, they
Dungo v. People conspired with 20 other members and willfully assaulted
Marlon Mejilla resulting to his death. Petitioners allege that
(APO initiation; the information charged them with willfully using personal
violence against them, but both RTC and CA found them
merely induced)
guilty of inducing the victim to be present during the
initiation rites.
(W/N the information properly charged the offense proved)
Section 10 Place of the Commission
Navaja v. De DKT Philippines filed against petitioner Navaja falsification
charges by making it appear she incurred meal expenses in
Castro
the amount of 1.8 M instead of the actual amount of 810k
at Garden Caf, Jagna, Bohol. Navaja filed a motion to
(falsification at quash on the ground that none of the essential elements of
Garden Caf, the crime of falsification occurred in Jagna, Bohol, hence
the MCTC had no jurisdiction to take the case. The
6
To be charged with violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 there must
be:
(1) A public officer
(2) Manifest partiality and bad faith or gross negligence
(3) Caused undue injury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted
benefits in discharge of functions
Extent of benefit or
The information specifically alleged he was the Mayor of Bacoor,
injury need not be
Cavite who, in his official capacity, with bad faith and manifest
proven. The ultimate
partiality, willfully and unlawfully conspired with Arciagas and gave
facts which constitute
unwarranted benefits to the latter by allowing the illegal operation
the charges are enough.
of the dumpsite to the injury of residents who had to endure the ill-
effects of the operation. Such ultimate facts constitute the violation
and need not indicate the extent of the injury. To require specific
peso amounts of the benefits and injury if the point of the
sufficiency of the information is merely to allege how the crime was
committed.
YES Section 9 of Rule 110 provides that the acts complained
and the circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
language and in terms sufficient for a person of common The information need not
understanding to know the offense being charged.. The wording use the exact language
planned initiation rite necessarily includes the act of inducing of the statute in alleging
Villanueva to attend it. Planned initiation rites have different the acts complained of
phases and stages with perpetrators having different roles. They and that the test is W/N
did not only induce him but brought them there and were present. the person of common
His death would not have accrued if not for their role in the rites. understanding knows
Secrecy and silence are common in hazing, and to require the such charges.
prosecution to indicate every step of the initiation would be
arduous and surely lead to acquittal.
As ruled in Foz, Jr. v. People, for jurisdiction to be acquired by As ruled also in Union
courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed Bank v. People, the
or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the venue of action and of
jurisdiction of the court. Section 10 supports this and states that jurisdiction are deemed
only when venue is an essential ingredient will it be necessary to alleged where the Info
be specific. In falsification, the venue is the place where the states that the offense
document was falsified. The information sufficiently alleged that was done or some of its

information stated that she did there and willfully falsify a
Bohol)
commercial receipt in Garden Caf
Section 11 Date of Commission
Accused-appellant Joel Anjoy Buca was the neighbor of
the victim AAA. It is alleged that sometime in December,
accused entered the house of AAA and her siblings and
ordered the latter to leave. He then proceded to have sex
People v. Buca with AAA (7 years old). When CCC saw what was
happening, he pulled her away and was warned not to tell
their parents. Upon knowledge of this, BBB (mom) filed a
(The Rape of AAA complaint against Buca for her rape and for the rape of her
on Christmas Eve) daughter. The information alleged that the crime was
committed sometime before December 24, 2002.
Accused alleges that the failure to state the exact date of
December 24 was a violation of his right to due process
and thus must be acquitted.
7
she did so while in the restaurant in Bohol. The complaint-affidavit
elements occurred at a
also alleged she committed the crime there. It has been ruled that
place within jurisdiction
jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the information and
of the court.
NOT by the result of the proof.
W/N the failure to specify December 24 was essential to the
case
NO. Still GUILTY First, the precise date of commission of rape is Section 11 further states
NOT an essential element to proving the crime. Failure to specify that it is not necessary
the exact date when the rape was done DOES NOT render the Info to be precise when the
defective since the gravamen of the crime is the carnal knowledge. date is NOT AN
Second, it has already been ruled in various cases that the ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of
statement of before and until, sometime in the year, and days the offense. The crime
thereafter are sufficient in convicting one of rape. It is evident that may be alleged on a date
accused was able to testify about the incident on December 24, as near as possible to
2002 because the date alleged was not vague or covering an actual date.
unreasonable period as to deprive him the opportunity to prepare
his defense. Nor is there any record of any objection about the date Failure to object to time
during arraignment and offer of exhibits or witness stand. The difference constitutes
failure to raise a timely objection to time difference is a WAIVER of waiver.
such right to object. He also did not disavow the incident and
admitted that he spoke with AAA on December 24, 2002.
 8
Section 12 Name of the Offended
Petitioner Lee Pue (Paul Lee) is the president of CHI, a
company affiliated with Clothman Knitting Corporation PETITION DENIED Section 12 of Rule 110 of Criminal Procedure Every man criminally
(CKC). CKC Group is subject of intra-corporate disputes defines an offended party as the person against whom or whose liable is also civilly
between petitioner and his siblings, including respondent property the offense was committed. The court has rejected liable. When a person
Chua Pue (sibling). Respondent and others took over and petitioners theory that it is only the State which is offended in commits a crime he
barricaded themselves in the CKC factory. It appears that public offenses. From the language of Section 12, it is reasonable offends two entities
petitioner applied for the Issuance of a Duplicate Copy of to assume that the offended party, public or private, is the party to namely (1) the society in
the TCT because as president he was in possession of one whom the offender is civilly liable. which he lives in or the
Lee Pue Liong v.
but was lost beyond recovery and needed a copy as it was The statement of petitioner regarding custody of TCT, if political entity called the
Chua Pue Chin subject to mortgage to its creditors. Respondent prayed to found to be perjured, is injurious to respondents personal State whose law he has
Lee set aside such order stating that petitioner knew fully well credibility and reputation as her position of Board Member and violated
that it was in possession of respondent as Corporate Treasurer of CHI. Even assuming that no civil injury was alleged, and (2) the individual
Treasurer and that petitioner merely needs a copy to the court has ruled in Lim Tek Goan v. Yatco that whether public member of the society
(barricading at
mortgage the property with Planters Development Bank. or private crimes are involved, it is wrong for the RTC to consider whose person, right,
CKC) She also presented the alleged lost duplicate copy. She the intervention of the offended party by counsel as a matter of honor, chastity or
filed a case of perjury against Paul Lee. During trial, Atty tolerance. Where private prosecution has asserted its right to property has been
Macam appeared as counsel for respondent and as private intervene, that right MUST BE RESPECTED. This is so to enforce actually or
prosecutor under the supervision of the public prosecutor. civil liability born from the criminal act and not of demanding directly injured or
Petitioners counsel alleged that since perjury is a public punishment of accused. An act or omission is felonious because it damaged by the same
offense, and thus a private prosecutor cannot intervene is punishable by law and gives rise to civil liability not because it is punishable act or
especially since offended party is the State alone and not a crime bu because it caused damage to another. omission.
respondent.
Senador v. An information for estafa was filed against Ramoncita W/N the error in the information on the offended party In offenses against
Senador before the RTC of Dumaguete. Accused obtained violates due process property, if the subject
People
and received from one Cynthia Jaime various kidns of NO On the outset, variance between allegations in the matter of the offense is
jewelry amounting to 700k. Senador allegedly went to see information and evidence offered DOES NOT itself entitle acquittal, generic and not
(jewelry, not Rita Jaime (daughter-in-law) of Cynthia (engaged in especially if the variance is a mere formal defect which does NOT identifiable, an error in
name, is material) jewelry business) expressing interest to see the jewelry and affect substantial rights of the accused. the designation of the
sell such on commission. When Senador failed to pay upon First The accuseds citation of Uba is untenable, for that case offended party is fatal.
demand, estafa charges were made. Senador asserts that was an oral defamation case wherein the name of the offended However, if the subject
the person named as offended party in the Information was was material. In this case, the crime is against property, and the matter of the offense is
different than the offended because the perso who name of the offended is NOT indispensable. What is necessary is specific and identifiable,
appeared during trial was Rita, not Cynthia. Petitioner the identification of the criminal act charged. such as a warrant, as in
states she must be acquitted on violation of due process. Second As per Section 12, in offenses against property, the Kepner, or a check, such
materiality depends on W/N the subject matter of the offense was as in Sayson and Ricarze,
sufficiently described. The citing of Lahoylahoy referred to money an error in the

Section 13 Duplicity of Offense
Appellant was charged with Double Murder in Criminal Case
7698 against respondents two daughters. He was also
charged along with 2 other accomplices with Multiple
Attempted Murder. It appears that accused went to the
house of Norberto (respondent, brother-in-law) and asked
People v.
that he come down. IT was then he fired multiple shots with
Jugueta
his two companions on the family. Norberto alleges it was
due to an altercation between him and accused wherein
the former filed charges of molestation against him.
(Firing at the
Accused simply alleged denial and that he was at home,
family)
but admitted Norbertos house was 5 minutes away.
Accused alleges that the prosecution failed to state from
the beginning that all 3 of them had guns and to
categorically identify appellant as the one holding the gun
used to kill Norberto.
Petitioenrs Loney, Reid, and Hernandez are officers of the
Mining Operations for Marcopper Mining. Marcopper placed
a concrete plug at the tunnels end leading to Boac and
Loney v. People
Makaluprit rivers which gushed out wastes and tons of
tailings into the riveres. The DOJ filed 4 charges against
(Marcopper them, (Water Code, National Pollution Control
Decree, Philippine Mining Act, and the RPC Reckless
Mining)
Imprudence resulting in Damage to Property).
Petitioners allege it violates the Duplicity of Offenses rule
and thus they should be acquitted.
Section 14 Amendment or Substitution
9
designation of the
which is generic and the only way to identify such was to connect it
offended party is
to an offended party.
immaterial
The facts allege that petitioner is guilty of 2 counts of murder and
not Double Murder since the killing was the result of several acts of
appellant. He is also guilty of 4 counts of Attempted Murder. Such
When two or more
informations failed to comply with Section 13 of Rule 110. As a
offenses are charged in a
general rule, a complaint or info must charge only one offense,
single complaint but the
otherwise it is DEFECTIVE. HOWEVER, since he entered NOT GUILTY
accused fails to object to
and FAILED to move for quashal of the Info, he is deemed to have
it, the following happen:
WAIVED his right to question the same. As per Section 9 of Rule
(1) Implied waiver of
117, failure to assert any ground for motion to quash before he
motion to quash
pleads is deemed a WAIVER.
(2) Can be convicted
In a complex crime, two crimes are done with one single act.
for each offense
However, it clearly shows that in firing successive shots, there was
charged
intent to kill the entire family. They are committing more than one
crime and is not complex. Each act of aiming and firing is a
separate crime.
Petition DENIED Duplicity of charges means a single complaint or information with more than one
offense. Here, the prosecution filed 4 separate informations with one offense each, there is NO
duplicity.
Water Code dumping of mine taillings without prior permit. (Not indispensable in APL or PMA or
RPC)
Anti-Pollution Law Existence of actual pollution.
Philippine Mining Act - Violation of Environmental Compliance Certificate is not an essential
element to other acts
RPC (Article 365) Lack of adequate precaution to prevent damage.
Two or more offenses arising from the same act IS NOT double jeopardy if each act
requires an element different
People v. Relova NOT applicable not an act giving rise to the charges was punished by an
ordinance and national

A shooting incident took place in Poblacion, Lanao Del Sur on
May 11, 1998 which killed Limbona and Ante Maguindanao
and seriously wounding two others. Probable cause was found
against Jalandoni, Balindongs for doubler murder and multiple
frustrated murder. After reinvestigation, the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor downgraded the charges against
Jalandoni and Anwar and Kennedy Balindong while dropping
Balindong v. CA
the other two Balindongs. Private complainant Zenaida
Limbona filed a petition for review against ProvPros. DOJ
(super daming ordered modified the resolution and instead file 2
informations of frustrated murder with attempted murder,
petitions)
and two informations for frustrated murder and an info for
attempted murder. This was further dismissed by Secretary
Perez (new DOJ) but reinstated by motion to the CA. upon
raffling to the RTC of QC, they found probable cause to charge
Murder with Attempted Murder, Frustrated murder, and
Attempted Murder. After the issuance of warrants of arrest,
they questioned the CA but was denied.
Mendez v. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed a complaint-
affidavit with the Department of Justice against the petitioner,
People
Dr. Joel C. Mendez. The BIR alleged that the petitioner had
been operating as a single proprietor doing business and/or
(failure to pay tax exercising his profession for taxable years 2001 to 2003 and
for Mendez failed to file his income tax returns for taxable years 2001 to
2003. After the information, accused was already arraigned
Medical)
and pleaded not guilty on March 5, 2007. However, the
prosecution filed a Motion to Amend Information with Leave
of Court on May 4, 2007.
1. The change in the date in the crime from 2001 to 2002;
2. The addition Mendez Group to Weigh Less Income earned phrase mere formal amendment since it merely adds precision to what is
3. The change and/or addition of the branches of petitioners
operation;
4. The addition of the phrase for income earned
The CTA First Division granted the prosecutions motion. It
ruled that the prosecutions amendment is merely a formal
one as it merely states with additional precision something
10
W/N there was mistake which warranted the invocation of Section 14 of Rule 110 of
Rules of Court.
There was no mistake in charging the proper offenses. Balindong, et al. fully exhausted the
procedure to determine the proper offenses to be charged against them by going all the way up
to the Secretary of Justice. Their quest was ultimately settled with finality by the Secretary of
Justice denying their second motion for reconsideration and declaring that such offenses were
two counts of murder with attempted murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and one count of
attempted murder. They thereafter attempted to undo such final determination by filing a third
motion for reconsideration in the DOJ, and they initially succeeded because Secretary Perez
directed the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Lanao del Sur "to cause the filing of the
amended information for double homicide with multiple frustrated homicide against Mayor
Anwar Berua Balindong, Lt. Col. Jalandoni Cota and PO1 Kennedy Balindong," and dropped Amer
Oden Balindong and Ali S. Balindong from the informations. But their success was overturned by
the CA, whose nullification of Secretary Perez's favorable action on their third motion for
reconsideration was affirmed in G.R. No. 159962. Thus, this Court even issued its judicial
imprimatur on the probable cause for two counts of murder with attempted murder, two counts
of frustrated murder, and one count of attempted murder. For Balindong, et al. to rely on Section
14, supra, as basis for the RTC to still reach a determination of probable cause different from
those sanctioned in G.R. No. 159962 would be untenable.
W/N the prosecutions amendments made after the petitioners arraignment are
substantial in nature and must perforce be denied
According to jurisprudence, substantial matters in the complaint or information consist of the
recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the
court. However, amendments that do not charge another offense different from that charged in
the original one, or do not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to cause surprise to
the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume are considered merely as
formal amendments.
There was NO change in date it merely erred in the original info when it stated that it was
2001 even if the record is clear that the alleged is 2002. This was a result of failure to pay the
tax for 2001 on the due date w/c was 2002.
already contained in the original information.
Mendez Medical Group and Addition of Branches - Since the petitioner operates as a sole
proprietor from taxable years 2001 to 2003, the petitioner should have filed a consolidated
return in his principal place of business, regardless of the number and location of his other
branches. Addition of the branches of operation does not constitute substantial amendment
because it does not change the prosecutions theory that the petitioner failed.

already contained in the original.
On August 26, 2006, a mass grave was discovered by the 43 rd
Infantry Brigade of the AFP in Leyte. It allegedly contained
remains of victims of Operation Veneral Disease launched by
Ocampo v. members of the CPP/NPA.NDFP to purge their ranks of
Abando suspected military informers. After finding probable cause,
Prosecutor Vivero recommended filing for an information of
15 counts of multiple murder against 54 named members.
(Mass Grave and
Petitioner Ocampo alleges that a Criminal Case for rebellion
Political Offense was already filed against him in the RTC of Makati and under
Doctrine) the political offense doctrine. Acting on the observation of
the Court that the information was defective for charging 15
counts of murder, the prosecution filed to amend the Info.
Judge Abando granted such motion.
Prosecutions evidence reveal that on June 19, 1988, Jesus
Mallo knocked on the door of petitioner. Petitioner opened the
door and shot Mallo twice. He chased down Mallo and
Kummer v. ensured his death. Accused alleges that there were noises
People outside and he suspected such to be due to NPA stuff. After a
rock hit one of her daughters, he got his shotgun and shot
outside which silenced the noise. Prosecution filed for
(Boy Mallo
information on January 12, 1989 and they were arraigned and
Change of date is pleaded not guilty, waiving pre-trial. Petitioner also claims
ok) that she was not arraigned on the amended information
which she was convicted.
W/N the amended information warranted another
arraignment
Section 15 Place Where Act Instituted
Union Bank v. Tomas was charged in court for perjury under Article 183 of
the RPC for making a false narration in a certificate against
People
Forum Shopping. While the informations were filed in Pasay
City, petitioner argues that the venue was improper since it is
(Perjury in Pasay
11
W/N the murders were done in furtherance of a political
offense
The political offense
doctrine is not a
Under the political offense doctrine, public prosecutors are not
ground to dismiss
obliged to consistently charge respondents with simple rebellion
the charge against
instead of common crimes as such are under their discretion. Further,
petitioners prior to a
the defense for such is presented during trial and not in this petition.
determination by the
If during trial, petitioners are able to show that the murders were
trial that the
indeed committed in furtherance of rebellion, they may invoke
murders were done
Section 14 of Rule 110. Dismissal of the complaint may only be done
in furtherance of
when there is such mistake and if such mistake is duly proven.
rebellion.
Hence, the defense has the duty to determine during trial whether
their murders were committed in furtherance of a political purpose.
Section 14 permits a mere formal amendment of a complaint even
after the plea but only if it is made with leave of court and done
without causing prejudice to rights of the accused. A mere change
in the date of the commission of 1 month (disparity not great) is
more formal than substantial. It does NOT prejudice the rights of the Mere formal
accused since the proposed amendment would not alter the nature of amendment which
the offense. Neither is it necessary to state the price time since the does not prejudice
act may be alleged at any time as near as to the actual date of accused does not
offense especially since it is NOT an essential element of the crime. require a second
There is NO need for arraignment either for amended information as pleading.
it only pertains to substantial amendments which charge an
offense different, alter theory of prosecution, cause surprise and
affect defense and do not affect substantial rights of the accused.
Also, defense still available.
SHOULD BE MAKATI Venue determines not only the place where The provisions of
the criminal action is to be instituted but also the court that has Section 15 of the
jurisdiction to try and hear it. First, jurisdiction of trial courts is Rules of Court Rule
limited to well-defined territories. Next, laying the venue in the locus 110 place the venue
 12
crimins is grounded on necessity of having accused on trial in the
not only where the
municipality where witnesses and other facilities for defense are
offense was committed
available.
but also where
For perjury to be committed:
the Pasay City court, where the Certificate Against Forum essential elements took
(a) Accused made statement under oath on material matter
Shopping, was submitted and used and not the MeTC of (b) Statement before competent officer place. The venue is
Makati that has the jurisdiction. (c) Made willful, deliberate assertion of falsehood sufficiently alleged if
or Makati?) (d) Statement containing falsity required by law or for legal
the information states
purpose
W/N the venue should be Pasay (where used) and not that the offense was
The certificate of forum Shopping was made under oath and
Makati where the certificate was notarized) committed or some of
before notary public in Makati City. The information also sufficiently
its elements took place
alleged that the material statement was made there. It is immaterial
within the jurisdiction of
where the affidavit is used the important thing to note is that the
the court.
act of lying consummated the act (which was in Makati).

Section 16 Intervention of Offended

Respondent Amelia Chan filed a bigamy case against Leon
The civil action shall
Basiliio (aka Leonardo Villalon). During the subsistence of W/N there was waiver of being represented
be deemed instituted
their marriage solemnized in May 6, 1954, Leonardo NO Petitioner states that Amelia was never denied due process
with the criminal
contracted a 2nd marriage with Erlinda Talde on June 2, 1993. even when Atty. Atencia was disqualified because the respondent
action, except when
Villalon v. Chan Sine Amelia was living in the US and could not personally file never denied her right to participate and was even called but could
the offended party
the case, she requested Benito Ya Cua and Wilson Go to file not due to being abroad, hence waiver. As per Section 16, Rule
waives the civil
the criminal complaint against him. During pre-trial, Aty. 110, the civil action shall be deemed instituted with the criminal one,
(Bigamy while action, reserves the
Atencia appeared in behalf of Amelia and filed his entry as except when offended party waives the civil action OR reserves the
right to institute it
Abroad) private prosecutor. Petitioner Leonardo assailed such stating right to institute separately and or prior to the criminal one. No such
separately or
that Amelia could not be represented since it was not her who waiver was made by respondent. The fact that she secured services
institutes the civil
filed the complaint. The RTC ruled in his favor, but the CA of an attorney reveals her willingness to participate in the
action prior to the
reversed the decision stating that as a public crime, such can prosecution of bigamy and recover civil liability from the petitioners.
criminal action.
be denounced by anyone, not only the private offended party.

RULE 111 INSTITUTION OF CIVIL SUIT
Chiok was charged with estafa for allegedly enticing private
respondent Chua into purchasing shares of stock amounting
Chiok v. People to 9.5 million. Chiok contends that the relationship that
transpired between them was an unregistered partnership
wherein they both ventured to purchase the stocks. Further,
(9.5 and 1.6 mil for
he alleges that his acquittal in the BP 22 case makes him not
stock shares) civilly liable to Chua in the present case.
W/N Chiok is civilly liable
Bernardo obtained a loan from private complainant
Camerncita amounting to 460k. Bernardo gave as security a
duplicate copy of a Torrens title. He then issued (5) FEBTC
checks to cover the loan. All checks were dishonored because
Bernardo v. the account was closed. Subsequent demands were
unheeded and thus a case of BP 22 was filed. He alleges that
People
he cannot be liable because the checks were used beyond
the 90-day period, as well as the absence of proof her
(5 FEBTC Checks) knowledge of the insufficiency. She was convicted in both the
RTC and CA but pending appeal, Bernardo died.
W/N she is still civilly liable despite her death
W/N there is actual civil liabilities
Standard Jefferson Cham (insured by Standard Insurance) and Arnold
Cuaresma (car owned by Jerry Cuaresma) were involved in an
Insurance
accident in North Avenue, Quezon City. Cham subrogated
Company v.
Standard Insurance to recover all claims against anybody
Cuaresma liable thereto. Petitioner extra-judicially demanded Cuaresma
for the damages in repairing the vehicle.
13
YES It has been ruled in several cases that acquittal based on
The Rules of Court
reasonable doubt does not automatically exempt the accused from
expressly allow the
civil liability which is based on preponderance of evidence. While
institution of a civil
the CA acquitted him for failure to prove sufficiently the appropriation
action in the crimes of
of Chuas money, there still was a monetary transaction between the
both estafa and BP 22
two based on the preponderance of evidence Chiok openly
without need of election
admitted to receiving 7.9 M and 1.6 M on separate occasions.
by the offended party
Further, it has already been ruled that a civil action in a BP
except that theyre
22 case is not a bar to a civil action in estafa. The Rules of Court
prohibited from double
expressly allow the institution of a civil action in the crimes of both
recovery. While only
estafa and BP 22 without need of election by the offended party
one civil liability
except that theyre prohibited from double recovery. While only one
arises from BP 22,
civil liability arises from BP 22, this can be subject of both the civil
this can be subject of
actions in estafa and BP 22. The basis for the acquittal was the failure
both the civil actions
of the prosecution to show that a notice of dishonor was presented to
in estafa and BP22.
Chiok. However, there was still a valid debt.
YES While generally death extinguished both criminal and civil
liability ex-delicto, the independent civil liabilities, however, survive
Civil liabilities
death and an action for recovery may be generally pursued by
independent from
filing a separate civil action. In BP 22 cases, the criminal case is
the delict rising from
deemed to include the corresponding civil actions and only one single
BP 22 may still be
suit is filed and tried. The independent civil liabilities arising from the
filed after even when
act are NOT extinguished and may still be enforced against her
the civil action delict
estate in the present case.
is filed with BP 22.
YES Bernardo failed to adduce evidence that she had already paid
This may be done
the debt she owed to respondent. Such civil liability arising from
through appeal by
contract is separate from the BP 22 delict. The defense of dishonor
the private
are no longer availing as they refer to the criminal action but not to
respondent.
the civil action arising from contract. This was sufficiently established
by the promissory note evidencing the indebtedness.
W/N the cases can proceed independently Forum Shopping
YES Contrary to respondents allegations, there is NO forum Filing of multiple suits
shopping. The RTC has already ruled that the civil suit filed by involving same parties
petitioner may run independently of the criminal action filed by for same cause to
Cuaresmas. This is allowed by the following provisions as per ruling of obtain favorable ruling.
Casupanan v. Laroya:

Meanwhile, Cuaresma filed criminal charges for
Reckless Imprudence resulting in property damage
against Cham. Standard Insurance filed a counter suit for
damages against respondents for their damage to Chams
car. Respondents were declared in default for their failure to
respond in the civil suit against them.
The RTC ruled against petitioner for inconsistencies
with the evidence, but ruled that contrary to respondents
contention, the civil suit and the criminal suit for reckless
imprudence may proceed independently.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed a case of BP
22 against Eduardo Simon. More than 3 years later,
Heirs of Simon respondent Elvin Chan filed a civil action for the collection of
v. Chan the 336k Simon owed to him. Chan contends that the action
is proper since Rule 111 allows the reservation of the right to
file the case separately.
14
Article 2176 act or omission causing damage (quasi-
delict)
Art 2177 Responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely
separate and distinct from civil liability arising from
negligence under the RPC.
Section 1, Rule 111 counter-claim of accused should be
in a separate civil action.
GRANTED There is NO civil liability case. The New Rules of Court
promulgated on December 1, 2000 are retroactive in effect even if
they are procedural since no substantive rights are really affected.
They may be applied to cases pending before promulgation of the
There cannot be
rule. It expressly provided that no separate civil action may be filed
separate civil action
under BP 22 and that both civil and criminal actions are impliedly
arising from the
instituted together without any right of reservation. This was enacted
issuance of a bad
to help declog the dockets of multitude of BP 22 cases due to the
check under BP22.
absence of filing fees for civil actions. The only instance when
separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is filed
ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the rules encourage a
consolidation of the civil and criminal cases.

Section Two Separate Civil Action is Suspended
Respondent Munoz made statements about Elizalde Co in
several radio interviews in Legaspi City. Munoz was charged
for perjury. Munoz claimed that (a) CO influenced the
Prosecutor of Legaspi to expedite arrests against him, (b)
manipulated results in govt bidding in Masarawag-San
Francisco dredging, (c) received 2M from Munoz on condition
that Co will subcontract the project to Munoz which Co did not
comply with.
Co filed his complaint which led to filing of 3 criminal
Co v. Munoz
informations for libel. Notably, he did NOT waive, institute, or
reserve his right to file a separate civil action. Munoz
(Libel case counters that considering Co is a public figure due to his
participation in government projects, his imputations are
against
privileged communication.
businessman)
The CA reversed the RTC decision and acquitted
Munoz for absolute failure to prove existence of actual
malice. Co acknowledges that he may no longer appeal the
criminal aspect, but now files claims for damages arguing
that the extinction of penal action does not extinguish that of
the civil action. Munoz counters that when there was no
reservation of the right to separately institute a civil action,
the extinction of the criminal action extinguishes the civil
action as well,
An information for violation of BP 22 was filed against
petitioner Domingo before the MTCC of Davao. The MTCC
granted the demurrer of evidence filed by petitioner stating
that respondent had failed to prove elements 2 and 3 of BP
Domingo v.
22. Contending that (1) even If she didnt receive valuable
Colina consideration (2) knowledge of insufficiency is presumed from
the dishonor, she is still liable for the check. The RTC reversed
and the CA affirmed the liability of petitioner to 175,000 plus
(incomplete BP
12% interest. Petitioner contends that the CA abused its
22 elements)
discretion in upholding the RTC ruling considering that it does
not have jurisdiction because MTCC already ruled that the act
from which civil liability may arise did NOT exist.
W/N the CA ruling is wrong NO. Petitioner IS LIABLE.
15
W/N a private party may appeal judgment of acquittal for civil
liability
YES. BUT IN THIS CASE HE MAY NOT Extinction of the criminal
action DOES NOT carry with it extinction of the civil action, whether
or not separated from the criminal action. He may still claim ex
delicto damages if there is a finding that civil liability may arise from
the act or omission:
(a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
Where the crime does
preponderance of evidence is required
(b) if the court declared that the liability of the accused is only not exist, the civil
civil and liability arising from it
(c) if the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is
does not also.
not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted.
RESPONDENT NOT CIVILLY LIABLE The CA acquitted Munoz
because the statement was privileged communication. In libel,
existence of malice is an essential element. Malice is generally
presumed in all libelous statements, but such is destroyed when it is
proven that it is privileged communication. The burden shifts to
offended to prove malice in fact. Without such crime, no civil liability
may exist.
The orders of the MTCC DID NOT contain any determination as to the
civil liability of accused. The acquittal of accused for the criminal Civil liability will BE
charges did NOT include the acquittal in the civil case. While it held in extinguished if the final
its order that the act from which civil liability may arise did not exist, judgment rules that the
it failed to cite evidence or any discussion warranting such act/omission from which
ruling, simply concluding that not all the elements were present. civil liability may arise did
The tenor of the MTCC ruling is that dismissal was due to NOT exist. The judgment
failure to prove BRD. This lack of elements does NOT mean no civil shall state w/n it
liability exists, because civil liability merely needs preponderance absolutely failed to prove
of evidence. The prosecution was able to prove the (1) and (4) guilt OR failed to prove it
elements (drawing check and dishonor). Hence, the fact that BRD + determine if civil
petitioner was proven to have drawn an insufficient check and issued liability did not exist at all.
such, some civil liability may exist.
 16
(1) Ching is correct and entitled to appeal the civil aspect
It is true that the civil aspect was impliedly instituted with the
criminal suit. The court does have jurisdiction with the timely appeal HOWEVER, it must
Petitioner Ching filed criminal complaints for 11 counts of for review of the CAs civil aspect ruling. (doctrine) establish:
BP 22 violations against respondent Nicdao. 14 other (2) Nicados civil liability was COMPLETELY extinguished (a) Acquittal is based on
complaints against Nicdao by Chings common law spouse A review of the facts states that the civil liability was completely BRD (civil only needs
Emma Nuguid. The checks were issued to Ching (HSLB extinguished. POE)
(b) Court declared that
Checks) as security for loans that she obtained from him to First the acquittal was not merely for failure to prove BRD, but she
liability is only civil,
Ching v. Nicdao settle financial obligations. After being ruled against by the absolutely did NOT commit the crime of BP 22. The P20M was a
and
RTC and CA, petitioner argues that while he has forgone the stolen check which was never issued nor delivered by Nicdao to
(c) Civil liability does not
criminal liability of Nicdao, he avers that civil liability may still petitioner Ching. Ching did NOT acquire any right or interest over the
(stolen bank arise from the crime
exist considering that the civil suit is filed with the criminal check.
but from other
check worth 2 suit in BP 22 cases and that his acquittal for the criminal Second the CA ruled that she was not civilly liable because she had
obligations
Mil) charges does not extinguish the civil liability. Ching alleges already paid the obligation in full. After computation, she was only
that Nicdao issued to him a check for P20 M which bounced. liable for 2,100,000 and 1,150,000 but she paid already in the Also, civil liability is
Nicdao alleges that she never issued a check and that the amount of 6.98 M. extinguished if it was
checkbook was stolen from her. Third Petitioner failed to prove by preponderance of evidence the ruled that civil liability
existence of the unpaid loan obligations. It was discovered that may not arise or did not
W/N Nicdao is liable. (NO) Niquid has access to the store of Nicdao since she was the one who exist from the act or
delivered the tobacco. Established by circumstnial evidence, she omission done.
acquired possession of the check and filled up the issuance of P 20M.
being undelivered, Ching never acquired any rights over it.
 17
Section 3 When Civil Action May Proceed Independently
Lily Lim filed a Petition for Review of the decision of the CA Is it forum shopping for a private complainant to pursue a
assailing that the CA erroneously ruled that Lily Lims petition civil complaint for specific performance and damages while A single act or
for appeal in a criminal case for estafa is dismissed for filing a appealing the judgment on the civil aspect of a criminal case omission that causes
separate civil complaint against Charlie Co in violation of the for estafa? damage may give rise
rule on forum shopping and litis pendentia. This case stems to two separate civil
from withdrawals of cement from FR Cement Corporation. NO THE PETITION IS VALID AND GRANTED liabilities:
Lim v. Kou Co
FRCC sold these withdrawal authorities to respondent Co for The first action is clearly a civil action ex delicto, having been (1) Ex delicto arising
Ping P63 per bag. Co sold these to Lim for P64 per bag (50k bags). instituted with the criminal complaint. On the other hand, the from crime
After withdrawing 2,800 bags and selling 10,000 to Co, Lim section action judging by the allegations is a civil action arising (2) Independent Civil

was not allowed to withdraw the remaining 37,200 due to a
(withdrawal of
price increase and would only release once Lim pays for the
cement + price
difference OR agrees to receive lesser quantity. After
increase) demands at Co to fix the problem, she filed for suit of
from a contractual obligation and for tortious conduct (abuse of Liability arising
rights). The second action was based on FRCCs failure to honor the from other sources of
terms of the withdrawal authorities issued and that Co did not obligations
comply with her obligation under the sale contract to deliver the These two civil

damages to recover 2.38 M + forgone profits. When the CA 37,200 of cement to Lim. liabilities may be

relieved Co of estafa and civil liability, she filed for a Motion pursed separately

to Reconsider the civil liability. After, she also filed an action Since the damages in the first case arise from estafa, and the other without forum

for specific performance and damages against Co and all arises from tort, there are different causes of action which are shopping.

other parties to the withdrawal authorities including FRCC.
Casupanan v. Mario Laroya and Roberto Capitulo figured in a car accident.
Laryola filed a criminal case for reckless imprudence against
Laroya
Casupanan (Capitulos driver). Casupanan and Capitulo filed a
case against Llaroya for quasi-delict. When the civil suit was
(car accident filed, the criminal case was in its preliminary investigation.
counterclaims) Laroya moved to have the civil case dismissed on forum
shopping due to pendency of the criminal case. Casupanan
insisted it was a separate civil action independently filed from
the criminal case. The MTCC and RTC affirmed the dismissal
of the civil suit.
Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case
for reckless imprudence can validly file simultaneously
and independently a separate civil action for quasi-
delict against the private complainant.
separate and distinct.
Section 3, Rule 111 states that the offended party may file an The right given by
independent civil suit based on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 for Section 3 to offended
the Civil Code which requires merely preponderance of evidence. parties in filing a
Similarly, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict separate civil action
for the same act or omission he is accused of in the criminal case. against the accused
This is expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present must be read in
Rule 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused "may be consonance with the
litigated in a separate civil action." This is only fair reasons: right of accused to file
First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any counterclaim in a counter-claim in a
the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the criminal case. The separate civil action.
accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclaim
against the offended party. If the accused does not file a separate
civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period may set in
since the period continues to run until the civil action for quasi-
delict is filed.
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to
invoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that the
offended party can avail of this remedy which is independent of
 18

the criminal action. To disallow the accused from filing a separate

civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his
counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him due process of
law, access to the courts, and equal protection of the law.
IN CONCLUSION The civil suit filed by Casupanan is PROPER. The
order of dismissal by the MTCC on forum shopping is erroneous.

Section 4 Effect of Death on Civil Actions
Respondent Lipata was charged with murder and after
arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty (October 26). The
murder was witnessed by Lipatas sister who allegedly saw
him, Larry Lipata, and another companion hitting and
stabbing the victim multiple times using an icepick, tres
cantos, and a broken Red Horse bottle. Respondent Gerry
Lipata alleges that he merely came to the aid of his brother
Larry.
The RTC ruled that since he alleged the justifying
circumstance of defense of relative, he admitted
People v. commission of the crime, hence burden of proof of innocence
shifted to him. Finding the lack of evidence in proving
Lipata
unlawful aggression and imminent danger on his brothers
life, as well as implementing treachery, they were guilty.
(tres-cantos, 10- After the CA sent the records to the SC on June 10,
year no civil suit) 2011 for review and ordered the confinement to the Bureau
of Corrections, the QC Jail Warded sent a letter dated October
22, 2012 that appellant passed away on February 13,
2011. The SC required the parties to comment on the
October 22, 2012 letter. Since he died before the CA
resolution, the SC ordered the substitution of the legal
representatives of the estate of the appellant and to
comment on civil liability. The Public Attorneys Office argued
that since the civil liability here arose solely on the criminal
liability, the same does not survive death, therefore
acquitted.
Cabugao v. The RTC convicted accused Cabugao and Ynzon of Reckless
Imprudence resulting to Homicide. Being the physicians of
People
10-year old Rodolfo Palma, they failed through negligence to
perform immediate operation upon the patient. After
(physicians complaining of an upset stomach, Rodolfos parents went to
caused death of Cabugao, a general practicitoner, to have him checked.
When the meds didnt work, he suggested his confinement.
boy)
The rectal examination revealed Acute Apendicitis hence he
recommended surgery to Dr. Ynzon, a surgeon. He was
19
W/N he should still be held civilly liable (DAPAT, BUT NOT
ANYMORE)
It was concluded in People v. Bayotas that Upon death of accused
BAYOTAS RULES
pending appeal of conviction, the criminal action is extinguished;
(1) Death of accused
the civil liability for recovery of ex delicto is ipso facto
extinguishes
extinguished with the criminal one. If the offended party still
CRIMINAL and
wishes to recover damages from the same act complained, he must
CIVIL EX-DELICTO
file a separate civil action predicated on other sources of obligation. (2) Civil liability
Hence, Bayotas requires the offended parties to file a separate civil arising from other
action right after the court notifies them of the death of the accused. obligations
Contrary to PAOs manifestation, Cueno died due to survives
(3) (2) may only be
accuseds fault he caused damage through deliberate acts, hence
his civil liability ex-quasi-delicto may be judged. However, records sought for in a
indicate that no separate civil action was instituted prior to the separate civil
criminal case, neither was there a reservation for such right action subject
filed for the case on the quasi-delict. The lack of filing a case for under Section 1 of
Rule 111
quasi-delict 10 years after Cuenos death bars them from
(4) Need not fear
recovering any damages.
forfeiture of right;
NOTE: Court forwarded a recommendation en banc to revise the
statute of
Rules of Court to provide speedy and appropriate remedies for the
limitations
private party when the accused dies after conviction by trial court but
interrupted upon
pending appeal. This is based on the fact that an acquittal based on
filing of separate
reasonable doubt DOES NOT exempt civil liability ex-delicto which
civil action.
requires merely preponderance of evidence. One is after the penal
punishment and restoration of social order, while the other is
damages for the offended party. Such liabilities are different (even in
old Civil Code).
YES - The SC ruled that Cabugao, being a general practitioner, Bayotas Ruling
should NOT be held liable as he lacks the skill to perform such.
However, Ynzon SHOULD be liable it was already established that
surgery was to be performed. Hence, his non-performance of such
resulted in the death.
RULING ON CIVIL LIABILITY While the case was pending appeal,
counsel for Dr. Ynzon informed the court that the latter died on
December 23, 2011 (multi-organ failure) evidenced by a death

administered several medicine, but the next day he vomited
profusely, became unconscious, and died.
W/N petitioners conviction of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide arising from medical malpractice
was established
Private respondents Coronado entered into a lease
agreement with the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna
whereby the latter allowed the use and enjoyment of property
from March 1978 to 1998 extendable to 20 years.
After a fire razed the market, the Municipality
ordered the propertys demolition even though it was
declared standing and intact. Arguing that the (1) lease still
existed, (2) willing to leave if given the same place in the new
market, (3) absent court order, its invalid, and (4) she will file
Asilo v. People
unlawful detainer if proposals not favorable, she refused to
leave. When the maintained the order, respondent filed a
(Mayor civil suit. Spouses Bombasi also filed a criminal complaint
for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
demolition of
During the pendency of the case, Mayor
public market)
Comendador died, and thus counsel for Mayor filed
manifestation of such on March 3, 2003. The SB rendered
decision on April 2003 finding Comendador and Asilo guilty
BRD of the criminal charges. They were also ordered to pay
plaintiff damages for the demolition of the store in the civil
case filed by respondent Coronado. They filed an MR to
extinguish the criminal liability, which was granted by the SB,
but affirmed the civil liability since it was a separate civil
action.
20
certificate. Since he died pending appeal, his liabilities depend on the
rules of Bayotas. While the criminal liability is extinguished, as per
Bayotas, civil liability not based on the delict but by other obligations
(in this case, reckless imprudence AND contract) may be filed. A
separate civil action may be enforced against the administrator of the
estate and in accordance with Section 4.
W/N civil liability was extinguished
NO Comendador is still civilly liable (so is Angeles, the other
engineer, if only his civil extinguishment was questioned before
Article 32(6) states that
finality). In this case, Comendadors liability arises from another
any public officer or
source of obligation (check doctrine). In any of the cases in this
employee, or private
provision, whether or not such act or omission constitutes a criminal
individual, who directly or
offense, the offended party MAY commence an entirely separate
indirectly obstructs any of
civil action for damages which proceeds independently of the
the following rights of
criminal prosecution.
another person shall be
The Court is in one with the prosecution that there was a
liable for damages:
violation of the right to private property of the Spouses Bombasi. The
(6) Right against
accused public officials should have accorded the spouses the due
deprivation of
process of law guaranteed by the Constitution and New Civil Code. It
property
has repeatedly been held that even when theres a writ of execution,
without due
there must still be an initial hearing and special order issued by the
process of law
court for demolition. Notably, the separate civil action based on
violation of due process was further proven when it was filed ahead
of the criminal case and also when Comendadors wife substituted
the accused and specified such in the petition for the civil
case.

Appellant Nelson Bayot was charged with Rape on December
29, 1997.
Convicted on July 31, 2000 by the RTC testimony
was sufficient, corroborated by medical examination,
People v. Bayot and unavailing sweetheart defense
May 9, 2006 CA affirmed RTCs conviction and
raised damages from 40,000 to 50,000 + 50,000
(rape case with
moral damages.
no civil In a letter DATED May 29, 2006 Dr. Leopando of
damages) New Bilibid Prison informed CA that accused died on
December 4, 2004.
PAO appealed CA decision (May 31, 2006).
W/N accuseds civil liability survives
Section 5 Judgment in a Civil Action Not a Bar
Madarang v. Respondent Janice-Young Chua and husband Eduardo filed a
complaint for replevin and damages (civil) against William
CA
Madarang and Evans Kho in the RTC of QC. Respondents are
owners of a 1990 Dark Gray Kia Pride car wherein petitioners
(replevin case for took possession of such through force and intimidation using
a KIA Pride) a falsified Deed of Sale. Madarang was charged with
Falsification of a Public Document in the METC of QC
(criminal). On the same date, they were charged by the METC
with Grave Coercion. Accused filed a Motion to Suspend
Criminal Proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question
claiming that the replevin case is related to the issues
pending in the METC which determines his guilt for
falsification.
The RTC ruled that the Deed of Sale was genuine
and dismissed the replevin claims. The MeTC denied the
Motion to Suspend ruling that the replevin case was not
determinative of the criminal charges. Accused then filed a
motion to dismiss the falsification case since the RTC ruled he
was not liable in the civil suit for replevin. The METC (initially
ruling for accused but recalling it) ruled in favor of
21
NO - Appellants death on December 4, 2004, pending appeal to
the CA extinguished criminal AND civil liability ex-delictio.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as
well as the civil liability ex delicto. The rationale, therefore, is that the
criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a The civil liability ex
defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein delicto is extinguished
for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, with the criminal
grounded as it is on the criminal case. Evidently, it is already liability upon the death
unnecessary to rule on appellants appeal. Appellants appeal was of the accused
still pending and no final judgment had been rendered against him at
the time of his death. Thus, whether or not appellant was guilty of
the crime charged had become irrelevant because even assuming
that appellant did incur criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto,
these were totally extinguished by his death,
W/N accuseds contentions are correct Final judgment in a
NO - The declaration of RTC, Branch 84 in its Decision dated March 7, civil case separate
1997 that the signature of private respondent in the Deed of Sale from criminal
dated December 3, 1993 is genuine and she voluntarily surrendered proceedings and which
the car to petitioners is not res judicata in the criminal cases for absolves civil liability
falsification and grave coercion because there is no identity of parties is NOT a bar to
as the People of the Philippines is not a party in the replevin suit and judgment of separate
cannot be bound by the factual findings therein. criminal charges.
It should be noted, however, that the CA modified the ruling
of the RTC and stated that the application for Replevin is DENIED but A decision that has
the Deed of Sale is treated as an equitable mortgage granting NOT become final and
respondents the Right of Redemption of the subject vehicle. executory has no
Furthermore, the records do not show that the decision had conclusive affect.
become final and executory as it was pending appeal. Hence,
a decision that has NOT become final and executory has no
conclusive affect.
Also, Section 5, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
explicitly recognizes that "a final judgment rendered in a civil
action absolving the defendant from civil liability is no bar to
a criminal action."
 22

respondents. The CA likewise affirmed, stating that in the

replevin case, private respondents are the offened while in
the criminal case, it is the PEOPLE.

Section 7 Elements of a Prejudicial Question
Respondent Arambulo along with other parties are the heirs
of Spouses Pedro and Anastacia Reyes. Anaped Estate was
incorporated as part of the estate planning to hold the
estates of the Reyeses for the heirs. Jose Buban, VP and GM
of Anaped, filed a complaint against respondent Victoria
Arambulo and husband for failure to remit rentals collected
from the time the ownership of the commercial apartments
People v.
was transferred to Anaped. Buban filed charges for estafa
Arambulo against respondents. Respondents filed a Motion to
Suspend Proceedings on the ground of Prejudicial
Question due to the pendency of the two intra-corporate
(Anaped Real
cases pending in the RTC. (1) was filed by Victorias brother
Estate)
Oscar for accounting of corporate funds and annulment of
sale and (2) filed by Victoria and other brothers questioning
their elder brother Rodrigos authority as well as Anapeds
BOD (Buban) to act on behalf of the corporation. They anchor
that the resolution of these cases determine whether theyre
authorized to demand for remittance. The CA ruled in
respondents favor.
San Miguel San Miguel Properties (real estate) purchased from BF Homes,
represented by Atty. Orendain as its duly authorized
Properties v.
rehabilitation receiver appointed by SEC, residential lots in BF
Perez
Homes Paranaque for 106M. 20 TCTs covering 20 of the 41
rd
parcels of land purchased under a 3 deed of sale were not
(BF Homes TCTs) delivered. BF Homes claimed it withheld delivery because
Orendain had ceased to be its rehab receiver at the time of
the transactions. San Miguel suied them for non-delivery of
titles under PD 957. It also filed a civil suit for specific
performance in the HLURB.
W/N the administrative HLURB case for specific
performance could be a reason to suspend the
proceedings in the criminal complaint for PD 957.
23
W/N the CA erred in declaring that there exists a prejudicial
question which calls for suspension of the criminal
proceedings before the trial court. Prejudicial Question
NO. PETITION DENIED While the case on the accounting for question based on a fact
corporate funds does not pose a prejudicial question, the case distinct and separate from
determining the election of Anaped directors and officers IS a crime but so intimately
prejudicial question. This issue essentially determines the connected that it
determines guilt or
authority of the officers to act for and on behalf of Anaped.
The charges of estafa against respondents involves the question of innocence of accused.
money being received in trust by the offender. Thus, the elements of ELEMENTS:
demand and misappropriation bear relevance to the validity or (a) Civil case involves
invalidity of the authority of Anaped directors and officers since the facts intimately
related to criminal
corporation is the one making demands, the authority to make the
(b) Guilt or innocence
demand must necessarily be established. If it is ruled that the
determined in such
Anaped directors were NOT validy elected, Victoria has every right to (c) Jurisdiction to try said
refuse remittance of rental to Buban. CA further noted that it is question lodged in
Victoria who has been in charge of management and collection of another tribunal
rentals for 20 years the civil case questioning Buban Rodrigos
authority to act on behalf of the corporation is proper.
YES. PETITION DENIED Action for specific performance raises a A party who raises a
prejudicial question. An action for specific performance is a remedy prejudicial question is
entitled to the creditor when the debtor has failed to fulfill his deemed to have
obligation. PD 957 is a law that regulates sale of subdivision lots and hypothetically
authorizes suspension of license of real estate owners. admitted that all the
The action for specific performance in the HLURB would essential elements of
determine w/n San Miguel is entitled to the delivery of the remaining the crime have been
20 TCTs. The resolution of such obviously determines W/N HLURB was adequately alleged in
obliged to deliver in the first place and if so may they be criminally the information.
charged with withholding the TCTs. If Orendain did not have the
authority to represent BF Homes in the sale due to his termination by
the SEC, the basis for criminal liability evaporates.
Worthy to note at this juncture is that a prejudicial
question need not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence
of the accused. It is enough for the prejudicial question to
simply test the sufficiency of the allegations in the
 24

information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the

criminal case.

San Miguel Corporation filed a criminal case for violation of

NO Petition DENIED. The issue in the criminal case is W/N
BP 22 against Spouses Gaditano. The spouses, engaged in
petitioner is guilty of estafa and violation of BP 22 while in the civil
the sale of beer and softdrink products, issued to SMC P
case, w/n AsiaTrust Bank had lawfully garnished the 378,000 from the
285,504 bought from SMC. The check was dishonored for
account.
insufficient funds. Petitioners allege that their account was
The material facts in the civil case bear NO relation to the The alleged unlawful
sufficient when they issued the check (April 7, 2000) because
Spouses criminal investigation being conducted by the prosecutor. The garnishment of funds
it came from a AsiaTrust Bank account wherein they recently
Gaditano v. prejudicial question in the civil case involves another checks in an account does
deposited 378,000 from Fatima Padua as payment for a loan
dishonor which SMC is NOT privy to. The source of petitioners NOT pose a prejudicial
San Miguel she acquired from the spouses. AsiaTrust apparently informed
funds is NOT a concern of SMC because the matter is between question in a BP 22
Corporation Florida on April 13 that the check was not cleared due to a
AsiaTrust and petitioners. The BP 22 case is merely concerned with case since the latter is
material alteration in the payees name, contending that it
the issuance of a bad check and failure to make good on it after merely concerned with
was payable to LG Electronics, contrary to the assertions of
(Bad check for demand. The law does not concern itself with who owns the account the issuance of a bad
Fatima. Petitioners filing for specific performance against
or what type of account its issued, nor on the intention of the maker. check knowing such
Beer) AsiaTrust Bank, SMC, and Fatima for unlawfully garnishing
Even if AsiaTrust declares liable, petitioners cannot be free was insufficient.
their bank accounts without court order and that they had
from BP 22 because mere issuance of a worthless check with
already paid to SMC their obligation was raised as a
knowledge of insufficiency is in itself a violation. This is further
prejudicial question barring the charges for BP 22.
proven by the failure to make good on the check after 3 demands,
W/N the case for specific performance was a
which attached their liability.
prejudicial question

Maria Pimentel filed a case against petitioner Joselito
Pimentel for frustrated parricide before the RTC of QC.
Accused also received summons to appear before the RTC of
Antipolo for pre-trial and trial of a Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage. Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the
Pimentel v.
proceedings for frustrated parricide since the relationship
Pimentel
between the offender and victim is essential element in
parricide and thus the outcome of the civil case determines
(Parricide + his guilt.
Declaration of
The RTC ruled there was no prejudicial question. The CA
Nullity case)
affirmed since the crime was already committed during
subsistence of marriage.
W/N the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is a
prejudicial question
Petitioner Dreamwork Construction filed a case against
Dreamwork respondent Janiola for violation of BP 22 (People v. Janiola).
Construction v. Respondent instituted a civil suit against petitioner for
Janiola rescission of alleged construction agreement between the
parties. Respondent moved to Suspend Proceedings for the
criminal case alleging that the facts and issues involved are
(Bad Check - intimately related to the resolution of the civil case and thus
Rescinded determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
construction
W/N the CA erred in ruling that there was a prejudicial
agreement)
question
25
HELL NO First, Section 7 states that the civil action must filed
The civil case must be
before the criminal action. The Declaration of Nullity was filed after
instituted before the
the criminal case (October), hence, the defense cannot be raised for
criminal one for a
failing to meet such requirement.
prejudicial question
Second The issue in annulment of marriage is NOT similar or
defense.
intimately related to the parricide. The issue in parricide is w/n there
was a killing, while in the civil case W/N theres psychological
Subsequent
incapacity to declare the marriage void. The relationship does NOT
declaration of nullity of
determine the guilt of offender. At the time of the crime they were
marriage is NOT a
married the subsequent dissolution of such has no effect on the
prejudicial question
crime committed during subsistence.
that affects liability for
The defense that Declaration of Nullity retroacts to the day
parricide especially
of celebration is untenable (Tenebro v. CA). The issue in such case
when the crime was
was the criminal liability for bigamy. There was NO prejudicial
committed during the
question. Second, the court ruled that while marriage may be void ab
subsistence of the
initio, it may still produce legal consequences. A declaration of nullity
marriage.
does not affect the states penal laws.
YES. PETITION GRANTED The civil action must be instituted prior
to the institution of the criminal action. The civil case was filed two
years after the criminal complaint and from the time that The civil case must be
respondent withdrew its equipment from the job site. It was instituted before the
also instituted 2 and half years from the time respondent allegedly criminal case to avail
stopped construction for no valid reason. of a prejudicial
question defense.
EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE CIVIL CASE WAS FILED BEFORE
THE CRIMINAL ACTION, THERE IS STILL NO PREJUDICIAL BP 22 is mala
QUESTION prohibitum it does
The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a bad check. The NOT concern itself with
purpose for issuing such, the terms and conditions relating to its the consideration for
issuance, or any agreement surrounding issuance are irrelevant to issuance of the check
prosecution for BP 22. The intent of the law is to punish he mere as a prejudicial
issuance of a bad check. The existence of a valid contract to support question.
the issuance of the check for valuable consideration is NOT an
element.
 26
RULE 112 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Section 1 Definition and When Required
YES The following are the distinctions between the 2 probable While the
Private respondent Juno Cars filed a case of qualified theft causes determination of
and estafa against petitioner Alfredo Mendoza. It is alleged (1) Executive Determination Filed by the public probable cause to
that Juno Cars hired Alfredo as a Trade-In / Used Car prosecutor during the preliminary investigation to charge a person of a
Supervisor, and upon conducting audit, Alfredo had sold 5 determine where probable cause to charge those who may crime is the sole
cars without Rolando (dealer) permission and without have committed the crime. function of the
remitting payments totaling 886,000. It was further (2) Judicial Determination Made by judge to determine prosecutor,
discovered that out of the 20 cars he was in custody of, 2 whether a warrant of arrest should be issued based on the trial court may, in
were missing. evidence adduced. Determine whether or not accused must the protection of one's
Mendoza v. Alfredo argues that Juno Cars failure to prove be placed under custody. fundamental right to

People ownership of the 5 cars or its right to possess them with the The executive is concerned with w/n there is evidence to support an liberty, dismiss the
unremitted payments should be enough to dismiss the case Information while the judicial is concerned with w/n a warrant of case if, upon a
and suffering damage. arrest should be issued. personal assessment
(Stolen cars Provincial Prosecutor Rey Delgado issued a Judge makes independent assessment of evidence BUT only of the evidence, it
Difference of resolution finding probable cause for qualified theft for warrant of arrest. He is NOT an appellate court of the finds that the evidence

ED and JD) and estafa. While the MR was pending before the prosecutors job. does not establish
Once a complaint is filed in court, any disposition rests in
Prosecutors office, two informations were filed in the probable cause.
Mandaluyong RTC. Judge Capco-Umali dismissed them court.

stating that the evidence adduced does not support finding of Judge Capco-Umali made an independent assessment concluding While allowed by
probable cause. that the evidence adduced does not support a finding of probable jurisprudence and law,
cause for qualified theft and estafa. Juno Cars failed to prove by must be with CAUTION.
W/N the trial court may dismiss an information filed by competent evidence that Alfredo pilfered cars specifically owned by Only in absolute
the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent them nor did they state the value of the files concealed. She even absence of evidence to
finding of lack of probable cause ordered a clarificatory hearing to thresh out all essential matters but prove probable cause
private complainant failed to comply. can there be dismissal.
Callo-Claridad The petition involves the review of the CA decision upholding FIRST The filing of a petition for review under Rule 43 to The determination of
the resolution of the Secretary of Justice in dismissing a review the DOJ resolution was an IMPROPER remedy. The CA had probable cause to file a
v. Esteban
complaint for murder for lack of probable cause. NO jurisdiction over such. Rule 43 is a remedy to review decisions of criminal complaint or
Petitioner, mother of victim Chase Callo-Claridad quasi-judicial officers. The Secretary of Justice is NOT a quasi-judicial information in court is
(stabbing victim whose body was found on February 27, 2007 functionary. His review is executive in nature. Courts will only exclusively within the
in Fernandale) between vehicles parked at 10 Cedar Place, Ferndale intervene if there is grave abuse of discretion (certiorari). competence of the
Homes QC due to stab wounds. Executive Department,
She was last seen alive with respondent Philip SECOND CA decision correctly concluded no abuse of through the Secretary
Esteban an hour before discovery of body. discretion. of Justice. The courts
The City Prosecutor of QC dismissed the
Preliminary Investigation inquiry to determine sufficient cannot interfere in

complaint for lack of evidence, motive, and
circumstantial evidence against Philip.
The Secretary of Justice affirmed the dismissal as
the circumstantial evidence was inconsistent to
prove guilt.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the resolution of
the DOJ.
W/N the CA erred in upholding the DOJ decision (NO
PETITION DENIED)
Petitioner Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug filed a complaint of
gross ignorance of the law and procedures against Judge
Javellana of the MTC of La Castellana Negros Occidental. It
alleged several complaints regarding his duties as judge.
Among such complaints was that in the Criminal
Proceeding for Malicious Mischief entitled People
v. Lopezi, Javellana did NOT apply the Revised Rules
Uy v. Javellana
on Summary Procedure.
He conducted a preliminary investigation
pursuant to the Rules on Criminal Procedure and set
pre-trial despite confirming complainant had no
knowledge of the facts.
In his defense, he alleges that he could not dismiss it outright
as the prosecution had not fully presented its evidence.
Section Two Officers Authorized to Conduct Preliminary Investigation
27
ground to engender well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and respondent is guilty thereof and should
be held for trial.
Probable Cause facts sufficient to engender belief of
such determination,
crime.
Public Prosecutor determines sufficiency of probable except upon a clear
cause. showing that the
It is clear that the evidence against respondent blatantly fails Secretary of Justice
committed grave
there were no witnesses, no proof of how she died, and no
abuse of discretion
incriminatory evidence implicating respondent. The circumstantial
evidence also fails for inconsistencies and also for failure to comply amounting to lack or
with Section 3, Rule 112 (conduction of preliminary investigation) excess of jurisdiction.
+ not all statements were sworn to. The CA ruling found that the DOJ
correctly determined absence of probable cause due to insufficiency
of evidence.
On the charges of Gross Ignorance of the Law he is LIABLE
The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provide for specific crimes which may be tried by the
MTC. In People v. Lopez, the crime involved was MALICIOUS MISCHIEF, which were found to be
punishable for 2 months and 1 day to 6 months, clearly falling within the MTCs jurisdiction.
He performed a preliminary investigation even when not required as the Rules DO NOT
provide such prior to filing of criminal cases under it.
Section 11 and 12 determine that criminal cases are filed by either complaint or
information.
Section 1, Rule 112 of Criminal Procedure requires preliminary investigation to be
conducted before the filing of the complaint for offenses at least 4 years, 2 months, and 1
day. Malicious Mischiefs maximum is just 6 months. Javellana failed to provide
reason why he conducted preliminary investigation. the Revised Rules on Summary
Proceedings were adopted to expedite determination of cases. He cannot be allowed to
arbitrarily lengthen the proceedings and defeating the express intent of the Rule.

On June 16, 2003 7 criminal complaints for syndicated estafa
& violation of Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act were
filed against Anita Mangila and four others. This arose from
recruiting and promising employment to private complainants
as overseas contract workers in Toronto and from collection of
supposed visa processing fees.
On June 17, 2003: Judge Pangilinan of the MTCC
of Puerto Princesa conducted preliminary investigation on
the complaints and after examining one of the complainants
Mangila v.
Miguel Palayoon, issued a warrant of arrest without bail. He
Pangilinan transmitted the records to the City Prosecutor.
Petitioner alleges the judge did not have the
authority to conduct preliminary investigation and that the
warrant of arrest was issued without completing the
preliminary investigation. Arguing that her detention was
unlawful, she filed for a petition for habeas corpus. The CA
denied the petition stating that it is normally not granted
when other general remedies are available, such as petition
to quash the warrant.
28
W/N the CA erred in ruling that habeas corpus was not the
proper remedy
NO PETITION DENIED. On the issue of habeas corpus, it is a
remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint especially when the
detention is found to be illegal. HOWEVER it will NOT issue when the
person is out on bail, OR is in the custody of an officer under process
lawfully issued by the court. Restraint that is lawful
and pursuant to a
There is NO question that Pangilinan was empowered to court process cannot
conduct such investigations and to issue the warrant of arrest. be assailed through
Section 2, Rule 112 provides that Judges of MTC or MCTC habeas corpus.
MAY conduct preliminary investigations.
Section 6(b), Rule 112 allows the issuance of a warrant of The MTC and MTCC
arrest by the investigating judge even without awaiting its may NOT anymore
conclusion if he finds that probable cause existed through conduct prelim
searching questions and proper examination of the investigation effective
witnesses and evidence + necessity to arrest. on October 3, 2005.
The authority to conduct preliminary investigations was
removed only on October 3, 2005. The case in the CA was
Section 5 The
on October 14, 2003. (NOTE: No retroactive effect since
resolution of the judge
jurisdiction is not a penal law).
The arrest could NOT be questioned since restraint was finding probable cause if
subject to the Public
lawful and pursuant to a court process. Habeas corpus
Prosecutors review.
CANNOT issue.
Section 5, Rule 112 resolution of the judge was NOT final
as it is subject to the review by the public prosecutor who
had the power to order the release of detainee if no
probable cause should be ultimately found against
her. There was no need to seek the writ as her recourse was
to bring the irregularities of the PI to the Prosecutor.
 29
Section Three Procedure

NO There is NO LAW requiring the Ombudsman to furnish him with

copies of counter-affidavits of his co-respondents.
During Preliminary
Senator Jinggoy Estrada was charged with 2 separate Estrada has FAILED to cite any law which grants him the
Investigation, the
informations of PLUNDER by the Ombudsman as filed by the right to require the Ombudsman to deliver the co-
accused has NO RIGHT to
NBI. Estrada subsequently requested to be furnished with the respondents counter-affidavits.
What the Rules of Court require is for the Ombudsman to cross-examine the
copies of Counter-Affidavits of Other Respondents, Affidavits
Estrada v. furnish respondent with a copy of the complaint and witnesses which the
of New Witnesses and Other Filings. He requested for such
supporting affidavits at the time the order to submit the complainant may present.
Office of the pursuant to the right of respondent to examine evidence
accuseds counter-claim is issued.
Ombudsman submitted by complainant under Section 3 of Rule 112 of The clearly refers to affidavits of COMPLAINANT, not co- He may not request for
ROC. The OMB denied his request stating that nothing in the
respondents. the counter-affidavits of
ROC provides that the accused has the right to request for He may only be furnished with evidence already submitted
(Jinggoys his co-respondents.
the above during preliminary investigation and are limited to by the complainant and copy them at his expense.
Plunder Asks affidavits and other supporting documents of the
His rights during PI
NO Petitioners argument that the testimonies of Galarion and
for counter- complainants.
are:
Hanopol (witnesses of complainant) are inadmissible MUST FAIL.
affidavit of co- (1) Submit counter-
W/N under Section 3 of Rule 112 Estrada is entitled to Fundamental that during preliminary investigation, accused
accused) affidavit
his request has NO RIGHT to cross-examine witnesses presented by (2) Examine complaint
complainant. and evidence already
Only right he has is to submit a counter-affidavit +
W/N Estrada may cross examine the witnesses of submitted
examine submitted evidence on hand. Even in the (3) Present at clarificatory
complainant during preliminary investigation
Clarificatory Hearing Estrada may be present BUT may not hearing
cross-examine the witnesses.
Admissibility of testimonies must be heard during trial.
Ocampo v. On August 26, 2006, a mass grave was discovered by the 43 rd Respondents WERE issued and served. They were served There is NO DENIAL of
Infantry Brigade of the AFP in Leyte. It allegedly contained Subpoenas at their last known addresses for them to submit counter- due process when the
Abando
remains of victims of Operation Veneral Disease launched by affidavits and that of their witnesses. prosecutor made efforts
members of the CPP/NPA.NDFP to purge their ranks of Most of them did not submit because they could NOT be to reach respondents
(Wala ako suspected military informers. After finding probable cause, found in their last known address & despite the entry of through their last known
nakuhang Prosecutor Vivero recommended filing for an information of appearance of their counsel. addresses but did not
15 counts of multiple murder against 54 named members. Section 3(d) Rule 112 of the ROC allows Prosecutors to receive any counter-
subpoena! Di ako
Petitioners Echanis and Baylosis allege that they resolve the complaint based on evidence presented if affidavits from
nakatira diyan!) respondent cant be subpoenaed if efforts to reach them
did NOT receive a copy of the complaint and respondents.
attached evidence. were made.
Petitioner Ladlad claims no subpoena was served to The excuse that no
him due to false addresses indicated in the undated Ladlad says a subpoena was sent to an address he never resided in. subpoena was received is

letters.
W/N accused were denied due process for not
receiving subpoena
Petitioner Artillero, Chief of Police of PNP in Ajuy, Iloilo heard
gunshots in Barangay Lanjagan. He saw Paquito Panisales
wearing a Baranggay Tanod shirt with a firearm tucked in his
waist and intoxicated. Upon verification, Paquito presented
Artillero v.
his License and Permit to Carry. He claims he was not
Casimiro responsible for the gunshots. Two companions walked nearby,
Aguilon and Padilla, the latter carrying an M16. Aguilon had a
license but did not present a permit to carry. All three were
(Drunk Tanod
subdued. Finding no cause to charge Aguilon or Paquito, the
with licensed-
Office of the Prosecutor of Iloilo released them. The OMB
gun) approved such recommendation.
Petitioner claims he never received a copy of
Aguilons Counter-Affidavit and both the Prosecutor and
OMBs resolutions.
30
However, a letter was sent to Fidela Lim (wife) who submitted a
counter-affidavit. Further, Ladlads counsel filed a formal entry of belied by the formal entry
appearance. Both acts are reasonable belief that he had received the of counsel.
subpoena and were given time to secure after entry.
W/N there was denial of due process (NO)
While evidence does support that no counter-affidavit was given to
It is discretionary on the
Aguilon, Section 3(d) of Rule 112 does NOT vest any right on the
part of the prosecutor to
complainant to reply to the counter-affidavit of the respondent.
require the submission of
This non-mandatory nature is supported by the fact that the Reply-To-Counter-
prosecutor may resolve the Complaint even without a Affidavits.
counter-affidavit of accused when the latter fails to submit
such within 10 days of the order. The complainant has no
Hence, it is discretionary on the part of the prosecutor to
vested right to receive
require the filing or submission of reply-to-counter-affidavits.
the counter-affidavits of
Even if he WAS entitled, whatever defects were cured when
accused.
Aguilon filed an MR where all defenses were considered. Due
process is satisfied.

Section 4 Resolution of Investigating Prosecutor and its Review
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati issued a Pasiya
(resolution) finding probable cause against petitioner Girlie
Quisay for violation of Section 10 of Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse. Consequently, a Pabatid-Sakdal
(Information) was filed charging her of such.
Quisay v.
Petitioner moved to quash the charges because
People
nothing in Pasiya and Pabatid Sakdal would show
that ACP De La Cruz or SACP Hirang had prior written
(Pabatid-Sakdal approval from the City Prosecutor to file the
without information.
What is indicated is merely a Certification claiming
approval) that ACP De La Cruz had prior approval in filing the
information.
W/N the CA correctly affirmed the dismissal of the
quashal.
De Lima v. Doc Gerry Ortega was found murdered inside Baguio
Wagwagan in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. The assassin Marlon
Reyes
B. Recamata was arrested and implicated some people,
including Bumar Edrad. Edrad then executed a confession
(2 nd
Panel Re- stating that it was former Palawan Governor and herein
Opens Doc respondent Mario Reyes who ordered Doc Gerrys murder.
DOJ Secretary De Lima created a panel of
Gerrys murder)
prosecutors to conduct the preliminary investigation
st
(1 panel).
Dr. Inocencio-Ortega (wife of Gerry) filed a case
against Reyes. The first panel dismissed the
complaint. The motions to re-open were also denied
by the 1st panel.
De Lima created a 2nd panel to reinvestigate the
case. They required Reyes to appear and submit
evidence.
31
NO. Petitions is MERITOROUS. Section 4, Rule 112 states that No
complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
investigating prosecutor without prior written authority of the
city/provincial prosecutor OR chief state prosecutor or OMB or his Absent any written
deputy. authority or approval of
Section 3(d) Rule 117 even states that the accused may those indicated under
Section 4, Rule 112,
quash the information if the info was filed without authority.
People v. Garfin also ruled that filing of an information by the information may be
dismissed or quashed.
officer without requisite authority cannot be cured by
silence, waiver or express consent, hence, can be raised
anytime during proceedings. A self-serving certification
Garfin and other cases also rejected mere certifications found on the information
through words without any other evidence that the filing was DOES NOT amount to the
authorized. approval contemplated by
While the resolution finding probable cause (Pasiya) was valid as it the ROC. There must be
bore the signature of the OCP-Makati, the Pabatid-Sakdal is NOT as it evidence proving there
merely contained a self-serving certification written by ACP De La was approval.
Cruz without any other proof or signature that it was authorized by
the City Prosecutor. Records are bereft that De La Cruz was given any
written authority or designation to file the case.
Under existing law and jurisprudence, the Secretary is The Secretary of justice
AUTHORIZED to issue Department Order 710 (2nd Panel) to exercises control and
reinvestigate the case. supervision over
As per Rule 112, Section 4 of ROC the Secretary of prosecutors and it is
Justice may motu proprio reverse or modify resolutions of within her authority to
the city prosecutors even without pending petition for affirm, nullify, reverse,
review. She may also direct the prosecutor concerned to file modify, their
the corresponding information without conducting another resolutions.
preliminary investigation OR to move for the dismissal with
notice to parties.
Admin Code gives Secretary control over Office of Chief
Prosecutor and Provincial/City Prosecution offices
Rural Community Bank v. Talavera the actions of
prosecutors are NOT limited; they are subject to the review
by the Justice Secretary who may review/modify/reverse and
direct filing or dismiss an information.
 32
Respondent argued that there was grave abuse of discretion Section 4, RA 10071 Step in and order reinvestigation

for constituting a new panel on the part of De Lima. Petitioner even without prior motion from a party to prevent

argues that it is within her authority to constitute a 2 nd panel miscarriage of justice

as this is a function of her position allowed by several laws.

The Secretary of justice explained that:

W/N De Lima is authorized to create motu proprio Reinvestigation was dictated by substantial justice and to

another panel to conduct a reinvestigation of a case make sure that no stone was unturned or evidence

already dismissed by a previous panel? (YES) overlooked.

She had reason to believe the 1st Panels refusal to admit
additional evidence may cause a probable miscarriage.
(Case was dismissed for being MOOT since there is already a
2nd panel WAS NOT created to overturn the 1sts ruling but to
warrant of arrest issued against Reyes and thus that must be
umake sure that all evidence was investigated (including 1st
acted on already)
Panels findings).
 33
Section 6 When Warrant of Arrest May Issue

FIRST the crime had just been committed when they were arrested.
Personal knowledge of
Officers went to the crime upon complaint of Generoso in less than
a crime committed does
one hour after the alleged mauling; they saw him in a bloody state.
An altercation ensued between petitioenrs Pestilos et. al. and not require actual
Injuries were confirmed by the medico-L.
Atty. Generoso at Kasiyahan Street, Barangay Holy Spirit QC. presence at the scene of
SECOND The officer had personal knowledge of facts that
Generoso called the police for assistance and the latter found the crime. It is enough
petitioner did the crime
him badly beaten and with stab wounds. When Generoso that the evidence of the
They immediately responded to Generosos complaint upon
Pestillos v. pointed out those who mauled him, the officers invited
his call.
crime is patent + the
petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police Station for It occurred in a community where Generoso and petitioners officer has probable cause
Generoso
investigation. From their findings, an information for reside. to believe based on
attempted murder was filed against petitioners. Petitioners THIRD Based on the facts, there is reasonable belief that accused personal knowledge that
(Binugbog na assail this information on the round that there was no lawful is involved the person to be arrested
lawyer) warrantless arrest as they were merely invited for Petitioner-accused were positively identified by Generoso; had recently committed
questioning to the police station, hence improper inquest and also, they all lived within the same neighborhood it.
that Rules 112 shouldve been followed. They did not deny the altercation but offered a different POV.
By inviting petitioners, Javier intended to arrest them
What determines personal
following Generosos complaint. He did not need to apply
W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest? knowledge is the
physical restraint when a simple request would produce a
immediacy of how these
similar effect. Actual force is needed only when petitioners
facts came to the officer.
refused.
Hao v. People Private respondent-complainant Manuel Dy filed charges of YES Records show that Judge Marquez showed a personal Section 5(a) Rule 112
syndicated estafa against Victor Ngo and Gracia Hao. It is determination of the existence of probable cause to support the grants the trial court 3
alleged that Ngo and Hao, as manager of Asiatrust Bank and issuance of the warrants. No evidence was presented to controvert options upon filing of a
(Bigay ka pera
Dys friend, induced the latter to invest in State Resources this. complaint or info:
kita ka 100M) the amount of 10M and later 100M. Hao issued checks in the All elements of estafa are present Through the first (a) Dismiss case if
amounts owed to Dy but they were dishonored and all investments returns, Dy was enticed to again invest a evidence fails to
promises to pay back the investment were never fulfilled. bigger amount. establish PC
The funds were fraudulently used to fund Dannys realty (b) Issue warrant of
Petitioners argue that there are inconsistencies with the facts
business. Also, their admission that State Resources had arrest if there is PC
and thus negate probable cause. Further, it was only Ngo who
(c) Order prosecutor to
enticed Dy to invest. They also alleged the warrant of arreset already been dissolved in 2005.
Had it not been for such misrepresentations, no investment present more
void because State Resources was formed not only to solicit
wouldve been made by Dy. There is clearly an element of evidence within 5
funds from Dy but also from the public, hence not syndicated
deceit. days notice
estafa.
It lacks the elements of syndicated estafa, but the warrant of arrest
was still valid as the judge was convinced that an offense was
W/N petitioners were rightfully arrested
committed. What is needed is an amendment of the information.

Section 7 When Accused is Lawfully Arrested Without Warrant
BELTRAN PETITION Beltran was arrested without a
warrant and without being informed of his charges after
GMAs issuance of a State of Emergency. He was subjected to
an Inquest at the QC Hall of Justice for Inciting Sedition based
on a speech he gave during a QC rally. He was then brought
back to Camp Crame for a 2 nd
inquest for rebellion based on
Ladlad v.
several affidavits implicating him as conspiring with others to
Velasco commit it.
MAZA AND LADLAD PETITIONS Petitioners received
subpoenas form the DOJ requesting them to appear at the
(GMA State of
office to get copies of the complaints against them. They
Emergency)
barricaded themselves in the House of Reps building for fear
of being arrested without warrants. An informal preliminary
investigation was conducted wherein a masked witness was
presented who presented evidence in front of the prosecution
panel and the media. W/N the inquest against Beltran for
Rebellion was valid
Barangay Tanods invited De Castro to the barangay hall
regarding a complaint for sexual assault he allegedly
committed against AAA (on behalf of her daughter BBB). After
De Castro v. accepting the invitation, he was turned over to the Las Pinas
Fernandez Police Station where they indorsed the complaint to the
prosecutor for inquest. Later a detention order was made and
an Information was filed against petitioner for RAPE.
(Fingering)
Petitioner asked that the court conduct a preliminary
investigation + amend to Lasciviousness as fingering is not
included in the definition of rape.
Section 8 Records
People v. PABALAN alleges that the Evangelist Church, led by JEREMIAS
CRUZ encroached on his lot located in Novaliches QC when
Sandiganbayan
the churchs improvements were made without a necessary
34
To allow them to go scot-free is bad!
NO As per Section 5, Rule 113, a warrantless arrest may issue when
(a) the accused has committed, committing, or attempting to
commit the offense in presence of police officer
(b) If not (a), has probable cause to believe based on personal An inquest is conducted
knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has when a person is arrested
committed it without a warrant.
After the two situations above, the officer must bring the accused to
the nearest police station or jail to conduct an INQUEST. An inquest may only be
When officers arrested Beltran without warrant, they done when the 2
conducted an inquest for SEDITION (valid), NOT for rebellion. situations found in
Only an inquest for Sedition was allowed. So when another
Section 5, Rule 113 are
group of prosecutors came to conduct the inquest for done.
Rebellion, this 2nd group went beyond their authority. None of
them saw Beltran commit it and neither did they have
personal knowledge of such facts that he did so.
W/N entitled to preliminary investigation (NO)
Under Section 7, Rule 112 if an information is filed without a If no request for a
preliminary investigation, accused may ask for one within 5 days preliminary investigation
from the time he learns of the filing. However, in this case, the is beyond within the 5
information as filed on June 18, 2002. It was only on July 1 when days after knowledge of
petitioner asked for a PI. Hence, he has WAIVED his right. the filing of a complaint or
W/N the fingering is not within definition of rape (YES, IT IS information, accused is
WITHIN) deemed to have waived
This is considered as rape through sexual assault. It was right for his right to a PI.
the prosecutor to charge petitioner with rape.
W/N the SB committed grave abuse of discretion when it Lack of probable cause
acquitted Alba despite him not being arraigned yet is NOT a valid ground for
quashing or acquitting an

building permit.
Cruz wrote to City Admin MANUAL ALBA requesting
not to enforce the demo pending their appeal to the
DPWH. While the letter was received on NOV 5, a
recall order of the demolition was made on NOV 4 (a
day before the request sketchy!)
The Graft Investigator found probable cause for
(Evangelist violation of Section 3(e) of Anti-Graft act.
The SB issued an order to hold his arraignment in
Church and
abeyance until it resolves the motion for leave and
sketchy Alba)
to order reinvestigation.
HOWEVER, it acquitted respondent allegedly having
no probable cause based on the records. It based its
findings on Mayor Mathays memo to respondent
and a portion of Graft Investigator Pamute which was
approved by the Ombudsman.
Cecilia Maruyama executed a 15-page complaint against
Lorna Tanghal and petitioner Teresita Tanghal-Okabe with
estafa. It is alleged hat petitioner failed to deliver money
entrusted to her with her door-to-door delivery business.
Attached to the complaint was affidavits of her
witnesses plus other documentary evidence.
After PI, prosecutor found PC for estafa. Attached
Okabe v. with the resolution was the affidavits. Submitted for
Gutierrez information.
PETITIONER alleges that only documents appended
in the information were respondents Maruyamas
(Japanese estafa) complaint and the resolution of the investigating
prosecutor, the affidavits of the witnesses and other
evidence were NOT attached.
Petitioner requested for copies of the affidavits of
the witnesses, counter-affidavit of Okabe, transcripts
of stenographers notes during PI, and other
documents
During arraignment, she refused to plead
35
YES Under Section 3 of Rule 117, accused may move to quash the
complaint for several reasons. However, the absence of probable
cause is NOT one of theose reasons. It is merely a ground for
DISMISSAL. When a case is dismissed, it is without prejudice to a
refiling thereof unless barred by prescription. Its absence or presence
of probable cause is based on the records and affidavits attached
accused. The court may
to the information as per Section 8 of Rule 112.
only DISMISS the case,
without prejudice to its
By quashing the information instead of DISMISSING it for lack of
refilling.
probable cause, the SB acted in violation of law and acted with grave
abuse of discretion. Further, it would eventually ACQUIT respondent
based on the same reasoning (lack of evidence). Acquittal is based on
the merits which is warranted when the evidence does not prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Dismissal terminates the proceeding
because there is a lack of evidence to charge the information.
W/N court gravely erred in issuing warrant despite lack of
probable cause
YES In determining probable cause, the RTC judge may rely on the
findings and conclusions in the resolution of the prosecutor for filing
information. However, in determining the probable cause of
accuseds arrest, the judge should NOT rely solely on the said report.
He MUST consider all affidavits and documentary evidence of the A warrant of arrest based
parties and other relevant evidence (stenographer notes during PI). on the absence of
affidavits and evidence
As per Section 8, an information shall be supported by affidavits required to indicate
and counter-affidavits of parties and their witnesses, together with probable cause for arrest
other supporting evidence and the resolution on the case. is INVALID.
Prosecutor submitted only his resolution after his PI +
complaint affidavit of Maruyama. He failed to include those
of the witnesses + stenographer notes of PI.
Such documents, especially the fa message of Norna
covering the alleged amounts are vital to determine
existence of probable cause.
The arrest, in the absence of the affidavits + evidence, is
invalid!
 36
Section 9 Cases NOT Requiring Preliminary Investigation NOR Covered by Rule on Summary Procedure

A criminal complaint for Falsification of Private Documents W/N a hearing to prove conspiracy is proper
was filed by the Chief of Police of Victorias against
There is NO determination
respondents. The amended informations alleged that NO As per Section 8, Rule 112, if the MTCC finds no probable of guilt or conspiracy
Victorias respondents were in conspiracy in sining and using Refined cause, he shall dismiss the complaint or information. Otherwise, he during the determination
Sugar Delivery Orders as collateral to obtain loans from banks shall issue the warrants of arrests or summons depending on the
Milling Co. v. of probable cause to issue
fraudulently. necessity to place them in custody. warrants of arrest. For
Padilla The MTCC Judge only issued Warrants of Arrests The information charges respondents as CONSPIRATORS summary procedures,
against respondents in cases where they were hence, whether or not they signed, they are all guilty the judge is merely
(Conspiracy of signatories. equally. concerned with w/n there
When the prosecution motioned to Defer MTCC Judge Must be liable for what they signed!
signing Sugar The MTCC judge need not prove BRD the existence of is probable cause to issue
Arraignment, and requested to issue the warrant
warrants, not based on
Orders) against all respondents for each count of falsification conspiracy during determination of probable cause for
guilt beyond reasonable
(64) because they were in conspiracy, the judge warrants of arrest. He must only satisfy himself whether
doubt.
denied it and ruled that it conspiracy must be proven there is sufficient ground to hold them liable for trial as co-
during arraignment. conspirators.
 37
RULE 113 ARREST
Section One Definition of Arrest

There was NO search incidental to a lawful arrest. The search

Around 2:50 pm of March 19, 2003, acting on the information preceded the arrest. The arrest was only made upon discovery of the

that Jacinta Marciano aka Intang was selling drugs to shabu inside the match box. Arrest taking of a
tricycle drivers, SPO1 Elmer Amposta along with CSU There was no overt physical act attributed to Sanchez that person into custody that
Hernandez, Tagle, and Monzon was dispatched to Barangay would rouse suspicion that he had committed or was he may be bound to
Alapan 1-B, Imus Cavite. The group waited for a tricycle going committing an offense. He was merely seen leaving the answer for the
to and coming from the house of Jacinta. After a few minutes, residence of a known drug peddler and boarding a tricycle. commission of an offense.
they spotted a tricycle carrying Rizaldy Sanchez coming out Even if he was acting suspiciously, it was not enough to It is effected by physical
Sanchez v.
of the house and chased him. Rizaldy alighted from his effect a lawful warrantless arrest. restraint.
People They also had no personal knowledge to believe that
tricycle upon request and opened the match box he was
Sanchez bought shabu from the drug dealer and possessed
holding which contained a plastic sachet of 0.1017 g of meth. No valid arrest can be
such upon boarding the tricycle. No evidence showed that
(Tricycle driver Sanchez argues that the warrantless arrest and effected when the police
petitioner nor Jacinta was conducting drug operations inside
had not seen the
coming out of search on him were invalid due to the absence of
the house.
probable cause on the part of the police officers to commission of the crime
Intang the There was also no valid stop-and-frisk. There must be
affect an in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 15, nor personal knowledge
genuine reason in accordance with his experience and
peddler) of such commission.
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. surrounding conditions to warrant belief that the person held
The OSG submits that the warrantless search and
contrabands upon him. However, Sanchez was not even
seizure of the subject narcotic were justified under Arrest derived from
acting suspicious nor did he attempt to flee after alighting
the plain view doctrine where a police officer is not implication is NOT valid.
from the house or the tricycle. Nor was there any plain view
searching for evidence against the accused, but Neither can a baseless
exception.
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an There was no valid intrusion, no inadvertent discovery, and search precede an arrest.
incriminating object. not apparent to the officers. It had to be demanded from
Sanchez.

Section Two How is Arrest Made

 38
The prosecution failed to prove that lawful warrantless arrest
Petitioner Ongcoma Homar was charged with Possession of
preceded the search conducted on petitioners body.
Drugs for holding plastic satchet containing 0.03 grams of
Respondent officers did not identify which area the Arrest is effected by an
shabu.
jaywalking was committed. They merely stated that he actual restraint of the
PO1 Eric Tan testified that with Civilian Agent Tangcoy they
crossed an area where there jaywalking was prohibited. person to be arrested or
spotted Accused Homar crossing a No Jaywalking portion
As stated by respondents, no arrest preceded the search by that persons voluntary
Homar v. of Roxas Boulevard. They approached him and pointed out
because when they saw him jaywalking, they did not arrest submission to custody.
the proper pedestrian crossing area.
People Petitioner picked up something from the ground, which
him for jaywalking but merely pointed out the right place for Actual force is NOT
corssing. required.
prompted a frisk wherein they found the knife and after
They DID NOT intend to bring him into custody or restraint
(Stopped for another search they found the shabu satchet.
his liberty this lack of intent to arrest is supported by the
PETITIONER He was pointed at gunpoint and accused of It is enough that there be
Jaywalking) fact that no charges were made for jaywalking against him.
being a holdupper and forced him to go with them and an intention to arrest and
The intent to arrest came after they confiscated the shabu
thus he was charged for possession of shabu. there is intent on the
for which they informed him of his rights and brought him to
The RTC and CA ruled in favor of his arrest, stating that he
other to submit when
the police station.
was committing a crime (jaywalking) and thus his search
Also, waiver of illegal arrest (failure to bring it up when necessary.
and arrest was valid under Section 5 of Rule 113.
available) does not mean waiver of inadmissibility of
W/N the arrest was valid (NO)
evidence during an illegal arrest.
SEARCH INVALID When he was flagged down for committing a
PO2 Emmanual L. Alteza of the Naga City Police Station
traffic violation, he was NOT arrested. Arrest is the taking of a person
substantially testified that on March 10, 2003 at 3am, he
into custody by effecting a restraint on the persons liberty. However,
saw the accused coming from Panganiban Drive without a
under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, issuance of a ticket Previous criminal
helmet, in violation of the ordinance requiring such on all
Luz v. People for a traffic violation is NOT an arrest but merely a procedure to seize charge is not a valid
motorcycle drivers. When flagged down and given a ticket,
the persons license. PNP Operations Manual also states that such personal knowledge
Alteza noticed Luz was uneasy and kept on getting
procedures should be short and the officer shall not indulge in fact which a warrantless
(violation of something from his jacket. He ordered Luz to take out the
conversation with the driver. The waiting time to write the citation arrest may be done.
contents and revealed a tin-nickel box. Alteza ordered to open
traffic rules; no was not in the nature of an arrest for there was no intent to take him
the box and found 2 sachets of shabu. The RTC upheld his
helmet) into custody. Detention of a motorist is (1) temporary and brief and Mere flight is not
conviction for possession of drugs because he was lawfully
(2) not at the mercy of the police. Further, the punishment for the indication of guilt.
arrested when he was flagged down and the search was
violation is only a fine. No warrantless arrest can be made. The
incidental.
search was not in plain view, it was not consented, nor was it a stop
WON the seach was valid
and frisk rule.
Section 3 Duty of the Arresting Officer (Deliver to nearest police station or Jail without unnecessary delay)

Petitioners contend that the Office of the Ombudsman
gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for
violation of Article 125 of the RPC (Delay in Delivery of
Detained Persons) against Ilocos PNP officials.
May 13 2001 (Sunday before election-holiday)
Petitioners were arrested without a warrant for
Illegal Possession of Guns.
Soria for possession of .38 revolver & Biste for uzi.
Soria v. They were detained immediately at Santa Police
Desierto Station. Bista was identified by one officer to have a
warrant for BP 6.
May 14 2001 (Election-Holiday) Petitioners
(Caught during were brought to residence of Prosecutor Viloria and
special holiday) an affidavit was filed against them for the crimes.
Evening of 14 Soria was RELEASED for PI. Bista
was detained at Santa police station. Its been 22
hours since arrest.
May 15 Information filed against BISTA. June 8
BISTA was released upon filing of bond. Detention =
26 days.
The Ombudsman dismissing the complaint for violation of
125.
Section 4 Execution of a Warrant
People v. Respondent Givera was found guilty of murder of Eusebio
Gardon and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua. He
Givera
and his companions were separately charged and found
guilty of murder by the RTC of QC. (Br. 104)
(Unserved Per the victims daughter, the accused was stoning
warrant coz he their house while Onying was asking him to come
out. When Gardon chased them, he was surrounded
couldnt be
by them and stabbed.
found) Accused contends that he was merely trying to
pacify an altercation between the victim and his
cousin and when he was about to help the victim, he
saw the latters son attacking with a bolo and thus
run away. He doesnt know what happened after
39
W/N there was grave abuse in dismissing the complaint (NO)
SORIAS CASE He was detained for 22 hours, beyond the 18-hour
limit. However, as law and jurisprudence dictate, special holidays are
NOT included in the computation of the period prescribed by law for
filing an information in cases of warrantless arrests since it is a no
Special holidays DO
office day. While the information was only filed on MAY 15, he was
NOT count in the time
already released on MAY 14. There is NO violation of 125.
limit prescribed under
Jurisprudence provides that it is NOT easy for officials to go through
Article 125 of the RPC
the normal processes on holidays as he must look for the clerk and
with regard to the duty of
stenographers.
officers to bring in
warrantless arrest
BISTAS CASE DOES NOT PROSPER. (36-hour limit). The running of
suspects to nearest police
the 36 hours was tolled by the holiday. ALSO, he has a standing
station or jail.
warrant for violation of BP 6 and it was only on May 15 that he could
post bail and secure an order of release. The duty of the officers is
deemed complied with upon filing of the complaints and the release
order is upon the judicial authority.
INTENT OF 125 Inform him of crime against him and upon
application, be released on bail. There is NO grave abuse here.
W/N his arrest was valid (YES) The 10-day period in
There WAS a warrant of arrest Accused was truly arrested by Section 4 is merely a
virtue of a warrant on April 27 1995. The records show that the directive ordering the
warrant of arrest was returned unserved by the officer on June 7 officer to return to the
because accused could not be found. When he was finally found on court if it is unserved or
May 4, 1996, no alias warrant is needed because unless specifically other reasons. It is NOT a
provided in the warrant, it remains enforceable until it is EXECUTED, limit on the life of the
recalled, or quashed. The 10-day period provided in Rule 113 warrant.
Section 4 is only a DIRECTIVE to the officer executing the
warrant to make a return to the court.
Further, appellant is deemed to have waived his right to object
because he failed to move for its quashal in the trial court and
 40

Accused alleges that his arrest at the East Avenue

participated in the proceedings. As held in many cases, failure to
Medical Center on May 4 was made without a
object irregularities with arrest is an implied waiver.
warrant and thus invalid.
 41
Section 5 Arrest Without Warrant

Appellants Regie Breis and Gary Yumol were charged with W/N there was a lawful arrest (YES)
Illegal Possession of Drugs. Officers Peralta and Mangili The bus that carried them was about to leave. PDEA agents made a
testified that they were informed by an informant that judgment call to act fast. They arrived around 15 minutes before the
accused were bound to transport a box of marijuana from bus left. The PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion based on A warrantless arrest is

People v. Breis Baguio to Mabalacat, Pampanga by public bus at around 5 pm appellants behavior that a crime was being done: valid when law
on February 10, 2009 (same day as they received the When asked about the box, Yumol tried to leave. When Breis enforcement base their
information). They sat near the accused and identified the was asked, what was inside the box, he shoved Mangili and seizure on overt acts
(Ginebra box box under their seats. When asked on who owned it + warranting suspicious
tried to flee even after Mangili identified himself as a PDEA
with Marijuana) simultaneously identifying themselves as officers, Yumol agent. behavior considering the
abruptly stood up and tried to leave but was blocked by They were about to leave the bus just when it was about to circumstances.
Peralta. Breis did not accede to the request to open the box depart. It is unnatural for passengers to abruptly disembark
and tried to flee but was also blocked. Upon opening, it was from a departing bus and casually leave their belongings
marijuana. RTC and CA affirmed their conviction. behind.
PNP Agents Radan and Calag were aboard a motorcycle, Calag himself admitted that he was aboard a motorcycle cruising at There must be (a) overt
patrolling Private Road in Mandaluyong at a speed of 30 km/h 30 km/h when he saw Comerciante and Dasila standing around acts indicating
Comerciante v. when they spotted at about 10 meters two men showing improper movements. During the questioning of the court, commission (b) in his
Comerciante and Dasila standing and showing improper the officers were shoddy in their recanting of the events of the arrest. presence.
People
and unpleasant movements with one of them handing It was highly implausible for Calag to identify with accuracy at such a
plastic satchets with white substance. Suspecting it was distance the small amounts of shabu. Also, the improper Improper movements
(30 km/h shabu, they approached them, arrested them, and movements are not overt acts which arouse suspicion that a crime and exchange of things at
motorcycle) confiscated the bags. was being committed. Neither was there personal knowledge that a 10 meters is not enough
crime was about to be committed. Hence, there are no grounds to to arouse suspicion of a
W/N the arrest was valid (NO) arrest the accused given the circumstances. crime.
In re: Datukan Malang Salibo were in Saudi Arabia for a Hajj W/N Habeas Corpus was proper (YES) When an accused
Pilgramage from November 7 to December 19 2009. On Petitioner was NOT arrested by any warrant charging him of any presents himself to police
Sabilo v.
August 3 2010 he discovered that the Maguindanao police offense, nor was there a valid warrantless arrest. Due to his illegal to clear his name, his
Warden
suspected him to be Butukan Malang, who was one of the detention, HC was PROPER. subsequent arrest is NOT
accused involved in the Maguindanao Massacre with a When he presented himself to police, he was not committed, contemplated under
(Arrest after pending arrest warrant. He presented himself to the officers had committed, or about to commit a crime. He was also not Section 5 of Rule 113 as
to clear his name, showing portions of his passport, boarding an escapee or detainee who had run away. He was there to he is not in flagrante
pilgrimage)
passes, and other documents. After being reassured he clear his name. delicto.
wouldnt be arrested, they suddenly seized him and tore off Flagrante Delicto requires that an officer had caught a

his passport proving his departure and detained him. He filed person who was committing, committed, or about to commit

for a Petition for Habeas Corpus. The RTC ruled in his favor a crime OR the officer had personal knowledge a crime was

given the evidence but CA reversed, stating that regardless of committed. Hence, the arrest was illegal
A Motion to Quash the information based on mistake in
 42
identity or the ordinary appeal process requiring preliminary
his identity, his remedy is to appeal the normal process and
investigation would not have cured the defect of the arrest
not habeas corpus since his arrest was lawful.
which was already illegal initially.
FIRST the crime had just been committed when they were arrested.
Personal knowledge of
Officers went to the crime upon complaint of Generoso in less than
a crime committed does
one hour after the alleged mauling; they saw him in a bloody state.
An altercation ensued between petitioenrs Pestilos et. al. and not require actual
Injuries were confirmed by the medico-L.
Atty. Generoso at Kasiyahan Street, Barangay Holy Spirit QC. presence at the scene of
SECOND The officer had personal knowledge of facts that
Generoso called the police for assistance and the latter found the crime. It is enough
petitioner did the crime
him badly beaten and with stab wounds. When Generoso that the evidence of the
Pestillos v. They immediately responded to Generosos complaint upon
pointed out those who mauled him, the officers invited crime is patent + the
Generoso petitioners to go to Batasan Hills Police Station for his call. officer has probable cause
It occurred in a community where Generoso and petitioners
investigation. From their findings, an information for to believe based on
reside.
(binugbog na attempted murder was filed against petitioners. Petitioners personal knowledge that
THIRD Based on the facts, there is reasonable belief that accused
assail this information on the round that there was no lawful the person to be arrested
lawyer S1 is involved
warrantless arrest as they were merely invited for had recently committed
R112) Petitioner-accused were positively identified by Generoso;
questioning to the police station, hence improper inquest and it.
also, they all lived within the same neighborhood
that Rules 112 shouldve been followed. They did not deny the altercation but offered a different POV.
What determines personal
By inviting petitioners, Javier intended to arrest them following
W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest? knowledge is the
Generosos complaint. He did not need to apply physical restraint
immediacy of how these
when a simple request would produce a similar effect. Actual force is
facts came to the officer.
needed only when petitioners refused.

Section 6 Time of Making Arrest

Colorado v. Miguel Colorado filed Judge Agapito with Gross Ignorance of
the Law and Abuse of Authority in relation to Criminal Cases
Agapito
filed against Colorado:
Failure to remand or dismiss case in view of the
(Arrested on a absence of requisite certificate to file action issued
Friday) by Barnangay under the Katarungan Pambarangay
Law and LGC
Issuance of arrest on a Friday to ensure detention for
2 days.
Continuing to hear the case despite obvious bias and
failure to act on his motion for inhibition
W/N the issuance of the arrest was invalid for being on a As per Section 6 Rule
Friday (HELL NO) 113, an arrest may be
Colorado alleges that respondent had him arrested on Friday and made at any day at any
thus caused him to languish for Saturday and Sunday before his case time. Remedies are
could be acted on. However, as per Section 6 of Rule 113, an available to accused even
arrest may be made on any day at any time of the day or night. It is if arrested on non-working
clear from the provision that arrest can be made regardless of what days.
day or time it is. Nowhere is an arrest on Friday prohibited. Further,
he was not without recourse as he couldve posted bail as per SC
Circular 95-96 which provides for skeletal force to act on petitions for
bail and other urgent matters. Also, on non-working days, any judge

Section 7 Method of Arrest by Officer by WARRANT
Officers Manipon and Esguerra (Capas Police Station)
received information that Diosdado Mallari (who had a
Mallari v. CA standing warrant of arrest for homicide) was seen at Sitio 14,
Sta. Rita Capas, Tarlac. Immediately upon receipt of the info,
they proceeded to surround his house and arrest him. Upon
(homemade gun
frisking they found a homemade gun with one M16 ammo. At
Talkik) that time, they did not present the warrant of arrest.
Complainant Mallari alleges that their failure to serve the
warrant made the seizure unlawful.
Section 8 Method of Arrest Without Warrant
People v. Tan Philippine Coast Guard officials Ramon Gabitan, Lapot, and
Danilo Dumdum along with crew members of foreign vessel
M/V Dang Delima were dancing with waitresses at Twins
(Fired at
Disco Pub in Naval, Leyte.
pumpboat out of One of the crew members was dancing with Rosie
jealousy) Catigbe, PO3 Eleuterio Tans supposed girlfriend. On their way
back to the vessel, Tan confronted Froilan Acorda (one
dancing with Rosie) and introduced himself as an officer.
Upon being asked for a badge, Tan took out a .38 caliber gun.
Froilan karate chopped him and Tan ran away.
Upon leaving the pier, a fire truck arrived with Tan
and other officers. They made warning shots at the pump
boat but it didnt stop. They then started shooting at them.
Gabitan was hit/died. TANS VERSION Responded to a
complaint for THEFT and shot back only because the
pumpboat started firing.
W/N the acts of Tan and his officers were lawful
43
may act on bailable offenses. There is no abuse here.
(Judge was still liable for not acting on the motion for inhibition. Paid
a 20k fine).
W/N the failure to serve the warrant was fatal to the search
and arrest.
Police officers are NOT
NO Section 7 of Rule 113 provides that an officer is allowed to
required to bring or
effect an arrest without a warrant in his possession at the time of the
present the warrant of
arrest. He is only required to present it after the arrest when the
arrest at the time of
accused requires such, but it need not even be presented
arrest. They shall show it
immediately as the provision allows it to be presented as soon as
as soon as practicable
practicable. Further, when an accused is being arrested for another
after arrest when accused
crime, unlicensed firearms found may be seized without a search
requires.
warrant. Hence, his subsequent charges of illegal possession are
VALID.
NO It is quite strange that they would bring a fire truck to pursue Some rules for ARREST
alleged thieves. They are prone to attack positioned on top of it. For State identity as officer;
a complaint of theft, the usual procedure is to search the suspects show badge
and to apprehend them employing the least force necessary to effect State intent to arrest
State the reasons/charges
a lawful arrest without warrant. Employ least force
Rules of Court mandate that when an officer is conducting
possible
an arrest, he must identify himself and state his intention to arrest Exercise caution
when there is no danger to himself or not prejudice arrest. When an
officer is asked about his authority, he must present his badge, NOT
his gun. Normally, he should already present it without inquiry by the
accused this is STANDARD police procedure during identification.
Rules of Engagement officer must be knowledgeable
and exercise highest cuation and does NOT require that he draw his
weapon if the person to be accosted does not heed his requests.
Evidence shows that Gabitans gun was still in his waist when his
body was found. Pumpboat victims were NOT obliged to submit
as they were not under any of those to be subject to warrantless

Section 11 Right to Break into Building, Enclosure
Appellant Castiller was charged with Selling of Illegal Drugs.
The Anti-Narcotics Intelligence of Taguig received info from an
People v.
undisclosed caller that marijuana was being sold by an old
Castiller woman in a store in Daang Hari Street. Through a buy-bust
operation, they found accused in a small store. Officer
Mandibel asked La paiskor ng dalawang foil and the woman
(drug seller at
returned with marijuana foils. When Mandibel said he was a
sari-sari store)
policeman, accused locked herself in the door but eventually
surrendered.
RULE 114 BAIL
Section 1 Bail Definition
Enrile v. The Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile and several
others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan in their purported
Sandiganbayan
involvement in the PDAF scandal. Enrile prayed that he avail
of bail, on the basis that he was
(a) Evidence of guilt not yet strong;
(b) The penalty would only be RT and not RP, and
(2015 Decision) (c) He was not a flight risk, due to his age and condition.
The SB denied his application stating that he had not yet
voluntarily surrendered or placed in custody. Mitigating
circumstances are not yet considered in bail, but only for the
imposition of penalty. It also ruled that only when the
prosecution shall have presented evidence and the Court
decided that evidence of guilt is not strong can he demand
bail.
W/N Enrile should be denied bail (NO)
44
arrest.
W/N the search incidental to arrest was lawful (YES)
The Rules on Criminal Procedure (Section 11, Rule 113) specifically Police officers are
allows law enforcement agents to break into the premises or allowed to break into
enclosure in which a person to be arrested is reasonably believed to any building or
be and if the accused refuses admittance after officers announce enclosure to effect an
their authority. Here, the officers did NOT even have to break into the arrest if refused
premises as they were voluntarily allowed to enter the store. Hence, admittance after
their entry into the store and subsequent search and arrest was identifying themselves.
lawful.
(1) Bail protects the right of the accused to due process Based on humanitarian
and innocence considerations and
The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at possibility of being a
the trial or whenever required by the trial court. It acts as reconciling flight risk, a person
mechanism to accommodate both accuseds interest in provisional should be entitled bail.
liberty before trial + societys interest to assure his presence during
trial.
(2) Bail may be granted as a matter of right or discretion
(Sec. 7 R114)
The right to bail attaches the moment he is placed under
arrest unless charged with a (1) capital offense OR penalty of
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, and (2) the evidence of guilt is
strong.
It becomes discretionary when (1) upon conviction by the
RTC of an offense not punishable by D, RP, or LI, OR (2) if the RTC has
imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years (provided
none of the Sec 3 R114 applies).

Enrile v. Petitioner PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES imputes the following
grounds for the reversal off the decision in 2015:
Sandiganbayan
(1) It unduly modified constitutional and procedural
principles governing bail without sufficient basis it
(2016 Decision) granted bail solely based merely on him not being a
flight risk and not based on procedural matters
(penalty was disregarded)
(2) Violates due process as it was based on grounds not
found in the petition and therefore never refuted or
contested
(3) Decision gave preferential treatment to petitioner
inconsistent with the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.
W/N Enrile should be denied bail (AGAIN NO)
45
(3) Bail for offenses punished by D, LI, RP subject to
judicial discretion
Determination of W/N evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of
discretion of the trial court. However, such discretion may be
exercised only after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt
for w/n to grant provisional liberty. Bail CANNOT be allowed when its
grant is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial court unless
there has been a hearing with notice to the prosecution. This is a
summary hearing
(4) Enriles poor health justifies admission to bail
Due to Enriles age (over 70), poor health, and voluntary surrender,
he is entitled to mitigating circumstances. His immediate surrender
as well as his conduct and health in proceedings in cases before show
that he is not a flight risk and through humanitarian considerations
he should be allowed bail. Granting him provisional bail will enable
him to have his medical condition addressed and attended to by
competent physicians which will ensure his appearance in the court
proceedings.
PETITION DENIED Based on humanitarian
considerations and
FIRST The people were not kept in the dark regarding his health. possibility of being a
Accused manifested through his Omnibus Motion and Motion to Fix flight risk, a person
Bail his currently frail health and medical certificates showing that he should be entitled bail.
required medical attention. The SB also solicited the opinions of the
doctors of PGH.
SECOND There was no undue favor for petitioner. There were
factual and legal bases to favor his plea for bail. Generally, such right
is curtailed only when risks of flight were too high. However, the
records indicate that Enrile has almost 0% chance of being a flight
risk. Considering his poor health, past and present disposition of legal
processes, and length of public service and reputation, there was no
reason to deny him bail.
SECTION 2, Rule 114 one of the conditions for bail is the accused
should appear before the proper court whenever required. The basis
 46

for giving bail is the probability of appearance + flight. It is not a

device for keeping persons in jail upon mere accusation until it is
convenient to try him, but rather to provide him freedom until a trial
with all safeguards has found him guilty. It is the probability of his
escape where it may be denied. Through the evidence, he is bailable!

Section 2 Conditions of Bail
Pantillo filed a complaint charging Judge Canoy for gross
ignorance of the law, procedures, and grave abuse of
authority, in relation to the case of Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide in People v. Melgazo.
Pantilo, brother of the victim in such case was
informed by one of the arresting officers that
Melgazo had been released after inquest was
conducted as proven by the police logbook.
Logbook shows Melgazo was temporarily released
Pantillo III v.
upon order of Judge Canoy after he posted bail for
Cantoy
30,000. However, no information had yet been filed
in the Prosecutors office to serve as basis for bail +
(Constructive no written Order of Release was given but merely a
verbal order directing the officers to release him.
Bail imbento)
Melgazo filed for Release of his impounded vehicle
as evidence pending the trial of the case. This was
(Id. Section 14, received 8:30 am that day and was subsequently
17) raffled and heard that same day. This was in
violation of the 3-day-notice to other party.
Canoy contends that everything was due to special
circumstances no clerks present when he posted for bail,
already past working hours so no information, allowed to
deposit bail to the Clerk of Court of RTC. Canoy states that
under Section 17 of 114, person does not need to be charged
in court before applying for bail and that only papers were
needed to formalize it, hence a Constructive Bail.
Section 3 No Release or Transfer Except Court Order
Ambil v. Atty. David B. Loste (president of Eastern Samar Chapter of
IBP) + NBI prayed for an investigation against Governor
Sandiganbayan
Ruperto Ambil for violation of Section 3 of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. It is alleged that Ambil, as
(Transfer mayor Governor of Eastern Samar, ordered the transfer of Mayor
to Governors Francisco Adalim (accused for murder) from the jail to his
house. Ombudsman recommended adding Delivering of
47
W/N Judge Canoy should be held liable for his actions (YES)
Section 17 of Rule 114 provides that any person in custody who is
not yet charged may apply for bail with any court he is held.
However, Melgazo has NOT filed for any application or petition for
Absent the following,
bail and despite such absence of a written application, the judge
no bail should be
verbally granted bail to Melgazo.
granted:
(1) Written application for
In addition to the above, Section 14 requires a cash deposit with the
bail
nearest collector of internal revenue OR provincial, city, municipal
(2) Certificate of Deposit
treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court.
from BIT collector or
This section also requires the submission of the proper treasurer
certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing (3) Signing of Written
compliance with the requirements of Section 2 of the Rule. Undertaking which
Melgazo DID NOT deposit the amount of bail recommended provides for Sec 2
by Prosecutor Gonzaga with the nearest CIR or Treasurer. (4) Written release order
Canoy only verbally ordered the Office of the Clerk of Court
to accept the cash deposit as bail and issue a receipt.
He also DID NOT require Melgazo to sign the written
undertaking containing the conditions of Section 2, Rule 114.
Also, no written release order issued to the police.
The only reference to a transfer of prisoners is found in Section No transfer of prisoners
1737 of the Administrative Code which allows the transfer of may be made except
prisoners to the jail of the neighboring province in case the provincial upon court order
jail be insecure or insufficient to accommodate all provincial through an application for
prisoners. But this has already been superseded by Section 3 of bail.
Rule 114 which provides that No person under detention by legal
process shall be released OR transferred except upon court order

Prisoners under Article 156 of the RPC. Accused admitted the
allegations but contended that it was just because there were
house) imminent threats upon Adalim since his sister, Juliana Adalim-
White, put a lot of prisoners in the same jail as the mayor
upon request of Adalims lawyers.
Section 5 When Bail is Discretionary
Petitioner Cyril Qui was charged with 2 counts of violation of
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse (acts of cruelty +
shouting incentives). The RTC of QC charged her for to prison
Qui v. People
terms of 5 and 7 years. She filed for an appeal and upon its
perfection to the CA, she filed an application for bail. The OSG
(Lie about dads urged denial due to her propensity to evade the law as she
failed to attend several hearings and requiring 3 warrants of
death to escape)
arrest for her.
W/N she is entitled to bail (NO)
Section 7 Capital Offense, RP, LI not bailable
People v. Based on an audit conducted of the disbursement vouchers of
Bacolod City Government, it was discovered that Luz Valdez,
Valdez
the former mayor of Bacolod, had altered the amounts of
cash slips so that he received reimbursement from the
(Malversation government amounting to 279k instead of only 4.8k. He was
complex crime) charged with Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification.
The Ombudsman recommended no bail in the
Sandiganbayan case. Valdez (still at large) caused the filing of
a Motion to Set Aside the recommendation and to Fix Bail,
arguing that the offenses are bailable as a right (maximum
penalty of 20 years). Republic contends that the imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua, hence, bail is discretionary.
Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of
48
when admitted to bail. Thus, transfer is vested in the court, NOT in
the provincial government. This was clarified by Assistant Secretary
Ingeniero to Ambil, who said that the transfer to his house was not in
accordance to the ROC (nearest police station or jail) nor the invoking
of the Power of Supervision of the governor over jails as this does not
include the power to take in custody any person in detention.
The court denied her bail based on Section 5 of Rule 114. This
provides that upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by D, RP or LI, admission to bail is discretionary. This is
pursuant to a tough on bail pending appeal policy wherein the
After conviction in the
presence of bail-negating conditions mandates denial or revocation of
RTC, the application for
bail. Considering that an accused has already been convicted in the
bail becomes
RTC, the granting of bail should be with caution. The CAs ground was
discretionary and it shall
that she is a flight risk which is a bail-negating factor under 5(d) (1)
be construed on a tough
She failed to attend several meetings which lead to the issuance of 3
on bail pending appeal
arrest warrants, (2) Lied to justify non-appearance (said dad was in
policy.
the hospital and died but that happened a year before trial), (3)
transferred residences without telling her bondsman and the trial
court. Also, after conviction with the RTC, the presumption of
innocence + right to bail ends.
It has already been settled in Manalac v. People that when the For complex crimes, bail
imposable penalty of a crime is reclusion perpetua, bail is not entitled is granted as a matter of
as a matter of right. Keeping with the provisions of Article 48, which right, even if one of the
states that the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, offenses is punishable by
the same to be applied in its maximum period, reclusion perpetua, since
Punishable means it is the prescribed or imposable it is only after trial when
penalty. This is what determines whether bail is allowed, NOT the one the circumstances prove
that is imposed. Petitioner confused prescribed and imposable but that such complex crime
theyre the same and that is the basis of bail. exists.
HOWEVER, trial on the offense has yet to proceed.
Prosecution has yet to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Falsification must be proven during trial to
determine if the imposable penalty. For purposes of bail proceedings,

Public Documents is punishable by reclusion temporal max to
perpetua. Prision mayor is imposed for falsification by a
public officer. Since malversation is the more serious offense,
the imposable penalty for Malversation if the amount
exceeds 22k is reclusion perpetua. W/N bail may be
granted
Section 8 Burden of Proof in Application of Bail
Criselda Gacad filed a complaint against Judge Clapis for
Grave Misconduct and Ignorance of the Law and other
violations of the canon. This was due to Gacad filing a
complaint for the murder of her brother Gregorio.
Arafol (ProvPros) suggested to meet Judge Clapis so he would
deny the Motion for Reinvestigation to be filed by accused.
They met Clapis at the Golden Palace Hotel. Judge asked
Gacad v. Clapis
What do you want me to do? Arafol said they wanted to
have the motion denied. Arafol: Wag kang mag-alala,
(Well crush may handa siya sa iyo. The judge then said Leave it to
me, well crush them!
them!) Arafol told Gacad the Judge would be borrowing 50k for the
latters hospital bills. Gacad failed to pay. The judge made
the case difficult he set a hearing for petition for bail on
March 29, which Gacad was never notified. Even without a
written petition, he calendared the trials on 12, 13 and 14
of April. It was eventually granted.
W/N Clapis is guilty
Section 9 Amount of Bail Guidelines
49
it would be premature to rule that the supposed crime committed is a
complex crime since it is only when the trial has terminated that
falsification could be appreciated as a means of committing
malversation.
It would be the height of absurdity to deny Valdez the right
to bail and grant her the same only after trial if it turns out that there
is no complex crime committed. Compared to plunder, bail should be
granted as a right for Malversation.
Judge Capis could not be liable for receiving the bribe. No substantial
evidence was given by Gacad. However, he is liable for gross
misconduct. merely denied the allegations without providing for
evidence to support such denial.
Liable for gross ignorance of the law for conducting bail
hearings without a petition for bail being filed by accused and without
affording prosecution an opportunity to prove the guilt of the accused
is strong. As per Section 8, the prosecution has the burden of proving
As per Section 8, the
that evidence of guilt is strong. The judge set the first bail hearing on
prosecution must be
March 29 even if the Petition for Bail was filed by the accused only on
given the opportunity to
April 8. The other bail hearings reveal that the prosecution was not
present evidence that
given the chance to be heard. Gacad appeared by herself on the 12 th
guilt is strong.
because her counsel requested to be relieved. While Clapis allowed
her to secure a new one, the hearing proceeded with the accused
alone being given the chance to present evidence. It was only on the
last hearing Gacad was represented by another lawyer, but after the
defense completed evidence, bail was granted. He didnt even
question the personality, risk of flight, and other facts for bail. He
based his judgment merely on the affidavit of one prosecution
witness. HE IS DISMISSED (Did the same before)
 50
FIRST The case is MOOT and ACADEMIC. Accused has already been
convicted for MURDER and such judgment is already final and
Cabib Tanong Sr. filed a case for murder (victim was his son)
executory by Judge Usman.
against Sidic and other respondents. A warrant for his arrest
SECOND The records show that Balindong did not grant bail Factors for Section 9
was issued by Judge Ibrahim. Sidic filed for a bail
whimsically and based such grant on the strength of the (a) Financial ability
proceedings, contending that the evidence of guilt was not (b) Nature &
Tanog v. prosecutions evidence. As per accounts of the witnesses, none of
strong. Judge Ibrahim died and Judge Bursan was placed as Circumstances
them saw the crime being committed.
Balindong Acting Presiding Judge. Sidic would then file a motion for (c) Penalty gravity
THIRD Neither is the amount too low. Section 9 provides for the (d) Character/Rep
Special Raffle because as of that time he was already in (e) Age and Health
basis for granting the amount of bail. Balindong stated that accused
detention for more than 4 years, and Branch 10 of the RTC (f) Weight of evidence
(I inhibit due to was in poor health after being detained for 4 years pending trial. He (g) Risk of flight
was already burdened with so many cases. It was re-raffled to (h) Forfeiture of other bail
delicadeza) was also the former councilman of Puasan, Lanao del Sur, hence of
(i) Fact of fugitive
Judge Balindong of Branch 8, who granted the bail at 30,000
reputable character. Further, the evidence against him was weak, and (j) Pendency of other
after consideration of the evidence of both sides. The judge
lastly, the Constitution provides that excessive bail is not required. cases hes on bail
inhibited himself after granting the bail due to delicadeza.
While the DOJs Bail Bond Guide states that no bail should be given
W/N bail should be granted
for murder, such is not binding on the courts judge has that SOLE
discretion.
Section 11 Property Bond; How Posted

Judicial Audit A judicial audit was conducted in the RTC of Eastern Samar,
Branch 4. This was held by Judge Alvarez, Judge BUGTAS,
of RTC B.4
and Judge Adalim-White. The audit revealed that Judge
Eastern Samar
Bugtas:
(a) Accepted bail bonds for 2 cases pending before
(J. Bugtas Judge Alvarez
(b) Accepted the bail bond which had a forged signature
accepted bail and released accused on such forged property bond
bonds) (c) Violated ROC when he failed to forward the bond,
order of release, and other supporting papers to
Judge Alvarez.
Judge Bugtas retirement benefits were withheld, due to the
findings of the OCA regarding the cases above. He contends
that Judge Alvarez was not available, hence he took over the
bail bonds and ordered the release because it looked genuine
at its face.
W/N Judge Bugtas is liable
Criminal Case 358 Wrongfully accepted the bail but also failed to If the applicant fails to
forward the bail, order of release, and other papers to Judge Alvarez cause annotation of bail
as required by Section 19 of Rule 114. Judge alleges that he did not bond on property within
forward it because the accused failed to cause the annotation of the 10 days after approval,
lien on the title. the judge may cancel the
Section 11 states that if there is failure to cause annotation bond and issue a warrant
within 10 days after approval of property bond, the bond of arrest again for
MAY BE cancelled. accused.
Alvarez could have cancelled had Bugtas followed
Section 19 by accepting and retaining the bond
erroneously, he shouldve at least cancelled it and issue an
arrest warrant for accused for non-annotation.
He also approved it without the consent of the owner
When Alvarez received the bond, he found that the
signature was forged. The signature read ESPERANZA GALO
but the real name was ASEO. The forgery was clear and he
should be liable for approving the forged bond.
While it is the CLERK OF COURTS task to ensure compliance
of the bail application, the judge has the duty to review its
validity.
 51

Section 17 Clerk of Court has NO POWER to issue a

release order.

Section 15 Recognizance

OCA v. Floro Jr.

Adalim-White
v. Bugtas

(Id. Sec. 16
 52
RULE 115 Rights of the Accused

Jacob v.
Sandiganbayan

Crisostomo v.
Sandiganbayan

People v.
Abatayo

People v.
Larranaga