CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Dean Lope E. Feble

Charlie Te vs. Hon. Augusto Breva

G.R. No. 164974, August 5, 2015
BERSAMIN, J.:

ISSUE: IS THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IN A

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF A SEARCH
WARRANT IN THE CA?

RULING:
It cannot be denied that the search warrant in question had been issued in the name
of the People of the Philippines, and that fact rendered the People of the Philippines
indispensable parties in the special civil action for certiorari brought to nullify the
questioned orders of respondent Presiding Judge. Therefore, if the People is not
impleaded the petition should be dismissed for violating Sec. 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of
Court.

Berua vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 177600, October 19, 2015
BERSAMIN, J.:

ISSUE: CAN A JUDGE INTERTAIN DETERMINATION OF JUDICIAL

DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AFTER A WARRANT OF ARREST HAS
BEEN ISSUED?

RULING: NO. We should remind that the trial judge, by issuing the warrants of arrest,
already found the existence of probable cause against Indeed, the act of issuing the
warrant of arrest upon filing of the information and supporting papers implied that the
judge has determined the existence of probable cause for the offenses charged. It is
then superfluous for the accused to seek the judicial determination of probable cause on
the pretext that the trial court should still act and proceed independently of the executive
determination of probable cause to charge the proper offense.

Te vs. Hon. Augusto Breva

G.R. No. 164974, August 5, 2015; BERSAMIN, J.

ISSUE: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF THE ACCUSED DURING

PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT?

RULING: He losses his rights to post judgment remedies (MR, NEW TRIAL, APPEAL)
pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 120. To regain this right he must submit to the jurisdiction of
the Court (surrender) and files a motion to justify his absence. The term surrender used
in the rule visibly necessitated his physical and voluntary submission to the jurisdiction
of the court to suffer any consequences of the verdict against him.

PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ

G.R. No. 175602, Jan. 18, 2012; BERSAMIN, J.

ISSUE: WHEN IS COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION SUFFICIENT?; PROHIBITION OF

INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCCE NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION.

RULING: No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly
allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be
stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be
included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and
essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a
crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation
against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The
presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.

The averments of the informations to the effect that the two accused with intent
to kill, qualified with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength did
xxx assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the victims by then and there
shooting [them] with a gun, hitting [them] on various parts of their bodies which [were]
the direct and immediate cause of [their] death[s] did not sufficiently set forth the facts
and circumstances describing how treachery attended each of the killings. It should not
be difficult to see that merely averring the killing of a person by shooting him with a gun,
without more, did not show how the execution of the crime was directly and specially
ensured without risk to the accused from the defense that the victim might make. Indeed,
the use of the gun as an instrument to kill was not per se treachery, for there are other
instruments that could serve the same lethal purpose. Nor did the use of the
term treachery constitute a sufficient averment, for that term, standing alone, was
nothing but a conclusion of law, not an averment of a fact. In short, the particular acts
and circumstances constituting treachery as an attendant circumstance in murder were
missing from the informations.

A practical consequence of the non-allegation of a detail that aggravates his

liability is to prohibit the introduction or consideration against the accused of
evidence that tends to establish that detail. The allegations in the information are
controlling in the ultimate analysis

Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, et. al.

G.R. No. 212140-41, January 21, 2015

CAN PROBABLE CAUSE BE ESTABLISHED WITH HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN A

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?

RULING: Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is
substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in
determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is
merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.
However, in administrative cases, where rights and obligations are finally adjudicated,
what is required is "substantial evidence" which cannot rest entirely or even partially on
hearsay evidence. Substantial basis is not the same as substantial evidence because
substantial evidence excludes hearsay evidence while substantial basis can include
hearsay evidence.

Pp. v. Castillo, et. al.

G.R. No. 204419, November 7, 2016

WHETHER A MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A

SEARCH WARRANT INVOLVING AN OFFENSE IN WHICH IT HAS NO
JURISDICTION

RULING: A search warrant may be issued by any court pursuant to Section 2, Rule 126
of the Rules of Court and the resultant case may be filed in another court that has
jurisdiction over the offense committed. What controls here is that a search warrant is
merely a process, generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction,
and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original
jurisdiction. Thus, in certain cases when no criminal action has yet been filed, any court
may issue a search warrant even though it has no jurisdiction over the offense allegedly
committed, provided that all the requirements for the issuance of such warrant are
present.

Enrile v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015
IS ENRILE ENTITLED TO BAIL?

RULING: In our view, his social and political standing and his having immediately
surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of
his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal disposition from
the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter
respect for the legal processes of this country. We also do not ignore that at an earlier
time many years ago when he had been charged with rebellion with murder and multiple
frustrated murder, he already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the
legal processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of his trial because he was
not seen as a flight risk.

With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public
service, and historys judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.

The currently fragile state of Enriles health presents another compelling justification for
his admission to bail, but which the Sandiganbayan did not recognize.

GMA v. Sandiganbayan

WHAT IS THE PROPER REMEDY TO ASSAIL THE DENIAL OF THE DEMURRER

TO EVIDENCE?

RULING: Notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the
demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the
remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Pangandag v. Abinal
AM No MTJ-16-1877, June 13, 2016

DOES A COMPLAINT FOR GRAVE THREATS WHICH CONTAIN NO DEMAND FOR

MONEY OR IMPOSITION OF CONDITION FALL UNDER THE JURISDICITION OF
THE MCTC?

Ruling: Yes, a complaint for grave threats which does not contain a demand for money
nor imposition of condition falls under the jurisdiction of the MCTC. The absence of an
allegation pertaining to a demand for money or imposition of condition would be relevant
to the jurisdiction of the MCTC. Article 282 of the RPC clearly provides that the penalty
for grave threats without a condition shall be arresto mayor (imprisonment for the
maximum period of 6 months)

IS DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND ISSUING OF WARRANT OF

ARREST UNDER RULE 112 MINISTERIAL?

Ruling: No, the determination of probable cause and issuing of warrant of arrest under
Rule 112 are not ministerial. Judges are required to personally examine private
complainants and witnesses, as well as any supporting documents that they may
produce. The purpose is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that
the persons being prosecuted are guilty of the crime charged. Afterwards, judges would
again be required to exercise judicial discretion to ascertain if there is a necessity to
place the accused in custody so that the ends of justice would not be frustrated.

Quisay v. People
GR No. 216920, January 13, 2016

IS THE CERTIFICATION ATTACHED TO THE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT

COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 4, RULE 112?

Ruling: No, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed before the courts without
the prior written authority or approval of the foregoing authorized officers renders the
same defective and, therefore, subject to quashal pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule 11 7
of the Rules of Court. In this case, there was no showing that it was approved by either
the City Prosecutor of Makati or any of the OCP Makatis division chiefs or review
prosecutors.

Pemberton v. De Lima
GR No. 217508, April 18, 2016

WILL ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE PRECLUDE A FINDING OF PROBABLE

CAUSE?

Ruling: No, absence of direct evidence does not preclude a finding of probable cause.
It has been the consistent pronouncement of the Court that, in such cases, the
prosecution may resort to circumstantial evidence.

Young v. People of the Philippines

GR No. 213910, February 3, 2016

WHETHER OR NOT A JUDGE IS AUTHORIZED TO IMMEDIATELY DISMISS THE

CASE IF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH PROBABLE
CAUSE

Ruling: Yes, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause
that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which
unmistakably negate the existence of the elements charged.

Fortaleza and Natividad v. Gonzalez

GR No. 179287 & 182090, February 1, 2016

DID THE COURT LOSE CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDINGS BY REASON OF A

REINVESTIGATION OR REVIEW CONDUCTED BY EITHER THE DOJ OR OP?

Ruling: No, once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case
as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion
of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of
criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on
the trial court. Under Section 11 (c) of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, the arraignment
shall be suspended for a period not exceeding 60 days when a reinvestigation or review
is being conducted at either the Department of Justice or the Office of the President.
However, we should stress that the court does not lose control of the proceedings by
reason of such review. Once it had assumed jurisdiction, it is not handcuffed by any
resolution of the reviewing prosecuting authority. Neither is it deprived of its jurisdiction
by such resolution.

Ibanez, et. al. v. People

GR No. 190798, January 27, 2016

DOES THE FAILURE OF A COUNSEL DE OFFICIO TO APPEAR ON THE TRIAL

COURT HEARING CONSTITUTE DENIAL OF THEIR RIGHT TO COUNSEL?

Ruling: No, the failure of a counsel de officio to appear during trial does not constitute
denial of their right to counsel. There was no denial of right to counsel as evinced by the
fact that the petitioners were not only assisted by a counsel de oficio during arraignment
and pre-trial but more so, their counsel de oficio actively participated in the proceedings
before the trial court including the direct and cross-examination of the witnesses. As
aptly found by the CA, the petitioners were duly represented by a counsel de oficio all
throughout the proceedings except for one hearing when their court appointed lawyer
was absent and Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit presented their testimonies. As previously
stated, it was during said hearing when the trial court declared that the cross-
examination of the said two prosecution witnesses was deemed waived.

Arriola v. People
GR No. 217680, May 30, 2016
WAS THE PROSECUTION ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF PETITIONER
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

Ruling: No, the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt. Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two
things: (1) the fact of the crime, that the presence of all the elements of the crime with
which the accused stands charged, and (2) the fact that the accused is the perpetrator
of the crime. The State, aside from showing the existence of the crime of falsification of
public document, has the burden of correctly identifying the author of such crime.

Pp v. Vargas
GR No. 208446, April 6, 2016

WHETHER OR NOT AN IDENTIFICATION BASED ON INCONSISTENT SWORN

STATEMENT AND TESTIMONY OF AN EYEWITNESS IS RELIABLE

Ruling: No, great care should be taken in considering the identification of the accused
especially, when this identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the
case totally depends on the reliability of the identification.

Senit v. Pp
GR No. 192914, January 11, 2016

DID THE RTC AND CA ERR IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN ORDER
TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS BEHALF?

Ruling: No. a new trial may not be had on the basis of evidence which was available
during trial but was not presented due to its negligence.

Burgos, Jr. v. Sps. Naval, et al.

GR No. 219468, June 8, 2016

WILL A CERTIORARI PETITION BEFORE THE CA BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE

TO JOIN THE OSG?

Ruling: Yes, a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals shall be dismissed if it fails
to join the OSG. Jurisprudence dictates that it is the OSG which possesses the requisite
authority to represent the People in an appeal on the criminal aspect of the case. In
People v. Piccio, SC held that "if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court
or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on
the criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor is rooted in the
principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and
not the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses. For this reason, the People are
therefore deemed as the real parties in interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only
the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court.

Malayan Insurance Company v. Piccio

GR No. 203370, April 11, 2016

IS THE LONE APPEAL OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WITHOUT OSGS

AUTHORIZATION ENOUGH TO ELEVATE THE CASE TO A HIGHER COURT?

Ruling: No, the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the
Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG45 which is "the law office of the
Government whose specific powers and functions include that of representing the
Republic and/or the People [of the Philippines] before any court in any action which
affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require." Section 35 (1),
Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. Here, the notice of
appeal was filed by private complainant without the authorization from the OSG.