COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH ON
Cases where civil courts of equal
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses
1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts
gain jurisdiction over the offense upon
the filing of complaint by a complainant
or an information by the prosecuting
officer
Court gains jurisdiction over the
person of the accused upon arrest or
surrender; such jurisdiction once gained
cannot be lost even if accused escapes
(Gimenez vs. Nazareno)
Jurisdiction of the court over the
offense is determined at the time of the
institution of the action and is retained
even if the penalty for the offense is later
lowered or raised (People vs. Lagon)
2. Complaint sworn written statement
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the offended party, any
peace officer or other public official
charged with the enforcement of the law
violated
Information accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense,
subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the
court
3. Complaint and Information
distinguished:
Complaint Information
A sworn statement Need not be sworn
to
Subscribed by the Subscribed to by the
offended party, any fiscal
peace officer or
other officer charged
with the
enforcement of the
law violated
May be filed either Filed with the court
with the court or in
the fiscals office
generally to
commence the
preliminary
investigation of the
charges made
1
4.
rank are vested with concurrent
jurisdiction:
1. Features stated in Art. 2, RPC
Cognizable by proper court in which
charge is first filed
1. Continuing crimes committed in
different judicial regions
2. Offenses wherein any of the
essential elements were committed
in different territorial jurisdictions
3. Offenses committed aboard a train,
vehicle, aircraft or vessel (see
R110, 15)
i. Railroad, train, aircraft
(1) Territory or municipality where
vehicle passed
(2) Place of departure
(3) Place of arrival
ii. Vessel
(1) First port of entry
(2) Thru which it passed during voyage
e. Libel and written defamation
5. Remedies of offended party when
fiscal unreasonably refuses to file an
information or include a person therein
as an accused
1. In case of grave abuse of
discretion, action for mandamus
2. Lodge a new complaint against the
offenders
3. Take up matter with the Secretary
of Justice
4. Institute administrative charges
against the erring fiscal
5. File criminal charges under Art.
208, RPC (prosecution of offenses)
6. File civil action under Art. 27, NCC
for damages (PO refuses or
neglects to perform official duty)
 7. Secure appointment of another
fiscal
8. Institute another criminal action if
no double jeopardy is involved
6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to
restrain a criminal prosecution are not
available, EXCEPT
1. To afford adequate protection to
constitutional rights of accused
2. Necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions
3. Pre-judicial question which is sub
judice
4. Acts of the officer are without or in
excess of authority
5. Prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation
6. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Court has no jurisdiction over the
case
8. Case of persecution rather than
prosecution
9. Charges are manifestly false and
motivated by lust for vengeance
10. Clearly no prima facie case
against the accused and MTQ on
that ground had been denied
7. Institution of Criminal Actions:
a. In RTC:
By filing a complaint with the
appropriate officer for the purpose of
conducting requisite preliminary
investigation therein.
b. In Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts:
By filing the complaint or information
directly with said courts, or a complaint
with the fiscals office
c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts
By filing the complaint ONLY with the
office of the fiscal
2
In all 3 above cases, such institution
shall interrupt the period of prescription
of the offense charged (Rule 110, 1)
d. Offenses subject to summary
procedure
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2)
violation of rental laws; (3) violation of
municipal or city ordinances; and (4)
criminal cases where the penalty does
not exceed 6 months or fine of P1000 or
both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties and civil liabilities]
The complaint or information shall be
filed directly in court without need of a
prior preliminary examination or
preliminary investigation.
Zaldivia vs. Reyes since a criminal
case covered by the Rules of Summary
Procedure shall be deemed commenced
only when it is filed in court, then the
running of the prescriptive period shall
be halted on the date the case is actually
filed in court and not on any date before
that.
Reodica vs. CA [clarifies Zaldivia
above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the
period of prescription shall be interrupted
by the filing of the complaint or
information. It does not distinguish
whether the complaint is filed for
preliminary examination or investigation
only, or for an action on the merits.
Thus, the filing of the complaint even
with the fiscals office should suspend the
running of the Statute of Limitations. The
ruling in Zaldivia is not applicable to all
cases subject to the Rules on Summary
Procedure, since that particular case
involved a violation of an ordinance.
Therefore, the applicable law therein was
not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326
(An Act to Establish Periods of
Prescription for Violations Penalized by
Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances
and to Provide when Prescription Shall
Begin to Run), 2 of which provides that
period of prescription is suspended only
when judicial proceedings are instituted
against the guilty party.
8. Contents of information
a. Name of the accused
 Information may be amended as to the within the courts jurisdiction and
name of the accused, but such accused was not surprised by the
amendment cannot be questioned for the variance between the proof and the
first time on appeal (People vs. Guevarra) information

Error of name of the offended party: if Qualifying and inherent aggravating

material to the case, it necessarily circumstances need to be alleged as they
affects the identification of the act are integral parts of the crime. If proved,
charged. Conviction for robbery cannot but not alleged, become only generic
be sustained if there is a variance aggravating circumstances.
between the allegation and the proof as
to the ownership of the property stolen. 9. Amendment of information and
Substitution of information, distinguished
b. Designation of offense by statute (or
of section/subsection of statute violated) Amendment Substitution
Involves either Necessarily involves
Only one offense charged, EXCEPT
formal or substantial a substantial change
where law prescribes a single
changes
punishment for various offenses.
Without leave of Needs leave of court
If facts do not completely allege all the court if before plea as original
elements of the crime charged, the info information has to
may be quashed; however, the be dismissed
prosecution is allowed to amend the info Where only as to Another preliminary
to include the necessary facts (People vs. form, there is no investigation is
Purisima) need for another entailed and accused
preliminary has to plead anew
c. Acts or omissions complained of investigation and
constituting the offense retaking of plea of
accused
Information need only allege facts, not Refers to the same Requires or
include all the evidence which may be offense charged or presupposes that
used to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. which necessarily new info involves a
CFI) includes or is different offense
necessarily included which does not
d. Name of offended party in original charges, include or is not
hence, substantial included in the
e. Approximate time of commission amendments to info original charge,
after plea taken hence, accused
Approximation of time is sufficient; cannot be made cannot claim double
amendment as to time is only a formal over objections of jeopardy
amendment; no need to dismiss case accused for if
(People vs. Molero) original info is
withdrawn, accused
A significant discrepancy in the time could invoke double
alleged cannot be sustained since such jeopardy
would allow the prosecution to prove an
offense distantly removed from the 10. After plea, amendment only as to
alleged date, thus substantially impairing matters of form, provided
the rights of the accused to be informed
of the charges against him (People vs. 1. Leave of court is obtained; and
Reyes) 2. Amendment is not prejudicial to
rights of accused
f. Place of commission
11. When amendment is only as to form
Conviction may be had even if it
appears that the crime was committed 1. Neither affects or alters nature of
not at the place alleged, provided that offense charged
the place of actual commission was
3
 2. Charge does not deprive accused
of a fair opportunity to present his
defense
3. Does not involve a change in basic
theory of prosecution
12. Exceptions to rule on venue
1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable
by proper court in which charge is
first filed)
2. Continuing offenses
3. Piracy which is triable anywhere
4. Libel (residence; or where first
published)
5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair
trial and impartial inquiry
13. Special cases (who may prosecute)
a. Adultery and concubinage
Only offended spouse can be
complainant
Both guilty parties must be included in
complaint
b. Crimes against chastity
With consent of the offended party,
offended spouse, grandparents,
guardian, or state as parens patriae, in
that order
Offended party, even if minor, has
right to initiate the prosecution of the
case independently of parents,
grandparents or guardian, unless she is
incompetent/incapable on grounds other
than minority.
If offended party who is a minor fails to
file the complaint, her parents,
grandparents or guardian may do so.
In crimes against chastity, the consent
of the victim is a jurisdictional
requirementretraction renders the
information void (People vs. Ocapan)
If complexed with a public crime, the
provincial fiscal may sign the complaint
on his own
4
c. Defamation (consisting of imputation
of offenses in [a] or [b])
Complainant must be offended party
The offended party may intervene in
the prosecution of the criminal case
because of her interest in it (Banal vs.
Tadeo)
14. Procedure
1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed
in RTC where an essential
ingredient of the crime took place
(territorial jurisdiction)
1. Amendment as a matter of
right before plea
2. Amendment upon discretion
of the court after plea
Inclusion of other accused is only a
formal amendment which would not be
prejudicial to the accused and should be
allowed (People vs. CA)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it
appears there was a mistake in charging
proper offense, court shall dismiss
original info upon the filing of a corrected
one, provided that the accused will not
be placed in double jeopardy
(substitution)
Fiscal determines direction of
prosecution; complainant must ask fiscal
if he wants to dismiss the case; the
motion to dismiss must be addressed to
the court which has discretion over the
disposition of the case (Republic vs.
Sunga)
Objection to the amendment of an
information or complaint must be raised
at the time the amendment is made;
otherwise, deemed to have consented
thereto.
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
May be filed after arraignment but
before plea on the grounds provided by
the rules (generally, a flaw in the info)
If duplicity of offense charged is not
raised in trial through a motion to quash
info, the right to question it is waived
(People vs. Ocapan)
b. Motion to dismiss
May be filed after plea but before
judgment on most of grounds for motion
to quash
16. Duplicity of Offense (in information
or complaint)
Defined as the joinder of separate and
distinct offenses in one and the same
information/complaint
Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure
is equivalent to a waiver
Exception: when existing laws
prescribe a single punishment (complex
crimes)
Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action
1. General Rule: The injured party may
file a civil action independent of the
criminal proceeding to recover damages
from the offender.
Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil
action for damages against public
officers who impair the Constitutional
rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
Even if the private prosecutor
participates in the prosecution, if he is
not given the chance to prove damages,
the offended party is not barred from
filing a separate civil action
2. Civil action for recovery of civil
liability impliedly instituted, EXCEPT
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute
separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to
criminal action
NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all
criminal actions for violations of BP Blg.
22 shall be deemed to necessarily
include the corresponding civil action,
and no reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed or
recognized.
5
San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA past
pronouncements of the SC that the
requirement in Rule 111 that a
reservation be made prior to the
institution of an independent civil action
is an unauthorized amendment to
substantive law is now no longer
controlling. Far from altering substantive
rights, the primary purpose of the
reservation requirement is to avoid
multiplicity of suits, to prevent delays, to
clear congested dockets, to simplify the
work of the trial court, and in short, the
attainment of justice with the least
expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
3. Civil action suspended when criminal
action filed, EXCEPT
1. Independent civil action (Arts. 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of NCC)
2. Prejudicial civil action
3. Civil case consolidated with
criminal action
4. Civil action not one intended to
enforce civil liability arising from
the offense (e.g., action for legal
separation against a spouse who
committed concubinage)
4. Prejudicial question arises when
1. The civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the criminal action
2. The resolution of such issue will
determine whether the criminal
action will proceed or not
Requisites for a prejudicial question:
1. The civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the criminal action:
and
2. The resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed
Petition for suspension of criminal
action is to be filed at any time before
prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute
separate civil proceedings to recover civil
liability arising from crime
Must be made before prosecution
presents evidence
Action instituted only after final
judgment in criminal action
b. Petition to suspend the criminal
action
May be filed upon existence of a
prejudicial question in a pending civil
action
Filed at any time before the
prosecution rests
6. Extinction of penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil unless
the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil might arise did
not exist.
Final judgment in civil absolving
defendant from civil liability not a bar to
criminal action
7. Filing fees:
1. Actual or compensatory damages
filing fees not required
2. Moral, temperate and exemplary
filing fees required
1. If alleged, fees must be paid by
offended party upon filing of
complaint or information
1. If not alleged, filing fees
considered a first lien on the
judgment
Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation
1. Preliminary investigation inquiry or
proceeding to determine if there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime cognizable by
the RTC has been committed, and that
the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial
A preliminary investigation is only
necessary for an information to be filed
with the RTC; complaints may be filed
6
with the MTC without need of an
information, which is merely
recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
Absence of a preliminary investigation
is NOT a ground for a motion to quash
the information; an information filed
without a preliminary investigation is
defective but not fatal; in its absence, the
accused may ask for one; it is the fiscals
refusal to conduct a preliminary
investigation when the accused demands
one which is a violation of the rights of
the accused (Doromal vs.
Sandiganbayan). Court should not
dismiss the info, but hold the case in
abeyance and either: (1) conduct its own
investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to
hold a reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts
the preliminary investigation before filing
an information with the RTC, EXCEPT
where the accused is lawfully arrested
without a warrant and an inquest is
conducted.
3. Right to Preliminary Investigation
A personal right and may be waived
Waived by failure to invoke the right
prior to or at least at the time of the plea
4. Who conducts Preliminary
Investigation
1. Provincial or city fiscals and their
assistants
2. Judges of MTC and MCTC
3. National and regional state
prosecutors
4. Such other officers as may be
authorized by law
5. Duly authorized legal officers of
COMELEC
1. The Ombudsman
2. The PCGG, in cases of ill-
gotten wealth
5. Procedure
a. If conducted prior to arrest
i. Complainant files complaint with
(a) Provincial or city fiscal
(b) Regional or state prosecutor
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC
judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities
(d) Other offices authorized by law
1. Investigating officer either
dismisses complaint or asks by
subpoena complainant and
respondent to submit affidavits and
counter-affidavits
1. If the investigating officer
finds prima facie evidence,
he prepares an information
and a resolution
i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to
believe that a crime has been committed
and accused is probably guilty thereof
Prima facie evidence is that evidence
which, standing alone, unexplained and
uncontradicted, would be enough to
merit a conviction of the accused
iv. Otherwise, he recommends the
dismissal of the complaint
If the investigating officer is an MTC
judge, and he finds that probable cause
exists and that there is a need to place
the accused under custody, then he may
issue a warrant of arrest
Flores vs. Sumaling What
differentiates the present rule from the
previous one is that while before, it was
mandatory for the investigating judge to
issue a warrant for the arrest of the
accused if he found probable cause, the
rule now is that the investigating judges
power to order the arrest of the accused
is limited to instances in which there is a
necessity for placing him in custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of
justice. It is therefore error for the
investigating judge to order the issuance
of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding
of probable cause, without making any
finding of a necessity to place the
accused in immediate custody to prevent
a frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards
records to the city fiscal or chief
state prosecutor
7
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor
either dismisses the
complaint or files the
information in court
Decision prevails over decision of the
MTC judge
vii. Records will not form records of the
case proper
Court on its own or on motion may
order production of record
b. If conducted after warrantless arrest
1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC
and asks for a preliminary
investigation, with the assistance
of counsel, then the procedure for
one prior to arrest is followed
1. Inquest conducted as follows
(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the
arrest
(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima
facie evidence based on the statements
of the complainant, arresting officer and
witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint
and orders the immediate release of the
accused, OR prepares and files an
information
While fiscal has quasi-judicial
discretion whether or not to file an
information, once it is filed with the
court, the court acquires jurisdiction
giving it discretion over the disposition of
the case and the Sec. of Justice should
refrain from entertaining petitions for
review or appeals from the decision of
fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs.
Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by
offended party, peace officer or fiscal
without preliminary investigation.
6. Remedies
a. Motion for preliminary investigation
Filed when accused is arrested without
warrant
 Must be with assistance of counsel and
after waiving Art. 125, RPC
b. Motion for preliminary investigation
Filed within 5 days after accused
learns an information against him has
been filed without a preliminary
investigation
c. Motion for re-investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ
Filed upon denial of his motion for a
preliminary investigation, on the ground
that his rights to due process of law were
violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction
e. Petition for prohibition
Filed with appellate court to stop the
criminal proceedings
Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but
may be granted in certain cases
When prohibition proper to restrain
criminal proceedings:
1. When strong-arm tactics are used
for vindictive purposes (Salonga
vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of
his rights
3. When the statute on which the
charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration
of justice (Tatad vs.
Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be
avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
Rule 113 Arrest
1. Arrest taking a person into custody
in order that he may be bound to answer
for the commission of some offense,
made by an actual restraint of the person
or by his submission to custody
2. General Rule: No person may be
arrested without a warrant.
8
Not all persons detained are arrested;
only those detained to answer for an
offense.
Invitations are not arrests and are
usually not unconstitutional, but in some
cases may be taken as commands (Babst
vs. NBI); however, the practice of issuing
an invitation to a person who is
investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have
committed is considered as placing him
under custodial investigation. (RA
7438)
Warrants of arrest remain valid until
arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
Arrest may be made at any time of the
day or night
3. Warrantless arrests by a peace officer
or a private person
a. When person to be arrested is
committing, attempting or has
committed an offense
b. When an offense has just been
committed and the person making the
arrest has personal knowledge that the
person to be arrested committed it
Warrantless arrest anytime for a
continuing offense like rebellion,
subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
The continuing crime, not the crime
finally charged, needs only be the cause
of the arrest (Umil vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an
escaped detainee (either serving
sentence or with case pending)
1. When a person lawfully arrested
escapes
2. Bondsman, for purpose of
surrendering the accused
3. Accused attempts to leave country
without court permission
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
1. Complainant files application with
affidavits attached
 2. Judge conducts ex parte
preliminary examination to
determine probable cause
In determining probable cause, judge
must:
(1) Personally examine witness
(2) Witness must be under oath
(3) Examination must be reduced to
writing (Luna vs. Plaza)
In determining probable cause, the
judge may rely on findings by responsible
officer (Lim vs. Felix)
iii. Judge issues warrant of arrest
If without preliminary examination,
considered irregular (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
iv. If peace officer is unable to serve
warrant 10 days after issuance, he must
file a report and explanation with judge
within 10 days
v. If warrant served
(1) Person informed that he is being
arrested
(2) Informed of cause of his arrest
(3) Officer may break door or window if
admission to building is refused
(4) Person physically restrained
For private citizens making an arrest
May not do so except to do some
service to humanity or justice
(5) No violence or unnecessary force
may be used
(6) Officer may summon assistance
(7) Person who escapes after arrest may
be immediately pursued
vi. Person arrested is brought to
nearest police station or jail
b. Without warrant:
1. Person is arrested
9
1. Person arrested may waive
right to Art. 125, RPC and ask
for preliminary investigation
or inquest
Fiscal is not judicial authority
contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs.
Chief of Police)
1. Fiscal files info
5. Requisites for a warrant of arrest:
1. Probable cause
2. Signed by judge
3. Specifically naming or particularly
and sufficiently describing person
to be arrested
John Doe warrants are void for being
general warrants (Pangandaman vs.
Cesar)
6. Remedies
a. Petition for writ of habeas corpus
Filed with any court, to effect
immediate release of the person
detained
Filed when a person is being illegally
detained (without judicial process), or
was illegally arrested (void warrant or
unlawful warrantless arrest, or
warrantless arrest beyond period with no
information filed)
Habeas corpus is not allowed when:
1. The person is in custody of an
officer under process of law, and
2. The court had jurisdiction to issue
the process (Luna vs. Plaza)
If an arrest is improper, the remedy is
a motion for quashal of the warrant of
arrest and/or a motion to quash the
information, not habeas corpus (Ilagan
vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is no longer available
after an information has been filed, the
information being the judicial process
required by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
Habeas corpus is proper when a
person is being restrained illegally, e.g.,
imprisoned past maximum penalty 4. Definition of
allowed by law (Gumabon vs. Director of custodial
Prisons) investigation
questioned
b. Quashal of warrant of arrest
1. It begins
Filed with court which issued the only after
warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest
arrest is fatally flawed 2. Police
investigatio
c. Motion to quash information ns prior to
arrest are
Filed with court when information not covered
against the person arrested has been
filed 3. The rights
may be
Must be made in a special waived, but
appearance before the court the rights
questioning only its lack of jurisdiction to be
over the person of the accused informed of
these
Otherwise, the voluntary appearance rights, i.e.,
of the person arrested by filing a motion to warning,
before the court would be deemed a may not be
submission to the authority of the court, waived
thus granting it whatever jurisdiction it
lacked over the person 4. Warning
must not
Any irregularity in the arrest is cured only be
when the petitioner submits himself to said, officer
the jurisdiction of the court, e.g., by filing must make
for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza) sure the
person
7. V.V. Mendoza, Rights to Counsel in arrested
Custodial Investigation understand
s them
Evolution of rights of the accused specifically
under custodial investigation
5. Present
rules
1. All involuntary confession were
inadmissible; accused had to prove 1. Volun
involuntariness tary
1. Involuntary confessions were confe
inadmissible only if they were ssion
false s are
admi
2. Revert to exclusionary rule:
ssible
any involuntary confession is
inadmissible 2. Test
of
1. Miranda rule: the
volun
accused must be
tarine
informed of his rights
ss
1. To remain silent deter
mine
2. Against self- d on
incrimination a
case-
3. To counsel to-
10
 case Bail implies delivery of the accused to
basis the sureties who, though not holding him
prisoner, may seize him and imprison
3. Waiv him until they can deliver him to court
er of (US vs. Bonoan)
rights
must 2. General Rule: All persons are entitled
not to bail as a matter of right, except those
only charged with capital offenses.
be
with Right to bail traditionally unavailable
couns to military personnel facing court martial,
el but who are not in the same class as civilians
must (Comendador vs. de Villa)
be in
writin Bail should be available regardless of
g other circumstances or the merits of the
case, if the health or the life of the
Confessions made without assistance detainee is in danger (Dela Rama vs.
of counsel are inadmissible as evidence Peoples Court)
to incriminate the accused, but they may
be used to impeach the credibility of the Excessive bail is tantamount to denial
accused, or they may be treated as of bail, which is unconstitutional (Dela
verbal admission of the accused through Camara vs. Enage)
the testimony of the witnesses (People
vs. Molas) 3. When bail is a matter of right

Rule 114 Bail Before or after conviction by MTC,

MCTC, MJC
1. Bail security given for the release of
a person in custody of law, furnished by Before conviction by the RTC of an
him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his offense not punishable by death,
appearance before any court as required reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
under the following conditions:
4. When bail is discretionary
1. Undertaking effective upon (application filed with court where case is
approval and remains in force at all pending)
stages until promulgation of
judgment, unless sooner cancelled 1. Upon conviction by RTC of an
2. Accused shall appear before court offense not punishable by death,
when required reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment
3. Failure to appear despite notice to
2. Provisional liberty under same
him or the bondsman will waive his
circs. but during period to appeal
right to be present and trial shall
subject to consent of bondsman
proceed in absentia
3. In case he has applied for
4. Bondsman shall surrender accused
probation after final judgment, he
for execution of judgment
may be allowed temporary liberty
under his bail or recognizance
Bail applies to all persons detained,
not just to those charged with the offense
5. Procedure
(Herras vs. Teehankee)
a. Offense charged is not capital:
Court has power to prohibit person out
on bail from leaving the country
i. Accused applies for bail
(Manotoc, Jr. vs. CA)
(1) Where information against him was
filed or where case is pending
11
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the
same court within the province or city
where he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city
or municipality, file with the RTC
(4) Absent (3), with the MTC
1. Judge sets bail
1. Accused may move to reduce
bail, and hearing will be set
2. Accused posts bail and
deposits the same with the
Municipal/City/Provincial
Treasurer or, if cash, with the
Collector of Internal Revenue
3. Accused is released
b. Offense charged is capital:
1. Accused petitions for bail
2. Judge sets hearing to determine
whether evidence of guilt is strong
Ex-parte hearing on bail is arbitrary
and unacceptable (Herras vs. Teehankee)
1. Prosecution presents evidence
1. Court may not force fiscal to
produce evidence (Herras vs.
Teehankee)
2. If evidence is strong, bail is
denied
1. Otherwise, judge sets
bail and procedure for
non-capital offense is
followed
In capital crimes, judges discretion is
limited to determining strength of
evidence and does not cover determining
whether bail should be allowed (Herras
vs. Teehankee)
Evidence must be strong that the
accused is guilty of the capital offense
charged, not just of any offense
(Bernardez vs. Valera)
6. Bail bond an obligation under seal
given by accused with one or more
sureties and made payable to proper
officer with the condition to be void upon
performance by the accused of such acts
as he may legally be required to perform
12
7. Recognizance
1. Obligation of record entered into
before some court of magistrate
duly authorized to take it, with the
condition to do some particular act,
the most usual condition in criminal
cases being the appearance of the
accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of
accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of
accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be
required to post bail to ensure their
appearance at the trial, except:
1. Substitution of info (see R110, 14)
2. Court believes that material
witness may not appear at the trial
9. When bail required under RA 6036
(violation of ordinance, light felony,
criminal offense not higher that 6
month imprisonment and/or P2000 fine,
or both)
1. a. Caught in flagrante
2. Confessed to commission of
offense unless repudiated (force
and intimidation)
3. Previously escaped, evaded
sentence or jumped bail
4. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to
clerk of court periodically under his
recognizance)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent
previously convicted for an offense
to which the law or ordinance
attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for 2 or more offenses to
which it attaches a lighter penalty
6. Committed offense while on parole
or under conditional pardon
7. Previously pardoned by municipal
or city mayor for violation of
ordinance for at least 2 times
10. Instances when accused may be
released on recognizance:
1. Offense charged is a violation of an
ordinance, a light felony or criminal
 offense the imposable penalty to
which does not exceed 6 months
and or P2000 fine
2. Person has been in custody for a
period equal to or more than the
minimum of the imposable
principal penalty, without
application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation
and before the same has been
resolved, but NO BAIL was filed or
accused is incapable of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical
and mental examination, trial or
appeal, if unable to furnish bail
11. Cancellation of bail
a. Upon application with the court and
due notice to the fiscal
1. Accused surrenders back to
custody
1. Accused dies
b. Automatic cancellation
1. Case is dismissed
1. Accused is acquitted
2. Accused is convicted and
surrenders for execution of
judgment
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after
RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6
years, but not more than 20 years, and:
1. Accused is a recidivist, quasi-
recidivist, habitual delinquent or
guilty of the aggravating
circumstance of reiteration;
2. Provisionally escaped, evaded
sentence, violated provisions of
bail;
3. Committed offense while on
probation, parole, or conditional
pardon;
4. Probability of flight; or
5. Undue risk that during appeal, he
may commit another crime
13. When bail is forfeited
13
a. Accused fails to appear before court
when required
30 days for bondsman to show cause
why judgment should not be rendered
against him
b. Bondsman fails to produce him within
30 days
c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily
explain to the court why accused did not
appear when first required to do so
Sureties guarantee only appearance of
the accused, not his conduct (US vs.
Bonoan)
Sureties exonerated if appearance
made impossible by an act of God, the
obligee or the law (US vs. Bonoan)
14. Provisional forfeiture
1. Within 30 days, produce the body
or give reason for non-production
AND
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence
of the accused when first required
to appear
15. Remedies
1. Application for bail, when bail can
be availed of as a matter of right
2. Petition for bail, when the offense
charged is a capital offense
For judge to set hearing for the
determination of strength of evidence of
guilt
16. Circumstances to be considered in
fixing amount of bail:
1. Financial ability of accused to give
bail;
2. Nature and circumstances of
offense;
3. Penalty of offense charged;
4. Character and reputation of
accused;
5. Age and health of accused
6. Weight of evidence against
accused
 7. Probability of accused appearing
for trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bonds;
9. Fact that accused was a fugitive
from justice when arrested; and
10. Pendency of other cases in
which the accused is under bond
17. Notes:
1. Posting bail waives the right to
question any irregularity attending
the arrest of a person (Callanta vs.
Villanueva). However, this does
not result in waiver of the
inadmissibility of the articles seized
incidentally to such illegal arrest.
2. Accused waived the right to
question any irregularity in the
conduct of the preliminary
investigation when he failed to do
so before entering his plea (People
vs. Dela Cerna)
3. Accused out on bail may be re-
arrested if he attempts to depart
from the Philippines without prior
court permission (warrantless
arrest allowed).
Rule 115 Rights of Accused
1. Right of the accused under the Rules
a. To be presumed innocent until proven
guilty beyond reasonable doubt
In an appeal from a conviction, the
accused shall again be presumed
innocent until and unless his conviction is
affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)
b. To be informed of the nature and
cause of charges
The right must be substantially
complied with; arraignment and later
proceedings must be in a language the
accused understands (People vs.
Crisologo)
c. To be present at every stage of
proceedings, subject to waiver by bail
If an accused escapes, he waives this
right and merits a trial in absentia; the
accused forfeits his rights to be notified
14
of proceedings in the future and to
adduce evidence in his behalf (People vs.
Salas)
1. To testify as witness on his own
behalf, subject to cross-
examination on matters covered by
direct examination; not to be
prejudiced by his silence
2. Not to be compelled to be a
witness against himself
3. To confront and examine the
witnesses against him, including
the right to use in evidence
testimony of a witness
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot
with due diligence be found in the
RP
1. Given in another proceeding
2. With the same parties
3. Same subject matter
4. Opportunity to cross-examine
Prosecution has no privilege to
withhold the identity of informers when
such informer was crucial in the
operation itself; failure to present the
informer is a denial of the right to
confront the witness which merits the
reversal of the conviction (People vs.
Bagano)
g. To have compulsory process to secure
witnesses and evidence in his behalf
h. To have a speedy, impartial and
public trial
Unreasonable postponements of trial
amounts to a denial of the right to a
speedy trial, entitling the accused to
mandamus to compel dismissal of the
case, or to habeas corpus if he is
detained
i. To have the right of appeal
2. Rights of the accused under the
Constitution
a. To due process
b. Against self-incrimination
 Right is limited to testimonies; ocular
inspection of the body may be allowed
(Villaflor vs. Summers)
Being informed of rights means a
meaningful transmission of information,
without which confession made by the
accused is inadmissible (People vs.
Nicandro)
Confessions obtained through coercion
are inadmissible (People vs. Opida)
Right against self-incrimination and to
counsel do not apply during custodial
investigation (People vs. Ayson)
During trial, the right against self-
incrimination takes the following form:
1. Accused may refuse to testify
2. If he testifies, he may refuse to
answer those questions which may
incriminate him in ANOTHER
offense
c. Against double jeopardy
d. To be heard by himself and counsel
3. Double jeopardy
1. First jeopardy must have attached
prior to the first
2. First jeopardy attached and
terminated
3. Valid complaint or information
1. Competent court with
jurisdiction
2. Accused had pleaded
3. Action ended in conviction,
acquittal or termination
without the consent of the
accused
c. Offense charged in later case is:
1. Same as that in previous case
1. Necessarily includes or is
included in the previous case
2. An attempt or frustration of
the offense in previous case
1. An offense lesser than
that charged to which
15
the accused pleaded
guilty with the consent
of the fiscal and the
offended party
4. Exceptions to double jeopardy
1. The offense was made graver by
supervening events
2. The facts constituting the graver
offense were only discovered after
the filing of the earlier information
No double jeopardy if the new fact
which justified the new charge arose only
after arraignment and conviction (People
vs. City Court)
No double jeopardy where the trial was
a sham since there was no competent
court (Galman vs. Sandiganbayan)
No double jeopardy if first case was
dismissed with consent of the accused
(Caes vs. IAC)
There is double jeopardy if a person is
charged twice under different penal
statutes for the same acts (People vs.
Relova)
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense
without the consent of the fiscal and the
offended party
5. Remedies
1. Motion to quash
2. Motion to dismiss
Both filed on the ground of violation of
accuseds rights, thereby ousting the
court of jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1
No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14
1. No person shall be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
 2. In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to
be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusations against
him, to have a speedy, impartial
and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his
behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and that his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16
All persons shall have the right to a
speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17
No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy
of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.
Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea
1. Procedure
1. Court informs accused of his right
to counsel and asks him if he wants
one
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if
accused has none
If no such member of the available,
any person who is a resident of the
province, of good repute for probity and
ability to defend accused
16
c. Court gives counsel time to confer
with accused at least an hour before
arraignment
Period allowed for counsel de oficio to
confer with accused must be
substantially complied with; if not, case
may be remanded for re-arraignment
(People vs. Gonzaga)
1. Accused given a copy of the
information, which is read to him in
a language he understands
2. Accused is asked whether he
pleads guilty or not guilty
3. Accused files a motion to quash or
makes plea
4. Accused personally makes his plea
5. Plea is entered into record
6. If accused makes plea of not guilty,
counsel has at least 2 days to
prepare for trial
People vs. Agbayani the right for 2
days to prepare must be expressly
demanded. Only when so demanded
does denial thereof constitute reversible
error and ground for new trial. Further,
such right may be waived, expressly or
impliedly.
NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-
98 (implementing Speedy Trial Act of
1997), accused must be given at least
15 days to prepare for trial, which shall
commence within 30 days from receipt of
Pre-Trial Order.
j. Case proceeds to pre-trial, trial or
hearing, depending on the plea
Statement in the judgment that the
accused was arraigned and pleaded is
sufficient; the manner of statement of
such fact is immaterial (People vs.
Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
1. No plea a plea of not guilty shall
be entered
2. Conditional plea of guilt a plea of
not guilty shall be entered
3. Not guilty case proceeds to trial
or pre-trial
 4. Guilty to a lesser offense if fiscal
and offended party consents,
conviction under offense charged
for purposes of double jeopardy
5. Info may be amended
1. Case goes to trial
2. Even if info is not amended,
and even if lesser offense is
not included in offense
charged, court may still find
the accused guilty of that
lesser offense
e. Guilty to a capital offense
Court conducts searching inquiry to
determine if accused was aware of the
charges, of his plea, and its
consequences
Court requires prosecution to present
evidence to prove guilt of accused and
determine his degree of culpability, and
accused may still establish presence of
mitigating circumstances in his favor
f. Guilty to a non-capital offense
Court receives evidence from the
parties to determine penalty to impose
Plea of guilty not necessarily followed
by conviction. Upon receipt of
exculpatory evidence (if accused pleaded
guilty), trial court should consider the
plea withdrawn and in its place, order the
plea of not guilty
Plea of guilty waives only defects which
may be taken advantage of by motion to
quash or by plea in abatement; cannot
cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
a. Entry of plea will waive
1. Right to question illegality of the
arrest
2. Right to question any irregularity in
the preliminary investigation
3. Right to file a motion to quash
b. Improvident plea of guilty may be
changed to not guilty any time before
judgment is rendered
17
c. A plea of not guilty may not be
changed to guilty, as doing so would only
spare the prosecution of presenting
evidence and still result in the conviction
of the accused.
4. Remedies
a. Motion for specification
May be filed any time before plea,
even after a MTQ
Filed when the information is
insufficient in form or is generally
worded, that a Bill of Particulars is
necessary to clarify the acts for which
the accused is being charged
b. Motion to quash
May be filed at anytime before plea is
entered
Based on grounds provided by the
rules
c. Motion to suspend arraignment
Filed when the accused seems
mentally unsound or if there is a
prejudicial question in a pending civil
case
d. Motion to withdraw an improvident
plea of guilt
May be filed at any time before
judgment of conviction becomes final,
when it can be shown that the accused
was not aware of the significance of
pleading guilty to the charges
Rule 117 Motion to Quash
1. Motion to quash a hypothetical
admission that even if all the facts
alleged were true, the accused still
cannot be convicted due to other reasons
2. When to file Motion to Quash
General Rule: Before entering plea; all
grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may
be used in MTQ even after plea
1. No offense charged
 2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the
penalty
4. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
a. Information does not conform to
prescribed form
For the info to charge a complex crime,
it is not necessary that it be defined by
law, only that it alleges that one offense
was necessary to commit the other
(People vs. Alagao)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
1. No territorial jurisdiction
2. No jurisdiction over offense
charged may be raised at any
time; no waiver considered even
upon failure to move to quash on
such ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the
accused
The court gained jurisdiction over the
person of the accused when he
voluntarily appeared for the pre-
suspension hearing (Layosa vs.
Rodriguez)
c. Accused would be put in double
jeopardy
Bars another prosecution
No waiver
No double jeopardy if first case was
dismissed with the consent of the
accused (Que vs. Cosico), unless ground
for dismissal is: (a) denial of right to
speedy trial; or (b) insufficiency of
evidence.
If the first case was dismissed due to a
deficient information, then there was no
valid information and there could be no
double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)
Cudia vs CA it should be the
Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not
the City Prosecutor, who should prepare
18
informations for offenses committed
within Pampanga but outside Angeles
City. An information must be prepared
and presented by the prosecuting
attorney or someone authorized by law.
If not, the court does not acquire
jurisdiction. Although failure to file a
motion to quash the information is a
waiver of all objections to it insofar as
formal objections to pleadings are
concerned, questions relating to want of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings. Moreover, since the
complaint or information was insufficient
because it was so defective in form or
substance that conviction upon it could
not have been sustained, its dismissal
without the consent of the accused
cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy, and
will not be a bar to a second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged,
EXCEPT where law prescribes single
punishment for various offenses
e. Facts alleged do not constitute an
offense
May be raised at any time
No waiver
For charge to be complete, it is
necessary to state that it was exempted
from any amnesty existing at the time
f. Criminal action or liability has been
extinguished
g. Information contains allegations
which, if true, would be a legal excuse or
justification
h. Officer who filed the information had
no authority
Presentation of evidence cannot cure
an invalid information (People vs.
Asuncion)
NOTE: Court will consider no other
grounds other than those raised, EXCEPT
lack of jurisdiction over offense charged.
4. Requisites of Double jeopardy
a. Valid information or complaint,
sufficient in form and substance
b. Before court of competent jurisdiction
Doctrine of Jurisdiction by Estoppel:
depends upon whether the lower court
actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had
no jurisdiction, but the case was tried
and decided upon the theory that it had
jurisdiction, the parties are not barred on
appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction,
for the same must exist as a matter of
law, and may not be conferred by
consent of the parties or by estoppel.
However, if the lower court had
jurisdiction, and the case was heard and
decided upon a given theory, such, for
instance, as that the court had no
jurisdiction, the party who induced it to
adopt such theory will not be permitted,
on appeal, to assume an inconsistent
position that the lower court had
jurisdiction. Here, the principle of
estoppel applies. The rule that
jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does
not depend upon the will of the parties,
has no bearing thereon.
c. Accused had pleaded
d. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal or
termination of case without consent of
accused
e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to
commit the same or necessarily includes
or is necessarily included
Conviction for physical injuries through
reckless imprudence constitutes double
jeopardy to the charge of damage to
property through reckless imprudence.
5. Procedure
1. MTQ filed
2. If based on defect in info which can
be cured, court shall order its
amendment
3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a
bar to subsequent prosecution
(accused has not pleaded yet),
EXCEPT when the ground is:
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
19
1. Motion to dismiss if certain
grounds were not raised or denied
in a MTQ
2. Trial
If there was really no basis for the info,
then such could be proved in the trial
Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper
remedy is to go on trial and later to
appeal, if necessary; mandamus or
certiorari will only be granted if there is
not other plain, simple and adequate
remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege
any ground therefor deemed a waiver of
such grounds, except:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the
penalty
4. Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining process whereby
the accused and the prosecution in a
criminal case work out a mutually
satisfactory disposition of the case
subject to court approval. It usually
involves the defendants pleading guilty
to a lesser offense or to only some of the
counts of a multi-count indictment in
return for a lighter sentence than that for
the greater charge.
Under Speedy Trial Act of 1997, in all
criminal cases cognizable by the MTC,
MCTC, MeTC, RTC and Sandiganbayan,
pretrial is mandatory.
Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing
the Speedy Trial Act of 1997, an
accused may plea guilty to a lesser
offense only if said offense is necessarily
included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
Facts which both parties and
respective counsels agree on as
evidenced by their signatures; these
facts need not be proved by evidence in
trial
 Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned
by either accused or counsel; a later
memo of confirmation, signed only by
counsel, cannot cure defect (Fule vs. CA)
3. Pre-trial order binds the parties,
limits the trial to matters not yet
disposed of, and controls the course of
action during the trial
4. Procedure
1. Judge must calendar pre-trial
2. Either party may waive the pre-trial
3. If court appoints counsel de oficio,
counsel has at least 2 days to
prepare
4. In the pre-trial conference
5. Plea bargaining
6. Stipulation of facts
7. Marking of evidence (does not
imply conceding to its admissibility
or credibility)
8. Waiver of objections to
admissibility of evidence
9. Other matters which will promote a
fair and expeditious trial
e. Judge issues pre-trial order
Rule 119 Trial
1. In trial, the defense tries
1. To assail the admissibility of
evidence which prove the elements
of the offense charged
2. To assail the credibility of such
evidence
3. To prove another version, possibly
admitting certain evidence of the
prosecution and adding other
evidence to cast reasonable doubt
Even in summary procedure, the judge
cannot base his decision simply on
affidavits; he must give the defendant
the chance to cross-examine (Combate
vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
20
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days
before trial date (R119, 1)
HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98,
accused must be given at least 15 days
to prepare for trial, which shall
commence within 30 days from receipt of
Pre-Trial Order.
1. Accused may move that his
witnesses be examined
2. Defense witnesses examined by
any judge or lawyer
3. Prosecution witnesses, if they
would be unable to attend trial,
may be examined by the judge
handling the case
4. Trial continues from day to day,
unless postponed for a just cause
5. Prosecution presents evidence
Presentation
Testimonies: direct examination
Cross-examination
Re-cross
Offer
1. Accused may move for discharge
2. Prosecution rests
3. Defense may, with or without leave
of court, file a demurrer to
evidence
4. Defense presents evidence
5. Defense rests
6. Prosecution presents rebuttal
evidence
7. Defense presents rebuttal evidence
8. Trial is closed; case is submitted for
judgment
3. When mistake made in charging
proper offense
1. If Accused cannot be convicted of
offense charged or offense
necessarily included therein
2. Accused detained, not discharged
 3. Original case dismissed upon filing
of proper information
Example: Charged with theft. At trial,
appears that offense is estafa. The
prosecution can ask for the dismissal of
the info in order to file a new one for
estafa. No Double Jeopardy because no
valid info in the first case.
4. Application for examination of
witnesses for accused before trial
1. Sick or infirm; unable to attend trial
2. Resides more than 100 km. from
means of trial; no means to attend
5. Application (prosecution)
1. Sick or infirm
2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite
date of returning
6. Requisites for postponement due to
absence of a witness
1. Witness is really material and
appears to the court to be so
2. Party who applies for
postponement has not been guilty
of neglect
3. Witness can be had at the time to
which the trial has been deferred
4. No similar evidence could be
obtained
7. Requisites to discharge of an accused
as State Witness
1. Testimony of accused absolutely
needed
2. No other direct evidence available
EXCEPT his testimony
3. Testimony can be corroborated on
material points
4. Accused does not appear to be
most guilty
5. Accused has never been convicted
of offense involving moral turpitude
Discharge of accused, when not all the
requisites were met, cannot be revoked
as long as he testified according to what
was expected of him (People vs. Aninon)
21
8. Remedies
a. Motion for separate trials
Filed by the fiscal to try several
accused separately
Granted at the courts discretion
May also be ordered by the court motu
proprio
b. Motion to consolidate
Upon the courts discretion, separate
charges may be tried in one single case if
the offenses charged arise form the same
facts or form part of a series of similar
offenses
Court allowed consolidation of rape
cases substantially committed in the
same manner (People vs. David)
c. Motion for continuance filed to
postpone trial for just cause
d. Motion to exclude public
Excluding parties, counsels and court
personnel
May also be ordered by court motu
proprio
e. Motion for discharge
Filed before the prosecution rests
Hearing to determine existence of
requisites for discharge
Prosecution will present evidence and
the sworn statement of the proposed
state witness
Evidence adduced in this said hearing
automatically form part of trial; however,
if court denies motion for discharge, his
sworn statement shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
Discharge of the accused has the
effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or
refuses to testify against his co-accused
in accordance with his statement (which
formed the basis for his discharge)
f. Demurrer to evidence
 May be made after the prosecution
rests its case
If the court finds the prosecutions
evidence insufficient, the case will be
dismissed
Otherwise, if demurrer denied
1. If the demurrer was made with
leave of court, defense gets to
present evidence
2. If the demurrer was made without
leave of court, defense is deemed
to have waived the right to present
evidence and the case is submitted
for judgment
Case may also be dismissed motu
proprio
g. Motion to reopen
Filed after the case is submitted for
judgment but before judgment is actually
rendered
To allow either side to present
additional evidence, if such could not be
found before
Granted on discretion of the judge
The accused cannot move to reopen
the case to allow him to adduce evidence
in his behalf when his failure to adduce
them during the trial was his own fault
(People vs. Cruz)
Rule 120 Judgment
1. Judgment adjudication by the court
that the accused is guilty or not guilty of
the offense charged, and the imposition
of the proper penalty and civil liability
provided by law on the accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found
not guilty, he will be acquitted and the
acquittal immediately becomes final and
executory. If the accused is found guilty,
penalty and civil liability will be imposed
on him.
3. Accused may be convicted of
1. The offense charged
2. A lesser offense necessarily
included in the offense charged
22
Accused cannot be convicted for an
offense graver than that charged (People
vs. Guevarra)
4. Contents
1. Written in official language
2. Personally prepared and signed by
the judge
3. Contains facts proved
4. Contains law upon which judgment
is based
In case of conviction, judgment must
state:
1. Legal qualification of offense and
aggravating and mitigating
circumstances
2. Level of participation
3. Penalty imposed
4. Civil liability for damages, unless
right to separate civil action has
been reserved
In case of acquittal, judgment must
state:
1. Civil liability for damages, unless
acts alleged clearly did not exist
2. Basis of liability
5. Procedure
1. Judge reads judgment in presence
of accused
2. If judgment is of acquittal
3. It becomes final and executory
4. It bars subsequent prosecution for
the same offense
c. If judgment is of conviction, remedy
is to file:
1. Motion for reconsideration
2. Motion for new trial
3. Notice of appeal
Or else, judgment becomes final and is
entered in the book of Judgments
6. When judgment in a criminal case
becomes final:
 1. After lapse of period for perfecting
an appeal; or
2. When sentence partially or totally
satisfied or served; or
3. Accused has expressly waived in
writing his right to appeal, EXCEPT
in cases of automatic review where
death penalty is imposed
4. Accused has applied for probation
7. Only a judgment in conviction can be
modified or set aside
1. Before judgment had been final
(otherwise double jeopardy);
2. Before appeal had been perfected;
or
3. To correct clerical errors in the
judgment
8. Remedies
a. Appeal
Filed within 15 days of promulgation of
judgment
Period is interrupted by filing of a
motion for new trial or reconsideration
On motion of accused or at its own
instance with consent of the accused
b. Motion for reconsideration
Filed when there are errors of law or
fact in the judgment
Shall require no further proceedings
Notice should be given to the fiscal
c. Motion for new trial
Notice should be given to the fiscal
Filed on the following grounds:
1. Error of law or irregularities have
been made during trial which are
prejudicial to the substantial rights
of the accused
ii. New evidence has been found which
could not have been found before and
which could change the judgment
23
9. Procedure for new trial
1. Hearing shall be set and held
2. All evidence not alleged to be in
error shall stand
3. New evidence will be introduced
4. Old judgment may be set aside and
a new one rendered
10. Notes:
Suspension of sentence for youthful
offenders after conviction, minor is
committed to custody and care of DSWD
or any training institution until reaches
21 years of age, or a shorter period
Probation disposition under which a
defendant after conviction and
sentences, is released subject to
conditions imposed by the court and to
the supervision of a probation officer
Parole the conditional release of an
offender from a penal or correctional
institution after he has served the
minimum period of his prison sentence
under the continued custody of the state
and under conditions that permit his
reincarceration if he violated the
conditions of his release
Rule 121 New Trial or
Reconsideration
1. Reopening of the case
1. Made by the court before judgment
is rendered in the exercise of sound
discretion
2. Does not require consent of
accused
3. May be made at the instance of
either party who can thereafter
present additional evidence
2. Motion for new trial
1. Filed after judgment is rendered
but before the finality thereof
2. At the instance or with the consent
of the accused
3. The prosecution can move only for
the reconsideration of the
judgment but cannot present
additional evidence
3. Motion for New Trial is denied if:
1. Only impeaching evidence is
sought to be introduced as the
court had already passed upon
issue of credibility
2. Only corroborative evidence is
offered
3. Prisoner admits commission of
crime with which accused is
charged (facility with which such
confession can be obtained and
fabricated)
4. Alleged new evidence is inherently
improbable and could easily be
concocted
5. Alleged new evidence consists of
recantations of prosecution
witness, due to unreliability of such
recantations, EXCEPT if no other
evidence to sustain conviction
aside from recanted testimony
4. New Trial vs. Reconsideration
Motion for recon is based on the
grounds of errors of law in the judgment
is court is not asked to reopen the case
for further proceedings, but to reconsider
its findings or conclusions of law and
make them conformable to the law
applicable to the case on the judgment
the court has to render anew.
5. New Trial vs. Modification of
Judgment
In New Trial, irregularities are
expunged from the record and/or new
evidence is introduced. In modification
of judgment, no new hearings or
proceedings of any kind or change in the
record or evidence. A simple
modification is made on the basis of what
is on the record.
6. New Trial vs. Reopening of the Case
New trial presupposes that existence
of a judgment to be set aside upon the
granting of a new trial
In reopening, no judgment has yet
been rendered, although the hearing
may have already been closed
24
7. Motion for Reconsideration
Grounds are errors of law or fact in
judgment, which require no further
proceedings.
8. Effects of Granting Motion for New
Trial or Reconsideration
a. Based on error of law or irregularities
during trial:
Proceedings and evidence not affected
by irregularities stand, and those
affected are set aside. Court may allow
introduction of new evidence
b. Based on newly discovered evidence:
Evidence already taken shall stand;
new evidence taken with the old
Rule 122 Appeal
1. Procedure
a. Filed with RTC, if original case was
with MTC
Notice served to lower court and to
adverse party
b. Filed with the CA or SC, if original
case was with RTC
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court,
and with copy on adverse party
If CA is of opinion that penalty should
be reclusion perpetua or higher, it shall
render judgment imposing said penalty,
but refrain from entering judgment and
then certify the case and the entire
record thereof to the SC for review
(R124, 13)
CA may reverse, affirm, or modify
judgment of RTC, or remand case for new
trial or re-trial, or dismiss the case
If RTC decided case in appellate
jurisdiction: Petition for Review
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where
penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or
lesser penalty involving offenses
committed on the same occasion, or
arising out of same occurrence where
graver penalty of death is available but
life imprisonment is imposed; all other
cases, by petition for review on certiorari
If death penalty, automatic review
iii. Withdrawal of appeal
May be made at any time before
judgment on the appeal is rendered
Lower court judgment becomes final
Case remanded for execution of
judgment
Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot
be validly withdrawn to give way for a
Motion for Recon or a Motion for New
Trial, since the filing of the notice
perfected the appeal, and the trial court
loses its power to modify or set aside the
judgment. The only valid withdrawal of
an appeal is where the accused decides
to serve his sentence.
2. Effect of appeal by any of several
accused
1. Shall not affect those who did not
appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and
applicable to them
2. Civil appeal by offended party shall
not affect criminal aspect of
judgment
3. Execution of judgment on appellant
will be stayed upon perfection of
appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from
order of dismissal of criminal case will
not result in double jeopardy
1. Dismissal made upon motion or
with express consent of the
accused
2. Dismissal is not an acquittal nor
based upon consideration of the
evidence or merits of the case
3. Question to be passed upon by the
appellate court is purely legal so
that if the dismissal is found
incorrect, the case has to be
remanded to the court of origin to
determine the guilt or innocence of
the accused
25
4. When serving sentence, remedy is to
petition for habeas corpus
1. Filed when the law under which the
accused was convicted is repealed
or declared unconstitutional
2. When a later judgment is rendered
acquitting others for similar
circumstances
Otherwise, equal protection is violated
1. When penalty is lowered and
convict has already served more
than the maximum period of the
new penalty
Habeas corpus is available when a
person is imprisoned beyond the
maximum penalty imposed by law
(Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious,
certiorari lies and no double jeopardy
since validity and not correctness of
dismissal is being challenged.
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
1. Search warrant an order in writing
issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and
directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the
court
Cannot be issued to look for evidence
(Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
Seizing objects to be used as evidence
is equivalent to forcing one to be a
witness against himself (Uy Khetin vs.
Villareal)
For a warrant to be valid, it must meet
the requirements set by law (Burgos vs.
Chief of Staff)
Tapping conversations is equivalent to
a search and seizure (US vs. Katz)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can
be conducted unless it is authorized by a
search warrant. Evidence gathered from
an illegal search and seizure is
inadmissible.
 Warrantless searches are illegal,
unreasonable and unconstitutional
(Alvarez vs. CFI)
It is not the police action which is
impermissible, but the procedure and
unreasonable character by which it is
exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
Court gains jurisdiction over items
seized by a valid search warrant and
returned to it, and such is not an
unconstitutional deprivation of property
(Villanueva vs. Querubin)
Evidence from an illegal search may
be used as evidence, if no objection is
raised (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
Right against unreasonable search and
seizure may be waived, but for the
waiver to be effective:
1. The right must exist
2. Person must be aware of the right
3. Person clearly shows the intent to
relinquish such right
No waiver against unreasonable
search and seizure when one
compromises the criminal proceedings
(Alvarez vs. CFI)
There is no waiver of right when
evidence of coercion is present (Roan vs.
Gonzales)
3. Requisites of a valid search warrant
a. Issued upon probable cause
Probable cause such facts and
circumstances which would lead a
reasonably prudent man to believe that a
crime has been committed and the thing
to be searched for and seized is in the
place to be searched
b. Probable cause is personally
determined by the issuing judge
Hence, signed by him
By any RTC, to be served anywhere in
the country, for an offense which
occurred anywhere in the country
(Malaloan vs. CA)
26
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in
the form of searching questions, the
appellant and his witness and took down
their written depositions
d. Search warrant particularly describes
or identifies the property to be seized
Property which men may lawfully
possess may not be the object of a
search warrant (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
Nature of goods may allow description
to be general or not too technical
(Alvarez vs. CFI)
e. Particularly describes the place to be
searched
f. It shall issue only for one specific
offense
Otherwise, cannot be said to have
issued upon probable cause (Asian
Surety vs. Herrera)
Absence of specific offense makes
impossible determination of probable
cause (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days
prior to a search made pursuant thereto
(search warrant becomes void after 10
days)
h. Indicates time, if to be served at
night
4. When a search warrant may be said to
particularly describe the thing to be
seized
1. Description is as specific as
circumstances allow
2. Expresses a conclusion of fact by
which the warrant officer may be
guided
3. Things described are limited to
those which bear a direct relation
to the offense for which the
warrant is issued
5. Procedure
a. Complainant files application,
attaches affidavits
 Oath requires that the person taking it
personally knows the facts of the case
(People vs. Sy Juco)
Affidavits submitted must state that
the premises is occupied by the person
against whom the warrant is issued, that
the objects to be seized are fruits or
means of committing a crime, and that
they belong to the same person, thus,
not affecting third persons (People vs. Sy
Juco)
When complainants knowledge is
hearsay, affidavits of witnesses are
necessary (Alvarez vs. CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary
examination of complainant and
witnesses under oath to determine
probable cause
Judge must ask probing questions, not
just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs.
Gonzales)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for
10 days
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant,
members of the family OR 2 witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in
the same locality
Search may last for more than a day
as long as it is part of the same search
for the same purpose and of the same
place (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
e. Peace officer leaves receipt with
occupant at place searched
f. Peace officer files return of search
warrant and inventory, and surrenders
items seized to receiving court (not
necessarily court which issued the
warrant)
Items seized illegally must remain in
custodia legis pending resolution of the
case (Roan vs. Gonzales)
6. Remedies from an unlawful search
1. MTQ the warrant
2. Motion to suppress as evidence the
objects illegally taken
3. Return of property illegally seized
27
7. When a search may be validly
conducted without a warrant
1. Without consent of person
searched
2. When the search is incident to a
lawful arrest
3. Personal knowledge of the
arresting person (Posadas vs. CA)
4. Limited to:
(1) Immediate time of arrest
(2) Immediate vicinity of the arrest
(3) Weapons and things which may be
used as proof of offense charged
(Nolasco vs. Pano)
iii. Subject in an offense which is mala
prohibita cannot be summarily seized
(Roan vs. Gonzales)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to
include premises and surrounding under
his immediate control
1. Border searches (customs, mail
and airport)
2. Vessels and aircrafts for violation of
Tariff and Customs Code, EXCEPT
dwelling houses
3. Plain view
4. Moving vehicle
5. Hot pursuit
6. Stop-and-frisk, reasonable check-
points
7. Private searches with no state
action (People vs. Marti)
8. Inspection of building and premises
for enforcement of fire, sanitary
and building regulations
8. Person making the arrest may take
from the arrestee
1. Properties used in the commission
of the crime
2. Fruits or proceeds thereof
3. Property which may furnish the
arrestee with a weapon against the
arresting person
 4. Property which may be used as
evidence at the trial

9. NOTES:

Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2

The right of the people to be secure in

their persons, papers, houses and effects
against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.

Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3

1. The privacy of communication and

correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation
of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in the proceeding.

Rule 127 Provisional Remedies in

Criminal Cases

1. Attachment as provisional remedy in

criminal cases

1. Accused is about to abscond from

RP
2. Criminal action is based on a claim
for money or property embezzled
or fraudulently misapplied or
converted to the use of the
accused who is a public officer, or
any officer of a corporation, or an
attorney, factor, broker, agent or
clerk in a fiduciary capacity, in
willful violation of duty

3. Accused has concealed, removed

or disposed of his property, or is
about to do so

4. Accused resides outside the RP

28