JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE

Wesleyan University-Philippines

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Dean J.V. Bautista

S Y L LA B U S
ST
(1 Semester, SY 2017-18)

Constitutional Provisions: Article III, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution

- Due Process Rights: Sec. 1, Sec. 14(1)
- Right Against Unreasonable Search & Seizure: Sec. 2, Sec. 3
- Rights Under Custodial Investigation: Sec. 12
- Right to Bail, Liberty: Sec. 13, Sec. 15
- Rights of the Accused: Sec. 14(2), Sec. 17
- Right to Speedy Disposition of Case: Sec. 16,
- Prohibition Against Cruel & Unusual Punishment: Sec. 19
- Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy: Sec. 21
- Prohibition Against Ex Post Fact Law or Bill of Attainder: Sec. 22

Remedial Law

Substantive Law and Remedial Law (Procedural, Adjective)

The Rules of Court

- Civil Action (Ordinary, Special), Special Proceedings,
Criminal Action
- 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rules Promulgated By Supreme Court in Criminal Cases (Sec. 5(5),

Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

Jurisdiction and Hierarchy of Courts

Concept of Jurisdiction
Original/Appellate
Exclusive/Concurrent

Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

U.S. v. Pagdayuman, 5 Phil. 265 (1905)
Lopez v. The City Judge. 18 SCRA 616 (1966)
Exceptions:
(a) Art. 2, Revised Penal Code
(b) Sec. 5(4), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution:
Change of venue by Supreme Court
(c) Sec. 15(b), Rule 110, 2000 Rules: Offenses
committed in train, aircraft, vehicle
(d) Sec. 15(c), Rule 110, 2000 Rules: Offenses
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 02.

committed on board a vessel

(e) Sandiganbayan cases
Subido v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122641
January 20, 1997
Sec. 2, R.A. 8249: Hearing in another geo-
 graphical region
(f) Art. 360, Revised Penal Code, as amended by
R.A. 1289 and R.A. 4363
Agbayani v. Sayo, 89 SCRA 699
Foz, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167764 October
9, 2009
Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009

Jurisdiction and Hierarchy of Courts

Supreme Court: Sec. 1 (Judicial Review), Sec. 4(2), Sec. 5(1),

Sec. 5(2), 1987 Constitution
Court of Appeals: B.P. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980)
Regional Trial Courts: B.P. 129; Art. 360, Revised Penal Code
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts:B.P. 129, R.A. 7691 (Expanding
Jurisdiction of MetTC, MTC, MCTC)
Sandiganbayan: Sec. 4, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution; P.D. 1606,
amended by R.A. 7975, R.A. 8249

2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure (RULE 110 to RULE 127)

RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

Jurisdiction Determined by Allegations in Information
Macasaet v. People, 452 SCRA 255

SEC. 1. Institution of criminal actions –

A. Where P.I. required – file complaint (complaint-affidavit) with
proper officer for the conduct of P.I., Sec. 1(a)
- P.I. mandatory where penalty prescribed is at least
4 years, 2 months, 1 day
RTC jurisdiction: more than 6 years imprisonment
- Proper officer: City/Provincial Prosecutor, Regional State
Prosecutor, DOJ, Ombudsman
- Exception: Warrantless arrest/Inquest, Sec. 6, Rule 112
B. All other offenses (not requiring P.I.) – (a) file complaint or infor-
mation directly with MTC or MCTC (Direct filing); (b) file
complaint with office of the prosecutor, Sec. 1(b)
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 03.

C. In Manila and chartered cities (RTC, MetTC) – file complaint

with the City Prosecutor, Sec. 1(b)
(No direct filing in MetTC Manila, chartered cities)
Exception: Unless otherwise provided in charter

Interruption of prescription of offense (statute of limitations),

Sec. 1, last par.; Cf. Sec. 3(g), Rule 117 (Quashal of complaint/
information where criminal action/liability extringuished
Article 90, R.P.C. – Prescription of crime
Article 91, R.P.C. – Computation of prescription of offenses
Rule: Filing of complaint with prosecutor’s office will suspend
running of prescriptive period
People v. Olarte, G.R. No. L-22465, Feb. 28, 1967
 (J.B.L. Reyes ponencia; doctrinal)
Exception: “unless otherwise provided in special laws”
Act No. 3326: for violations of special acts and municipal
ordinances
Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277
Sanrio Co., Ltd. v. Lim, G.R. No. 168662, Feb. 19, 2008
SEC v. Intrport Resources Corp., G.R. No. 135808, Oct.
6, 2008
Panaguiton Jr. v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008

SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions – Par. 1

A. All criminal actions prosecuted under the direction and control
of a public prosecutor (City Prosecutor, Provincial Prosecutor,
Regional State Prosecutor, State Prosecutor)
Baviera v. Paglinawan, G.R. No. 168380, Feb. 8, 2007
Ledesma v. CA, 278 SCRA 656
Cf. Crespo v. Mogul, Supra
Republic v. Sunga, L-38634, June 20, 1988
Pinote v. Ayco, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944, Dec. 13, 2005
Caes v. IAC, 179 SCRA 54 (J. Cruz)
B. A private prosecutor, under following conditions:
(a) heavy work schedule of public prosecutor or lack of public
prosecutors
(b) with authority in writing from Chief of Prosecution Office
or Regional State Prosecution
(c) subject to approval by the Court
(d) authority may be revoked/withdrawn by public prosecutor
(e) to represent private offended party for recovery of civil
liability, Sec. 16; Cf. Sec. 1, Rule 111
People v. Dacudao, 170 SCRA 489
C. In MTC/MCTC, offended party, any peace officer, public officer
charged with enforcement of law violated (OCA Circular No.
39-2002, restored this in Sec. 5)
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 04.

D. In appeal of criminal cases before CA, SC, the Office of Solicitor

General (OSG) is appellate counsel for the People (Sec. 35(1),
1987 Administrative Code)
People v. Dacudao, Supra.

Only upon complaint by offended party in: (Private crimes, cannot be

prosecuted de oficio), Sec. 5, Par. 2, 3, 4, 5
A. Adultery and concubinage – by the offended spouse, and must
include all guilty parties
No prosecution: if offended party consented to offense or
pardoned the offenders
B. Seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness:
(a) by offended party or her parents, grand parents, guardian
No prosecution: if offender is expressly pardoned by offended
party or parents, grandparents, guardian
(b) Minor offended party has right to initiate prosecution
independently of her parents, grandparents, or guardian
Unless: minor is incompetent or incapable of initiating
(c) by minor’s parents, grandparents, guardian (exclusive of all
other persons and exercised successively in that order),
where minor offended party fails to file complaint
 (b) State shall initiate criminal action, where:
1. offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before
she can file complaint; and
2. offended party has no known parents, grandparents or
guardian
(Note: Under R.A. 8353, rape is no longer a crime against
chastity and can now be prosecuted de oficio)
C. Defamation (imputation of adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction, and acts of lasciviousness) – by offended party
D. Libel, slander, defamation – by offended party (Article 360, Par. 5,
R.P.C.)

SEC. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action –

Where civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted
In the criminal action, pursuant to Rule 111
Community Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) v. Talavera, 455
SCRA 34
Cabral v. Puno, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-41692, April 30, 1976
Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,452 SCRA 736

SEC. 2. The complaint or information – Form

SEC. 3. Complaint defined –
- Sworn written statement; subscribed by offended party, any
peace officer, public officer charged with enforcement of
the law violated (Cf. OCA Circular No. 39-2002)
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 05.

SEC. 4. Information defined –

- Accusation in writing; subscribed by the prosecutor; filed with
the Court
SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information –
SEC. 13. Duplicity of the offense –
Right of accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, Sec. 14(2), Article III, 1987
Constitution; Sec. 1(b), Rule 115
Complaint or information may be quashed if “it does not
conform substantially to the prescribed form”, Sec. 3(e),
Rule 117
People v. Mendoza, 175 SCRA 743
Cf. People v. Aspili, 191 SCRA 530
Licyayo v. People, G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008
SEC. 7. Name of the accused –
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense: Qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in
complaint or information
People v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 136164, April 20, 2001
Cf. Old rule: Qualifying circumstance not alleged but
proved will be considered as aggravating
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation –
Where information fails to allege qualifying or aggravating
circumstances, same cannot be considered in imposition
of penalty
People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 132923, June 6, 2002
Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008
People v. Ubina, G.R. No. 176349, July 10, 2007
SEC. 10. Place of commission of the offense –
 Lopez v. The City Judge, Supra.
People v. Taroy, 657 SCRA 349
Where place of commission is essential element of offense, it
must be alleged with particularity (e.g., Robbery in an
inhabited house)
SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense –
Precise date of offense not necessary to be stated in complaint
or information
Exception: When date is a material ingredient of offense
(e.g., Infanticide, which requires victim to be less
than three days old; physical injuries)
SEC. 12. Name of the offended party –
Juridical person as offended party: sufficient to state its name
U.S. v. Kepner, 1 Phil. 519
U.S. v. Lahoylahoy, 38 Phil. 330
(Also in Libel, People v. Uba, 99 Phil. 134)

CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 06.

SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution –

Amendment as matter of right (without leave of court) – at any
time before accused enters his plea
Amendment before plea which downgrades offense or excludes
any accused:
(a) only upon motion by the prosecutor
(b) with notice to offended party
(c) with leave of court
After plea and during trial:
(a) formal amendments only (e.g., real name of accused)
(b) with leave of court
(c) must not cause prejudice to the rights of the accused
Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736
Substantial amendment

SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted –

A. General rule: Court of municipality or territory where
offense was committed or where any of its essential
ingredients occurred
Not applicable to:
a. Libel (Art. 360, R.P.C.)
b, Felonies stated in Art. 2, R.P.C. (Extraterrito-
rial crimes)
c, Piracy (Arts. 122, 123, R.P.C.), triable anywhere
d. Continuing offenses (e.g., kidnapping or illegal
detention, abduction with rape
e. cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan
f. change of venue ordered by SC (Section 5[4],
Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
B. Offense committed in train, aircraft, other public/private
vehicle in the course of its trip - “passed during its trip,
including place of departure and arrival”
C. Offense committee on board a vessel in the course of its
voyage –“first port of entry” or “where vessel passed
during the voyage”, subject to principles of international
law
D. Extraterritorial crimes (Art. 2, R.P.C.) – where first filed
RULE 111 – PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

Art. 100, R.P.C: Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable

SEC. 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions –

General rule: Civil action deemed instituted with criminal,
(civil liability arising from the offense charged: damages
ex delicto)
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 07.

Exceptions: (a) waiver; (b) reservation; (c) prior institution

(Also, independent civil actions)
Exception to exception: Violation of BP 22, no reservation
allowed (Cf. Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa, G.R. No. 158177,
Jan. 28, 2008: prior filing of civil action was allowed)
Reservation to file separate civil action:
- before prosecution presents evidence
- separate civil action filed before filing of criminal
Statute of limitations (prescription) on civil liability is
deemed interrupted during pendency of criminal
Rule on filing fees:
a. Actual damages – no filing fees
b. Moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages –
when amount specified in information/complaint,
offended part pays filing fees upon filing in court
c. Moral, etc. – when not specified, and offended party
seeks to enforce, no filing fees, but first lien on the
judgment award
Litigation of counterclaim in separate civil action by accused
Art. 2177, Civil Code, quasi-delict
Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, Aug. 26, 2002
Consolidation of civil action with criminal
- separate civil action has not yet commenced
Does not apply to independent civil actions (Arts. 32, 33,
34 and 2176, Civil Code)
General rules of venue in civil actions apply
Exception: Libel (Art. 360, R.P.C.)

SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended –

Damages ex delicto only (arising from offense)
Does not apply to independent civil actions (Arts. 32, 33, 34
and 2176, Civil Code)
Extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction
of the civil liability – where acquittal was based on
reasonable doubt, as only preponderance of evidence is
required (Alferez v. People, 641 SCRA 116; Lim v.
MindanaoWines & Liquor Galleria, G.R. 17551, July 4,
2012)
However, a final judgment in criminal action finding that the
act or omission from which civil liability may arise did
not exist shall deem extinguished the civil action

SEC. 3. When civil action may proceed independently –

Art. 31, Civil Code: Obligation not arising from felony
Independent civil actions (Arts. 32, 33, 34, and 2176, Civil
 Code) – Civil liability arises from violation of specific
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 08.

provisions of the Civil Code

Art. 32: Violation of rights and liberties
Art. 33: Defamation, fraud, physical injuries
Art. 34: Refusal or failure to render aid or protection by police
Art. 2176: Quasi-delict/culpa aquiliana – damage caused by act
or omission, there being fault or negligence
Not deemed instituted
No reservation required
Not suspended, culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Limitation: Offended party cannot recover twice (Art. 2177,
Civil Code; Sec. 3)

SEC. 4. Effect of death (of accused) on civil actions –

a. Before arraignment: criminal case dismissed, without pre-
judice to civil action by offended party against estate
b. After arraignment: civil liability arising from the delict is
extinguished
c. Independent civil action: may be continued against the
estate or legal representative (heirs) of accused after
proper substitution; order of substitution within 30
days from notice
Final judgment in favor of offended party shall be enforced
under Rules 86 (Claims against estate) and 87 (Actions
by and against executors and administrators)

SEC. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar –

In independent civil action, result of the criminal action is
entirely irrelevant
Heirs of the Late Teodoro Guaring v. CA, Philippine
Rabbit, 269 SCRA 283

Doctrine of Prejudicial Question

Definition: “One based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but so intimately connected with it that it deter-
mines the guilt or innocence of the accused”
Rationale: To avoid conflicting decisions
Te v. CA, G.R. No. 126746, Nov. 29, 2000
SEC. 7. Elements of prejudicial question –
(a) Previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
or intimately related to the issue raised in subsequent
criminal action
(b) Resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed
SEC. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question –
Petition for suspension of criminal action, where filed:
(a) During P.I.: Office of prosecutor or court conducting
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 09.

the P.I.
(b) If filed in court for trial: court hearing criminal action
at any time before the prosecution rests
Art. 40, Family Code: Absolute nullity of a previous marriage
 may not be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless
there is a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage void
Landicho v. Relova, 22 SCRA 731
Beltran v. People, G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000
Zapanta v. Montesa, G.R. No. L-14534, Feb. 28, 1962
Ras v. Rasul, G.R. No. 50441, Sept. 18, 1980
Doctrine does not apply where no civil, but only an administrative,
case is involved
Flordelis v. Castillo, 58 SCRA 301
La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Hon. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-
63796-97, May 2, 1984

WARRANTLESS ARREST and INQUEST

General rule: No peace officer or person has the power or authority to

arrest anyone without a warrant of arrest, except those cases
expressly authorized by law.
Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)

Warrantless Arrest, Sec. 5, Rule 113 (In flagrante delicto)

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has comit-
ted, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; (e.g., arrest after an entrapment)
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it;
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escap-
ed from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
Compliance with these conditions: (a) probable cause; and
(b) good faith of arresting officers (Umil v. Ramos)

Also, warrantless arrest valid:

(a) Where a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes or
is rescued, Sec. 13, Rule 113;
(b) Where arrest is by the bondsmen for the purpose of
surrendering an accused out on bail, Sec. 23, Rule 114;
(c) Where the accused out on bail attempts to leave the country
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 10.

without permission of the court, Sec. 23, Par. 2, Rule 114

People v. Aminnudin,163 SCRA 402 (J. Cruz)

People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557
Method of arrest by officer without warrant, Sec. 8, Rule 113
Method of arrest by private person, Sec. 9, Rule 113 (Citizen’s
arrest)

Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, Sec. 26, Rule 114
Overturns Rolito Go v. CA (That once the accused has posted
bail, he waived his right to question any defect in the
issuance of the warrant of arrest)
 Almonte v. Judge Bien, 461 SCRA 218

Search incident to lawful arrest, Sec. 13, Rule 126

- A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute
proof in the commission of an offense without search warrant
- Scope of search should be limited to the area within
which the arrestee can reach for a weapon or for
evidence in order to destroy it (Chimel v. California,
395 U.S. 752)
People v. Mortos, G.R. No. 103632, Sep. 1, 1993: Buy-bust
operation
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401

Inquest, Sec.6, Rule 112, When accused lawfully arrested without

warrant.
Inquest, defined: “An informal and summary investigation
conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases
involving persons arrested without the benefit of a
warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of
determining whether or not said persons should remain
under the custody and correspondingly be charged before
the court.” (2008 Revised Manual of Prosecutors)
- Involves an offense which requires a P.I. (mandatory)
- Accused lawfully detained without a warrant
- He refuses to sign a waiver of Art. 125 of R.P.C.

Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial

Investigation, R.A. No. 7438 (April 27, 1992)
“Custodial investigation” includes practice of issuing an
“invitation” to a suspected person

Waiver of Art. 125 of R.P.C. (Delay in the delivery of detained

persons to the proper judicial authorities) 12-18-36 hours
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 11.

- In the presence of accused’s counsel

- P.I. must be conducted and terminated within 15 days
from inception

Bail during P.I., Sec. 17(c), Rule 114: Any person in custody
who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with
any court in the province, city or municipality where he
is held.

Motion for Reinvestigation or Motion for P.I., Sec. 6, Par. 3,

Rule 112
- Must be filed within five (5) days from the time the
accused learns of the filing of information or complaint
without a P.I. conducted

RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

1987 Constitution: Sec. 2, Art. III: Right against unreasonable search

and seizures shall be inviolable
Sec. 3(2), Art. III: Exclusionary Rule, “inadmissible for any
 purpose in any proceeding”

General rule: Search and seizure must be carried out through or

with a judicial warrant

Reasonable warrantless searches and seizures, per jurisprudence:

1. Search incident to lawful arrest, Sec. 13
2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view”
Padilla v. CA, G.R. No. 121917, Mar. 12, 1997
Elements of Plain View Doctrine:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
arrest in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
Police who had the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
(d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence with-
out further search
3. Search of a moving vehicle (also, vessels and aircrafts)
Reason: vessel, aircraft, motor vehicle can quickly move
out of the jurisdiction before a warrant is secured
Qualification for motor vehicles: Officers to conduct the
extensive search had probable cause to believe that
they will find instruments/evidence of a crime on
the vehicle (People v. Bagista, G.R. No. 86218,
Sep. 18, 1992)
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 12.

4. Consented warrantless search

People v. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936)
5. Customs search
(Under the Tariff and Customs Code: persons exercising
police authority under the customs laws, in the enforce-
ment of customs laws)
Exception: search of a dwelling house
6. Stop and frisk (Terry searches, from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
1 (1968) – conducted to prevent occurrence of crime
Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, Sep. 29, 1989 (En
Banc)
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

Definition of “probable cause” for warrantless searches: “a reasonable

ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that
the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
charged”, People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 (1998)

Cases where police officers, using their senses, observed facts that led
to the suspicion:
Manalili v. CA, 345 Phil. 632 (1997)
People v. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811 (1996)

Search warrant defined, Sec. 1

“An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal property des-
 cribed therein and bring it before the court.”

Requisites for issuing search warrant, Sec. 4

(a) It must be issued upon probable cause;
(b) Such probable cause must be determined by the issuing
magistrate personally;
(c) The issuing magistrate must have personally examined,
in the form of searching questions and answers, the
applicant and his witnesses and taken down their written
depositions;
(d) The search warrant must particularly describe or identify
the property to be seized as far as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow;
(e) It must particularly describe the place to be searched;
(f) It shall issue for only one specific offense;
(g) It must not have been issued more than 10 days prior to the
search made pursuant thereto

CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 13.

Examination of Complainant, Sec. 5

Personal examination by the judge of complainant and his
witnesses required; reliance on depositions taken by the
clerk of court is not sufficient

Issuance and form of search warrant, Sec. 6

Personal property to be seized, Sec. 3
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the
offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense.
This enumeration is exclusive.

Court where application for search warrant shall be filed, Sec. 2

(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
committed;
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court
within the judicial region where the crime was committed
if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or
any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall
be enforced.
Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249
If criminal action already filed: With the court where the
criminal action is pending

Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to

file, Sec. 14
Where to file motion:
(a) In the court where the criminal action is instituted;
(b) If no criminal action instituted, in the court that
issued the search warrant;
(c) If court that issued the warrant fails to resolve the
motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in
another court, in the latter court
 The Exclusionary Rule (Sec. 3(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
or Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Stonehill v. Diokno, 126 Phil. 738 (1967, per C.J.
Concepcion, En Banc)
- Abandoned Moncado v. People’s Court, 80 Phil.
1, which allowed admissibility of unlawfully
seized evidence (American common law rule)
- Prohibits the issuance of general warrants that
encourage law enforcers to go on fishing
expeditions (“A fishing expedition is indicative of
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 14.

the absence of evidence to establish probable

cause”)
People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, Jul. 30, 2014

Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and

seizures refers to immunity of one’s person from interfer-
ence by government; it cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individuals. People v. Marti, 193
SCRA 57 (1991)

A corporation is entitled to immunity against unreasonable

searches and seizures, but the legality of the seizure can
be contested only by the party whose rights have been
impaired thereby and such objection cannot be availed
of by third parties.

Right to break door or window to effect search, Sec. 7

Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two
witnesses, Sec. 8
Requisites for search with warrant: (mandatory)
(a) Presence of the lawful occupant, or any member of
his family; or
(b) Presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality, in the absence
a member of his family
People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743: Violation of this rule
led to acquittal of the accused

Time of making search, Sec. 9

General rule: Warrant must direct that it be served at day time
Exception: Where complainant’s affidavit asserts that the
property is on the person or in the place to be searched, in
which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at
any time of the day or night

Validity of search warrant, Sec. 10

Search warrant valid for ten (10) days from its date; thereafter,
It shall be void
- Cannot be used every day for the period of 10 days
- Once articles have been seized under the warrant, it cannot
be used again for another search and seizure
- But when the search conducted on one day was interrupted,
the same may be continued under the same warrant on
the following day
 Receipt for the property seized, Sec. 11 (mandatory)
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 15.

(a) Officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a
detailed receipt to the lawful occupant present during the
search; or
(b) In the absence of lawful occupant, officer must leave a
receipt in the place where the seized property is found, in the
presence of at least two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality

Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and

proceedings thereon, Sec. 12
- Violation or non-compliance constitutes contempt of court
(Cf., Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, chain in the custody of evidence)

RULE 112 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

(Amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, October 3, 2005)

Preliminary investigation defined; when required, Sec. 1

Definition: An inquiry or proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that (a) a crime has been committed and (b) the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial.
Quantum of evidence required: existence of “probable cause”
Buchanan v. Vda. De Esteban, 32 Phil. 365 (1915)
Webb v. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 (1995)
NBI Microsoft Corp. v. Hwang, 460 SCRA 429 (2005)

Mandatory or matter of right in cases cognizable by RTC; and

in MTC where penalty for offense is at least 4 years, 2
months, 1 day (prision correccional, maximum)
Where the law provides for P.I. and such right is claimed by
the accused, denial thereof is denial of due process
Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 736
Cojuangco v. PCGG, 190 SCRA 226 (1990)

Right to P.I. is a personal right, which may be waived expressly

or impliedly (e.g., failure to demand such right; non-
appearance at the investigation)
- Entry of plea on arraignment is waiver of right to P .I.
- In warrantless arrest, refusal to waive Art. 125, R.P.C.
is waiver of right to P.I.
Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349 (1993)

Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations, Sec. 2

As amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, October 3, 2005: Judges
of MTC/MCTC are no longer included
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 16.

Other officers as may be authorized by law:

(a) Ombudsman, under R.A. No. 6670; primary jurisdic-
tion in cases cognizable by Sandiganbayan
 (b) PCGG, under E.O. Nos. 1 and 14
Cojuangco v. PCGG, Supra.
(c) COMELEC, in cases involving election offense
People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788

Procedure, Sec. 3
Within 10 days from filing of complaint, investigating officer
shall either: (a) dismiss; (b) issue subpoena to respondent
Within 10 days from receipt of subpoena: Counter-affidavits
of respondent and witnesses;
No motion to dismiss allowed
Presence of respondent not indispensable (i.e., cannot be sub-
poenaed or does not submit counter-affidavit)
Clarificatory hearing: questions to be submitted to and asked by
investigating officer; no right to cross-examination
P.I. is not the occasion for full and exhaustive display of the
parties' evidence

Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review, Sec. 4

DOJ authority over Chief Prosecutors
Sec. 39, 1987 Administrative Code
Ledesma v. CA, Supra.
Community Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) v. Talavera, Supra.
DOJ Circular No. 70 (2000 NPS Rule on Appeal)
Appeal by filing verified Petition for Review before the
Secretary of Justice within 15 days from receipt of
Resolution or denial of M.R.
If Information already filed in Court, copy of Motion to
Defer Proceedings must be attached to the petition
Ground for a Motion to Suspend Arraignment, where
suspension shall not exceed 60 days from filing of
petition in DOJ, Sec. 11(c), Rule 116
Filing of Information
Crespo v. Mogul, Supra.
Roberts Jr. v. CA, 254 SCRA 307 (1996)

Warrant of arrest can only be issued by a judge, Sec. 2, Article III,

1987 Constitution
When warrant of arrest may issue, Sec. 5
(a) By the Regional Trial Court
Judicial determination of probable cause: within 10 days
from filing of complaint or information
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 17.

(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary

1. Accused is already detained by virtue of MTC warrant
2. Warrantless arrest, under Sec. 6
3. Offense is penalized by fine only
Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular
preliminary investigation, Sec. 26, Rule 114

RULE 113 – ARREST

Definition of Arrest, Sec. 1

The taking of a person into custody in order that he may be
 bound to answer for the commission of an offense

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused acquired:

(a) when he is arrested by virtue of a warrant
(b) voluntary surrender
(c) when he files a motion to quash raising grounds other
jurisdiction over his person

Invalidity of arrest and detention can be cured by filing of

information and issuance of warrant of arrest
Larranaga v. CA, 287 SCRA 581 (1998)
Also, by entering a plea on arraignment and participating in
the trial
People v. Macam, 238 SCRA 306

Arrest; how made, Sec. 2

(a) by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested
(b) submission of person to be arrested to the custody of the
person making the arrest

Duty of arresting officer, Sec. 3

Execution of Warrant, Sec. 4
Must be executed within 10 days from receipt; if not executed,
officer must make a return within 10 days from lapse;
But warrant remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled,
Quashed, or otherwise specifically provided in warrant
Time of making arrest, Sec. 6
On any day and at any time of the day or night
Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant, Sec. 7
Officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time
of the arrest
Mallari v. CA, 265 SCRA 456
Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested, Sec. 14
Attorney has the right to visit and confer privately with person
arrested at any hour of the day or night
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 18.

Right to have competent and independent counsel, Sec. 12(1), Art. III
1987 Constitution

RULE 114 – BAIL

Right to bail, Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987 Constitution

Bail defined, Sec. 1
Bail, a matter of right, Sec. 4
(a) MeTC, MTC, MTCC, MCTC: before or after conviction
(b) RTC: before conviction, of an offense not punishable by
Reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (bailable)
Exceptions:
1. in offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua (or life
imprisonment), when evidence of guilt is strong, Sec. 7;
2. Right to bail not available in the military: Comendador v.
De Villa, 200 SCRA 80 (1991)

Bail, when discretionary, Sec. 5

(a) upon conviction by RTC of bailable offense, file in RTC
 (b) where conviction by RTC changed offense from non-
bailable to bailable, file in CA

Bail can be availed of only by person in custody of the law or depriv-

ed of his liberty: Comia v. Antona, 337 SCRA 656
Any person in custody not yet charged in court may apply for
bail with any court in the province, city, or municip[ality
where he is held, Sec. 17(c)

Application for Bail/Petition for Bail/Motion for Admission to Bail

Hearing is mandatory: Docena-Caspe v. Judge Bugtas, 400
SCRA 37 (2003)
Prosecution must be notified of hearing (Sec. 18)
Hearing may be summary or otherwise
Prosecution has burden of proof (Sec. 8)
Evidence presented automatically reproduced at trial, but Court
may recall any witness
Provisional bail granted by SC: Enrile v. Salazar, G.R. No.
92163, June 5, 1990 (En banc)

Purpose of bail: to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial:

Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, Aug. 18, 2015

A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails

By Enforcing the Rights of Accused Persons to Bail and to
Speedy Trial (March 18, 2014)

CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 19.

Forfeiture of bail, Sec. 21

Appearance of accused required:
(a) arraignment, Sec. 1(b), Rule 116
(b) when required by Court for identification
(c) promulgation of judgment, Sec. 6, Rule 120

Bail to secure appearance of material witness, Sec. 14, Rule 119

Where material witness (for prosecution or accused) will not
testify when required, court may order witness to post
bail – upon motion by either party, upon proof or oath

RULE 115 – RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Sec. 14, Art. III, 1987 Constitution

Rights of accused at the trial, Sec. 1
A. Presumption of innocence
Rationale: to lighten and even reverse the heavy odds
against the accused who is confronted by the full
panoply of State authority
People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676 (En banc)
This presumption must be overcome with proof beyond
reasonable doubt
People v. Villaran, 269 SCRA 630
Any doubt as to the guilt of the accused must be resolved
in favor of the constitutional presumption of innocence
Equipoise Rule: People v. Urzais, G.R. No. 207662, April
13, 2016 (Cabanatuan City case)
 B. Right to be informed of accusations
See discussions on Information under Rule 110
Safeguards to this right: provisions of the Rules on prelimi-
nary investigation, arraignment, requirements for suffi-
cient allegations in the information, bill of particulars,
and rules against duplicity
People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. L-43833, Nov. 28, 1980

C. Right to be present and to defend in person or by counsel

Both a right and a duty (Accused may waive his presence,
except when his appearance is required)
Trial in absentia, Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution
Conditions: (a) accused is arraigned; (b) duly notified of
trial hearing; (c) failure to appear is unjustified
Right to Counsel
Right to effective counsel who can be made to act in
protection of accused’s rights
People v. Rodolfo dela Cruz, 279 SCRA 245
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 20.

During custodial investigation

Counsel of own choice: Pp v. dela Cruz, Supra.
Waiver of right to counsel: must be in the presence
of counsel and in writing
People v. Antonio Enrile, G.R. No. 74189, May 26
1993 (J. Cruz)
During arraignment
Duty of court to inform accused of his right to
counsel, Sec. 6, Rule 116
Appointment of counsel de oficio, Sec. 7, Rule 116
Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraign-
ment, Sec. 8, Rule 116
During trial
Public attorney’s duties where accused is impri-
soned, Sec. 7, Rule 119
On appeal
Appointment of counsel de oficio for accused on
appeal, Sec. 13, Rule 122
Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused,
Sec. 2, Rule 124
Right to counsel covers the period beginning from custodial
investigation, well into the rendition of judgment, and
even on appeal: People v. Serzo, 274 SCRA 553
Denial of the right to counsel is reversible error
People v. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752 (1950, En banc)

D. Right to remain silent

Miranda doctrine, Sec. 12(1), Art. III, 1987 Constitution
People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)

E. Right against self-incrimination

Sec. 17, Art. III, 1987 Constitution. No person shall be com-
pelled to be a witness against himself
The essence of the privilege is testimonial compulsion; but
also includes furnishing of evidence by other means of
 any fact that the accused has the right to keep secret
(e.g., handwriting sample, unless he takes the witness
stand and denies handwriting as his)
Purely mechanical acts not included in this privilege (e.g.,
paraffin test, police line-up, photographed or measured)

F. Right to confrontation
Purpose: to secure opportunity of cross-examination (main)
and to enable the judge to observe the demeanor of wit-
nesses (secondary): U.S. v. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 (1918)
(J. Malcolm, En banc)
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 21.

Right is limited to proceedings before the trial court, at trial

Confrontation applied only to witnesses who testify during
trial, and not to complainant who does not take the stand

G. Right to compulsory processes

Includes right to subpoena duces tecum
Available and must be invoked during trial

H. Right to speedy, impartial, and public trial

A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (Supra.)
Conde v. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650: Case dismissed because the
accused was made to “dance attendance on courts”
(J. Malcolm)
People v. Cloribel, 11 SCRA 805
Inordinate delay in terminating P.I. and filing of Information
against the accused by Tanodbayan violated his right to
speedy disposition of his case: Tatad v. Sandiaganbayan,
G.R. No. 72335-39, Mar. 21, 1988 (En banc)
Prejudicial publicity
Webb v. De Leon, Supra.
Larranaga v. CA, Supra

I. Right to appeal
Statutory right, not Constitutional; Strict compliance with all
the requirements of the Rules is a requisite for those who
will avail of it
Automatic review by CA of RTC judgment imposing death
penalty, Sec. 3(d), Sec. 10, Rule 122

RULE 116 – ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

Implementation of Constitutional right to be informed of the nature

and cause of the accusation against him

Remedies available before arraignment of accused:

Motion for Conduct of P.I. or Reinvestigation, Sec. 6, Rule 112
Motion to Quash Search Warrant, Sec. 14, Rule 126
Motion to Quash Information, Sec. 1, Rule 117
Motion for Bill of Particulars, Sec. 9
Motion for Suspension of arraignment, Sec. 11
(a) accused appears to be suffering from an unsound
mental condition
(b) prejudicial question
 (c) pending Petition for Review in DOJ or OP, but
period of suspension shall not exceed 60 days
Upon arraignment, these remedies are deemed waived
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 22.

Arraignment and plea; how made, Sec. 1

Appearance of accused mandatory, Sec. 1(b)
Accused must personally enter his plea, otherwise void
Information must be read in a language or dialect known to the
accused, otherwise arraignment is null and void
Appearance of offended party required, but not mandatory
In case of absence of offended party: court may allow
accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, with
conformity of trial prosecutor
No valid judgment can be rendered upon an invalid arraignment
People v. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (En banc)

Plea of guilty to a lesser offense, Sec. 2

(a) must be with the consent of offended party and prosecutor
(b) lesser offense must be necessarily included in offense charged

Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence, Sec. 3

(a) searching inquiry to be conducted by Court
People v. Alicando, Supra.
(b) prosecution must present evidence to determine the precise
participation and degree of culpability of accused (mandatory)
(c) Court should require whether or not accused wishes to present
evidence on his behalf, and allow him to do so if he so desires

Withdrawal of improvident plea, Sec. 5

(a) at any time before judgment of conviction becomes final
(b) withdraw improvident plea and substitute by not guilty plea

RULE 117 – MOTION TO QUASH

Time to move to quash, Sec. 1

Rule: motion must be filed before arraignment
Exceptions: (a) no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (b)
information does not charge an offense; (c) offense or
penalty has been extinguished; (d) double jeopardy
Form and contents, Sec. 2
Litigable motion (will prejudice the rights of the adverse party);
hearing required, Secs. 4, 5, 6, Rule 15
Three-Day Notice Rule, Sec. 4, Par. 2, Rule 15
Grounds, Sec. 3
A. Facts charged do not constitute an offense
Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, 414 SCRA 181: matters
aliunde are not considered
Curable by amendment of information (Sec. 4)
Test is sufficiency of averments in the information (whether
the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, constitute
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 23.

the elements of the offense)

Not waived, even if not raised in motion, Sec. 9
 B. Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
Lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even for the
first time on appeal; not waived

C. Court had no jurisdiction over the person of the accused

Must be the sole ground raised (and no other), and only for
that purpose
Raising other grounds for motion to quash, or takes part in
proceedings (e.g., counsel cross-examines the witness),
accused is deemed to have submitted his person to the
jurisdiction of the Court

D. Officer who filed information had no authority

This ground may be raised if the information was without
approval of the head of the prosecuting office
In private crimes, where sworn complaint was signed by
the chief of police instead of offended party, the proper
ground for quashal is lack of jurisdiction, not this section

E. Information does not conform substantially to prescribed

form
Defects of form are waived if not objected to in a motion
to quash; but curable by amendment

F. More than one offense is charged (Duplicitous information),

Cf., Sec. 13, Rule 110 (Duplicity of offense), prohibition
Purpose: to protect accused from confusion and difficulty
in making his defense
Exception: When a single punishment for various offenses
is prescribed by law:
(a) Complex crimes, Art. 48, R.P.C.
(b) Special complex crimes or composite crimes,
Art. 294 (Robbery w/ Homicide, or w/ Rape)
Art. 297(Attempted and Frustrated Robbery
w/ Homicide)
Art. 335(Rape w/ Homicide)
(c) Those in special laws where a single punishment is
imposed for various offenses
Also, no duplicitous information where:
(a) allegations of the acts imputed to the accused are only
to show the modes of commission of the crime
People v. Buenviaje, 47 Phil. 536
(b) allegations are merely different counts specifying the
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 24.

acts of perpetration of the same crime

US v. Sotto, 36 Phil. 389
(c) the other offense stated in the information only an
ingredient or essential element of the real offense
charged
People v. Camerino, 108 Phil. 79
May be waived, if not raised in motion to quash

G. Extinguishment of criminal action or liability

Art. 89, R.P.C. How criminal liability is totally extinguished
 Not waived, even if not raised

H. Information contains averments which, if true, would

constitute legal excuse or justification
Legal excuse or justification are: justifying circumstances
(Art. 11, R.P.C.); exempting circumstances (Art. 14,
R.P.C.); absolutory causes (Arts. 6(3), 16, 20, 247, and
332, R.P.C). Also, privileged communication in Libel

I. Double jeopardy
Sec. 21, Art. III, 1987 Constitution: Doctrine on Double
Jeopardy
A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and unappealable
on the ground of double jeopardy
Exception: where a mock trial deprived the prosecution
of due process, resulting in a mistrial, there is no
double jeopardy Galman v. Sandiganbayan, 144
SCRA 43 (En banc, C.J. Teehankee)
People v. Hon. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (En banc)

Elements: (a) valid complaint or information; (b) filed before

a competent court; (c) to which the accused had pleaded;
and (d) of which he had been previously acquitted or
convicted or which was dismissed or otherwise terminat-
ed without his express consent
Not waived even if not raised in motion, Sec. 9
Caes v. IAC, Supra.
No double jeopardy where dismissal is made on motion of
the accused:
Exceptions: (a) Demurrer to evidence (People v.City of
Silay); and (b) Dismissal on ground of denial of
right to speedy trial (People v.Cloribel)
Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.

Effect of sustaining the motion to quash, Sec. 5

Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another prosecution;
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 25.

exception, Sec. 6
Sustained grounds which will bar another prosecution:
(a) extinguishment of criminal action or liability
(b) double jeopardy

Provisional dismissal, Sec. 8

Requirements: (a) express consent of accused; (b) notice to the
offended party
Becomes permanent dismissal, if not revived:
(a) 1 year after issuance of order, where offense is puni-
shable by 6 years or less or fine;
(b) 2 years after issuance of order, where offense is
punishable by more than 6 years
Time-bar under this rule does not reduce periods under Art. 90
of the R.P.C.; The State may revive a criminal case
beyond the 1-year and 2-year periods, provided there is
justifiable necessity for the delay
People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267 (En banc)
RULE 118 – PRE-TRIAL

Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases, Sec. 1

Unlike in civil cases, presence of accused not required in
pre-trial in criminal cases; parties not required to file
pre-trial brief

Pre-trial order, Sec. 4

Pre-trial agreement, Sec. 2
Stipulations and admissions can be used against accused, if:
(a) reduced in writing
(b) signed by accused and counsel

Non-appearance at pre-trial conference, Sec. 3

Imposition of proper sanctions/penalties for non-appearance:
(a) counsel for accused
(b) prosecutor
Exception: where acceptable excuse is offered

RULE 127 – PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES

Availability of provisional remedies, Sec. 1

Provisional Remedies: Rule 57 (Preliminary Attachment);
Rule 58 (Preliminary Injunction); Rule 59 (Receivership)
Rule 60 (Replevin); Rule 61 (Support Pendente Lite)
Available only in connection with the civil action instituted
However, preliminary injunction is generally not available to
restrain the criminal action or prosecution thereof, as
criminal prosecution is imbued with public interest
Attachment, Sec. 2
Property of accused may be attached as security for the satisfac-
tion of judgment that may be recovered from accused

RULE 119 – TRIAL

Order of trial, Sec. 11

1. Prosecution presents evidence to prove the charge, including
civil liability
(2. Demurrer to evidence , Sec. 23)
3. Accused presents evidence to prove defense, and damages
arising from issuance of provisional remedy
4. Prosecution may present rebuttal evidence
5. Accused may present surrebuttal evidence
6. Case deemed submitted for decision; Court may direct filing
of written memoranda
Reverse trial, where accused interposes self-defense

A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Judicial Affidavit Rule (January 1, 2013)

Judicial Affidavit takes the place of direct testimony of witness
Applicable in criminal actions where:
(a) maximum imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years
(b) irrespective of the penalty involved, if the accused
agrees to its use
(c) irrespective of penalty involved, with respect to the
civil aspect of the action
 Time to file by the prosecution: at least 5 days from pre-trial;
by the accused: within 10 days from receipt

Discharge of accused to be state witness, Sec. 17

By motion of prosecution; before the prosecution rests its case
Requirements for discharge of accused as state witness:
(1) discharge must be with the consent of the accused;
(2) his testimony must be absolutely necessary;
(3) there is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed;
(4) his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its
material points;
(5) he does not appear to be the most guilty
(6) he has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude
People v. Rodrigo, 512 SCRA 360
Discharge of accused operates as acquittal, Sec. 18
People v. Larranaga, 421 SCRA 530

Exclusion of the public, Sec. 21

CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 27.

(a) motu proprio by the Court or on motion by accused;

(b) if evidence will be offensive to decency or public morals;
(also, where minor will testify; confidential proceedings)

Trial in absentia
Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution (Supra)

Prosecution rests after the Court rules on its Formal Offer of Evidence

Demurrer to evidence, Sec. 23

Ground: insufficiency of evidence
After the prosecution rests:
(a) Court may dismiss motu proprio, after giving prose-
cution opportunity to be heard;
(b) accused may file demurrer to evidence
Filing of motion; periods:
- Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence,
within 5 days after prosecution rests
- Prosecution may file Opposition, within 5 days
- If leave of Court is granted: file Demurrer to
Evidence, within 10 days from notice
- Prosecution may file Opposition, within 10 days
All periods are non-extendible
If Demurrer to Evidence is denied by the Court:
- If with leave, accused may adduce evidence
- If without leave, accused waives right to present
evidence and submits case for judgment
Dismissal has the effect of a judgment on the merits and
operates as an acquittal (exception to double jeopardy)
People v. City of Silay, 74 SCRA 248. Grant of demurrer
amounted to an acquittal on the merits, and even if on
certiorari evidence against accused is found to be
sufficient, double jeopardy will attach. J. Munoz-Palma:
“However erroneous the order of the respondent Court is
 and although a miscarriage of justice resulted from said
order, such error cannot now be lighted because of the
timely plea of double jeopardy.”

Motion to Reopen, Sec. 24

At any time before finality of judgment of conviction
May also be made by Court motu proprio
Ground: to avoid a miscarriage of justice
Hearing is mandatory: Cabarles v. Maceda, 516 SCRA 303

RULE 120 – JUDGMENT

CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 28.

People v. Bellaflor, 233 SCRA 196

Matilde Jr. v. Jabson, 68 SCRA 456, citing U.S. v. Ocampo, 23 Phil.
396

Presence of accused is required in promulgation of judgment;

If accused fails to appear without justifiable cause during promlugat-
ion of judgment of conviction, he loses the following remedies:
(a) filing of Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial, Rule 121
(b) appeal from the judgment of conviction, Rule 122
Within 15 days from promulgation, accused may regain his standing
in Court and avail of remedies, provided:
(a) he surrenders, Villena v. People, 641 SCRA 127 (mere filing
of notice of appeal thru new counsel cannot be considered
an act of surrender)
(b) files a Motion for Leave of Court To Avail of Remedies,
stating therein the reason/justifiable cause for his absence
Judgment may be promulgated even without presence of accused:
(a) judgment for a light offense
(b) accused fails to appear despite due notice to him, bondsman,
warden, or counsel

Promulgation of judgment in absentia, Sec. 6, Par. 3

Essential elements: (a) judgment be recorded in the criminal
docket; (b) copy of judgment be served the accused/counsel

Judgment of conviction becomes final:

(a) after lapse of period for perfecting appeal, viz., 15 days from
promulgation of judgment or notice of final order
(b) sentence has been partially or totally served
(c) accused has waived his right to appeal in writing
(d) accused has applied for probation

Before judgment of conviction becomes final or before appeal by the

accused is perfected, said judgment may be modified (Amended
Decision) upon motion by the accused

RULE 121 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

New trial or reconsideration, Sec. 1

Grounds for new trial, Sec. 2
1. Errors of law or irregularities:
(a) committed during trial
 (b) prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
2. Newly discovered evidence:
(a) the evidence was discovered after the trial
(b) such evidence could not have been discovered and
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 29.

produced at the trial with reasonable diligence

(c) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative
or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted,
will probably change the judgment
Amper v. Sandiganbayan, 279 SCRA 434

Ground for reconsideration, Sec. 3

Errors of law or fact in judgment, which requires no further
proceedings
Time to file motions: At any time before judgment of conviction
becomes final, viz., within 15 days from promulgation or notice

Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor, Sec. 4

Litigable motion (will prejudice the rights of the adverse party)
Hearing required; Three-Day Notice Rule

Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration, Sec. 6

(a) Where ground is errors of law or irregularities in trial: all
proceedings and evidence affected thereby are set aside and
taken anew. In the interest of justice, Court may allow intro-
duction of additional evidence.
(b) Where ground is newly discovered evidence: all evidence
already adduced stands, plus newly discovered evidence,
and other evidence Court allows, in the interest of justice
When new trial or reconsideration is granted, the original judgment is
set aside and vacated, and a new judgment is rendered.

RULE 122 – APPEAL

Right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is

merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law
An appeal brings the entire case within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the appellate court
Appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review, including
review of the penalty, indemnity and damages, number and
nature of offenses committed; it is a review de novo, where the
court is not limited to the assigned errors

Who may appeal, Sec 1

Both accused and prosecution may appeal in a criminal case
Limitation: where the accused will be placed in double jeopardy
Therefore, judgment of acquittal is final, non-appealable
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, 427 SCRA 456

How appeal taken, Sec. 3

CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 30.
 (a) By notice of appeal: in cases decided by MTC, appealed to
RTC; cases decided by RTC, appealed to CA, both in the
exercise of original jurisdiction
(b) By petition for review under Rule 42: in cases decided by
RTC, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, appealed to CA
(c) Automatic review by CA: in cases where RTC imposed
death penalty;
Certification of case and elevation to SC: where CA finds
that death penalty should be imposed. Sec. 13, Rule 124
(d) By notice of appeal filed with CA, to SC: in cases where
CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a
lesser penalty
(e) By petition for review under Rule 45: in all other appeals
to the SC, except as provided under Sec. 13, Rule 124

Publication of notice of appeal, Sec. 4

May be resorted to if personal service of copy of the notice of
appeal can not be made upon the adverse party or counsel

When appeal to be taken, Sec. 6

Reglementary period: 15 days from promulgation of judgment
or from notice of final order appealed from
Ramirez v. People, G.R. No. 197832, October 2, 2013
“Fresh Period Rule”: 15-day period to appeal is now counted
from receipt of denial of motion for reconsideration or
new trial (Neypes Doctrine: Neypes v. CA, 469 SCRA
633 (2005), in appeals in civil cases, Sec. 3, Rule 41)
Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011:
Neypes doctrine applied to appeals in criminal cases

RULE 123 – Procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts

Uniform procedure, Sec. 1
Same procedure as RTC
Exception: where governed by Rule on Summary Procedure, or
where particular provision applies only to either court

RULE 124 – Procedure in the Court of Appeals

RULE 125 – Procedure in the Supreme Court

Uniform procedure, Sec. 1
Same procedure as CA

Revised Rule on Summary Procedure

Applicability in Criminal Cases, Sec. 1(B), Rule I
Criminal Cases, Sec. 11 to 17, Rule III
Common Provisions, Sec. 18 to 22, Rule IV
CRIM. PROC. SYLLABUS/Page 31.

Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children (A.M. No. 04-10-11- SC),
November 15, 2004
Petition for Protection Order

Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law (A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC)
Exemption from criminal liability: A child 15 years or under at the
time of commission of the offense
Children not exempted from criminal liability: A child 15 years and 1
 day old or above but below 18 years of age
Released on recognizance
Determination by prosecution whether the child acted with
discernment

References:
Santiago, Miriam Defensor, ‘Rules of Court Annotated: Volume II’,
2015 ed.
Regalado, J. Florenz, ‘Remedial Law Compendium: Volume Two’,
2004 ed.
Riano, Willard B., ‘Criminal Procedure (The Bar Lectures Series)’,
2011 ed.