Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 118

Procedure (2002 Edition) Pre-Trial

Rule 118
PRE-TRIAL

SECTION 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. – In all criminal cases

cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from
the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless
a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme
Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:
(a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but
interposes a lawful defense; and
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the
criminal and civil aspects of the case. (secs. 2 and 3, cir. 38-98)

One thing you have to remember, pre-trial in criminal cases is now MANDATORY as compared to
the 1985 rules. In the prior rules, “if the accused and his lawyer will agree.” Ngayon parang civil case
na rin – mandatory in all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, RTC, MTC, etc. after arraignment and
within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

That is why there was a bar question before – how do you distinguish a pre-trial in a criminal case
from a pre-trial in a civil case? And one of the answers there is that pre-trial in a criminal cases is not
mandatory, in civil case it is mandatory. But now, wala na yan. Palitan mo na yan. That answer is
obsolete because of this amendment. You must always see to it that the answers are valid under the
new law. Do not stick to answers given by the UP Law Center – tama man yon at that time. But now
they are changed.

[A] PLEA BARGAINING

Plea Bargaining. That is Section 2 of Rule 116 is all about – yung tawaran tayo, plea of a lesser
offense with the consent of the prosecutor and the offended party.

Now, there is only one EXCEPTION: plea bargaining seems to be prohibited under the Dangerous
Drugs Act, Section 20-A – when you are charged with the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and
the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death – no plea bargaining! Bawal!

[B] STIPULATION OF FACTS – meaning, if we can agree on certain facts, so that during the trial we
do not have to prove them anymore.

[C] MARKING FOR IDENTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES – showing of the evidence
already so that during the trial, they can easily be identified.

[D] WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – we will agree beforehand

whether the evidence is admissible or not.

[E] MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF TRIAL IF THE ACCUSED ADMITS THE CHARGE BUT
INTERPOSES A LAWFUL DEFENSE

Paragraph [e] is new – Modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but
interposes a lawful defense. Meaning, “I am accused of homicide. I admit I killed him but I acted in
self-defense.” Ganun ba? Palitan natin, mauna ka. The prosecution will not present evidence
ahead because anyway you admitted ikaw ang pumatay. This is what we call trial in reverse.

This is because in relation to Section 11[e], Rule 119:

Lakas Atenista 156

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 118
Procedure (2002 Edition) Pre-Trial

(e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the
complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of
trial may be modified.

[F] SUCH MATTERS AS WILL PROMOTE A FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF THE CRIMINAL
AND CIVIL ASPECTS OF THE CASE.

Q: Can we discuss in a pre-trial of a criminal case settlement or compromise?

A: Yes – sa civil aspect lang because we know the rule that compromise in the criminal aspect is not
allowed. But if we talk about how to promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal aspect, ah
puwede yan. Anyway it has nothing to do with areglo.

SEC. 2. Pre-trial agreement. – All agreements or admissions made or entered

during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The
agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court. (sec. 4 cir. 38-98)

Take note, pre-trial agreements or admissions made or entered into the pre-trial conference must be
in writing and signed by the accused and his counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the
accused. There is no such provision in civil procedure to that effect.

Q: Now, is this requirement mandatory?

A: YES.
FULE vs. COURT OF APPEALS
162 SCRA 446

FACTS: There were some stipulations made during the trial: Is this your check? “Yes,
that is my check.” Did you issue it to the complainant? “Ah yes – admitted!” You knew it was
not funded? “Yes, I know!” That the check bounced? “Yes – admitted!” Ganun? OK,
convicted ka!

HELD: The conviction is not valid because the accused did not sign his admissions.

Do not confuse the case of Fule with the case of

PEOPLE vs. HERNANDEZ

260 SCRA 25, July 30, 1996

ISSUE: Are the agreements or stipulations made during the trial (not pre-trial) without
being signed by the party binding on the accused?

HELD: YES because iba ang rules sa trial compared sa pre-trial. If the lawyer makes an
admissions during the trial we follow the general rule – you are bound. The lawyer
represents the client. There is no need for the client to agree or sign anything.
“An attorney who is employed to manage a party's conduct of a lawsuit has prima facie
authority to make relevant admissions by pleadings, by oral or written stipulation, which
unless allowed to be withdrawn are conclusive. In fact, judicial admissions are frequently
those of counsel or of the attorney of record, who is, for the purpose of the trial, the agent of
his client. When such admissions are made for the purpose of dispensing with proof of
some fact, they bind the client, whether made during, or even after, the trial."
“The foregoing find basis in the general rule that a client bound by the acts of his
counsel who represents him. For all intents and purposes, the acts of a lawyer in the defense
of a case are the acts of his client.”

The last sentence is new: “The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court.”

Lakas Atenista 157

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 118
Procedure (2002 Edition) Pre-Trial

SEC. 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial conference. – If the counsel for the

accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and does
not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court may impose
proper sanctions or penalties. (sec. 5, cir. 38-98)

Section 3, bago rin ito. Here, it is not the party who is penalized, but the lawyer – if the counsel of
the accused or the prosecutor does not appear in the pre-trial conference and there is no offer.

SEC. 4. Pre-trial order. – After the pre-trial conference, the court shall
issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence
marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not
disposed of, and control the course f the action during the trial, unless
modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. (3)

So after the trial, the court will issue a pre-trial order where it will summarize what matter had
been agreed upon; what are the issues; the elements that had been established; facts stipulated; and
exhibits that had been marked.

Now, before we leave this rule, please review the provisions on Katarungang Pambarangay Law on
the provisions of conciliation in the barangay of criminal cases – penalty not more than one year.
MANDATORY man yan ba!

In other words, that is one way of saying indirectly, compromise in criminal cases is now allowed.
That is an instance where an offer of a compromise in a criminal case is not an implied admission of
guilt.

[The following discussions on the Katarungang Pambaranggay are taken in 1996 Criminal Procedure
Transcription:]

In connection with Rule 118, you must be aware of another law which is closely related to the
subject matter of Pre-Trial. What we will discuss is the Katarungang Pambarangay Law which is
applicable to both criminal and civil cases. This law used to be PD 1508 which was already repealed.
The new law on Katarungang Pambaranggay is from Section 399 to Section 422 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 [R.A. 7160] which took effect last January 1, 1992.

Under this law, you cannot file the case directly in court or with the fiscal’s office without first
trying to settle things with the Lupong Tagapamayapa which is headed by the Barangay Captain. If
thee case is not settled at this level, that is the time the Barangay Captain would say, “We will bring
this matter to court.”

The law applies only to the following instances:

1) When the case is between natural persons; (does not apply to corporations and the like)
2)
3) When the offended party and the accused reside in the same city or municipality; (not
necessarily in the same barangay)
Example: B is from Bunawan and he sued T who is from Toril. The barangays are
from one end to the other. Is there are need for B to comply with the Barangay Law? YES
because they are of the same city, and under the law, the venue is the residence of the
respondent or accused.

3) When the crime is punishable by imprisonment NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR or fine
otrexceeding P5,000. (case is cognizable by the MTC)

The Katarungang Pambarangay does not apply to the following cases:

1) Where there is no private offended party (e.g. illegal possession of firearms)

2) In criminal cases where the accused is under police custody or detention (This is the so-called
inquest, after a valid warrantless arrest.)

Lakas Atenista 158

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 118
Procedure (2002 Edition) Pre-Trial

In these two latter instances, the case can be filed directly in court without going through the
conciliation process. Where these rules apply, there must be a certification that you have first tried to
settle matters in the barangay.

The Supreme Court has issued a circular on the applicability of the Barangay Law: Administrative
Circular No. 14-93 dated July 15, 1993 where the SC laid down all the guidelines for the
implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

[End of the 1996 transcription. The following notes are taken from A Laymen’s Guide To Court Procedure, A
Handbook On Lawsuits by Neomi T. Olivares and Justice Jose Y. Feria, pp.63-65]:

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

Katarungang Pambarangay is the system which promotes and implements t he amicable settlement of
disputes at the barangay level before resorting to filing cases in court or in any other government office.
It was first established by Presidential Decree 1508 (signed into law on June 1978, now superseded by
sections 399 to 422 of R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.)

Only individuals actually residing in the same barangay, city or municipality can be parties to the
proceedings. Corporations, partnerships, and other juridical entities are not covered by R.A. 7160.

Each barangay constitutes a body know as LUPONG TAGAPAMAYAPA (hereinafter referred to as

LUPON) which administers the conciliation or arbitration process. A Lupon is composed of 10 to 20
members chosen from the community and is headed by the Barangay Captain. Disputes brought before
the Lupon are resolved by a conciliation panel known as PANGKAT NG TAGAPAGKASUNDO
(hereinafter referred to as PANGKAT), consisting of 3 members chosen by agreement between the
disputing parties from the list of the membership of the LUPON.

In all proceedings, parties appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative,
with the exception of minors and physically or mentally handicapped people who may be assisted by
their nest of kin (who are not lawyers). Refusal or willful failure to appear in compliance with the
barangay summons may result in barring:
 The complainant from seeking recourse in the courts for the same cause of action; or
 The respondent from filing any counterclaim connected therewith.

Proceedings are public and informal, except for those cases which require the exclusion of the
public in the interest of public decency or morals.

CASES NOT SUBJECT TO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AT THE

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY:

1) Where one party is the government or a subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

2) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance
of his official function;
3) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year or a fine exceeding PhP 5,000;
4) Offenses where there is no private offended party.

DISPUTES NOT COVERED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LUPON

1) Those involving parties who reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities unless
their barangays are adjoining.
2) Those involving real property located in different cities or municipalities.

In both cases, the parties may agree to submit their differences for amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon.

Conciliation proceedings at the barangay level are a pre-condition to filing an action in court or a
government office. Non-compliance with this requisite may result in the dismissal of the complaint.

Lakas Atenista 159

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 118
Procedure (2002 Edition) Pre-Trial

PARTIES MAY FOREGO THE BARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCESS

AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE COURT WHEN:

1) The accused is under detention.

2) Habeas corpus proceedings are called for.
3) Actions are accompanied by provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, delivery of personal property, etc.
4) Legal action is barred by the Statute of Limitations (the law that bars the institution of an
action after the lapse of a prescribed period.)

== end ==

July 15, 1993

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93

Subject : Guidelines on the Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation procedure

to prevent circumvention of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law (Sections 399-422, chapter VII, Title I, Book III, R.A. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991).

To : All Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R.A. 7160, otherwise known as
the Local Government Code of 1991, effective on January 1, 1992, and which
repealed P.D. 1508, introduced substantial changes not only in the authority
granted to the Lupon Tagapamayapa but also in the procedure to be observed in
the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon. cd i
In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not subverted and its
effectiveness undermined by indiscriminate, improper and/or premature issuance
of certifications to file actions in court by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretaries,
attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen, respectively, the following guidelines
are hereby issued for the information of trial court judges in cases brought
before them coming from the Barangays:

I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the

Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now
replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title
I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991),
and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in
court or any government offices, EXCEPT in the following disputes:

1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or

instrumentality thereof;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute
relates to the performance of his official functions;
3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different
cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit
their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical
entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay
conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents (Sec.
1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
NOTE: Only natural persons can undergo barangay conciliation.

5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of

different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units
adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of
imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00);
7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice
from being committed or further continued, specifically the
following:
NOTE: “Urgently.” A good example in civil action is where the action is
coupled with a provisional remedy such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
replevin or support. Or, actions which may be barred by the statute of
limitations.

Lakas Atenista 160

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 118
Procedure (2002 Edition) Pre-Trial

a) Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (See

Sec. 412 (b)(1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);
b) Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his
rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived of his
liberty or one acting in his behalf;
c) Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support
during the pendency of the action; and
d) Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the

interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice;
10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) (Secs. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee
relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor
Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction
over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems
to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment);
NOTE: In the case of Montoya vs. Escayo (171 SCRA 442), the
conciliation there is in the Department of Labor.

12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise, which may be filed

directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).

II. Under the provisions of R.A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay

conciliation, as implemented by the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Justice, the certification for
filing a complaint in court or any government office shall be issued by Barangay
authorities only upon compliance with the following requirements: aisa dc

1) Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman

(Punong Barangay), certifying that a confrontation of the parties has
taken place and that a conciliation or settlement has been reached,
but the same has been subsequently repudiated (Sec. 412, Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 2[h], Rule III, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules);
2) Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman,
certifying that:

a. a confrontation of the parties took place but no

conciliation/settlement has been reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules; or
b. that no personal confrontation took place before the Pangkat
through no fault of the complainant (Sec. 4[f], Rule III,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules).

3) Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party on

the ground of failure of settlement where the dispute involves
members of the same indigenous cultural community, which shall be
settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that
particular cultural community, or where one or more of the parties to
the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority and the parties mutually
agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system of amicable
settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by the datu
or tribal leader or elder to the Punong Barangay of the place of
settlement (Secs. 1, 4, & 5, Rule IX, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
and
4) If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay
proved unsuccessful, there having been no agreement to arbitrate
(Sec. 410 [b], Revised Rule Katarungang Pambarangay Lay; Sec. 1, c,
(1), Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), or where the
respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the
Punong Barangay (3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay
Rules), the Punong Barangay shall not cause the issuance of this
stage of a certification to file action, because it is now mandatory
for him to constitute the Pangkat before whom mediation,
conciliation, or arbitration proceedings shall be held.

III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch

of the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court
shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has been
compliance with prior Barangay conciliation procedure under the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, as a

Lakas Atenista 161

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 118
Procedure (2002 Edition) Pre-Trial

pre-condition to judicial action, particularly whether the certification to file

action attached to the records of the case comply with the requirements
hereinabove enumerated in par. II;

IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation
which is a pre-condition for formal adjudication (Sec. 412[a] of the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law)

1) may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack of

jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of action or
prematurity (Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA
289), or
2) the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party under Sec.
1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court; and refer the case motu propio to the
appropriate Barangay authority, applying by analogy Sec. 408[g], 2nd
par., of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law which reads as
follows:
"The Court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the
authority of the Lupon under this Code are filed may at any time
before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the Lupon concerned
for amicable settlement.

Strict observance of these guidelines is enjoined. This Administrative

Circular shall be effective immediately.

Manila, Philippines. July 15, 1993.

(Sgd.) ANDRES R. NARVASA

Chief Justice


editor-in-chief: mortmort editors: jayceebelle balite • j-j torres • michael peloton • maying dadula • jessamyn
agustin • lyle santos • paul ryan ongkingco • dynn gutierrez • maya quitain • riezl locsin • patrick tabar •
maritess gonzales • maricel culpable • kenneth leyva • jenny namoc • ferdinand vido • melissa suarez •
rayda sullano • rucel cayetano • rod quiachon • hannah examen • myra montecalvo • genie salvaña • grace
salesa • leo gillesania • gemma betonio • jenny aquiatan • michael pito • karen de leon • elma tormon •
judee uy • pao angeles • jet pascua • contributing editors: bathsheba baldoza • marlo masangkay
_-----_ _
/ / \/ \
/ / / / /| \\
| // / / /\\\|
\ / /\////^ \/
(| __ __ |)
| |
| '--' |
\ -- /
\ ____ /

SPACE-FILLER #6:

A friend and I were shopping for dresses for her three-year-old girls to
wear to a wedding. In the shop, another girl staring intently at Sarah and
Becky asked, “Are those girls twins?”
“Actually they’re triplets,” I explained. “They have a brother at home.”
“Wow,” she replied. “They sure look like twins to me.”

Source: Reader’s Digest, November 2000

Lakas Atenista 162