CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 5.

Remedies of offended party when fiscal unreasonably

Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses refuses to file an information or include a person therein as an
accused
1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the 1. In case of grave abuse of discretion, action for mandamus
offense upon the filing of complaint by a complainant or an 2. Lodge a new complaint against the offenders
information by the prosecuting officer 3. Take up matter with the Secretary of Justice
à Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon 4. Institute administrative charges against the erring fiscal
arrest or surrender; such jurisdiction once gained cannot be lost 5. File criminal charges under Art. 208, RPC (prosecution of
even if accused escapes (Gimenez vs. Nazareno) offenses)
à Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at 6. File civil action under Art. 27, NCC for damages (PO refuses
the time of the institution of the action and is retained even if or neglects to perform official duty)
7. Secure appointment of another fiscal
the penalty for the offense is later lowered or raised (People vs.
8. Institute another criminal action if no double jeopardy is
Lagon)
involved
2. Complaint – sworn written statement charging a person with
an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer
6. Writs of injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal
or other public official charged with the enforcement of the law
prosecution are not available, EXCEPT
violated 1. To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights of
Information – accusation in writing charging a person with an accused
offense, subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court 2. Necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to
avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
3. Complaint and Information distinguished: 3. Pre-judicial question which is sub judice
Complaint Information 4. Acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
5. Prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
A sworn statement Need not be sworn to 6. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Court has no jurisdiction over the case
Subscribed by the offended 8. Case of persecution rather than prosecution
party, any peace officer or 9. Charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for
other officer charged with vengeance
the enforcement of the law 10. Clearly no prima facie case against the accused and MTQ on
violated Subscribed to by the fiscal that ground had been denied

May be filed either with the 7. Institution of Criminal Actions:

court or in the fiscal’s office
generally to commence the a. In RTC:
preliminary investigation of
the charges made Filed with the court à By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the
purpose of conducting requisite preliminary investigation
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with therein.
concurrent jurisdiction:
1. Features stated in Art. 2, RPC b. In Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts:

à Cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed
1. Continuing crimes committed in different judicial regions
2. Offenses wherein any of the essential elements were
committed in different territorial jurisdictions
3. Offenses committed aboard a train, vehicle, aircraft or
vessel (see R110, §15)
à By filing the complaint or information directly with said
courts, or a complaint with the fiscal’s office
c. In Metropolitan Trial Courts
à By filing the complaint ONLY with the office of the fiscal

i. Railroad, train, aircraft à In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period
of prescription of the offense charged (Rule 110, §1)
(1) Territory or municipality where vehicle passed
d. Offenses subject to summary procedure
(2) Place of departure [i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws;
(3) violation of municipal or city ordinances; and (4) criminal
(3) Place of arrival cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or fine of
P1000 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties and
ii. Vessel civil liabilities]

(1) First port of entry à The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court
without need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary
(2) Thru which it passed during voyage investigation.
à Zaldivia vs. Reyes – since a criminal case covered by the Rules
e. Libel and written defamation of Summary Procedure shall be deemed commenced only when
it is filed in court, then the running of the prescriptive period
shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof
and not on any date before that. and the information
à Reodica vs. CA – [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the
RPC, the period of prescription shall be interrupted by the filing à Qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances need to be
of the complaint or information. It does not distinguish whether alleged as they are integral parts of the crime. If proved, but
the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or not alleged, become only generic aggravating circumstances.
investigation only, or for an action on the merits. Thus, the
filing of the complaint even with the fiscal’s office should 9. Amendment of information and Substitution of
suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations. The ruling information, distinguished
in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on
Summary Procedure, since that particular case involved a
violation of an ordinance. Therefore, the applicable law therein
was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (“An Act to Amendment Substitution
Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by
Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide when Involves either formal or Necessarily involves a
Prescription Shall Begin to Run”), §2 of which provides that substantial changes substantial change
period of prescription is suspended only when judicial
proceedings are instituted against the guilty party. Needs leave of court as
Without leave of court if original information has to be
8. Contents of information before plea dismissed

Where only as to form,

a. Name of the accused
there is no need for another
à Information may be amended as to the name of the accused,
preliminary investigation Another preliminary
but such amendment cannot be questioned for the first time on and retaking of plea of investigation is entailed and
appeal (People vs. Guevarra) accused accused has to plead anew
à Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, Refers to the same offense
it necessarily affects the identification of the act charged. charged or which
Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if there is a variance necessarily includes or is
between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the necessarily included in
property stolen. original charges, hence, Requires or presupposes that
substantial amendments to new info involves a different
b. Designation of offense by statute (or of section/subsection info after plea taken cannot offense which does not include
of statute violated) be made over objections of or is not included in the
accused for if original info original charge, hence,
à Only one offense charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes a is withdrawn, accused could accused cannot claim double
single punishment for various offenses. invoke double jeopardy jeopardy
à If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the
crime charged, the info may be quashed; however, the 10. After plea, amendment only as to matters of form, provided
prosecution is allowed to amend the info to include the 1. Leave of court is obtained; and
necessary facts (People vs. Purisima) 2. Amendment is not prejudicial to rights of accused

c. Acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense 11. When amendment is only as to form
à Information need only allege facts, not include all the 1. Neither affects or alters nature of offense charged
evidence which may be used to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. 2. Charge does not deprive accused of a fair opportunity to
CFI) present his defense
3. Does not involve a change in basic theory of prosecution
d. Name of offended party
12. Exceptions to rule on venue
e. Approximate time of commission 1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which
à Approximation of time is sufficient; amendment as to time is charge is first filed)
only a formal amendment; no need to dismiss case (People vs. 2. Continuing offenses
Molero) 3. Piracy which is triable anywhere
à A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be 4. Libel (residence; or where first published)
sustained since such would allow the prosecution to prove an 5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial
inquiry
offense distantly removed from the alleged date, thus
substantially impairing the rights of the accused to be informed
13. Special cases (who may prosecute)
of the charges against him (People vs. Reyes)
a. Adultery and concubinage
f. Place of commission
à Only offended spouse can be complainant
à Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was
committed not at the place alleged, provided that the place of
à Both guilty parties must be included in complaint
actual commission was within the court’s jurisdiction and
b. Crimes against chastity
à With consent of the offended party, offended spouse,
grandparents, guardian, or state as parens patriae, in that order
à Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the
prosecution of the case independently of parents, grandparents
or guardian, unless she is incompetent/incapable on grounds
other than minority.
à If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint,
her parents, grandparents or guardian may do so.
à In crimes against chastity, the consent of the victim is a
jurisdictional requirement–retraction renders the information
void (People vs. Ocapan)
à If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may
sign the complaint on his own
c. Defamation (consisting of imputation of offenses in [a] or
[b])
à Complainant must be offended party
à The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the
criminal case because of her interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)
14. Procedure
1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an
essential ingredient of the crime took place (territorial
jurisdiction)
1. Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2. Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
à Inclusion of other accused is only a formal amendment which
would not be prejudicial to the accused and should be allowed
(People vs. CA)
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a
mistake in charging proper offense, court shall dismiss original
info upon the filing of a corrected one, provided that the
accused will not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution)
à Fiscal determines direction of prosecution; complainant must
ask fiscal if he wants to dismiss the case; the motion to dismiss
must be addressed to the court which has discretion over the
disposition of the case (Republic vs. Sunga)
à Objection to the amendment of an information or complaint
must be raised at the time the amendment is made; otherwise,
deemed to have consented thereto.
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
à May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the
grounds provided by the rules (generally, a flaw in the info)
à If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a
motion to quash info, the right to question it is waived (People
vs. Ocapan)
b. Motion to dismiss
à May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of
grounds for motion to quash
16. Duplicity of Offense (in information or complaint)
à Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in
one and the same information/complaint
à Remedy: file a motion to quash; failure is equivalent to a
waiver
à Exception: when existing laws prescribe a single punishment
(complex crimes)
Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action
1. General Rule: The injured party may file a civil action
independent of the criminal proceeding to recover damages
from the offender.
à Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against
public officers who impair the Constitutional rights of citizens
(Aberca vs. Ver)
à Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution,
if he is not given the chance to prove damages, the offended
party is not barred from filing a separate civil action
2. Civil action for recovery of civil liability impliedly
instituted, EXCEPT
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
à NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for
violations of BP Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include
the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file such
civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
à San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA – past pronouncements of the SC
that the requirement in Rule 111 that a reservation be made
prior to the institution of an independent civil action is an
“unauthorized amendment” to substantive law is now no longer
controlling. Far from altering substantive rights, the primary
purpose of the reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity
of suits, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to
simplify the work of the trial court, and in short, the attainment
of justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-
litigants.
3. Civil action suspended when criminal action filed, EXCEPT
1. Independent civil action (Arts. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of NCC)
2. Prejudicial civil action
3. Civil case consolidated with criminal action
4. Civil action not one intended to enforce civil liability
arising from the offense (e.g., action for legal separation
against a spouse who committed concubinage)
4. Prejudicial question arises when
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the criminal action
2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the
criminal action will proceed or not
à Requisites for a prejudicial question:
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the criminal action: and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed
à Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any
time before prosecution rests.
5. Remedies
a. Reservation of right to institute separate civil proceedings
to recover civil liability arising from crime
à Must be made before prosecution presents evidence
à Action instituted only after final judgment in criminal action
b. Petition to suspend the criminal action
à May be filed upon existence of a prejudicial question in a
pending civil action
à Filed at any time before the prosecution rests
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction
of the civil unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in
a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise
did not exist.
à Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability
not a bar to criminal action
7. Filing fees:
1. Actual or compensatory damages – filing fees not required
2. Moral, temperate and exemplary – filing fees required
1. If alleged, fees must be paid by offended party upon filing
of complaint or information
1. If not alleged, filing fees considered a first lien on
the judgment
Rule 112 Preliminary Investigation
1. Preliminary investigation – inquiry or proceeding to
determine if there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been
committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial
à A preliminary investigation is only necessary for an
information to be filed with the RTC; complaints may be filed
with the MTC without need of an information, which is merely
recommendatory (Tandoc vs. Resultan)
à Absence of a preliminary investigation is NOT a ground for a
motion to quash the information; an information filed without a
preliminary investigation is defective but not fatal; in its
absence, the accused may ask for one; it is the fiscal’s refusal
to conduct a preliminary investigation when the accused
demands one which is a violation of the rights of the
accused (Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan). Court should not dismiss
the info, but hold the case in abeyance and either: (1) conduct
its own investigation; or (2) require the fiscal to hold a
reinvestigation.
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary
investigation before filing an information with the
RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a
warrant and an inquest is conducted.
3. Right to Preliminary Investigation
à A personal right and may be waived
à Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at
the time of the plea
4. Who conducts Preliminary Investigation
1. Provincial or city fiscals and their assistants
2. Judges of MTC and MCTC
3. National and regional state prosecutors
4. Such other officers as may be authorized by law
5. Duly authorized legal officers of COMELEC
1. The Ombudsman
2. The PCGG, in cases of ill-gotten wealth
5. Procedure
a. If conducted prior to arrest
i. Complainant files complaint with
(a) Provincial or city fiscal
(b) Regional or state prosecutor
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or
chartered cities
(d) Other offices authorized by law
1. Investigating officer either dismisses complaint or asks by
subpoena complainant and respondent to submit affidavits
and counter-affidavits
1. If the investigating officer finds prima
facie evidence, he prepares an information and a
resolution
à i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime
has been committed and accused is probably guilty thereof
à Prima facie evidence is that evidence which, standing alone,
unexplained and uncontradicted, would be enough to merit a
conviction of the accused
iv. Otherwise, he recommends the dismissal of the complaint
à If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that
probable cause exists and that there is a need to place the
accused under custody, then he may issue a warrant of arrest
à Flores vs. Sumaling – What differentiates the present rule
from the previous one is that while before, it was mandatory for
the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of the
accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the
investigating judge’s power to order the arrest of the accused is
limited to instances in which there is a necessity for placing him
in custody “in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.” It is
therefore error for the investigating judge to order the issuance
of a warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause,
without making any finding of a necessity to place the accused
in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or
chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the
complaint or files the information in court
à Decision prevails over decision of the MTC judge
vii. Records will not form records of the case proper
à Court on its own or on motion may order production of record
b. If conducted after warrantless arrest
1. If accused waives Art. 125, RPC and asks for a preliminary
investigation, with the assistance of counsel, then the
procedure for one prior to arrest is followed
1. Inquest conducted as follows
(a) Fiscal determines the validity of the arrest
(b) Fiscal determines existence of prima facie evidence based
on the statements of the complainant, arresting officer and
witnesses
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the
immediate release of the accused, OR prepares and files an
information
à While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to
file an information, once it is filed with the court, the court
acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the disposition of
the case and the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining
petitions for review or appeals from the decision of fiscal
(Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
NOTE: Information may be filed by offended party, peace
officer or fiscal without preliminary investigation.
6. Remedies
a. Motion for preliminary investigation
à Filed when accused is arrested without warrant
à Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125,
RPC
b. Motion for preliminary investigation
à Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information
against him has been filed without a preliminary investigation
c. Motion for re-investigation
d. Appeal to DOJ
à Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary
investigation, on the ground that his rights to due process of law
were violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction
e. Petition for prohibition
à Filed with appellate court to stop the criminal proceedings
à Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in
certain cases
à When prohibition proper to restrain criminal proceedings:
1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes
(Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and
void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs.
Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs.
City Fiscal)
Rule 113 Arrest
1. Arrest – taking a person into custody in order that he may be
bound to answer for the commission of some offense, made by
an actual restraint of the person or by his submission to custody
2. General Rule: No person may be arrested without a
warrant.
à Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to
answer for an offense.
à “Invitations” are not arrests and are usually not
unconstitutional, but in some cases may be taken as commands
(Babst vs. NBI); however, the practice of issuing an “invitation”
to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he
is suspected to have committed is considered as placing him
under “custodial investigation.” (RA 7438)
à Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the
warrant is lifted
à Arrest may be made at any time of the day or night
3. Warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a private person
a. When person to be arrested is committing, attempting or
has committed an offense
b. When an offense has just been committed and the person
making the arrest has personal knowledge that the person to be
arrested committed it
à Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like
rebellion, subversion (Umil vs. Ramos)
à The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs
only be the cause of the arrest (Umil vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either
serving sentence or with case pending)
1. When a person lawfully arrested escapes
2. Bondsman, for purpose of surrendering the accused
3. Accused attempts to leave country without court
permission
4. Procedure
a. With warrant
1. Complainant files application with affidavits attached
2. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination to
determine probable cause
à In determining probable cause, judge must:
(1) Personally examine witness
(2) Witness must be under oath
(3) Examination must be reduced to writing (Luna vs. Plaza)
à In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings
by responsible officer (Lim vs. Felix)
iii. Judge issues warrant of arrest
à If without preliminary examination, considered irregular
(Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after
issuance, he must file a report and explanation with judge
within 10 days
v. If warrant served
(1) Person informed that he is being arrested
(2) Informed of cause of his arrest
(3) Officer may break door or window if admission to building is
refused
(4) Person physically restrained à Filed with court when information against the person arrested
has been filed
à For private citizens making an arrest
à Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court
à May not do so except to do some service to humanity or questioning only its lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
justice accused

(5) No violence or unnecessary force may be used à Otherwise, the voluntary appearance of the person arrested
by filing a motion before the court would be deemed a
(6) Officer may summon assistance submission to the authority of the court, thus granting it
whatever jurisdiction it lacked over the person
(7) Person who escapes after arrest may be immediately à Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner
pursued submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, e.g., by filing
for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
vi. Person arrested is brought to nearest police station or 7. V.V. Mendoza, “Rights to Counsel in Custodial
jail Investigation”

b. Without warrant: à Evolution of rights of the accused under custodial

1. Person is arrested investigation
1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC 1. All involuntary confession were inadmissible; accused had
and ask for preliminary investigation or inquest to prove involuntariness
à Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 1. Involuntary confessions were inadmissible only if
(Sayo vs. Chief of Police) they were false
1. Fiscal files info 2. Revert to exclusionary rule: any involuntary
confession is inadmissible
5. Requisites for a warrant of arrest: 1. Miranda rule: the accused must be
1.Probable cause informed of his rights
2.Signed by judge 1. To remain silent
3.Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently 2. Against self-incrimination
describing person to be arrested 3. To counsel
à John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants 4. Definition of custodial investigation
(Pangandaman vs. Cesar) questioned
1. It begins only after arrest
6. Remedies 2. Police investigations prior
a. Petition for writ of habeas corpus to arrest are not covered
3. The rights may be waived,
à Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the but the rights to be informed of
these rights, i.e., to warning, may
person detained
not be waived
4. Warning must not only be
à Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without
said, officer must make sure the
judicial process), or was illegally arrested (void warrant or person arrested understands them
unlawful warrantless arrest, or warrantless arrest beyond period specifically
with no information filed) 5. Present rules
à Habeas corpus is not allowed when: 1. Voluntary
1. The person is in custody of an officer under process of law, confessions are admissible
and 2. Test of
2. The court had jurisdiction to issue the process (Luna vs. voluntariness determined
Plaza) on a case-to-case basis
à If an arrest is improper, the remedy is a motion for quashal of 3. Waiver of rights
the warrant of arrest and/or a motion to quash the information, must not only be with
not habeas corpus (Ilagan vs. Enrile) counsel but must be in
à Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has writing
been filed, the information being the judicial process required à Confessions made without assistance of counsel are
by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile) inadmissible as evidence to incriminate the accused, but they
à Habeas corpus is proper when a person is being restrained may be used to impeach the credibility of the accused, or they
illegally, e.g., imprisoned past maximum penalty allowed by law may be treated as verbal admission of the accused through the
(Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons) testimony of the witnesses (People vs. Molas)
Rule 114 Bail
b. Quashal of warrant of arrest 1. Bail – security given for the release of a person in custody of
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
à Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the appearance before any court as required under the following
warrant of arrest is fatally flawed conditions:
1. Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force
c. Motion to quash information at all stages until promulgation of judgment, unless sooner
cancelled
 2. Accused shall appear before court when required
3. Failure to appear despite notice to him or the bondsman
will waive his right to be present and trial shall proceed in
absentia
4. Bondsman shall surrender accused for execution of
judgment
à Bail applies to all persons detained, not just to those charged
with the offense (Herras vs. Teehankee)
à Court has power to prohibit person out on bail from leaving
the country (Manotoc, Jr. vs. CA)
à Bail implies delivery of the accused to the sureties who,
though not holding him prisoner, may seize him and imprison
him until they can deliver him to court (US vs. Bonoan)
2. General Rule: All persons are entitled to bail as a matter of
right, except those charged with capital offenses.
à Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel
facing court martial, who are not in the same class as civilians
(Comendador vs. de Villa)
à Bail should be available regardless of other circumstances or
the merits of the case, if the health or the life of the detainee
is in danger (Dela Rama vs. People’s Court)
à Excessive bail is tantamount to denial of bail, which is
unconstitutional (Dela Camara vs. Enage)
3. When bail is a matter of right
à Before or after conviction by MTC, MCTC, MJC
à Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court
where case is pending)
1. Upon conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
2. Provisional liberty under same circs. but during period to
appeal subject to consent of bondsman
3. In case he has applied for probation after final judgment,
he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail or
recognizance
5. Procedure
a. Offense charged is not capital:
i. Accused applies for bail
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is
pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the
province or city where he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file
with the RTC
(4) Absent (3), with the MTC
1. Judge sets bail
1. Accused may move to reduce bail, and hearing will
be set
2. Accused posts bail and deposits the same with the
Municipal/City/Provincial Treasurer or, if cash, with
the Collector of Internal Revenue
3. Accused is released
b. Offense charged is capital:
1. Accused petitions for bail
2. Judge sets hearing to determine whether evidence of guilt
is strong
à Ex-parte hearing on bail is arbitrary and unacceptable
(Herras vs. Teehankee)
1. Prosecution presents evidence
1. Court may not force fiscal to produce evidence
(Herras vs. Teehankee)
2. If evidence is strong, bail is denied
1. Otherwise, judge sets bail and procedure
for non-capital offense is followed
à In capital crimes, judge’s discretion is limited to determining
strength of evidence and does not cover determining whether
bail should be allowed (Herras vs. Teehankee)
à Evidence must be strong that the accused is guilty of the
capital offense charged, not just of any offense (Bernardez vs.
Valera)
6. Bail bond – an obligation under seal given by accused with
one or more sureties and made payable to proper officer with
the condition to be void upon performance by the accused of
such acts as he may legally be required to perform
7. Recognizance
1. Obligation of record entered into before some court of
magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to
do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal
cases being the appearance of the accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure
their appearance at the trial, except:
1. Substitution of info (see R110, §14)
2. Court believes that material witness may not appear at the
trial
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance,
light felony, criminal offense – not higher that 6 month
imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, or both)
1. a. Caught in flagrante
2. Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated
(force and intimidation)
3. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
4. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court
periodically under his recognizance)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an
offense to which the law or ordinance attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for 2 or more offenses to which it
attaches a lighter penalty
6. Committed offense while on parole or under conditional
pardon
7. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for
violation of ordinance for at least 2 times
10. Instances when accused may be released on recognizance:
1. Offense charged is a violation of an ordinance, a light
felony or criminal offense the imposable penalty to which
does not exceed 6 months and or P2000 fine
2. Person has been in custody for a period equal to or more
than the minimum of the imposable principal penalty,
without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or
any modifying circumstance
3. Accused has applied for probation and before the same has
been resolved, but NO BAIL was filed or accused is incapable
of filing one
4. Youthful offender held for physical and mental
examination, trial or appeal, if unable to furnish bail
11. Cancellation of bail
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal 17. Notes:
1. Accused surrenders back to custody 1. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity
1. Accused dies attending the arrest of a person (Callanta vs. Villanueva).
However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility
b. Automatic cancellation of the articles seized incidentally to such illegal arrest.
1. Case is dismissed 2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the
1. Accused is acquitted conduct of the preliminary investigation when he failed to
2. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution do so before entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
of judgment 3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to
depart from the Philippines without prior court permission
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes (warrantless arrest allowed).
imprisonment exceeding 6 years, but not more than 20 years, Rule 115 Rights of Accused
and:
1. Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent 1. Right of the accused under the Rules
or guilty of the aggravating circumstance of reiteration;
2. Provisionally escaped, evaded sentence, violated provisions a. To be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond
of bail; reasonable doubt
3. Committed offense while on probation, parole, or à In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be
conditional pardon; presumed innocent until and unless his conviction is affirmed
4. Probability of flight; or (Castillo vs. Felix)
5. Undue risk that during appeal, he may commit another
crime b. To be informed of the nature and cause of charges
à The right must be substantially complied with; arraignment
13. When bail is forfeited and later proceedings must be in a language the accused
understands (People vs. Crisologo)
a. Accused fails to appear before court when required
c. To be present at every stage of proceedings, subject to
à 30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not waiver by bail
be rendered against him à If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a
trial in absentia; the accused forfeits his rights to be notified of
b. Bondsman fails to produce him within 30 days proceedings in the future and to adduce evidence in his behalf
(People vs. Salas)
c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily explain to the court why 1. To testify as witness on his own behalf, subject to cross-
accused did not appear when first required to do so examination on matters covered by direct examination; not
à Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his to be prejudiced by his silence
conduct (US vs. Bonoan) 2. Not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
à Sureties exonerated if appearance made impossible by an act 3. To confront and examine the witnesses against him,
of God, the obligee or the law (US vs. Bonoan) including the right to use in evidence testimony of a witness
4. Who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be
14. Provisional forfeiture found in the RP
1. Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non- 1. Given in another proceeding
production AND 2. With the same parties
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first 3. Same subject matter
required to appear 4. Opportunity to cross-examine
à Prosecution has no privilege to withhold the identity of
15. Remedies informers when such informer was crucial in the operation
1. Application for bail, when bail can be availed of as a itself; failure to present the informer is a denial of the right to
matter of right confront the witness which merits the reversal of the conviction
2. Petition for bail, when the offense charged is a capital (People vs. Bagano)
offense
g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and
à For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence in his behalf
evidence of guilt
h. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
16. Circumstances to be considered in fixing amount of bail:
1. Financial ability of accused to give bail; à Unreasonable postponements of trial amounts to a denial of
2. Nature and circumstances of offense; the right to a speedy trial, entitling the accused to mandamus
3. Penalty of offense charged; to compel dismissal of the case, or to habeas corpus if he is
4. Character and reputation of accused; detained
5. Age and health of accused
6. Weight of evidence against accused i. To have the right of appeal
7. Probability of accused appearing for trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bonds;
2. Rights of the accused under the Constitution
9. Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when
arrested; and
10. Pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond a. To due process
b. Against self-incrimination
à Right is limited to testimonies; ocular inspection of the body
may be allowed (Villaflor vs. Summers)
à Being informed of rights means a meaningful transmission of
information, without which confession made by the accused is
inadmissible (People vs. Nicandro)
à Confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible
(People vs. Opida)
à Right against self-incrimination and to counsel do not apply
during custodial investigation (People vs. Ayson)
à During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the
following form:
1. Accused may refuse to testify
2. If he testifies, he may refuse to answer those questions
which may incriminate him in ANOTHER offense
c. Against double jeopardy
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusations against him, to have a speedy, impartial and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

d. To be heard by himself and counsel à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16

3. Double jeopardy All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
1. First jeopardy must have attached prior to the first cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
2. First jeopardy attached and terminated bodies.
3. Valid complaint or information
1. Competent court with jurisdiction à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 17
2. Accused had pleaded
3. Action ended in conviction, acquittal or No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
termination without the consent of the accused
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 21
c. Offense charged in later case is:
1. Same as that in previous case No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
1. Necessarily includes or is included in the previous same offense.
case
2. An attempt or frustration of the offense in previous If an act is punished by a law or ordinance, conviction or
case acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
1. An offense lesser than that charged to prosecution for the same act.
which the accused pleaded guilty with the Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea
consent of the fiscal and the offended party
1. Procedure
4. Exceptions to double jeopardy 1. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him
1. The offense was made graver by supervening events if he wants one
2. The facts constituting the graver offense were only 2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
discovered after the filing of the earlier information
à No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new à If no such member of the available, any person who is a
charge arose only after arraignment and conviction (People vs. resident of the province, of good repute for probity and ability
City Court) to defend accused
à No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there
was no competent court (Galman vs. Sandiganbayan) c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an
à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of hour before arraignment
the accused (Caes vs. IAC) à Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused
à There is double jeopardy if a person is charged twice under must be substantially complied with; if not, case may be
different penal statutes for the same acts (People vs. Relova) remanded for re-arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
1. Accused given a copy of the information, which is read to
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the him in a language he understands
fiscal and the offended party 2. Accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
3. Accused files a motion to quash or makes plea
5. Remedies 4. Accused personally makes his plea
1. Motion to quash 5. Plea is entered into record
2. Motion to dismiss 6. If accused makes plea of not guilty, counsel has at least 2
days to prepare for trial
à Both filed on the ground of violation of accused’s rights, à People vs. Agbayani – the right for 2 days to prepare must be
thereby ousting the court of jurisdiction expressly demanded. Only when so demanded does denial
6. NOTES: thereof constitute reversible error and ground for new trial.
Further, such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1
à NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing
“Speedy Trial Act of 1997”), accused must be given at least 15
days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within 30 days
from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
j. Case proceeds to pre-trial, trial or hearing, depending on
the plea
à Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned
and pleaded is sufficient; the manner of statement of such fact
is immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)
2. Kinds of plea
1. No plea – a plea of not guilty shall be entered
2. Conditional plea of guilt – a plea of not guilty shall be
entered
3. Not guilty – case proceeds to trial or pre-trial
4. Guilty to a lesser offense – if fiscal and offended party
consents, conviction under offense charged for purposes of
double jeopardy
5. Info may be amended
1. Case goes to trial
2. Even if info is not amended, and even if lesser
offense is not included in offense charged, court may
still find the accused guilty of that lesser offense
e. Guilty to a capital offense
à Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was
aware of the charges, of his plea, and its consequences
à Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt
of accused and determine his degree of culpability, and accused
may still establish presence of mitigating circumstances in his
favor
f. Guilty to a non-capital offense
à Court receives evidence from the parties to determine
penalty to impose
à Plea of guilty not necessarily followed by conviction. Upon
receipt of exculpatory evidence (if accused pleaded guilty), trial
court should consider the plea withdrawn and in its place, order
the plea of not guilty
à Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken
advantage of by motion to quash or by plea in abatement;
cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
a. Entry of plea will waive
1. Right to question illegality of the arrest
2. Right to question any irregularity in the preliminary
investigation
3. Right to file a motion to quash
b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any
time before judgment is rendered
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing
so would only spare the prosecution of presenting evidence and
still result in the conviction of the accused.
4. Remedies
a. Motion for specification
à May be filed any time before plea, even after a MTQ
à Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is
generally worded, that a Bill of Particulars is necessary to
clarify the acts for which the accused is being charged
b. Motion to quash
à May be filed at anytime before plea is entered
à Based on grounds provided by the rules
c. Motion to suspend arraignment
à Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is
a prejudicial question in a pending civil case
d. Motion to withdraw an improvident plea of guilt
à May be filed at any time before judgment of conviction
becomes final, when it can be shown that the accused was not
aware of the significance of pleading guilty to the charges
Rule 117 Motion to Quash
1. Motion to quash – a hypothetical admission that even if
all the facts alleged were true, the accused still cannot be
convicted due to other reasons
2. When to file Motion to Quash
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised
deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even
after plea
1. No offense charged
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
a. Information does not conform to prescribed form
à For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary
that it be defined by law, only that it alleges that one offense
was necessary to commit the other (People vs. Alagao)
b. Court has no jurisdiction
1. No territorial jurisdiction
2. No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at
any time; no waiver considered even upon failure to move
to quash on such ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused
à The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused
when he voluntarily appeared for the pre-suspension hearing
(Layosa vs. Rodriguez)
c. Accused would be put in double jeopardy
à Bars another prosecution
à No waiver
à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the
consent of the accused (Que vs. Cosico), unless ground for
dismissal is: (a) denial of right to speedy trial; or (b)
insufficiency of evidence.
à If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information,
then there was no valid information and there could be no
double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)
à Cudia vs CA – it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of
Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should prepare
informations for offenses committed within Pampanga but
outside Angeles City. An information must be prepared and
presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone authorized
by law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction.
Although failure to file a motion to quash the information is a
waiver of all objections to it insofar as formal objections to
pleadings are concerned, questions relating to want of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Moreover, since the complaint or information was insufficient
because it was so defective in form or substance that conviction
upon it could not have been sustained, its dismissal without the
consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy,
and will not be a bar to a second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law
prescribes single punishment for various offenses
e. Facts alleged do not constitute an offense
à May be raised at any time
à No waiver
à For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was
exempted from any amnesty existing at the time
f. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
g. Information contains allegations which, if true, would be a
legal excuse or justification
h. Officer who filed the information had no authority
à Presentation of evidence cannot cure an invalid information
(People vs. Asuncion)
NOTE: Court will consider no other grounds other than those
raised, EXCEPT lack of jurisdiction over offense charged.
4. Requisites of Double jeopardy
a. Valid information or complaint, sufficient in form and
substance
b. Before court of competent jurisdiction
à Doctrine of “Jurisdiction by Estoppel”: depends upon whether
the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no
jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory
that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred on appeal,
from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same ‘must exist as a
matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the
parties or by estoppel’. However, if the lower court had
jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given
theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction,
the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be
permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position — that
the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel
applies. The rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does
not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.
c. Accused had pleaded
d. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal or termination of case
without consent of accused
e. Bar to offense charged, attempt to commit the same or
necessarily includes or is necessarily included
à Conviction for physical injuries through reckless imprudence
constitutes double jeopardy to the charge of damage to
property through reckless imprudence.
5. Procedure
1. MTQ filed
2. If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall
order its amendment
3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent
prosecution (accused has not pleaded yet), EXCEPT when the
ground is:
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
1. Motion to dismiss – if certain grounds were not raised or
denied in a MTQ
2. Trial
à If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be
proved in the trial
à Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and
later to appeal, if necessary; mandamus or certiorari will only
be granted if there is not other plain, simple and adequate
remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor
deemed a waiver of such grounds, except:
1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
Rule 118 Pre-Trial
1. Plea bargaining – process whereby the accused and the
prosecution in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually
involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to
only some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return
for a lighter sentence than that for the greater charge.
à Under “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, in all criminal cases
cognizable by the MTC, MCTC, MeTC, RTC and Sandiganbayan,
pretrial is mandatory.
à Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the “Speedy Trial Act
of 1997”, an accused may plea guilty to a lesser offense only if
said offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
2. Stipulation of facts
à Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as
evidenced by their signatures; these facts need not be proved
by evidence in trial
à Stipulation is inadmissible if unsigned by either accused or
counsel; a later memo of confirmation, signed only by counsel,
cannot cure defect (Fule vs. CA)
3. Pre-trial order – binds the parties, limits the trial to matters 3. When mistake made in charging proper offense
not yet disposed of, and controls the course of action during the 1. If Accused cannot be convicted of offense charged or
trial offense necessarily included therein
2. Accused detained, not discharged
4. Procedure 3. Original case dismissed upon filing of proper information
1. Judge must calendar pre-trial à Example: Charged with theft. At trial, appears that offense
2. Either party may waive the pre-trial is estafa. The prosecution can ask for the dismissal of the info
3. If court appoints counsel de oficio, counsel has at least 2 in order to file a new one for estafa. No Double Jeopardy
days to prepare because no valid info in the first case.
4. In the pre-trial conference
5. Plea bargaining 4. Application for examination of witnesses for accused before
6. Stipulation of facts trial
7. Marking of evidence (does not imply conceding to its 1. Sick or infirm; unable to attend trial
admissibility or credibility) 2. Resides more than 100 km. from means of trial; no means
8. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence to attend
9. Other matters which will promote a fair and expeditious
trial 5. Application (prosecution)
1. Sick or infirm
e. Judge issues pre-trial order 2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
Rule 119 Trial
6. Requisites for postponement due to absence of a witness
1. In trial, the defense tries 1. Witness is really material and appears to the court to be so
1. To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the 2. Party who applies for postponement has not been guilty of
elements of the offense charged neglect
2. To assail the credibility of such evidence 3. Witness can be had at the time to which the trial has been
3. To prove another version, possibly admitting certain deferred
evidence of the prosecution and adding other evidence to 4. No similar evidence could be obtained
cast reasonable doubt
à Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his 7. Requisites to discharge of an accused as State Witness
decision simply on affidavits; he must give the defendant the 1. Testimony of accused absolutely needed
chance to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose) 2. No other direct evidence available EXCEPT his testimony
3. Testimony can be corroborated on material points
2. Procedure 4. Accused does not appear to be most guilty
5. Accused has never been convicted of offense involving
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date moral turpitude
(R119, §1) à Discharge of accused, when not all the requisites were met,
cannot be revoked as long as he testified according to what was
à HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98, accused must be given at expected of him (People vs. Aninon)
least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within
30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order. 8. Remedies
1. Accused may move that his witnesses be examined
2. Defense witnesses examined by any judge or lawyer a. Motion for separate trials
3. Prosecution witnesses, if they would be unable to attend
trial, may be examined by the judge handling the case à Filed by the fiscal to try several accused separately
4. Trial continues from day to day, unless postponed for a just
cause à Granted at the court’s discretion
5. Prosecution presents evidence à May also be ordered by the court motu proprio

à Presentation b. Motion to consolidate

à Testimonies: direct examination à Upon the court’s discretion, separate charges may be tried in
one single case if the offenses charged arise form the same
à Cross-examination facts or form part of a series of similar offenses
à Court allowed consolidation of rape cases substantially
à Re-cross committed in the same manner (People vs. David)

à Offer c. Motion for continuance – filed to postpone trial for just

1. Accused may move for discharge cause
2. Prosecution rests
3. Defense may, with or without leave of court, file a d. Motion to exclude public
demurrer to evidence
4. Defense presents evidence à Excluding parties, counsels and court personnel
5. Defense rests
à May also be ordered by court motu proprio
6. Prosecution presents rebuttal evidence
7. Defense presents rebuttal evidence
8. Trial is closed; case is submitted for judgment
e. Motion for discharge
à Filed before the prosecution rests à In case of conviction, judgment must state:
1. Legal qualification of offense and aggravating and
à Hearing to determine existence of requisites for discharge mitigating circumstances
2. Level of participation
à Prosecution will present evidence and the sworn statement of 3. Penalty imposed
the proposed state witness 4. Civil liability for damages, unless right to separate civil
action has been reserved
à Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part à In case of acquittal, judgment must state:
of trial; however, if court denies motion for discharge, his 1. Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did
sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. not exist
2. Basis of liability
à Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless
accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in 5. Procedure
1. Judge reads judgment in presence of accused
accordance with his statement (which formed the basis for his
2. If judgment is of acquittal
discharge)
3. It becomes final and executory
4. It bars subsequent prosecution for the same offense
f. Demurrer to evidence
c. If judgment is of conviction, remedy is to file:
à May be made after the prosecution rests its case 1. Motion for reconsideration
2. Motion for new trial
à If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, the 3. Notice of appeal
case will be dismissed
à Or else, judgment becomes final and is entered in the book of
à Otherwise, if demurrer denied Judgments
1. If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets
to present evidence 6. When judgment in a criminal case becomes final:
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense 1. After lapse of period for perfecting an appeal; or
is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and 2. When sentence partially or totally satisfied or served; or
the case is submitted for judgment 3. Accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal,
à Case may also be dismissed motu proprio EXCEPT in cases of automatic review where death penalty is
imposed
g. Motion to reopen 4. Accused has applied for probation

à Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before
judgment is actually rendered
à To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such
could not be found before
7. Only a judgment in conviction can be modified or set aside
1. Before judgment had been final (otherwise double
jeopardy);
2. Before appeal had been perfected; or
3. To correct clerical errors in the judgment

à Granted on discretion of the judge 8. Remedies

à The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to
adduce evidence in his behalf when his failure to adduce them a. Appeal
during the trial was his own fault (People vs. Cruz)
Rule 120 Judgment à Filed within 15 days of promulgation of judgment
1. Judgment – adjudication by the court that the accused is
guilty or not guilty of the offense charged, and the imposition of à Period is interrupted by filing of a motion for new trial or
the proper penalty and civil liability provided by law on the reconsideration
accused
à On motion of accused or at its own instance with consent of
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be the accused
acquitted and the acquittal immediately becomes final and
executory. If the accused is found guilty, penalty and civil b. Motion for reconsideration
liability will be imposed on him.
à Filed when there are errors of law or fact in the judgment
3. Accused may be convicted of
1. The offense charged à Shall require no further proceedings
2. A lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged
à Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that à Notice should be given to the fiscal
charged (People vs. Guevarra)
c. Motion for new trial
4. Contents
1. Written in official language à Notice should be given to the fiscal
2. Personally prepared and signed by the judge
3. Contains facts proved à Filed on the following grounds:
4. Contains law upon which judgment is based
 1. Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial
which are prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been
found before and which could change the judgment
9. Procedure for new trial
1. Hearing shall be set and held
2. All evidence not alleged to be in error shall stand
3. New evidence will be introduced
4. Old judgment may be set aside and a new one rendered
10. Notes:
à Suspension of sentence for youthful offenders – after
conviction, minor is committed to custody and care of DSWD or
any training institution until reaches 21 years of age, or a
shorter period
à Probation – disposition under which a defendant after
conviction and sentences, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation
officer
à Parole – the conditional release of an offender from a penal or
correctional institution after he has served the minimum period
of his prison sentence under the continued custody of the state
and under conditions that permit his reincarceration if he
violated the conditions of his release
Rule 121 New Trial or Reconsideration
1. Reopening of the case
1. Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the
exercise of sound discretion
2. Does not require consent of accused
3. May be made at the instance of either party who can
thereafter present additional evidence
2. Motion for new trial
1. Filed after judgment is rendered but before the finality
thereof
2. At the instance or with the consent of the accused
3. The prosecution can move only for the reconsideration of
the judgment but cannot present additional evidence
3. Motion for New Trial is denied if:
1. Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the
court had already passed upon issue of credibility
2. Only corroborative evidence is offered
3. Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is
charged (facility with which such confession can be obtained
and fabricated)
4. Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could
easily be concocted
5. Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of
prosecution witness, due to unreliability of such
recantations, EXCEPT if no other evidence to sustain
conviction aside from recanted testimony
4. New Trial vs. Reconsideration
à Motion for recon is based on the grounds of errors of law in
the judgment is court is not asked to reopen the case for
further proceedings, but to reconsider its findings or conclusions
of law and make them conformable to the law applicable to the
case on the judgment the court has to render anew.
5. New Trial vs. Modification of Judgment
à In New Trial, irregularities are expunged from the record
and/or new evidence is introduced. In modification of
judgment, no new hearings or proceedings of any kind or change
in the record or evidence. A simple modification is made on the
basis of what is on the record.
6. New Trial vs. Reopening of the Case
à New trial presupposes that existence of a judgment to be set
aside upon the granting of a new trial
à In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although
the hearing may have already been closed
7. Motion for Reconsideration
à Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require
no further proceedings.
8. Effects of Granting Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration
a. Based on error of law or irregularities during trial:
à Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities
stand, and those affected are set aside. Court may allow
introduction of new evidence
b. Based on newly discovered evidence:
à Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with
the old
Rule 122 Appeal
1. Procedure
a. Filed with RTC, if original case was with MTC
à Notice served to lower court and to adverse party
b. Filed with the CA or SC, if original case was with RTC
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on
adverse party
à If CA is of opinion that penalty should be reclusion
perpetua or higher, it shall render judgment imposing said
penalty, but refrain from entering judgment and then certify
the case and the entire record thereof to the SC for review
(R124, §13)
à CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or
remand case for new trial or re-trial, or dismiss the case
à If RTC decided case in appellate jurisdiction: Petition for
Review
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life
imprisonment, or lesser penalty involving offenses committed
on the same occasion, or arising out of same occurrence where
graver penalty of death is available but life imprisonment is
imposed; all other cases, by petition for review on certiorari
à If death penalty, automatic review
iii. Withdrawal of appeal
à May be made at any time before judgment on the appeal is
rendered
à Lower court judgment becomes final
à Case remanded for execution of judgment
à Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to
give way for a Motion for Recon or a Motion for New Trial, since
the filing of the notice perfected the appeal, and the trial court
loses its power to modify or set aside the judgment. The only
valid withdrawal of an appeal is where the accused decides to
serve his sentence.
2. Effect of appeal by any of several accused
1. Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if
favorable and applicable to them
2. Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal
aspect of judgment
3. Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon
perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of
criminal case will not result in double jeopardy
1. Dismissal made upon motion or with express consent of the
accused
2. Dismissal is not an acquittal nor based upon
consideration of the evidence or merits of the case
3. Question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely
legal so that if the dismissal is found incorrect, the case has
to be remanded to the court of origin to determine the guilt
or innocence of the accused
4. When serving sentence, remedy is to petition for habeas
corpus
1. Filed when the law under which the accused was convicted
is repealed or declared unconstitutional
2. When a later judgment is rendered acquitting others for
similar circumstances
à Otherwise, equal protection is violated
1. When penalty is lowered and convict has already served
more than the maximum period of the new penalty
à Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned
beyond the maximum penalty imposed by law (Gumabon vs. Dir.
of Prisons)
NOTE: When dismissal is capricious, certiorari lies and no
double jeopardy since validity and not correctness of dismissal
is being challenged.
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
1. Search warrant – an order in writing issued in the name of
the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to
a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal
property described therein and bring it before the court
à Cannot be issued to look for evidence (Uy Khetin vs.
Villareal)
à Seizing objects to be used as evidence is equivalent to forcing
one to be a witness against himself (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
à For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set
by law (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff)
à Tapping conversations is equivalent to a search and seizure
(US vs. Katz)
2. General Rule: No search or seizure can be conducted unless it
is authorized by a search warrant. Evidence gathered from an
illegal search and seizure is inadmissible.
à Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and
unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the
procedure and unreasonable character by which it is exercised
(Guazon vs. de Villa)
à Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search
warrant and returned to it, and such is not an unconstitutional
deprivation of property (Villanueva vs. Querubin)
à Evidence from an illegal search may be used as evidence, if
no objection is raised (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
à Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be
waived, but for the waiver to be effective:
1. The right must exist
2. Person must be aware of the right
3. Person clearly shows the intent to relinquish such right
à No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one
compromises the criminal proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is
present (Roan vs. Gonzales)
3. Requisites of a valid search warrant
a. Issued upon probable cause
à Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that a crime has been
committed and the thing to be searched for and seized is in the
place to be searched
b. Probable cause is personally determined by the issuing
judge
à Hence, signed by him
à By any RTC, to be served anywhere in the country, for an
offense which occurred anywhere in the country (Malaloan vs.
CA)
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching
questions, the appellant and his witness and took down their
written depositions
d. Search warrant particularly describes or identifies the
property to be seized
à Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the
object of a search warrant (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
à Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not
too technical (Alvarez vs. CFI)
e. Particularly describes the place to be searched
f. It shall issue only for one specific offense
à Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause
(Asian Surety vs. Herrera)
à Absence of specific offense makes impossible determination
of probable cause (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made
pursuant thereto (search warrant becomes void after 10 days)
h. Indicates time, if to be served at night
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe
the thing to be seized
1. Description is as specific as circumstances allow
 2. Expresses a conclusion of fact by which the warrant officer
may be guided
3. Things described are limited to those which bear a direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is issued
5. Procedure
a. Complainant files application, attaches affidavits
à Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the
facts of the case (People vs. Sy Juco)
à Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied
by the person against whom the warrant is issued, that the
objects to be seized are fruits or means of committing a crime,
and that they belong to the same person, thus, not affecting
third persons (People vs. Sy Juco)
à When complainant’s knowledge is hearsay, affidavits of
witnesses are necessary (Alvarez vs. CFI)
b. Judge conducts ex parte preliminary examination of
complainant and witnesses under oath to determine probable
cause
à Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the
affidavit (Roan vs. Gonzales)
c. Judge issues search warrant good for 10 days
d. Peace officer in presence of occupant, members of the
family OR 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in
the same locality
à Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of
the same search for the same purpose and of the same place
(Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
e. Peace officer leaves receipt with occupant at place
searched
f. Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory,
and surrenders items seized to receiving court (not necessarily
court which issued the warrant)
à Items seized illegally must remain in custodia legis pending
resolution of the case (Roan vs. Gonzales)
6. Remedies from an unlawful search
1. MTQ the warrant
2. Motion to suppress as evidence the objects illegally taken
3. Return of property illegally seized
7. When a search may be validly conducted without a warrant
1. Without consent of person searched
2. When the search is incident to a lawful arrest
3. Personal knowledge of the arresting person (Posadas vs.
CA)
4. Limited to:
(1) Immediate time of arrest
(2) Immediate vicinity of the arrest
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense
charged (Nolasco vs. Pano)
iii. Subject in an offense which is mala prohibita cannot be
summarily seized (Roan vs. Gonzales)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and
surrounding under his immediate control
1. Border searches (customs, mail and airport)
2. Vessels and aircrafts for violation of Tariff and Customs
Code, EXCEPT dwelling houses
3. Plain view
4. Moving vehicle
5. Hot pursuit
6. Stop-and-frisk, reasonable check-points
7. Private searches with no state action (People vs. Marti)
8. Inspection of building and premises for enforcement of fire,
sanitary and building regulations
8. Person making the arrest may take from the arrestee
1. Properties used in the commission of the crime
2. Fruits or proceeds thereof
3. Property which may furnish the arrestee with a weapon
against the arresting person
4. Property which may be used as evidence at the trial
9. NOTES:
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers,
houses and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
à Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3
1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
law.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in the
proceeding.
Rule 127 Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases
1. Attachment as provisional remedy in criminal cases
1. Accused is about to abscond from RP
2. Criminal action is based on a claim for money or property
embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to the
use of the accused who is a public officer, or any officer of a
corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk in
a fiduciary capacity, in willful violation of duty
3. Accused has concealed, removed or disposed of his
property, or is about to do so
4. Accused resides outside the RP