Update on Criminal

Procedure
Justice HILARION L. AQUINO
Update on Criminal
Procedure
Justice HILARION L. AQUINO
I. Recent Cases
A. Nissan Gallery Ortigas v. Felipe, 709 SCRA 214 (2013)
1. Facts:
a) Frederick bought a SUV from Nissan which was paid with a check
issued by his mother Purificacion. When the check was presented for
payment, it was dishonored by the drawee bank for �stop payment� at
the instance of Purificacion.

b) Nissan charged Purificacion with violation of BP 22.

2. Defenses:
a) She was not the buyer of the SUV and her check was only a �show
money�.
b) At most she was only an accommodation party.
Nissan Gallery Ortigas v. Felipe, continuation�

3.
Ruling of Trial Court
For failure of the prosecution to prove that the accused served a
Notice of Dishonor to the accused, he was acquitted. In the
decision, the MTC did not provide for civil liability.

4.
Issues on Appeal:
a) Did the acquittal of the accused efface any civil liability against
him?
b) Were the defenses that the check was only a �show money� or

that accused was merely an �accommodation party� meritorious

defenses?
c) Under the circumstances, was an evidence of Notice of
Dishonor served on accused essential for conviction?
Recent Cases, continuation�

A. Lee Pue Liong v. Chona Pue, 703 SCRA 240 (2013)

1. Facts:
a) Petitioner filed a petition for the issuance of new title in lieu of the lost
one.
That title was in the name of a corporation in which petitioner was not officer.
During the hearing he testified that he was in possession of said title when it got

lost.

b) The offended party who was the treasurer of the corporation who has the title in

her possession claimed that petitioner knew all along that the title was existing
and
in her possession.

c) The offended party initiated the filing of a criminal action for perjury against

the petitioner. There was no allegation of civil liability in the Information.

d) Petitioner moved to disqualify the appearance of the private prosecutor on the

ground that: a) the criminal charge was a public crime and so the offended party
was the State; and b) there was no allegation in the Information that the
respondent
suffered any damage for which she was entitled to damages.

The court denied the motion and allowed the participation of the private
prosecutor.
Lee Pue Liong v. Chona Pue, continuation�

3. Issues on Review on Certiorari:

a) Is a private prosecutor not allowed when the
criminal charge is a public crime?

b) Is the respondent an offended party?

c) Was the absence of an allegation on civil

liability in the Information a ground to prevent
the intervention of a private prosecutor?
Recent Cases, continuation�

C.
Jadewell Parking System Corporation v. Judge Cidua, Jr. 706 SCRA
724 (2013)
1. Facts:
a) Petitioner filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor a charge of robbery
against the respondent. After preliminary investigation, the prosecution dismissed
the case of Robbery on July 25, 2003 for want of probable cause. He however
found probable cause for violation of a city ordinance. He then filed an
Information against the respondent for violation of the City Ordinance on October
16, 2003.

b) Respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground of

prescription of the offense. This motion was denied.

c) Note: The prescriptive period of a violation of an ordinance pursuant to the

Rule on Summary Procedure is 6 months from the day on which the crime was
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. The period
however is suspended when a complaint or information is filed, and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings are terminated without the accused
being convicted or acquitted or was unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him (See also Art. 9, RPC)
Jadewell Parking System Corporation v. Judge Cidua,
continuation�

2. Issues on Review on Certiorari:

a) When did the 60-day prescriptive period of
the crime charged start?

b) The charge of violation of an ordinance was

a mere offshoot of the original charge of
robbery which was initially instituted in the
prosecutor�s office. Did this fact make any
difference in the computation of the prescriptive
period for violation of an ordinance?
Recent Cases, continuation�

D. Leviste v. Alameda, 626 SCRA 515 (2014)

1.
Notes:
a)
The original charge in this case was homicide which was upgraded to murder.

b)
The facts in this case were changed for the purpose of this lecture to make the
criminal action full under the jurisdiction of the first level court. The rulings
of
the Supreme Court in this case apply just as well to the customized facts.

c)
There are two crimes being discussed in this case: one was the lesser crime and
the other was the higher crime. This means that the higher crime included the
lesser crime.

2.
Facts:
a) The accused was charged of the lesser crime. Dissatisfied, the accused initiated
through the
prosecutor the filing of a motion for reinvestigation because he believed that the
proper charge was
the higher crime. Over the objection of the accused, the MTC granted the motion.

b) The offended party, claiming that the order of the MTC granting the motion for
reinvestigation
constituted grave abuse of discretion, filed in the RTC a Petition for Certiorari.

c) Despite the pendency of the petition for certiorari, the prosecutor conducted
reinvestigation. The
accused refused to participate on the ground that to do so would compromise his
petition for
certiorari.

d) Without receiving any new evidence or countering any other matter, the
prosecutor issued a
resolution finding probable cause for the higher offense.
Leviste v. Alameda, continuation�

e) Thus, the prosecutor filed a motion to amend the

Information to charge the higher offense. The court granted
the motion and admitted the amended Information. The
court found probable cause and issued the warrant of arrest
against the accused.

f) Accused moved the court to withdraw the warrant of arrest

and to conduct a preliminary inquiry. This motion was
denied. The accused was then arraigned but he refused to
enter a plea and so the court entered a plea of �not guilty�
for him.

Note: Accused did not question the legality of his arrest and
regularity of the preliminary investigation before arraignment.
On the contrary, he participated in the hearing.
Leviste v. Alameda, continuation�

2. Issues:
Issue No. 1 � After an information has already been
filed, can a private complainant, with the consent of
the prosecutor, move for reinvestigation because of his
belief that the proper crime to charge is the higher
crime?

Contention of Accused � only the accused can ask for a

reinvestigation.
Issues, continuation�

Issue No. 2 � Was the court correct in allowing the

prosecutor to conduct reinvestigation of the charge
against the accused to determine the proper crime to be
charged?

Contention of Accused � The remedy of the offended

party is not to ask for reinvestigation but to appeal the
resolution of the prosecutor to the DOJ on a petition
for review.
Issues, continuation�

Issue No. 3 � In a reinvestigation of a criminal charge,

is it necessary that additional evidence or new matters
should be introduced to justify an upgrading of the
criminal charge?

Contention of Accused � Yes, it is necessary.

Issue No. 4 � Was it legal and proper for the MTC to

act upon the motion to amend information, admit the
amended information and set the arraignment over the
objection of the accused on the ground that his petition
for certiorari has not yet been resolved?
Issues, continuation�
Issue No. 5 � Should not the MTC suspend
proceedings to await the result of the petition for
certiorari pursuant to the doctrine of �judicial
courtesy�?
Issue No. 6 � Was the amendment of the Information
charging a higher crime a substantial or formal
amendment? (If it is substantial, it would require a
new preliminary investigation.)
Issue No. 7 � Was the denial of the motion for judicial
inquiry to determine probable cause legal and proper?
Issues, continuation�
Issue No. 5 � Should not the MTC suspend
proceedings to await the result of the petition for
certiorari pursuant to the doctrine of �judicial
courtesy�?
Issue No. 6 � Was the amendment of the Information
charging a higher crime a substantial or formal
amendment? (If it is substantial, it would require a
new preliminary investigation.)
Issue No. 7 � Was the denial of the motion for judicial
inquiry to determine probable cause legal and proper?
Issues, continuation�

Issue No. 8 � By failing to raise any objection to

the legality of his arrest and regularity of the
preliminary investigation before the arraignment
and by actively participating in the trial, did the
accused in effect waive all his objections
regarding his arrest and preliminary
investigation?
Recent Cases, continuation�

E. Abellana v. People, 655 SCRA 683 (August 17, 2011)

1. Facts:
a) Abellana lent Alonto spouses an amount of money
secured by a lot. Alonto spouses defaulted. Abellana
prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale to be signed by the
Alontos conveying the lot to him. The deed of sale was
signed by the Alonto spouses but they did not appear
before the Notary Public during notarization.

b) Abellana registered the deed of sale and secured a titlein his name. Then he
sold the lot to a third person.

c) Abellana was charged of Estafa through falsification ofPublic Document by a

private individual under Art. 171
(1), RPC. (Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric)
Abellana v. People, continuation�

2. Judgment (dispositive portion) of the trial court:

a) Abellana was sentenced to imprisonment.

b) Abellana was ordered to secure reconveyance of the

lot from the third person and convey it to the Alonto
spouses. Once, the Alonto spouses were fully restored
of the lot, they should pay the accused P130,000.00, the
amount of the loan plus legal interest.

c) However, if accused fails to restore full ownership

and possession of the lot to the Alontos within 6
months, Abellana should pay the Alontos P1,103,000.00
plus P115,000.00 attorney�s fees and damages.
Abellana v. People, continuation�

3. Issues on Appeal:
a) Was the acquittal of the accused of the charge of
estafa correct?

b) Was the imposition by the trial court of civil liability

against accused legal?

c) Was the trial court correct in imposing civil liability

against the accused?
II. Other Doctrinal Pronouncements
1. Nissan Gallery Ortigas v. Felipe, 709 SCRA 214 (2013)
a) If an accused is acquitted, it does not necessary
follow that he can not be held civilly liable because
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil action. (Sec. 2, Rule III, RC) (1)
This rule applies because only a preponderance of
evidence is required to prove civil liability; (2) the court
declares that the liability of accused is only civil; and (3)
the civil liability of accused does not arise from or is not
based upon the crime of which the accused was
acquitted. [Felipe v. People, 641 SCRA 116 (2011)]
Nissan Gallery Ortigas v. Felipe, continuation�

b) The acquittal of the accused effaces any civil liability against him when:

(1) In the final judgment there is a finding that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise did not exist; and
(2) Or a finding that the accused did not commit the act or omission
imputed to him. [Sanchez v. Far East Bank and Trust Co., 558 SCRA
97, 115 (2005)]
c)
One of the elements of violation of BP 22 is the knowledge of the accused
that at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its encashment.
[Restirio v. People, 681 SCRA 597 (2012)]
Nissan Gallery Ortigas v. Felipe, continuation�

Section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency

of fund which, however, arises only after it is proved:

(1) That the accused had received a written notice of dishonor; and
(2) That within 5 days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount
of the check or to make arrangement for its payment [San Mateo v.
People, 692 SCRA 660 (2013)]
d)
Violation of BP 22 is malum prohibitum so the intent in issuing the
check is immaterial; the mere act of issuing a bad check already
constitutes the crime.
Other Doctrinal Pronouncements, continuation�

2. Lee Pue Liong v. Chua Pue, 703 SCRA 240 (2013)

a) The participation of the offended party through counsel in the
prosecution of the criminal case whether public or private is not by mere
tolerance but a matter of right which cannot be denied. (Lim Tek Yoan

v. Yatco, 94 Phil. 197 [1953])

b) The only instances in which an offended party is not allowed to
participate in criminal proceeding are: a) he or she waives the civil
action; b) reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes it
separately; or c) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
(Rule 111[a], RCP)

c) Who or what is an offended party?

The person against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed. (Sec. 12, Rule 110, RCP)
Lee Pue Liong v. Chua Pue, continuation�

d) It is incorrect to say that only the State is the

offended party in public offenses like bigamy.
The offended party in public or private crime is
the party to whom the offender is civilly liable
and so in a public crime, the private individual to
whom the offender is civilly liable is the
offended party. [Garcia v. CA, 266 SCRA 678,
690 (1997)]
Lee Pue Liong v. Chua Pue, continuation�

In Ramiscal, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 446 SCRA 407-408

(2004) we also held that:

Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure, the offended party may also be a private individual whose
person, right, house, liberty or property was actually or directly injured
by the same punishable act or omission of the accused, or that
corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the delictual acts
complained of. Such party must be one who has a legal right; a
substantial interest in the subject matter of the action as will entitle
him to recourse under the substantive law, if the evidence is sufficient
or that he has the legal right to the demand and the accused will be
protected by the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such interest must
not be a mere expectancy, subordinate or inconsequential. The interest
of the party must be personal; and not one based on a desire to

vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.

Lee Pue Liong v. Chua Pue, continuation�

In this case, the statement of petitioner regarding his custody

of TCT No. 232238 covering CHI�s property and its loss
through inadvertence, if found to be perjured is, without doubt,
injurious to respondent�s personal credibility and reputation
insofar as her faithful performance of the duties and
responsibilities of a Board Member and Treasurer of CHI. The
potential injury to the corporation itself is likewise undeniable
as the court-ordered issuance of a new owner�s duplicate of
TCT No. 232238 was only averted by respondent�s timely
discoery of the case filed by petitioner in the RTC.
Other Doctrinal Pronouncements, continuation�

3.
Jadewell Parking System Corporation v. Lidua, Jr., 706 SCRA 724
(2013)
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of Information in
court tolls the prescriptive period when the crime charged is violation of an
ordinance even if the original charged was robbery which was the subject of
preliminary investigation. What is important is the crime charged in the
information. [Zaldivina v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277 (1992)]

In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following

should be considered: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged;

(2) the time the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time the
prescriptive period was interrupted. [In Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo, 470
SCRA 754 (2005)]
A crime may prescribed even if the complaint is filed seasonably with the
prosecutor�s office if, intentionally or not, he delays the institution of the
necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late.
III. Refreshers in Criminal Procedure
A. Criminal Jurisdiction
1.
Criminal jurisdiction is the power or competence of a court to try and
decide a criminal case and impose the punishment for it. (People v.
Mariano, 71 SCRA 600 (1976)
2.
Requisites for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction:
2.1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter: a) nature of the offense; and b)
impossible penalty (In complex crime it is the maximum penalty of the
more serious offense that determines jurisdiction.)
2.2. Territorial jurisdiction which requires that the crime charged must
have been committed within the territory in which the court exercise
jurisdiction.
2.3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused which is acquired by the
court through: a) his voluntary submission to the court�s jurisdiction; and
b) his arrest by warrant; in warrantless arrest, service on accused of a
commitment order.
Criminal Jurisdiction, continuation�

3. Criminal jurisdiction, how determined

3.1. Allegations in the Information/Complaint (not
by the nature of the defense nor the result of proof
or the court�s evaluation of the evidence),
3.2. The statute in effect at the time of the
commencement of the action; not at the
commission of the offense [People v.
Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA 489 (2010)] unless the
statute provides retroactive application. (Lacson v.
Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298)
Refreshers in Criminal Procedure, continuation�

B.
Differences Between �Custody of the Law� and
�Jurisdiction over Person of Accused�
1. Custody of the law is when a person is taken into custody
by law enforcement agents of the State.
Jurisdiction over person of the accused is when the court
is empowered to act upon a person in a positive or negative
way.

2. Custody of the law is required when a person applied for

bail.
Jurisdiction over Accused is acquired in order for the
court to adjudicate or grant relief.
Differences Between �Custody of the Law� and �Jurisdiction over
Person of Accused�, continuation�

Note: A person may be under custody of the law

without being under the jurisdiction of the court.
Example: Person is arrested with warrant; he
moves to quash the warrant on the ground that it
was unlawful.

A person may also be under the jurisdiction of

the court but not under legal custody. Example:
An accused jumps bail.
Refreshers in Criminal Procedure, continuation�

C. Criminal Action and Civil Action arising from the Crime

Billedo v. Wagan, 653 SCRA 792 (July 13, 2011)

A filed a civil suit against B for having unlawfully

arrested him. Subsequently, A also filed a criminal case

against B for unlawful arrest. During the preliminary

investigation the Ombudsman dismissed the case for lack of

probable cause. Does the dismissal of the criminal case

constitute a ground to dismiss the civil action?

No. The civil action was filed ahead of the criminal

action so that the civil action could not have been affected by
the dismissal of the criminal action which was filed later.
Moreover, the civil action can be proved by a mere
preponderance of evidence.
Refreshers in Criminal Procedure, continuation�

D. Court and Prosecutor

SP04 Alonzo v. Judge Concepcion, A.M. RTJ-04-1879
(January 17, 2005)

It is grave abuse of discretion for a judge to order the

prosecutor to amend the Information to include or
exclude an accused or to change the nature of the
offense charged or the criminal participation of the
accused.
Refreshers in Criminal Procedure, continuation�

E.
Prescription of Offense
Sanrio Co. v. Lim, 546 SCRA 303 (2008)

What interrupts running of the period:

a)
Crimes under the RPC � from the filing of a complaint with the
prosecutor�s office.

b)
Special crimes � from the filing of a complaint or information in court.

In the recent case of Brillantes v. Court of Appeals, 440 SCRA 541 (2004)
the court affirmed that the filing of the complaint for purposes of
preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription of criminal
responsibility. Thus, the prescriptive period for the prosecution of the alleged
violation of the RPC was tolled by petitioner�s timely filing of the complaint-
affidavit before the person or body authorized to conduct a preliminary
investigation.

Note: In Zaldivia v. Reyes, 211 SCRA 277, the prescriptive period of a

criminal complaint for violation of a special law is interrupted by its filing in

court � not with the prosecutor�s office.