CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Date: June 30, 2018

Preliminary Matters

- Systems of criminal procedure, the accusatorial or adversarial and the inquisitorial and
mixed system.
- Our jurisdiction utilizes the accusatorial or adversarial system and not the inquisitorial.
- Accusatorial or adversarial system – there are two contending parties before the court
which hears them impartially and renders judgment only after the trial. The court plays a
passive role and relies largely on the evidence presented by both sides, the defense and
the prosecutor, to the action in order to reach a verdict.
- Inquisitorial system – the court plays a very active role and is not limited to the
evidence presented before it. The court may utilize evidence gathered outside the court.
- It is the law that confers the courts to try and decide on the case. The cases are
assigned to specific courts by virtue of a law.
- Criminal jurisdiction – the power of the court to try and decide criminal cases and
impose penalty in case of conviction, as conferred by law.
- B. P. 129 – The Judiciary Act of 1980, as amended
- The parties to a case cannot stipulate the jurisdiction of the criminal case and the same
with civil cases.
- Requisites for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter (offense) – the authority of the court
to hear and determine a particular criminal case
2. Jurisdiction over the territory
 Important principle: In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional and a court is
bereft of jurisdiction to try an offense committed outside its limited
territory.
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused – the authority of the court
over the person charged (by warrant of arrest or voluntary submission to the
court)
- Continuing jurisdiction – once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
continues until the court has done all it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction (20 Am.
Jur. 2d, Courts, 147, 1965).
- If the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, it may be raised or considered motu
proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal. Hence, questions of
jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal.
 Rationale: The issue of jurisdiction goes to the very heart of the
proceeding. If the proceeding is void from the very beginning, considering
that the court has no jurisdiction over the offense, any judgment derived
from the proceeding is also null and void.
- Jurisdiction is not a procedural but a substantive law.
- Can estoppel be invoked in criminal cases? Are the parties estopped from invoking
jurisdiction? No.
 - Is the acquiring by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused essential?
Yes, because if the accused cannot be brought on trial no proper penalty can be
imposed to him.
- Exception: The right to raise jurisdiction has its limitations. A party, according to the
Court, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction (Antiporada Jr. v. Garchitorena).
- Jurisdiction over the territory? In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. The accused
must be tried at the place where he has committed the crime. Such cannot be subject to
stipulation of the parties unlike civil cases.
- Can you institute a criminal case aside from the place on where it was committed?
Exception: Art. II of the Revised Penal Code
- A crime committed inside the embassy of the Philippines in a foreign country by a
consul, such can be tried in the Philippines because embassies are considered as an
extension of sovereignty or territory.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Date: July 7, 2018

- Complaint – A sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed

the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated. (Sec. 3, Rule 110)
- Information – An accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed
by the prosecutor and filed with the court. (Sec. 4, Rule 110)
- Difference between complaint and information –
- Sufficiency of complaint or information: (Sec. 6, Rule 110)
 Name of the accused
 Designation of the offense given by the statute;
 Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
 Name of the offended party;
 Approximate date of the commission of the offense;
 Place where the offense was committed.
- The recital of the facts is essential for complaint or information to be sufficient.
- Sec. 7
- Positive identification of the accused shall warrant his conviction.
- Will conviction still lie if the name of the accused is not disclosed?
- Name of the offended party is indispensable in the information.
- The public prosecutor prosecutes criminal cases.
- A criminal action is prosecuted under the control and direction of the public prosecutor.
- Public prosecutor
 Represents the People of the Philippines
 Determines probable cause

- The public prosecutor, in the exercise of his function, has the power and discretion to:
 Determine whether prima facie case exists;
 Decide which of the conflicting testimonies should be believed free from
the interference or control of the offenses party; and
 Subject only to the right against self-incrimination, determine which
witnesses to present in court.
- How are crimes classified?
 Public
 Private
- Affidavit-complaint must be initiated by the offended party.
- Complaint or Information shall be:
 In writing
 In the name of the People of the Philippines; and
 Against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved
- Private crimes cannot be prosecuted de oficio. A police officer does not suffice.
- There is a jurisdictional defect, proceeding and decision is void if the complaint is not
initiated by the offended party in private crimes.
- Subscribed by the public prosecutor
- Under the power of control the prosecutor exercises discretion and is not controllable by
mandamus.
- The prosecutor can determine who to charge, what to case charge, who shall be
dropped to be utilized as state witness, manner of prosecution, how to prosecute,
determine probable cause
- Even if the case is undergoing preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor can
already determine who to exclude among the accused, at least one, to utilize as state
witness
- Law: R.A. 6981 – Witness Protection Act
- Later on the trial, if the prosecutor decides to drop a person, he cannot do so unilaterally.
He should ask the Court.
- Once the court is filed in court, the court has the sole control of the case. Any motion
should be addressed to the sound discretion of the court. (Crespo v. Mogul)
- A written authority is needed before a private prosecutor can prosecute a case.
- If the authority to prosecute is delegated to a private prosecutor, such delegation may be
repudiated at anytime. The public prosecutor may remove anytime such authority can
continue with the said case.
- If there is no private offended party, the intervention of the private prosecutor is not
needed. He is allowed to intervene with the civil aspect of the case.
- A person criminally liable is also civilly liable
- Social injury and personal injury
- Control by the Court
- Once an information is filed in court, the judge has three options:
 If he finds probable cause, issue warrant of arrest (judicial function)
 If he finds no probable cause, he may dismiss the case
 If he is not convinced of the existence of probable cause, he may require
the public prosecutor to submit evidence to assist him in determining
probable cause
- Is the judge not bound by the certification made by the prosecution? No. The judge is
exercising a judicial function while the prosecutor is exercising an executive function.
- The judge may not rely on the certification of the public prosecutor that he has
conducted preliminary investigation and has found a probable cause. The judge must
conduct an independent investigation. (Soliven v. Macaciar)
- The accused must be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him so
that the accused can properly prepare for his defense.
- Arraignment – it implements the Constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accused against him.
- The accused must be named in the complaint or information to properly establish his
identity. If his name cannot be ascertained or established, a fictitious name may be
used.
- As long as it was established during the trial that it was the accused who perpetrated the
crime, then conviction shall lie against the accused.
- Shan v. People, March 9, 2007 – The erroneous designation of the name of the
accused does not vitiate the information if it clearly proven that the person accused and
brought to court is the person who committed the crime.
- People v. Navaja, 1980 – The accused was referred through his alias name, it did not
foreclose the court from convicting him.
- Designation of the offense and cause of accusation.
- The title of the case is not controlling. What is important is the recital of the facts.
- People v. Bayabos – Violation of the anti-hazing law. Accused was charged as an
accomplice of the crime and no other statement has followed. He questioned the
information as it is insufficient since he was not informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. The Court agreed with the accused.
- Designation of offenses and informed of the nature and cause of accusation
 People v. Balibalita, 2000
 People v. Rodriguez, 2002
 Crime stated in the preamble is not sufficient. The age and filiation
of the victim was stated in the preamble. The SC said it is not
essential.
 People v. Villanueva, 2003
  Even of the allegation of relationship and minority is alleged in the
preamble of the information, the same is already sufficient.
- Rodriguez and Balibalita case – no longer controlling
- People v. Dela Cruz, 2000
- People v. Pangilinan, November 14, 2007
 Requirement of specificity thus information was held as void
- At the inception of the case, the qualifying and aggravating circumstances otherwise, if it
is only presented during the trial such cannot be appreciated by the Court as it is against
the Constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
- As to the date, on or before is sufficient. Approximate date. Unless, the date and time is
an essential ingredient of the crime. Ex. Crime of infanticide considering the age of the
fetus, violation of the Election Code which must be done during the election period
- As to the place, there is no need to determine the specific place. Unless, it is an
essential element or ingredient of the crime, the place must be indicated with specificity
or particularity. Ex. Trespass to dwelling, crime of violation of domicile
- RULE 111
-
-
-

08/11/2018

- Secure a copy of the Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure Orders

- If the inquest prosecutor is not around, there can be no inquest proceedings so the
information must be directly filed to the Court.
- Preliminary examination is different from preliminary investigation
- No need for warrant of arrest in the following circumstances:
 Penalty is a fine

 Summary Proceedings
- Crespo v. Mogul
- Dimatulac v. Villon – distinction of control by the Prosecution and by the Court
- Garfin case
-
-
PRELIMS