Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROCEDURE
PART I
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
5. Criminal Procedure (The Bar Lecture Series) 2011 ed. Riano and
This is a project intended to benefit the Center for Legal Aid Work of the
University of San Carlos School of Law and students enrolled in Criminal
Procedure handled by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles of the Court of
Appeals of the Philippines.
THE PROFESSOR
Personal Circumstances
Parents:
Aurelio M. Ingles (+) NAWASA employee
Cresenciana L. Torero (+) elementary public school teacher
Siblings:
Victoria Ingles Olmedo
Linda Ingles Durias
Secondary
First Year University of San Carlos First Honor
(Cebu City)
Second Year University of San Carlos 3rd Honor
Fourth Year Christ the King Mission 2ndHonorable
Seminary (Quezon City) Mention
College
First and Second Years Christ the King Mission Sem.
3rd and 4th Years Divine Word College Tagbilaran
Graduated with Bachelor of Arts Degree Major in Political
Science
Postgraduate:
Completed all academic units except thesis for MA in
Philosophy degree
Bachelor of Laws, University of San Carlos, Cum Laude
(1981)
Post Graduate:
Completed almost all academic requirements leading to LLM
degree ( San Beda Graduate School of Law)
Affiliations:
As a college student:
As a lawyer:
Other Qualifications:
a) The Constitution
a) Constitution
a) Rules 110 to 127 of the Rules of Court which took effect on Jan. 1,
1974. The rules were revised in 1985 and in turn amended on October 1,
1988. On October 3, 2000, the Supreme Court in an en banc resolution
approved the revision which took effect on Dec. 1, 2000 (AM No. 00-5-
03-SC)
e) Executive Orders
f) judicial decisions applying and interpreting our laws which form part
of our legal system.
The former declares what acts are punishable while the latter provides the
method of how the act is punished.
The vital and essential distinction is the control which in private crimes
the injured person has over the criminal liability and the responsibility of
the offending person. (US vs. Hernandez, 14 Phil. 640)
In other words, the detection and prosecution of offenders are not left to
the initiative of private parties but to the officials and agents of the law.
Resort is made to secret inquiry to discover the culprit and violence and
torture were often employed to extract a confession. The Judge was not
limited to the evidence brought before him but could proceed with his
own inquiry which was not confrontative.
Facts:
Doctrines
Although the crime was committed before the effectivity of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the said rule should be applied retroactively
as it is favourable to the appellant. (People vs. Antonio Reyes, GR No.
153119, April 13, 2004, citing People vs. Escote, GR No. 140756, April
4, 2003)
a) Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of Laws (Sec. 1 Art III)
Concept-
The CJS is only one of various systems operating in the community, such
as the political system, the educational system, the economic system, etc.
The law enforcers are the officers and men of the PNP, NBI and other
agencies. When these law enforcers learn of crimes, or discover them,
their duty is to:
The police officers, in other words, collect evidence for use in the
prosecution of the suspects in court.
2. ARREST suspects:
3. REFER the case and the suspects to the office of the public
prosecutor or other authorized agencies for determination of
whether there is sufficient basis (probable cause) for the filing of a
criminal case in court, or directly to the MTCs for trial and
judgment.
B. Prosecution Process
The prosecution service, made up of the Provincial and City Prosecutors,
State Prosecutors, etc. They:
In the context of the Criminal Justice System, after a suspect has gone
through the Prosecution Component, (described in the preceding
discussion), he is sent to the proper Trial Court which then passes
upon his innocence or guilt. If the trial court finds that his guilt has
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, or he is innocent, he is
acquitted, and there is an end to the matter. The accused returns to
society, a free man. If the Court, however, finds that his guilt has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt, it sentences him to the
corresponding penalty. If the judgment becomes final the suspect is
passed on to the next component, the PENAL or CORRECTIONAL
component.
E. The Community
RULE 110
Commitment Order
of Provisional Remedies
ARRAIGNMENT and PLEA
(Rule 116)
TRIAL PROPER
Demurrer to Evidence
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
2.Arraignment
The judge shall set the case for arraignment within 30 days from the
date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
unless a shorter period is required by law (Section 1, R 116). If a
motion to suspend arraignment is filed, the court may grant or deny
the same, and if granted it shall suspend the proceeding for 60 days
(Section 11, R 116), if denied or the 60 day period has lapsed without
the petition being resolved, the court shall proceed with the
arraignment and the accused shall enter his plea; If the accused
pleaded guilty to the offense charged, the court shall render its
decision and impose the proper penalty and shall issue a
Commitment Order, otherwise the court shall set the case for pre-
trial conference;
3.Pre-Trial Conference-
During the pre-trial conference, if the case is mediatable, the court
shall refer the case to the proper Mediation and Conciliation Board,
otherwise it shall proceed with the pre-trial conference and schedule
the case for trial. The trial court shall issue a corresponding Pre-trial
Order narrating what transpired during the conference, and which
shall be signed by the accused and the counsel if there are
admissions. Parties are required to submit their respective judicial
affidavits of witnesses 5 days be fore the scheduled pre-trial
conference (R 18). The court may also refer the case for proper
Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) for possible settlement if the parties
agree;
4.Trial-
On the scheduled trial, the prosecution shall present its evidence and
witnesses with its corresponding judicial affidavit unless in case of
inverted trial (Section 10, R 119), with the right to cross-examine said
witnesses on the part of the accused (Section 5, R 132), but failure to
present its evidence would result to the provisional dismissal of the
action with the express conformity of the accused, subject to its
revival within the period prescribed by the rules (Section 8, R 117).
After the presentation of the prosecutions evidence and witnesses,
they shall offer their evidence and rest their case (Section 34, R 132),
and in which the accused may file a demurrer to evidence with or
without leave of court (Section 23, R 119). If the demurrer to
evidence is denied and it is with leave of court, the accused may
present its evidence and if it is without leave of court, then he loses
the right to present evidence. If the demurrer to evidence is granted
then the case will be dismissed, and the accused will be acquitted, in
which case the prosecution may avail the remedy of certiorari under
Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
judge or deprivation of the right of the prosecution to due process of
law; In case no demurrer to evidence is filed, or the same has been
denied by the court if one is filed with leave of court, then accused
may present his defense evidence. After its presentation it shall be
offered which the court may either admit or exclude. In case of
excluded evidence, accused may tender the same for purposes of
appeal (Section 40, R 132); Rebuttal evidence may be presented by
the prosecution to refute the evidence in chief presented by the
accused (Section 10, R 119), and in the same way, the accused will
have the right to present sur-rebuttal evidence (Section 10, R 119).
Both parties may be required by the court to submit their respective
memoranda within 30 days;
5.Judgment-
In case of adverse decision, the aggrieved party may file a motion for
reconsideration or new trial within 15 days from notice of the
judgment (R 121), unless in case of a judgment of acquittal. Parties
may file an appeal within 15 days from notice of the order of denying
the motion for reconsideration or new trial to the appellate court
observing the fresh period to appeal (R 122-125) until it reaches
the Supreme Court by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari under
R 45 in relation to R 125;
6.Execution-
Once the judgment becomes final and executor, the criminal and civil
liability deemed impliedly instituted in the former shall be executed
(R 39), and the accused shall serve his sentence in accordance with
the penalty imposed.
with barangay
2.Barangay Conciliation-
A written complaint is filed before the barangay for conciliation, if it
falls under its jurisdiction as required by the Local Government Code
(Section 408, RA 7160). The Resolution can be either (a) an amicable
settlement, then a compromise agreement shall be executed which
shall be binding between the parties and which can be executed
within 6 months from its date; otherwise (b) a Certificate to File
Action shall be issued by the Lupon Chairman in order for the
aggrieved party to file an action before the court;
Filing of affidavit-complaint
Submission of Counter-Affidavit
by Respondent
Resolution
Filing of MR
Filing of MR
Certiorari / R65
Judicial Stage
2.Preliminary Investigation-
The aggrieved party may file an Affidavit-Complaint before the
proper Office for purposes of preliminary investigation (Section 1, R
110), which shall hear the case, and a subpoena may be issued by the
investigating prosecutor if there are grounds to believe that an
investigation shall be conducted, otherwise it shall dismiss the case
(Section 3 R 112); The respondent shall submit his Counter-Affidavit
together with his evidence and affidavit of witnesses within 10 days
after receipt of the subpoena, and his failure to do so may result to
the submission of the case for resolution (Section 3, R 112); A
resolution may be issued by the Investigating prosecutor, and if there
is a probable cause he shall file the corresponding information
before the court of proper jurisdiction, otherwise he shall dismiss
the complaint. Aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration
of the adverse resolution within 15 days from receipt of the adverse
resolution, and in case of denial, a petition for review within 15 days
from receipt of the Order denying the motion for reconsideration, if
one is filed, to the Secretary of Justice. Aggrieved party may resort to
the remedy of petition for certiorari under R 65 in case of bailable
offense or appeal to the Office of the President by way of Petition
for Review within 15 days in case of non-bailable offense until it
reaches the Supreme Court;
Office
Warrantless Arrest
(Section 5 R113)
Custodial Investigation
RA 7438
Inquest
Judicial Stage
3.Inquest-
After the custodial investigation, the person arrested shall be brought
to the proper prosecutors office for the conduct of inquest
proceeding (Section 7, R 112) if the penalty is not less than 4 years 2
months and 1 day. Resolution-The inquest prosecutor shall
determine whether there was a valid warrantless arrest or not; if
valid he may order the filing of information before the court if there
is sufficient ground to indict the person arrested, or he may cause the
release of the person for further proceeding, if not valid. During the
inquest proceeding and before the filing of a criminal complaint or
information, the person arrested through his counsel may file a
motion to conduct preliminary investigation before the prosecutors
office and sign a waiver as required by Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended (Section 7, 1st par. R 112) in order for the
arresting officers to avoid criminal liability for arbitrary detention. In
case the motion is granted, the respondent shall undergo the normal
preliminary investigation as prescribed under Section 3 R 112 but will
remain in detention without prejudice to his right to bail;
Filing of Application
Personal Examination to
Of Search Warrant
Motion to Quash
Arrest of Owner If there is no Arrest
Search Warrant
Custodial
Inquest
1.A crime is committed and the suspect is in illegal possession of
personal properties;
3.Implementation-
The search warrant issued will be implemented by the officers in
charge with the enforcement of the law, and shall cause the seizure
of all personal properties enumerated in the warrant, in the
presence of the lawful owner or at least 2 witnesses. All personal
properties shall be inventoried and returned to the court which
issued the warrant (section 11, R 126). The owner may be arrested,
or in case he is not present a complaint may be filed against him;
A.JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction defined
It is the power of the court to hear, try and decides cases (Herrera v.
Barreto, 25 Phil. 33) and to execute the judgment thereon (Echegaray v.
Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96).
Venue defined
It is the geographical location where the case shall be instituted, heard and
tried. In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise
jurisdiction over an offense committed outside its limited territory.
Classification of Jurisdiction
General the power of the court to adjudicate all controversies except those
expressly withheld from its plenary powers. It extends to all controversies
which may be brought before a court within the legal bounds of rights and
remedies.
Original- is the power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case for
the first time under the conditions provided by law.
Appellate- the power and authority conferred upon a superior court to rehear
and determine causes which have been tried in lower courts, the cognizance
which a superior court takes of a case removed to it, by appeal or writ of
error, from the decision of the lower court, or the review by a superior court
of the final judgment or order of some lower courts.
Doctrine of hierarchy of courts- is the doctrine that requires respect for the
hierarchy of courts to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its
designated role in an effective and efficient manner. Trial courts do not only
determine facts from the evaluation of the evidence presented before them.
They are likewise competent to determine issues of law which may include
the validity of an ordinance, statute or even an executive issuance in relation
to the Constitution. To effectively perform these functions, they are
territorially organized into regions and then into branches. Their writs
generally reach within those territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly
perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from the evidence as
these are physically presented before them. In many instances, the facts
occur within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the actual
case that makes ripe a determination of the constitutionality of such action.
The consequences or course are national in scope. There are, however, some
cases where resort to courts at their level would not be practical considering
their decisions could still be appealed before the higher courts, such as the
Court of Appeals. (The Diocese of Bacolod, etc. v. Comelec, GR No.
205728, January 21, 2015).
(3) Finally branches of the same court in the same geographical territory
are possessed of concurrent jurisdiction.
MEANINGS OF REQUISITES OF
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
This refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular
criminal case.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter- is the power to hear and determine
the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.
(b) Nature of the offense charged (Id. Pueblo de Filipinas v. San Juan); and
ex: Crimes committed by public officers fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan
Jurisdiction over a case is lodged with the court in which the criminal action
has been properly instituted. If a party appeals the trial courts judgment or
final order, jurisdiction is transferred to the appellate court. The execution of
the decision is thus stayed insofar as the appealing party is concerned. The
court of origin then loses jurisdiction over the entire case the moment the
other partys time to appeal has expired. Any residual jurisdiction of the
court of origin shall cease including the authority to order execution
pending appeal the moment the complete records of the case are
transmitted to the appellate court. Consequently, it is the appellate court that
shall have the authority to wield the power to hear, try and decide the case
before it, as well as to enforce its decision and resolutions appurtenant
thereto. That power and authority shall remain with the appellate court until
it finally disposes of the case. Jurisdiction cannot be ousted by any
subsequent event, even if the nature of the incident would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first place (Artemio Villareal v. People,
Dec. 1, 2014).
A criminal case should be instituted and tried in the place where the
offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place
(Barrameda v. CA, 313 SCRA 477; Abalos v. People, GR No. 136994, Sept. 17,
2002; Fukuzume v. People, 474 SCRA 580). It is in that court where the
criminal action shall be instituted (Sec. 15[a], R 110, Rules of Court). It is
that court which has the authority to try and decide that particular case.
Jurisdiction;territorialjurisdictionoftrialcourt.Incriminalcases,venueis
jurisdictional.Acourtcannotexercisejurisdictionoverapersoncharged
withanoffensecommittedoutsideitslimitedterritory.
Theprosecutionmustnotonlyprovethattheoffensewascommitted,it
mustalsoprovetheidentityoftheaccusedandthefactthattheoffense
wascommittedwithinthejurisdictionofthecourt.Inthiscase,the
prosecutionfailedtoshowthattheoffenseofestafaundersec.1(b)ofArt.
315oftheRevisedPenalCode(RPC)wascommittedwithinthe
jurisdictionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity.Otherthanthelone
allegationintheinformation,thereisnothingintheprosecutionevidence
whichevenmentionsthatanyoftheelementsoftheoffensewerecommitted
inMakati.TheAffidavitofComplaintexecutedbyElizabethdoesnot
containanyallegationastowheretheoffensewascommitted,andthereis
nothinginthedocumentaryevidenceofferedbytheprosecutionthatpoints
towheretheoffense,oranyofitselements,wascommitted.Althoughthe
prosecutionallegedthatthecheckissuedbypetitionerwasdishonoredina
bankinMakati,suchdishonorisnotanelementoftheoffenseofestafa
underArticle315,par.1(b)oftheRPC.Therebeingnoshowingthatthe
offensewascommittedwithinMakati,theRegionalTrialCourtofthatcity
hasnojurisdictionoverthecase.HectorTrenasv.Peopleofthe
Philippines,G.R.No.195002,January25,2012.
2.2. Exceptions:
(2) those enumerated under Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code where the
offense is cognizable before Phil. Courts even if committed outside of the
territory of the Philippines, in which case it shall be cognizable by the court
where the criminal action is first filed (Sec. 15 [d], Rule 110, Rules of Court).
(3)Note also, that under Sec. 2 of RA No. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan), it is provided that when the greater
convenience of the accused and of the witnesses, or other compelling
considerations so require, a case originating from one geographical region
may be heard in another geographical region. For this purpose, the
presiding justice shall authorize any division of the court to hold sessions at
any time and place outise Metero Manila and, where the interest of justice
so requires, outise the territorial boundaries of the Philippines.
2.2.4. Offenses committed under R.A. 9372 Human Security Act of 2007
(R.A. No. 9372, Sec. 58).
4. Jurisdiction over or authority to bind the person of the accused-
How acquired-
3) entering trial, or
4) by filing bail.
On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional
liberty of the accused, as a rule, the same cannot be posted before custody
of the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities, either by his
arrest or voluntary surrender (Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377, 387-388).
Jurisdiction;voluntarysubmission.Asarule,onewhoseeksanaffirmative
reliefisdeemedtohavesubmittedtothejurisdictionofthecourt.Filing
pleadingsseekingaffirmativereliefconstitutesvoluntaryappearance,and
theconsequentjurisdictionofonespersontothejurisdictionofthecourt.
Thus,byfilingseveralmotionsbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)
seekingthedismissalofthecriminalcase,respondentAlamilvoluntarily
submittedtothejurisdictionoftheRTC.Furthermore,custodyofthelawis
notrequiredfortheadjudicationofreliefsotherthananapplicationfor
bail.DanteLA.Jimenez,etc.v.Hon.EdwinSorongon,etc.,etal,G.R.No.
178607,December5,2012.
Period to challenge
General Rule: The question of jurisdiction over the subject matter and
territorial jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Exception: Where there has been estoppel by laches on the party who
raised the question.
While the question of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be
raised before arraignment otherwise it is waived.
The ruling in People v. Regalario that was based on the landmark doctrine
enunciated in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy on the matter of jurisdiction by estoppel
is the exception rather than the rule. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to
bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu
is analogous to that in the cited case. In such controversies, laches should
have been clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction must have been raised
so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it
had abandoned or declined to assert it.
In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first
time in a motion to dismiss filed by the Surety almost 15 years after the
questioned ruling had been rendered. At several staged of the proceedings, in
the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, the Surety invoked the
jurisdiction of the said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its
case for final adjudication on the merits. It was only when the adverse
decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to
raise the question of jurisdiction (Cosco Philippines Shipping Inc., v.
Kemper Insurance Company, GR No. 179488, April 23, 2012).
JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL CASES
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(69 Justices)
CRIMINAL CASES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SANDIGANBAYAN
This depends upon the nature of the offense and the position of the
accused (Subido v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 122641, Jan. 20, 1997).
2. Violations of Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code,
(Position or rank)
where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
Note: Salary grade alone does not determine the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers
enumerated in PD 1606 as amended. While the first part of Sec. 4(A) of the
law covers only officials with salary grade 27 and higher, its second part
specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be
with salary grade 27 or higher but who are by express provision of the law
placed under the jurisdiction of said court (Geduspan v. People, GR No.
158187, February 11, 2005; Serana v. Sandiganbayan GR No. 162059,
January 22, 2008 People v. Sandiganbayan and Rolando Plaza GR No.
169004, Sept. 15, 2010).
Note that the terms offenses or felonies in par. 3 are so broad in meaning
and are not restricted to the laws earlier mentioned. These offenses
however, must be those committed by officials in relation to their office.
Therefore, when a public official commits a crime, like murder, homicide,
rape, determinative of whether the regular courts or the Sandiganbayan
have/has jurisdiction over the case are:
a) the position or rank of the accused at the time of the commission of the
crime, and
ProvidedthattheRegionalTrialCourtshallhaveexclusiveoriginal
jurisdictionwheretheinformation:(a)doesnotallegeanydamageto
thegovernmentoranybribery;or(b)allegesdamagetothe
governmentorbriberyarisingfromthesameorcloselyrelated
transactionsoractsinanamountnotexceedingOnemillionpesos
(P1,000,000.00)
Sandiganbayan;originalandexclusivejurisdictionofthe
Sandiganbayan.P.D.1606,asamendedbyR.A.7975andR.A.
8249,veststheSandiganbayanwithoriginalexclusivejurisdiction
overcivilandcriminalcasesinstitutedpursuanttoandinconnection
withExecutiveOrders1,2,14and14A,issuedin1986bythen
PresidentCorazonC.Aquino.ExecutiveOrder1referstocasesof
recoveryandsequestrationofillgottenwealthamassedbythe
Marcoses,theirrelatives,subordinates,andcloseassociates,directly
orthroughnominees,bytakingundueadvantageoftheirpublicoffice
and/orbyusingtheirpowers,authority,influence,connectionsor
relationships.ExecutiveOrder2statesthattheillgottenwealth
includesassetsandpropertiesintheformofestatesandrealproperties
inthePhilippinesandabroad.ExecutiveOrders14and14Apertain
totheSandiganbayansjurisdictionovercriminalandcivilcases
relativetotheillgottenwealthoftheMarcosesandtheircronies.
TheamendedcomplaintfiledbytheRepublictoimpleadAsianBank
praysforreversion,reconveyance,reconstitution,accountingand
damages.Inotherwords,theRepublicwouldrecoverillgotten
wealth,byvirtueofwhichthepropertiesinquestioncameunder
sequestrationandarenow,forthatreason,incustodialegis.Although
theRepublichasnotimputedanyresponsibilitytoAsianBankforthe
illegalaccumulationofwealthbytheoriginaldefendants,orhasnot
averredthatAsianBankwasabusinessassociate,dummy,nominee,
oragentoftheMarcoses,theallegationinitsamendedcomplaintin
CivilCaseNo.0004thatAsianBankactedwithbadfaithforignoring
thesequestrationofthepropertiesasillgottenwealthhasmadethe
causeofactionagainstAsianBankincidentalornecessarily
connectedtothecauseofactionagainsttheoriginaldefendants.
Consequently,theSandiganbayanhasoriginalexclusivejurisdiction
overtheclaimagainstAsianBank,fortheSupremeCourthasruled
inPresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernmentv.Sandiganbayan,
thattheSandiganbayanhasoriginalandexclusivejurisdiction
notonlyoverprincipalcausesofactioninvolvingrecoveryofill
gottenwealth,butalsooverallincidentsarisingfrom,incidental
to,orrelatedtosuchcases.MetropolitanBankandTrust
Company,assuccessorininterestofAsianBankCorporationv.Hon.
EdilbertoG.Sandoval,etal,G.R.No.169677,February18,2013.
B. Original/Concurrent Jurisdiction
1) Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data when action
concerns public data files of government offices;
2) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, relating to an act
or omission of a Municipal Trial Court, corporation, board, officer, or
person.
Appellate jurisdiction
Over decisions and final orders of Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of
their original or appellate jurisdiction under PD 1606 as amended.
E. Jurisprudence involving crimes committed by public officials and
employees:
The Offense need not be connected with official duties. It is enough that it
is in relation to office. (Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 324.
Ex: As mayor, the accused Lecaroz ordered policemen to take over the
gasoline station of the complainant. It was held that the police would not
have obeyed his orders were he not the mayor. Or the questionable act of
the mayor is not part of his official duties but was committed by him as
mayor.
Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan.
1. Regular cases
1.2. All other offenses where the imposable penalty prescribed by law is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the fine, regardless of
other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offense or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind,
nature, value, or amount thereof (Sec. 32, BP 129).
2. Special cases
Sec. 90. Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court shall designate special courts
from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to
exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of this Act.
2.3. Violations of the Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293)
regardless of the imposable penalty.
2.4 The public prosecutor has the authority to file a criminal information for
violation of PD 957 and the RTC has the power to hear and adjudicate the
action, the penalty being a P20,000.00 fine and imprisonment of not
exceeding 10 years or both such fine and imprisonment. This penalty brings
the offense within the jurisdiction of the RTC (Victoria P. Cabral v. Jacinto Uy,
et al., GR No. 174584, January 22, 2010).
2.5. Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases- The RTC shall have jurisdiction
to try all cases on money laundering. Those committed by public officers
and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers shall
be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 5, RA 9160, Anti
Money Laundering Act of 2001).
Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must logically be lodged with the
trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable on an offense forming the complex crime. A comple
crime must be prosecuted integrally, as it were, and not split into its
component offenses and the latter made the subject of multiple
informations possible brought in different courts (Alfredo Cuyos y Tulor v.
Hon. Nicolas P. Garcia, GR No. L-46934, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 302)
Where penalty is fine only-
Where the only penalty provided for by law is a fine, the amount thereof
shall determine the jurisdiction of the court under the original provisions
of BP 129 (Sec. 32[2]) which provided that the MTC shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with a fine of not more than
P4,000.00. Thus, where the imposable fine is more than such amount the
RTC has original jurisdiction.
Application for Protection Order under Section 10, RA 9282, unless there is
a Family Court in the residence of Petitioner.
Jurisdiction of Family Courts (RA No. 8369; The RTC may take cognizance
of the cases enumerated in areas where there are no designated Family
Courts)
Family courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases:
1. Where an accused or victim is a minor (RA 9344) at the time of the
commission of the offense. (Sec. 1 of said law provides that the law shall
cover the different stages involving children at risk and children in conflict
with the law from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration).
2. Against minors charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Rep.
Act No. 9165);
5. Involving domestic violence against women and children under Rep. Act
No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004);
and
2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years,(a)
irrespective of the amount of the fine, and (b) regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising
from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature,
value, or amount thereof (Id, Sec. 2 amending BP 129, Sec. 32).
2.1. A municipal trial court has jurisdiction over a case of simple
seduction, penalized under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, with arresto mayor, regardless of the civil liability, such as
support and acknowledgment of the offspring that may be imposed
under Article 345 of the same Code.
2.2. Imposable accessory penalties that should not be considered in
determining jurisdiction of MTCs refer to the accessory penalties
accompanying (1) prision correccional prescribed in Article 43; (2)
arresto menor prescribed in Article 44; and (3) confiscation and
forfeiture of the proceeds and instruments of the crime prescribed in
Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code.
2.3. Where the offense charged is within the exclusive competence of
the Municipal Trial Court by reason of the penalty (imprisonment,
etc.), it shall have jurisdiction to try and decide the case, even if the
civil liability (such as actual, compensatory, etc.) claimed exceeds its
civil jurisdiction.
5.Where the imposable penalty is destierro, (RPC Art. 334 imposes destierro
as the penalty for concubinage) the case falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, considering that in the hierarchy of
penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, destierro follows
arresto mayor which involves imprisonment.
6.Violations of BP 22 pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 00-11-01-SC,
March 25, 2003;
1. traffic violations;
2. violations of the rental law;
3. violations of city or municpal ordinances; and
4. all other offenses where the penalty does not exceed 6 months
liabilities arising therefrom, and in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence where the imposable penalty
does not exceed P10,000.
5. Violations of BP 22.
Note: Note that the jurisdiction of the MTC above, is qualified by the phrase
Except in cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan. This indicates that the MTC does
not at all times have jurisdiction ovef offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years if jurisdiction is vested by law
either in the RTC or Sandiganbayan.
Based on Art. 27 of the RPC, the MTC has jurisdiction over offenses
punishable by up to the maximum of prision correccional which shall not
exceed six (6) years. There are however, offenses which even if punishable
by the maximum of prision correccional are not cognizable by the MTC
because of an express provision of law like:
a) libel as defined in Article 335 of the RPC. Under this provision, libel by
means of writings or similar means shall be punishable by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from
P200 to P600,000 pesos. Nevertheless, under Art. 360 of the RPC, the
criminal action as well as the civil action for such offense shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the CFI (now RTC).
b) Also, some forms of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC are
punishable by either prision correccional in its medium period or prision
correccional in its maximum period but such felonies are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 4(A) of PD 1606
as amended.
(1) All cases involving offenses defined and punished under this Code.
Xxxx
Art. 180. Law applicable- The provisions of the Revised Penal Code relative
to the crime of bigamy shall not apply to a person married in accordance
with the provisions of this Code or, before its effectivity, under Muslim law
1. Rule The criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory:
The criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of:
Exception:
Reasons why the law prescribe that the case be filed or tried in the place
where the crime was committed.
1. Deterrence - the interest of the public requires that, to secure the best
results and effects in the punishment of crimes, it is necessary to
prosecute and punish the criminal in the very place, as near as may be where
he committed his crime (MRR Co. vs. Atty. General, 20 Phil. 523);
Cases:
Issue:
Held:
Venue in criminal cases under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995-
By filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of
conducting the requisite preliminary investigation
General rule
Yes
Exception
There is also no direct filing with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila
and other chartered cities unless otherwise provided in the charter. In
other words, in case of a conflict between a city charter and this provision
of the Rules of Court, the former, being a substantive law, shall prevail.
Illustration:
(Violation falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure but pushed under
a special law)
The information was filed in court only after 3 months. So the accused
filed a motion to quash on ground of prescription. The Fiscal opposed
arguing that when the case is filed with the fiscals office, the running of
prescriptive period is interrupted!
HELD: The fiscal (now prosecutor) is wrong. The filing of this case
before its office did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period.
He should have filed that on time before the court.
FACTS: The charge here was slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence which is actually punishable by arresto menor. It was filed
with the fiscals office within 2 months but it was filed in court beyond 2
months. And definitely, it is covered by the Summary Procedure.
HELD: In the case at bar, this is a felony under the Penal Code. If it is a
felony, the filing with the fiscals office is sufficient to interrupt the
running of the prescriptive period even if it is covered by the Summary
Rules.
So why the distinction in the rulings when both are covered by the Rules on
Summary Procedure?
The SC cited Act 3326 which is the law governing prescription of crimes
punished by special laws.
Some cases, however, appear not to strictly follow the line toed by
Zaldivia in cases involving violations of special laws.
Cases:
Sanrio Company Limited vs. Lim GR No. 168662, February 19, 2008
This involves a violation of the Intellectual Property Code, a special law.
Sanrio filed a complaint affidavit with the Task Force on Anti-Intellectual
Piracy (TAPP) of the DOJ against Lim for violation of Sec. 217 (in relation
to Secs. 177 and 178) of the Intellectual Property Code.
The Court categorically ruled that the prescriptive period for the
prosecution of the alleged violation of the IPC was tolled by petitioner's
timely filing of the complaint-affidavit before the TAPP.
In Panaguiton, Jr. v. DOJ, GR No. 167571, November 25, 2008, the issue
raised was whether or not the filing of a complaint for violation of BP 22
before the Office of the Prosecutor interrupts the running of the prescriptive
period for the offense.
The SC declared:
"We agree that Act No. 3326 applies to offenses under BP Blg. 22. An
offense under BP 22 merits the penalty of imprisonment of not less than
thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine, hence under Act
3326, a violation of BP 22 prescribes in 4 years from the commission of the
offense or, if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof.
Nevertheless, we cannot uphold the position that only the filing of a case
in court can toll the running of the prescriptive period.xxxx
We rule and so hold that the offense has not yet prescribed. Petitioner's
filing of his complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor
x x signified the commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution
of the accused and thus, effectively interrupted the prescriptive period
for the offenses they had been charged under BP 22.
The Court ruled that the prosecution of offenses punishable under the
Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulations Code is initiated by
the filing of a complaint with the SEC or by an investigation conducted by
the SEC motu proprio. Only after a finding of probable cause is made by the
SEC can the DOJ instigate a preliminary investigation. Thus the
investigation that was commenced by the SEC, soon after it discovered
the questionable acts of the respondents, effectively interrupted the
prescription period. Given the nature and purpose of the investigation
conducted by the SEC, which is equivalent to the preliminary
investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases, such investigation
would surely interrupt the prescription period.
Note:
In the cases of Sanrio, Panaguiton and SEC, cited above, all involved
violations of special laws. Uniformly in these cases, the Court had declared
that the filing of the affidavit-complaint for preliminary investigation
interrupted the running of the prescriptive period.
Facts:
A complaint for written libel was filed with the City Prosecution
Office. After conducting preliminary investigation and finding probable
cause, the prosecutor erroneously filed the information before the MTC,
instead of the RTC. After a demurrer to evidence filed by accused, the MTC
dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues:
Did the period of prescription continue to run while the case was
pending with the MTC which has no jurisdiction over the offense?
Held:
No. When the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of libel
charges against accused, the proceedings against her were not
terminated, precisely because a prima facie case for libel was found
against her. The resolution of the city prosecutor actually directed the
continuation of the proceedings by the filing of the appropriate
information against her and by the holding of trial on the merits. As such,
when the information for libel was filed with the MTC, the period of
prescription for the crime was still suspended.
"x x x Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of
proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind: (Sec. 2 R 133, Rules of Court)
The Court in Mupas vs. People, GR No. 172834, Feb. 6, 2008, describes
reasonable doubt as " that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole
proof and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easy upon
the certainty of guilt."
The fact of respondent's conviction by the RTC does not necessarily warrant
the suspension. Since the convictions are currently on appeal before the CA,
the same have not yet attained finality. As such, the respondent still enjoys
the constitutional presumption of innocence...Until the accused's guilt is
shown (beyond reasonable doubt), the presumption continues and until a
promulgation of final conviction is made, this constitutional mandate
prevails (Re: Conviction of Judge Angeles, AM No. 06-9-545-RTC, Jan. 31,
2008).
Question:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
No. The legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain
facts can constitute a prima facie evidence of guilt provided there is a
rational connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed. To
avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference of one from proof of the
other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable.
P.D. 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts proved and hence is
not constitutionally impermissible. However, the statutory presumption can
only be prima facie. It cannot, under the guise of regulating the
presentation of evidence, operate to preclude accused from presenting his
defense to rebut the fact presumed.
Issue:
Held:
The rule is that the prosecution can only prove what are alleged in the
information and the accused can only be convicted of the crime
charged if proven.
Rule when there is a Minor variance between the information and the
evidence-
Waiver
Half-sister
Held:
Step-daughter
Facts:
Accused was charged with the rape of his own 14-year old step-
daughter. Under R.A. 7659, where the victim is less than 18 years of age and
the accused is the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim, the
imposable penalty is death.
Issue:
Considering that the information merely alleged that the victim is the
step-daughter of accused, without specifying her age or the fact that
accused was the common-law spouse of the victims mother, can accused
be sentenced to death?
Held:
Age/mental retardation
Minor
Facts:
Accused was charged with rape. The victim was below 7 years old at
the time of the incident, but the information merely alleged that she was a
minor without stating the precise age.
Issue:
Held:
No. Since the information did not allege that the victim was below 7
years old when she was violated, accused was therefore charged with
simple rape, under Sec. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
7659 (Death Penalty Law). Upon its passage, R.A. 7659 introduced 7 new
attendant circumstances, which when present, will transform the crime to
qualified rape, punishable by death. These new attendant circumstances
must be properly pleaded in the information to justify the imposition of the
death penalty. The main purpose of requiring all the elements of a crime to
be set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare
his defense. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed
of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process, if he
is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form
punishable with death.
Issue:
Held:
As to mode of commission
Answer:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Issue:
Is the complaint sufficient if it merely states that accused did try and
attempt to rape the victim?
Held:
Facts:
Accused was charged with violation of R.A. 7610 which alleges that
he committed sexual abuse on his daughter either by raping her or
committing acts of lasciviousness on her.
Issue:
As to crime committed
Issue:
Held:
Date of commission
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
No. Since the identity of the check enters into the first essential
elements of the offense under Sec. 1 of B.P. 22, that is, that a person
makes, draws or issues a check on account or for value, and the date
thereof involves its second element, namely, that at the time of issue the
maker, drawer or issuer knew that he or she did not have sufficient funds
to cover the same, there is a violation of the right of the accused to be
informed of the nature of the offense charged in view of the variance.
As to check number
Issue:
Held:
No. The variance in the identity of the check nullifies the conviction
of accused. The identity of the check enters into the first element of the
offense under Sec. 1 of B.P. 22 that a person draws or issues a check on
account or for value. There being a discrepancy in the identity of the checks
described in the information and that presented in court, the constitutional
right of accused to be informed of the nature of the offense charged will be
violated if his conviction is upheld.
Rape
Issue:
Held:
Yes. Where time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential
element of the crime charged, conviction may be had on proof of the
commission of the crime, even if it appears that the crime was not
committed at the precise time or place alleged, or if the proof fails to
sustain the existence of some immaterial fact set out in the complaint,
provided it appears that the specific crime charged was in fact committed
prior to the date of the filing of the complaint or information within the
period of the statute of the limitations, and at a place within the
jurisdiction of the court. (U.S. vs. Smith, 2 PHIL 20)
People v. Narawi, 414 SCRA 395
Issue:
Held:
Yes. In this case, while the information failed to specifically allege that
the sexual intercourse was committed through force or intimidation, the
prosecution presented evidence, no objection to which was interposed by
accused, that they committed rape through force. Besides, the information
alleged that the sexual intercourse was against the victims will.
Number of offenses
Issue:
Held:
No. Since the information specifically charges the accused with only
one act of rape committed on a specific date, then consistent with the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of accusation against him, he cannot be held liable for other acts of rape.
There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only
one offense, even if the evidence shows that more than one was in fact
committed. The right of a person to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him cannot be waived for reasons of public policy.
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Issue:
Can you waive the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him?
NO. It is not waivable because public interest is involved in this right, the
public having an interest in seeing to it that no person is unlawfully deprived
of his life or liberty. (U.S. vs. Palisoc, 4 Phil. 207)
There are certain rights of the accused that are waivable; there are certain
rights that cannot be waived. For example: to be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved can you waive that?
There was a bar examination in the past, where the examiner asked this
question among the rights of the accused outline those which can be
waived and cannot be waived. So practically you have to know [a] [i]. Its
not only a question of enumerate the rights of the accused but segregate
those which can be waived and those which cannot be waived.
Trial in absentia-
What is the difference between these two sentences in [c]: The absence of
the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall
be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat and when an
accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right
to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is
regained?
In the first sentence, the accused is absent without justifiable cause during
the particular trial date, and so the trial may continue. But he can still appear
in the next trial. He only waived his right to be present on that date but he
has not waived his right to be present on subsequent trial dates. He has not
waived his right to present evidence.
In the second sentence, you escaped or you jumped bail. You are not only
waiving your right to be present on this date but on all subsequent dates.
And therefore, there can be a judgment against you when the prosecution
rests.
But how can the prosecution establish that the accused, who has escaped,
has been duly notified of the trial? How can you notify a person who is
hiding? And how can you say that his failure to appear is unjustified?
ISSUE #2: Why is it that an escapee who has been tried in absentia does
not retain his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence?
How come those rights are lost?
HELD: By his failure to appear during the trial of which he had notice,
he virtually waived these rights. This Court has consistently held that the
right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses
is a personal right and may be waived. In the same vein, his right to
present evidence on his behalf, a right given to him for his own benefit
and protection, may be waived by him. So an escape can be considered
a waiver.
ISSUE #3: If judgment is rendered as to the said accused and chances are
you would be convicted, would it not violate his right to be presumed
innocent and right to due process?
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Yes. While it has been stated in People v. Presiding Judge [125 SCRA
269] that as an exception accused may not be compelled to appear even for
identification, it applies only when the accused unqualifiedly admits in
open court after his arraignment that he is the person named as
defendant in the case on trial, no more no less. In this case accused only
admits that he can be identified by the prosecution witnesses in his
absence. He did not admit that he is the very person named as defendant in
the case on trial. His admission is vague and far from unqualified. He cannot
therefore seek the benefit of the exception recognized in People v. Presiding
Judge.
Issue:
When accused who is on bail fails to appear for a particular trial date,
does it amount to a waiver of appearance for the subsequent trial dates?
Held:
No. Under Sec. 2(c), Rule 114 and Sec. 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of
Court, the non-appearance of the accused on a particular trial date is
merely a waiver of his right to be present for trial on such date only and not
for the succeeding trial dates. It states that the absence of the accused
without any justifiable cause at the trial on a particular date of which he
had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present during
that trial. It is only when an accused under custody had been notified of
the date of the trial and escapes that he shall be deemed to have waived his
right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial dates until
custody is regained.
Facts:
Accused was charged with estafa and was out on bail. While trial was
going on, accused changed his address notifying the court through his
counsel as well as the bonding company. When accused failed to appear
during a hearing because notice was sent to his old address, the judge
issued a warrant for his arrest, appointed a counsel de oficio for him,
ordered a trial in absentia, and convicted him on the theory that he waived
his right to present evidence.
Issue:
Held:
No. Under Sec. 14[2] of the Bill of Rights, the following are the
requisites of a valid trial in absentia: [1] accused had already been
arraigned; [2] he has been duly notified of the trial; and [3] his failure to
appear is unjustifiable. In this case accused had not been duly notified of
the trial because notice of hearing was sent to his former address despite
the fact that he notified the court of his change of address.
Issues:
Held:
The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape
from custody finally decides to appear in court to present his evidence and
cross-examine the witnesses against him. To allow the delay of proceedings
for this purpose is to render ineffective the constitutional provision on trial
in absentia. This is buttressed by Sec. 1 [c] of Rule 115 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, which states that when an accused under custody had
been notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be deemed to
have waived his right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial
dates until custody is regained.
Question:
Answer:
The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer
in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and
objections. It means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance
extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense
and acts accordingly. It assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the
proceedings, particularly at the trial, his bearing constantly in mind of the
basic rights of accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing
the fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence. The
right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the performance by the
lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his client. It means an efficient and
truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory
representation.
Facts:
Issue:
Is accused correct?
Held:
Yes. The right of accused to counsel was violated, no matter that the
person who represented him had the ability of a seasoned lawyer and
handled the case in a professional and skilful manner. This is so because an
accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar in a
criminal case filed against him. Unless he is represented by a lawyer, there is
a great danger that any defense presented will be inadequate considering
the legal skills needed in court proceedings.
Waiver of right
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
No. The law entitles the accused to be present and to defend himself
in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. However, it is
also provided that rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to
law, public order, public policy, etc. The Rules also states that upon motion,
the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the
assistance of counsel. By analogy, it is amply shown that the rights of
accused were sufficiently and properly protected by Tomas Posadas. He
knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, there was a valid waiver of
the right to sufficient representation during the trial, considering that it was
unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently made with the full assistance of
their new bona fide lawyer.
Facts:
Issue:
Does the absence of counsel amount to waiver of the right of
accused to be heard?
Held:
No. Accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel. He has
also the right to present evidence. Accordingly, denial of due process can be
successfully invoked where no valid waiver of rights has been made. In this
case, we find that under the circumstances, the accused was denied due
process when the successive non-appearance of his counsel was construed
as a waiver of his right to present evidence. Since the imposable penalty
may be death, the RTC should have been more circumspect in denying
accused his opportunity to present his side, particularly since he himself
was present during the four hearings. Clearly, such presence is a strong
indication that accused was interested in defending himself.
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Issue:
Held:
No. The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio when the
accused has no counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one
is mandatory only at the time of arraignment [Rule 116, Sec. 6, Revised
Rules of Court.] This is no longer so where the accused has proceeded with
the arraignment and the trial with a counsel of his choice but when the
time for the presentation of the evidence for the defense has arrived, he
appears by himself alone and the absence was inexcusable. At the most, the
appointment of a counsel de oficio in situations like the present case is
discretionary with the trial court, which discretion will not be interfered
with in the absence of abuse.
Ineffective counsel
Facts:
Accused, an indigent, was charged with rape, convicted and
sentenced to death. His first lawyer withdrew after the direct examination
of the victim and cross-examination was done by another de oficio lawyer
who only prepared for 10 minutes. The third de oficio lawyer also wanted to
withdraw but was prevailed upon by the court and he presented the
accused as witness, but later also ceased to appear for unknown reasons.
Issue:
Held:
Yes. Accused was not properly and effectively accorded the right to
counsel. The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of
due process which basically means that a person must be heard before
being condemned. The right to counsel must be more than just the
presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of
standard questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the
accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who
commits himself to the cause of the defense and acts accordingly. The right
assumes an active involvement by a lawyer in the proceedings, his bearing
constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed
on the case and his knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws
and existing jurisprudence.
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Held:
No. Accused acted as his own counsel. To allege now that his right to
be assisted by counsel was violated is to bend the truth too far. The
constitutional right of the accused to counsel is not violated where he was
represented by a prominent and competent member of the Bar, namely
himself, even if there were others available. He is now stopped from
claiming that the trial court violated his right to be represented by counsel
of his own.
1. Right guaranteed
This is the right of the accused to testify on his own behalf. But he has no
obligation to testify. If you connect this to the next right [e] to be exempt
to be a witness against himself (that is why you cannot compel him to
testify) once he testifies on his own behalf, he waives the privilege against
self-incrimination and he can be cross-examined like any other witness. He
cannot say, I will testify but I refuse to be cross-examined. That would be
unfair no?
Facts:
Accused, together with several others, was charged with murder. During
trial, his counsel manifested to the court that he is invoking the defense of
alibi and denial and was adopting the arguments of one of his co-accused.
Thereafter, counsel for the accused rested. Later accused was
convicted.While his conviction was pending review by the Supreme Court,
he sent a handwritten letter to the Presidential Action Center seeking help
to reopen his case which was duly indorsed to the Court. He claims that he
was never asked to give his statement and was never given a chance to
testify in court.
Issue:
Held:
No. While accused decries his alleged frustrated desire to testify in court,
this is now water under the bridge. Accused had all the right and
opportunity to do so. He was properly represented by his counsel of choice
and there was no hindrance to his testifying except his own volition. While
his silence will not in any manner prejudice him, he cannot now be heard to
complain for his failure to avail of his right to be a witness in his own behalf.
If accused felt that he was deprived of his rights, he could have easily
moved for new trial or reconsideration. He did not.
Mechanical acts
Facts:
Rondero was charged with rape with homicide. When the corpse of
the 9-year old victim was found, tightly gripped in her right hand were hair
strands. To enable the NBI to conduct an examination on the hair strands, it
sent a fax message to the police that hair strands be pulled, no cut, from
Rondero, from the 4 regions of his head for comparison with the specimen.
By then Rondero was detained and he now claims that his hair strands were
taken by the police without his consent.
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
No. The kernel of the right against self-incrimination is not against all
compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right against self-
incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips
of the accused an admission of guilt. Hence, a person may be compelled to
submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA tests, as
there is no testimonial compulsion involved. It must also be noted that the
accused in this case submitted himself for blood sampling that was
conducted in open court in the presence of counsel.
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Take note that the right of the accused against self-incrimination is not
limited to testimonial evidence. According to the SC, it refers not only to
testimonial compulsion but also to production by the accused of
incriminating documents and things. (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62)
So you cannot subpoena his personal documents.
The rule was established on the ground of public policy, because if the
accused were required to testify, he would be placed under the strongest
temptation to commit perjury, and of humanity, because it would prevent
the extortion of confession by duress. (U.S. vs. Navarro, 3 Phil. 143)
1. Deceased,
3. Unavailable, or
Question:
Answer:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Held:
It should be the counsel for the opposing party who should move to
cross-examine plaintiffs [prosecution] witnesses. It is absurd for the
plaintiff [prosecutor] himself to ask the court to schedule the cross-
examination of his own witnesses because it is not his obligation to ensure
that his deponents are cross-examined. Having presented his witnesses the
burden shifts to his opponent who must now make the appropriate move.
Discretion of the judge to recall; there is valid ground to recall for cross-
examination if failure to do so is without fault of the accused-
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Yes. Under Rule 115, Sec. 1(e) of the Revised Rules of Court, the
accused has the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against
him at the trial. The refusal of the judge to give opportunity to the new
counsel of accused to cross-examine prosecution witness on the ground
that prosecution had already rested its case, is patently a grave abuse of
discretion on his part. While it is well within the trial courts discretion to
allow the recall of witness, under the foregoing circumstances, the judge
should have known that the interest of justice required that accused should
have been given the opportunity to cross-examine, as it was not his fault
that the witness had not been cross-examined. While a petition for
certiorari could have been duly availed of by counsel for accused to rectify
the judges grave abuse of discretion, accused should not be made to suffer
for the failure of his counsel to do so; as a layman, he could not have known
better as to what must be done under the circumstances.
Issue:
Did the court abuse its discretion in denying a motion of new counsel
to recall private complainant in a rape case for further cross-examination?
Held:
Issue:
Held:
Yes. By the express provision of Sec. 1(f) Rule 115 of the Rules of
Court, the testimonies given by witnesses during the preliminary
investigation of the case on trial should be admitted into evidence when
such testimony was taken by question and answer in the presence of
defendant or his attorney, and there was an opportunity for the defendant
to cross-examine the witness who is dead or incapacitated to testify or
cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines.
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
What are the EXCEPTIONS to the right of the accused to confront and
examine witnesses against him?
The following:
Sometimes there is no choice. Now, one good example where the testimony
of a witness is admissible even if he does not appear in the trial is when the
witness is about to die so you need to take his testimony in advance. In civil
cases we call it deposition. In criminal procedure, deposition is called
conditional examination of a witness. That is governed by Rule 119 Sections
12, 13, and 15.
Normally, the prosecution witnesses in the criminal case are also the
witnesses for the plaintiff in the civil case. Assuming that the trial of the civil
case is ahead, these witnesses testified during the trial of the civil case, they
were cross-examined by the lawyer of the defendant who is also the accused
in the criminal case. Now, under the law, when the criminal case is tried,
these witnesses have to testify again in the criminal case, practically they
will have to repeat their testimony. The trouble is, in the meantime, some of
these witnesses died.
Can the testimony recorded in the civil case be now admissible in the
criminal case when there is no more confrontation there?
Yes. because that is the exception, when the testimony of the witness who
is now deceased, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse
party having the opportunity to cross examine him.
1. The exceptions to the hearsay rule are likewise exceptions to this right
of the accused. (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530)
If there are 11 exceptions to the hearsay rule, all of them are also exceptions
to this. Like dying declaration, how can you cross-examine a dead person.
One last point, does the right to confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against you, include your right to know their names and
addresses in advance?
NO, the accused has no such right because the case of the prosecution might
be endangered if the accused were to know the prosecution witnesses in
advance, for known witnesses might be subjected to pressure or cowered not
to testify. (People vs. Palacio, L-13933, May 25, 1960) So, you confront
them during the trial, not now.
Requisites
Question:
What are the requisites before an accused may be allowed to avail of
the right to compulsory process?
Answer:
That has already been answered in the cases of PEOPLE VS. MONTEJO
and MILLORCA VS. QUITAIN. The SC said that the 100-km limitation
(formerly 50 kms.) does not apply when you are talking of witnesses for the
defense in a criminal case because of the Constitutional right to have
compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses in his
behalf. That right cannot be precluded by provisions in the Rules of Court.
Speedy trial
1. The factors, among others, which should be considered in determining
whether to grant a continuance are as follows:
(a) whether the failure to grant such continunace in the proceeding would
be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in
a miscarriage of justice.
Please connect this provision on Speedy Trial with Rule 119 Section 9 which
is a new provision taken from the Speedy Trial Act. What is the heading of
Section 9 Rule 119?
Have the accused tried in absentia or to have waived his right to present
evidence.
Issue:
Answer:
Justifiable delays
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
What are the remedies of an accused whose rights to a speedy trial is being
violated because the prosecution keeps on postponing the case? How do you
invoke this right to speedy trial?
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Former President Estrada seeks a reconsideration of the
decision of the Supreme Court declaring that having resigned from
the presidency, he may be prosecuted for Plunder. Among others, he
contends that his right to an impartial trial has been affected by the
prejudicial pre-trial publicity of the proceedings before the
Ombudsman. He also points to the alleged hate campaign launched
by some newspapers so that the prosecution and the judiciary can no
longer assure him of a sporting chance. He urges the Court to apply
the rule on res ipsa loquitor.
Issue:
Held:
No. The mere fact that the proceeding was given a day to day
coverage does not prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of
the tribunal and impaired his impartiality. To warrant a finding of
prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the
judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be.
In this case, the former President has failed to adduce any proof of
actual prejudice developed by the members of the Panel of
Investigators of the Ombudsman. The test of actual prejudice cannot
be replaced with the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The latter rule assumes
that an injury has been suffered and then shifts the burden to the
panel of investigators to prove that the impartiality of its members
has not been affected by said publicity. Such a rule will overturn our
case law that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right
of an accused to fair trial. For this reason, we continue to hold that it
is not enough for the former President to conjure possibility of
prejudice but must prove actual prejudice on the part of his
investigators for the Court to sustain his plea.
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
The Secretary of Justice seeks a reconsideration of the
resolution denying permission to televise and broadcast live the trial
of former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. Among
others, he argues that if there is a clash between the rights of the
people to public information and the freedom of the press, on the
one hand, and the right of the accused to fair trial, it should be
resolved in favour of the right of the people, because the people, as
repository of democracy are entitled to information; and that live
media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by any party to use
the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interest.
Issue:
Held:
The requirement of public trial is for the benefit of the accused, that the
public may see that he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and
that the presence of spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of
responsibility and to the importance of their functions. (1 Cooley,
Constitutional Limitations, p. 647)
Question:
Answer:
The right to appeal is but a statutory right, and the party who seeks
to avail of it must faithfully comply with the rules. These rules are designed
to facilitate an orderly disposition of cases before the appellate courts; they
provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form
and manner at the prescribed time in an orderly confrontation before a
magistrate.
There is something you will notice here all the rights of the accused in this
Rule, from [a] to [h], are also found in the Constitution. These are all
Constitutional rights except the last [i]. The right to appeal is purely
statutory which may be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the State.
(People vs. Ang Gioc, 73 Phil. 366)
SEC 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition
for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the
prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition
to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before
the prosecution rests. (6a)
CHAPTER VI. BRIEF OUTLINE AND DISCUSSION ON THE STAGES IN THE LIFE
OF A CRIMINAL ACTION
with barangay
Compromise Agreement No Compromise
Certification to File
Action
Execution
General rule:
Substantial Compliance
Venue
That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the
filing of the complaint with the punong barangay.
Effect of Non-Referral
To be enforced by:
Submission of Counter-Affidavit
by Respondent
Resolution
Filing of MR
Filing of Petition for
Filing of MR
Certiorari / R65
Judicial Stage
Rule 112
Preliminary Investigation
1. Definition An inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief (or probable cause)
that:
Nature
1.when the accused was lawfully arrested without warrant for a crime
punishable by imprisonment of not less than 4 years 2 months and 1
day and he does not ask for a preliminary investigation. What is
conducted instead is an inquest; and
2.when the penalty prescribed for the offense charged does not exceed
four (4) years and two (2) months. The cases falling under this
category have been called as direct-filing cases.
For this purpose, prescribed penalty, which is the penalty indicated by law
for the crime, is distinct from the imposable penalty, which refers to the
penalty to be imposed upon the accused after considering the evidence
and the attendant modifying circumstances in the case. (People vs. Ranis,
Jr. 389 SCRA 45, 69 [2002])
Purpose
TheSupremeCourt(SC)inthiscasecitedMetropolitanBank&TrustCo.
(Metrobank)v.TobiasIII,whereitstressedthatapreliminary
investigationforthepurposeofdeterminingtheexistenceofprobable
causeisnotpartofatrial.Atapreliminaryinvestigation,theinvestigating
prosecutorortheSecretaryofJusticeonlydetermineswhethertheactor
omissioncomplainedofconstitutestheoffensecharged.Thereisno
definitivestandardbywhichprobablecauseisdeterminedexcepttoconsider
theattendantconditions;theexistenceofprobablecausedependsuponthe
findingofthepublicprosecutorconductingtheexamination,whoiscalled
uponnottodisregardthefactspresented,andtoensurethathisfinding
shouldnotruncountertothecleardictatesofreason.xxxTherulesdonot
requirethataprosecutorhavemoralcertaintyoftheguiltofapersonforthe
lattertobeindictedforanoffenseaftertheconductofapreliminary
investigation.
An executive function-
Not being a quasi-judicial body, resolutions to file or not to file are not
appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43-
In the previous case of Bautista v. CA, GR No. 143375, July 6, 2001, the
Court held that a preliminary investigation does not determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making
functions. The court further holds that the Office of the Prosecutor is not a
quasi-judicial body. Necessarily, its decisions approving the filing of a
criminal complaint are not appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule
43 as are decisions of quasi-judicial bodies enumerated therein.
Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public
prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the
existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself
does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
Doctrineofseparationofpowersapplycourtscannotdirectlydecide
mattersoverwhichdiscretionaryauthorityhasbeendelegatedtothe
executivedepartment.
Further,theSChasrepeatedlyruledthatthedeterminationofprobable
cause,forpurposesofpreliminaryinvestigation,isanexecutive
function.Suchdeterminationshouldbefreefromthecourts
interferencesaveonlyinexceptionalcaseswheretheDepartmentof
Justicegravelyabusesitsdiscretionintheissuanceofitsordersor
resolutions.LoreliLimPov.DepartmentoftheJustice,etal/Antoniong
Chiuv.CourtofAppeals,etal,G.R.Nos.195198&G.R.No.197098,
February11,2013.
Designation of prosecutor by court improper as it violates the principle of
separation of powers-
Issue:
Held:
It does not concern itself with whether there is sufficient basis for the
filing of the information but only whether or not there is sufficient basis
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest so that it can bind the person of the
accused.
Question:
Answer:
9.) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance; and
10.) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and
amotion to quash on that ground has been denied.
Question:
What are the remedies of the offended party in cases where the
government prosecutor unjustifiably refuses to file an information against a
person who appears to be responsible for a crime?
Answer:
(1) in case of grave abuse of discretion, he may file an action for madamus
to compel the prosecutor to file such information;
(2) he may lodge a new complaint against the offenders before the
Ombudsman and have a new examination conducted as required by law;
(3) he institute administrative charges against the erring prosecutor, or a
criminal complaint under Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code, or a civil
action for damages under Art. 27 of the Civil Code;
So you are not prejudiced because the same defense available to you
then, for example alibi, is still available to you now.
ISSUE #3: Is there a need of a preliminary investigation on the new
charge?
HELD: No need because you have not changed the crime. If you change
the crime or when there is substitution, then preliminary investigation is
required. Since it is only a formal amendment, preliminary
investigation is unnecessary. The amended information could not
conceivably have come as a surprise to petitioner for the simple and
obvious reason that it charges essentially the same offense as that charged
under the original information. Furthermore, as we have heretofore held,
if the crime originally charged is related to the amended charge such that
an inquiry into one would elicit substantially the same facts that an
inquiry into the other would reveal, a new preliminary investigation is not
necessary.
Facts:
Issue:
Rights of respondents
Presence of counsel not a right because it is merely a statutory not
constitutional right-
Issue:
May a preliminary investigation be validly conducted without
respondent being assisted by counsel?
Held:
Question:
Answer:
Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules expressly provides that the respondent
shall only have the right
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Any objection to lack of preliminary investigation must be made
before entry of the plea (People vs. Monteverde, July 11, 1986) and the
court, instead of dismissing the information, must remand the case for
preliminary investigation (Sanciangco vs. People, Mar. 24, 1987).
The refusal of the court to remand the case for preliminary investigation
can be controlled by certiorari and prohibition to prevent trial (Bandiala
vs. CFI, Sep. 30, 1970).
(3) In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed
with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their
charters.
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the period of
prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in
special laws.
COMELEC
Ombudsman
This rule is based not only, on respect for the investigatory and
prosecutor powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the
Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. If it were otherwise, the
functions of the Court will be seriously hampered by innumerable
petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regards to
complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would
be extremely swamped with cases if they could be compelled to
review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or
prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in
court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant (People v. Borje
[2014]).
Honasan II v. Panel of Prosecutors, DOJ, 427 SCRA 46, April 13, 2004
Question:
Answer:
Honasan II v. Panel of Prosecutors, DOJ, 427 SCRA 46, April 13, 200
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Question:
What is the extent of authority of the Special Prosecutor in conducting
preliminary investigation?
Answer:
It may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate or deputize any
fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special
investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of
certain cases (see Agbay vs. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, 309
SCRA 726, 734 [1999]).
SEC. 3. Procedure.
1. He/she shall file the complaint with the office of the prosecutor,
2. be accompanied by:
1. He/she has ten (10) days after the filing of the complainant, either to:
1. cannot be subpoenaed, or
3. He/she may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from
a party or a witness.
4. Within Ten (10) days after the investigation, he/she shall determine
whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial
Procedure as to Respondent
It is the filing of the complaint with the investigating prosecutor that starts
the preliminary investigation process. In actual application, the complaint is
normally initiated through an affidavit of complaint.
Note that the complaint filed for the purpose of preliminary investigation
differs from the complaint filed for the purpose of instituting a criminal
prosecution. The latter refers to the complaint defined in Sec. 3 of Rule
110 and which is in the name of the People of the Philippines.
The complaint and affidavits must be under oath; persons who can
administer the oath-
Note the steps: the investigating officer follows upon filing of the
complaint-
b)Issuance of subpoena
The case of Espiritu vs. Jovellanos, 280 SCRA 579 [1997] established the
principle that respondents counter-affidavit filed late should not be
allowed and considered in resolving the case for preliminary
investigation.
Preliminaryinvestigation;novestedrighttofileareply.
ThereisnoprovisioninRule112oftheRulesofCourtthatgivesthe
ComplainantorrequirestheprosecutortoobservetherighttofileaReplyto
theaccusedscounteraffidavit.Toillustratethenonmandatorynatureof
filingaReplyinpreliminaryinvestigations,Section3(d)ofRule112gives
theprosecutor,incertaininstances,therighttoresolvetheComplainteven
withoutacounteraffidavit,viz:(d)Iftherespondentcannotbesubpoenaed,
ofifsubpoenaed,doesnotsubmitcounteraffidavitswithintheten(10)day
period,theinvestigatingofficershallresolvethecomplaintbasedonthe
evidencepresentedbythecomplainant.Ontheotherhand,petitionerwas
entitledtoreceiveacopyoftheCounteraffidavitfiledbyAguillon.P/Insp.
ArielS.Artillerov.OrlandoC.Casimiro,etc.,etal,G.R.No.190569,April
25,2012.
Preliminaryinvestigation;nonreceiptofcounteraffidavitcuredby
complainantsfilingofMRoftheresolution.
TheproceduraldefectofnothavingreceivedacopyoftheCounter
affidavit,however,wascuredwhenpetitionerfiledaMotionfor
Reconsideration.
ProvincialProsecutorDusabanhadthedutytosendpetitioneracopyof
AguillonsCounteraffidavit.Section3(c),Rule112oftheRevisedRuleson
CriminalProcedure,grantsacomplainantthisright,andtheProvincial
Prosecutorhasthedutytoobservethefundamentalandessential
requirementsofdueprocessinthecasespresentedbeforeit.Thatthe
requirementsofdueprocessaredeemedcompliedwithinthepresentcase
becauseofthefilingofanMRbyComplainantwassimplyafortunateturn
ofeventsfortheOfficeoftheProvincialProsecutor.P/Insp.ArielS.
Artillerov.OrlandoC.Casimiro,etc.,etal,G.R.No.190569,April25,
2012.
The investigating officer has the right to set a hearing for clarificatory
questions. The decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is
addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator and the investigator
alone. If the evidence on hand already yields a probable cause, the
investigator need not hold a clarificatory hearing. (Tuliao vs. Ramos, 284
SCRA 378, 386-387 [1998]; Webb vs. De Leon, supra). A clarificatory
hearing is not indispensable during preliminary investigation. Rather than
being mandatory, a clarificatory hearing is optional on the part of the
investigating officer. As such, the absence of a clarificatory hearing is not a
denial of due process (De Ocampo vs. Sec. Of Justice GR 147932, Jan. 25,
2006; Racho v. Miro, 567 SCRA213; Sierra v. Lopez, Admin. Case No.
7549, Aug. 28, 2009).
The new rules do not require as condition sine qua non to the validity of
the proceedings (in the preliminary investigation) the presence of the
accused (respondent) for as long as efforts to reach him were made, and
an opportunity to controvert the evidence of the complainant is
accorded him. The obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of
unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding
themselves or by employing dilatory tactics (Rodis vs. Sandiganbayan, 166
SCRA 618, 623 [1988] cited in Tuliao vs. Ramos, infra). The fact that the
accused excaped will not excuse the investigating judge from his duty to
end the preliminary investigation as soon as possible. (Tuliao vs. Ramos)
However, non-compliance with these periods does not affect the validity of
the resolution and/or information. The offending officer may, however,
be subjected to disciplinary action in the absence of a justifiable
explanation. (ibid)
FACTS:
FACTS:
So you just dont consider the time element. You must also consider the
facts.
FACTS:
Here, Elpidio Servantes was charged for violation of Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft law. It took the special prosecutor six (6) years from the filing
of the initiatory complaint before he decided to file an information for the
offense in the Sandiganbayan. Servantes filed a motion to quash for
violation of the right to speedy disposition of the case. Special prosecutor
tried to justify the delay in the resolution of the complaint by stating that
no political motivation appears in the prosecution of the case in apparent
reference to the case of Tatad because in the said case there was political
motivation behind the delay.
HELD:
There is no mention that after the counter-affidavit, the complainant can also
file a reply-affidavit. There is nothing which says that it cannot be done,
there is nothing which says that it can be done. Well, my position is, since it
is not prohibited, try it.
The only qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair
the substantial rights of the accused, or the right of the People to due
process of law. (Advincula vs. CA 343 SCRA 583, 591 [2000] citing Crespo
vs.Mogul 151 SCRA 462 [1987]).
1. But where no less than the Supreme Court has sustained the finding of
a probable cause against the accused, the lower court should not give due
course to the motion for reinvestigation, nor should a reinvestigation be
condicted. (Pilapil vs. Sandiganbayan, 299 SCRA 343 [1998]).
3. He shall forward the record of the case, within five (5) day from his
resolution, to his superior who may either be the:
2. He shall forward the record of the case, within five (5) days from
his resolution, to his superior may either be the:
1. approving it, or
2. Motu propio
1. Resolution
Issue:
Held:
The Rule on service of pleadings, motions and other papers provided for
in the Rules of Court cannot be made to apply to the service of resolutions
by public prosecutors, especially as the agency concerned, in this case the
DOJ, has its own procedural rules governing said service. In preliminary
investigation, service can be made upon the party himself or through his
counsel. (Tam Wing Tak Vs. Makasiar, 350 SCRA 475, 483-484 [2001]
Issue:
Held:
Yes. Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
provides that no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
investigating fiscal without the prior written approval of the provincial or
city fiscal or chief state prosecutor applies to the conduct of the preliminary
investigation, which is within the control of the public prosecutor. It has no
application in a case where the information is already filed before the
proper court. In fact the epigraph of Rule 112 is Duty of investigating
fiscal.
Issue:
Held:
The authority to decide whether or not to appeal the dismissal
belongs to the COMELEC. Art. IX-C, 2(6) of the Constitution expressly vests
in it the power and function to investigate, and where appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and , malpractices. Prosecutors
designated by the COMELEC to prosecute the cases act as its deputies who
derive their authority from it and not from their offices. Consequently, it
was beyond the power of the DOJ prosecutor to oppose the appeal of the
COMELEC. If he thought there was no probable cause for proceeding, he
should have discussed the matter with the COMELEC and awaited its
instruction. If he disagreed with the COMELECs findings, he should have
sought permission to withdraw from the cases.
Issue:
Held:
Question:
Answer:
Note that the appeal to the Secretary of Justice does not hold or prevent
the filing of the corresponding information in court based on the finding
of probable cause in the appealed resolution, unless the Secretary of
Justice directs otherwise, but the appellant and prosecutor shall see to it that,
pending resolution of the appeal, the proceedings in court are held in
abeyance (Sec. 9 Dept Circular No. 70).
Note also that the party filing a petition for review is allowed to file a
motion for the suspension of the arraignment. Under Sec. 11 of Rule 116,
upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended, among
others, if a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending.
Suspension of court proceedings pending appeal to the DOJ
Where the Secretary of Justice exercises his power of review only after
an information has been filed, trial courts should defer or suspend
arraignment and further proceedings until the appeal is resolved. Such
deferment or suspension, however, does not signify that the trial court is ipso
facto bound by the resolution of the secretary of justice. Jurisdiction, once
acquired by the trial court, is not lost despite a resolution by the secretary of
justice to withdraw the information or dismiss the case. Ledesma vs. CA,
278 SCRA 656, 680 [1997])
In Marcelo vs. CA, 235 SCRA 39 [1994], the Supreme Court ruled that,
although it is more prudent to wait for a final resolution of a motion for
review or reinvestigation from the secretary of justice before acting on a
motion to dismiss or a motion to withdraw an information, a trial court
nonetheless should make its own study and evaluation of said motion and
not merely rely on the awaited action of the secretary. The trial court has the
option to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal,
whether before or after the arraignment of the accused, and whether after a
reinvestigation or upon instructions by the secretary who reviewed the
records of the investigation; provided that such grant or denial is made from
its own assessment and evaluation of the merits of the motion.
In Martinez vs. CA, 237 SCRA 575 [1994], the high court overruled the
grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the prosecuting fiscal upon the
recommendation of the secretary of justice because, such grant was based
upon considerations other than the judges own assessment of the matter.
Relying solely on the conclusion of the prosecution to the effect that there
was no sufficient evidence against the accused to sustain the allegation in the
information, the trial judge did not perform his function of making an
independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case.
Question:
Answer:
If the appeal does not clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the
President, the appeal shall be dismissed outright. If the lack of jurisdiction is
not readily apparent, the appellant/petitioner shall be ordered to prove the
necessary jurisdictional facts.
From the office of the President, the aggrieved party may file an appeal with
the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 43. Under Sec. 1, the final orders
or resolutions of the Office of the President is appealable to the Court of
Appeals by filing a verified petition for review following the procedure set
by Sec. 5 and 6 of Rule 43.
The aggrieved party by the judgment, final order or resolution of the Court
of Appeals may avail of an appeal by certiorari (petition for review on
certiorari) to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Question:
What is the proper procedure for seeking a review for the resolution
of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the existence or non-existence of a
probable cause?
Answer:
But will the court be bound by the findings of the Justice Secretary and
obligated to grant the motion?
That was the issue in the case of CRESPO. And the SC ruled that:
Facts:
The RTC granted the motion subject to re-filing of the information if the DOJ
reverses itself.
A motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC stating that it cannot
order the re-filing of the Information if the DOJ and the public prosecutor
refuse to do so.
Issue:
Held:
Under the present set-up, the Regional State Prosecutors are authorized to
resolve petitions for review of resolutions of Provincial/City Prosecutors
in cases cognizable by the MeTC, MTC, MCTC, except in the National
Capital Region. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the Secretary of
Justice retains the power to review resolutions of the RSPs in appealed case
(DOJ Circular No. 70-A, June 10, 2000).
SEC. 7. Records.
Records
1. Purpose of requirement
Okabe v. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685, May 27, 2004
Question:
What is the purpose of the requirement under Sec. 8 (a), Rule 112,
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure that an information or complaint filed
in court shall be supported by affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties
and their witnesses, together with the other supporting evidence of the
resolution.
Answer:
Issue:
Held:
No. Under the rule prevailing at the time this case was commenced
and tried, the complaint was considered part of the record of the
preliminary investigation and had to be transmitted to the trial court upon
the filing of the corresponding charge. Such complaint was in fact
transmitted as required and could therefore be judicially noticed by the trial
judge without the necessity of its formal introduction as evidence of the
prosecution.
Facts:
The MTC judge who conducted the preliminary investigation for the
crime of attempted rape dismissed the complaint and he was affirmed by
the Provincial Prosecutor. The Secretary of Justice, however, reversed both
of them so that trial proceeded.
Issue:
Held:
Q: Now, going back to Rule 110. In cases cognizable by the MTC, how is it
instituted?
So there are two (2) ways: (a) direct filing or (b) you file with the prosecutor
and the provincial prosecutor will file the information.
Lets relate this to Section 8. If it is filed with the prosecutor, the procedure
in Section 3[a] of this rule shall be observed. There is no need for
preliminary investigation. The prosecutor will simply find out based on the
affidavit of the complainant and his witnesses whether or not there is
probable cause. NO more subpoena and counter-affidavit.
2. be accompanied by:
2. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and
other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within 10 days
from its filing.
2. be accompanied by:
2. After personally:
or
1. He shall:
(a)If filed by the offended party or peace officer, he shall follow the
procedure outlined in Section 3(a) of Rule 112. Within ten (10) days after the
filing of the complaint or information, he may dismiss the complaint if he
finds no probable cause after personally examining in writing and under oath
the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and
answers;
(b)If filed by the prosecutor, he may dismiss the case within ten (10) days
from the filing of the complaint or information if he finds no probable cause
after personally evaluating the evidence;
(c)He may require the offended party or the prosecutor, as the case may
be, to submit additional evidence within ten (10) days to determine further
the existence of probable cause, and thereafter dismiss the same within ten
(10) days from submission thereof if he still finds no probable cause; or
(d)If he finds probable cause, and the accused person is not under the
custody of the law, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or if the accused is
under custody, issue a commitment order. (Victorias Milling Co. Inc. vs.
Padilla GR 156962, October 6, 2008)
So it is not really necessary that every time a case is filed in the MTC with a
penalty not more than 4 years and 2 months, and there is probable cause that
a warrant of arrest be issued.
He may instead issue summons. Summons here is not really the same in the
Rules of Court. It is just a notice that he is required to appear. And that is a
new provision.
Cases:
Question:
Answer:
The procedure laid down in Sec. 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules shall be
observed. If the judge finds no sufficient ground to hold the respondent for
trial, he shall dismiss the complaint or information. Otherwise, he shall
issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already
been arrested, and hold the latter for trial. However, the judge is given the
discretion to merely issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest if he does
not find it necessary to place the accused under custody. Whether it is
necessary to place the accused in custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice is left to the judges sound judgment.
Q: Can a preliminary investigation be stopped by asking the court to
grant a preliminary injunction or a restraining order? Can a criminal
prosecution be enjoined or restrained?
A: NO, as a GENERAL RULE. If you believe that you are not guilty,
then you prove that in court. Anyway if you are not guilty, you will be
acquitted.
HELD: Indeed, the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be
restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. There are
however exceptions, among which are:
(3) In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed
with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise provided in their
charters.
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the period of
prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in
special laws.
So there are two (2) ways: (a) direct filing or (b) you file with the prosecutor
and the provincial prosecutor will file the information.
Lets relate this to Section 8. If it is filed with the prosecutor, the procedure
in Section 3[a] of this rule shall be observed. There is no need for
preliminary investigation. The prosecutor will simply find out based on the
affidavit of the complainant and his witnesses whether or not there is
probable cause. NO more subpoena and counter-affidavit.
2. be accompanied by:
2. The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and
other supporting documents submitted by the complainant within 10 days
from its filing.
2. be accompanied by:
2. After personally:
or
1. He shall:
(a)If filed by the offended party or peace officer, he shall follow the
procedure outlined in Section 3(a) of Rule 112. Within ten (10) days after the
filing of the complaint or information, he may dismiss the complaint if he
finds no probable cause after personally examining in writing and under oath
the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and
answers;
(b)If filed by the prosecutor, he may dismiss the case within ten (10) days
from the filing of the complaint or information if he finds no probable cause
after personally evaluating the evidence;
(c)He may require the offended party or the prosecutor, as the case may
be, to submit additional evidence within ten (10) days to determine further
the existence of probable cause, and thereafter dismiss the same within ten
(10) days from submission thereof if he still finds no probable cause; or
(d)If he finds probable cause, and the accused person is not under the
custody of the law, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or if the accused is
under custody, issue a commitment order. (Victorias Milling Co. Inc. vs.
Padilla GR 156962, October 6, 2008)
So it is not really necessary that every time a case is filed in the MTC with a
penalty not more than 4 years and 2 months, and there is probable cause that
a warrant of arrest be issued.
He may instead issue summons. Summons here is not really the same in the
Rules of Court. It is just a notice that he is required to appear. And that is a
new provision.
Resolution Recommending
Custodial Investigation
Motion to Conduct Warrantless Arrest
Inquest either forJudicial Stage
Filing or Release for
RA 7438
WARRANTLESS ARREST (Section 5, Rule 113)
Lawfulwarrantlessarrests;evidencegatheredinflagrantedelicto
admissible.Asaresultofthefindingthatabuybustoperationactuallytook
placeandthatLindaandElizabethwereapprehendedinflagrantedelicto,
theevidencegatheredandpresentedbytheprosecutionontheoccasionof
theirlawfularrestwithoutwarrantcannotbedeemedasthefruitsofa
poisonoustree,butareadmissibleandcompetentproofoftheir
guilt.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.LindaAlvizyYatcoandElizabethDela
VegayBautista,G.R.No.177158,February6,2013.
Section 1. Definition
2. Purpose
1. has committed
2. is actually committing, or
B. Procedure
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer or private person.
It is not enough that the crime has been committed, is being committed or
about to be committed in the presence of the arresting officer or civilian, he
must also be aware (personal knowledge) of such crime before the arrest. In
other words, the acts must be known to the officer or civilian at the time
of their commission through his sensory perceptions before the arrest.
Personal knowledge or awareness must precede the arrest
Cases:
Held:
In People v.Manlangit (2014), the Court ruled that the absence of a prior
surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust
operation and the warrantless arrest of the accused caught in flagrante
delicto.
Continuing offenses
Issue:
May a person be arrested without a warrant for the crime of rebellion
even if he is not at the time of arrest actually in the act of taking up arms
against the government?
Held:
The PC officers had received a tip two days before the arrest from one of
their informers that the accused was on board an identified vessel on a
particular date and time bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana.
He was identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the
evening of June 25,1984, and approached him as he descended from the
gangplank after the informer had pointed to him. They detained him and
inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contain 3 kilos of what
were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner, who
testified that she conducted microscopic, chemical and chromatographic
tests on them.
Held:
Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused was not caught in
flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed, or had just been committed
to justify the warrantless arrest. What he was doing was descending the
gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that
called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other
passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the
informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly
became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that
triggered his arrest. The identification by the informer was the probable
cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to
pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
Question:
Answer?
No. It has been held that reliable information alone, absent any
overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the
view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause
that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. Hence, in People v.
Aminnudin [July 6, 1988], it was ruled that accused was not, at the
moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was
about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was
descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon and there was no outward
indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of
the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only
when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he
suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension.
The search and seizure was justified under the principle justifying the
search of moving vehicles as there was no time to obtain a warrant.
The record shows that the NARCOM officers were uncertain as to the
precise date and time appellant would arrive from Manila; all they knew is
that he would be taking a boat from Manila to Dumaguete on the morning of
8 July 1992. More specific details were received earlier on the morning that
the appellant would be arriving the same morning. Clearly, the agents had to
act quickly but there was not enough time to obtain a warrant of arrest or
search warrant.
It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact, or actually have
been committed first. That a crime has actually been committed is an
essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have
been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be
undisputed.
The reason of the element of immediacy is this as the time gap for the
commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the piece of information
gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external
factors, interpretation and hearsay.
Thus, while the law enforcers may not actually witness the execution of an
act constituting the offense, they must have direct knowledge or view of
the crime right after its commission. They should know for a fact that a
crime was committed, indicating that he perpetrated the crime. Again,
mere intelligence information that the suspect committed the crime will not
suffice. The arresting officers themselves must have personal knowledge of
facts showing that the suspect performed the criminal act. Personal
knowledge means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion, based
on actual facts, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the crime.
In most cases, the arrest is validated based on the knowledge derived by the
arresting officer from his investigation and the testimony of witnesses
(People vs.Posadas, 342, SCRA 388, [2000])
As a minimum, however, and to prevent abuse, an eyewitness or victim must
accompany the arresting officer during the arrest. At the very least, material
or physical evidence must be found linking the person to be arrested to the
crime. In People vs. Sinoc (275 SCRA 357, [1997]), the Court validated the
arrest in a robbery case, because the accused was holding the key to the
stolen vehicle. This would at least ensure that arrests are not based on mere
suspicion.
Problem:
A police officer heard X shout for help and immediately went to the place
where the voice came from and saw there X lying on the ground with stab
wounds. (A crime has just been committed) He also saw Y a meter away
from X holding a bloodied knife which he threw away upon seeing the
police officer. Despite being ordered to stop Y ran away and was able to
evade arrest. It was only in the evening of that day when Y was arrested
without a warrant inside a friends house. (Reasonable ground of suspicion,
i.e., personal knowledge of actual facts creating a reason to believe that the
accused committed the crime).
Yes, under hot pursuit as the officer had actual belief that Y committed the
offense and that it has just been committed.
Facts:
After being informed that a person has been shot, the police sent a
team to investigate. They saw the victim slumped on his tricycle parked
near the road. (a crime has just been committed)
After talking to a waitress and a tricycle driver who gave them the
description of the person last seen with the victim, the police went to the
house of accused. They knocked and when accused opened the door, they
noticed that he fitted the description. Asked about the killing, accused
denied involvement. Entering the house, they found a bloodied Hanes T-
shirt placed over a divider. When the police picked it up, two spent .38
caliber shells fell from it. They then brought him to the cafe where the
waitress identified him as the person she saw drinking beer with the victim.
(No actual belief nor reasonable ground of suspicion because the facts
known especially the information given by the waitress that he was the
person she saw drinking or the last person seen with the victim is not a valid
basis for the suspicion that he killed the victim).
Issue:
Held:
The illegality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the accused.
It has been ruled time and again that an accused is stopped from assailing
any irregularity with regard to his arrest if he fails to raise the issue or to
move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before
his arraignment. Any objection involving the procedure by which the court
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before
he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. (People v.
Tan GR No. 191069, Nov. 15, 2010)
The rule that the accused is precluded after arraignment from questioning the
illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary investigation applies only
if the accused voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial,
without previously invoking his objections thereto. There must be clear and
convincing proof that the accused had an actual intention to relinquish his
right to question the existence of probable cause ( Jose Antonio C. Leviste v.
Ho. Elmo M. Alameda, et al., GR No. 182677, Aug. 3, 2010; Borlongan v.
Pena, GR No. 143951, May 25, 2010).
An accused who files a fake bail bond is considered not merely to have
jumped bail but, for all intents and purposes, to have escaped from detention.
(People vs. Del Rosario, 348 SCRA 603, 609 [2000]; People vs. Ramos, 222
SCRA 557, 570 [1993]) As such the accused may be re-arrested without
warrant.
For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may arrest
him or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the
undertaking, cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other
person of suitable age and discretion.
Section 2. Procedure
Use of force
People v. Sanchez 227 SCRA 627 November 8, 1993 En Banc: Cruz, J.
Question:
To constitute arrest, must there be an actual use of force by the
arresting officer?
Answer:
1. An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or
night (Sec. 6);
2. (Sec. 8)
3. (Sec. 9)
All persons who come to the aid of agents of authority, and also all public
functionaries, are entitled to be considered as agents of authority, it being
understood, nevertheless, that in order that the person who come to the aid of
agents of authority may be considered agents of authority, it is an essential
condition that they lend assistance by virtue of an order or request of such
agent of authority. (US vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil. 472 [1909]). Accordingly,
these persons are given the protection of Article 149 of the RPC wherein if
attacked, the offender will be liable for indirect assault.
a) He is refused admittance;
Sec. 14. Who has the Right to Visit the Person Arrested
Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of
the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister or by his
counsel, from visiting and conferring privately chosen by him or by any
member of his immediate family with him, or from examining and treating
him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in
urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less
than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of Four thousand
pesos (P4,000.00). (Sec. 4, RA 7438)
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Constitutional Provision
Sec. 12. (1) Art. III Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel. Xxx
1. questioning;
2. initiated by law enforcement officers;
3. after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in any significant way.
BY SEC. 12(1):
UNDER RA 7438
The person may make a valid waiver and/or admission in the presence of
any of his parents, older siblings, spouse, municipal mayor, municipal judge,
district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel (RA 7438 sec.
2) if he has validly waived his right to a lawyer.
3. Inquest investigation:
An investigation based only on the affidavit of the offended
party, the police, and some witnesses.
2. a peace officer
2. he has the right to adduce evidence in his defense during the PI,
but
2. that the imposable penalty is not less than 4 years 2 months and 1
day.
Inquest procedure-
1. If the arrest was not properly effected, the inquest prosecutor should
proceed under Section 9 of Circular No. 61 which provides:
When Arrest Not Properly Effected Should the Inquest Officer find
that the arrest was not made in accordance with the Rules, he shall:
c)forward the same, together with the record of the case, to the City or
Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
Should it be found, however, that the arrest was properly effected, the
inquest shall proceed but the Inquest Officer shall first ask the detained
person if he desires to avail himself of a preliminary investigation and if
he does, he shall be made to execute a waiver of the provisions of Art.
125 of the Revised Penal Code with the assistance of a lawyer. The
preliminary investigation may be conducted by the Inquest Officer himself
or by any other Assistant Prosecutor to whom the case may be assigned
(Sec.10, Part II, Manual of Prosecutors).
The inquest conducted must be for the offense for which the detainee
was arrested. In Beltran vs. People GR No. 175013, June 1, 2007, the
Supreme Court nullified the second inquest on Beltran for rebellion because
he was arrested without warrant for Inciting to Sedition.
Answer:
When the police files a complaint which is not proper for inquest, the
prosecutor should immediately schedule a preliminary investigation to
determine whether there is probable cause for charging the person in
court. In such a situation, the person is entitled to a preliminary
investigation and that right should be accorded him without any conditions.
He is also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his appearing
at the preliminary investigation.
b. Duty of the judge when information was filed despite an illegal arrest
Question:
Where an accused has been illegally arrested but thereafter the Office of
the Prosecutor conducted an inquest, instead of a regular preliminary
investigation, and an information was filed against him, what should the
trial court do?
Answer:
Held: No. In Medina v. Orozco, Jr. [18 SCRA 1168, 1170], it was ruled:
But, stock should be taken of the fact that November 7 was a Sunday;
November 8 was declared an official holiday; and November 9 (election
day) was also an official holiday. In these 3 no-office days, it was not an easy
matter for a fiscal to look for his clerk and stenographer, draft the
information and search for the Judge to have him act thereon, and get the
clerk of court to open the courthouse, docket the case and have the order
of commitment prepared. And then, where to locate and the uncertainty of
locating those officers and employees could very well compound the fiscals
difficulties. These are considerations sufficient enough to deter us from
declaring that Arthur Medina was arbitrarily detained. For, he was brought
to court on the very first office day following arrest.
Question:
Answer:
There is no problem with the MTC because you can file directly in the
MTC. But as a matter of practice, you cannot file a complaint directly with
the RTC. Everything here is done by information. The RTC does not
entertain complaints filed by the police or the offended party.
But now, it is allowed under this situation : (1) the accused is arrested
without a warrant; (2) the penalty prescribed is not less than 4 years 2
months and 1 day of imprisonment; and (3) there is the absence or
unavailability of an inquest prosecutor.
Despite the waiver, the arrested person may apply for bail and the
investigation must be terminated within 15 days.
Issue:
May a detained person who is not yet facing any charge in
court be granted bail?
Held:
A person lawfully arrested and detained but who has not yet
been formally charged in court, can seek his provisional release
through the filing of an application for bail. He need not wait for a
formal complaint or information to be filed since bail is available to
all persons where the offense is bailable. Sec. 6, Rule 112 of Rules
of Criminal Procedure provides that a judge could grant bail to a
person lawfully arrested but without a warrant, upon waiver of his
right under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
While a person lawfully arrested and detained and not yet formally
charged can apply for bail, the application must be filed in the
province, city or municipality where the person arrested is held. In
this case, the bail application should have been filed with a Quezon
City court which has the authority to grant bail and not a Marikina
court because itv is not the place where is held.
How to ask for Preliminary Investigation after inquest and filing of case
in court-
Note that the SC had ruled that the period of 5 days is NON-EXTENDIBLE
that is absolute. (PEOPLE vs. CA, 242 SCRA 645). After 5 days, you have
no more right to ask for a preliminary investigation.
Held:
Filing of Application
Personal Examination to
Of Search Warrant
Motion to Quash
Arrest of Owner If there is no Arrest
Search Warrant
Custodial
Inquest
Generally, peace officers are not allowed to conduct search and seizure if
they have no search warrant.(See Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution)
1. It is an order in writing,
5. Commanding him to
1. General Rule:
1. any court within the judicial region where the crime was
committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or
2.any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
enforced
the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal
action is pending.
The above rules in Section 2 have been deemed modified in AM No. 99-10-
09-SC dated January 25, 2000, in cases involving heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms.
The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts of
Manila and Quezon City filed by the PNP, NBI, The Presidential Anti-
Organized Task Force and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force with the
said courts.
Case:
The petitioners filed a motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress
the evidence illegally seized. It was contended among others, that the
application for search warrant was filed and the warrant issued by the RTC
Manila, which is a court outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial
region of the courts of Angeles City and Porac, Pampanga where the alleged
crime was committed. It was also argued that the application for search
warrant was not personally endorsed by the head of the NBI as required by
AM No. 99-10-09-SC.
Held:
Inherent in the courts power to issue search warrants is the power to quash
warrants already issued. After the judge has issued a warrant he is not
precluded to subsequently quash the same, if he finds upon re-evaluation of
the evidence that no probable cause exists. (Skechers USA, Inc. vs. Pacific
Industrial Trdg. Corp. GR 164321 Nov. 30, 2006; People vs. Estela Tuan,
G.R. No. 176066, Aug. 11, 2010)
Non-judicial search warrants prohibited-
Held:
As a rule only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be
seized by the authorities.
There must be an application which must be under oath and based on the
personal knowledge of the applicant or witness he may produce
Sec. 5
Cases:
Answer:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Held:
Since the clerk of court could not produce the sworn statements showing
that the judge examined them in the form of searching questions and
answers, the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the
Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in
writing and attaching them to the record. No presumption of regularity can
be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify it.
Difference between Pp v Tee and Pp v. Mamaril-
In the first, it was shown that there was deposition taken of the testimonies
of the applicant or witnesses but not attached; while in the second, there
was no taking of the testimony or examination.
Insufficiency of Affidavits
Case:
(3) There is no rigid rule for determining whether the stated time of
observation of the offense is too remote from the time when the affidavit is
made or the search warrant issued but, generally speaking, a lapse of time
of less than three weeks will be held not to invalidate the search warrant,
while a lapse of four weeks will be held to be so.
Facts:
Issue:
Considering that during the deposition-taking, no witness testified on
anything about drug paraphernalia, should the warrant be nullified for
having been issued without probable cause?
Held:
The failure to correctly state in the search warrant the first name of accused
does not invalidate the warrant provided there is additional description that
would sufficiently enable the police officers to locate the petitioner. What is
prohibited is a warrant against an unnamed party, and not one which
contains a description personae that will enable the officer to identify the
accused without difficulty. (Nala vs. Barroso, Jr., GR 153087, Aug.7, 2003)
If name is not known, then a fictitious name should be used coupled with
sufficient description of the person.
A John Doe warrant which does not name the person subject of the same, is
the exception rather than the rule. Hence, in one case a warrant was voided
to the extent that it was issued against fifty (50) John Does none of which
could be identified by the witnesses (Pangandaman vs. Casar, 159 SCRA
599).
While the rule requires it necessary to express the name or give some
description of a party subject of the warrant, the principle does not prevent
the issue and service of a warrant against a party whose name is unknown.
In such a case, the best possible description of the person is to be given in
the warrant; but it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be
served, by stating his occupation, his personal appearance and
peculiarities, the place of his residence or other circumstances by which he
can be identified. The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the
proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served.
Where the search warrant is issued for the search of a specifically described
premises only and not for the search of a person, the failure to name the
owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and search warrant
does not invalidate the warrant; where the name of the owner of the
premises sought to be searched is incorrectly inserted in the warrant, it is
not a fatal defect if the legal description of the premises to be searched is
otherwise correct so that no discretion is left to the officer making the
search as to the place to be searched. (Quenlan vs. People, GR No. 166061,
July 6, 2007).
The law does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by
the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It is sufficient that
the person against whom the swarrant is directed has control and
possession of the property sought to be seized (Yao v. People, G.R. No.
168306, June 19, 2007).
Question:
Answer:
No. In seizing the said items then, the police officers were exercising
their own discretion and determining for themselves which items in
appellants residence they believed were proceeds of the crime or
means of committing the offense. This is absolutely impermissible. The
constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly
described in the warrant is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only
those, particularly described in the search warrant to leave the officers of
law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. A search
warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to
undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of
evidence or articles relating to a crime.
Note: Money and car are not illegal per se hence, the seizure cannot also be
justified under warrantless search of evidence in plain view.
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
The search warrant shall be issued in connection with but one offense.
Indeed, the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and
juridical persons therein named had committed a "violation of Central Bank
Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal
Code." In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said
applications. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed
were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who
issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the
same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party
against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed
specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws. As a
matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege any
specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be a legal heresy, of
the highest order, to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws,
Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code,"
as alleged in the aforementioned applications without reference to
any determinate provision of said laws or codes. (Stonehill v. Diokno, 20
SCRA 383)
Cases:
6. One-Offense Rule
Facts:
The opening statement of Search Warrant No. 2000-03 reads:
Facts:
The search warrant issued for violation of P.D. 49 directed the seizure,
among others, of pirated video-tapes.
Issue:
Held:
No. The search warrant itself indicates it was issued for violation of
Sec. 56, P.D. 49 only. The specifications therein merely refer to the titles of
the copyrighted motion pictures belonging to Columbia which defendants
were in possession for sale or lease in violation of P.D. 49. That there were
several counts of the offense of copyright infringement and the search
warrant uncovered several contraband items in the form of pirated video
tapes is not to be confused with the number of offenses charged.
Implementation/Enforcement of a Search Warrant
Jurisprudence discloses that the reasonableness of both the seizure and the
search does not exclusively refer to the manner by which the warrant
was procured. It refers also to the reasonableness of the manner the
warrant was executed including the time and place of its execution.
It is also required for a search to be reasonable that the object of the search
must be the one properly described in the warrant. Marron v. US, 275 US
192, 48 S.Ct., 1927, in holding that officers cannot seize property not
specified in the warrant, found that a search warrant describing only
intoxicating liquors should not include ledgers and bills of account within
the searched premises.
Where the warrant is clear and limited only to a particular place like a store
described in the warrant the search does not extend to the apartment units
located at the back of the store even if the sketch submitted to the judge
indlude the apartments. It is neither fair nor licit to allow officers to search a
place not described in the warrant because the place not described is what
the officers had in mind (People v. CA, 291 SCRA 400).
A search warrant for a place of a named owner is being executed and you
just happened to be in the premises searched, can you be also searched?
The prevailing American general rule is that a warrant to search a place does
not extend to the authority to search all persons in the place because the
police have no probable cause to search and detain a person not
particularized in the warrant. Thus, in Ybarra v. Illinois (444 US 85, 100 S.
Ct., 338 62 L. Ed. 2d 238 1979), the US Supreme Court struck down as
invalid a search of a mere patron in a bar.
There have been cases where the Court upheld the search of things
belonging to third persons while in the place validly searched as when
the officers had no knowledge that the same belongs to a third person
(Carman v. State, 602 P. 2d 1255, Alaska 1979).
2. He may liberate:
1. himself, or
Being armed with a warrant does not justify outright entry or barging into
the place to be searched. An officer should knock, introduce himself and
announce his purpose and only in exceptional cases may he forego the
same like when his safety is in danger of being jeopardized or when
evidence is about to be destroyed (Wilson v. Layne, 526 US 603, 143 L. Ed.
2d 818 119 S. Ct. 1692 1926).
Cases:
1. When to break door or window
People v. Huang Zhen Hua, 439 SCRA 350, September 29, 2004
Question:
When may the authorities armed with a search warrant break open
any door and enter without first knocking or announcing their presence?
Answer:
Cases:
1. Presence of occupants
Facts:
When the police searched the house, they ordered the occupants to
remain seated in the sala. The police, however, were accompanied by
barangay tanods who acted as witnesses when the search was going on in
the upper and lower portions of the house.
Issue:
Was there sufficient compliance with Sec. 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court?
Held:
No. The search of the house must be done in the presence of the
lawful occupants and it is only in the absence of the former that 2 witnesses
of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality may be called
upon to witness the search. While accused and the other occupants of the
house were present during the search, they were not allowed to actually
witness the search of the premises. They should be the ones that should
have accompanied the policemen while the search was being done and not
substituted by the barangay tanods in their stead. Such a procedure,
whereby the witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from actually
observing and monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the
spirit and the letter of the law.
SEC. 9. Time of making search. The warrant must direct that it be served
in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person
or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be
inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. (8)
SEC. 10. Validity of search warrant. A search warrant shall be valid for ten
(10) days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (9a)
A search warrant has a lifetime only of ten (10) days. Compare that with the
lifetime of a warrant of arrest under Section 4 of Rule 113. Under Rule 113,
the 10-day period does not mean to say that the warrant of arrest is only
good for 10 days. It is only a directive that you will enforce it within 10
days. If you cannot arrest, keep it and try to arrest the accused in the future.
But a search warrant, is different. After 10 days from its date, it shall be
void.
Does this mean to say that you can use a search warrant everyday for 10
days?
NO. You can use it once for 10 days. But it does not mean you can use it
everyday or for the next 10 days.
FACTS: On April 3, 1990, a search warrant was issued and a team of DENR
operatives searched the premises of Mustang Lumber in Valenzuela Metro
Manila on the same date. Not being able to complete the search on said date
it was continued the next day.
Is the search on April 4 a warrantless search?
HELD: We also affirm the rulings of both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals that the search on April 4,1990 was a continuation of the search on
April 3, 1990 done under and by virtue of the search warrant issued on April
3,1990. Under (section 9, Rule 126 of) the Rules of Court, a search warrant
has a lifetime of ten days. Hence, it could be served at any time within the
said period, and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in one
day, the same may be continued under the same warrant the following
day, provided it is still within the ten day period.
2. The receipt:
Cases:
Issue:
Where the occupants of the place to be searched were not actually
present during the search, may a member of the searching party sign the
receipt?
Held:
No. The procedure is irregular for failure to comply with Sec. 11, Rule
126 of the Rules of Court. The receipt issued by the seizing party in the case
at bar showed that it was signed by a witness, Sgt. Ignacio Veracruz. This
person was a policeman from the Manila Metropolitan Police, who
accompanied the agents of NBI during the conduct of the search. This
requirement of the Rules was rendered nugatory, when the one who
attested to the receipt from the raiding party was himself a member of the
raiding party.
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
No. Accused was the victim of a clever ruse to make him sign the
alleged receipt which in effect is an extra-judicial confession of the
commission of the offense. Indeed it is unusual for accused to be made to
sign receipts for what were taken from him. It is the police officers who
confiscated the same who should have signed such receipts. No doubt this
is a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to remain silent
whereby he was made to admit the commission of the offense without
informing him of his right. Such a confession obtained in violation of the
Constitution is inadmissible in evidence.
1. After Seizure the officer must forthwith deliver to the judge who issued
the warrant:
1. if no return has been made the judge shall summon the person
to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why
Cases:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
No. Trial courts are known to take judicial notice of the practice of the
police in retaining possession of confiscated specimens suspected of being
marijuana by immediately forwarding them to the NBI for examination
before filing a case with the city prosecutors office. The mere tolerance by
trial courts of such a practice does not make it right. This violates the
mandatory requirements of the law and defeats the very purpose for
which they were enacted. Speculations as to the probability of tampering
with the evidence cannot then be avoided.
The case of Yee Sue Koy vs. Almeda (70 Phil 141) is cited to justify
retention by the police and the NBI of the custody of the allegedly
confiscated specimens. In said decision, the SC recognized the fact that the
objects seized were retained by the agents of the Anti-Usury Board, instead
of being turned over to the Justice of the Peace. However, the SC also held
that it was for the reason that the custody of said agents is the custody of
the issuing officer or court, the retention having been approved by the
latter.
One of the issues here is whether you can still claim the bottles, considering
that they have been paid for when bought by customers.
Question:
Answer:
1. Dangerous weapons, or
Requisites:
a. Subject and scope of search the person of the suspect and the
premises within his/her immediate control and the things to be
seized are limited to dangerous weapons or anything which may
be used as proof of the commission of the offense;
b. Time- must be contemporaneous to the lawful arrest or the search
must be conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately
thereafter;
c. Place at the place of arrest
Facts:
At 10:00 oclock in the evening, policemen received a report that
accused was about to deliver drugs that night at Thunder Inn Hotel in
Angeles City. Immediately, the police sent a team to the place. At 11:45 that
evening, accused arrived and parked his car near the entrance of the hotel,
then alighted carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box. The police accosted him.
The box accused carried contained 2 small transparent plastic bags with
almost 2 kilos of shabu and bullets for .22 caliber firearm.
Issue:
Held:
No. The search does not fall under the search incident to a lawful
arrest exception. For the exception to apply, there must be a lawful arrest
which can only occur if the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing or about to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting
officers. In this case, there was no overt manifestation that accused was
committing a crime. In in flagrante delicto arrests, reliable information
alone, absent any act of a felonious enterprise, in the presence of the
arresting officer, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that could
justify the arrest. Similarly, there was no valid stop-and-frisksearch. For
this exception to apply, the search and seizure must precede the arrest. In
this case, accused was first arrested before he was searched and the alleged
illegal items found in his possession.
Exception
Thus, when the person arrested was brought out of the room with his
hands tied, a cabinet which is locked could no longer be considered as part
of an area within his immediate control because there was no way for him
to take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against
him (Valeroso v. CA, supra).
If for instance, a person is legally arrested for illegal possession of drugs, the
search is not confined to things used in the commission of the crime. To
protect the arresting officer, the search extends to weapons like a gun or a
knife with no actual connection to the crime of illegal possession of the
drugs. If in the course of the search, evidence is found constituting proof of
another offense, like an illegally possessed weapon, it is submitted that the
phraseology of the rule does not prevent the seizure of the evidence. This is
subject to the condition that it is within the scope or subject of the search
as incident to a lawful arrest.
Sec. 13 of Rule 126 allows the warrantless search of the person lawfully
arrested as an incident to a lawful arrest in a manner similar to American
rulings allowing a full search of the body of the person. The cases of US v.
Robinson (414 US 218, 94 S. Ct. 467, 38 L. Ed. 2d 427 1973) and Gustafson v.
Florida, (414 US 260, 94 S. Ct. 488, 38 L. Ed. 2d 456, 1973), allowed the
search of the cigarette case of a person arrested for traffic violation. Illegal
drugs were discovered in both instances. A full search means searching
any property associated with the arrestees body like clothing, jewelry,
watches and others attached to the person in a permanent or semi-
permanent capacity. The search includes inspecting the clothing of the
person arrested for bloodstains, fingerprints or even serial numbers (State
v. Smith, 203 N.W. 2d 348 Minn. 1972; Parker v. State, 544 S.W. 2d 149 Tex.
Crim. App. 1976)
The Terry doctrine is of two parts: the stop and the frisk.
The frisk made after the stop must be done because of a reasonable
belief that the person stopped is in possession of a weapon that will pose a
danger to the officer and others. The frisk must be a mere pat down
outside the persons outer garment and not unreasonably intrusive.
Test for both the stop and frisk is not existence of probable cause as no
full arrest is made, but reasonable belief-
The test of the conduct of an officer under similar circumstances, was not
the existence of probable cause because no full arrest is made. The test
instead was reasonable belief (called a genuine reason in a Philippine
decision). Because of the important interest in protecting the safety of
police officers, the Court held that a law enforcement officer has the
authority to stop someone and do a quick surface search of their outer
clothing for weapons. This is allowed if the officer has a reasonable belief
based on a genuine reason and in the light of the officers experience and
the surrounding circumstances, that a crime has either taken place or is
about to take place and the person stopped is armed and dangerous. This
reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts and
not merely upon the officers bare suspicion or hunch.
Terry emphasized that a reasonable belief for making a stop must also be
followed by a frisk which is equally reasonable which means it should not
be broader than is necessary to find weapons in the person briefly
stopped. The ruling that probable cause is not required in a stop and frisk
situation is Terrys significant contribution to jurisprudence.
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit
the police officer to take steps to frisk to assure himself that the person
with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer (Malacat v. CA,
G.R. No. 123595, Dec. 12, 1997).
Illustrations:
In Esquillo v. People GR No. 182010, August 25, 2010, the police officers
were on a surveillance operation as part of their law enforcement efforts
when PO1 Cruz saw petitioner placing a plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance into her cigarette case. Given his training as a law
enforcement officer, it was instinctive on his part to be drawn to curiosity
and to approach her. That petitioner reacted by attempting to flee after he
introduced himself as a police officer and inquired about the contents of
the plastic sachet all the more pricked his curiosity.
Though both result in a warrantless search, they differ in terms of the (1)
requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and (2) in
their allowable scope (Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159; People vs. Chua, 396
SCRA 660).
Scope of search- The search is of the person and the area within his control.
It is thus, more intrusive and is conducted not only for the purpose of
finding weapons but also for the purpose of searching for evidence, any
fruit of a crime or of things which may provide the person arrested with the
means to escape.
A Terry search has a limited scope compared to a full scale arrest and
search. The Terry doctrine therefore, is not judged by the more stringent
requirement of probable cause which concededly applies only to an arrest
and a search. What applies in a Terry stop and frisk is the reasonableness of
the act of the officer. This reasonable standard while not sufficient to
validate an arrest and search, justifies a terry stop and frisk.
As a general rule, a search and seizure must be carried through with judicial
warrant, otherwise, such search and seizure constitutes derogation of a
constitutional right (Epie, Jr. v. Ulat-Marredo, 518 SCRA 641, March 22,
2007).
This is justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it
possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
Checkpoints
Probable cause not required for the stop and visual search-
A stop is proper even if the standards of probable cause are not satisfied
as long as it is called for under the balancing of interest principle.
The stop however, is a justification only for a limited search, which may
be less intrusive, or the so-called visual search but not an extensive
search.
In Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002, the
Supreme Court summarized the instances of routine search, thus:
1. Where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle
which is parked on the public fair gounds;
2. Simply looks into the vehicle;
3. Flashes a light therein without opening the cars doors;
4. Where the occupants are not subject to a physical or body search;
5. Where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual
search or visual inspection; and
The fact that the evidence is in plain view is not alone sufficient to justify
a warrantless seizure. American courts which have extensively discussed
the principle have held that the seizure be based also on the immediately
apparent element.
The plain view doctrine does not therefore apply where the officers did not
just accidentally discover the evidence but actually searched for it (Valeroso
v. CA, GR No. 164815, Sept. 3, 2009).
CUSTOMS SEARCHES
CONSENTED SEARCH
The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does
not amount to a permission to make a search therein. (People vs. Barros,
144 SCRA 01)
It is the state which has the burden of proving, by clear and positive
testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely
and voluntarily given. (Caballes vs. CA, G.R. No. 136292, Jan. 15,2002)
Remedy/ies
it may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action
has been instituted
the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the
search warrant
3. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case
is subsequently filed in another court:
The manner of serving the warrant and of effecting the search are not an
issue to be resolved in a motion to quash the search warrant.The remedy
is a motion to suppress evidence.
Issue:
May the court issuing the search warrant quash the same on the
ground of lack of probable cause despite the pendency of a preliminary
investigation before the prosecutors office involving possession of objects
which were seized by virtue of the warrant?
Held:
Facts:
Held:
The course taken by petitioners and company stinks in illegality, not falling
under any of the exceptional instances when a warrantless search is
allowed by law. Petitioners violation of individual respondents right against
unreasonable search furnishes the basis for the award of damages under
Art. 32 of the NCC, under which not only public officers but also private
individuals are civilly liable for violation of the rights enumerated therein.
(Silahis v. Soluta, GR No. 163087, February 20, 2006).
When to object and Waiver of objections to illegal search
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Where accused fails to challenge the legality of the arrest before trial,
is he also precluded from questioning the legality of the search?
Answer:
No. The waiver by the accused of his right to question the legality of
his arrest does not necessarily carry with it his waiver of the right to
question the admissibility of any evidence procured by the police on the
occasion of or incidental to his illegal arrest or thereafter. The plea and
actual participation of the accused in the trial would not cure the illegality
of the search and transform the inadmissible evidence into objects of proof.
Question of Standing