Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
Rule 110 – Prosecution of Offenses
What is Criminal Procedure?
- It treats of the series of processes by
which the criminal laws are enforced
and by which the state prosecutes
persons who violate the penal laws.
- Method prescribed by law for the
apprehension and prosecution of
persons accused of any criminal
offense, and for their punishment, in
case of conviction.
What are the three systems of criminal
procedure?
1. Inquisitorial — The detection and
prosecution of offenders are not left to
the initiative of private parties but to
the officials and agents of the law.
Resort is made to secret inquiry to
discover the culprit and violence and
torture were often employed to
extract a confession. The Judge was
not limited to the evidence brought
before him but could proceed with his
own inquiry which was not
confrontative.
2. Accusatorial — The accusation is
exercised by every citizen or by a
member of the group to which the
injured party belongs. As the action is
a combat between the parties, the
supposed offender has the right to be
confronted by his accuser. The battle
in the form of a public trial is judged by
a magistrate who renders the verdict.
3. The Mixed System — This is a
combination of the inquisitorial and
the accusatorial systems. Thus, the
examination of defendants and other
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
persons before the filing of the
complaint or information may be
inquisitorial. This is particularly true in
the Preliminary examination, for the
purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest.
Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, a criminal action may be
instituted by complaint of the
offended party or by information filed
by the Fiscal and once the criminal
action is filed in court, the accused has
the right to confront and cross-
examine his accuser. It has, however,
been held that:
"As a general rule, a court proceeding
in our judicial set-up is accusatorial or
adversary and not inquisitorial in
nature. It contemplates two
contending parties before the court
which hears them impartially and
renders judgment only after trial."
The system of procedure in our
jurisdiction is accusatorial or
adversarial. It contemplates 2
contending parties before the court
which hears them impartially and
renders judgment only after trial.
How do you construe the rules on criminal
procedure?
- It shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and
proceeding. Accordingly, the rules of
procedure must be viewed as tools to
facilitate the attainment of justice,
such that rigid and strict application
Page 1
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
thereof which results in technicalities Court, the city charter will prevail
tending to frustrate substantial justice because it’s a substantive law.
must always be avoided.
Regional Trial Court MTC
How are criminal actions1 instituted?2 1. Exclusive original 1. Exclusive original
jurisdiction in all criminal jurisdiction over all
- It depends whether or not the offense cases not within the violations of city or
exclusive jurisdiction of municipal
is one which requires a preliminary any court, tribunal or ordinances
investigation. body, except those now committed within
- PRELIMARY INVESTIGATION REQUIRED: falling under the exclusive their respective
Instituted by filing the complaint with and concurrent jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction;
of the Sandiganbayan;
the public officer for the purpose of 2. Exclusive original
conducting the requisite preliminary 2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
investigation. jurisdiction over all cases offenses punishable
decided by the MTC with imprisonment
- PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION NOT
within its territorial not exceeding 6
REQUIRED: (A) Filing the complaint or jurisdiction; years irrespective of
information directly with the Municipal the amount of fine,
Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial 3. Special jurisdiction to and regardless of
handle exclusively criminal other imposable or
Court (B) Filing the complaint with the
cases as designated by accessory penalties,
office of the prosecutor. the SC; including the civil
- SPECIAL RULE: In Manila and in other liability arising from
chartered cities, the rule is the 4. Jurisdiction over criminal such offenses
cases under special laws: irrespective of kind,
complaint shall be filed with the office nature, value or
of the prosecutor unless otherwise a. Written amount.
provided in their charters. defamation;
b. Comprehensive * The MTC does not
Can there be a direct filing in the RTC and Dangerous Drugs always have
Act of 2002; jurisdiction over
MTC of Manila and other chartered cities?
c. Violations of offenses punishable
intellectual with imprisonment
- (For RTC) No, because its jurisdiction property rights; exceeding 6 years if
covers offenses which require d. Jurisdiction in the jurisdiction is
preliminary investigation. Money laundering vested in either the
- (For MTC) No, because the complaint cases RTC or
Sandiganbayan.
shall be filed with the office of the
prosecutor unless otherwise provided
by their charters. What is a preliminary investigation?3
- In case of a conflict between a city
charter and a provision of the Rules of - Is an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded
1
The procedure by which a person accused of committing a
crime is charged, brought to trial, and judged.
2 3
Rule 110, Section 1 Rule 112, Section 1
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites) Page 2
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
belief that a crime has been - The interest of the private complainant
committed and the respondent is is limited to the civil liability.
probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial. Against who is a complaint filed?

When is a preliminary investigation required? - It is filed against all persons who

appear to be responsible for the
- In offenses where the penalty offense involved.
prescribed by law is at least four (4)
What is information?
years, two (2) months and one (1) day4

Will the institution of the criminal action - The information is an accusation in

interrupt the period of prescription of the writing charging a person with an
offense? offense subscribed by the prosecutor
and filed with the court.7
- Yes, regardless of a need to conduct a - Considered as the battle ground in
preliminary investigation, unless criminal prosecutions because the
otherwise provided under special allegations found in the information
penal laws.5 are crucial to the success or failure of
a criminal prosecution.
What is a complaint?

- A complaint is a sworn written

COMPLAINT INFORMATION
statement charging a person with an Must be sworn under Requires no oath;
offense, subscribed by the offended oath merely requires that it
party, any peace officer, or other be written because
public officer, charged with the the prosecutor filing
enforcement of the law violated.6 the information is
already under oath
In whose name is it filed? of his office
May be subscribed Subscribed by the
- It is filed in the name of the People of by: prosecutor
the Philippines and not in the name of a. The offended
a private person, natural or juridical, party
b. Any peace
because crimes are considered an
officer
outrage against the peace and c. Or other public
security of the people at large, hence, officer
its vindication must also be in the charged with
name of the People. the
enforcement
of the law
4
violated
Supra 2
5
Rule 110, Section 1
6 7
Rule 110, Section 3 Rule 110, Section 4; People vs Cinco
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites) Page 3
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
What if there’s an infirmity on the signature in
the information? (Signed and filed by one
who had no authority to do so)
- The dismissal of the information would
not be a bar for the prosecution to file
another valid information.
- Double jeopardy does not attach
where an accused pleads guilty to a
defective indictment.8
- The infirmity cannot be cured by
silence, acquiescence or even by
express consent.
- It is a ground for the quashal of the
information.
What should be in the information
complaint? (ODD-PAA)
- The name of the accused; if the
offense is committed by more than
one person, all of them shall be
included in the complaint or
information;
- The designation of the offense given
by statute;
- The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense;
- The name of the offended party;
- The approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and
- The place where the offense was
committed
What is the test for the sufficiency of the
complaint or information?
- Whether or not the crime is particularly
described in intelligible terms as to
8
An indictment is a formal accusation against an individual
suspected of committing a crime. Indictments are generally
only obtained for felony charges.
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
appraise the accused, with
reasonable certainty of the offense
charged to enable the accused to
suitably prepare for his defense, since
he is presumed to have no
independent knowledge of the facts
that constitute the offense because he
is presumed as innocent.
- The information must validly charge an
offense. The material facts alleged in
the complaint or information must
establish the essential elements of the
offense charged.
How is the insufficiency of the complaint
questioned?
or
- Objections relating to the form of
the complaint or information cannot
be made for the first time on appeal.
- The accused/appellant should move
before arraignment either for a bill of
particulars if he wants to know the
exact date of the commission of the
alleged offense.
- He may also file for a motion to a
quash if the information or complaint
does not abide by the prescribed
form.
- If he fails to pursue the remedies, he is
deemed to have waived his objections
to any formal defects in the
information.
- An accused is deemed to have
waived his right to assail the sufficiency
of the information when he voluntarily
entered a plea when arraigned and
participated in the trial.
Page 4
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
How do you state the name of the accused?9
- State the name and surname of the
accused or any appellation or
nickname by which he has been or is
known.
- If his name cannot be ascertained, he
must be described under a fictitious
name. A description of the accused
under a fictitious name must be
accompanied by a statement that his
true name is unknown.
- If his true name is later disclosed, his
true name shall be inserted in the
complaint or information in the records
of the case.
- IF NATURAL PERSON: The preceding
rules apply
- IF JURIDICAL PERSON: Sufficient to state
its name or any name or designation
by which it is known or by which it may
be identified without the need of
averring that it is a juridical person.
What are the rules in designating an
offense?10 (NAC)
- The designation of the offense requires,
as a rule, that the name given to the
offense by statute must be stated in
the complaint or information. If the
statute gives no designation to the
offense, then reference must instead
be made to the section or 1
subsection punishing it.
- To be included in the complete
designation of the offense is an
averment of the acts or omissions
constituting the offense.
9
Rule 110, Section 7
10
Rule 110, Section 8
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
- The complaint or information must
specify the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances of the offense.
Who must prosecute criminal actions?11
- Public Prosecutor, since a criminal
offense is an outrage against the state,
it necessarily follows that a
representative of the State shall direct
and control the prosecution thereof.
What happens when the prosecutor assigned
is not available?
- The action may be prosecuted by: (a)
the offended party (b) any peace
officer (c) public officer charged with
the enforcement of the law violated
What are the powers of a public prosecutor?
- Determine whether a prima facie case
exists
- Decide which of the conflicting
testimonies should be believed free
from the interference or control of the
offended party
- Subject only to the right against self-
incrimination, determine which
witnesses to present in court
What are the reasons for authorizing a private
prosecutor to prosecute a criminal case?
- The public prosecutor has a heavy
work schedule.
- There is lack of public prosecutors.
- Once so authorized, the private
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute
the case up to the end of the trial
even in the absence of a public
11
Rule 110, Section 5
Page 5
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
prosecutor unless the authority is
revoked or otherwise withdrawn.12
What is the role of the OSG?
- Regarded as the appellate counsel of
the People of the Philippines
- If there is dismissal of a criminal case by
the trial court or if there is an acquittal
of the accused, the OSG may bring an
appeal on the criminal aspect
What is the process in prosecuting private
representing the people. (XPN: Cases
crimes?
elevated to the Sandiganbayan)
- RATIONALE: The people of the
Philippines are the real parties to a
criminal case, therefore, only the OSG
can represent them in criminal
proceedings pending in the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court.
- An appeal of a criminal case not
represented by the OSG and not filed
in the name of the People of the
Philippines is dismissible (except in the
aspect of civil liability).
What are private crimes?
- Felonies that cannot be prosecuted
except upon sworn written complaint
filed by the aggrieved party is
misleading because the state may
prosecute also.
- it is true that the institution of private
crimes is at the option of aggrieved
party, but once that choice is made to
manifest, the law will be applied in full
force.
- It’s the sworn written complaint that
starts the prosecution.
12
Rule 110, Section 5
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
- RATIONALE: A form of consideration for
the offended party and his/her family
who might prefer to suffer the outrage
in silence rather than go through with
the scandal of a public trial. (WEW)
- CRIMES STATED IN THE RULES OF COURT:
Adultery, Concubinage, Seduction,
Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness,
Defamation
A. Concubinage and Adultery
- In crimes of Concubinage and
Adultery, it should be the offended
spouse who will file the complaint.
- The action cannot be instituted
against one party; it must be against
both guilty parties unless one of them is
no longer alive.
- The offense may not be instituted if it is
shown that the offended party has
consented to the offense or has
pardoned the offenders. The consent
or pardon may either be express or
implied.
B. Seduction, Abduction and Acts of
Lasciviousness
- Shall not be prosecuted except upon
complaint filed by the offended party
or her parents, grandparents or
guardian, nor in any case if the
offender has been expressly pardoned
by any of them.
- If the offended party dies before filing
the complaint and she has no known
relatives, the State shall initiate the
criminal action in her behalf.
Page 6
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
- The state is the last entity who may file
the complaint in the absence of the
persons mentioned.
- Even if the offended party is a minor,
she has the right to initiate the
prosecution independent from the
persons mentioned, except when she
is deemed incompetent or
incapacitated.
C. Defamation
- Only the offended party may initiate
the action
D. Rape
- Pursuant to R.A. 8353, the crime of
rape was reclassified as a crime
against persons, hence prosecution
may now be commenced by state.
What is duplicity?13
- Presupposes that there is a joinder of
distinct offenses in one complaint or
information.
- There should only be one offense
charged in the information or
complaint unless the law prescribes a
single punishment for various
offenses. 14 (Article48, Complex and
Compound Crimes)
- It is acceptable to file two separate
informations when a single act violates
two or more entirely distinct and
unrelated provisions of law.15
- RATIONALE: To give the accused the
necessary knowledge of the charge
against him and enable him to
sufficiently prepare for his defense
hence two or more charges which
13
Rule 110, Section 13
14
Rule 110, Section 13
15
Loney vs People
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
might confuse him in his defense is
prohibited.
- Duplicity is a ground for a motion to
quash.
- An objection must be timely
interposed by the accused before trial.
- The court may convict the accused for
as many offenses charged and proved
against him and impose on him a
penalty for each offense.16
Where is the venue of criminal actions?
- Territory where (a) the offense was
committed or (b) where any of its
essential ingredients occurred.
- The courts cannot exercise jurisdiction
over a person charged with an offense
committed outside its limited territory.
Requisites for the exercise of Criminal
Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter;
2. Jurisdiction over the territory; and
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
What are the distinctions over the jurisdiction
over the subject-matter and that over of the
person of the accused?
- Jurisdiction over the subject-matter
refers to the authority of the court to
hear and determine a particular
criminal case
- Jurisdiction over the accused refers to
the authority of the court, not over the
subject-matter of the criminal litigation,
but over the person charged.
16
Rule 120, Section 3
Page 7
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
This element requires that the offense must
have been committed within the court’s
territorial jurisdiction or within the
geographical limits of the territory over which
the court presides. This fact is to be
determined by the facts alleged in the
complaint or information as regards the
place where the offense charged was
committed.
In such case, the action shall be instituted
and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory wherein the offense was committed
or where anyone of the essential ingredients
took place.
What is the significance of venue in criminal
cases?
- Venue in criminal cases is an essential
element of jurisdiction. Thus, for
jurisdiction to be a court in a criminal
case, the offense should have been
committed or anyone of its essential
ingredients should have taken place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court.
What is the purpose of such rule?
- The purpose of which is not to compel
the defendant to move to, and
appear in, a different court from that
of the province where the crime was
committed as it would cause him
great inconvenience in looking for his
witnesses and other evidence in
another place.
What do you mean by territorial jurisdiction?
- It is the territory where the court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
the offense allegedly committed
therein by the accused.
What is the nature of the concept of venue in
both criminal and civil cases?
- It is jurisdictional.
What are the exemptions to the rule that the
offense must be prosecuted in the place
where the same was committed?
- Where the offense was committed
under the circumstances enumerated
in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code,
the offense is cognizable before
Philippine courts even if committed
outside of the territory of the
Philippines. In this case, the offense
shall be cognizable by the court where
the criminal action is first filed.
- Where the Supreme Court orders a
change of venue to avoid miscarriage
of justice.
- Where an offense is committed in a
train, aircraft or public or private
vehicle in the course of its trip: any
territory where said machine passed
during the trip or in the place of
departure and arrival.
- Where an offense is committed on
board a vessel in the course of its
voyage: first port of entry, a territory
where it passed (place of departure
and arrival are not included)
- Cases filed to the Sandiganbayan
- Written Defamation: where the
offended party held office at the time
of the commission of the offense if he is
a public officer or where he resided at
the time of the commission if he is a
private individual
Page 8
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
What is an amendment?
- It’s a correction of an error or an
omission in a complaint or an
information.
- Effected by adding or striking out an
allegation or the name of any party
When can a party make an amendment to
the complaint or information?
- If the amendment is made before the
accused enters his plea, the complaint
or information may be amended in
form or in substance without the need
for leave of court.
When is leave of court required even if the
amendment is made before plea?
- When (a) the amendment
downgrades the nature of the offense
charged or (b) the amendment
excludes any accused from the
complaint or information
- The above amendments also require a
motion by the prosecutor with notice
to the offended party
- The court is mandated to state its
reasons in resolving the motion of the
prosecutor and to furnish all parties
copies of its order.
What if the amendment is made after the
plea of the accused?
- Any formal amendment may only be
done under two conditions: (a) leave
of court must be secured and the (b)
amendment does not cause prejudice
to the rights of the accused
- Amendment in substance is not
allowed at this stage.
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
When is an amendment considered as formal
or substantial?
- A substantial amendment consists of a
recital of facts constituting a change
in the offense charged to the
prejudice of a party because another
set of evidence is required to suit the
new charge or because it deprives an
accused the opportunity to meet the
new offense. All other matters are
merely in form.
What is the test in determining if the
defendant is prejudiced by the amendment?
- Whether a defense under the
information as it originally stood would
be available after the amendment is
made, and whether any evidence
defendant might have would be
equally applicable to the information
in the one form as in the other. An
amendment which does not change
the nature of the crime alleged does
not affect the essence of the offense
or cause surprise or deprive the
accused of an opportunity to meet
the new averment had each been
held to be one of form and not of
substance.
Examples of formal amendments:
1. New allegations which relate only to
the range of the penalty that the court
might impose in the event of
conviction;
2. An amendment which does not
charge another offense different or
distinct from that charged in the
original case;
Page 9
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
3. Additional allegations which does not the objection of the
alter the prosecution’s theory of the accused, for if the
original would be
case so as to cause surprise to the withdrawn, the
accused and affect the form of accused could invoke
defense he has or will assume; double jeopardy.
4. One which does not adversely affect
any substantial right of the accused;
Assigned Cases:
5. An amendment that merely adds
specifications to eliminate vagueness 1. Judge Bonifacio vs RTC Makati
in the information and does not 2. Girlie Quisay
introduce new and material facts, and 3. People vs Jose Go
merely states with additional precision 4. People vs Edgardo Perez
something which is already contained 5. People vs AAA
in the original information and which 6. People vs Danilo Feliciano
adds nothing essential for conviction 7. Lito Corpuz vs People
for the crime charged. 8. People vs Raul Yamon
9. Dungo vs People
Substitution vs Amendment
10. Canceran vs People
Substitution Amendment 11. Siguerra Consignees
Involves substantial May involve either 12. Joel Mendez vs People
change from the formal or substantial 13. Leonardo vs Villalon
original charge changes
It must be with leave of Amendment before the Rule 111 – Prosecution of Civil Action
court as the original plea is entered can
information has to be be effected without Is there an implied institution of the civil
dismissed. leave of court.
action with the criminal action?
Substitution of the An amendment as to
information entails form will not require
another preliminary another preliminary - Yes. The civil action for the recovery of
investigation and plea investigation and the civil liability arising from the offense
to the new retaking of plea of the charged shall be deemed instituted
information. accused. with the criminal action.
Requires or An amended
presupposes that the information refers to - Every person who is criminally liable is
new information the same offense also civilly liable.
involves a different charged in the original -
offense which does information or to an
not include or is not offense which Rule 117 – Motion to Quash
necessarily included in necessarily includes or
the original charge; is necessarily included Motion to Quash - The mode by which an
hence the accused in the original charge,
cannot claim double hence substantial
accused assails the validity of a criminal
jeopardy amendments to the complaint or Information filed against him for
information after the insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for
plea has been taken
cannot be made over
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites) Page 10
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
defects which are apparent in the face of already entered
the Information (Antone vs Beronillo) his plea and is in
fact going
When is the time to file a motion to quash? through a trial
(Sec. 23, Rule 119)
1. May be made at any time before the Does not require May be filed by
accused enters his FIRST PLEA. (Section a prior leave of the accused
1) court for it to be either with leave
2. Generally not allowed in a summary filed or without leave
of court
procedure17, EXCEPT on the ground of
May be based on Would necessarily
lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matters found on be predicated
matter or failure to comply with the the FACE of the upon matters
barangay conciliation proceedings complaint or outside the
mentioned in Sec. 18 of the 1991 Rules information complaint or
on Summary Procedure information
When it is By jurisprudence,
What should be remembered regarding the granted, a deemed an
form and content of a motion to quash? (D-S- dismissal of the acquittal and
W) case will not would preclude
necessarily follow. the filing of
1. It should be in writing. another
2. It should be signed by the accused or information or
appeal by the
his counsel.
prosecution
3. It should distinctly specify the factual
and legal grounds of the motion. (Sec.
2, Rule 117, Rules of Court) What are the grounds for a motion to quash?
(Sec. 3, Rule 117, Rules of Court [ACE-MOP-
 Motion to quash is not a demurrer to OFF])
evidence18
1. The facts charged do not constitute an
Motion to Quash Demurrer to
Evidence offense.
Filed before the Filed after the 2. The court trying the case has no
accused enters a prosecution rests jurisdiction over the offense charged.
plea its case; 3. The court trying has no jurisdiction over
presupposes that the person of the accused.
accused has 4. Officer who filed the information had
no authority to do so.
17 A summary proceeding is a court action in which the
5. The information does not substantially
formal procedures normally applicable to matters such
as conducting discovery are dispensed with. (US Legal) conform to the prescribed form.
18 It was an objection or exception by one of the parties
6. More than one offense is charged
in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence
which his adversary had produced was insufficient except when a single punishment for
in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his various offenses is prescribed by law
case or sustain the issue.

Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites) Page 11
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
7. Criminal action or liability has been
extinguished.
8. Contains averments19 that if were true,
would constitute a legal excuse or
justification.
9. The accused has been convicted or
acquitted of the offense charged, or
the case against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his
express consent.
ASSIGNED CASES:
1. Myrna Antone vs. Leo Beronilla (
December 8, 2010) GR: 183824
Doctrine: As reiterated in a long line of
cases, Article 40 of the Family Code
has been established as a new
provision expressly requiring judicial
declaration of nullity of a prior
marriage for purposes of remarriage.
Therefore, a person who contracts a
subsequent marriage absent a prior
judicial declaration of nullity is guilty of
bigamy.
Facts Regarding Motion To Quash: Leo
moved to quash the Information on
the ground that the facts charged do
not constitute an offense because his
marriage with Myrna was declared null
and void as of April 2007 and became
final and executory on May 2007.
Leo argues that since the marriage
had been declared null and void from
19 A positive affirmation, allegation, or declaration of
facts, especially in a pleading, as opposed to an
argumentative statement or a statement based on
induction or inference; generally this term is used in civil
proceedings, as opposed to allegation in criminal
proceedings.
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
the beginning, there was actually
no first marriage to speak of. Thus,
absent the first marriage, the facts
alleged in the Information do not
constitute the crime of bigamy.
Ruling Regarding Motion To Quash: The
issue on the declaration of nullity of the
marriage between petitioner and
respondent only after the latter
contracted the subsequent marriage
is, therefore, immaterial for the purpose
of establishing that the facts alleged in
the information for Bigamy does not
constitute an offense. Following the
same rationale, neither may such
defense be interposed by the
respondent in his motion to quash by
way of exception to the established
rule that facts contrary to the
allegations in the information are
matters of defense which may be
raised only during the presentation of
evidence.
The court ruled in favor of Myrna
because Leo’s defense did not prosper
on the ground that bigamy was
already consummated despite the
judicial declaration on the nullity of
their marriage. Even if the declaration
has a retroactive effect on the
marriage, it does not diminish the legal
consequences such as the effects on
the child conceived prior the
declaration and in the case at hand, is
how Leo incurred criminal liability for
bigamy when he contracted a second
marriage. (The first marriage was
declared null and void by 2007, but
Page 12
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
Leo contracted the second marriage
back in 1991.)
2. People vs Ireneo Jugueta GR: 202124
Facts Regarding Motion to Quash: The
facts, as alleged in the Information in
Criminal Case No. 7698-G, and as
proven during trial, show that
appellant is guilty of 2 counts of the
crime of Murder and not Double
Murder, as the killing of the victims was
not the result of a single act but of
several acts of appellant and his
cohorts. In the same vein, appellant is
also guilty of 4 counts of the crime of
Attempted Murder and not Multiple
Attempted Murder in Criminal Case
No. 7702-G. It bears stressing that the
Informations in this case failed to
comply with the requirement in Section
13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Court that an information must charge
only one offense. As a general rule, a
complaint or information must charge
only one offense, otherwise, the same
is defective. The reason for the rule is
stated in People of the Philippines and
AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division,
Mindanao Station, et al., thus: The
rationale behind this rule prohibiting
duplicitous complaints or informations
is to give the accused the necessary
knowledge of the charge against him
and enable him to sufficiently prepare
for his defense. The State should not
heap upon the accused two or more
charges which might confuse him in his
defense. Non-compliance with this rule
is a ground for quashing the
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
duplicitous complaint or information
under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure and the accused may raise
the same in a motion to quash before
he enters his plea, otherwise, the
defect is deemed waived. However,
since appellant entered a plea of not
guilty during arraignment and failed to
move for the quashal of the
Informations, he is deemed to have
waived his right to question the same.
Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that
"[t]he failure of the accused to assert
any ground of a motion to quash
before he pleads to the complaint or
information, either because he did not
file a motion to quash or failed to
allege the same in said motion, shall
be deemed a waiver of any objections
except those based on the grounds
provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g),
and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule." It is
also well-settled that when two or
more offenses are charged in a single
complaint or information but the
accused fails to object to it before
trial, the court may convict him of as
many offenses as are charged and
proved, and impose upon him the
proper penalty for each offense.”
3. People vs. Aquilino Andrade
Doctrine: It is clearly provided by the
Rules of Criminal Procedure that if the
motion to quash is based on an
alleged defect in the information
which can be cured by amendment,
the court shall order the amendment
to be made.
Page 13
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
Facts Regarding Motion to Quash:
Respondents filed a consolidated
motion to dismiss on the ground that
the facts alleged in the information do
not constitute a violation of Section 15,
RA 9165 which would warrant drug
testing and serve as basis for filing the
proper information in court. The RTC
Muntinlupa before the scheduled
hearing date for pre-trial and trial
granted the motion to dismiss finding
no probable cause for the offense
charged in the information.
Ruling Regarding Motion to Quash:
Considering that the RTC has already
found probable cause, it should have
denied the motion to quash and
allowed the prosecution to present its
evidence and wait for a demurrer to
evidence to be filed by respondents, if
they opt to, or allowed the prosecution
to amend the Information and in the
meantime suspend the proceedings
until the amendment of the
Information without dismissing the
case.
Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure clearly states
that if the ground based upon is that
"the facts charged do not constitute
an offense," the prosecution shall be
given by the court an opportunity to
correct the defect by amendment,
thus:
Section 4. Amendment of the
complaint or information. - If the
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
motion to quash is based on an
alleged defect of the complaint or
information which can be cured by
amendment, the court shall order that
an amendment be made.
If it is based on the ground that the
facts charged do not constitute an
offense, the prosecution shall be given
by the court an opportunity to correct
the defect by amendment. The motion
shall be granted if the prosecution fails
to make the amendment, or the
complaint or information still suffers
from the same defect despite the
amendment.
If the defect in the information is
curable by amendment, the motion to
quash shall be denied and the
prosecution shall be ordered to file
amended information. Generally, the
fact that the allegations in the
information do not constitute an
offense, or that the information does
not conform substantially to the
prescribed form, are defects curable
by amendment. Corollary to this rule,
the court should give the prosecution
an opportunity to amend the
information.
4. Jason Ivler vs. Hon. Maria Rowena
Modesto-San Pedro
Facts In Relation To Motion to Quash:
On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded
guilty to the charge in reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries and was meted out the penalty
Page 14
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
of public censure. Invoking this
conviction, Ivler moved to quash the
Information of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and damage to
property for placing him in jeopardy of
second punishment for the same
offense of reckless imprudence.
Ruling In Relation to Motion to Quash:
Reason and precedent both coincide
in that once convicted or acquitted of
a specific act of reckless imprudence,
the accused may not be prosecuted
again for that same act. For the
essence of the quasi offense of
criminal negligence under article 365
of the Revised Penal Code lies in the
execution of an imprudent or
negligent act that, if intentionally
done, would be punishable as a
felony. The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof. The gravity of the
consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty; it
does not qualify the substance of the
offense. And, as the careless act is
single, whether the injurious result
should affect one person or several
persons, the offense (criminal
negligence) remains one and the
same, and cannot be split into
different crimes and prosecutions.
Definition Of Double Jeopardy
Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double
jeopardy. – When an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case
against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a
valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and
after the accused had pleaded to the
charge, the conviction or acquittal of the
accused or the dismissal of the case shall
be a bar to another prosecution for the
offense charged, or for any attempt to
commit the same or frustration thereof, or
for any offense which necessarily includes
or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or
information. However, the conviction of the
accused shall not be a bar to another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the former
complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
(a) the graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same act
or omission constituting the former charge;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge
became known or were discovered only after
a plea was entered in the former complaint
or information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense
was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and of the offended party
except as provided in section 1(f) of Rule
116.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the
accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part
the judgment, he shall be credited with the
same in the event of conviction for the graver
offense.
Page 15
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
What is jeopardy and what is the rule on
Double Jeopardy?
- Jeopardy is the peril in which a
person is placed when he is
regularly charged with a crime
before a tribunal properly
organized and competent to try him
- The rule on double jeopardy means
that when a person is charged with an
offense and the case is terminated
either by conviction or acquittal, or in
any other manner without the
consent of the accused, the latter
cannot again be charged with the
same or identical offense
What are the two kinds of jeopardy?
1. No person shall be put twice in
jeopardy for the same offense.
2. If an act is punished by a law and
an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the
same act
What are the requisities for the accused to
raise the defense of Double Jeopardy?
1. A first jeopardy must have validly
attached prior to the second
2. The first jeopardy must have been
validly terminated
3. The second jeopardy must be for the
same offense or the second offense
includes or is necessarily included in
the offense charged in the first
information or is an attempt to commit
the offense or a frustration thereof
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
What are the requisites for the first jeopardy to
attach?
1. There is a valid complaint or
information
2. Court of competent jurisdiction
3. Arraignment
4. Plea
5. The defendant is acquitted, convicted,
or the case was dismissed or
terminated without his express consent
5. Andres Suero vs People (Jan. 31, 2005)
GR: 156408
Doctrine: The defense of double
jeopardy places upon the accused
the burden of proving the following
three requisites: (1) the first jeopardy
must have attached prior to the
second; (2) the first jeopardy must
have been validly terminated; and (3)
the second jeopardy must be for the
same offense as that in the first; or the
second offense is necessarily included
in the first. The same act may give rise
to two or more separate and distinct
offenses. No double jeopardy attaches
as long as there is a variance between
the elements of the two offenses
charged. What is forbidden is another
prosecution for the same offense.
Facts Regarding Motion to Quash and
Double Jeopardy:
Suero was earlier accused of
falsification of public documents.
Petitioner was also tried under the
Sandiganbayan on the grounds of a
violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 arising
from the same transaction. There is no
Page 16
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
dispute that the present case and
Criminal Case No. 23518 before the
Sandiganbayan arose out of the same
incident or transaction. Nonetheless, as
correctly raised by the Office of the
Ombudsman, the present case
involves the prosecution for
Falsification of Public Documents as
defined and penalized under Art. 171
of the Revised Penal Code, while
Criminal Case No. 23518 before the
Sandiganbayan pertains to the
causing of undue injury to the
government. The latter case requires
the element of damage while in
Falsification of Public Document,
damage is of no consequence. The
dismissal therefore of Criminal Case
No. 23518 before the Sandiganbayan
has no bearing with the present case
since the quantum of evidence
required to sustain both cases are not
similar. In the same vein, this is a
particular case where one incident
results to two (2) separate and distinct
criminal offenses, such that the
dismissal of one case would not
constitute double jeopardy against the
accused in the other case.
Accordingly, the motion to quash the
information is denied for lack of merit.
Ruling Regarding Motion to Quash and
Double Jeopardy: Petitioner argues
that the primordial legal issue involved
in the two cases is the same. We do
not agree. It is undisputed that the two
charges stem from the same
transaction. However, it has been
consistently held that the same act
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
may give rise to two or more separate
and distinct offenses. No double
jeopardy attaches, as long as there is
a variance between the elements of
the offenses charged. The
constitutional right against double
jeopardy protects from a second
prosecution for the same offense, not
for a different one. deed, the crime
under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 shares
two common elements with the felony
under Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code -- that the offender is a public
officer and that the act is related to
the officers public position. However,
the latter offense is not necessarily
inclusive of the former. The essential
elements of each are not included
among or do not form part of those
enumerated in the former. For there to
be double jeopardy, the elements of
one offense should -- like the ribs of an
umbrella -- ideally encompass those of
the other. The elements of a violation
of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 fall outside
the realm of those of falsification of a
public document and vice versa. At
most, the two offenses may be
considered as two conjoined
umbrellas with one or two common
ribs. Clearly, one offense does not
include the other.
6. Pablo Condrada vs People (February
28, 2003) GR: 141646
Facts Relating to Motion to Quash and
Double Jeopardy: Petitioner was
charged with rape in Criminal Case
No. 10770 presently pending before
Page 17
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
the RTC of Borongan, Eastern Samar,
Branch 2. There were several times
when the prosecution moved to
postpone the hearing due to absence
of the complainant and her witnesses.
Petitioner objected to the motion on
the ground that his right to speedy trial
was being violated by such
postponements. The trial court granted
the prosecutions motion and reset the
hearing on May 31, 1999. It also
directed that the subpoenae to the
complainant and her witnesses be
coursed through the NBI which
handled the investigation of the
case.During the hearing on May 31,
1999, the prosecution requested for
another postponement. Petitioner
moved for at least a temporary
dismissal of the case. The prosecution
manifested that it would not object to
a temporary dismissal. Thus, on the
same date, the trial court issued an
order temporarily dismissing the case.
On June 22, 1999, the prosecution filed
a Motion for Reinstatement and/or
Revival of the case. The trial court set
the hearing on the motion for
reinstatement on June 25, 1999.
Petitioner opposed the motion
contending that the revival or
reinstatement of the case will place
him in double jeopardy. On September
29, 1999, the Court issued a resolution
reinstating the said case and
reiterating the issuance of a warrant of
arrest for petitioner. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration of said
resolution insisting that the
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
reinstatement of the case will place
him in double jeopardy.
Ruling Relating to Motion to Quash and
Double Jeopardy: There is no merit to
petition. A permanent dismissal of a
criminal case may refer to the
termination of the case on the merits,
resulting in either the conviction or
acquittal of the accused; to the
dismissal of the case due to the
prosecutions failure to prosecute; or to
the dismissal thereof on the ground of
unreasonable delay in the
proceedings, in violation of the
accused right to speedy disposition or
trial of the case against him. In
contrast, a provisional dismissal of a
criminal case is a dismissal without
prejudice to the reinstatement thereof
before the order of dismissal becomes
final or to the subsequent filing of a
new information for the offense within
the periods allowed under the Revised
Penal Code or the Revised Rules of
Court. The proscription against double
jeopardy presupposes that an
accused has been previously charged
with an offense, and the case against
him is terminated either by his acquittal
or conviction, or dismissed in any other
manner without his consent. As a
general rule, the following requisites
must be present for double jeopardy
to attach: (1) a valid indictment, (2)
before a court of competent
jurisdiction, (3) the arraignment of the
accused, (4) a valid plea entered by
him, and (5) the acquittal or
conviction of the accused, or the
Page 18
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
dismissal or termination of the case
against him without his express
consent. However, there are two
exceptions to the foregoing rule, and
double jeopardy may attach even if
the dismissal of the case was with the
consent of the accused: first, when
there is insufficiency of evidence to
support the charge against him; and
second, where there has been an
unreasonable delay in the
proceedings, in violation of the right of
the accused to a speedy trial.
Petitioner is not in danger of being
twice put in jeopardy with the
reinstatement of Criminal Case No.
10770 because as earlier stated, said
case was provisionally dismissed by the
trial court upon his motion. Thus, the
requirement that the dismissal of the
case must be without the consent of
the accused is not present in this case.
Neither does the case fall under any of
the aforecited exceptions. The
prosecution had not yet presented
evidence at the time the case was
dismissed on May 31, 1999. Moreover,
as previously explained, said dismissal
was temporary in nature, as the case
was subject to reinstatement within
thirty days from the date of dismissal.
Hence, the Court finds no error on the
part of the trial court in allowing the
reinstatement of Criminal Case No.
10770.
7. People vs Hon. Tirso Velasco
(September 13, 2000) GR: 127444
Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites)
Facts in Relation to Motion to Quash
and Double Jeopardy: Mayor
Honorato Galvez of San Iidefonso and
his bodyguard Godofredo Diego were
charged of murder and frustrated
murder in the alleged shooting
transpired at San Iidefonso Bulacan
that took the life of Alex Vinculado
and seriously wounded Levi and
Miguel Vinculado Jr. Cases were re-
raffled to respondent Judge Tirso D.C.
Velasco and the trial court ruled that
Diego was guilty of all the crimes but
Mayor Galvez was acquitted due to
insufficiency of evidence. The
acquittal of Mayor Galvez is
challenged by the government and
they claim that such petition of review
will not transgress the constitutional
right of the accused against double
jeopardy. The meaning of the phrase
“another trial” refers to a proceeding
that rehears the case and receives
evidence anew to establish the facts
of the case.
Ruling in relation to Motion to Quash
and Double Jeopardy: Philippine
jurisprudence has been consistent in its
application of the Double Jeopardy
Clause such that it has viewed with
suspicion, and not without good
reason, applications for the
extraordinary writ questioning decisions
acquitting an accused on ground of
grave abuse of discretion. The petition
at hand which seeks to nullify the
decision of respondent judge
acquitting the accused Honorato
Galvez goes deeply into the trial
Page 19
 Criminal Procedure (Justice Laguilles) 2018
court's appreciation and evaluation in
esse of the evidence adduced by the
parties. A reading of the questioned
decision shows that respondent judge
considered the evidence received at
trial. These consisted among others of
the testimonies relative to the positions
of the victims vis--vis the accused and
the trajectory, location and nature of
the gunshot wounds, and the opinion
of the expert witness for the
prosecution. While the appreciation
thereof may have resulted in possible
lapses in evidence evaluation, it
nevertheless does not detract from the
fact that the evidence was considered
and passed upon. This consequently
exempts the act from the writs limiting
requirement of excess or lack of
jurisdiction. As such, it becomes an
improper object of and therefore non-
reviewable by certiorari. To reiterate,
errors of judgment are not to be
confused with errors in the exercise of
jurisdiction.

Dumaual, 2018 (Sources: Riano, Laguilles Lectures, Assigned Cases, Herrera Notes, Hizon Notes, Legal
Websites) Page 20