1st Semester

AY 2018-2019 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CASE LAWS
Case Doctrine/Rule/Concept
Lobrigo vs Estipona The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice and procedure is now their exclusive domain
and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative
departments. Thus, plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. The
Supreme Court's sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal
procedural rules is limited to the preservation of substantive
rights, i.e., the former should not diminish, increase or
modify the latter.
Dalmacio vs. Tuliao One who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Adjudication of a
motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of
law over the body of the accused
Sanchez vs. Demetriou Illegal detention is cured by subsequent issuance of a valid
warrant of arrest. Filing of charges, and the issuance of the
corresponding warrant of arrest, against a person invalidly
detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least
deny him the right to be released because of such defect.
Crespo vs. Mogul The rule is that once a complaint or information is filed in
Court, any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the
conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases
even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his
opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole
judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination
of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
competence.
Chan vs. Zhang A petition for certiorari may still be availed of even if
Zhenting there is an available remedy, when such remedy does not appear
to be plain, speedy, and adequate in the ordinary course of
law. An adequate remedy is a remedy which is equally
beneficial, speedy and sufficient, not merely a remedy which
at some time in the future will bring about a revival of the
judgment of the lower court complained of in the certiorari
proceeding, but a remedy which would promptly relieve the
petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the
acts of the inferior court, tribunal, board or officer.
De Lima vs. Mario This Court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitions
Reyes for certiorari and prohibition are directed only to tribunals
that exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The
issuance of the department order was a purely administrative
or executive function of the secretary of Justice. The fact
that the DOJ is the primary prosecution arm of the 'government
does not make quasi-judicial office or agency. Its preliminary
investigation of cases is not a quasi- judicial proceeding.
Nor does the DOJ exercise a quasi-judicial function when it
reviews the findings of a public prosecutor on the finding of
probable cause in any case.
Serena vs. The petitioner contends that Section 4 of PD 1606 that estafa
Sandiganbayan is not among the crimes congnizable by the SB. This was not
appreciated by Supreme Court. According the SC, estafa is
included in Sec. 4(b) of 1606 which reads: “Other offenses or
felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office.”
De Lima vs. Guerrero It is the RTC who has jurisdiction over the case. The
1 SR ORCULLO|M AURO|PR PAJARIN| Ateneo de Naga University
JD2B
1st Semester
AY 2018-2019 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

contention of the petitioner that information against her

charges her not of violation of 9165 but with Direct Bribery-
a felony within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given
her rank as the former Secretary of Justice with the Salary
grade of 31.

The prefatory and information section of the information

repeatedly provide that the petitioner is charged with the
violation of RA 9165.

*The offense charged can also be elucidated by consulting the

designation of the offense as appearing in the Information.
The designation of the offense is a critical element required
under Sec. 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court for it assists in
apprising the accused of the offense being charged. Its
inclusion in the Information is imperative to avoid surprise
on the accused and to afford him of the opportunity to prepare
his defense accordingly.
Honasan vs. Panel The provision of the law has opened up the authority to
Investigating conduct preliminary investigation of offenses cognizable by
Prosecutor the Sandiganbayan to all investigatory agencies of the
government duly authorized to conduct a preliminary
investigation under Section 2, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure with the only qualification that the

Ombudsman may take over at any stage of such investigation in

the exercise of his primary jurisdiction.
Defensor-Santiago vs. It has been held that where after the filing of the complaint
Vasquez or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused is
issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily
submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested, the court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court

acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either
by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to
quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court's
jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering
trial) or by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the
same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the
accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of
the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities
either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
Quisay vs. People The law states that the filing of a complaint or information
requires a prior written authority or approval of the named
officers therein before a complaint or information may be
filed before the courts. No complaint or information may be
filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the
prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his
deputy.
Thus, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed
before the courts without the prior written authority or
approval of the foregoing authorized officers renders the same
defective and, therefore, subject to quashal.
Union Bank and Tomas MeTC-Makati is the proper venue and court to take cognizance
vs. People of perjury. The first element of the crime of perjury, the
execution of the subject Certificate against Forum Shopping
was alleged in the Information to have been committed in
Makati City. Likewise, the second and fourth elements,

2 SR ORCULLO|M AURO|PR PAJARIN| Ateneo de Naga University

JD2B
1st Semester
AY 2018-2019 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

requiring the Certificate against Forum Shopping to be under

oath before a notary public, were also sufficiently alleged in
the Information to have been made in Makati City. We also find
that the third element of willful and deliberate falsehood was
also sufficiently alleged to have been committed in Makati
City, not Pasay City, as indicated in the last portion of the
Information. Tomas deliberate and intentional assertion of
falsehood was allegedly shown when she made the false
declarations in the Certificate against Forum Shopping before
a notary public in Makati City, despite her knowledge that the
material statements she subscribed and swore to were not true.
Thus, Makati City is the proper venue and MeTC-Makati City is
the proper court to try the perjury case against Tomas,
pursuant to Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure as all the essential elements
constituting the crime of perjury were committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of Makati City, not Pasay City
People vs. Bayot It is clear that the death of the accused pending appeal of
his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as
the civil liability ex delicto. The rationale, therefore, is
that the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is
no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil
action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex
delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the
criminal case.
Go vs. CA The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before
being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence
formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is
not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive
right. The accused in a criminal trial is inevitably exposed
to prolonged anxiety, aggravation, humiliation, not to speak
of expense; the right to an opportunity to avoid a process
painful to any one save, perhaps, to hardened criminals, is a
valuable right.
Tandoc vs. Resultan The policy objective for the conduct of a PI is to protect the
accused from the inconvenience, expense and burden of
defending himself in a formal trial unless reasonable
probability of his guilt shall have been first ascertained in
a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer. It is also
intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless
and expensive trials.

There are TWO (2) STAGES in a PI; FIRST, the PRELIMINARY

EXAMINATION of the complainant and his witnesses prior to the
arrest of the accused to determine whether or not there is
ground to issue a warrant of arrest; SECOND, PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION PROPER, wherein the accused, after his arrest,
is informed of the complaint filed against him and is given
access to the testimonies and evidence presented, and he is
also permitted to introduce evidence in his favor. The purpose
of this stage of investigation is to determine whether or not
the accused should be released [and the complaint be dismissed
or he should be held for trial].
Anlud Metal Recycling The real party in interest in a criminal case is the People of
Corp. vs. Ang the Philippines. The criminal aspect of the case must be
instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State.
The private offended party has an interest in the civil aspect
of the case. Logically, the capability of the private
complainant to question the dismissal of the criminal
proceedings is limited only to questions relating to the civil

3 SR ORCULLO|M AURO|PR PAJARIN| Ateneo de Naga University

JD2B
1st Semester
AY 2018-2019 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

aspect of the case. the litmus test in ascertaining the

personality of herein petitioner lies in whether or not the
substance of the certiorari action it instituted in the CA
referred to the civil aspect of the case.
A notice of hearing must be addressed to all the parties
concerned; and that failure to comply with this directive
results in a motion that should be treated as a mere scrap of
paper. However, this general requirement of a valid notice of
hearing is one of those procedural rules that admit of various
exceptions.
The real purpose behind the requirement of notice of hearing
is to afford the adverse parties a chance to be heard before a
motion is resolved by the court. The test is the presence of
the opportunity to be heard, as well as to have time to study
the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds
upon which it is based.
People vs. Garfin The lack of prior written approval of the city, provincial or
chief state prosecutor in the filing of an information is a
defect in the information that cannot be cured. It is a
jurisdictional defect.
Ladlad vs. Velasco Inquest Proceedings
The inquest proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion was void.
Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been
lawfully arrested without warrant. The officers arrested
Beltran, without a warrant for Inciting to Sedition, and not
for Rebellion. The initial duty of the inquest officer is to
determine if the arrest of the detained person was made in
accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
Section 5, Rule 113. If the arrest was not properly effected,
the inquest officer should proceed under Section 9 of Circular
No. 61
Unilever vs. Tan The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of
information in court is essentially an executive function that
is lodged, at the first instance, with the public prosecutor
and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice.
[A preliminary investigation] is not the occasion for the full
and exhaustive display of [the prosecution’s] evidence. The
presence or absence of the elements of the crime is
evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be
passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.
Larranaga vs. CA The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is
waived when he fails to invoke it before or at the time of
entering a plea at arraignment.

4 SR ORCULLO|M AURO|PR PAJARIN| Ateneo de Naga University

JD2B