Crim Pro (Suarez Discussion)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 2

Court, Definition
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Is a body in the government to which the public administration
Ateneo de Davao University | College of Law of justice is delegated. Entity or body vested with a portion of
From the Discussions and Lectures of the judicial power.
Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez
SY 2018-2019 Judge, Definition
A public officer lawfully appointed to preside over a court for
the purpose of administering the law. The jurisdiction however
Criminal Procedure
is vested in the court not the judge. The judge is the person and
It is a generic term to describe the network of laws and rules
the court is the body.
which governs the procedural administration of justice. As such,
it treats of the rules and processes by which the criminal laws
Courts in the Philippines
are enforced and by which the State prosecutes persons who
1. Supreme Court
violate such laws.
2. Court of Appeals; Sandiganbayan; Court of Tax Appeals
3. Regional Trial Court
Procedural law as applied to criminal law, “provides or regulates
4. Municipal Trial Court
the steps which one who committed the crime is to be
punished” (People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 267). While criminal law
Some Special Courts in the Philippines
declares what conduct is criminal as it defines crimes and
1. Probate Courts
prescribes punishments, criminal procedure lays down the
2. Land Registration Courts
processes offender is made to answer for the crime committed.
3. Tribal Courts
4. Family Courts
Jurisdiction
How do we define jurisdiction with reference to criminal cases?
Classification of Courts
It is the power and authority of the court to take cognizance of
1. Constitutional and Statutory Courts – there is only one
an offense and announce the sentence or judgment provided
constitutional court, and it’s the Supreme Court.
for by law after trying in the manner prescribed.
2. Superior and Inferior Courts – the hierarchy of courts
arranged from MTC the least to SC.
When you talk about taking cognizance, it is to “try a case,” to
3. Original Court and Appellate Courts – an original court
pronounce a judgment, to issue a verdict of guilty or not guilty
is where you file an action for the first time, Court of
as to pronounce the sentence provided for by law. Suppose a
Appeals is appellate, MTC is always an original court.
judge finds the accused guilty of homicide, can the judge
4. Civil and Criminal Courts – note that these are not
sentence him to death? The answer is no, because it is not the
separate courts, but on the subject matter.
penalty provided for by law.
5. Courts of Law and Courts of Equity – there are certain
 A judge has to pronounce the sentence provided for
situations that the court is not merely of law but also
by law, after a trial. So, there must be a trial – full trial.
of equity.
Elements of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

Functions of Courts
As evinced in Cruz v. Court of Appeals 388 SCRA 72, a reading
In general, the court is tasked for the administration of justice.
of jurisprudence and treatises on the matter discloses the
1. The ascertainment or determination of relevant facts
following basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction
of the controversy;
over criminal cases:
2. The application of the law to those facts in order to
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
resolve the controversy;
2. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
3. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
Judicial Power
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies
Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction over the or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and
Subject Matter Person of the Accused demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of
Refers to the authority of Refers to the authority of wrongs for violations of such rights.
the court to hear and the court over the person
determine a particular charged. This kind of Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference
criminal case, in simpler jurisdiction requires that the No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the
terms the jurisdiction over person charged with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction or of those
the offense charged. offense must have been with co-equal level.
brought into its forum for
trial forcibly by warrant of Example. When the case is filed in MTC A, it cannot be filed with
arrest of voluntary any other MTC court, except in cases allowed by the Rules of
submission to the court. Court or by law.
From the Discussions of Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, Criminal Procedure: A Lawyer’s Companion (2006)
by Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez and Atty. Gil A. Dela Banda and Criminal Procedure: A Bar Lecture Series by Willard Riano (2016)

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction In Trenas v. People, 664 SCRA 355, the place where the crime
Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question was committed determines not only the venue of the action but
within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, when the is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule
question demands the exercise of sound administrative that for jurisdiction to be acquired in criminal cases, the offense
discretion requiring specialized knowledge and expertise of should have been committed or any of one its essential
said administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate ingredients should have been committed or within the territorial
matters. jurisdiction of the court.
Hearing and Trial, Distinguished Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
When we mean by trial, it may refer to reception of evidence court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or try the offense
and other processes involved in the court proceedings. On the allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot
other hand a hearing may refer to the several stages of a case, take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
this includes arraignment, pre-trial and of the like. allegedly committed outside that limited territory.
If evidence during trial shows that the offense was committed

JURISDICTION somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want
of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
The word jurisdiction comes from the word juris meaning law NOTE: For a complaint or information to be sufficient, the same
and the word dico meaning to speak or to say. The word literally must enable the court, through the allegations therein, to
translates to “I speak by the law,” in this regard it roughly means determinate that the offense was committed or any of its
as the power over a particular thing, also the power to enforce essential ingredients occurred at some place within the
a judgment. Jurisdiction is essential to remember because jurisdiction of the court (Rule 110, Section 6).
without jurisdiction a judgment by the court is null and void.
Rules in Territorial Jurisdiction
Types of Jurisdiction The rule places the venue of criminal cases either in the court
1. General Jurisdiction – the authority of the court to hear of the municipality or territory:
all actions and suits (e.g. RTC). (a) Where the offense was committed, or
Special or Limited Jurisdiction – the authority of the (b) Where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
court to hear on specific cases.
BP 129, Chapter II, Section 13
2. Original Jurisdiction – this is where the case is initially There are thirteen (13) Regional Trial Courts. Only 13 RTCs in
filed, the inception and commencement of cases. the whole country. Why is it then that in the Hall of Justice, we
Appellate Jurisdiction – this is the power to review, have RTC 8,9, 10 and 33? These are mere branches of the RTC
reverse, revise the judicial decision of a lower court. of Davao City and under Section 13 of BP 129 we belong to the
11th Judicial Region.
3. Exclusive Jurisdiction – that possessed by a court to the
exclusion of all others (e.g. BP 22 cases to MTC). “The Eleventh Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Davao del
Concurrent or Coordinate – with other courts Norte, Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur, South Cotabato, and Surigao del
Sur, and the cities of Davao, and General Santos”
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
In criminal cases, it is important to note that a court can only Courts are limited to assumed jurisdiction over crimes
take cognizance of a criminal case when the three following committed within their territorial jurisdiction. Now under
elements are present in the case: Section 14 of BP 129 it is stated that for the 11th Judicial Region
1. Territorial Jurisdiction there are 29 Region Trial Judges. So, if we look over the codal
2. Jurisdiction over the Person provisions it provides that for the 11 Judicial Region are as
3. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter follows:
“(l) Twenty-nine Regional Trial Judges shall be commissioned for the
Eleventh Judicial Region. There shall be:
1. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
Four branches (Branches I to IV) for the province of Davao del Norte,
Territorial Jurisdiction
Branches I and II with seats at Tagum, Branch III in Nabunturan, and
It is the limit of the geographical boundaries of a place, within Branch IV in Panabo;
which the court has jurisdiction to act judicially and outside of
which his acts are null and void. Three branches (Branches V to VII) for the province of Davao Oriental,
Branches V and VI with seats at Mati and Branch VII at Banganga;
A very important principle in relation to jurisdiction over the
territory is that, in criminal cases, venue is jurisdiction and a Fourteen branches (Branches VIII to XXI) for the province of Davao del
court is bereft of jurisdiction to try an offense committed Sur and the city of Davao, Branches VIII to XVII with seats at Davao City,
Branches XVIII and XIX at Digos, Branch XX at Malita, and Branch XXI at
outside its limited territory.
Bansalan;

Five Branches (Branches XXII to XXVI) for the province of South PEOPLE v. OLERMO (2003)
Cotabato and the city of General Santos, Branches XXII and XXIII with This involved illegal recruitment in large scale without securing
seats at General Santos City, Branches XXIV and XXV at Koronadal, and
license, the crime cannot have convicted beyond RTC
Branch XXVI at Surallah;
Valenzuela. Information was filed in RTC Valenzuela.
and Three branches (Branches XXVII to XXIX) for the province of Surigao  She allegedly committed the crime and met the
del Sur, Branch XXVII with seat at Tandag, Branch XXVIII at Lianga, and complainant in Quezon City.
Branch XXIX at Bislig.  Yes, RTC of Valenzuela had jurisdiction over the crime
of illegal recruitment in large scale against Marlene
Take note however that there is Branch XXXIII in Davao, it seems Olermo.
that we have been adding courts. So, branches VIII to XVII in  The element of recruitment took place in her office in
Davao can exercise Territorial Jurisdiction over the crimes Valenzuela, at least one of the elements.
committed in Davao City.  Since the action was filed of RTC Valenzuela where
one of the ingredients took place, the jurisdiction
How is territorial jurisdiction determined? already has attached, it has exclusive jurisdiction.
It is determined by the geographical area over which it presides.
RTCs of Davao preside over Davao City and the fact the crime PURITA LIM v. JUDGE DUMLAO (2005)
was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place A municipal trial court judge has no authority to grant bail to
within said area is an element of jurisdiction. In other words, an accused arrested outside of his territorial jurisdiction. In this
Davao City RTCs exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in case, the filed against RTC Santiago. Order of release should
Davao City. have released by RTC Santiago, no proof presented that he was
absent. Judge Dumlao of MTC erred in approving bail and
Interim Rules issuing the order of release. This is another city – San Mateo
According to Section 2, we have two lower courts the RTC and Isabela. It was filed in RTC.
MTCs. MTCs shall exercise jurisdiction over the city, municipality
or the circuit of which judge thereof is appoint or designated. MORILLO v. PEOPLE AND NATIVIDAD (2015)
Natividad was charged for BP 22 of MTC Makati because the
MTC Jurisdiction (Chapter III, BP 129) checks were delivered to Pampanga, thus, MTC of Makati has
There are Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial jurisdiction of the case.
Courts (MTC) and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC). To
outline the chapter, it provides for the following. BP 22 are considered as transitory or continuing crimes. Since
the checks were drawn and issued in Pampanga but MTC
Section 27 – MeTCs in NCR Makati has jurisdiction. Even if brought to Makati and
Section 28 – Other MeTCs deposited the check there.
Section 29 – MTCs in Cities, seven (7) MTCs for Davao City.
Section 30 – MTC (not in cities) 2. JURISDICTION OVER THE
Section 31- MCTCs PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
Q. How do you differentiate MTCs from RTCs? Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused
In Davao it is easy because the MTC and RTCs herein have the In criminal cases, the start is the accused and the court does not
same territorial jurisdiction. But there are areas in Mindanao have to acquire jurisdiction upon anyone else when you talk
which applies different. For example, in Samal there is no RTC about person unlike in civil cases.
there thus, RTC cases are tried in either Tagum or Panabo. In
Kaputian, Samal there is an MTC. Ways Court Acquire Jurisdiction over the Person of Accused
 There are instances when a case in a municipality for 1. Voluntary appearance or surrender
RTC has not RTC in the municipality itself. 2. Arrest
CASE DISCUSSIONS Suppose X is charged with murder before the RTC of Davao
City. Now, the next step that the judge would do is to issue a
ARANES v. JUDGE OCCIANO (2002) warrant of arrest. It is very important so that the court can have
Territorial jurisdiction in a different municipality, although in jurisdiction over the case or else the judgment is void.
same province, but outside jurisdiction of the judge. Judge
Occiano solemnized the marriage in a municipality outside his Now, if X finds out of the warrant against him, what he can do
territorial jurisdiction. is to go to court and surrender and submit himself under the
jurisdiction of the court.
Judge Aranes solemnized a marriage outside his territorial
jurisdiction at the request of the parties, thus the action cannot Now suppose X has no idea of the warrant of arrest against him
be a legal basis for enforcement of actions because of lack of and he was arrested, the moment he is arrested, then the court
jurisdiction of the judge in rendering the decision. again acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

CASE DISCUSSIONS Requisites for the Exercise of Jurisdiction and
How the Court Acquires such Jurisdiction
TABAO v. JUDGE BARATAMAN (2002)
Here, Samsodin was accused of the crime abandonment of a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner – this is
minor. Now, before he could be arrested and before he made acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or
voluntary appearance before the court, the judge issued an initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or
order granting the motion for bail. Now, the thing is, normally, petitioner.
what is the purpose of voluntary appearing before the court? If b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent –
a warrant of arrest is already released. X will go there not only this is acquired by voluntary appearance or submission
to voluntary surrender but apply for bail so that he could have by the defendant or respondent to the court or by
temporary liberty. coercive process issued by the court to him, generally
by the service of summons.
But what happened here in this case? Samsodin, never c. Jurisdiction over the subject matter – this is
appeared before the court. He sent his daddy to go there and conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the
apply for bail. And the judge granted it, without seeing his face parties, cannot be conferred on the court by voluntary
at all. SC said that the court did not have jurisdiction over the act of the parties.
person of the accused and therefore anything that is issued, any d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case – this is
order that is issued by the court will not bind the accused. So, he determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the
cannot order that he be granted bail if the court does not have case by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial
jurisdiction over his person yet. order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied
consent as by the failure of a party to object to
TALAG v. JUDGE REYES (2004) evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings.
We have this guy who is accused of estafa and BP22 and he was e. Jurisdiction over the res (property or thing subject of
already charged in court and normally as already mentioned, the litigation) – this is acquired by the actual or
after a person is charged in court, the court will issue a warrant constructive seizure by the court of the thing in
of arrest. Now Mr. Talag, he filed the motion to defer the question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in
issuance of warrant of arrest because he wanted maybe a attachment or garnishment, or by provision of law
reinvestigation or remand the case. He wanted the prosecutor which recognizes in the court the power to deal with
to reinvestigate. property or subject matter within its territorial
jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits
In this case, his prayer was to defer the issuance of the warrant, involving civil status or real property in the Philippines
but the judge did not grant the motion and the judge issued of a non-resident defendant.
the warrant against him. Precisely, to acquire jurisdiction over
your person, the court has to issue a warrant of arrest. So that 3. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
you will either be arrested, or you will voluntarily surrender. But
to say the court cannot issue the warrant due to not being able Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
to acquire jurisdiction over your person is wrong. This is the common jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases. It is
determined by the allegations of the complaint or information
Compared to our earlier case in Tabao vs. Barataman, the judge in accordance with the law in force at the time of the
cannot grant the motion for bail because that particular act commission of the crime.
already assumes that if one grant the motion for bail, there is
already an assumption that jurisdiction over the person was It is the law that confers jurisdiction over the subject matter.
already acquired. But to issue a warrant, that is not. There is no Rules of procedure yield to substantive law.
prerequisite in issuing the warrant. The only prerequisite is
probable cause and that person has been charged in court. Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be
conferred upon the court by the accused, express waiver or
DE JOYA v. JUDGE MARQUEZ (2006) otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign
There’s nothing really here that we can talk about with respect authority which organized the court and is given only by law in
to the facts. The only reason why I asked you to read this case the manner and form prescribed by law.
is to be able to see different kinds of jurisdiction. Please be able
to distinguish between a “defendant” and the “accused”. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases Determined by Penalty
The court has or has no jurisdiction over a subject matter is
The accused is in the criminal cases, defendant in civil cases. determined by the penalty provided by the law for the offense.
Now, sometimes, the SC will call the accused the “defendant” In criminal cases, when you talk about subject matter, look at
that is the prerogative of the SC, but you are not the SC. In the penalty of the crime involved. (E.g. rape with homicide – RP;
addition, it may not be amiss to note that Chester de la Joya is malicious mischief – Am).
not entitled to seek relief from this Court nor from the trial court
as he continuously refuses to surrender and submit to the In relation to jurisdiction over the subject matter is the
court’s jurisdiction. jurisdiction of the courts.

3.A JURISDICTION OF COURTS RTC is an appellate court of the MTC in cases on review.
3.A.1. JURISDICTION OF MTC AND RTC RTC IN SPECIAL JURISDICTION
1. MTC BP 129, Sec. 32, RA 7691 Family Courts, RA 8369, Section 5

1. Violations of city or municipal ordinances committed Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below 18
within their respective territorial jurisdiction; years of age but not less than 9 years of age, or where one or
2. Offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of
6 years irrespective of amount of imposable fine. the crime.
3. Offenses when the prescribed penalty is fine only and the  Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous
imposable amount does not exceed P4,000 [SC 04-94]. Drugs Act, RA 9165.
a. If imprisonment with fine, penalty of  Violations of RA 7610, as amended by RA 7658; and
imprisonment governs.  Cases of domestic violence
4. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal (a) 1. Women – which are acts of gender based
negligence irrespective of amount of imposable fine. violence that results, in physical, sexual or
a. Reckless imprudence resulting to damage to psychological harm or suffering to women;
property. and other forms of physical abuse such as
5. Violations of BP 22. – all BP 22 cases are now under MTC battering or threats and coercion; and
starting RA 7691. (b) 2. Children – which include in the
commission of all forms of abuse, neglect.
If you look at the flow of appeal, the court of original
jurisdiction is the MTC, the decisions of the MTC appealable to Dangerous Drugs Court
the RTC and to the CA to the SC.  Violations under RA 9165 except minors
RA 8249, Section 4 [Sandiganbayan Law] Special Commercial Court

Where one or more accused are govt officials or employees: 1. Complaints for violations laws involving intellectual
1. They are classified below grade 27 at the time of property rights where the total damages claimed are
commission of the offense. less than two hundred thousand pesos
2. They violate either RA 3019, RA 1379, or Chapter II, 2. Complaints for Infringement of Trademarks,
Section 2, Title VII, Book II of RPC. Tradenames, Patents or Copy right
3. They commit other offenses or felonies whether simple or 3. Unfair Competition
complexed with other crimes in relation to their office.
4. The prescribed penalty for the offense is imprisonment of Instances where the case will fall under the jurisdiction of
6 years or less. RTC even if the penalty is 6 years or less;
1. Art. 360, RPC – Libel
MTC appeal to the RTC, from the RTC to the Sandiganbayan 2. RA 8293 – Criminal cases involving IP under IPO shall
then to the SC because this is under RA 8249. be tried in the RTC.
3. RA 9165 – any violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
2. RTC BP 129, Sec. 20 4. BP 881 – Criminal cases arising from violations of the
OEC shall fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
1. All offenses where the prescribed penalty for the offense
imprisonment is exceeding 6 years, irrespective of
CASE DISCUSSIONS
amount of imposable;
2. All offenses when the prescribed penalty is fine only and
PALANA v. PEOPLE (2007)
the imposable amount exceeds P4,000;
In this case the violation of BP 22 was penalized on 1991; but
3. All criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
on 15 June 1994 – BP 129 came out that expanded the
any court, tribunal or body.
jurisdiction of the MTC. BP 22 cases are now under the
jurisdiction of the MTC but when the complaint was now filed
RA 8249, Section 4 [Sandiganbayan Law]
the jurisdiction now belong to RTC.
Where one or more of the accused are govt officials of
employees, and;
To clarify, the determination of the jurisdiction of the court on
1. They are classified below grade 27 at the time of
a case on a subject matter is dependent on the penalty, which
commission of the offense
is also in keeping with the law in force at the time of the
2. They violate either RA 3019, RA 1379, or Chapter II,
institution of the action.
Section 2, Title VII, Book II of RPC.
3. They commit other offenses or felonies whether simple or
Whether or not RTC had jurisdiction over Palana’s case. The RTC
complexed with other crimes in relation to their office,
has jurisdiction at the time the information was filed in 1991.
4. The prescribed penalty for the offense is imprisonment
Thus, it adhered to the RTC.
exceeding 6 years.

Operative also in the case of Palana v. People is the doctrine of PEOPLE v. BENIPAYO (2009)
the Adherence of Jurisdiction which means that once Libel – WON RTC has jurisdiction that the law is clear that in
jurisdiction attaches, it cannot be ousted by the happening of Article 360 that an action for libel is exclusively filed on RTC.
subsequent events although such character which should have  By express provision of law, the jurisdiction over the
prevented the jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. subject matter is identified.
So, because jurisdiction already attached to the RTC, the PEOPLE v. JUDGE YADAO (2012)
happening of a subsequent event like the enactment of R.A. This case involves the alleged summary execution suspected
7691 - Expanding the jurisdiction of MTC over BP 22 cases, the members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang, the OMB filed 11
RTC’s jurisdiction over such case cannot be taken away. In other counts of murder against Lacson, et al. During the proceedings,
words, if we have pending cases with RTC - BP 22 cases, then two of the parents of the victims presented birth certificate
the RTC will have to continue despite the enactment of RA 7691 showing that two of the victims were minors. Prosecution
. argued that due to such – it must be reraffled to a family court.
PEOPLE v. CA (2008)
In this case the violation of BP 22 was 1992 – unlawful The denial of Judge Yadao of this motion to reraffled is correct
possession of timber; RTC Surigao Branch 32 because Section 5, RA 8369 which aims to protect children and
 PC medium their welfare can be relaxed when the purpose no longer
 RA 7691 took effect on 1994 expanding MTC applies. In this case, the minor victims are already dead. Thus,
jurisdiction, prior BP 129, the MTC could only try cases RTC of Quezon has jurisdiction over the case.
with only 4 years or months, now it is 6 years.
 The passage of RA 7691 did not relieve RTC ASISTIO v. PEOPLE (2015)
jurisdiction, a jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal Section 46 of the Cooperative Code, RTC lacks jurisdiction for it
action is to be determined by the law in force at the only provided only a civil liability - punishment is not less than
time of the institution of the case. 6 months and to 1 year. OSG argues Sec 124(3) of RA 6938 –
 Exception: Where statute expressly provides to be Section 47 is violated by P5,000 of not less than 5-10.
applied retroactively, those have not reached the trial
stage. Since law specifically provides would be punishable 5y-10y it
is the RTC that has jurisdiction.
DAYAP v. SENDIONG (2009)  Jurisdiction of the subject matter conferred by law.
An information was filed for Reckless Imprudence resulting to  This law also contains provisions on what court has
Homicide, Less Serious Physical. jurisdiction.
 WON has jurisdiction; what court has jurisdiction over
the case.
 It is the MTC since the crime charged was such, which 3.A.1. JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN
the RPC imposes a penalty PC med – PC max which
has (2y4m1d – 4y2m1d) took cognizance. Sandiganbayan
The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is perhaps one of the
The fact that the crime when it was committed was under the most often amended provision from the 1973 Constitution to
jurisdiction of the RTC does not matter. It does not matter what RA 8249 of 1997. Before RA 8249, jurisdiction of the
jurisdiction was at the time of the commission of the crime. Sandiganbayan was determined on the basis of the penalty
What is important is the court that has jurisdiction at the time imposable on the offense charged.
of the filing of the complaint.
Then, it was amended such that regardless of the penalty, so
GARCIA v. MIRO (2009) long as the offense charged was committed by a public officer,
Yes. MTC – Article 365; Reckless Imprudence Resulting to the Sandiganbayan was vested with jurisdiction.
Homicide is PC med-max.
 Just because the accused here is a judge, the crime Under RA 8249, to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has
that he allegedly had nothing to do with his office as jurisdiction, lawyers must look into two (2) criteria, namely: The
a judge, an accident with a Land Cruiser collided with nature of the offense and The salary grade of the public official.
a motorcycle.
 It has absolutely nothing to do with the duty of the Laws Relative to Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction
judge. It is important to note that there are important laws that
determine the jurisdiction and how it affects cases because
The judge here accidentally hit somebody with his car and that what matters was the law that governs at the time of the filing
person died, that is not automatic. Just because he is a judge it or institution of the criminal case.
is not automatic that he is under the jurisdiction of the 1. PD 1606 effective December 10, 1978
Sandiganbayan. 2. RA 7975 effective May 16, 1995
3. RA 8249 effective February 23, 1997
The alleged offense was not committed in relation of his office.

JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
RELATIVE TO PD 1606, RA 7975, RA 8246 and RA 10660
The following are the different laws that the covers the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, note the differences in the following laws.
PRESIDENT DECREE NO. 1606 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7975 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8246
December 10, 1978 May 16, 1995 February 23, 1997
ON CASES AND OFFICERS COVERED BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN
The Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over: Sandiganbayan shall exercise original Sandiganbayan shall exercise original
jurisdiction in all cases involving: jurisdiction in all cases involving:
(a) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019,
as amended, otherwise, known as the A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft amended, otherwise known as the Anti-graft
and Republic Act No. 1379; and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No.
1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II
(b) Crimes committed by public officers Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more
and employees including those principal accused are officials occupying the of the accused are officials occupying the
employed in government-owned or following positions in the government, whether following positions in the government whether
controlled corporations, embraced in in permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at
Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, time of the commission of the offense: the time of the commission of the offense:
whether simple or complexed with
other crimes; and (1) Officials of the executive branch (1) Officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional occupying the positions of regional
(c) Other crimes or offenses committed director and higher, otherwise classified as director and higher, otherwise classified as
by public officers or employees, grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation Grade '27' and higher, of the
including those employed in and Position Classification Act of 1989 Compensation and Position Classification
government-owned or controlled (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
corporations, in relation to their including: specifically including:
office.
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, panlalawigan and provincial
assessors, engineers, and other treasurers, assessors, engineers and
provincial department heads; other provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of (b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of
the sangguniang panlungsod, city the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and treasurers, assessors engineers and
other city department heads; other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service (c) Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and occupying the position of consul and
higher; higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, (d) Philippine army and air force colonels,
naval captains, and all officers of higher naval captains, and all officers of
rank; higher rank;
(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP (e) Officers of the Philippine National
officers of higher rank; Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and the rank of senior superintendent or
their assistants, and officials and higher;
prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor; (f) City and provincial prosecutors and
their assistants, and officials and
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or prosecutors in the Office of the
managers of government-owned or Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or
or foundations; managers of government-owned or -
controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions
or foundations;

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof (2) Members of Congress and officials
classified as Grade "27" and up under the thereof classified as Grade'27'and up
Compensation and Position Classification under the Compensation and Position
Act of 1989; Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without (3) Members of the judiciary without
prejudice to the provisions of the prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution; Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials (5) All other national and local officials
classified as Grade "27" and higher under classified as Grade'27'and higher under
the Compensation and Position the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989; Classification Act of 1989.
B. Other offenses or felonies committed by the B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
public officials and employees mentioned in complexed with other crimes committed by the
subsection (a) of this section in relation to their public officials and employees mentioned in
office. subsection a of this section in relation to their
office.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and
in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14
and 14-A. and 14-A, issued in 1986.
WHEN OTHER REGULAR COURTS SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction herein conferred shall be In cases where none of the principal accused RA 10660 Amendment:
original and exclusive if the offense charged is are occupying positions corresponding to (Approved – April 16, 2015)
punishable by a penalty higher than prision salary grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the
correccional, or its equivalent, except as herein said Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers Provided, That the Regional trial Court shall
provided; in other offenses, it shall be occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, have exclusive original jurisdiction where the
concurrent with the regular courts. or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof information:
shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial (a) Does not allege any damage to the
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial government or any bribery; or
Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the (b) Alleges damage to the government
case may be, pursuant to their respective or bribery arising from the same or
jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. closely related transactions or acts in
129. an amount not exceeding One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Subject to the rules promulgated by the

Supreme Court, the cases falling under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under
this section shall be tried in a judicial region
other than where the official holds office.
In cases where none of the accused are

occupying positions corresponding to salary
grade ‘27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said
Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP
officers mentioned above, exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial
court ‘as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
judgments, resolutions or orders of regular resolutions or orders or regional trial courts
courts where all the accused are occupying whether in the exercise of their own original
positions lower than salary grade "27", or not jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as
otherwise covered by the preceding herein provided.
enumeration.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER SPECIAL ACTIONS

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of
the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunction, and other ancillary habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction: Provided, That the jurisdiction over jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature,
these petitions shall not be exclusive of the including quo warranto, arising or that may
Supreme Court. arise in cases filed or which may be filed under
Executive Order Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in
1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme
Court.
SANDIGANBAYAN VIS-À-VIS WITH COURT OF APPEALS
The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that
the Supreme Court has promulgated and may the Supreme Court has promulgated and may
hereafter promulgate, relative to hereafter promulgate, relative to
appeals/petitions for review to the Court of appeals/petitions for review to the Court of
Appeals shall apply to appeals and petitions for Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for
review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases
elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the
office of the Ombudsman, through its special Office of the Ombudsman, through its special
prosecutor, shall represent the people of the prosecutor, shall represent the People of the
Philippines except in cases filed pursuant to Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to
Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued
in 1986.
JOINT TRIAL INVOLVING PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

In case private individuals are charged as co- In case private individuals are charged as co- In case private individuals are charged as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories with the principals, accomplices or accessories with the principals, accomplices or accessories with the
public officers or employees including those public officers or employees, including those public officers or employees, including those
employed in government-owned or controlled employed in government-owned or controlled employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said
public officers and employees. public officers and employees in the proper public officers and employees in the proper
courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction
Where an accused is tried for any of the above over them. over them.
offenses and the evidence is insufficient to
establish the offense charged, he may
nevertheless be convicted and sentenced for
the offense proved, included in that which is
charged.
CIVIL ACTIONS JOINTLY DETERMINED IN SANDIGANBAYAN OR APPROPRIATE COURTS
Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the
contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action
and the corresponding civil action for the and the corresponding civil action for the and the corresponding civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense recovery of civil liability arising from the offense recovery of civil liability shall at all times be
charged shall at all times be simultaneously charged shall at all times be simultaneously simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
instituted with, and jointly determined in the instituted with, and jointly determined in, the determined in, the same proceeding by the
same proceeding by, the Sandiganbayan, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the
filing of the criminal action being deemed to appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal filing of the criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action being deemed to necessarily carry with it necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil
action, and no right to reserve the filing of such the filing of the civil action, and no right to action, and no right to reserve the filing of such
action shall be recognized; reserve the filing of such civil action separately civil action separately from the criminal action
from the criminal action shall be recognized: shall be recognized:

Provided, however, that, in cases within the Provided, however, That where the civil action Provided, however, That where the civil action
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, had heretofore been filed separately but had therefore been filed separately but
where the civil action had therefore been filed judgment therein has not yet been rendered, judgment therein has not yet been rendered,
separately with a regular court but judgment and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the
therein has not yet been rendered and the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said
criminal case is hereafter filed with the civil action shall be transferred to the civil action shall be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan, said civil action shall be Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court as the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the
transferred to the Sandiganbayan for case may be, for consolidation and joint case may be, for consolidation and joint
consolidation and joint determination with the determination with the criminal action, determination with the criminal action,
criminal action, otherwise, the criminal action otherwise the separate civil action shall be otherwise the separate civil action shall be
may no longer be filed with the Sandiganbayan, deemed abandoned. deemed abandoned.
its exclusive jurisdiction over the same
notwithstanding, but may be filed and
prosecuted only in the regular courts of
competent jurisdiction; Provided, further, that,
in cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan and the regular courts, where
either the criminal or civil action is first filed with
the regular courts, the corresponding civil or
criminal action, as the case may be, shall only
be filed with the regular courts of competent
jurisdiction.
Excepted from the foregoing provisions, during

martial law, are criminal cases against officers
and members of the armed forces in the active
service.
TRANSFER OF CASES
Section 8. Transfer of cases. As of the date of Section 7. Upon the effectivity of this Act, all Section 7. Transitory Provision. - This Act shall
the effectivity of this decree, any case criminal cases in which trial has not begun in the apply to all cases pending in any court over
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan within its Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper which trial has not begun as of the approval
exclusive jurisdiction where none of the accused courts. hereof
has been arraigned shall be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan.
Concerning the Transfer of Cases | As decided in Binay v. Sandiganbayan (GR 120681, October 1, 1999)
R.A. No. 7975, by virtue of Section 7, belongs to the exception rather than the rule. (Doctrine of Adherence). The provision is transitory in nature and
expresses the legislature's intention to apply its provisions on jurisdiction to "criminal cases in which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan." To this
extent, R.A. 7975 is retroactive. Such a transitory provision is not peculiar to R.A. No. 7975; similar provisions are found in other laws reallocating the
jurisdiction of the courts. 35 There is no reason why Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975 should be any different.
The term "proper courts," as used in Section 7, means "courts of competent jurisdiction," and such jurisdiction is defined in Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606,
as amended by R.A. No. 7975. The former should not be read in isolation but construed in conjunction with the latter.
The term "proper courts" as used in Section 7, therefore, is not restricted to "regular courts," but includes as well the Sandiganbayan, a special court. If
the intent of Congress were to refer all cases the trials of which have not begun to the regular courts, it should have employed the term "proper regular
courts" or "regular courts" instead of "proper courts." Accordingly, the law in the third paragraph of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section
2 of R.A. No. 7975, uses the term "regular courts," not "proper courts":
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final judgments, resolutions or orders of regular courts where all
the accused are occupying positions lower than salary grade "27," or not otherwise covered by the preceding enumeration.
Construed thus, the effects of Section 7 may be summarized as follows:

1. If trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan has already begun as of the approval of R.A. No. 7975, R.A. No. 7975 does not apply.
2. If trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan has not begun as of the approval of R.A. No. 7975, then R.A. No. 7975 applies.
a. If by virtue of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a case
before it, then the cases shall be referred to the Sandiganbayan.
b. If by virtue of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over a
case before it, the case shall be referred to the regular courts.
The latter provision more accurately expresses the legislature's intent and, in any event, should be applied in this case, R.A. No. 8249 having superseded
R.A. No. 7975. In Panfilo M. Lacson vs. The Executive Secretary, et al., the Court explained the purpose of the foregoing provision.
. . . it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of [the Sandiganbayan's] jurisdiction would necessarily affect pending cases, which is why it has to
provide for a remedy in the form of a transitory provision. . . . . The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but

also in "any court." . . . . Moreover, those cases where trial had already begun are not affected by the transitory provision under Section 7 of the new law
(RA 8249).
The possible disruptive effect of the amendments to the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction on pending cases was, therefore, not lost on the legislature.
Congress has, furthermore, deemed the commencement of the trial as the crucial point in determining whether a court retains a case pending before it
or lose the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction per the provisions of R.A. No. 8249. The law obviously does not want to waste the time and effort
already devoted to the presentation of evidence if trial had already begun. On the other hand, not much disruption would be caused if the amendment
were made to apply to cases the trials of which have yet to start.
The ramifications of Section 7 of R.A. No. 8249 may be stated as follows:

1. If trial of the cases pending before whatever court has already begun as of the approval of R.A. No. 8249, said law does not apply.
2. If trial of cases pending before whatever court has not begun as of the approval of R.A. No. 8249, then said law applies.
a. If the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a case pending before it, then it retains jurisdiction.
b. If the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over a case pending before it, the case shall be referred to the regular courts.
c. If the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a case pending before a regular court, the latter loses jurisdiction and the same shall be
referred to the Sandiganbayan.
d. If a regular court has jurisdiction over a case pending before it, then said court retains jurisdiction.
Thus, under both R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8429, the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over said cases.
CASE DISCUSSIONS It is the COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over the case
involving election offenses, as compared to the case of
PEOPLE v. MONTEJO (1960) Benipayo but the law expressly provides.
In this case, Mayor Brown et al., equipped some policemen with  When this happens it is the COMELEC has the power
high powered guns at a sub-police headquarters at Tipo-Tipo. to investigate this crimes.
This involved the torture of Awalin Tebag.
Other issue: So we have here, the prosecutor for this case is the
The case was filed in the RTC of Zamboanga, Mayor Brown COMELEC, once probable cause is found, where should the
alleged that SB had jurisdiction over his case. criminal complaint be found?
 Since Mayor Brown that SB has jurisdiction over his  The Sandiganbayan – one of the accused is a member
case that the offense committed related of his office. of the COMELEC.
Yes, the crime committed is related to the office of Mayor Is the only one under the jurisdiction under the Sandiganbayan?
Brown, if he committed it in the performance of his duty. What about the private individuals?
 Mayor established the sub-police HQ and the police  So if we have a government official, who falls under
followed the orders. the jurisdiction of the SB and he commits a crime in
 Therefore, SB has the jurisdiction over the case. connection with his office, in conspiracy with private
individuals, they will also be under the SB.
CORPUZ v. TANODBAYAN (1987)  Private individuals are included as long as they are in
Corpus was a member of the group of a political group. The conspiracy with the public official included in the case
public officer here involved is the Mayor who won the elections. under the jurisdiction of the SB.
 As one of the accused, there was a COMELEC Official,
the kind of COMELEC Official. SANCHEZ v. DEMETRIOU (1993)
 Focus on the COMELEC Official, they were charged for Antonio Sanchez charged was with rape with homicide before
the offenses under the 1978 Election Code, election the RTC contending that he was a public official and he should
hearing and campaigning inside voting centers. be under the SB.
Why is the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) insisting the authority to The crime of rape with homicide is not a graft and corruption
prosecute the case, and one of the accused is a public official. case and it is not an offense committed in relation of his office.
 And so here we have the Tanodbayan, of the Special There is no direct relation between the offense with charge and
Investigator of the Ombudsman for they were under the office as a Mayor. The offense can stand independently of
the jurisdiction of the SB. the office.
 Public officer – COMELEC Official.  Compared to the case of Montejo, where the Mayor
 The COMELEC Officer allowed registration of voters committed murder in relation to his office, which he
outside of the registration period and that he was a could have not done without it.
SG27 official.  It does not fall under the SB.

BONDOC v. SANIGANBAYAN (1990) LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (1999)
Kiting operations, Valentino and Estacio were charged with Lacson was filed on 2 November 1995, by virtue of amended
estafa, Bondoc (private individuals) charging them as principal. information:
 Bondoc asserted that as private individual where he  RA 7975 – SB only “principal accused”
shall be charged as co-principal, he should be tried  The SB admitted the information transferring of RTC
jointly that the separate proceedings were invalid. Quezon.
Yes. SB has jurisdiction over Bondoc as he is a co-accused of RA 7975 Significance in relation of PD 1606
the crime based on nature (estafa) and penalty.  Why was Lacson alleging under RA 7975, before RA
 The impossibility of a joint trial cannot and does not 7975 there was no such thing as salary grade
alter the essential nature of the crimes in question. requirement.
 The SB just like the CA has several divisions, there was  Under PD 1606 – there was no salary grade
a crime committed with conspiracy with public requirement and higher, it applied practically all
officials, definitely under PD 1606, Section 4(3): officials, but from May 16, 1995 there was additional
(a) In case private individuals are charged with requirements.
public officers they should be tried jointly.  Lacson was charged as accessory.
Jointly tried: To avoid repeated and unnecessary presentation RA 8249 – Expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it
in different venues in the same facts. deleted the word principal from principal accused, the degree
 What happened was that they were charged of participation of the public officer is immaterial now. The
separately. Bondoc wanted the cases to be joint but it information was filed on 2 November 1995, Lacson was Police
was too late, for the other cases were almost finished. Superintendent under the present rule RA 7975.
 Can he be tried alone as private individual in the SB?  RA 8249 was applicable, it was given a retroactive
effect, ex post facto laws do not cover remedial laws.
(a) Adherence to jurisdiction: it has already RA 8249 deleted word “principal” accused.
attached to SB, this is a rare occasion where
he was tried before the SB. Argument: The crime was murder, it was not present in Section
4(a), but under Section 4(b) the crime must have been
If a crime is committed by a private individual and a public committed in relation to his office.
individual in conspiracy while conspiring each other under RA  Intimately connected with his office.
3019. Will the proceeding be filed differently? – No.  It has to be clearly stated in the information how
the crime of murder was related to his office as
AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN (1997) Supt. Of the PNP if it was not clearly stated, it
In this case, Azarcon was designated by BIR as custodian of the removes him from the jurisdiction of the SB.
property of Jaime Alcala (seized for back wages). The property  We have to look at it step by step.
was taken out by Alcala.
 Charged by BIR for malversation for having failed to NOTE: While the information state that the above named
keep and preserve the subject property. accused committed the crime of murder in related to their
 SB acquire jurisdiction over rime committed solely by public office there is no specific allegation of the fact that the
private individuals? shooting of the victim by the principal accused is intimately
related with the discharge of his office of their official duties as
No. The SB does not acquire jurisdiction over crimes committed police officers. Thus, if the crime involves those which are
by private person, under Section 4 of PD 1606 only when they felonies or offenses not enumerated it has to be in direct or
are co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public officer or intimate relation to their duties or office.
employee. Has no jurisdiction over him.
BINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN (1999)
Here we have a private individual, who allegedly was signed to On September 1994, Binay was charged of RA 3019 before the
some government work by the BIR. SB as a Municipal Mayor under PD 1606
 Why are you invoking PD 1606 – what date was the  He was under SB then without grade required.
action filed?  RA 7975 came into effect, alleging that SB lost
jurisdiction.
The law in force at the time of the filing of the action, what is  Alleging that Section 4(a)(1). Municipal mayors were
important during the commission of the crime is the position not included and not classified as Grade 27.
of the public officer like salary, grade.  Still under SB jurisdiction, even if the Municipal Mayor
 Date of the filing action: 01-12-1990 was not enumerated, the law is not exclusive.
 SB PD 1606 (as amended)  Section 444 of the LGC – The municipal mayor shall
 RA 7975 – May 16, 1995, so all cases filed before this receive a minimum monthly compensation
date will apply PD 1606. corresponding to Salary Grade 27.
 Therefore, he is under the jurisdiction of the SB.

The case filed: September 7, 1994 in SB MAGSAYSAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN (1999)
The law took effect: May 16, 1995 Magsaysay contends that the SB has no jurisdiction over him:
1. He has a salary grade of 27
Cases were filed by the Ombudsman in the SB against Mayor 2. Municipal Mayors are not under the enumeration
Binay of Makati for Illegal Use of Public Funds (RPC, A220) and At the time of filing RA 7975 applies, it does not cover him.
Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) on
September 1994. The informations filed constituted crimes But RA 8249 became effective there was a salary grade.
which were committed by the petition in his incumbency in the  Aside of LGC, there is an Index of Occupational
year 1987. Services of a Municipal Mayor is Grade 27.
 Therefore under 7975 he is under the SB.
Meanwhile RA 7975 redefining the jurisdiction of the SB took
effect of May 16, 1995 so much that the petitioner filed before RTC – no jurisdiction RA 7975 already was in effect; it did not
the SB a motion to refer his cases to the RTC Makati alleging have jurisdiction.
that the SB has no jurisdiction over said cases.
Unlike in Binay (1994) this was filed in Sept. 1995, since his
Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. YES. grade 27, the RTC definitely had no jurisdiction.
The informations against Binay were filed in SB on 7-7-1994 LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2000)
pursuant to PD 1606. On 05-16-1995, RA 7975 took. At this Llorente was elected as municipal mayor
time Binay had not yet been arraigned by the SB.  August 3, 1993 – RA 3019; 1995
 The trial has not begun in both cases when in May 16,
While the cases were pending before the SC, the Congress had 1995 RA 7975 was enacted amending PD 1606.
enacted RA 8249 against redefining jurisdiction. The law took
effect on 02-23-97. Llorente argued that it divested Sandiganbayan for those
municipal mayors who allegedly receives less than Salary G27.
It should not be referred – the doctrine of adherence of
jurisdiction because the action was already filed before the SB. Yes. It has been ruled that SB still has jurisdiction, that RA 7975
did not deprive jurisdiction over violations against municipal
The SC said the exception to the rule where the statute mayors. It is the official’s grade that determine his or her salary
expressly provides. according RA 6758 and Index of Occupation Services and
 RA 7975 belongs to the exception, the provision is Section 444(d) of the LGC
transitory in nature, this is now applicable.  In this case, municipal mayor is clearly covered.
 But, the SC went on, proper court it is still the SB that
is still the proper court for Binay was a G27 employee. INDING v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2004)
Inding is a SP charged with violation of RA 3019, filed on 27
What are the effects of Section 7? January 1999 – applicable law was RA 8249 (02-11-1997).
Moving the case to the proper court. Inding contended here that the Sandiganbayan has no
1. If trial case before the SB has already begun as of jurisdiction because of the following contentions that he is not
approval of RA 7975 – it does not apply. at least SG27 for he falls under SG25.
2. If trial of cases before the SB has not begun as of the SB: RA 7975 is applicable for violation of RA 3019 without
approval of RA 7975 then it applies: qualification and regardless of salary.
a. If by virtue of Section 4 of PD 1606, as
amended by Section 2 of Ra 7975m the SB Which law is applicable?
has jurisdiction then it should be referred. RA 7975 – May 16, 1995, original jurisdiction of the SB
b. If SB has no jurisdiction over a case be RA 8249 – Feb. 24, 1997, enumerates
referred to regular courts.
Transitory- this Act shall apply to all cases pending in any court But both laws, the reckoning period of the position is the time
over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. of the commission of the offense.
 Committed on 01-3-1997, thus RA 7975 applies.
Retroactive 8249:  Under RA 7975 included members of SP falls under
1. If it begun do not apply 8249; the jurisdiction of the SB.
2. If not begun  The court ruled here that violation of RA 3019 by
a. Retain officials in the executive Salary Grade 27.
b. No – referred to regular court
c. If pending but has jurisdiction – retain. This case is an En Banc penned by Justice Callejo, it was truly
mentioned here: For purposes for determining which of the two
They apply retroactively and work as an exception from the laws. The period is the time of the commission of the offense.
Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction provided that the trial
for the case has not begun.

 This stands as an exception thereto the general rule, Petitioner Dinah Barriga seeks to nullify the Resolution of the
for it expressly states the reckoning period is the time SB in denying her motion to quash the information and motion
of the commission of the offense. for reconsideration thereof. Barriga and Mayor Villamor of
 Offense was 01-03-1997, the applicable law is RA Carmen, Cebu were charged with malversation of funds
7975, even if RA 8249 is applicable law (at the time of wherein they allegedly connived and collaborated in using the
institution) SB still has jurisdiction, because the said public fund to a public purpose different from which it was
position Sangguniang Panglungsod is still included. intended or appropriated. Such criminal case was filed with the
Sandiganbayan.
Another thing to look out for, RA 7975, Section (4)
 RA 7975 – original jurisdiction Barriga assail the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan over the case
 RA 8249 – exclusive jurisdiction filed against her considering that position only holds a SG24
 PD 1606 says exclusive original jurisdiction and she is not an accountable officer to be charged with such.
MARILYN GEDUSPAN (2005) Issue: Whether SB has jurisdiction – Yes.

Geduspan for Section 3(e) for violation of RA 3019 – 07-11-02
RA 8492 was applicable. Geduspan was the Regional Direction Rep. Act No. 8249, which amended Section 4 of Presidential
of Philhealth Region VI, appointment papers and salary Decree No. 1606, provides, inter alia, that the Sandiganbayan
adjustment was Dept Manager and Salary Grade of 26. has original jurisdiction over crimes and felonies committed by
public officers and employees, at least one of whom belongs to
Yes. Sandiganbayan still have jurisdiction over the case. any of the five categories thereunder enumerated at the time
 In violations of RA 3019; Presidents, directors or of the commission of such crimes.
trustees, mangers of GOCCs is within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. Two Classes of Public Office Related Crimes
 That it is her position not her salary grade determines. There are two classes of public office-related crimes under
 Director-Manager of a GOCC (PhilHealth). subparagraph (b) of Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8249:
1. Those crimes or felonies in which the public office is a
PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2005) constituent element as defined by statute and the
Alas was charged for RA 3019 relation between the crime and the offense is such
- Chief Operating Officer – PPSB that, in a legal sense, the offense committed cannot
- GOCC created by a special law. exist without the office;
- PPSB as a private corporation, and Alas as private (a) Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction
individual, GOCCs created by the Corporation Code. (b) Prosecutor need not state in the Information
specific factual allegations of the intimacy
Yes, SB has jurisdiction. between the office and the crime charged, or
 Section 2 of EO 292 whether governmental or that the accused committed the crime in the
proprietary in nature. PPSB fits description, 99% is performance of his duties.
owned by the government.
2. Such offenses or felonies which are intimately
RA 8249 provides that: connected with the public office and are perpetrated
 SB shall have exclusive original jurisdiction. by the public officer or employee while in the
 They still are covered, when the law does not performance of his official functions, through
distinguish, we shall not distinguish. improper or irregular conduct.
 It does not matter if under SEC or Corporation Code, (c) SB shall likewise have original jurisdiction
any of these officers, when they commit the crime, or (d) If the Information contains specific factual
those in relation to their office they are under SB. allegations showing the intimate connection
between the offense charged and the public
JUDGE ESTEBAN v. PEOPLE (2005) office of accused, and the discharge of his
1998 – Sexual Harassment (RA 7877) against Judge Esteban. official duties or functions – whether
 The acts committed in relation to his office due to the improper or irregular.
approval, the allegations in the information shows
connection. The requirement is not complied with if the Information merely
alleges that the accused committed the crime charged in
Yes. Section 4(b), RA 8249: other offenses or felonies by those relation to his office because such allegation is merely a
enumerated in relation to their office. conclusion of law.
 SC Circular No. 7 – 04-27-87. Judge Esteban used his  If such happens, then the jurisdiction shall not fall
position in committing the acts complained of. under the Sandiganbayan and fall to the proper courts
or jurisdiction.
BARRIGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN Two of the felonies that belong to the first classification are
malversation defined and penalized by Article 217 of the

Revised Penal Code, and the illegal use of public funds or AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2011)
property defined and penalized by Article 220 of the same Governor of Eastern Samar who was the provincial warden, they
Code. The public office of the accused is a constituent element were both charged with RA 3019. Apelado who was a provincial
in both felonies. warden (SG 22), if a person acts in conspiracy – he can also be
 Thus, there is no more need to allege the factual tried by the Sandiganbayan.
situation in order to justify that the crime was
committed in relation with official functions. BILLEDO v. JUDGE WAGAN (2011)
Criminal cases were filed for investigation OMB but no
The Court has also ruled that one who conspires with the probable cause was dismissed. Civil case in the RTC.
provincial treasurer in committing six counts of malversation is
also a co-principal in committing those offenses, and that a WON the jurisdiction belongs to the Sandiganbayan – No.
private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in
committing malversation is also guilty of malversation. The RTC has jurisdiction, it does not fall within the purview of
this subject civil case.
We reiterate that the classification of the petitioner’s position  No criminal action was filed, there was no appropriate
as SG 24 is of no moment. court to which the civil case should be consolidate.
 It is illogical to say that the civil case was abandoned,
The determinative fact is that the position of her co-accused, it does not mean the criminal action was dismissed.
the municipal mayor, is classified as SG 27, and under the last
paragraph of Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, if the position of Under Article 100 of the RPC, any person criminally liable is also
one of the principal accused is classified as SG 27, the civilly liable. This applies when there is a victim or the offended
Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the party. In RA 9165 there are times when there are no offended
offense. party.
 If there is a victim (like in this case, an Unlawful Arrest),
ALZAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2006) the victim filed a criminal case against Cruz before the
AFR-RSBS, and the public officials were the VP and AVP. They OMB to investigate but because of Article 100, Mina
are under the jurisdiction of the SB for AFP-RSBS of the GOCC, also filed for damages with the RTC.
they are definitely higher than director.  So we have a civil case in the RTC, and criminal cases
were investigated but dismissed.
LAZARTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2009)
Petitioner was the chairman of the NHA which is a GOCC even  According to Cruz, the civil case should have been to
though he does not receive SG27 he is the chairman or a the Sandiganbayan according to Section 4 of RA 8249.
department manager, therefore they are under the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. TORRES v. PEOPLE (2011)
The appeal was made to the CA instead to the SB, it was filed
BALABA v. PEOPLE (2009) to the RTC (principal of rural high school – malversation);
Crime is committed in 1993 (under RA 7975) was the Municipal appeal should have been made to the SB.
Treasures, information was filed for Malversation of Public
Funds. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2013)
 WON CA Erred in Dismissing Balaba’s Appeal. Civil case was filed by PCGG against Disini in SB in ill-gotten
 Section 4(c)(3) – SB the exclusive appellate jurisdiction wealth and embezzlement, criminal case. 30 June 2004 Disini.
over final judgment, resolutions of the RTC. Questioning the SB jurisdiction not charged for he was private
individual.
When he committed the crime he was a Municipal Treasurer at
the time 1993 (PD 1606) which did not specify the position, it SB has jurisdiction. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and
was filed at the RTC, because the trial has not yet begun, the in connected. EO 1, Section 2 did not distinguish whether
effect of RA 7975 which transfer cases to proper court. private or public status. While Section 4(c) did not mention
 Since RA 7975 does not enumerate the Municipal it salary grade or position.
was filed at the RTC.
 From the RTC it should be filed to the Sandiganbayan. When it comes to the cases filed by PCGG it doesn’t matter if
It cannot be transferred from the CA due to Section case is civil or criminal, you do not have to be SG27 or to be
2.2 of Rule 50, an appeal erroneous but its shall not be conspiracy. Section 4(c) is independent.
transferred but shall be dismissed outright.
Unquestionably, public officials occupying positions classified
Under the original jurisdiction of the RTC over the accused, as Grade 27 or higher are mentioned only in Subsection 4a and
being an assistant municipal treasurer, he is not under the Subsection 4b, signifying the plain legislative intent of limiting
jurisdiction of RTC. The error us that the appeal should be made the qualifying clause to such public officials.
to the Sandiganbayan and not to the Court of Appeals.

To include within the ambit of the qualifying clause the persons JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS
covered by Subsection 4c would contravene the exclusive The Court is not impervious to the provisions of Section 5 of
mandate of the PCGG to bring the civil and criminal cases R.A. 8369, that vests in family court’s jurisdiction over violations
pursuant to and in connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. of R.A. 7610, which in turn covers murder cases where the victim
is a minor. Thus:
In view of this, the Sandiganbayan properly took cognizance of
cases despite Disini’s being a private individual, and despite the Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. – The Family Courts shall
lack of any allegation of his being the co-principal, accomplice have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the
or accessory of a public official in the commission of the following cases:
offenses charged.
Criminal cases where:
PEOPLE v. HENRY GO (2014)  one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18)
A private person and involved public officer is not an accused. years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age, or
Go’s act of posting bail and filing Motion for Consolidation  where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time
vests the SB with jurisdiction over his position. of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the
 Principle of adherence of jurisdiction minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate
 He submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the SB he sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the
asked for affirmative relief respondent may have incurred.
 Motion for consolidation of cases – tantamount to (See People v. Judge Yadao)
submit oneself to the jurisdiction of the court.
 He was a co-principal.
INOCENTES v. PEOPLE (2016)

On the issue on jurisdiction, it is of no moment that Inocentes
does not occupy a position with a salary grade of 27 since he
was the branch manager of the GSIS’ field office in Tarlac City,
a government-owned or –controlled corporation, at the time of
the commission of the offense, which position falls within the
coverage of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
WHEN IS AN OFFENSE CONSIDERED COMMITTED IN

RELATION TO ONE’S OFFICE?
1. It cannot exist without office;
2. The office is constituent element of the crime as
defined in the statute;
3. The offense is intimately connected with the office of
the offender, and
4. The fact that the offense was committed in relation to
the office must be alleged in the information.
(People v. Magallanes, October 11, 1995)
3.A.1. APPELLATE JURISDICITON OF COURTS
1. COURT OF APPEALS
1. Cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its
original or appellate jurisdiction
2. Quasi-judicial
2. SANDIGANBAYAN
1. Cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its
original or appellate jurisdiction
3. SUPREME COURT
1. Cases decided by the CA and CTA
2. Cases decided by the RTC involving pure questions of
law
3. Cases decided by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise
of its original or appellate jurisdiction.

Q. Is there a difference between commence and institution?
RULE 110 The former the case is already in court. When you commence a
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES case in court, but institution is earlier is the filing of the case,
even before filing in court.
Section 1. Institution of Criminal Actions. – Criminal
actions shall be instituted as follows: When you want to file a criminal case against the accused you
(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is do not have go straight to the court, there is still a body for a
required pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 112, by
preliminary investigation.
filing the complaint with the proper officer for the
purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary
investigation; Inquisitorial System and the Accusatorial System
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or The inquisitorial system holds the view that a criminal case is
information, directly with the Municipal Trial more of a concern of the state while the accusatorial holds the
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the view that a criminal case is more concerned of the accused.
complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In
Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint
shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor In inquisitorial, the participation of the state is given more
unless otherwise provided in their charters. prominence than the role of the offended party, which is the
opposite in the accusatorial system.
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the
running of the period of prescription of the offense In the former, the state has the stake in the sense that it
charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.
determines whether or not the accused will be prosecuted. In
accusatorial, the role of the state is secondary.
How Criminal Cases are Instituted
1. For offenses where preliminary investigation is In the Philippines, we apply both in combination. Because we
required see later the prosecution of criminal offense is under the
(a) By filing the complaint with the proper control and supervision of the public prosecutor under Section
officer for the purpose of conducting the 5. But, the accusatorial system comes into play because the
requisite preliminary investigation. accused is given the right to a public trial. So the focus is on
(b) NOTE: If the accused is a public officer, then him.
file to the ombudsman.
It is inquisitorial because of preliminary investigation; there is
2. For all other offenses the prosecution who’s given the right to determine whether or
(c) In Manila and other Chartered Cities not there is probable cause for trial.
 GR: With the office of prosecutor
 XPN: When charter states otherwise The accusatorial system, the accused has the right to present in
(d) In all other places any stage of the proceeding but if he doesn’t want to attend he
 By filing complaint or information can also be absent. But there are times that his presence will be
directly with the MTC, or required in arraignment or promulgation. Thus, the role of the
 By filing the complaint with the prosecutor is very important in criminal prosecution.
office of the prosecutor.
SECTION 1(2): INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Section 1(b) – So if the criminal case does not require PI where General rule: The filing of the complaint or information shall
should the complainant go – it depends where I am. If I am in
interrupt the running of the period of prescription of offense.
Davao City (chartered cities) by filing the complaint with the
Office of the Prosecutor (fiscal). One should go straight to the Exception: Unless otherwise provided in special laws.
prosecutor’s office. Unless the charter provides otherwise, a
charter provides a law for a city. Under your criminal law there are prescriptive period for crimes
depending on the penalty. Like arresto mayor, you only have
What if we are not in a chartered city? If there is a prosecutor’s
30 days. You have to file your action, where do you go? You
office, if there is none, file directly with the MTC. These are
have to go the prosecutor’s office, if none, to the MTC.
normally municipalities without prosecutors.
Now, if we talk about cases under jurisdiction of the SB, if you The prescriptive period will be interrupted upon the filing of
want to file a criminal office (SG27 and under SB), you have to the complaint.
go the Ombudsman. Or if there is no ombudsman, but there  If there is no prosecutor, to the MTC.
are public officers, then go to the office of the prosecution.  What if you file to the prosecutor’s office? Is the
period interrupted, according to jurisprudence, if the
Under Rule 112, Penalty from crime is more than 4 years and 2 crime is a felony under the RPC then yes.
months, if below, then no need for preliminary investigation is  What if it is a crime under a special law? No. But note
required. that this is an old rule.

Prescription and Institution of Criminal Actions No. It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with
The institution of the criminal action interrupts the running of the fiscals office suspends the running of the prescriptive
the period of the prescription of an offense unless otherwise period. Proceedings against respondent was not terminated
provided in special law. It is elementary in Criminal Law that upon the time the complaint was filed with the Office of the
when a case is not filed right away upon the commission or Prosecutor until such time respondent is either convicted or
discovery of the crime, the offense has prescribed – barred by acquitted by the proper court.
prescription.
BRILLANTE v. COURT OF APPEALS (2004)
Interruption of Prescription of Crimes Felonies There was a libel case filed against Brillante by publishing open
And Special Laws – Act No. 3326 letter alleging that Binay and Rodente involved in a plot of an
In your book, there this case, Zaldivia v. Reyes, a crime assassination for a mayoralty candidate.
punishable by arresto menor, it was filed to the prosecutor’s  10-12 January 1988 was the publication.
office – it interrupted? To the SC – no, it is the filing of the  15 January 1988 was the filing to the fiscals office.
complaint before the court, however in Riodica v. CA, the case  16 January 1989 the case was filed with RTC Makati,
of Zaldivia was not followed now it ruled that it did interrupt
because the complaint here is a felony which slight physical Issue: Whether or not the filing with the fiscal’s office of the
injuries, under Zaldivia, violation was a municipal ordinance. case interrupted the running of the prescription. – YES.
 If special law, the filing to prosecution’s office, there is
no interruption – only when the case is filed in court. This is an instance wherein the law itself provides for the
(Act No. 3326). interruption of the period when the case is filed to the fiscal.
Under the provisions under RPC, Article 91 provides that:
Q. What do you by filing as to interrupt the running of period?
Well it is not stated in the provision, but jurisprudence reveals Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of prescription shall
that previous rule was that if the crime was a felony, mere filing commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the
with the prosecutor is enough and the special law offense must offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall
be with the court (People v. Clemente Bautista, 2007).
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
But in the more recent ruling in Sanrio v. Edgar Lim (2008), it any reason not imputable to him.
does not matter anymore if the offense committed was
punishable by either the RPC, special law or even if the The aforequoted provision expressly states that prescriptive
ordinance. It now interrupts the running of prescriptive period. period shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information. The meaning of the phrase shall be interrupted by
CASE DISCUSSIONS the filing of the complaint or information in Article 91 has been
settled in the landmark case of People v. Olarte, where the Court
PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE BAUTISTA (2007) settled divergent views as to the effect of filing a complaint with
Clemente Bautista and Leonida Bautista had a row against a the Municipal Trial Court for purposes of preliminary
Felipe Goyena that let to the latter’s slight physical injuries investigation on the prescriptive period of the offense. The
complaint against the former. The complaint was filed by Court therein held that the filing of the complaint for purposes
Goyena at the barangay office in Malate, Malina but no of preliminary investigation interrupts the period of prescription
settlement was attained. The recourse of Goyena was at the of criminal responsibility.
Office of the City Prosecutor.
SANRIO v. EDGAR LIM (2008)
Upon the recommendation of the prosecutor, a Joint Petitioner Sanrio filed complaint for copyright infringement
Resolution dated 8 November 1999 was filed against the with the Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP)
respondents and was approved by City Prosecutor. The case of the DOJ. Respondent asserted he obtained his merchandise
was filed to the MTC on 20 June 2000. The respondents from authorized manufacturers. The complaint was dismissed.
implored that their case be dismissed on the premise that the The CA affirmed such and held that the offense has prescribed.
time the case was filed the prescription period of 60 days had
elapsed from the time crime was committing to the filing. Issue: Whether or not the action has prescribed. – No.
Issue: Whether or not the crime has prescribed? Section 2 of Act 3326 provides that the prescriptive period for
violation of special laws starts on the day such offense was
Held: It is not disputed that the filing of the Complaint with the committed and interrupted by institution of proceedings
OCP effectively interrupted the 60 day prescriptive period for against respondent. Although no information filed immediately
instituting the criminal action for slight physical injuries. before the court, violation still has not yet prescribed. As ruled
However, issue for resolution for this case is whether in Brillantes v. CA, we affirmed that the filing of the complaint
prescriptive period run anew after investigating prosecutor’s for purpose of PI interrupts the period of prescription of
recommendation to file the proper criminal information against criminal responsibility by filing before TAPP.
respondent was approved by the City Prosecutor.

Section 2. The Complaint or Information. – The What if it is not sworn or signed?
complaint or information shall be in writing, in the name  It is only a formal defect, it can be cured by person
of the People of the Philippines and against all persons by person who signed.
who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.
Who can sign the complaint?
General Requirements for Complaint or Information  For RA 9165 – PDEA
1. In Writing;  Tariff and Customs Code – Customs Official
2. In the name of the People of the Philippines; and  For NIRC – Tax Code
3. Against all persons who appear to be responsible for  Environmental Law – PD 705; the DENR Officials or the
the offense involved. [WPA] persons authorized by law.
 SSS Criminal Offenses – employer does not remit the
Authority to Determine Who to Charge employee’s payment and pockets the money; the one
1. Discretion of the Prosecutor will sign are the SSS Officials.
The law makes it a legal duty for prosecuting officer to file the
charges against whomsoever the evidence may show to be Two Kinds of Complaint
responsible for the offense. Their discretion lies in determining 1. Complaint filed in Court – is what you file in the MTC
whether the evidence submitted justify probable cause. What if there is no prosecutor and PI is not required signed
the rule demands is that all persons who appear responsible by the offended party only.
shall be charged in the information, which implies those whom
no sufficient evidence of guilt exists are not required to be 2. Complaint filed for Preliminary Investigation
included in such (Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773). before the Prosecutor – it be filed and signed by
anyone under those Section 3. The complaint filed
2. Court Order to Include Others – Unconstitutional herein is Denuncia. One must swear before the public
Such order does violence to the principle of separation of prosecutor in this instance.
powers enshrined in the Constitution. In a clash of views
between the judge who did not investigate and the prosecutor CASE DISCUSSIONS
who did, that of the prosecutor should prevail. If this were
allowed it would a tantamount to substituting the discretion of EBARLE v. SUCALDITO (1987)
the judge as that of the prosecutor. The question of instituting May the Anti-Graft Philippine League of the Philippines fil a
a criminal charge is one addressed to the sound discretion of Complaint against a public official before a public prosecutor
the investigating fiscal (Alonzo v. Concepcion, 448 SCRA 329). for violation of RA 3019? – Yes.
Section 3. Complaint Defined. – A complaint is a sworn A complaint for purpose of preliminary investigation by the
written statement charging a person with an offense, fiscal need not be filed by the ‘offended party.’ The complaint
subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or
referred to in Rule 110, Section 3 refers to a complaint filed in
other public officer charged with the enforcement of the
law violated. court and not in the fiscal. Because when the Complaint is filed
with the court, then it must be commenced by the aggrieved
party himself. In case of a complaint, it must be filed by the
Elements of a Complaint
offended party; with respect to the info, it is the fiscal who files
1. It is a Sworn written statement;
it. But a “complaint” filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action
2. It must Charge a person with an offense;
maybe filed by any person.
3. It must be Subscribed by:
a. The Offended party (heirs if victim died);
SALES v. ADAPON (2016)
b. Any Peace officer;
The sole issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
c. Public officer charged with enforcement of
ordering the dismissal of the complaint because of the failure
the law violated. [SCS-OPP]
of the petitioner to appear at the clarificatory hearing set by the
investigating prosecutor. – Yes.
Complaint Must be Subscribed
What do you mean by subscribed? It means that it was signed,
The investigating prosecutor gravely erred in dismissing of the
now it must be signed by the offended party or peace officer
complaint simply because of non-appearance at clarificatory
or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law
hearing. To start with, her personal presence was excusable
violated.
because of her advanced age and the distance of her place of
residence at the time (she was in New York) from Batangas.
Complaint Must be Sworn
Jerico Sales, her son-in-law was an authorized agent to handle
Who authorized for oath for criminal cases, and when they talk
her complaint and in addition, the documents submitted by
about sworn, it is before the public prosecutor, not the notary
both parties in the proceedings were sufficient for the
public. In usual affidavit-complaints, in the final paragraphs
determination of whether or not the probable cause existed.
there is a part wherein the offended party signs the complaint
in oath of an authorized officer.

Section 4. Information Defined. – An information is an  It must be signed by the proper officer.
accusation in writing charging a person with an offense,  The Provincial prosecutor has no jurisdiction, he only
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. has jurisdiction over such cases falling under his
territorial jurisdiction.
Elements of an Information
1. It is an Accusation in writing; Section 5. Who Must Prosecute Criminal Actions. – All
2. It must Charge a person with an offense; criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by
3. It must be Subscribed by the Prosecutor; and information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
4. It must be Filed with the Court. [ACS(P)F] control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work
schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of
public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be
Information, Concept authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
The prosecution will file in court. It is an accusation in writing. or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case
The prosecutor is already accusing, when information is filed it subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to
is called an accused. Before the filing of the information, they prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall
are called respondent. continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even
in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority
It is an accusation in writing, so there are no oral informations, is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. (As amended by AM
02-2-07-SC). However, in Municipal Trial Courts or
it must charge a person with an offense. Only a person can be
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor
criminally charge. Criminal offense can only be committed by assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the
natural persons. The offense must be under a criminal. It must offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged
be the prosecutor who shall sign and filed with the court. with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute
That is an information as defined. the case. This authority shall cease upon actual
intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the
Q. Should an information be under oath? case to the Regional Trial Court. (OCA Circular No. 39-
No. Unlike in a complaint, an information need not be sworn 2002, August 21, 2002).
to. Information need not be under oath, the reason therefore
The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be
being principally that the prosecutor filing it is charged with the prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended
special duty in regard thereto and is acting under the special spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal
responsibility of his oath of office (Estudillo v. Baloma, 426 prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both
SCRA 83, 23 March 2004). are alive, nor, in any case, if the offended party has
consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders.
Difference between Complaint and Information
The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of
Complaint (Sec. 3) Information (Sec. 4) lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted upon a complaint
It can be signed by: It must be signed by the filed by the offended party of her parents, grandparents or
 Offended party; prosecutor himself. guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been
expressly pardoned by any of them. If the offended party
 Peace officer;
dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the
 Public officer complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents
charged with the or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in
enforcement of the her behalf.
law violated.
It must be filed with the It must now be filed to the The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate
the prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction
prosecutor if preliminary court.
and acts of lasciviousness independently of her parents,
investigation is required or grandparents, or guardian, unless she is incompetent or
the MTC if not required and incapable of doing so. Where the offended party, who is a
there is no prosecutor. minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents,
It must be sworn. There is no such grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right to
requirement. file the action granted to parents, grandparents, or
guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall
be exercised successively in the order herein provided,
MIAQUE v. JUDGE PATAG (2009) except as stated in the preceding paragraph.
The crime here was libel and it was committed in Iloilo City, the
information was signed by the Provincial Prosecutor, is the No criminal action for defamation which consists in the
imputation of any of the offenses mentioned above shall
information valid? be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint
filed by the offended party. The prosecution for violation
No. Refer back to the territorial jurisdiction, the court must be of special laws shall be governed by the provision thereof.
in the particular city and for the area. Here, city, the jurisdiction
of the prosecution follows the jurisdiction of the court. If the The prosecution for violation of special laws shall be
jurisdiction belongs to the City then the City Prosecutor who governed by the provisions thereof.
must sign, in this case, it was the Provincial Prosecutor.

SECTION 5(1) SECTION 5(2)(3) and (4)
Who Must Prosecute Criminal Actions Crimes that Cannot be Prosecuted De Oficio
What do you mean by prosecute? Crimes the Cannot be Prosecuted De Oficio

All criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and The crime can only be filed by the offended party (adultery and
control of the prosecutor. So we have to distinguish between concubinage); these are instances the victims would rather not.
public prosecutor who is a government employee under the If it is not the offended spouse in the case of Pilapil v. Ibay-
DOJ and a part Office of the Prosecution, a private prosecutor Somera, it shall be dismissed.
is a private lawyer hired by the private offended party, the one
who will make sure the payment of damages. A. Rules on Adultery and Concubinage [Section 5(2)]
 The concern of the offended party is how much will he The party who must file the complaint is only the offended
get as reparation or damages of the crime, spouse, if it is not the spouse, the case shall be dismissed (Pilapil
 It does not say here that the criminal action shall be v. Ibay-Somera). Instances where the offended party cannot
prosecuted by the prosecutor – no need for him to do institute criminal prosecution:
all, only he just be there. The case cannot operate 1. If he/she does not include both the guilty parties, if
without the public prosecutor. both alive, or;
2. If he/she has either:
A. General Rule a. Consented to the offense, or
All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information b. Pardoned the offenders.
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
prosecutor (this usually means the public prosecutor, but in B. Rules on Seduction, Abduction and Acts of
certain instances, the private prosecutor). Lasciviousness [Section 5(3) and (4)]
Q. Why placed under direction and control of public prosecutor? Party who must file the Complaint:
It is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecutions by the 1. If the offended party is NOT a minor
private persons. Public prosecutors have duty of prosecuting (a) The offended party himself/herself;
persons who, not only have authority but also a duty. (b) The State – if the offended party dies or
becomes incapacitated before she can file a
B. Exception – Private Prosecutor May Prosecute the Case complaint.
Provided that the following requisites herein are present:
1. The public prosecutor has a heavy workload or there 2. If the offended party is A MINOR
is a lack of public prosecutors; (a) The offended party – has the right to initiate
2. He must be authorized in writing by the Chief of the proceedings in independently;
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor; (b) If offended party fails to file the complaint,
3. There must be approval by the Court. the following in successive order, and
exclusive of all other persons;
Action: Ex Parte Motion, if one has this authority there is no i. Parents
need for the public prosecutor to be there. The private ii. Grandparents
prosecute may prosecute at the end of the prosecution even if iii. Guardian
there is absence of the public prosecutor provided. It is not (c) The State – when following occurs:
revoked by the authority. i. Offended party dies, or becomes
incapacitated before filing, and
C. Private Prosecutor May Prosecute Until End of Trial ii. She has no known parents,
1. When so authorized to prosecute the criminal action; grandparents or guardians.
2. Even in the absence of the public prosecutor;
3. Provided such authority is not revoked or withdrawn. Instances where the above Offenses will Not be Prosecuted
1. If the offended party is alive and not incapacitated and
the complaint is not filed by:
D. In MTC: When Prosecutor Assigned Not Available
a. The offended party who is not a minor; and
When the prosecutor assigned there or to the case is not
b. The offended party who is a minor, or in the
available, the following may prosecute:
proper case, the parents, grandparents, or
1. The offended party;
guardians.
2. Any peace officer;
2. If the offender has been expressly pardoned by any of
3. The public officer charged with the enforcement of the
the above.
law violated.
The act of filing is can be done by the messenger. The

What if there is a private prosecutor who has authority in the
complainant sign the complaint, and have it swear under oath,
MTC? – Then it is the private prosecutor, the authority given
but the filing can be sent. The signing, under our laws, a minor
can still be used by the MTC and RTC.
cannot sign, who has a capacity to act.

Other Crimes under the Child Abuse Act GO v. LOOYUKO (2007)
Section 27 enumerates the persons who may file complaint on Go filed the case arising from criminal proceedings and the
unlawful acts committed against children. prosecutor did not agree. What is the general rule? And can the
court interfere?
SECTION 5(5)
Rules Governing Defamation Go is the offended party, the private complainant, he has a
private prosecutor. So the private prosecutor of Go wanted to
Defamation, Libel and Slander present certain witnesses, he asked for subpoena to testify in
This provision talks about defamation which imputes adultery, behalf of Go. The RTC did not agree. The private prosecutor
concubinage, abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness. went straight to the CA, was the act of the private prosecutor
“Ikaw, kabit ka!” One must impute any of these crimes. proper?
General Rule: The complaint or information can be filed by the What happened was that there were certain witnesses to be
public prosecutor even without the instance or signature of the presented but the court did not want to. Go went to the CA
offended party. asking CA to interfere with the presentation by the prosecutor,
interfere with the RTC resolution be prohibited.
Exception: Only the offended party can file the complaint if the
defamation consists of any of the following offenses: Can you go to the CA so that they can interfere? No. Refer to
(a) Adultery; Section 5, Rule 110. The private prosecutor went to the CA. In
(b) Concubinage; private prosecutor in everything he does must get the
(c) Seduction; conformity of the public prosecutor.
(d) Abduction; or
(e) Acts of Lasciviousness Since you went on an appeal you go to the Solicitor General. If
you are a private prosecutor, never do anything without the
Sumili v. CFI: She would go through silence rather than suffer permission of the public prosecutor.
the public humiliation of a public trial.
COBARRUBIAS v. PEOPLE (2009)
CASE DISCUSSIONS A criminal case is questionable, this was questioned via petition
for certiorari which alleges GADALEJ on the part of the court.
WILSON CHUA v. PADILLO (2007) When you file such, it is usually Cobarrubias v. RTC. But what
Padillo spouses filed complaints against Chua with the NBI. The about the complainant? The CA wanted Cobarrubias v. RTC and
prosecutor filed an information for estafa against them in the People. The People should be included in the information.
RTC. The issue whether or not CA SOJ to include Wilson and
Renita in the information. This involves the name of the People of the Philippines, because
here we are talking about criminal cases and one party is the
This issue herein, can the CA interfere with the proceedings of accused and the other party is always the People.
the Secretary of Justice – the answer is no.
Cobarrubias was charged with FH and he pleaded not guilty
The general rule is no. Why? Because of Section 5, which says and trial followed, RTC judge dismissed the charges and set the
that prosecution of offense, all criminals action shall be other for trial and there are so many issues with case. A motion
prosecuted be under the control and direction of the public for clerical correction was filed. When he filed for a petition for
prosecutor, he is under the Department of Justice, now if the certiorari, he did not implead the People, so the CA ordered
prosecutor is wrong in the investigation, the DOJ can correct. Cobarrubias to rename Cobarrubias v. RTC and People, but he
did not comply thus the dismissal.
But the CA is another department of government which the
judiciary is, the courts are in charge of trying case, not with PI The failure to implead the People as the respondent is not so
which is for the executive. When the CA interferes, it disturbs grave as to warrant the dismissal of the petition. He rectified his
the justice system. Prosecution is the role of executive; the trial error later in the MR. So the Ca should’ve granted.
is for the judiciary.
PEOPLE v. DUCA (2009)
As a general rule, no. Courts can only review that decision if Dismissed the case without informing the OSG. The authority
there is grave abuse of direction, the business of the court is to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the
whether or not the accused is guilty, but as to the CA and SC is solely vested of the OSG. In relation to Rule 110,
determination as to who to charge, it is the work of the Section 5. The People is always represented by the public
prosecution and falls under their authority. prosecutor, but when the case is appealed whether the CA or
the SB, it is imperative that the Solicitor General knows about
Exception: If there is grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 it. It is the SG who will represent the people in that appealed
which involves this case. case.

If there is no participation of the SG it is like there no public Commentaries
prosecutor in contravention to Section 5, Rule 110. The State You initiate the case in the prosecutor’s office, and that they will
had no lawyer. conduct preliminary investigation which will determine if there
is dismissal or on the finding of probable cause – then filing to
LEVISTE v. ALAMEDA (2010) the court of information. If there are problems to the
Leviste was charged with Homicide for the death of Rafael de prosecutor go to the DOJ. When the information is filed in the
las Alas before the RTC. Motion for Reinvestigation the way court, then the court shall have the discretion over the case, the
they formulated the rules is not according to the sequence. You only thing left for the prosecution is to prosecute the case. But
file the complaint to the prosecution office who will conduct PI, as to grant the motion, to decide and to acquit is left to the
if probable cause is found it files the information is filed in court.
court.
This is the Crespo v. Mogul, after the information is filed, what
In this case, information already filed, the complaint accused if there is a motion for reinvestigation the court will now decide,
him of murder, after PI the crime was homicide. There is the but when it decides and throws back the file to the prosecutor
Motion for Reinvestigation, the accused were not happy with for the reinvestigation, the court loses its discretion. Note the
the results of the PI. He can ask for this. And if granted, the application of separation of powers.
court will send back the file to the prosecutor and he will
reinvestigate again. This is normally done by the accused – no Case: CA interfered in the goings on of the DOJ, it cannot
need for the consent of public prosecutor, accused is the interfere with the executive branch. The institution of the
other, the lawyer of the accused can merely file for a motion for criminal action rests on the sound discretion of the prosecution
reinvestigation. whether or not to file the case in court.
In this case, the victims wanted a Motion for Reinvestigation, WORLD WIDE WEB v. PEOPLE (2014)
can they? The SC said yes – provided that there is consent of WWW moved to quash, RTC allowed. PLDT questioned such
the public prosecutor. grant, but PLDT had no personality for failure to getting the
conformity of the public prosecutor based on Section 5, Rule
If the public prosecutor agrees to have a reinvestigation, is that 110. Is the conformity required to give PLDT personality.
agreement binding in court? Is the court obliged to agree?
No. Section 5, Rule 110 gives general rule that public
No. Once a complaint or information is filed, any disquisition prosecutor, but a search warrant is obtained not by the
rests in the sound discretion of the court, the role of the complaint or an information, but by the filing of an application
prosecution is now limited to prosecution, it cannot impose therefore. An application is part of the process, but not the
opinion no longer at the court. filing of an information. Clearly, an application for a search
warrant is not a criminal action. Therefore, the conformity of
Once case is in court, any disquisition should be addressed to the prosecutor is not necessary in filing the application for the
the court for its consideration and approval. Now, the court is search warrants.
not obliged the court can deny. What if the court grants?
Comment: The application for search warrant is outside the
Then the court is deemed to have deferred to the authority of rules of criminal actions. Just remember this principle.
the prosecutor, he cannot intervene anymore, now its back to
the prosecutor, wide and far-reaching. NELSON LAI v. PEOPLE (2015)
Lai was accused of homicide, Judge Elumba was the public
Can the judge choose who will conduct reinvestigation? No. The prosecutor on 23 March 1998, thereafter by 27 April 2000 he
prosecution’s discretion herein lies. became a judge and the case to his court. He was supposed to
be mandatorily disqualified. Lai was convicted. Judge Elumba
PUNZALAN v. PLATA (2013) defends that he did not personally prosecute for the private
Plata filed complaint against Punzalan against the OCP in prosecutor was the one who handled the case, cross examined
Mandaluyong. OCP dismissed for lack of sufficient basis. Plata the victims entered his appearance long after.
went to the DOJ, but withdrawal for information. It was elevated
the resolutions of the DOJ to the CA. The CA ruled in favor of Issue: Whether it was Judge Elumba who prosecuted. – Yes.
Plata. The CA stated that there is probable cause.
Section 5, Rule 110 states that while there may be private
Whether or not DOJ findings can be questioned in court? prosecutor it is under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor. A private prosecutor appeared still came under the
No. The conduct of PI of determining probable cause belongs direct control of the public prosecutor of Judge Elumba. The
to the public prosecutor. The only time can court can interfere records do not indicate that the private prosecutor who
when the acts of the executive acted in capricious manner. appeared had been duly authorized in writing. The case was
remanded due to violation of the right to due process.
Landmark case cited by the SC: Crespo v. Mogul.

LAUDE v. JUDGE GINEZ-JABALDE (2015) FIRAZA v. PEOPLE (2009)
The Jennifer Laude case, a Complaint for Murder filed to the Firaza was an agent of NBI issued with firearm, he was charged
OCP Olongapo. The public prosecutor filed an Information for with an information was filed against him for unauthorized
murder in RTC Olongapo. Public prosecutor did not sign her carrying licence firearm outside residence. He stated that he
conformity to the Urgent Motion to surrender the custody of should be charged of illegal possession of firearm. Was the
Pemberton. complaint or information sufficient and valid?
Issue: WON Urgent Motion prosper without signature of the Yes. The allegations in in the information, determine what
public prosecutor. offense is charged. The complained acts should not be in the
terms of the statute as long as it can be understood by common
Held: No. Procedural mandates that all criminal action knowledge. The words were clear and self-explanatory. By
commenced or by information shall be under the direction and reading that information, the ordinary person know what acts
control of public prosecutor. Thus, the refusal of the public he committed that the made resulted in the filing of the
prosecutor to sign was a clear manifestation. Anything that the offense. It is already sufficient, as he was carrying a firearm
private complainant wants to do he or she has to get the outside the residence. You do not have to follow the wording
approval of the public prosecutor. of the law, as long as it can be understood.
Section 6. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information . – A CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE (2011)

complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name Cristobal was charged with Section 9(e) of RA 8484 for
of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the possession a counterfeit access device or access device. He
statute; the acts or omissions complaint of as constituting
claims that he was not informed, the possession was not
the offense; the name of the offended party’ the
approximate date of the commission of the offense; and alleged in the information. Is the information valid?
the place where the offense was committed.
Yes. The information is valid. It was clearly stated his name, it
When an offense is committed by more than one person, was also specified with the violation of the crime, the acts
all of them shall be included in the complaint or constituting the offense were clearly narrated. It was correct
information.
that even the word possession did not appear in the accusatory
portion but it existed in the preamble.
What Must be Stated in a Complaint or Information to
Make it Sufficient in Form and Substance PEOPLE v. ASILAN (2012)
This is the form, when can you say that the complaint or Asilan was charged with the complex crime Direct Assault with
information is completely valid, then it must state the ff: Murder. Asilan contends he should not have been convicted
1. Name of the accused; when committed by more than because of acts of treachery was not specifically alleged in the
one person, all of their names must be stated. information thus he was only liable for homicide.
2. The Designation of the offense given by the statute.
3. The Acts or omissions complained of as constituting Q. Whether the information was sufficient.
the offense.
4. The Name of the offended party. Yes. The qualifying circumstance was treachery was specifically
5. The Approximate date of the commission of the offense alleged in the information. What to remember is that, one
6. The Place where the offense was committed. cannot be convicted if the qualifying circumstance are not
[NDANAP] allege. Here it is treachery, it is important to describe how the
treachery was committed? The specific acts of treachery?
Q. May accused be convicted of murder where the information
fails to describe the weapon he used in stabbing the victim? No need, it has to prove in court during the presentation of
Yes. The kind or nature of the weapon used in the commission evidence but for the purpose in making the information, it is
of the crime need not be alleged in complaint of Information. enough that the crime is qualified by treachery. Just alleged it
It is not one of the matters required by Section 6, Rule 110. no need describe just prove the elements of the crime. But the
specific description of the qualifying circumstance is no need.
Commentary on Information The manner – is not important to allege that.
Why do you think it is called an information? Who should be
informed by the information? The information serves to inform PEOPLE v. DELIOLA (2016)
the accused to inform his of the nature of the accusation. The Deliola was charged with two counts of statutory rape, he
answer is that, it is a constitutional right of the accused of the argues that the information that the first crime was committed
charges or accusation. That is why, the information must be “sometime in June 2002”. Was it information sufficient? Yes.
sufficient in form, that is why Sections 6-12 are important to Time of commission is not an essential element to establish
thoroughly inform the accused. element of rape. Section 6, Rule 110 require the approximate
date and not the precise date. It is sufficient that the date was
That is why must look at the sufficiency of the information June 2002. This is specific enough for the purpose of
not the crime, we look at the information. establishing the offense of rape.

PEOPLE v. CILOT (2014) No. The erroneous designation of his name in the information
Cilot and Brigole was convicted of the complex crime of will not vitiate it, as it was clearly proven that the accused, was
Kidnapping with Rape. The information was not sufficient. In part of the group that was arrested, hogtied and killed the
charging the commission of a complex offense, the information victim. Besides, Cultura did not raise question of his identity
must allege each element of the compromise offense with the during the arraignment. His acquiescence to be tried under the
same precision that would be necessary if they were made the name “Jose” at that stage of the case is deemed to be a waiver
subject of a separate prosecution. on his part to raise the question (People v. Cagadas, 193 SCRA
216, 23 Jan. 1996).
An information charging a crime of kidnapping with rape
should include that which alleges the commission of Three Instances Accused Needs to Appear Personally
kidnapping qualified by extortion of ransom and that which 1. Arraignment
alleges on the same occasion. 2. For purposes of identification
3. Conviction
In other words, there were four separate informations. But at
the end of the day, they were convicted with the special Section 8. Designation of the Offense . – The complaint or
complex crime of kidnapping with rape. How can the court information shall state the designation of the offense given
accuse of such if the informations only charge with simple by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
crimes?
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the
They were not informed of the crime which they were statute punishing.
convicted, for special complex crime has different elements, it
should have been described in the information how it was Designation of the Offense
committed. 1. The complaint or information shall:
1. State the designation of the offense given by the
One cannot be charged with a certain simple crime and be statute;
convicted of a special complex crime if the elements do not 2. Aver the acts or omissions constituting the
match. offense, and (specially the elements of offense)
3. Specify its qualifying and aggravating
Section 7. Name of the Accused. – The complaint or circumstances.
information must state the name and surname of the
2. If there is no designation of the offense – reference
accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has
been or is known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he shall be made to the section or subsection of the
must be described under a fictitious name with a statute punishing it (like provision number).
statement that his true name is unknown.
Designation Not Controlling
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by The interlocutory paragraph of the information states that the
him or appears in some other manner to the court, such
accused is being charged with simple theft, but the body
true name shall be inserted in the complaint.
containing the accusatory portion mentions that he took
registered mail. May he be convicted with qualified theft? – Yes.
Name of the Accused
1. What Must be Stated in the Information
The averments in the complaint or information characterize the
a. The name and surname of the accused; or
crime to be prosecuted and determine the court before which
b. Any appellation or nickname by which he has
the case must be tried. What controls is not the designation of
been or is known
the offense but the description thereof as alleged in the
information (Avecilla v. People, 209 SCRA 466, 2 June 1992).
2. If the Name of the Accused Cannot be Ascertained
a. He must be described under a fictitious
When Section Needs to be Specified
name (e.g. John Doe or Juan dela Cruz)
It is only when there is no specific name given to the offense
b. There must be accompanying statement that
that reference to the section or subsection of that statute
his true name is unknown.
punishing it may be made, which usually applies to special laws,
in which case the offenses is described as a violation of the
3. Effect if the true name of the accused is thereafter
statute which defines and penalizes it.
disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to the
court.
Moreover the real nature of the criminal charge is determined
o Such true name shall be inserted in the
not from the caption or preamble of the information, nor from
complaint or information.
the specification of the provision of law, as there are mere
conclusion of law. Rather, the nature of the accusation is
Erroneous Designation of Name
determined by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or the
Should accused be acquitted considering that his name was
information (People v. Gutierrez, 403 SCRA 123, 9 May 2003).
erroneously designated in the information?

Commentaries Held: Yes. The aggravating circumstances of craft and price or
So the Revised Penal Code have the list of all felonies and we reward even if proved, can neither be considered because they
also have the special laws. Now there are special laws that do were not specifically alleged in the information. Section 8 of
not have names. So, if there is no designation of the offense, Rule 110 requires that the information specify the aggravating
the reference shall be made through the section or subsections. circumstances attending the commission of the crime for it to
be considered in the imposition of penalty. This requirement is
What if there is a conflict in the designation? According to the beneficial to an accused and may therefore be given
Supreme Court, the designation of the offense is not material, retroactive effect.
what is material are the averments in the body of information,
thus an error in the offense will not invalidate the information. Allegation of Recidivism
In order to appreciate recidivism as aggravating circumstance,
Exception: If the facts contained in the body are so ambiguous it is necessary to allege in the information and to attach
as to predict two or more interpretation. The designation then certified true copies of the sentences previously meted out to
appearing in the caption will be in control. The designation was the accused (People v. Dacillo, 427 SCRA 528).
trespass to dwelling, but the body states that it was acts of
lasciviousness, you follow either designation (US v. Ticzon). Allegation in Preamble of Information
What is controlling is the description of the criminal act. The
Section 9. Cause of the Accusation. – The acts or real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the
omissions complained of as constituting the offense and caption or the preamble of the information nor from the
the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specification of the provision of law alleged to have been
stated in ordinary and concise language and not violated, but from the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to body of the information (People v. Bali-Balita, 340 SCRA 540).
know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances and for the court to The age of the victim at the time of the filing of the complaint
pronounce judgment. merely appears in the caption or preamble thereof as a
description of her as the private complainant. Her age at the
How the Allegations in the Information Shall be Stated time the incident was not specified in the accusatory portion of
1. It is not necessary that they be stated in the language the complaint. Such omission is prejudicial to the right of the
used in the statute; accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against
2. They just have to be stated in ordinary and concise him. It is not sufficient to simply allege the qualifying
language; (no need to use legalese) circumstances in the caption or preamble, these must be
3. The terms must be sufficient: alleged in the body (People v. Mendoza, 31 July 2003).
a. Enable a person of common understanding
to know: (something driver can understand) However, in another case: Nothing in the rules mandates the
i. What offense is being charged material allegations should be stated in the body and not in the
ii. Its qualifying and aggravating preamble or caption of the information. Instead, both sections
circumstance, and state that as long as pertinent and significant allegations are
b. For the court to pronounce judgment. enumerated in the information in would be deemed sufficient
in form and in substance. It is immaterial whether such
Example: “intent to kill” or “intent to gain”, these are technical circumstances were mentioned in the opening paragraph of the
terms you can use other phrases. information or in the second paragraph, the preamble should
not be treated as a mere grouping of descriptive words and
Retroactivity of the Rule phrases (People v. Villanueva, 413 SCRA 431).
To illustrate the retroactive operation of Section 8 and 9 we
refer to the case of People v. Sayaboc, 419 SCRA 659. MICHAEL MALTO v. PEOPLE (2007)
Malto was charged by Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. The
PEOPLE v. SAYABOC (2004) information was alleged now with Section 5(a) of the same act.
Accused was convicted by the RTC of murder. Among others, Why was it erroneous? It was changed to Section 5(a), the RTC
the court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of craft found him guilty for violation Section 5(a). What is the problem
and price or reward which were not alleged in the information, with that. The information originally charged was not falling in
albeit it provided during trial. The information was dated 17 the enumeration under Section 5(a) and not Section 5(b).
April 1995. On 1 Dec 2000, the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure took effect. Section 8 and 9 require of Rule 110 The failure of designation by statute or erroneous specification
require aggravating and qualifying circumstances to be alleged does not vitiate the information, the designation of the offense
in the information, whereas the 1985 Rules did not. but the actual offenses. Section 5(a) concerns with prostitution
but Section 5(b) it punishes sexual intercourse not only with
Issue: Should Section 8 and 9 be given retroactive effect? prostitution but also for other sexual abuse. The information
did not alleged anything in connection with child prostitution.

What controls is not the title but the allegations. The purpose In fact, he was able to present evidence based on sweetheart
is to inform the accused, it does not matter to the accused defense in that he and AAA were lovers and that they had a
whether it not is 5(a) or 5(b) it does not really matter towards consensual sexual intercourse on the said date. During trial, he
for the accused – it did not fail to information it is based testified that he and AAA were in a secret relationship as
whether or not the accused is sufficiently informed. In here the husband and wife and he was surprised when he was charged
acts he committed clearly stated therein. with rape (he is contesting the charge of qualified rape).
PEOPLE v. ARMANDO RODAS (2007) As embodied in Section 14 (1), Article III of the 1987
Rodas was charged with murder of Asenda. Whether or not the Constitution, no person shall be held to answer for a criminal
descriptive words qualifying or qualified by to qualify the offense without due process of law. Further, paragraph 2 of the
offense. No it is not necessary, merely required that the same section, it provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
information allege, specify or enumerate. It is the specific accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of
allegation of the attendant circumstance. It need not be the accusation against him.
expressly stated. All you have to do is that the qualifying
circumstance are alleged in information, no need to use the It is further provided under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the
words qualified by them are not part of the information. Revised Rules of Court that a complaint or information to be
filed in court must contain a designation given to the offense
SOMBILON v. PEOPLE (2009) by the statute, besides the statement of the acts or omissions
Sombilon was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness and RTC was constituting the same, and if there is no such designation,
charged with aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of reference should be made to the section or subsection of the
his public position. It was not alleged in the information. statute punishing it and the acts or omissions complained of as
Nothing in the information alleges such aggravating constituting the offense.
circumstances.
Section 10. Place of Commission of the Offense. – The
Section 9 provides that aggravating circumstances must be complaint or information is sufficient if it can be
stated. The thing is, this requirement only came out in the 2000 understood from its allegations that the offense was
committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at
rules, when was the criminal case instituted in 1999. The court
some place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the
retroactively applied because it is beneficial to the accused. It particular place where it was committed constitutes an
was not placed in the information, and the court found that the essential element of the offense charged for is necessary
accused – it was according to the rules at that time, but when for its identification.
it reached at the SC, the new rules appeared, since this is not
an ex post facto, it is a procedural law which is favorable to the How the Place of Commission Must be Stated
accused then it must be given retroactive effect. General Rule: It may be sated generally in a sense that it can be
understood from its allegations that the offense was committed
PEOPLE v. TUANDO (2016) or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some place
Tuando contends that his right to be informed of the nature within the jurisdiction of the court.
and cause of accusation against him was violated when the
appellate court affirmed his conviction despite the fact that the Exceptions: It must be specific when the particular place it was
crime of which he was convicted by the trial court was different committed on the following instances:
from the one he pleaded to and was charged with. To support 1. It constitutes an essential element of the crime
his argument, he cited the case of People v. Valdesancho where charged; or
the Court acquitted the accused due to the denial of his right 2. It is necessary for its identification.
to due process as he was charged with rape committed on 15
August 1994 and 16 August 1994, but was convicted for crimes Example: Polling place in election offenses, like precinct No. 333
of rape committed on 15 and 16 August 1993. and not precinct No. 555.
Erroneous Designation of the Place
The court disagrees with the accused. His reliance on the cited Where the time or place or any other fact alleged is not an
case is misplaced. In the Valdesancho case, this Court acquitted essential element of the crime charged, conviction may be had
the accused and held that his right to due process was violated on proof of the commission of the crime, even if it appears that
since he was not able to present evidence to prove where he the crime was not committed at the precise time or place
was on 15 and 16 August 1993. He was not given any alleged (People v. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537, 25 May 1994).
opportunity to defend himself of the crimes of rape allegedly
committed on the earlier dates. Section 11. Date of Commission of the Offense. – It is not
necessary to state in the complaint or information the
But, the facts of the cited case and this case are different from precise date of the offense was committed except when it
each other. In this case, the accused was charged with rape is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be
alleged to have been committed on a date as near as
committed sometime in January 2006 against AAA. He was able
possible to the actual date of its commission.
to present evidence proving where he was on January 2006
when the crime was committed.

Date of Commission of the Offense PEOPLE v. LAMBERTO RAFON (2007)
General Rule: It is not necessary to state in the complaint or He was charged with rape in 1994 but was convicted of acts
information the precise date the offense was committed as the in1993 one year gap is no problem.
offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as
near as possible to the actual date of its commission. PEOPLE v. WILLIAM CHING (2007)
Between 1996 to 1998 – two year gap, there is no problem.
Exception: It is necessary to state the precise date of the offense There is no problem it is for the court to determine. The
was committed when it it’s a material ingredient of the offense. Supreme Court is not strict as to the date and time of the
 Violation of the liquor ban; commission of the offense.
 The crime of infanticide, killing of 72 hour-old baby.
PEOPLE v. JALBUENA (2007)
Indefinite Date of Commission Appellant questions as fatally defective the information for
On or about. The words on or about envisage a period, months failure to allege the date and time of the commission of the
or even 2 to 4 years. They may prove that the crime charged offense charge, thus violating his constitutionally protected
was committed on or about September 15, 1998 and on or right to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusation
about October 22, 1998 (People v. Lizada, 396 SCRA 657). against him of the opportunity to prepare for his defense.
On or about August 1996. The failure to specify the exact dates In rape, the gravamen of offense, being the carnal knowledge
or times when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the of a woman, the date is not an essential element, hence, the
information defective on its face as this is not an element of the specification of the exact date of time of its commission is not
offense. important.
The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge under any of the In statutory rape, like in this case, what matters most is that the
circumstances. As long as it is alleged that the offense was information alleges that the victim is a minor under twelve
committed at any time as near as the actual date when the years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her.
offense was committed (People v. Espinosa, 432 SCRA 86).
If accused-appellant found the information defective as it bears
From 1977 to December 27, 1983. This date alleged now makes only the month and year of the incident complained of, he
the information seriously defective. It places on accused the should have filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, as provided for
unfair and unreasonable burden of having to recall their under Rule 116, before he entered a plea. His failure to do so
activities over a span of more than 2,500 days. amounted to a waiver of the defect or detail desired in the
information. At all events, accused-appellant participated in the
It is a burden nobody should be made to bear. The prosecutor trial and never objected to the presentation of evidence by the
must make more definite and particular the time of the prosecution that the rape was committed on or about the
commission of the crime attributed accused. If he cannot, the month of August 1996.
case must be dismissed (Rocarberte v. People, 193 SCRA 152).
ZAPANTA v. PEOPLE (2013)
Remedy when Date is Not Specific The petitioner submits that, while the information charged him
The remedy is a motion for bill of particulars. The failure of for acts committed "sometime in the month of October, 2001,"
the accused to move for the specification of the date when the he was convicted for acts not covered by the information, i.e.,
alleged crime was committed or for the quashal of the November 2001, thus depriving him of his constitutional right
Information on the ground that it does not conform to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
substantially to the prescribed form deprives him of the right against him. He further argues that the prosecution failed to
to object evidence which could lawfully be introduced and establish the fact of the loss of the steel beams since the corpus
admitted under an information of general terms but which delicti was never identified and offered in evidence.
sufficient charges a crime (People v. Desuyo, 381 SCRA 235).
The petition lacks merit. Conformably with these provisions,
PEOPLE v. IBANEZ (2007) when the date given in the complaint is not of the essence of
Ibanez was charged with three counts of rape it was alleged the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; thus, the
that it was alleged that it happened in 1997 -1998 -1999 in complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense
three different criminal cases. He argues that the informations was committed at any date within the period of the statute of
are not explicit as to the dates of the rape. limitations and before the commencement of the action.
The court ruled that a complaint or information is sufficient if it In this case, the petitioner had been fully apprised of the charge
states the approximate state. Section 11, Rule 110, does not of qualified theft since the information stated the approximate
require precise aside from the exceptions. Is the exact dates are date of the commission of the offense through the words
essential element of rape – No. Hence, the exact date of the "sometime in the month of October, 2001."
commission of the crime an essential element or rape.
Sometime in the month of – no problem.

The petitioner could reasonably deduce the nature of the 3. If the true name of the offended party is thereafter
criminal act with which he was charged from a reading of the disclosed or ascertained:
contents of the information, as well as gather by such reading a. The court must cause such true name to be
whatever he needed to know about the charge to enable him inserted in the complaint or information and
to prepare his defense. the record;
We stress that the information did not have to state the precise 4. If offenses against property, if the name of the
date when the offense was committed, as to be inclusive of the offended is unknown:
month of "November 2001" since the date was not a material a. The property must be described with such
element of the offense. particularly as to property identify the
offense charged.
As such, the offense of qualified theft could be alleged to be 5. If the offended party is a juridical person:
committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of a. It is sufficient to state:
its commission. Clearly, the month of November is the month b. There is no need to aver that it is a juridical
right after October. person or that it is organized in accordance
with law.
PEOPLE v. BUCA (2015)
The conviction of accused-appellant based on the Information EDUARDO RICARZE v. CA (2007)
stating that the crime was committed sometime before Ricarze was employee responsible for checks collections, he
December 24, 2002, despite the fact that the crime was forge the signature. Upon discovery, Caltex filed for estafa
committed on December 24, 2002, is valid. through falsification of commercial documents. After the PI. In
the information, the designated offended party was Caltex. PCI
The Court does not agree with accused-appellant. It bears Bank substituted Caltex. Whether the substitution to PCIBank is
stressing that the precise date of the commission of the crime fatal to the information filed.
of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Failure to
specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not No. The important thing in cases of property, the property must
render the Information defective. be described. The designation of offended party not absolutely
indispensable, the name error is mere formal defect. The check
Section 12. Name of the Offended Party. – The complaint were properly described the substitution by Caltex by PCIBank.
or information must state the name and surname of the Under Section 12, so what if the offended party changes?
person against whom or against whose property the
offense was committed, or any appellation or nickname by
Section 13. Duplicity of the Offense. – A complaint or
which such person has been or is known. If there is no
information must charge only one offense, except when
better way of identifying him, he must be described under
the law prescribes a single punishment for various
a fictitious name.
offenses.
(a) In offenses against property, if the name of the
offended party is unknown, the property must be
described with such particularity as to properly Duplicity of the Offense
identify the offense charged. GENERAL RULE: That a complaint or information must charge only
(b) If the true name of the of the person against whom one offense.
or against whose properly the offense was
committed is thereafter disclosed or ascertained,
EXCEPTION: A complaint or information may charge more than
the court must cause the true name to be inserted in
the complaint or information and the record. one offense when the law prescribes a single punishment for
(c) If the offended party is a juridical person, it is various offenses.
sufficient to state its name, or any name or
designation by which it is known or by which it may Special Complex Crimes
be identified, without need of averring that it is a Rape with homicide. Homicide committed on the occasion or
juridical person or that it is organized in accordance
with law. by reason of the rape, loses its character as an independent
offense, but assumes a new character, and functions like a
qualifying circumstance.
Name of the Offended Party
1. What the complaint or information must state:
However, by fiction of law, it is merged with rape to constitute
a. In the name and surname of the offended
a constituent element of a special complex crime of rape with
party; or
a specific penalty which is in the highest degree.
b. Any appellation or nickname by which such
person has been or is known.
An information must charge but one offense, except only in
those cases in which existing laws prescribe a simple
2. If there is no better way of identifying them;
punishment for various offenses. Rape with homicide comes
(a) He must be described in under a fictitious
within the exception (People v. Sanchez, 227 SCRA 627).
name;

Conviction of Component Crimes Santiago v. People. She approved 32 aliens who were not
People v. Nardo 270 SCRA 672: The accused here was charged allowed to enter, how many informations to be filed? You do
in one information with multiple murder and double frustrated not have to separate the name, you can only file one
murder. While the trial court convicted him of the charge, it information if only names is the issue.
appears that what he actually committed were 4 separate
crimes of murder and 2 crimes of attempted murder. May the One shot three deaths – one information; three shots and
SC on review convict him of all component offenses? three deaths – different information. But what about machine
gun, there is many crimes as many victims (PP v. Tabaco).
Yes. Generally, an accused may only be convicted only of the
crime charged in the information, or of an offense which 4. Absorption Doctrine. In Enrile v. Salazar, where the crime
necessarily includes that which was charged or included of rebellion absorbs murder, homicide and injuries.
therein.
5. Special Complex Crimes – specially named in provisions
However, in this case, the information charging accused further under the RPC like Robbery with Homicide.
states that “accused, with intent to kill and with the qualifying
circumstance of treachery armed with M16 Armalite Rifles did If there are many ways to commit a crime was made in the
shoot and fire in a sudden and unexpected manner. information it is not duplicitous:
 PP v. Buendiaje: The information not duplicitous for
In effect, it imputed to accused the commission of several the crimes charged were only the manners in the
felonies. Yet, accused did not move to quash the information committing the same offense.
on the ground of multiplicity of charges.
SORIANO v. RP (2009)
Neither did he object thereto at any other time. Consequently, Soriano and Ilagan were officers of Rural Bank of San Miguel as
such defect is deemed waived, and the Court may validly render offices they falsified loan application and make appear that two
judgment against him for as many crimes as were alleged and people have obtained. The state prosecutor charged them of
proven. Section 93 of RA 337 as amended by PD 1795 (DOSRI).
Duplicitous Information – information charging for more than On the same date an information for estafa thru falsification of
one offense. When it prescribes single punishment, it is allowed commercial document on the ground that more than one
in an information. offense is charged with DOSRI rules and estafa and that they
1. Delito Complejo – where the crime is a necessary means were duplicitous?
like estafa through falsification, for the is only one crime, only
one penalty, like crimes under Article 48 under the Revised No. Soriano was faced not with one information but with more
Penal Code. than one information charging a different offense, violation of
DOSRI and estafa. They erroneously invoked Section 13 to
Reckless Imprudence Resulting Homicide – this applies to ground to quash information. They were separate informations,
culpable felonies; the accused can be charged (People v. Glen there was really nothing wrong.
de los Santos).
GUTIERREZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (2011)
2. Delito Compuesto – where a single act constitutes two or Two impeachment complaint against OMB Gutierrez, they were
more grave or less grave felonies. Like one gunshot killing consolidation, Gutierrez questions on ground of Section 13.
two or more people. The effect is the same, then it is the Does this apply to impeachment cases?
crime with higher penalty, imposed in its maximum period.
No. The constitution allows the indictment for multiple grounds
3. Delito Continuado – a series of act arising from a single as in the Articles of Impeachment. An impeachment complaint
criminal intent. For example A wants to steal 10 cows, but X need not allege only one impeachable offense. In other words,
has three, Y has three and Z has four so A steals their cows. this rule does not apply to impeachment proceedings, there are
They can only be included in one information (People v. many violation which could include Articles of Impeachment.
Tumlos).
PEOPLE v. BRIOSO (2016)
People v. Jaranillo – roosters are taken from two coops there Brioso was charged with statutory rape, the information that he
are two acts of stealing but only one intent, so one crime. inserted a finger in vagina of 4 year old and have carnal
knowledge, when it reached SC he found him both of statutory
People v. Sabun – a lawyer collects in a monthly basis, there rape and rape with sexual assault.
is no need to file for every month, you can lump everything
together in one information. This falls under the single Yes. Section 3, Rule 120 applies. When two or more offense
larceny doctrine. The following are not considered to be charged in the single complaint or information but the accused
single larceny like multiple estafa and multiple malversation. fail to object to it before trial, the court may convict him as
many offenses as are charged and proved.

Brioso failed to quash the information before the trial. Two Kinds of Amendment
Therefore, he can be convicted with the two counts of rape. It  Amendment to forms or Formal Amendment
can only be surmised, he should have objected.  Amendment to substance or Substantial Amendment
PEOPLE v. ARENAS (2016) What the lawyer of the accused should do, look at the
Arenas was charged for violation of RA 9165 before RTC for information and look at the defects and file for a motion to
selling two sachets of shabu as well as possession with intent quash, when it is filed, the prosecutor has the chance to amend
to sell. And for violating Section 5 and Section 11. Arenas the information if there is something wrong with it.
argued that the RTC erred for charging her by a duplicitous
information. The prosecutor do that without asking permission, provided the
accused has not entered his plea on arraignment. There is a big
There is a duplicitous information, but Section of Rule 120 also difference between amendment and revisions. No formal
states when two or more offense but the accused fails to amendments are allowed.
object before the trial as many as those charged. The failure
to have motion to quash before plea is deemed as a waiver. Before Arraignment
GENERAL RULE: A complaint or information may be amended in
Absorption doctrine is not applicable here, It was proven that form or in substance even without leave of court.
the possession herein could be separately charged for illegal
possession of the sale. EXCEPTION:
 If the amendment (when it requires leave of court)
Under the RA 9165, if A is arrested in buy bust and he charged (a) Downgrades the nature of offense charged
with selling 5g, and in his possession was 10g, then the in, or
possession is absorbed. But if he is selling 10g but found with (b) Excludes any accused from the complaint or
50g, then he must charged with possession of 40g, what information.
absorbed is only 10g.
 It can be made only:
Can the accused complain? Yes, but if you want to complain (a) Upon motion by the prosecutor
you do it in a motion to quash. Otherwise, information will not (b) With the notice to the offended party, and
be void, it is merely duplicitous, it is for the accused to complain (c) With leave of court
about it due to Rule 120.  It is no longer a matter of right we
have to ask permission of court.
Section 14. Amendment or Substitution. – A complaint or
information may be amended, in form or in substance,  What the court must do in resolving the motion either
without leave of court, at any time before the accused granting or disallowing it:
enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal (a) It shall state it reasons, and
amendment may only be made with leave of court and (b) It shall furnish copies of its order to all
when it can be done without causing prejudice to the
parties, especially the offended party.
rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrade After Arraignment and During Trial
the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any A. Amendment as to form may only be made if:
accused from the complaint or information, can be made 1. It is done with leave of court, and
only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the 2. It does not prejudice the accused
offended party and with leave of court. The court shall
state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its
order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended B. Amendment as to substance – NOT ALLOWED. Definitely not
party. allowed, only formal amendments allowed after arraignment.
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake Rules on Substitution

has been made in charging the proper offense, the court Means you replace with a new information, because the offense
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon
charged is totally different from the offense proven during the
the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with Section 19 of Rule 119, provided the trial, when it is wholly different. For example the offense
accused shall not be placed double jeopardy. The court charged was murder, the crime was homicide there is no need
may require the witnesses to give bail for their appearance for it is necessarily included. So, substitution only applies when
at the trial. are two totally different.
Rules on Amendment of the Information Tests to Determine the Need for Substitution
If the information is defective, like duplicitous like the name or 1. If evidence is applicable to the other no need.
date in information, there is always a way to repair a defective 2. When the second offense is exactly the same.
information and that is what we call an amendment under this 3. When it is frustration or attempt of the first.
Section. 4. When is necessarily includes or is included in first.

Ground for substitution: It appears any time before judgment b. Change in description of the injury
that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense. After the accused was arraigned for murder, the judge ordered
the change of the description of some wounds from lacerated
Effects when the above ground exists: to stab in the information in order to conform with the
 A new information charging the proper offense may description of the victim’s wounds in the autopsy report. Is
be filed provided the accused shall not be placed in there a need to re-arraign the accused?
double jeopardy.
 The court shall dismiss the original complaint or No. A re-arraignment is only necessary where the change or
information, and amendment of the information involves in the changing of the
 The court may require the witnesses to give bail for proper offense. Here, the change in the information was not
their appearance at the trial. effected to correct a mistake changing the offense charged in
the information (People v. Jaralba, 226 SCRA 602, 1993).
Amendment and Substitution, Distinguished
Amendment and substitution may differ in the four following c. Change in date of commission
aspects as stated in Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685 (1994): The amended date in all 19 informations is not at all material
1. Amendment may involve either formal or substantial to the offenses charged because the basis thereof is not the
changes, while substitution necessarily involves a date of the construction but the defective construction of the
substantial change from the original charge; 46 dwelling units. Such amendment does not prejudice the
2. Amendment before plea has been entered can be rights of accused since it would not alter the nature of the
effected without leave of court, but substitution of offense charged.
information must be with leave of court as the original
information has to be dismissed; d. Insertion of the word “printed”
3. Where amendment is to form, no need for another Here it was just to clarify the facts, the original information
preliminary investigation and the retaking of the plea clearly stated that the newspaper is published in Makati. It is
of the accused; in substitution of information, another merely a formal amendment wen it merely adds specification
preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused to eliminate vagueness in the information and not to introduce
has to plead anew to the new information; and new and material facts and merely states with additional
4. An amended information refers to the same offense precision something which is already contained in the original
charged in the original information or to an offense information and which therefore, adds nothing essential for
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in conviction of crime charged (Banal III v. Panganiban, 2005).
the original charge, hence substantial amendments to
the information after the plea has been take cannot e. Allegation of conspiracy
be made over the objection of the accused, for the The addition of the phrase, “conspiring, confederating and
original information would be withdrawn, the accused helping one another” does not change the nature of his
could invoke double jeopardy. Substitution requires participation as principal in the killing. Whether under the
or presupposes that the new information involves a original or amended information, accused would have to
different offense which does not include or is not defend himself as the People makes a case against hi m and
necessarily included in the original charge, hence the secures for public prosecution for punishment for stabbing to
accused cannot claim double jeopardy. death, using superior strength, a fellow citizen whose help and
safety society as a whole is interested (Buhat v. CA, 1996).
Illustration of Formal Amendments
a. Allegation of insanity of the victim f. Other formal amendments
After accused was arraigned but before trial commenced, the In the case of Matalam v. Sandiganbayan 455 SCRA 737, 12
court allowed the amendment of the information to include the April 2005, it enumerated the following as to have been held to
allegation that by reason of rape the victim became insane, is be merely formal amendments:
the amendment proper? 1. New allegations which related only to the range of the
penalty that the court might impose in the event of
Yes. The subject amendment is clearly not one of substance but conviction;
of form. The insertion of the phrase that the victim has become 2. An amendment which does not charge another
insane by reason or on occasion of the rape in the Information offense different or distinct from that charged in the
merely raised the penalty that may be imposed in case of original one;
conviction and does not charge another offense different from 3. Additional allegations which do not alter the theory of
that charged in the original information. Whatever defense the prosecution of the case so as to cause surprise to
accused may have raised under the original information for the accused and affect the form of defense he has or
rape committed with a deadly weapon equally applies to rape will assume;
committed with a deadly weapon where the victim has become 4. An amendment which does not adversely affect any
insane by reason or on occasion of the rape. The amendment substantial rights of the accused;
did not affect the substantial rights of the accused (People v. 5. An amendment that merely adds specifications to
Degamo, 402 SCRA 133). eliminate any vagueness in the information and not to

introduce new and material facts, and merely states BALTAZAR v. CHUA (2009)
with additional precision something which is already Downgraded the charges and dropping charges for Jaime, the
in the original information and which adds nothing City Prosecutor filed a motion and withdraw information and
essential for conviction for the crime charged. an admission for a new information. The prosecution cannot
impose with the proceedings of the court. It involves two
Illustrations of Substantial Amendments courts, there was a Motion for Amendment that was filed by
a. Homicide to Murder the private complainants. The original charge was homicide, the
To amend the information so as to change the crime charged case was moved to another court to put it back to murder. The
from homicide to the more serious offense of murder after the Crespo v. Mogul doctrine herein applies.
accused had pleaded not guilty to the former is indubitably
proscribed by Rule 110, Section 14. For certainly a change from SALUDAGA v. SB (2010)
homicide to murder is not a matter of form; it is one of Saludaga here was Mayor entered with the Pakyaw Contract
substance with very serious consequence (Buhat v. CA, 1996). without public bidding thus he was charged with Section 3(e)
of RA 3019 by causing undue injury to the government. A new
b. Robbery to Robbery in an Uninhabited Place basis was now coffering unwarranted benefit from undue injury.
The proposed amendments are clearly substantial from Article There was no substitution the refiled information charged the
299 to Article 302 of the RPC, thereby exposing the accused to same offense, it was only the mode of commission that was
a higher penalty (People v. Montenegro 159 SCRA 236, 1988). charged. And it is not a substantial amendment, because the
refiled information is founded in the same transaction the
c. Allegation of Relationship evidentiary requirement remains the same – in conclusion what
After the accused has been arraigned, an amendment of the changed was mode, hence it was only a formal amendment.
information for rape to be made alleged the relationship of
accused to the victim is not allowed. The amendment is clearly LEVISTE v. ALAMEDA (2010)
substantial in character as it had the effect changing the crime Leviste was charged with Homicide. Reinvestigations is
charged. Such amendment can no longer be done through required in substantial amendment. Substantial amendments
amendment but only be substitution (People v. Sandoval). consists of change in the recital of facts. The information from
homicide the murder is one of substance with very serious
EDUARDO RICARZE v. CA (2007) consequences. It was allowed because it was prior to
It was only after the prosecution had rested its case when arraignment, thus the substantial amendment is allowed.
SRMO entered its appearance with PCIB as private respondent.
There is no violation, the substitution of Caltex by PCIB is not a KUMMER v. PEOPLE (2013)
substantial amendment it did not alter the basis of the charge Homicide against Kummer. July to June 1988 change. A mere
nor did it result in prejudice. Changing the offended party is change in the date of time is formal when it does not prejudice
merely a formal amendment, but here leave of court required the rights of the accused. There is no need for a new
for it was after the arraignment. arraignment for it is only imperative when it is a substantial
amendment. The one month gap is acceptable.
PACOY v. AFABLE (2007)
Judge ordered the change of charge from homicide to murder. Section 15. Place where action is to be instituted. – Place
No. It was only a formal amendment and not a substantial where action is to be instituted. –
amendment, provided if does not prejudice the rights of the (a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall
accused. be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was
committed or where any of its essential
The only change made was in the caption of the case and ingredients occurred.
preamble it changed from homicide to murder. No change in (b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft,
the recital of facts or determination of the jurisdiction of the or other public or private vehicle in the course of
court not all changed in the act committed. its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of any municipality or territory
where such train, aircraft, or other vehicle passed
Test: Whether a defense under the complaint can stand, since
during its trip, including the place of its departure
there is no change it could not have any affect on the theory of and arrival.
the prosecution on the case. (c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel
in the course of its voyage, the criminal action
RAMON ALBERT v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2009) shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
Albert et al. were charged with RA 3019; the difference was first port of entry or of any municipality or
territory where the vessel passed during such
from ross neglect of duty to gross inexcusable negligence. Is it voyage, subject to the generally accepted
substantial or prejudicial? No. principles of international law.
 This is allowed even after arraignment and plea being (d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but
beneficial of the accused, it is considered as a modality punishable under Article 2 of the Revised Penal
in the commission of the offense. Thus, the same is Code shall be cognizable by the court where the
considered as an amendment in form. criminal action is first filed.

Venue: Where Action is to be Instituted So how do you determine the elements take place?
Rule: The criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the You look at the information. If one of the elements
court of the municipality or territory: state the venue. It is not a question of fact, it is a question of
1. Where the offense was committed (for local offenses) whether or not it was stated in the information.
2. Where any of its essential ingredient occurred (for
transitory or continuing offenses). Section 16. Intervention of the Offended Party in
Criminal Action. – Where the civil action for recovery of
Other Alternative Venues for Institution of an Action civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to
1. Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in
the prosecution of the offense.
other public or private vehicle in the course of its trip,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried either
in the court of: Effect when the Civil Action for Recovery of Civil Liability is
a. The place of its departure; or Instituted in the Criminal Action
b. Any municipality or territory where such 1. When the offended party may intervene in the
train, aircraft or vehicle passed during its trip prosecution offense:
c. Place of arrival a. When the civil action is for recovery of civil
2. Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in liability instituted in the criminal action.
the course of its voyage, 2. How may the offended party may intervene:
a. The criminal action shall be instituted and a. By counsel.
tried in the court of:
i. The first port of entry; or Intervention, Instances when Prohibited
ii. Of any municipality or territory In Dichaves v. Apalit 333 SCRA 54 (2000), the following are the
where the vessel passed during instances when an offended party is not allowed to take part in
such voyage. the criminal prosecution, as under Rule 111, Section 1, there are
b. Subject to generally accepted principles of three instances:
international law 1. If the civil action has been waived;
3. When the crime is committed outside the Philippines 2. If the right to institute a separate civil action has been
but punishable under Article 2 of the RPC: reserved; and
a. It shall be cognizable by the court where the 3. If the civil action was filed prior to the criminal action.
criminal action is first filed
Exterritoriality – any court in the country. Offenses without an Offended Party
May a private prosecutor appear in such cases? No. The court
Provisions of Law held in Ramiscal v. SB 446 SCRA 706 (2004), that a violation of
 Article 360 on Libel – where the libel matter is first RA 3019 in this case, the offended party is the government
published, or residence of the victim or office of the which was allegedly deprived of capital gains and documentary
public official involved. stamp taxes.
 Cases covered by Sandiganbayan – the SB only has the
main court in Manila, one in Cebu and in Cagayan. Q. Where the offended party did not initiate the complaint or
 Section 5, Article VIII – the SC can order the change of institute the prosecution, can he ask for damages is he actually
venue to avoid miscarriage of justice. If in the interest testifies during trial?
of justice, it is not safe nor practical to file in that city
the court can move it (Sanchez v. CA, the mayor of Yes. If the injured party has not expressly waived the civil
Laguna, he was charged of the rape and murder of UP liability of the accused nor reserved his right to file a separate
student and her boyfriend, the action was filed in civil action, it is error for the court to refuse a request of the
Laguna – it was moved out for his influence, but it has injured party during the course of the criminal prosecution.
to be the Supreme Court).
Q. What if the offended party has desisted?
TRENAS v. PEOPLE (2012) No. While it may be true that the desistance does not bar the
People from prosecuting the criminal action, it does operate
An information was filed in the RTC charging him with estafa.
however, as a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity
No other evidence was shown that the offense was committed
(People v. Amaca, 277 SCRA 215).
in Makati. Jurisdiction of a court over the case is determined in
the complaint of information. Look at the elements of the crime.
Commentary
This section gives us situation when a private offended party
UNION BANK v. PEOPLE (2012)
may join, when the civil action for recovery of civil liability. A
Desi Tomas charged with perjury for making false narrations in
criminal case but under Article 100 of RPC, the offended party
an affidavit, executed in Makati and it was submitted to the
can ask for damages – meaning money – compensation for the
Pasay. It is the MeTC Makati City. The venue of action states
loss and injury caused to the offended party. When there is an
that the crime was done in the false narration is an affidavit
offended party, there is a civil aspect.
under Article 183.

RODRIGUEZ v. PONFERRADA (2005)
May a private prosecutor allowed to intervene and participate
in estafa cases for the purpose of prosecuting the attached civil
liability arising from the issuance of the checks involved which
is also the subject matter of the pending BP 22 cases?
Yes. The crimes of estafa and violation of BP 22 are different

and distinct from each other. What Rule 111, Section 1(b)
prohibits is the reservation to file the corresponding civil action
in a BP 22 case. However, a recovery by the offended party
under one remedy, however, necessarily bars that under the
other. Obviously stemming from the fundamental rule against
unjust enrichment, this is in essence the rationale for the
proscription in our law against double recovery.

REVISED PENAL CODE
RULE 111
Article 100. Civil Liability of a person guilty of felony . –
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION Every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable.
Section 1. Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions. –
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
A. Effect of Institution of a Criminal Action
the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal GENERAL RULE: The civil action for the recovery of civil liability
action unless the offended party waives the civil action, arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the with the criminal action.
civil action prior to the criminal action.
EXCEPTIONS: The civil action for recovery of civil liability arising
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil
from the offense charged shall be deemed not instituted with
action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under circumstances the criminal action when the offended party:
affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to 1. Waives the civil action (it must be clear)
make such reservation. 2. Reserves right to institute the civil action separately;
3. Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability
against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate,
When Reservation of the Right to
or exemplary damages without specifying the amount
thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees Institute a Separate Civil Action Must be Made
therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgment 1. Before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence.
awarding such damages. 2. Under circumstances affording the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is
specified in the complaint or information, the
Docket Fees for Damages Being Claim by
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended
party upon the filing thereof in court. Offended Party in the Civil Action
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees Actual Damages

shall be required for actual damages. General Rule: Payment of docket/filing fees is not required.
Exception: Payment of docket/filing fees is requires when the
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint
Rules provided therefor:
may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any
cause of action which could have been the subject thereof 1. BP 22 Cases – based on amount of check involved
may be litigated in a separate civil action. 2. Estafa Cases – based on amount involved
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Moral, Nominal, Temperate or Exemplary Damages
Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil 1. If the amount is specified in the complaint or
action. No reservation to file such civil action separately
information:
shall be allowed.
o The corresponding filing fees shall be paid by
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party upon the filing thereof in
the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on court.
the amount of the check involved, which shall be 2. If the amount is not specified in the complaint or
considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the information:
complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated,
o The filing fees therefor shall constitute a first
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the lien on judgment awarding such damages.
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged
but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the Rule on Counterclaim, Cross-Claims, Third Party Complaint
court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall 1. They cannot be filed by the accused in the criminal
constitute a first lien on the judgment. case, but
2. Any cause of action which could have been subject
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action.
with the criminal action upon application with the court
trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial Q. What are the civil actions deemed instituted in a criminal
of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 prosecution under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure?
of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and
criminal actions.
Ans: Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime
charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action, that
Rule 111, Section 1: Sections of Discussion is unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the
A. Effect of Institution of a Criminal Action right to institute it separately or institutes it prior to the criminal
B. Specifications under BP 22 action.
C. Consolidation of Civil and Criminal Actions

What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the Requisites for Proper Consolidation
civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se which is also 1. The civil action has been filed separately;
known as the civil liability ex delicto, but not those liabilities 2. Trial of the civil action has not yet commenced, and
arising from quasi-delicts (reckless imprudence cases), quasi- 3. There must be an application for consolidation with
contracts (like solutio indebiti and negotiorum gestio). the court trying the criminal case.
In fact, even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil Effect if consolidation is granted: The trial of both actions
liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and the offended shall proceed in accordance with Rule 111, Section 2 governing
party may – subject to the control of the prosecutor – still consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
intervene in the criminal prosecution in order to protect the
remaining civil interest therein (Philippine Rabbit v. People, Commentaries
427 SCRA 456, 14 April 2004). Those not arising from the crime are called in the independent
civil actions they are not deemed instituted. This “arising from
B. Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 the crime” only came out in the 2000 Rules. In the 1985 Rules,
everything was deemed instituted.
Rules in Relation to the Civil Aspect
1. The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be What is the effect? Casupanan v. Laroya (2002), the new rules
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. came out of December of 2000. The SC discussed the effects:
2. Reservation to file the civil action is not allowed. 1. Actions premised on quasi-delict and other
independent civil action may be filed separately
Rules in Relation to Docket Fees without the civil action.
1. Actual Damages: the offended party shall pay in full 2. The judge may no longer the apply the provisions on
the filing fees based on the amount of the check quasi-delict on basis of the award of civil liability.
involved in the case. 3. The pendency of the criminal case will not preclude he
2. Moral, Nominal, Temperate or Exemplary Damages: offended party from filing for a quasi-delict against
a. If the amount is specified: the accused.
 The offended party shall pay
additional filing fees based on the When is the claim for civil liability not deemed instituted?
amount alleged therein.  You refer to the three exceptions.
b. If the amount are not so alleged but any of Yakult v. CA

these damages are subsequently awarded by Wherein the SC said, when the offended party institutes the civil
the court: action after the criminal action but before the presentation of
 The filing fees based on the amount prosecution’s evidence while the criminal action of the civil
awarded shall constitute a first lien action; you cannot file a civil action while a criminal action is
on the judgment. going on. Like in OJ Simpson, the criminal action was acquitted
but in the civil action he was required to pay damages.
Hyatt Industrial v. Asia Dynamic 464 SCRA 454 | 29 July 2005
Hyatt filed with the RTC a complaint for recovery of sum of So how do you distinguish criminal cases from pure civil cases?
money (civil case) against Asia Dynamic for the latter’s failure  In criminal cases, you do not pay filing fees for purely
to pay various electric conduits and fittings. Asia had issued criminal case, there is no need to pay docket fees.
checks to cover for the purchase price but they had all bounced.  But for civil cases, you have to. There is always
Hyatt filed criminal cases for violation of BP 22. imposition of docket or filing fees.
 For criminal cases, if there is a prayer for damages,
Q. Considering that Section 1(b) of Rule 111 prohibits the filing filing fees will be charged but not for actual damages,
of a separate civil action for BP 22 cases, should the civil case be except BP22 and estafa cases.
dismissed?  In civil cases, one has to put the amount of damages
in the complaint, so that the clerk can compute, this
Yes. Upon filing of the criminal cases for violation of BP 22, the also applies in criminal cases, but in criminal cases it is
civil action for recovery of the amount of the checks was also considered a lien. If you do not pay in civil cases, it is
impliedly instituted. tantamount to not filing.
C. Consolidation of Civil and Criminal Actions SAMSON CHING v. CA (2007)

When the offended party files the civil action first, so A filed for Nicdao was charged with BP22, in such, the MTC and RTC
a civil case against the alleged killer. The State however, filed convicted her, and automatically, upon conviction there is that
later for an affidavit for murder against the alleged the killer. As order to pay the amount of the check. However, the CA
long as the trial of the civil case has not yet started, it may be reversed the conviction and acquitted her. What happens now
consolidation. The consolidation will be in the move that is to the civil liability?
trying the criminal case.

If an accused is convicted by the trial court and such conviction SPOUSES YAP v. FIRST E-BANK (2009)
is reversed, what happens to the civil liability? It cannot be applied because when the bank filed the BP22, the
 Under Rule 111, the acquittal of the accused does not amount of the check was the civil aspect of BP 22. Since the civil
necessarily extinguish it is based on the reason of the aspect in a BP 22 case is deemed instituted, what the bank
acquittal. wants is the value of the check.
 It cannot have for the foreclosure so as to run against
She cannot be held liable for the civil liability, in the CA it was the principle of unjust enrichment.
clearly stated and ruled that she did not issue a worthless  The foreclosure case is an independent civil action
check meaning she did not commit the crime. There was no arising more the contract, because the civil aspect is
crime, and therefore the Court does not have to put the exact the amount of the check.
words, but in this case, she did not commit the crime.
HEIRS OF BURGOS v. CA (2010)
FERDINAND CRUZ v. MINA (2007) The offended party cannot question the granting of bail, the
The court reminds us that every person who criminally liable is role of the offended party is there just to ask for civil liability.
also civilly liable. Even if there is no claim in the complaint of The issue on bail is a criminal aspect, this is the duty of the
information for the civil liability, the civil action is deemed prosecution, the rules on bail govern. The question of granting
instituted under Rule 111, Section 1. of bail is but an aspect of criminal action preventing him from
eluding the action.
GOSIACO v. CHING (2009)
Ching was acquitted in the criminal case. Is a corporate office HEIRS OF SIMON v. ELVIN CHAN (2011)
who signed a bouncing check civilly liable? – only when When it comes to BP 22 cases, no independent civil action,
convicted. Since Ching was acquitted in the criminal case, no absolutely not even under Article 33 on fraud based on BP 22
civil liability. Can a corporation then be impleaded – no. because Rule 111, Section 1(b) is clear. If a civil action was filed
 Section 1 of BP 22 requires that the accused must be first then it must be consolidated with the criminal case.
convicted so that civil liability can be done.
 In BP 22 cases, the acquittal of the accused will mean CHUA v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE (2013)
that there is no civil liability. It is the corporation who Chua could not afford to pay at all once, so he asked if he could
really issues the check Ching only issues it in their pay on a per case basis other than payment of P540K, the clerk
behalf. stated that he cannot. The motion was denied for it would
contravene. Can he pay on a per case basis?
So what now is the remedy? He thought that he cannot file a
separate civil action, but the court ruled that nothing in the rule Yes. It did not say that it was indivisible obligation. Filing fees
prohibits reservation of separate civil action against the when requires are assessed, these pleadings refer to the
juridical person. Only concerned with the civil liability with the information in criminal cases. Each 40 count reflect the filing
signatory of the check. fees of 40 information. For each count represents a different
 For the signatory, the basis is the wrongful act despite violation.
the insufficiency of the funds in the account;
 For juridical body, the very obligation of the check or Consolidation refers to purposes of trial, consolidation does not
the consideration for its execution. transform the filing fees into one indivisible fee. There are still
40 counts of violation so 40 individual filing fees are to be paid.
Therefore, Gosiaco may pursue an independent civil action In BP 22, each and every check has to be proven, identified,
against ASB for the amount of the checks. there are really 40 different cases.
The corporation has a totally different civil liability, there is no DY v. PEOPLE (2016)
prohibition against filing a civil action against the corporation Gloria Dy is the general manger of a company, an information
for it is not deemed instituted in the case. was filed in Gloria Dy before RTC for allegedly misappropriating
the money intended for the payment of the loan, while RTC
CHENG v. SPOUSES SY (2009) acquitted but it ordered her to pay the amount of the check,
Rule 111 can apply those pending cases. The estafa were CA affirmed because it was merely based on reasonable doubt.
dismissed based on reasonable doubt, the liability can only be Was it correct for them to find civil liability.
civil. The court hold that civil liability for these BP22 cases
cannot be done. BP 22 cannot have separate civil action. No. The civil liability they are claiming here is civil liability ex
contractu, in here, all elements of estafa are not complete thus
The civil aspect is deemed instituted; the offended party must there is no delict. Therefore the civil liability is now ex contractu
be very careful, in BP 22 has to ask the court to rule the civil should now be recovered in a separate civil action.
liability in the criminal case itself. So ask the court to rule on
the civil aspect, then appeal the ruling of the civil aspect, that The action based on the contract is an independent civil action,
is the only way, otherwise it cannot operate. but here there is no crime done thus there is no civil liability ex
delicto.

NISSAN v. FELIPE (2013) Section 2. When Separate Civil Action is Suspended. –
Nissan Gallery filed for violation of BP22 against Felipe. MTC After the criminal action has been commenced, the
acquitting BP 22 but holding her civilly liable. But CA held no separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted
until final judgment has been entered in the criminal
civil liability because there is acquittal.
action.
The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its If the criminal action is filed after said civil action has
accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
case is based on the principle that every person criminally liable whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the
is also civilly liable. merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is
rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the
If the accused, however, is not found to be criminally liable, it same may, upon motion by the offended party, be
does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying
civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
carry with it the extinction of the civil action. already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action without
prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine
This rule more specifically applies when:
the witness presented by the offended party in the
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only criminal case and of the parties to present additional
preponderance of evidence is required; evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall
(b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is be tried and decided jointly.
only civil; and
(c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of
the period of prescription of the civil action which cannot
is not based upon the crime of which the accused was
be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
acquitted. suspended shall be tolled.
The civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action
or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the
or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission
act or omission from which the civil liablity may arise did
imputed to him. not exist.
It can, therefore, be concluded that if the judgment is

Effect of Filing a Criminal Case when
conviction of the accused, then the necessary penalties and civil
Civil Action has been Reserved
liabilities arising from the offense or crime shall be imposed.
1. If the criminal action was filed ahead of the civil action:
On the contrary, if the judgment is of acquittal, then the
A. The separate civil action arising from the crime cannot
imposition of the civil liability will depend on whether or not
be instituted until final judgment has been entered in
the act or omission from which it might arise exists.
the criminal action; and
B. During the pendency of criminal action, the running
Purificacion was acquitted because the element of notice of
of the prescriptive period of the civil action is
dishonor was not sufficiently established.1âwphi1
suspended.
Nevertheless, the act or omission from which her civil liability
arose, which was the making or the issuing of the subject
2. If the criminal action is filed after the civil action has been
worthless check, clearly existed. Her acquittal from the criminal
instituted:
charge of BP 22 was based on reasonable doubt and it did not
A. The civil action shall be suspended at whatever stage
relieve her of the corresponding civil liability. The Court cannot
it may be found before judgment on merit, until final
agree more when the MeTC ruled that:
judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
B. The civil action may be consolidated with the criminal
A person acquitted of a criminal charge, however, is not
action in the court trying the criminal action.
necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required
in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is
NOTE: Here the rule gives you the choice to have the civil action
greater than that required for civil liability (mere
be suspended or consolidated. We have a civil action that is
preponderance of evidence). In order to be completely free
instituted first, the offended party decided to file a civil action
from civil liability, a person’s acquittal must be based on the
for damages, now here comes the prosecution who files for a
fact he did not commit the offense. If the acquittal is based
criminal action, then civil case is considered suspended.
merely on reasonable doubt, the accused may still be held
civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act
It shall be deemed suspended until a decision or final judgment
complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not
is reached in the criminal case.
constitute the offense charged.

Rules in Case of Consolidation Effects of Extinction of the Criminal Action
General Rule General Rule: It does not cause the extinction of civil action.
A. The evidence already adduced in the civil action is deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action but: Exception: The civil action based on the delict shall be deemed
1. The prosecution (should be defense) has the right to extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment that the act
cross-examine witness presented by the offended or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
party in the criminal case, and
2. The parties are allowed to present evidence. Remedy of the Offended Party: He or she can still file a civil
case based on other sources of obligation.
B. Consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried jointly.
Commentary on Extinction
Exception What if the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of
Civil action based on the delict shall be deemed extinguished if beyond reasonable doubt the extinction of criminal action does
there is a finding in a final judgment that the act or omission not carry with the extinction of civil action.
from which the civil liablity my arise did not exist.
If the court says in the decision, that the act or omission where
Remedy of the Offended Party the civil liability came from did not exist – stating that there is
He or she can still file a civil case based on other sources of no crime. This is when the court must say that the act or
obligation. Article 1157 of the civil Code enumerates these omission that it did not exist.
other sources of obligation from which civil liability may arise  If this is included in the decision then civil liability ex
as a result from same act or omission: delicto cannot be instituted separately.
a. Law
b. Contract Concept Questions
c. Quasi-Contract Q. Is the non-payment of docket fee a bar to the prosecution of
d. Quasi-Delicts the civil action?
Commentaries No. The intent is to make the Manchester Doctrine, requiring

Q. Does the witnesses in the civil action need to testify again? payment of filing fees at the time of the commencement of an
No the evidence will be reproduced. action, applicable to impliedly instituted civil action only when
the amount is other than actual damages.
We have two sides in the criminal action: We have the
prosecution composed of the People of the Philippines As it now stands, when a civil action is deemed impliedly
represented by the public prosecutor, the offended party instituted with the criminal action, the rule are as follows:
represented by the private prosecutor. 1. When “the amount of damages, other than actual is
alleged in the complaint or information” file in court
The other side, we have the accused, represented by the then the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the
defense counsel. In a trial we have a witness. offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial;
and
The offended party files a separate civil action and the witness 2. In any other case, however – when the amount of
is presented, the private prosecutor presents; the cross will be damages is not so alleged in the complaint or
done by the opposing party. information filed in court, the corresponding filing
 Without prejudice to the right of the prosecutor to fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a
cross-examine the witness of the offended party; it first lien on the judgment, except in an award for
should have been the right of the private prosecutor actual damages (General v. Claravall, 195 SCRA 623).
to cross-examine the witness.
Q. May a civil action for damages arising from a crime be filed
Q. Is it mandatory to consolidate? It is not. If you look at the separately from the criminal case?
provision, the same may upon motion of the offended party,
thus he is not forced to consolidate the case. Yes. A civil action for the recovery of damages arising ex-delicto
can be filed separately before the institution of the criminal
When is it mandatory? In BP 22 cases, you cannot separate, and action which may be done without reservation, or after such
if there is a civil case for the value of the check, the moment a institution, provided that a reservation to that effect has been
BP 22 case is filed, the civil has to be consolidated. It cannot be made. If in the meantime the criminal action is instituted, the
separately charged, however there are two exceptions: civil action which has been reserved cannot be commenced
 Libel, Article 360 they have to be tried jointly. until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal case.
 Under Sandiganbayan Law
 The consolidated case shall be tried jointly. However, in cases provided for in Article 32, 22, 34 and 2176 of
the Civil Code, the civil action may be filed.

HUN HYUNG PARK v. EUNG WON CHOI (2007) The conclusion of the CA that petitioner was acquitted not
Choi was charged with BP 22. Motion for Leave of Court to File because he did not commit the crime charged but because the
Demurrer to Evidence asserting failure to receive notice of RTC and the MTC could not ascertain with moral conviction the
dishonor. There was already a dismissal. wanton and reckless manner by which petitioner drove the bus
at the time of the accident. Put differently, petitioner was
So, what happens to the civil liability? The MTC did not bother, acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
did Park avail the correct remedy? Yes, the proper procedure beyond reasonable doubt.
should be, if dismissal is based on demurrer; the court should
have continued the case, but the MTC did not do it. Thus, However, his civil liability for the death, injuries and damages
correctly appealed the MTC decision in failure to recognize the arising from the collision is another matter. While petitioner
civil liability. The RTC correctly remanded this case for the was absolved from criminal liability because his negligence was
determination of the civil liability. not proven beyond reasonable doubt, he can still be held civilly
liable if his negligence was established by preponderance of
When Park appealed, the RTC affirmed the MTC granting of evidence. In other words, the failure of the evidence to prove
demurrer and awarded to Park the 1.875M check value. Choi negligence with moral certainty does not negate (and is in fact
filed the MR (for he was not able to rebut); the RTC, instead of compatible with) a ruling that there was preponderant evidence
awarding, rightfully remanded. of such negligence. And that is sufficient to hold him civilly
liable.
ANTONIO CHIENG v. SANTOS (2007) ELIZALDE CO v. MUNOZ (2013)
What was filed was a violation of BP 22. For reasons of justice Three counts of libel and was acquitted. Co claims damages. he
and equity, we rule in favor of petitioner. At the threshold, the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 111 of the ROC applies to civil
following discussion merits equal attention. A mortgage- actions to claim civil liability arising from the offense charged,
creditor may, in the recovery of a debt secured by a real estate regardless if the action is instituted with or filed separately from
mortgage, institute against the mortgage-debtor either a the criminal action. Undoubtedly, Section 2, Rule 111 of the
personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the ROC governs situations when the offended party opts to
mortgage. These remedies available to the mortgage-creditor institute the civil action separately from the criminal action;
are deemed alternative and not cumulative. An election of one hence, its title “When separate civil action is suspended.”
remedy operates as a waiver of the other. Despite this wording, the last paragraph, by its terms, governs
all claims for civil liability ex delicto. This is based on Article 100
The impliedly instituted civil action in Criminal Cases No. 612- of the RPC. This dual mode of enforcing civil liability ex delicto
90 to No. 615-90 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was, does not affect its nature.
in effect, a collection suit or suit for the recovery of the
mortgage-debt since the dishonored checks involved in the In other words, it does not matter if waived, reserved or what
said criminal cases were issued by respondent Eulogio to not the rule is that the civil liability is not automatically
petitioner for the payment of the same loan secured by the extinguished. Even though, civil liability is deemed instituted,
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. the court should continue with the civil aspect of the case
and not just totally dismiss it.
Hence, he was deemed to have already availed the remedy of
collection suit. Therefore, following the rule on the alternative CATERPILLAR v. SAMSON (2016)
remedy of mortgage-creditor, Antonio is barred from Civil Case No. Q-00-41446, the civil case filed by Caterpillar in
subsequently resorting to an action for foreclosure. the RTC in Quezon City, was for unfair competition, damages
and cancellation of trademark, while Criminal Cases Nos. Q-
SC: However, it should be stressed that respondents have not 02-108043-44 were the criminal prosecution of Samson for
yet fully paid the loan. In fact, respondents themselves unfair competition.
admitted that they still owe petitioner the balance of the loan.
To allow respondents to benefit from the loan without paying The civil case was filed first, thus, the civil case to be
its whole amount to petitioner, and to preclude the petitioner consolidated with the criminal case, the SC said no. It does not
from recovering the remaining balance of the loan, would mean they arose out of the unfair competition act or omission
constitute unjust enrichment at the expense of petitioner. of the civil action. A common element of all such cases for
unfair competition - civil and criminal - was fraud. Under Article
ROMERO v. PEOPLE (2009) 33 of the Civil Code, a civil action entirely separate and distinct
Romero was charged with the crime of reckless imprudence in from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party in
multiple homicide and multiple serious physical injuries with cases of fraud, and such civil action shall proceed
damage to property in the MTC. There was a head-on collision. independently of the criminal prosecution.
MTC acquitted Sonny Romero of the crime charged, however In view of its being an independent civil action, Civil Case No.
he was held civilly liable and was ordered to pay heirs so RTC Q-00-41446 did not operate as a prejudicial question that
and CA affirmed the decision. Romero argues why is he liable justified the suspension of the proceedings in Criminal Cases
for the civil liability. Nos. Q-02-108043-44.

Section 3. When Civil Action May Proceed Independently . CONSING v. PEOPLE (2013)
– In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil actions Plus Builders and Unicapital had separately
Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action instituted against him were undeniably of similar mold, i.e., they
may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
were both based on fraud, and were thus covered by Article 33
independently of the criminal action and shall require only
a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the of the Civil Code.
offended party recover damages twice for the same act or
omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, the Makati criminal case could not be suspended
pending the resolution of the Makati civil case that Unicapital
Independent Civil Actions had filed. There are allegations in the civil case or complaint
that impute fraud, and therefore that falls under independent
When a Civil Action May be Brought civil actions (estafa through falsification).
Independently by the Offended Party
In cases provided in the following provisions of the Civil Code: Section 4. Effect of Death on Civil Actions. – The death of
1. Article 32 – for damages for violation of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of
the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability
Constitutional Rights or breach of liberties;
arising from the delict. However, the independent civil
2. Article 33 – for defamation, fraud and physical injuries action instituted under Section 3 of this Rule or which
3. Article 34 – for failure of a police officer to render thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from
assistance to a person in case of danger to life or other sources of obligation may be continued against the
property. estate or legal representative of the accused after proper
4. Article 2176 – for quasi delict or obligations arising substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The
heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased
from culpa aquiliana (torts).
without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad
Rules to be Observed litem for the minor heirs.
1. The civil action shall:
(a) Proceed independently of criminal action; The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
(b) Require only a preponderance of evidence. representatives to appear and be substituted within a
period of thirty (30) days from notice.
2. The offended party cannot recover damages more
than once for the same act or omission charged in the A final judgment rendered in favor of the offended party
criminal action. shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in
these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the
Commentary deceased.
What are others? Contracts and quasi-contracts. Let’s say you
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be
are passenger in a taxi and the taxi driver was drunk you hit a
dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the
post, the passenger ins injured. What are the available offended party may file against the estate of the deceased.
remedies?
3. Criminal case for reckless imprudence;
Effect of Death of the Accused
4. Quasi-delict
A. If the death occurs after arraignment and during the
5. Article 2180 – respondiat superior;
pendency of the criminal action.
6. Damages under culpa contractual based on breach of
1. The civil liability of the accused arising from the crime
contract of common carriage;
is extinguished;
7. Article 103 – subsidiarily liable
2. Independent civil actions and civil liability arising from
other sources of obligations may be continued.
The offended party cannot recover civil indemnity for more
than once for the same act or omission, based on unjust
B. If death occurs before arraignment
enrichment. The reservation only refers to civil liability ex
1. The criminal case shall be dismissed, but
delicto, this cannot affect those independent civil actions
2. The offended party may file the proper civil action
arising from the enumerated Civil Code grounds.
against the estate of the deceased.
Q. What are the consequences of the amendments under the

Procedure to Follow in Continuation of the
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure on independent civil actions?
Action in Case of the Death of the Accused
(1) The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the
1. The actions after proper substitution may be continued
Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal
against the following:
prosecution, since they are not deemed included;
a. Estate of the accused; or
(2) The institution or the waiver of the right to file a
b. The legal representative of the accused; or
separate civil action arising from the crime charged
c. The heirs of the accused, who may be
does not extinguish the right to bring such action;
substituted for the deceased without
(3) The only limitation is that the offended party cannot
requiring the appointment of an executor or
recover more than once for the same act or omission.
administrator.
(Philippine Rabbit v. People, 2004).

2. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding
heirs; the death of (the) accused, if the same may also be predicated
on a source of obligation other than delict.
3. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative to
appear and be substituted within a period of 30 days from Death of Mayor Comendador during the pendency of the case
notice; and could have extinguished the civil liability if the same arose
directly from the crime committed. However, in this case, the
4. A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall civil liability is based on another source of obligation, the law
be enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules for on human relations. Article 32(6) of the Civil Code on the
prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased. deprivation of property without due process of law.
Death During Pendency of the Appeal In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
The following are the effects of death of the accused while his defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
appeal is pending: aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such
extinguishes criminal liability as well as the civil liability civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal
ex delicto. prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by
2. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the a preponderance of evidence.
death of the accused if the liability are predicated on
other sources other than the delict. PEOPLE v. LIPATA (2016)
3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery Gerry Lipata was charged with Murder, before SC can render
thereof may be pursued by filing a separate civil action judgment Gerry Lipata died. It was also based on quasi-delict
which may be enforced either against the executor or because the heirs of victim did not file any civil action based on
administrator of the estate of the accused. the quasi-delict. This rule is totally unjust, for similar cases in
the future, we refer for study for revision for resolution of such
GO v. LOOYUKO (2007) cases which objective of indemnifying the heirs. This rule of
Respondent Looyuko died on October 29, 2004. It is an extinguishes ex delicto liability is unfair.
established principle that the death of the accused pending
final adjudication of the criminal case extinguishes the However, for similar cases in the future, we refer to the
accused’s criminal liability. If the civil liability directly arose from Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court for study and
and is based solely on the offense committed, then the civil recommendation to the Court En Banc appropriate
liability is also extinguished.53 amendments to the Rules for a speedy and inexpensive
resolution of such similar cases with the objective of
In the case at bar, the civil liability for the recovery of the CBC indemnifying the private offended party or his heirs in cases
stock certificates covering 41,376 shares of stock or their value where an accused dies after conviction by the trial court but
does not directly result from or based solely on the crime of pending appeal.
estafa but on an agreement or arrangement between the
parties that petitioner Go would endorse in blank said stock Court declared that our law recognizes that an acquittal based
certificates and give said certificates to respondent Looyuko in on reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused does not
trust for petitioner for said respondent to sell the stocks exempt the accused from civil liability ex delicto which may be
covered by the certificates. In such a case, the civil liability proved by preponderance of evidence.
survives and an action for recovery therefor in a separate civil
action can be instituted either against the executor or If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
administrator or the estate of the accused. reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of
any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text
ASILO v. PEOPLE (2011) of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that
We note, first off, that the death of Angeles and of Mayor ground.
Comendador during the pendency of the case extinguished
their criminal liabilities. The old rule that the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case
also releases him from civil liability is one of the most serious
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction flaws in the Philippine legal system. It has given rise to
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability numberless instances of miscarriage of justice, where the
based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this acquittal was due to a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment court as to the guilt of the accused.
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., The reasoning followed is that inasmuch as the civil
civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." responsibility is derived from the criminal offense, when the
latter is not proved, civil liability cannot be demanded.

But for the purpose of indemnifying the complaining party, why (3) In the court where the criminal case is pending (at any
should the offense also be proved beyond reasonable doubt? time before the prosecution rests).
Is not the invasion or violation of every private right to be
proved only by a preponderance of evidence? Is the right of the NOTE: Under the rules, the suspension may be made only upon
aggrieved person any less private because the wrongful act is the petition and not at the instance of the judge alone, and it
also punishable by the criminal law? also says suspension not dismissal of the case.
For these reasons, the Commission recommends the adoption Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question. – The
of the reform under discussion. It will correct a serious defect elements of prejudicial question are:
in our law. It will close up an inexhaustible source of injustice – (a) The previously instituted civil action involves an
a cause for disillusionment on the part of innumerable persons issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in subsequent criminal action, and
injured or wronged. (b) The resolution of such issue determines whether
or not the criminal action may proceed.
In similar manner, the reform in procedure in these cases to be
recommended by the Committee on the Revision of the Rules
Elements of Prejudicial Questions
of Court shall aim to provide the aggrieved parties relief, as well
1. The previously instituted civil action involves an issue
as recognition of their right to indemnity. This reform is of
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
course subject to the policy against double recovery.
subsequent criminal action; and (CIVIL BE FILED FIRST)
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or
Section 5. Judgment in Civil Action not a Bar. – A final not the criminal action may proceed.
judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the
defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal
action against the defendant for the same act or omission Examples of Instances with Prejudicial Question
subject of the civil action.  For allegedly giving a false testimony in a civil case,
which is a criminal offense under Article 182, RPC but
General Rule the determination of falsity is in the civil case.
This shall not be a bar to a criminal action against the defendant  A civil case for the ownership of a piece of land in a
for the same act or omission subject of the civil action. criminal prosecution for squatting.
Exception Instances Without Prejudicial Question

When the issue in the civil case is classified as a prejudicial
question. Annulment of Marriage (civil case) and Bigamy (criminal case)
Salvador married Narcisa in 1967. In 1989, while the first
Section 6. Suspension by Reason of Prejudicial Question. marriage was subsisting, Salvador married Zenaida. On Jan. 19,
– A petition for suspension of the criminal action based 1995, an annulment case was filed by Salvador against Narcisa.
upon a pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action May 18, 1995, a case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against
may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court Salvador and Zenaida. Subsequently, the marriage between
conducting the preliminary investigation. When the Salvador and Zenaida was annulled.
criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition
to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any
time before prosecution rests. Was the annulment case a prejudicial question that would justify
the suspension of the prosecution of bigamy?
Suspension by Reason of Prejudicial Question

No. A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a
fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately
Prejudicial Question
connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of
An issue involved in a civil action which is similar or intimately
the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must
related to the issue raised in the criminal action, the resolution
appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related
of which determines whether or not the criminal actio may
to those upon which the criminal action would be based but
proceed.
also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
When the criminal case may suspended to give way to the
necessarily be determined.
determination of the civil case:
 When the issue of the civil case involves a prejudicial
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of Salvador’s
question.
marriage to Narcisa had no bearing upon the determination of
his innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because
Where petition for suspension of the criminal action may
all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that
be filed:
the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage
(1) In the office of the prosecutor (during PI); or
is contracted.
(2) In the court conducting the PI (where pending)

Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or OMICTIN v. CA (2007)
voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a n sum, the main issue is whether or not a prejudicial question
judicial proceeding. Even if Salvador eventually obtained a exists to warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings
declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point pending the resolution of the intra-corporate controversy that
is both the first and second marriage were subsisting before the was originally filed with the SEC.
first marriage was annulled (Abunado v. People, 2004).
A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case,
Declaration of Nullity (civil) and Concubinage (criminal) the resolution of which a logical antecedent of the issue is
Does a pending action for declaration for nullity of marriage involved therein and the cognizance of which pertains to
filed by the accused against his wife pose a prejudicial question another tribunal.14 Here, the case which was lodged originally
to the charge of concubinage filed by his wife against him? before the SEC and which is now pending before the RTC of
Mandaluyong City by virtue of Republic Act No. 8799 involves
No. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge facts that are intimately related to those upon which the
for themselves that it was a nullity, for the same must be criminal prosecution is based.
submitted to judgment of the competent courts and only when
the nullity of marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and Logically, under the circumstances, since the alleged offended
so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that party is Saag Phils., Inc., the validity of the demand for the
the marriage exists for all intent and purposes. delivery of the subject vehicles rests upon the authority of the
person making such a demand on the company’s behalf.
Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife before Private respondent is challenging petitioner’s authority to act
the judicial declaration of nullity of marriage assumes the risk for Saag Phils., Inc. in the corporate case pending before the
of being prosecuted for concubinage. RTC of Mandaluyong, Branch 214.
The pendency of a civil action for nullity of marriage does not Taken in this light, if the supposed authority of petitioner is
pose a prejudicial question in a criminal case for concubinage. found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made,
hence, the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper. Moreover,
Other examples without prejudicial question: the mere failure to return the thing received for safekeeping or
 Civil action related to unfair competition on commission, or for administration, or under any other
 Civil action for annulment of sale on ground of fraud obligation involving the duty to deliver or to return the same
and BP 22 case. or deliver the value thereof to the owner could only give rise to
a civil action and does not constitute the crime of estafa.
Consing v. People:
A prejudicial question does not exist if the civil action is an This is because the crime is committed by misappropriating or
independent civil action, there is no prejudicial question for it converting money or goods received by the offender under a
can proceed independently from the criminal action. lawful transaction.
Caterpillar v. Samson Commentary: Here we have an intra-corporate dispute to

An independent civil action does not pose as a prejudicial declare nullity of appointment. In a case in another tribunal
question. If it is an independent civil action, it does not have to which has an issue intimately. It is possible to have an action
be suspended. The only way to suspend such case is to have a that does not arise out of the offense to be a prejudicial
prejudicial question. question as long as the requisites under Section 7 are met.
MAGESTRADO v. PEOPLE (2007) SPOUSES JOSE v. SPOUSES SUAREZ (2008)

Criminal complaint for perjury but there were two civil actions
of collection of sum of money. There is no prejudicial question. DREAMWORK v. JANIOLA (2009)
The issues were recovery of sum of money and cancellation of Criminal case of 2005 on BP 22; Civil Case for rescission of
mortgage, delivery of title and damages. alleged construction agreement was o 2006. Is rescission a
prejudicial question? No. The civil action must precede the
It is evident that the civil cases and the criminal case can filing of the criminal action for prejudicial question to exist.
proceed independently of each other. In the case at bar, the criminal case was filed ahead on 2005 on
the civil case was on 2006.
Regardless of the outcome of the two civil cases, it will not
establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal In any event, even if the civil case here was instituted prior to
case for perjury. the criminal action, there is, still, no prejudicial question to
speak of that would justify the suspension of the proceedings
The purchase by petitioner of the land or his execution of a real in the criminal case.
estate mortgage will have no bearing whatsoever on whether
petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit Verily, even if the trial court in the civil case declares that the
of loss of TCT No. N-173163. construction agreement between the parties is void for lack of

consideration, this would not affect the prosecution of private
respondent in the criminal case. The fact of the matter is that
private respondent indeed issued checks which were
subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. It is this fact
that is subject of prosecution under BP 22.
Therefore, it is clear that the second element required for the

existence of a prejudicial question, that the resolution of the
issue in the civil action would determine whether the criminal
action may proceed, is absent in the instant case. Thus, no
prejudicial question exists and the rules on it are inapplicable
to the case before us.
DE ZUZUARREGUI v. VILLAROZA (2010)

A perusal of the allegations in the petition to annul judgment
shows that CA-G.R. SP No. 87222 pending before the Court of
Appeals is principally for the determination of the validity of the
compromise agreement which did not include Peter, Catherine,
and Fannie as heirs of Bella. Peter, Catherine, and Fannie
presented evidence to prove that they are also biological
children of Bella and Alejandro.
On the other hand, Criminal Case Nos. 343812 to 343814

before the MeTC involve the determination of whether
petitioner committed falsification of public documents in
executing pleadings containing untruthful statements that she
and Rosemary were the only legal heirs of Bella.
It is evident that the result of the civil case will determine the
innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal cases for
falsification of public documents.
The criminal cases arose out of the claim of Peter, Catherine,

and Fannie that they are also the legal heirs of Bella. If it is finally
adjudged in the civil case that they are not biological children
of the late Bella and consequently not entitled to a share in her
estate as heirs, there is no more basis to proceed with the
criminal cases against petitioner who could not have
committed falsification in her pleadings filed before the RTC of
Pasig City, the truth of her statements regarding the filiation of
Peter, Catherine and Fannie having been judicially settled.
Commentary: If you are faced with a question, and you are

given a set of facts and you are asked if there is a PQ. Do not
answer by give an answer by giving a summary of the facts. All
you have to do is categorically determine.

Rights of Respondent Under Preliminary Investigation
RULE 112 The following includes the rights of a person under PI:
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 1. The right to refuse to be made witness;
2. The right not to have any prejudice whatsoever
Section 1. Preliminary Investigation defined; when imputed to them by such refusal;
required. – Preliminary Investigation is an inquiry or 3. The right to testify on their own behalf, subject to
proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient cross-examination by the prosecution; and
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
4. While testifying, the right to refuse to answer a specific
been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial. answer a specific question that tends to incriminate
them for some crime other than that for which they
Except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary are being prosecuted (Ladiana v. People).
investigation is required to be conducted before the filing
of a complaint or information for an offense where the Presence of Counsel, Not Required
penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2)
There is nothing in the Rules which renders invalid a PI held
months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.
without the counsel of accused. Not being part of the due
process clause but a right merely created by law, preliminary
Preliminary Investigation, Definition
investigation if within statutory limitations cannot be voided.
It is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that:
PI is not the venue for the full exercise of the rights of the
1. A crime has been committed, and
parties. This is why PI is not considered part of trial but merely
2. The respondent is guilty thereof, and should be held
preparatory thereto and that the records herein shall not form
for trial. (Probable cause)
part of the records in court. Parties may submit affidavits but
no right to examine witnesses. In fact, there are ex-parte PIs.
When PI is Required to be Conducted
1. Before the filing of information in court;
Lack of Preliminary Investigation, Effect
2. For an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the
at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day without regard to
validity of the information or otherwise render it defective.
the fine.
Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court or constitute
a ground for quashing the information. The trial court, instead
Nature of a Preliminary Investigation
of dismissing the information, should hold in abeyance the
A component part of due process in criminal justice, preliminary
proceedings and order the public prosecutor to conduct PI.
investigation is statutory and substantive right accorded to the
 Just remand the proceedings to the prosecutor to
accused before trial. To deny a claim to a preliminary
conduct of PI.
investigation would be to deprive a person of the full measure
of the right to due process.
When must objection to lack of PI be raised?
 It is not a constitutional right but is merely a right
It must be made before entry of plea and the court instead of
conferred by the statute. The absence of a PI does not
dismissing the information must remand the case for
impair the validity of the information or render it
preliminary investigation. The refusal of the court to remand
defective.
the case for PI can be raised via certiorari and prohibition to
prevent the trial.
Preliminary Investigation is Not Part of Trial
A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties in PI is not
Commentary: You can use the respondent here as the one
required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded
named in the complaint. It is the PI will cause the filing of the
belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused
complaint in court and if there is probable cause will lead to
is probably guilty thereof. By reason of abbreviated nature of
filing of information in court. Note that the penalty prescribed
preliminary investigations, a dismissal of charges as a result
by law of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day or more, PI is required.
thereof is not equivale to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal.
ERNESTO DE CHAVEZ v. OMBUDSMAN (2007)
Preliminary Investigation is an Executive Function
Admin complaint of RA 6713; criminal complaint under RA
It is an executive function exclusively of the prosecutor. An
3019. The resolution categorically stated that they are liable for
investigating prosecutor is under no obligation to file a criminal
the criminal acts complained of; that id did not even discuss the
action where he is not convinced that he has the quantum of
matter of probable. Did the OMB resolution convicted them?
evidence at hand to support averments.
OMB can conduct PI for the purpose for determining of PC. The
Prosecuting officers have equally the duty not to prosecute
word liable is synonym to words susceptible, prone and
when after investigation or reinvestigation they are convinced
exposed. Nowhere in the resolution that they were found guilty.
that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to establish a
The word “liable” employed OMB resolution only refers to the
prima facie case. Thus, the determination of the persons to be
probability of guilt. It is not a declaration of guilt as what De
prosecuted rests with prosecutor who has discretion.
Chavez are arguing.

ALICIA RICAFORTE v. LEON JURADO (2007) Authority over Sandiganbayan Cases
Assistant Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for insufficiency Do city ad provincial prosecutors (DOJ) have the authority to
of evidence and thus no probable cause for BP 22 and Estafa. conduct PI of crimes committed within their jurisdiction when
There was probable cause. such offenses are cognizable by the Sandiganbayan?
1. Has a crime been committed?
2. Is the respondent probably guilty thereof? Yes. Section 2 and 4 of Rule 112 lists the officers authorized to
conduct PI which shall include all crimes cognizable by the
Both questions were answered. The intricate elements will just proper court within their territorial jurisdiction. However, under
have to be dealt with in the trial. For PI only these two things, Section 4, in offenses falling within the original jurisdiction of
if these are clear then PI is fine. the Sandiganbayan, the prosecutors shall after their
investigation, transmit the records and their resolutions to the
CATTERPILLAR v. SAMSON Ombudsman or his deputy for appropriate action.
Is there probable cause? Look at the two requisites, here there
is no probable cause. This case is for unfair competition under In addition, the prosecutor cannot dismiss the complaint
the Revised Penal Code. without the prior written authority of the Ombudsman or his
deputy, nor can the prosecutor file an Information with the
There is no probable cause. Unfair competition is simply Sandiganbayan, without being deputized by, and without prior
passing off as goods of other is passed as one’s own. Samson written authority of the Ombudsman or his deputy.
here definitely copy even the logo. So, that is why such case is NOTE: There is no need for the Ombudsman to deputize the
filed. DOJ before it can validly conduct PI over offenses committed
by public officials in relation to office which are cognizable by
Unfortunately for Caterpillar, Samson was able to register the ordinary courts. Both OMB and DOJ have the concurrent
trademark first. jurisdiction to conduct PI on charges filed (Honasan II v. Panel
of Prosecutors, DOJ, 2004).
The SC said the Samson registered such trademark, and there
is no showing that the trademark was illegal obtained or Judge Cannot Designate Particular Prosecutor
fraudulently obtained. In remanding the complaint or information to the provincial
prosecutor, a judge cannot name or designate a particular
Samson may be considered as a prior user and CAT as a prosecutor to conduct the PI of the case for PI is an executive
subsequent user, there is no PC for to hold Samson for trial on function. A judge cannot directly order an assistant prosecutor,
that criminal case of Unfair Competition. to conduct PI (People v. Navarro, 1997).
There was no PC as found by the SOJ, who has the last say in Other Officers Authorized by Law
the determination of the PC. (a) Authority of the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct
Section 2. Officers authorized to conduct Preliminary PI and to prosecute all criminal cases involving public
Investigation. – The following may conduct preliminary officers and employees, not only within jurisdiction of
investigations: the SB but also those of regular courts.
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutor and their assistants;
(b) National and Regional State Prosecutors;
This is founded in Section 15 and 11 of RA 6770 which
(c) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
vests the Ombudsman with the power to investigate
Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall and prosecute any act or omission of any public officer
include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their or employee, office or agency, when such act or
respective territorial jurisdiction (As amended by AM No omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
05-08-26-SC, August 30, 2005). inefficient (Uy v. Sandiganbayan – PLENARY AND
UNQUALIFIED).
Authority to Conduct Preliminary Investigation
(b) Authority of the Special Prosecutor
Who may conduct Preliminary Investigation? It is merely a component of the Office of the
(a) Provincial and City Prosecutors and theirs assistants; Ombudsman and may only act under the supervision
(b) National and Regional State prosecutors; and and control and upon the authority of Ombudsman.
(c) Other officers as may be authorized by law. Its power to conduct PI and prosecute is limited to
criminal cases within the jurisdiction of SB.
Extent of their authority to conduct PI
It shall extend to all crimes cognizable by the proper court in (c) Commission on Elections
their respective territorial jurisdictions. COMELEC has the exclusive authority to conduct PI
and prosecute all election offenses under BP 881 but
this is qualified however.

SANTIAGO TURINGAN v. JUDGE GARFIN (2007) SHARON CASTRO v. JUDGE DELORIA (2009)
Moved for quash that state prosecutor Tolentino lacked the There was a 1999 ruling that OMB can only prosecute SB cases
authority to sign it. Did state prosecutor had authority to file but on 2001 it reversed itself saying that the OMB can now
the information of violation of RA 8282. For there was no prosecute cases. It is settled, therefore, that the March 20, 2001
directive citing him as private prosecutor. U Resolution in Uy, that the Ombudsman has prosecutorial
powers in cases cognizable by the RTC, extends even to criminal
Under SSS Law, there are criminal acts, like when the employer information filed or pending at the time when its August 9,
collects and does not remit. Apparently, who is authorized who 1999 Decision was the operative ruling on the issue.
are authorized to conduct PI under SSS Law?
It is settled, therefore, that the March 20, 2001 Resolution in Uy,
The SOJ or the Provincial or City Prosecutor must have a written that the Ombudsman has prosecutorial powers in cases
authority to authorize a particular prosecutor to investigate. cognizable by the RTC, extends even to criminal information
Here the information was signed by Prosecutor Tolentino, filed or pending at the time when its August 9, 1999 Decision
according to him that he was clothed with authority to was the operative ruling on the issue.
investigate and file for he was designated for SSS cases.
RODOLFO MAGO v. JUDGE FERMO (2009)
SC said here that he does not, for it is enough to cite Regional Prior to the amendment on October 3, 2005 of Rules 112 and
Order for it was not the authority contemplated for it was just 114 of the Rules of Court via A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, Re:
a circular or memorandum. Without such authority, he cannot Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on
file. Here it was only Tolentino who investigated and who Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of Preliminary
signed, SC said that it is unauthorized. An unauthorized Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts, judges of
information has a jurisdictional defect. municipal trial courts were empowered to conduct preliminary
investigations in which they exercised discretion in determining
MARINA SCHROEDER v. SALDEVAR (2007) whether there was probable cause to hale the respondent into
There is a direct bribery which is under the Sandiganbayan Law. court. Such being the case, they could not delegate the
It was proper for the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary discretion to another.
investigation. Here, the OMB power to investigate and to
prosecute is plenary and unqualified. It means to pertains to An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it
any act or omission of the public officer. to another, the presumption being that he was chosen because
he was deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment
PAYAKAN TILENDO v. OMBUDSMAN (2007) and discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in
Tilendo was charged with RA 3019. There was an NBI fact his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties
finding team. By referring the complaint to the NBI, the OMB to another.
did not delegate the conduct of PI. The fact finding
investigation which was preparatory before the PI. The options In those cases in which the proper execution of the office
available are five. It is the OMB who conduct investigation and requires on the part of the officer, the exercise of judgment or
not the NBI, it only conducts fact-finding. discretion, the presumption is that he was chosen because he
was deemed fit and competent to exercise that judgment and
Rule II, Section 3 of AO 7 discretion, and, unless power to substitute another in his place
Preliminary investigation; who may conduct. Preliminary has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to
Investigation may be conducted by any of the following: another.
1. Ombudsman Investigators;
2. Special Prosecuting Officers; Then, as now, a personal examination of the complainant in a
3. Deputized Prosecutors; criminal case and his witness/es was required. Thus, under
4. Investigating Officials authorized by law to conduct Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court before its
preliminary investigations, or amendment, the investigating fiscal was required to certify
5. Lawyers in the government service, so designated by under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized
the Ombudsman. officer, has personally examined the complainant and his
witnesses . . .
We already know that the OMB is the investigating body of the
public officers, but we also know the authority of the OMB to By respondents delegation of the examination of the sheriff-
investigate crimes committed by public officers which is plenary complainant in the grave threats case to the stenographer, and
and unqualified. worse, by allowing the witnesses to read/study the [written]
question[s] to be propounded to them and to write their
If the prosecutor does not find a probable cause he has to get answers [thereto] upon respondents justification that the
the authority of the OMB for authority to dismiss or if there is scheme was for the convenience of the stenographers,
PC he must get the prior authority of the OMB in order to file respondent betrayed her lack of knowledge of procedure,
the case in such. thereby contributing to the erosion of public confidence in the
judicial system.

SPOUSES CHUA v. ANG (2009) (c) Within ten (10) days from the receipt of the subpoena
Contended that HLURB shout take jurisdiction of the case. Is with the complaint and supporting affidavits and
the dismissal is correct? No. Even though HLURB have JD under documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-
affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting
PD 957. Here in the decree there are two remedies between an
documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-
administrative or criminal with differing consequences. affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified
as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies
Spouses Chua pursued criminal case. The special law has to thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The
authorize officer to conduct, if there is none, then those how respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to
are empowered under Rule 112, Section 2. There are cases dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.
under PD 957, administrative case be filed to HLURB where to
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if
have quasi-judicial powers and authority to impose fines. In subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within
criminal cases, the investigation be made by those under Rule the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall
112, Section 2. resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented
by the complainant.
BP 881
(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are
This is another kind of special law which gives the COMELEC
facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness.
the power to conduct PI for crimes committed under the OEC The parties can be present at the hearing but without
and the question here, does the COMELEC has exclusive the right to examine or cross-examine. They may,
authority to conduct. however, submit to the investigating officer questions
which may be asked to the party or witness concerned.
Yes, but this is qualified but the prosecutors are given
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from the
automatic authority to them to investigate crimes committed
submission of the counter-affidavits and other
under BP 881. Such authority may be revoked anytime, documents or from the expiration of the period for their
whenever necessary. submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days.
 Continuing authority given to prosecutors until such
authority. (f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the
investigating officer shall determine whether or not
there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for
Section 3. Procedure. – The Preliminary Investigation
trial.
shall be conducted in the following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent Procedure as to the Complainant
and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the 1. He or she shall file the complaint to the office of the
complainant and his witnesses, as well as other prosecutor.
supporting documents to establish probable cause.
2. The complaint shall:
They shall be in such number of copies as there are
respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The a. State the address of the respondent
affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any b. Be accompanied by:
prosecutor or government official authorized to i. Affidavits (subscribed, sworn to and certified)
administer oath, or in their absence or unavailability, of the complainant and his witnesses; and
before a notary public, each of whom must certify that ii. Other supporting documents to establish
he personally examined the affiants and that he is
probable cause.
satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood
their affidavits. 3. Number of copes for the complaint:
a. As many as there are respondents, plus
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the b. Two (2) copies for the official file.
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no
ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a Procedure as to the Investigating Officer
subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the
1. He/she has ten (10) days, after the filing of the complaint
complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
either to:
The respondent shall have the right to examine the a. Dismiss it – if he finds no ground to continue with the
evidence submitted by the complainant which he may investigation, or
not have been furnished and to copy them at his b. Issue a subpoena to the respondent, attaching to the
expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the subpoena:
complainant may be required to specify those which he
i. A copy of the complaint, and
intends to present against the respondent, and these
shall be made available for examination or copying by ii. Its supporting affidavits and documents
the respondent at his expense.
2. He/she shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but presented by the complainant, if the respondent:
shall be made available for examination, copying, or a. Cannot be subpoenaed, or
photographing at the expense of the requesting party.
b. Is subpoenaed, but does not submit counter-
affidavits within the ten (10) day period.

3. He/she may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to Failure to Receive Subpoena, Effects
be clarified from a party or a witness. Section 3(d) of Rule 112 provides that if the respondent cannot
a. The parties (complainant and respondent): be subpoenaed the investigating officer shall base his
i. Can be present at the hearing, resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant. The
ii. Have no right to examine or cross- rules does not require as condition sine qua non to validity
examine, but of the proceedings in the PI as long as efforts were made.
iii. May submit to the investigating officer
questions which may be asked to the party SOCRATES v. SANDIGANBAYAN
or witness concerned. In asserting that there was a violation of his right to a speedy
trial by reason of the unreasonable delay of six (6) years
b. The hearing shall be: between the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the
i. Held within ten (10) days: filing of the informations, petitioner invokes the doctrine laid
1. From the submission of the down in the leading case of Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.
counter-affidavits and other
documents, or In said case, all the affidavits and counter-affidavits had already
2. From the expiration of the period been filed with the Tanodbayan for final disposition as of
for their submission. October 25, 1982 but it was only on June 12, 1985, or three (3)
ii. Terminated within five (5) days. years thereafter, that the informations accusing Tatad of a
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 were filed before the
4. Within ten (10) days after the investigation, he/she shall Sandiganbayan.
determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold
the respondent for trial. The Court held there that an inordinate delay of three (3) years
in the conduct and termination of the preliminary investigation
Investigation refers to the investigation of documents. He is violative of the constitutional rights of the accused to due
cannot dismiss it on his own he must get the consent of the process and speedy disposition of his case, by reason of which
City Prosecutor or the Ombudsman. the informations filed against the accused therein were ordered
dismissed.
Procedure as to the Respondent
1. With respect to the documentary evidence submitted by It must be emphasized, however, that in the Tatad case, no
the complainant, he/she shall have the right to: explanation or ratiocination was advanced by the prosecution
a. Examine the evidence which he may not have been therein as to the cause of the delay. In the present case, as
furnished; distinguished from the factual milieu obtaining in Tatad,
b. To copy them at his expense; and respondent court found that the six-year delay in the
c. To require the complainant to specify those which termination of the preliminary investigation was caused by
he intends to present against the respondent, if the petitioners own acts. Even though the prosecutors take some
evidence is voluminous. time the respondent must object to the delay, you cannot
right away file to the violation of speedy disposition, make
2. With respect to object evidence known your issue. More or less the minimum is 45 days.
a. They need not be furnished to the respondent.
b. They shall be made available for examination, PEOPLE v. EMILIANO ANONAS (2007)
copying or photographing at his/her expense. SPO4 was charged for illegal possession of drugs and firearms.
The court ordered a reinvestigation, and failed to inform the
3. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the succeeding prosecutor the ongoing prosecution.
complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, he/she
shall submit: Issue: Whether or not the delay of 4 years is a violation.
a. Counter-affidavits (subscribed, sworn and certified)
of himself and that of his witnesses; Yes. It invoked Section 3(f) of Rule 112. It was found out that it
b. Other supporting documents relied upon for his/her took more than 4 years before the prosecution made a decision
defense. to hold a trial.
4. He/she shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in BENJAMIN MARTINEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS (2007)
lieu of a counter-affidavit. Issue: Was there compliance with the requirements set forth in
Section 3, Rule 112? YES.
In criminal cases, upon receipt of the complaint the
respondent must file a counter-affidavit, so that is the Initially defective for complaint was not accompanied by the
procedure under Section 3. required affidavits and document because of this, MCTC had
the option of either:
1) Order SPO1 Sulatre to comply with the rule
2) Dismiss the complaint

But what it did was that it opted not to act on the complaint Indubitably, there was no preliminary investigation conducted
until SPO1 Sulatre was able to submit the required affidavits as required by the rules since no subpoena was issued to herein
and documents – and he indeed submitted such. complainants for them to file counter-affidavits.
 Which prompted MCTC to issue a subpoena to
Martinez attached the submitted affidavits and The inordinate haste attending the issuance of the warrants of
documents by SPO1 Sulatre. arrest against complainants, Ernesto Cruz, and Gus Abelgas
belies the conduct of preliminary examination and personal
In addition, Moreover, Martinez submitted his counter-affidavit determination of probable cause, in contravention of the
without any protest. Neither did he assail the validity of the provisions of the Rules of Court, and constituting a denial of
criminal complaint or the tardy submission by SPO1 Sulatre of due process.
the medical certificate, the affidavit of Dean and the affidavit of
arrest of SPO1 Sulatre. Aside from this, Martinez was arraigned NOTE: This is why the power of PI is removed from the judges,
in the RTC, assisted by counsel, and entered a plea of not guilty. the one who issues warrant is the judge where the information
Thus, Sulatre complied with Section 3(a) and (b) of Rule 112. is filed, definitely the judge did not follow proper procedure,
VICENTE LADLAD v. VELASCO (2007) SORIANO v. PEOPLE (2010)

Affidavit was given to the Media and not the respondents. Rule Letter with five affidavits, it was argued that it failed to comply
112, Section 3(a) was not followed. The affidavits shall be with the mandatory requirement of oath and subscription
subscribed and sworn to before proper officers. The under Section 3(a), Rule 112. Did it comply?
prosecutors treated unsubscribed letters as complaints. They
accepted the affidavits attached to the letters even though Yes. The Court is not unaware of the practice of incorporating
some of them were notarized. all allegations in one document denominated as complaint-
affidavit. It does not pronounce strict adherence to only one
During the investigation respondent prosecutors allowed the approach, however, for there are cases where the extent of
CIDG to present a masked Fuentes who subscribed to an one’s personal knowledge may not cover the entire gamut of
affidavit before prosecutor Velasco. Velasco proceeded to details material to the alleged offense.
distribute the copies of Fuentes’ affidavit to the accused or the
counsels out to the members of the media. The private offended party or relative of the deceased may not
 There was partiality on the part of the prosecutors. even have witnessed the fatality, in which case the peace officer
or law enforcer has to rely chiefly on affidavits of witnesses.
The prosecutors did not follow by Section 3, Rule 112 and did
not even copies to the complainants. A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the
fiscal need not be filed by the offended party. The rule has been
A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in the criminal that, unless the offense subject thereof is one that cannot be
justice system which spells for an individual the difference prosecuted de oficio, the same may be filed, for preliminary
between months if not years of agonizing trial and possibly jail investigation purposes, by any competent person.
term, on the one hand, and peace of mind and liberty, on the
other hand. A close scrutiny of the letters transmitted by the BSP to the DOJ,
that these were not intended to be the complaint, as envisioned
Thus, we have characterized the right to a preliminary under the Rules. They did not contain averments of personal
investigation as not "a mere formal or technical right" but a knowledge of the events and transactions constitutive of any
"substantive" one, forming part of due process in criminal offense.
justice. This especially holds true here where the offense
charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and may be non- The letters merely transmitted for preliminary investigation the
bailable for those accused as principals. affidavits of people who had personal knowledge of the acts of
petitioner. We ruled that these affidavits, not the letters
GUTIERREZ v. HERNANDEZ (2007) transmitting them, initiated the preliminary investigation.
They were charged with complaints of gross ignorance of the
law against Hernandez issuing arrest warrants without Since these affidavits were subscribed under oath by the
undergoing of the probable cause determining it. Whether or witnesses who executed them before a notary public, then
not issuing warrant of arrest was not in compliance of Section 3 there was substantial compliance with Section 3(a), Rule 112 of
of Rule 112. the Rules of Court.
ARTILLERO v. CASIMIRO (2012)
It is apparent from the facts on record that the complainants Artillero argues that he should be given a copy of Aguillon’s
were never issued any subpoena to accord them the counter-affidavit. Yes. It is required.
opportunity to file their counter-affidavits to adduce evidence
controverting those alleged in the criminal complaints against However, Provincial Prosecutor Dusaban correctly claims that it
them before the respondent judge issued the warrants of is discretionary on his part to require or allow the filing or
arrest. submission of reply-affidavits.

CALLO-CLARIDAD v. ESTEBAN (2013) extension of time within which to file her counter-affidavit, she
The affidavits were unsworn. The statements subscribed and very well knew that the documents she was asking were not in
sworn to before the officers of the Philippine National Police the record of the case. Obviously, she was not furnished those
(PNP) having the authority to administer oaths upon matters documents because they were not submitted to the Joint
connected with the performance of their official duties Committee. Logically, she has no right to examine said
undeniably lacked the requisite certifications to the effect that documents. We cannot, therefore, fault the Joint Committee in
such administering officers had personally examined the consequently denying her motion for extension to file counter-
affiants, and that such administering officers were satisfied that affidavit as there was no compelling justification for the non-
the affiants had voluntarily executed and understood their observance of the period she was earlier required to follow.
affidavits.
In other words, the time given to the respondent to file her
It can be inferred that the rationale for requiring the affidavits counter-affidavit IS TEN DAYS – THIS IS A MANDATORY. This
of witnesses to be sworn to before a competent officer so as to exception, in the 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors,
ensure that the affidavits supporting the factual allegations in investigating prosecutors allow or grant motions or requests
the Complaint have been sworn before a competent officer and for extension of time to submit counter-affidavits when the
that the affiant has signed the same in the former’s presence interest of justice demands that respondent be given
declaring on oath the truth of the statement made considering reasonable time or sufficient opportunity to engage the
that this becomes part of the bases in finding probable guilt services of counsel; examine voluminous records submitted in
against the respondent. support of the complaint or undertake research on novel,
complicated or technical questions or issues of law and facts of
The lack of the requisite certifications from the affidavits of the case.
most of the other witnesses was in violation of Section 3, Rule
112 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides. Not in the case of GMA, she access to lawyers, this does not
apply to her. What she was asking for was not there in the
In the case at bar, a perusal of the statements/affidavits records submitted there in support of the complaint.
accompanying the complaint shows that out of the total of 16
statements/affidavits corresponding to the respective JINGGOY ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN (2015)
witnesses, only nine (9) thereof were sworn to before a OMB served upon Estrada a copy of the complaint praying for
competent officer. The effect of the unsworn affidavit is that the conduct of criminal proceedings for Plunder. Sen. Estrada
they are inadmissible, they are stricken off but it does not filed his counter-affidavit. He requested the counter-affidavits
make the preliminary investigation void. copies of his co-respondents.
ARROYO v. DOJ (2013) No Right to Ask for Copies of Counter-affidavits

GMA requested the Joint Committee to require Senator Of the Co-Respondents
Pimentel to furnish her with documents referred to. However, There is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to
Senator Pimentel manifested that he was adopting all the furnish a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of his
affidavits attached to the Fact-Finding Team’s Initial Report. co-respondents.
Therefore, when GMA was furnished with the documents
attached to the Initial Report, she was already granted the right Although Section 4(c), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the
to examine as guaranteed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure Office of the Ombudsman provides that a respondent "shall
and the Rules on Criminal Procedure. have access to the evidence on record," this provision should
be construed in relation to Section 4(a) and (b) of the same
Neither was GMA’s right violated when her motion for Rule, as well as to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. First, Section
extension of time within which to submit her counter-affidavit 4(a) states that "the investigating officer shall require the
and countervailing evidence was consequently denied. The complainant or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to
Rules use the term "shall" in requiring the respondent to submit substantiate the complaint."
counter-affidavit and other countervailing evidence within ten
(10) days from receipt of the subpoena. It is settled that the use The "supporting witnesses" are the witnesses of the
of the word "shall" which is a word of command, underscores complainant, and do not refer to the co-respondents. Second,
the mandatory character of the rule. Section 4(b) states that "the investigating officer shall issue an
order attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and all other
In this case, GMA claimed that she could not submit her counter supporting documents, directing the respondent" to submit his
affidavit within the prescribed period because she needed to counter-affidavit. The affidavits referred to in Section 4(b) are
examine documents mentioned in Senator Pimentel’s the affidavits mentioned in Section 4(a).
complaint-affidavit. It appeared, however, that said documents
were not submitted to the Joint Committee and the only Clearly, the affidavits to be furnished to the respondent are the
supporting documents available were those attached to the affidavits of the complainant and his supporting witnesses. The
Initial Report of the Fact-Finding Team. Admittedly, GMA was provision in the immediately succeeding Section 4(c) of the
furnished those documents. Thus, at the time she asked for the same Rule II that a respondent shall have "access to the

evidence on record" does not stand alone, but should be read Under the provision, the conduct of a clarificatory hearing is not
in relation to the provisions of Section 4(a and b) of the same indispensable; rather, it is optional on the part of the
Rule II requiring the investigating officer to furnish the investigating prosecutor as evidenced by the use of the term
respondent with the "affidavits and other supporting "may."
documents" submitted by "the complainant or supporting
witnesses." Thus, a respondent’s "access to evidence on record" That hearing fulfills only the purpose of aiding the investigating
in Section 4(c), Rule II of the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure prosecutor in determining the existence of probable cause for
refers to the affidavits and supporting documents of "the the filing of a criminal complaint before the courts. The
complainant or supporting witnesses" in Section 4(a) of the clarificatory hearing does not accord validity to the preliminary
same Rule II. investigation by the prosecutor, nor does its absence render the
proceedings void.
Third, Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that "[t]he respondent shall have the right Necessarily, the failure of Ong and Santiago to appear at the
to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which scheduled clarificatory hearing might have caused some slight
he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his inconvenience to the investigating prosecutor, but it did not
expense." A respondent’s right to examine refers only to "the result in the exclusion of the affidavits or counter-affidavits
evidence submitted by the complainant." already submitted by the parties.
Thus, whether under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal In fact, under the rules, an investigating prosecutor may resolve
Procedure or under Rule II of the Ombudsman’s Rules of a complaint based only on the evidence presented by the
Procedure, there is no requirement whatsoever that the complainant if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed or, if
affidavits executed by the co-respondents should be furnished subpoenaed, does not submit a counter-affidavit within the
to a respondent. prescribed period.
No Right to Cross-Examine The panel's act of resolving the complaint against petitioners
This Court has unequivocally ruled in Paderanga that "Section and Ong primarily on the basis of Doble's evidence, and in spite
3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly of the timely submission of the counter-affidavits, was clearly
provides that the respondent shall only have the right to submit committed with grave abuse of discretion.
a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence submitted by
the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to NOTE: If the affidavits complied with the rules, they cannot be
propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their excluded, a clarificatory hearing is not mandatory, the
witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but failure to appear does not render those affidavits non-
without the right to examine or cross-examine." admissible. Clearly, the panel did not follow rules, they did not
consider the side of the respondent.
Moreover, Section 4 (a, b and c) of Rule II of the Ombudsman’s
Rule of Procedure, read together, only require the investigating COMMENTARY: So we have the investigating prosecutor and
officer to furnish the respondent with copies of the affidavits of did PI and found PC to hold respondent for trial, what are the
the complainant and his supporting witnesses.1âwphi1 There is respondents to take? He has prepare the resolution and
no law or rule requiring the investigating officer to furnish the information. Resolution means that the investigation
respondent with copies of the affidavits of his co-respondents. prosecutor found probable cause and recommends
information, if it was Information he cannot sign unless he is
FELIX v. CA (2016) the one authorized.
As aptly pointed out by the RTC, there was no justification for
the rejection of the counter-affidavits upon the failure to Next, he shall certify under oath the information that he or as
subscribe and swear to them before the panel. shown of the record, an authorized officer has personally
examined the complainant and his witnesses (either in the
Under Section 3(a) and (c), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, swearing or in the clarificatory hearing), and there is probable
counter-affidavits may be subscribed and sworn to before any cause, he should certify four things or statements.
prosecutor or government official authorized to administer
oaths or, in their absence or unavailability, before any notary The information and resolution are already ready, he shall
public. forward the record to the case within 5 days to the superior
depending either City/Provincial Prosecutor or Ombudsman.
Notably, the counter-affidavits of Ong and Santiago, the
recantation of Santos, and the affidavit of Bishop Bacani were What if no probable cause, he will recommend dismissal the
all subscribed and sworn to before government prosecutors. resolution now is a Recommendation to Dismiss and forward
to the superior, anything he decided will be forwarded to the
Also, the failure of Ong and Santiago to appear before the superior. Superior now has the recommendation he has to act
panel did not justify the exclusion of their duly submitted to approve or not and immediately inform the parties (review).
counter-affidavits and annexes.

If the recommendation for dismissal, and it is disapproved by RESOLUTION OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR
the superior, then the superior may by himself may file the case
against the respondent, or he can direct one of his inferiors to A. If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold
do so, and there is no need to conduct another PI. respondent for trial:
1. He shall prepare the resolution and information
Now, Secretary of Justice will reach, if the party goes up, if it
is about probable cause it is the accused, if dismissal, the 2. He shall certify under oath in the information that:
private complainant. Upon petition by a proper party. What the a. He, or as shown by the record, an
SOJ may do, he may direct the prosecution concerned to file or authorized officer, has personally
to dismiss or moved to dismiss. examined the complainant and his
witnesses;
Section 4. Resolution of Investigating Prosecutor and its b. There is reasonable ground to believe that
Review. – If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to a crime has been committed and the
hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the accused is probably guilty thereof;
resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in
c. The accused was informed of the
the information that he, or as shown by the record, an
authorized officer, has personally examined the complaint and of the evidence submitted
complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable against him; and
ground to believe that a crime has been committed and d. The accused was given an opportunity to
that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the submit controverting evidence; and
accused was informed of the complaint and of the
evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an
3. He shall forward the record of the case within five
opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise
he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint. (5) days from his resolution, to his superior who may
either be the:
Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward a. Provincial or city prosecutor, or
the record of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor b. Chief state prosecutor, or
or chief state prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy c. Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of
in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in
offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
the exercise of its original jurisdiction. They shall act on
the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt in the exercise of its original jurisdiction
thereof and shall immediately inform the parties of such
action. B. If the investigation prosecutor finds NO cause to
hold respondent for trial:
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by 1. He shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint;
an investigating prosecutor without the prior written 2. He shall forward the record of the case, within give
authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor
or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy. (5) days from his resolution, to his superior who may
either be:
Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the a. Provincial or city prosecutor, or
dismissal of the complaint but his recommendation is b. Chief state prosecutor, or
approved by the provincial or city prosecutor or the c. Ombudsman or his deputy in his cases of
Ombudsman or his deputy on the ground that a probable
offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
exists, the latter may, by himself, file the information
against the respondent, or direct another assistant in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
prosecutor to do so without conducting another
preliminary investigation. REVIEW OF THE RESOLUTION OF
THE INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR
If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the
Department of Justice may prescribe or motu proprio, the
A. No complaint or information may be filed or
Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of
the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without
he shall direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the the prior written authority or approval of the:
corresponding information without conducting another a. Provincial or city prosecutor, or
preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for b. Chief state prosecutor, or
dismissal of the complaint or information with notice to c. The Ombudsman or his deputy
the parties. The same rule shall apply in preliminary
investigations conducted by the officers of the Office of the
Ombudsman. B. Duty of the superior reviewing the resolution:
a. He/she shall act on the resolution within
ten (10) days from receipt thereof, by
NOTE: The Office of the Prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial body.
either:
It does not determine guilt and only conducts inquisitorial PI. It
i. Approving it, or
is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose
ii. Disapproving it
except that of determining whether a crime has been
b. He/she shall immediately inform the
committed and whether there is probable cause.
parties of such action.

APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION Authority to Appeal Dismissal
MADE BY INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR In cases where a DOJ prosecutor has been deputized by the
COMELEC to prosecute an election offense, who has authority
A. If the recommendation for dismissal is disapproved to decide whether or not the appeal from the order of dismissal
by the superior on the ground that probable cause issued by a court, the COMELEC or its designated prosecutor?
exists:
1. The superior may, by himself, file in the information COMELEC. Prosecutors designated by the COMELEC act as its
against the respondent or direct another assistant deputies who derive authority from it. It is beyond the power
prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so, and of the prosecutor to oppose the appeal of COMELEC. He should
2. There is no need for conducting another preliminary have discussed the matter with COMELEC and awaited its
investigation. instruction (COMELEC v. Silva, 286 SCRA 777, 1988).
B. The Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the 3. Review of Resolution

resolution of the superior of the investigating Nature of Prosecution Office
prosecutor: The Office of the Prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial agency
1. Upon petition by a proper party under such rules as whose resolutions are subject to review under Rule 43. The
the DOJ may prescribe, or conduct of preliminary investigation is not a trial of the case on
2. Motu proprio the merits and has no purpose except that of determining
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
C. What the Secretary of Justice may do when he probable cause to believe that the accused is guilt thereof.
reverses or modifies said resolution – he may direct
the prosecutor concerned either to: Supervision and Control Over Prosecutors
1. File the corresponding information without The Secretary of Justice has the supervision and control over
conducting another preliminary investigation, or the Office of the Chief Prosecutor as well as the Provincial and
2. Dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or City Prosecution Offices. The actions of prosecutors are not
information with notice to the parties. unlimited, they are subject to review by the SOJ who may affirm,
nullify, reverse, or modify their actions or opinions.
1. Resolution
Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction Consequently, the Secretary may direct them to file either a
In holding there is probable cause to charge for respondent for motion to dismiss the case or an information against the
a crime, does the prosecutor also make a finding that he has accused. In short, the SOJ is the ultimate authority who decides
sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt? which of conflicting theories of complainants and respondents
should be believed (Community Bank v. Talavera).
No. A prosecutor does not decide whether there is evidence
beyond reasonable doubt, he merely determines whether there Review of the Ombudsman Resolution
is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a What is the proper procedure for seeking a review of the
crime has been committed and that the accused is probably resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman finding the
guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A finding of probable existence or non-existence of probable cause?
cause therefore does not require an inquiry as to whether there
is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction (Rizon v. Desierto). Supreme Court. Where the finding of the OMB as to the
existence or non-existence of probable cause is tainted with
Absence of Certification grave abuse of discretion amount to lack or excess of
Is an information without certification by the prosecutor that he jurisdiction, while there is no appeal, the aggrieved party may
conducted a preliminary investigation valid? file with the SC a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Yes. Notwithstanding the absence in the information of a Remedy in Cases of Dismissal by the DOJ Secretary
certification as to the holding of a preliminary investigation, the If his motion for reconsideration is denied by the SOJ, since
information is nonetheless considered valid for the reason that there is no more appeal or other remedy available in the
such certification is not an essential part of the information ordinary course of law, the procedure to file a petition for
itself and its absence cannot vitiate it as such (Alvios v. certiorari with the CA on the ground of grave abuse of
Sandiganbayan, 220 SCRA 55). discretion under Rule 65 (Filadams v. CA, 426 SCRA 460).
2. Authority to Dismiss Discretion of the Courts to Dismiss

Case Pending in Court Once an information is field in court, any disposition of the
May a judge dismiss an information without the consent of the same or dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests
provincial or city or chief state prosecutor? Yes. It has no within the exclusive jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of
application in a case here the information is already filed before the trial court. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the public
the proper court. In fact, the epigraph of Rule 112 of Duty of prosecutor should be addressed to the court who has the
investigating fiscal (Manlavi v. Gacott). option to grant or deny the same.

In resolving the motion, the court should not rely solely and WEBB v. DE LEON
merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the SOJ that On June 1994, NBI filed with DOJ charging Webb with Rape
no crime was committed or that the evidence in the possession with homicide. A panel of prosecutors was formed by the DOJ
of the public prosecutor is insufficient to support a judgment to conduct PI this panel was headed by ACSP Zuno. During PI
of conviction of the accused. claimed because he was in US and return only in PH in 1992.
The trial court should make an independent assessment of the Finding probable cause to hold respondents for trial
merits of the case based on affidavits and counter-affidavits, recommending that an Information for rape and homicide be
documents or evidence appended to the Information; or any filed with Webb et al. Webb assails a premature the filing of the
evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at Information because they still have the right to appeal the
the time motion is filed by the public prosecutor. adverse resolution of DOJ Panel to the SOJ. Was it premature
due to inability to appeal?
Exceptions to the Non-Interference of Courts
While as a general policy, courts should not interfere in the No. Basis of Filing is DOJ Order 223, an appeal or MR shall not
conduct of preliminary investigation, leaving the investigating hold the filing of the information in court, so if there is a motion
officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause. What it will not bar the filing. DOJ Order No. 223 allows the filing
are the exceptions? In the case of Filadams Pharma v. CA: of the information even if the accused can still exercise the right
1. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the to seek a review of prosecution recommendation.
constitutional rights of the accused;
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice After PC is found, the Information is filed. Now, the accused can
or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; appeal to the SOJ the finding of PC under Section 4, but the
3. Where there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; Information will not be held in abeyance, both information
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of and appeal can both proceed simultaneously.
authority;
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance DUMLAO v. JUDGE PONFERRADA
or regulation; In 1995 7 were murdered the witnesses identified Flores et al
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; and Atty. Tamargo and Modina gave orders. After PI there was
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; PC found by State Prosecutor charged with multiple murder.
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; Flores filed a review with DOJ – reversed Prosecutor and
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by directed withdrawal of the said Information. A motion to
the lust for vengeance; and withdraw were filed with RTC Manila.
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash has been denied. Later Judge Ponferrada granted the motion and dismissed the
cases of Flores. Flores argues that SOJ cannot review the
Remedies Against Refusal to File resolution of the public prosecutor after the cases had been
What are remedies of offended party in cases where filed in court. Can the SOJ review after the such Informations
government prosecutor unjustifiably refuses to file information were filed in court?
against a person who appears to be responsible for a crime?
Yes. RA 5180 the SOJ is vested with the power to review
Where the government prosecutor unreasonably refuses to file resolution of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor. The
an information or to include a person as an accused therein filing of an information does not prevent SOJ from ordering the
despite the fact that the evidence clearly warrants such action, withdrawal of the case and to exercise review power. In Crespo
the offended party has the following remedies: v. Mogul, while the SOJ can alter the findings, he cannot review
the findings. He can MOVE FOR DISMISSAL.
1. In case of grave abuse of discretion, he may file an
action for mandamus to compel the prosecutor to file NOTE: Can an appeal be made to the SOJ even if the
such an information; information is filed in court? Yes. When the SOJ reverses the
2. He may lodge a new complaint against the offenders resolution of the prosecutor but the information was filed, the
before the Ombudsman and have a new examination SOJ cannot order withdrawal he can only direct prosecutor
conducted as required by law; to file for a motion to dismiss, the court has to make its own
3. He may institute administrative charges against the decision whether to dismiss or not.
erring prosecutor, or a criminal complaint under
Article 208 of RPC or a civil action of damages Art. 27 FIRST WOMEN CREDIT CORP v. BAYBAY
of the Civil Code. Inv Pros found PC – CP approved but DOJ moved for withdrwal
4. He may secure the appointment of another of the information. While this was happening, the Jacinto filed
prosecutor; or a motion to withdraw because of the DOJ motion, here Judge
5. He may institute another criminal action if no double Baybay dismissed the criminal cases. Should the court make an
jeopardy is involved. independent assessment? Yes.

While the SOJ is persuasive it is not binding to the courts. Court determination whether or not there is probable cause to hold
emphasized that Judge Baybay need not make a lengthy the accused for trial.
explanation.
NOTE: The CPO filed a Motion to Withdraw on October 23 and
NOTE: Here we have the SOJ ordering Pros to move to dismiss the judge granted the motion on October 24. How can he study
the court judge however has to make an independent all of these voluminous documents, the judge could not have
judgment. The judge can either grant deny, in here the motion read the whole thing in the whole.
of judgment – it does not matter if the resolution is short as
long as he made his independent assessment. It suffices upon This failure of Judge Eugenio to independently evaluate and
his personal evaluation he is convinced there is no probable assess the merits of the case against the accused violates the
cause to indict the accused. complainants right to due process and constitutes grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction
AMANDA CRUZ v. WILFREDO CRUZ (2007)
In 1996 the ACP recommended the dismissal of the complaint, SORIANO v. MARCELO (2009)
sustained by the CCP and then the CSP and SOJ. The CA Resolution was forwarded to ACP – meanwhile Palad filed a
directed SOJ to file an information. And here comes the CA motion to reopen the case for she was not given a copy of the
ordering the SOJ to file the information. Is that correct? Crespo subpoena. Dimagiba recommended the reopening of the case.
v. Mogul – separation doctrine. March 26, 2002 Balasbas issued a subpoena. The reopening of
the case prompted Soriano to file with OMB. Soriano alleged
TOLENTINO v. JUDGE PAQUEO (2007) that Palad received an unwarranted advantage. Graft
Failure to remit SSS despite demand, during arraignment Investigation Office dismissed. Was the dismissal proper?
moved for the deferment of the arraignment and moved for
quash was granted by the court. The State prosecutor opposed Although Balasbas initially recommended filing of a criminal
the motion to quash. Whether or not the complaint or case against Palad, this recommendation was still subject to the
information by SP Tolentino has prior written authority or approval of his superiors, Dimagiba and the City Prosecutor.
approval. The quashal was because there no prior written Balasbas, as investigating prosecutor, had no power or control
authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor. over the final disposition of Palads motion to reopen the case.
Who are authorized to approve? Conducting a preliminary investigation for the purpose of
Who gave the prior authority? – Regional State Prosecutor he determining whether there exists probable cause to prosecute
is not included in this list, there is still no proper approval. He a person for the commission of a crime, including the
must get the approval of the Chief State Prosecutor. determination of whether to conclude, reopen or dismiss the
criminal complaint subject of the preliminary investigation, is a
SUMMERVILLE v. EUGENIO (2007) matter that rests within the sound discretion of the provincial
Kho et al raised CPO finding to SOJ – which affirmed the CPO. or city prosecutor.
Whether or not judge is bound to adopt the SOJ finding. This
is because once a complaint or information has been filed in NOTE: Can an investigating prosecutor reopen a case, after he
court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion has already submitted resolution recommending the filing of
of the court. an information? When the City Prosecutor directed him to allow
the respondent to allow him to file the counter-affidavit under
[T]he trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Section 3. The superior here has the jurisdiction. This is
Secretary of Justice since it is mandated to independently favorable to the accused.
evaluate or assess the merits of the case and it may either agree  Although there was a repeat of the PI and
or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of unfortunately the resolution was dismissal.
Justice. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary of  The investigation prosecutor cannot be blamed for he
Justice would be an abdication of the trial courts duty and just followed the orders of prosecutor.
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.
LEE v. KBC BANK (2010)
In this case, it can be readily seen from the October 24, 2001 State prosecutor recommended that the two counts of estafa
Order of Judge Eugenio, granting the withdrawal of the be filed. SOJ directed Prosecutor to move for dismiss.
Information, that the trial court glaringly failed to conduct its Considering that the trial court has the power and duty to look
own determination of a prima facie case, and simply adopted into the propriety of the prosecution’s motion to dismiss, with
the September 28, 2001 Resolution issued by the Secretary of much more reason is it for the trial court to evaluate and to
Justice. Where the prosecution is, as in this case, make its own appreciation and conclusion, whether the
disappointingly unsure, irresolute, and uncertain on whether it modification of the charges and the dropping of one of the
should prosecute the accused, the court should have been most accused in the information, as recommended by the Justice
circumspect and judicious in the resolution of the Motion to Secretary, is substantiated by evidence.
Withdraw Information, and should have conducted its own

This should be the state of affairs, since the disposition of the Yes. If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the
case — such as its continuation or dismissal or exclusion of an Department of Justice may prescribe or motu proprio, the
accused — is reposed in the sound discretion of the trial court. Secretary of Justice reverses or modifies the resolution of the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, he shall
In the present case, Judge Dumayas, in his 26 March 2003 direct the prosecutor concerned either to file the
Order, did not (1) positively state that the evidence against Lee corresponding information without conducting another
and Lim is insufficient, (2) include a discussion of the merits of preliminary investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of
the case, (3) assess whether Secretary Perez’s conclusion is the complaint or information with notice to the parties. The
supported by evidence, (4) look at the basis of Secretary Perez’s same rule shall apply in preliminary investigations conducted
recommendation, (5) embody his assessment in the order, and by the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman.
(6) state his reasons for granting the motion to withdraw the
informations. Judge Dumayas’ failure to make his own Verily, the Secretary of Justice was empowered to review the
evaluation of the merits of the case violates KBC Bank’s right to actions of the Provincial Fiscal during the preliminary
due process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Judge investigation or the reinvestigation.
Dumayas’ 26 March 2003 Order granting the motion to
withdraw the informations is void. In the case at bar, we find that there is nothing on record to
show that respondents were given notice and an opportunity
PLOPINIO v. CARINO (2010) to be heard before the Secretary of Justice. For this reason, we
Whether or not the charges before the OMB are considered as remand the case to the Secretary of Justice with respect to
formal charges. In criminal cases, the determination that a respondents Dongail, Lorilla, Hulleza, and Cimatu for further
person is formally charged. proceedings, with the caveat that any resolution of the
Secretary of Justice on the matter shall be subject to the
To summarize, a person shall be considered formally charged: approval of the trial court.
(1) In administrative proceedings (a) upon the filing of a NOTE: A Motion for Reinvestigation is filed before the court,
complaint at the instance of the disciplining authority; or (b) and this was filed by the private complainant, it is not the only
upon the finding of the existence of a prima facie case by the the accused. If the court in its own decision orders such
disciplining authority, in case of a complaint filed by a private reinvestigation, it must be conducted. The SOJ ordered for
person. reinvestigation, not only upon petition but also motu proprio.
(2) In criminal proceedings (a) upon the finding of the existence Q. If there is a petition for review or appeal before SOJ, and the
of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor and the information has been filed, what if the SOJ does not find the
consequent filing of an information in court with the required crime but merely homicide, can the SOJ order the prosecutor
prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city to change, under Section 4 – the SOJ can only look two things.
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his  Affirmed the probable cause
deputy; (b) upon the finding of the existence of probable cause  Direct prosecutor for a motion to dismiss, this is when
by the public prosecutor or by the judge in cases not requiring the prosecutor can file for an Amended Information.
a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on  There must first be a motion to dismiss.
Summary Procedure; or (c) upon the finding of cause or ground
to hold the accused for trial pursuant to Section 13 of the We already know that even if INF, the SOJ can review, the INF
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. can still run in the case.
NOTE: ONLY UPON THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN ADASA v. ABALOS (2007)
COURT. Before that one cannot be considered as an accused. OCP found PC resulting them to file two criminal cases against
He is not yet “charged” during the PI, when “charged” means Adasa. Adasa plead not guilty. In 2001, Adasa filed to the DOJ
filing of an information in court. a petition for review. SOJ recommended the withdrawal of the
information. Abalos filed MR citing Section 7 of DOJ Circular 70
FORTALEZA v. SOJ (2016) outrightly advises that a review after arraignment must be
Investigation Prosecutor recommending dismissal for lack of dismissed, DOJ does denied the MR.
PC. The second one was dismissed for actual and legal merit.
This time, ACP Elmaco issued a Resolution finding PC. However, Can DOJ take cognizance of appeal after arraignment – No.
the case of Escalante et al. Later on ACP Elmaco released Dumail
from the complaint and an Information was filed to the RTC. Section 7 is neither contradictory nor irreconcilable with
Section 12. As can be seen above, Section 7 pertains to the
A wife of victim filed for a motion for reinvestigation, but the action on the petition that the DOJ must take, while Section 12
prosecutor did not do a reinvestigation but merely affirmed the enumerates the options the DOJ has with regard to the
Elmaco findings. However in December 13, 2004, a letter was disposition of a petition for review or of an appeal.
sent for automatic review. Whether or not the SOJ motu proprio
despite the fact that complainant did not file a petition for review.

Moreover, the settled rule is that when an accused pleads to Section 5. When Warrant of Arrest May Issue. –
the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to (a) By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days
preliminary investigation and the right to question any from the filing of the complaint or information, the
judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the
irregularity that surrounds it.
prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on
This precept is also applicable in cases of reinvestigation as well record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he
as in cases of review of such reinvestigation. In this case, when finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of
petitioner unconditionally pleaded to the charge, she arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint
effectively waived the reinvestigation of the case by the or information was pursuant to Section 6 of this
Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable
prosecutor as well as the right to appeal the result thereof to
cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to
the DOJ Secretary. present additional evidence within five (5) days
from notice and the issue must be resolved by the
Thus, with the arraignment of the petitioner, the DOJ Secretary court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the
can no longer entertain the appeal or petition for review complaint or information.
because petitioner had already waived or abandoned the same.
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. – When required
pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 1 of
NOTE: Section 7 once the accused has been arraigned, the SOJ this Rule, the Preliminary Investigation of cases
can no longer entertain a review of the resolution of falling under the original jurisdiction of the
prosecution. An appeal must be done BEFORE THE ACCUSED Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
IS ARRAIGNED. Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit
Trial Court SHALL be conducted by the prosecutor.
The procedure for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
SALES v. ADAPON (2016)
by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of
It was the son filed falsification against the Adapons. Prosecutor this section.
Cuecas (R112, S4) that it is impossible for him to continue with
PI and she was not able to attend the clarificatory hearing, it (c) When Warrant of Arrest not Necessary. – A warrant of
went to the DOJ – the evidence is already sufficient. arrest shall not issue if the accused is already under
detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the
municipal trial court in accordance with paragraph
Now it went to the Court of Appeals – stating that the Inv Pros
(b) of this section, or if the complaint or information
has to personally examined the complainant. was filed pursuant to Section 6 of this Rule or is for
an offense penalized by fine only. The court shall
Is the failure to appear personally at the clarificatory hearing? then proceed in the exercise of its original
No. It does not require inquiry whether or not. The records jurisdiction. [As amended by AM 05-08-26-SC].
contained sufficient evidence, she was represented by her son,
Inv Pros should have granted her request to have her Procedure to be Followed by an RTC or MTC Judge
deposition instead. Inv Pros failed to specify the matters still when Preliminary Investigation is Required
needing to be clarified. CA had a restrictive reading of the word
“complainant,” is the state not necessarily the private party. A. He shall personally evaluate the resolution of the
prosecutor and its supporting evidence:
NOTE: The clarificatory hearing is not Rule 112, Section 4 is This must be done within ten (10) days from the filing of
talking about – personally examined. Clarificatory hearing is the complaint of information.
not mandatory. Regarding the examination of the complainant,
it is sufficient, that a prosecutor or authorized officer is the one B. Step to be taken after personal evaluation:
who swears, that is what the certification means. 1. If the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause – immediately dismiss the case.
MAXIMO v. VILLAPANDO (2017) 2. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue either a:
Maximo and Panganiban filed a criminal complaint against a. Warrant of arrest, or
Villapando, Jr. The complaints were ACP Canobas and ACP b. Commitment order when the complaint or
Vermug, Jr – then issued a PC for the crime for perjury – information was filed pursuant to lawful
information was signed by ACP and certified ACP. Alleged to warrantless arrest under Rule 112, Section 6.
be improper for it did not bear the approval of the CP, but on
the information was with the prior authority. It did not comply. C. What the judge may do in case of doubt
He may order the prosecutor to present additional
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed evidence within five (5) days from notice
without written authority of the CP Aspi obtained. There
must be a demonstration, the court does not acquire D. Period for resolution
jurisdiction. A certification is not enough, in this case it did The issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30)
not happen. days from the filing of the complaint or information.

When MTC Judge Need Not Issue Warrant of Arrest What is required, is that judge must have sufficient supporting
1. When the complaint or information was filed pursuant documents (complaints, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn
to a lawful warrantless arrest; statements of witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes)
2. When the accused is charged for an offense upon which to make his independent judgment, or at the very
punishable by fine only; or least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to
3. When the case is covered by the Rules of Summary the existence of probable cause.
Procedure (there is no issuance of warrant of arrest)
Personal Determination by the Judge
Probable Cause, Definition
Probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest is the Evidence Needed by for Issuance
existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a In Okabe v. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685, the judge issued a
reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an warrant of arrest based on the resolution, information and the
offense has been committed by the person sought to be affidavit of the complainant. It was ruled that the judge
arrested. Hence, the judge before issuing a warrant of arrest, committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant.
must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted,
there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and In determining the existence or non-existence of probable
that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof. cause for the arrest of the accused, the judge should not rely
solely on the report of the investigation prosecutor but also on
At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the judge is not yet the affidavits and the documentary evidence of the parties, the
tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the counter-affidavit of accused and witnesses, the TSN during the
preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that he personally PI, if any submitted to the court.
evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause. The
judge merely determine the probability not certainty. Reliance on the Prosecutor’s Certification
In Abdula v. Guiani 326 SCRA 1 (2000), The judge issued a
Probable Cause by Prosecutor Distinguished from warrant and commented that there was “no reason for him to
Probable Cause by the Judge to Issue Warrant of Arrest doubt the validity of the certification made by the prosecutor
Prosecutor Judge that a PI was conducted and that the probable cause was found
Whether there is reasonable The judge, on the other to exist justifying the issuance of the warrant.”
ground to believe that the hand, determines whether a
accused is guilty of the warrant of arrest should be It was ruled here that the warrant is not valid. The statement
offense charge and should issued against the accused, is an admission that the judge relied solely on the certification
be held for trial is what the whether there is a necessity made by the prosecutor that PC exists. The Constitution itself
prosecutor passes on. for placing him under commands the judge to PERSONALLY DETERMINE the
immediate custody in order probable cause in the issuance of warrants of arrest. He cannot
not to frustrate the ends of adopt the judgment of the prosecutor regarding the existence
justice. of probable cause without doing his constitutional duty.
Reliance by Judge on Clerk

Since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely
In Talingdan v. Eduarte 366 SCRA 559 (2001), the judge here
on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to
was made administratively liable when the judge issued the
justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
subject warrant of arrest without even such certification to rely
upon and worse merely at the instance of the clerk who
The contents of the prosecutor’s report will support his own
mechanically typed the warrant for his signature.
conclusion that there is reason to charged the accused of an
offense and hold him for trial.
Examination of Witnesses
In Webb v. De Leon 247 SCRA 652 (1995), the judge, in
However, the judge must decide independently. Hence, he
satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the
must have supporting evidence, other than the prosecution’s
issuance of the warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to
bare report upon which to legally sustain his own findings on
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The
the existence or non-existence of probable cause to issue an
following established doctrine and procedure, he shall:
arrest order.
1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
It is not required that the entire records of the case during the
existence of probable cause, and on the basis hereof
Preliminary Investigation be submitted to and examined by the
issue a warrant of arrest;
judge. Resolution and the attached documents.
2. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he
may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the
The trial courts should not be unduly burdened by obliging
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid
them to examine the complete records of every case all the time
him in arriving at a conclusions as to the existence of
simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of the accused.
probable cause.

Holding in Abeyance Arrest REDULLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2007)
Five complaints were filed against Redulla et al for RA 3019,
Pendency of Reinvestigation after investigation, the OMB before SB for three Informations,
Can an RTC judge issue a warrant of arrest against an accused the OSP filed for Motion for Reinvestigation. OMB approved
even before the prosecutor can conclude the preliminary that there was no probable cause.
investigation or reinvestigation he ordered?
There was a new OMB and ordered review and found PC
Yes. Rule 112, Section 3 does not require that PI be first instead. OMB filed and new INF, Redulla filed for a judicial
completed before a warrant of arrest may issue. What the rule determination of probable cause, the SB denied citing policy to
simply provides is that no complaint or information for an respect of the OMB power. Is SB’s denial in order? – No.
offense may be filed without completing the PI. But nowhere is
it mandated that PI must be complete before an arrest warrant The denial is in line with the SC policy of non-interference in
may be issued. There is nothing also in Rule 112 suggesting the exercise of the OMB constitutionally mandated powers. As
that once a PI is granted, a warrant of arrest is lifted or recalled long as OMB resolution is supported by evidence, it will not be
(Pen v. De Castro, 293 SCRA 1, 1998). (See Talag v. Reyes). overturned.
Pendency of Motion to Hold in Abeyance NOTE: In other words, lawyers abuse this provision and apply
Can a court commit grave abuse of authority in issuing an arrest for judicial determination of probable cause, what the judge
warrant despite a pending motion to hold in abeyance the should only determine to find warrant of arrest. The judge
issuance of the same? should deny that.
No. When accused filed the omnibus motion, the court has not AAA v. CARBONELL (2007)
yet acquired jurisdiction over his person. With the filing of the Information was filed against Azardon, Azardon filed a motion
information the trial court could then issue an arrest warrant. to hold abeyance all court proceedings to determine probable
cause. Judge Antonio granted the motion directing AAA and
Arrest Warrant Against “John Does” witnesses for personal examination – but did not appear thus
May judge issue warrants of arrest against persons designated he dismissed. Does the judge has to personally examine the
merely as John Does? complainant the witnesses for a determination of PC?
No. An arrest warrant issued against John Does not one of NO. In this case, respondent Judge Carbonell dismissed
whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would identify, Criminal Case No. 6983 without taking into consideration the
is one of the nature of General Warrant – unconstitutional and June 11, 2003 Resolution of 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
totally subversive of liberty thus void and without effect. Georgina Hidalgo, the October 13, 2003 Resolution of the panel
(Pangandaman v. Cesar, 159 SCRA 599, 1988). of prosecutors, and the July 1, 2005 Resolution of the
Department of Justice, all of which sustain a finding of probable
Arrest Warrant in Extradition cause against Arzadon.
In Government v. Purganan 389 SCRA 623 (2002), the US
Government through DOJ filed with RTC a petition for Moreover, he failed to evaluate the evidence in support thereof.
extradition of Mark Jimenez who was facing various criminal Respondent judge’s finding of lack of probable cause was
charges in Florida. It prayed for his arrest, so judge set hearing. premised only on the complainant’s and her witnesses’ absence
Is the potential extraditee entitled to notice and hearing before a during the hearing scheduled by the respondent judge for the
warrant of arrest can issue? judicial determination of probable cause.
No. PD 1069, the Extradition Law, uses the word immediate to ONG v. GENIO (2009)
qualify the arrest of the accused. Arrest subsequent to a herring What we should always remember the difference of two kinds
can no longer be considered immediate. Thus, immediately between two kinds of probable cause.
upon receipt of the petition, the judge shall make a prima facie
finding of whether the petition is sufficient in form and INOCENTES v. SB
substance and in compliance with PD 1069 if the judge is Here Inocentes, there was a resolution by the SB finding PC, the
convinced, he issues a warrant for the arrest of the person and INF filed before SB, to issue arrest warrant. Inocentes posted for
summon him to appear at scheduled hearings. bail and filed for judicial determination of probable cause. This
is not allowed.
Even Article III, Section 2 of 1987 Constitution does not require
notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. If you post bail, you can no longer question the PC, you
What it merely requires is for the judge to determine probable must do this before posting bail. The findings of the SB is
cause by personal examination of complainants and witnesses pointless because it already acquired JD over him due to the
they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear posting of bail.
the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest in such
instances.

Section 6. When Accused Lawfully Arrested Without D. Who shall file the complaint or information against
Warrant. – When a person is lawfully arrested without a said person lawfully arrested without a warrant:
warrant involving an offense which requires a Preliminary 1. General Rule: The inquest prosecutor
Investigation, the complaint or information may be filed
2. Exceptions: In the absence or unavailability of the
by a prosecutor without need of such preliminary
investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in inquest prosecutor, the following may file the
accordance with existing rules. In the absence or complaint directly with the proper court on the
unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly arresting officer or person:
with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the a. The offended party, or
offended party or arresting officer or person.
b. A peace officer.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person
arrested may ask for a Preliminary Investigation in Effects When a Person Lawfully Arrested Without a
accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the Warrant Asks for a Preliminary Investigation
provision of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding A. BEFORE the complaint of information is filed:
the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation
1. He must sign a waiver of the provision of Article 125
must be terminated within fifteen days from its inception.
of the Revised Penal Code, in the presence of his
After the filing of the complaint of information in court counsel; but
without a Preliminary Investigation, the accused may, 2. Despite the waiver, he may apply for bail, and
within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask 3. The Preliminary Investigation must be terminated
for a Preliminary Investigation with the same right to within 15 days from its inception;
adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.
B. AFTER the complaint or information is filed:
REVISED PENAL CODE 1. He may ask for a PI within five (5) days non-extendible,
Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to after learning that the complaint has been filed,
the proper judicial authorities. — The penalties provided otherwise, his right to PI is deemed waived, and
in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the 2. He has right to adduce evidence in his defense during
public officer or employee who shall detain any person for the PI, but
some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to
3. This has to be done before he is arraigned as the
the proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve
(12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light entering of plea is deemed waiver of one’s right to
penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for Preliminary Investigation.
crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or
their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or Inquest Proceedings, Definition
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or An inquest is an informal and summary investigation
their equivalent.
conducted by a public prosecutor in a criminal case involving
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant
cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining
request, to communicate and confer at any time with his whether said persons should remain under custody and
attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, correspondingly charged in court. (Section 1, DOJ Circular No.
Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively). 61) Inquests proceedings follow in cases where persons are
arrested without the benefit of an arrest order or warrant, or
When Accused Lawfully Arrested Without a Warrant are caught in the act of committing a criminal offense.
A. When Section is Applicable Only offenses that would require preliminary investigation will
1. When a person is lawfully arrested without warrant; have to go through inquest. Those not requiring preliminary
2. When the arrest involves an offense which requires investigation need not go through an inquest proceeding.
Preliminary Investigation.
Here, there is no need for preliminary investigation because
B. When a complaint and information may be filed there is a deadline for the accused to be detained. Otherwise
without need of the required preliminary the peace officer will be guilty of arbitrary detention – delay in
investigation: the delivery.
When an inquest has been conducted in accordance
with existing rules. The purpose of the inquest proceedings in these cases is that
while the state acknowledges the law enforcers’ authority to
C. Inquest investigation: arrest and detain persons without a warrant, the state must also
An investigation based only on the affidavit of the ensure that these persons are not unlawfully detained, and that
offended party, police, and some witnesses. they are not denied due process.

The inquest establishes whether the evidence is sufficient When Accused is Illegally Arrested
enough to seek court approval to keep the person in detention.
Prosecutors have a heavy burden to oversee police Duty of the Prosecutor
investigations in cases involving inquest proceedings (DOJ Where a person is unlawfully arrested and the police files a
Circular 61 on New Rules on Inquest). complaint against him for inquest, what should prosecutor do?
Each police station or headquarters should in principle also When the police files a complaint which is not proper for
have designated inquest prosecutors to process inquest inquest, the prosecutor should immediately schedule a
procedures with a schedule of assignments for their regular preliminary investigation to determine whether there is
inquest duties. probable cause for charging the person in court. In such a
situation a person is entitled to a preliminary investigation and
The inquest requires the prosecutors to resolve the complaint that right should be accorded him without any conditions. He
the police filed in a prescribed period, which varies depending is also entitled to be released forthwith subject only to his
on the gravity of the offense. appearing at the preliminary investigation. (Go v. Court of
Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, 1992).
Cases punishable with light penalties must be resolved in 12
hours; those punishable with correctional penalties within 18 Duty of the Judge
hours; and those punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, Where an accused has been illegally arrested but thereafter the
within 36 hours. If the inquest prosecutor fails to complete the Office of the Prosecutor conducted an inquest, instead of a
proceedings in the prescribed period then the person must be regular PI, an information was filed against him, what should
released. the trial court do?
How should the complaint or information be filed when the Suspend proceedings and order PI. The absence of PI does
accused is lawfully arrested without warrant? not affect jurisdiction but a mere irregularity of proceedings, it
does not impair the validity of the Information or a ground to
The complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor quash the information or nullify the order of arrest.
without need for a preliminary investigation provided an
inquest proceeding has been conducted in accordance with However, the trial court should suspend proceedings and order
existing rules. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, Rules of Court) a PI considering that the inquest investigation conducted by
the State Prosecutor is null and void.
Suppose there is no inquest prosecutor? Or there is an inquest
prosecutor but he is not available, what will happen now to the Effect of Subsequent Issuance of Warrant
case? In the absence of an inquest prosecutor, the offended When a person is unlawfully arrested without a warrant or
party or any peace officer may file the complaint directly in invalid warrant, but subsequently a valid warrant is issued
court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or peace against him, can he question the validity of his continued
officer. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, Rules of Court) detention? No. The issue of his invalid arrest becomes moot
and academic if the new warrant of arrest complies with the
Inquest During Holidays requirements. If the first warrant was unquestionably void,
In Soria v. Desierto, 450 SCRA 339 (2005), when a person is release of the accused for that reason will be futile act as it will
arrested without a warrant on a Sunday or a holiday, the be followed by her immediate re-arrest – this court will not
prosecutor need not hold an inquest and charge him within 12- participate in such meaningless charade (People v. Sanchez).\
18-36 hours so as not to render him liable for Article 125 of the
RPC if there are sufficient considerations enough to deter the REYNALDO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDEZ (2007)
conduct of such (e.g. time taken to look for the clerk or judge On June 11, 2002 there was a complaint for sexual assault
to open courthouse). against De Castro, the following day he was turned over ot the
police, he was indorsed to the CP for inquest, thereafter CP,
Posting of Bail Before Case is Filed ordered his detention. June 18, 2002 CP filed an INF against De
A person lawfully arrested or detained but who has not yet Castro – two days after, De Castro’s lawyer appear in court and
been formally charged in court, can seek his provisional release asked for copies of file. July 1, 2002, he filed for Motion for
through the filing of an application for bail. He need not wait Reinvestigation?
for a formal complaint or information to be filed since bail is
available to all persons. Is De Castro entitled for PI? No. Rule 112, Section 6. The filing
was on June 18, he asked for Motion for Reinvestigation on
Nature of the Five-Day Period June 25. When did he know about it? When he is presumed to
May a motion for “reinvestigation” be filed beyond the 5-day have known about, when he asked for his lawyer, notice to
period form the time accused learns of the filing of the lawyer, when Atty. Villarin requested for copies, De Castro
information filed against him? No. This period is mandatory already knew of the filing of INF, he filed on July 1 which is
(People v. CA, 242 SCRA 645). more than 5 days from the time he learned of the filing.

LEVISTE v. ALAMEDA (2010) Contrary to petitioners position that private complainant
Such appeal to DOJ is not available in inquest, the private party should have appealed to the DOJ Secretary, such remedy is not
should have availed of a PI before elevating to the SOJ. Does immediately available in cases subject of inquest.
the private complainant have a similar right – yes.
Noteworthy is the proviso that the appeal to the DOJ Secretary
Leviste underwent inquest, what is the motion if you are the is by petition by a proper party under such rules as the
accused and inquest was conducted? As mentioned it is a Department of Justice may prescribe.
motion for reinvestigation, before the information is filed in
court, you can file for this in the prosecutor’s office. There are The rule referred to is the 2000 National Prosecution Service
times the accused can learn of it before the filing of the INF. Rule on Appeal, Section 1 of which provides that the Rule shall
The Prosecutor has no choice but to do PI waiving A125, RPC. apply to appeals from resolutions x x x in cases subject of
 Where do you file for a motion for reinvestigation? To preliminary investigation/ reinvestigation.
the court due to the Crespo v. Mogul ruling.
 This case, it is not only the accused, but also the In cases subject of inquest, therefore, the private party should
private complainant with the permission of PUBPROS. first avail of a preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, if any,
before elevating the matter to the DOJ Secretary.
From the case:
A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a In case the inquest proceedings yield no probable cause, the
complaint or information for an offense where the penalty private complainant may pursue the case through the regular
prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one course of a preliminary investigation.
day without regard to fine. As an exception, the rules provide
that there is no need for a preliminary investigation in cases of ONCE A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS FILED IN COURT,
a lawful arrest without a warrant[29] involving such type of the rules yet provide the accused with another opportunity to
offense, so long as an inquest, where available, has been ask for a preliminary investigation within five days from the
conducted.[30] time he learns of its filing. The Rules of Court and the New Rules
on Inquest are silent, however, on whether the private
Inquest is defined as an informal and summary investigation complainant could invoke, as respondent heirs of the victim did
conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving in the present case, a similar right to ask for a reinvestigation.
persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant
of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining The Court holds that the private complainant can move for
whether said persons should remain under custody and reinvestigation, subject to and in light of the ensuing
correspondingly be charged in court. disquisition.
It is imperative to first take a closer look at the predicament of All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information
both the arrested person and the private complainant during shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
the brief period of inquest, to grasp the respective remedies public prosecutor.
available to them before and after the filing of a complaint or
information in court. The private complainant in a criminal case is merely a witness
and not a party to the case and cannot, by himself, ask for the
BEFORE THE FILING OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IN reinvestigation of the case after the information had been filed
COURT, the private complainant may proceed in coordinating in court, the proper party for that being the public prosecutor
with the arresting officer and the inquest officer during the who has the control of the prosecution of the case.
latters conduct of inquest. Meanwhile, the arrested person has
the option to avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation, Thus, in cases where the private complainant is allowed to
provided he duly signs a waiver of any objection against delay intervene by counsel in the criminal action, and is granted the
in his delivery to the proper judicial authorities under Article authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and
125 of the Revised Penal Code. For obvious reasons, this with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion
remedy is not available to the private complainant since he for reinvestigation.
cannot waive what he does not have. The benefit of the
provisions of Article 125, which requires the filing of a In fact, the DOJ instructs that before the arraignment of the
complaint or information with the proper judicial authorities accused, trial prosecutors must examine the Information vis--
within the applicable period, belongs to the arrested person. the resolution of the investigating prosecutor in order to make
the necessary corrections or revisions and to ensure that the
The accelerated process of inquest, owing to its summary information is sufficient in form and substance.
nature and the attendant risk of running against Article 125,
ends with either the prompt filing of an information in court or NOTE: There is nothing in the rules that state that the accused
the immediate release of the arrested person. Notably, the rules shall be served a copy thereof, thus the counsel has to be alert
on inquest do not provide for a motion for reconsideration. upon such.

Section 7. Records. – (b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. – If the
(a) Records supporting the information or complaint. complaint or information is filed with the
– An information or complaint filed in court shall Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial
be supported by the affidavits and counter- Court for an offense covered by this section, the
affidavits of the parties and their witnesses, procedure in Section 3(a) of this Rule shall be
together with the other supporting evidence and observed. If within ten (10) days after the filing of
the resolution on the case. the complaint or information, the judge finds no
probable cause after personally evaluating the
(b) Record of preliminary investigation. – The record evidence, or after personally examining in writing
of the preliminary investigation, conducted by a and under oath the complainant and his
prosecutor or other officers as may be authorized witnesses in the form of searching questions and
by law, shall not form part of the record of the answers, he shall dismiss the same. He may,
case. However, the court, on its own initiative or however within ten (10) days from notice, to
on motion of any party, may order the production determine further the existence of probable
of the record or any of its party when necessary in cause. If the judge still finds no probable cause
the resolution of the case or any incident therein, despite the additional evidence, he shall, within
or when it is to be introduced as an evidence in the ten (10) days from its submission of expiration of
case by the requesting party. (As amended by AM said period, dismiss the case. When finds
No 05-08-26-SC, August 30, 2005). probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest,
or a commitment order if the accused had already
been arrested, and hold him for trial. However, if
Records
the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for
Records Supporting the Information or Complaint filed in placing the accused under custody, he may issue
Court shall be Support By: summons instead of a warrant of arrest.
1. The affidavits, counter-affidavits of the parties and
their witnesses; Cases Not Requiring a PI nor covered
2. Supporting evidence, and by the Rule on Summary Procedure
3. The resolution of the case
Case Covered by This Section
Record of the PI conducted by a Prosecutor or Other Cases where imposable penalty is:
Officers as May be Authorized by Law: 1. Maximum of 4 years and 2 months, and
1. Shall not form part of the record of the case 2. Minimum of 6 months and 1 day.
2. However, the court, on its own initiative or on motion
any party, may order the production of the record of Two Ways of Instituting a Criminal Case under Section 8
any of its part when: 1. File the complaint with the prosecutor while
a. Necessary in the resolution of the case or any observing the procedure outlined in Section 3.
incident therein, or 2. File the complaint or information with the MTC.
b. It is to be introduced as an evidence in the
case by the requesting party. Procedure when the Complaint is filed Directly
With the Prosecutor
Purpose of Requirement
It is intended to allow the judge to personally determine the The Complaint Must
existence or non-existence of the probable cause for issuing a 1. State the address of the respondent, and
warrant of arrest against the accused. 2. Be accompanied by:
a. Affidavits (subscribed and sworn to and
However, if the judge finds the records to be insufficient, he certified) of the complainant and his
may order dismissal of the case, or direct the investigation witnesses, and
prosecutor either to submit more evidence, to enable him to b. Other supporting documents to establish
discharge his duty. probable cause;
Section 8. Cases not requiring a preliminary Then: The prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the
investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary
affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the
Procedure. –
(a) If filed with the prosecutor. – If the complaint is file complainant within 10 days from its filing.
directly with the prosecutor involving an offense  The respondent is not Allowed to counter-affidavits.
punishable by imprisonment less than four (4)
years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the Procedure when the Complaint or Information
procedure outline in Section 3(a) of this Rule shall is Filed with the MTC
be observed. The prosecutor shall act on the
complaint based on the affidavits and other
supporting documents submitted by the A. The Complaint Must
complainant within ten (10) days from its filing. 1. State the address of the respondent, and
2. Be accompanied by:

a. Affidavits (subscribed and sworn to and There are instances, when the judge need not issue a warrant
certified) of the complainant and his of arrest, he may issue for summons but not for warrant of
witnesses, and arrest. In summary rules, there is no arrest warrant at all, in here,
b. Other supporting documents to establish there is discretion to issue warrant arrest or summons instead.
probable cause;
CARANDANG v. BASE
B. If the Judge finds NO Probable Cause Only the judge can issue a commitment order, here the
1. He shall dismiss the complaint issuance of such is a duty of the clerk of court. She overstepped
a. Within 10 days after the filing of the the boundaries of her function. The Clerk of Court has no
complaint or information power, the clerk can only issue upon authority the Judge.
b. After personally:
NOTE: Only a judge can issue an arrest warrant as well as a
i. Evaluating the evidence, or commitment order – it cannot be done by clerk of court.
ii. Examining in writing an under oath
the complainant and his witnesses ATTY. TABUJARA v. PEOPLE (2008)
in the form of searching questions The Complaints were filed in 1991. Afable filed MTC. On 1999,
and answers, or Tabujara filed their Counter-Affidavit denying allegations. MTC
Judge conducted a PI, issued an order dismissing for lack of PC.
2. He may require the submission of additional evidence;
He issued Order reversing his own Order his basis was that the
Within 10 days from notice, to determine further the sworn allegation of witness De Lara. The judge issued a warrant
existence of probable cause. of arrest. This falls on old rule of Section 9.
3. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the

additional evidence, When finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest,
1. He shall dismiss the case; or a commitment order if the accused had already been
2. Within 10 days from: arrested, and hold him for trial. However, if the judge is satisfied
a. Submission of additional evidence, or that there is no necessity for placing the accused under
b. Expiration of the period to submit the custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest.
additional evidence.
NOTE: Here the SC said that the issuance of a warrant of arrest
C. If the judges FINDS Probable Cause is not mandatory – he may issue summons instead of a
1. He shall: warrant. If you look at the provision, if you compare this to the
a. Issue a warrant or arrest, or commitment present Rule 112, Section 8 – it is the same.
order if the accused had already been
arrested, and So in cases that do not require PI, the judge does not have to
b. Hold the accused for trial go through the whole process, it is not mandatory. Here the
2. He may issue summons instead of a warrant of issuance of warrant of arrest is not mandatory – he has to find
arrest: a reason to issue such. The difference between cases which do
If the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity not require PI. In those with PI, the judge really has to issue a
for placing the accused under custody. PC to issue warrant of arrest, here for this cases the judge has
to look at the necessity to issue a warrant for the crimes are
COMMENTARY: There are cases if the penalty is 6 months a really not that grave.
below they are of summary below, what requires PI is 4y2m1d
and above. Now what happens in between? BORLONGAN v. PENA (2010)
They claimed that they were not afforded the right to submit
 This are under the MTC their counter-affidavit. Then they argued that since no such
 There are two ways that does not require PI. counter-affidavit and supporting documents were submitted
by the petitioners, the trial judge merely relied on the
File the complaint with the prosecutor follow the procedure complaint-affidavit and attachments of the respondent in
under Section 3, meaning even if the case does not require PI, issuing the warrants of arrest, also in contravention with the
the prosecutor has to do the Section 3 thing – order dismissal Rules of Court. There is no need for PI because the crime of
or issue subpoena; within 5 days, the respondent is not allowed A172 is not under PI
to file counter-affidavit. The prosecutor shall act in the affidavit
and submit within 10 days. If there is no prosecutor, the NOTE: This is a case does not require PI so the respondent has
complaint can be filed directly with MTC for trial – no need for no right to submit counter-affidavits. But why these arrive the
PI. The complaint must be complete, the MTC Judge is given SC, because prosecutors issue subpoena. The prosecutor can
the authority to dismiss if he does not PC. If there is PC he shall still dismiss, but here there is no need to conduct PI. This is Rule
issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order. 112, Section 8 is stating.

Section 2. Arrest; How made. – An arrest is made by an
RULE 113 actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his
ARREST submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making

Section 1. Definition of Arrest. – Arrest is taking of a an arrest. The person arrested shall not be subject to a
person into custody in order that he may be bound to greater restraint necessary for his detention.
answer for the commission of an offense.
Procedure
Arrest
How Arrest is Made
The taking of a person into custody.
DEFINITION:
1. By an actual restraint of the accused be arrested, or
In order that he may be bound to answer for the
PURPOSE:
2. By the submission of such person to the custody of
commission of an offense.
the person making the arrest (voluntary submission)
Arrest Warrant by CID

Rules in Making Arrest
A warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration
1. Violence or unnecessary force shall NOT be used in
to be valid, must be for the sole purpose of executing a final
making an arrest, and
order of deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the
2. The person shall NOT be subject to a greater restraint
Commissioner for purposes of investigation only is null and
than is necessary for his detention.
void for being unconstitutional.
(There be actual restraint – handcuff is already symbolic enough).
The constitutional provisions does not segregate arrest warrant

Actual Use of Force, Not Required
and warrant of arrest.
In People v. Sanchez 227 SCRA 627, application of actual force,
 A person cannot be arrested without a valid warrant.
manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal
As a general rule – but we have exceptions.
declaration of arrest is not required.
 Before the valid warrant may be issued, we have to
look at the steps.
It is enough that there be intent on the part of one of the parties
to arrest the other and an intent on the part of the other to
Under Rule 112, Section 5 on probable cause. It refers to a
submit, under the belief and impression that submission is
probable cause that the crime is probably committed by the
necessary.
accused. The judge does not have to personally examine the
complainant and witnesses but the information.
Section 3. Duty of Arresting Officer. – It shall be the duty
of the officer executing the warrant to arrest the accused
Soliven v. Makasiar if the basis of the document if there is no and deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without
PC he may require the submission of additional documents. The unnecessary delay.
judge only has to evaluate the documents depending if there is
PI or no PI. Duties of the Arresting Officer
1. Arrest the accused, and
Requisites of a Valid Warrant 2. Deliver the accused to the nearest police station or jail
1. Must be in writing without necessary delay.
2. Issued by a judge based on PC
3. Specifically describes a person to be arrested. Obligations of the Arresting Officer
In People v. Albior 163 SCRA 332, at the time of a person is
What does (3) mean? His name should be there. It cannot be arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform
just any person under the sun? But there are times when the him of the reason for the arrest and to show him the arrest
name of the accused is not known – there is no person to be warrant, if any.
arrested as John Doe.
To inform him of his constitutional rights to remain silent and
If it is a John Doe but there is a specific description – the security to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be
guard who is fat and has gold teeth – it is allowed something used against him. To inform him of his right to communicate
like that. As a general rule, John Doe is void unless there was a with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most
description personae. expedient means – by telephone if possible or by letter or
messenger.
Only a judge can issue a warrant of arrest, in this very minute
exception, the President or authorized representative such as We all know under the Bill of Rights every person arrested must
an order of deportation or contempt – if accused is at large – be read his rights or the Miranda Warning must be given to
the President can issue. But when it comes to a point where the the accused. Here we need not to expound such because it has
INF is filed to answer for the crime, the arrest warrant should already been discussed under the Constitutional Law.
be issued by the judge.

Section 4. Execution of Warrant. – The head of the office Section 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. – A
to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered for execution peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant
shall cause the warrant to be executed within ten (10) days arrest a person:
from its receipt. Within ten (10) days after the expiration of (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
the said period, the officer to whom it was assigned for has committed, is actually committing, or is
execution shall make a report to the judge who issued the attempting to commit an offense;
warrant. In case of his failure to execute the warrant, he (b) When an offense has just been committed and he
shall state the reasons therefore. has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it;
Steps in the Execution of the Warrant of Arrest
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place
When Should a Warrant be Executed where he is serving final judgment or is
Within 10 days from its receipt temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
Who shall cause the execution of the warrant? confinement to another.
The head of office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
So who is this head? Maybe the head sheriff, and then sheriff delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
will issue a warrant. proceeded against in accordance with Section 6 of Rule
112.
But the situation nowadays, each branch has an assigned sheriff
– so once this arrest warrant is issued is given to the sheriff of VALID WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
that particular branch. Normally, the sheriffs are in the assigned
courts. A. When in the presence of the arresting officer or private
person, the person to be arrested:
Duty of the Officer Assigned to Execute the Warrant 1. Has committed;
1. Within 10 days after the expiration of the period, he 2. Is actually committing, or
shall make a report to the judge who issued the 3. Is attempting to commit a crime;
warrant, and [Section 5(a) known as in flagrante delicto rule]
2. In case of his failure to execute the warrant, he shall,
in his report, state there reasons therefore. B. When:
1. The offense has just been committed, and
Q. What if lapse of 10 days, arrest warrant was not executed? 2. The arresting officer has probable cause to believe,
The arrest warrant does not expire, the 10 day period is for the based personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
sheriff or arresting officer to report, the warrant of arrest has that the person to be arrested has committed it.
no expiry date for sometimes the accused cannot be located. [Section 5(b) known as freshly committed rule]
So, the 10-day period is period.
C. When the person to be arrested:
Arrest warrant is valid until executed or recalled by the judge, 1. Is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
then it might lose its validity. establishment or place where he is serving judgment
2. Is temporarily confined while his case is pending; or
Lifetime of Arrest Warrant 3. Has escaped while being transferred from one
If the arrest warrant is not served within ten (10) days, must the confinement to another
court issue an alias warrant in order to justify the arrest of the [Section 5(c) known as escapee rule]
accused? No.
ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
In People v. Givera, no alias warrant is needed to make the
arrest. Unless specifically provided in the warrant, the same Meaning of In Flagrante Delicto
remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled or quashed. In such in flagrante delicto arrests, the accused is apprehended
at the very moment he is committed or attempting to commit
The 10-day period provided in Rule 113, Section 4 is only a or has just committed an offense in the presence of the
directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return arresting officer. Accordingly for this exception to apply two
to the court. elements must concur:
1. The person to be arrested must execute and overt act
These are the procedures to be followed in the issuance and indicating that he has just committed, is actually
execution of the warrant. Note here that the arrest warrant does committing or is attempting to commit a crime; and
not have any expiration date and thus the 10-day period is 2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the
merely for the report because the warrant cannot be execute view of the arresting officer.
for the accused cannot be located. (People v. Chua, 396 SCRA 657, February 4, 2003).

Meaning of “In his presence”  Alunday entered a plea of not guilty on November 22,
In People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431 (1992), an offense is 2000, and he raised the issue of irregularity of arrest
committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, is only during his appeal to the Supreme Court.
meant by the phrase, within the meaning of the rule authorizing  Deemed to have waived such defect by submitting
an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, himself to the jurisdiction of the court by his counsel-
although at a distance, or hears the disturbance created assisted plea during his arraignment, actively
thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. participating in the trial and by not raising the
 In the later cases, the SC clarified this. objection before his arraignment.
In Flagrante Delicto Arrest Based on Report, Prohibited So, the second issue will be academic, but nonetheless the
In People v. Chua, it has been held that reliable information court still answered, thus the Court entertained this question:
alone, absent any over act indicative of a felonious enterprise
in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is Issue 2: Was the offense committed in the presence or within
not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an the view of the arresting officer to justify a warrantless arrest
in flagrante delicto arrest. under Section 5(a) of Rule 113? – Yes.
Arrest During Buy-Bust Operation When in the presence or within the view of the arresting
A warrantless arrest for such is valid. An arrest made after an officer or private person, the person to be arrested:
entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is a. Has committed
considered a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(a) of the b. Is actually committing, or
Rules of Court. Any search resulting from a lawful warrantless c. Is attempting to commit the crime.
arrest is valid because the accused committed a crime in
flagrante delicto, that is, the person arrested committed a crime Alunday was caught in the act of cutting and gathering the
in the presence of the arresting officers (Teodosio v. People). marijuana plants from the marijuana plantation. Therefore,
there was a valid warrantless arrest.
Continuing Offenses
In the landmark Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990), the PEOPLE v. DELA CRUZ (2008)
crime of rebellion is considered a continuing offense, the The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under
arrest without a warrant is justified because it can be said that Sec. 5(a), arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. For this type of
he is committing and offense when arrest. The crimes of: warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur:
 Rebellion (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
 Subversion indicating that he has just committed, is actually
 Conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
 Crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
 Or in connection therewith of the arresting officer.
These constitute direct assaults against he State and are in the
nature of continuing crimes. A rebel may be deemed to be in Does the crime has to be seen? What needs to be seen an overt
flagrante delicto at all times for purposes of arrest. act which would indicate done in front of the arresting officer –
not on the commission of the crime but for the overt act. Did
PEOPLE v. VELASCO (2007) they see anything to indicate that the accused is committing,
The issue was whether the prosecuting officers complied with has just committed or is actually committing the offense? In this
proceedings. The inquest proceedings can only be proper when case, the Supreme Court ruled that; the crime was for illegal
the warrantless arrest was in relation to the crime. In this case, possession of shabu – but he was holding a shotgun this does
none of the officers saw him commit the crime of rebellion. not have any relation to the possession of shabu. The act which
Therefore, the officers did not have authority to conduct they saw, must be related to the crime to have been committed
inquest. Inquest should be made on the crime the accused was as to justify the in flagrante delicto arrest. It must be related to
arrested for. In this case he was arrested was for INCITING TO the crime which he is charged.
SEDITION the inquest was for rebellion, if it does not match the
arrest then the inquest was invalid. Accused-appellants act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust
team would have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante
PEOPLE v. ALUNDAY (2008) delicto; however, the prosecution was not able to adequately
Issue 1: Can Alunday still raise the issue of irregularity of arrest prove that accused-appellant was committing an offense.
for the first time in an appeal before the Supreme Court? – No. Although accused-appellant merely denied possessing the
firearm, the prosecutions charge was weak absent the
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for presentation of the alleged firearm. He was eventually
the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of acquitted by the trial court because of this gaffe. His arrest,
the accused must be made before he enters his plea otherwise independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy Bicol, was
the objection is deemed waived. therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any
offense.

SALIBO v. WARDEN (2015) VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE (2017)
December 2009 Salibo returned in the PH, he was in Saudi when Villamor and Bonaobra were charged with RA 9287 with illegal
the Ampatuan Massacre happened. He was suspected to be the number games. The area was fenced with bamboo slats with
accused Malang. Salibo presented himself and clarified that he two inches of gaps. Now upon entering the compound and
is not the same person that he is not Malang. However, the confiscated the articles. When Bonaobra was at the door the
police officers arrested and detained. officers entered the compound and shouting “caught in the act
ka!” So he asked for a warrant and answered that “di na
Salibo filed for a writ for habeas corpus. SolGen argued that he kailangan yan!” Was the arrest lawful?
was charged with a valid information from the massacre case
due to the Iligan case citing that it is cured by the filing of INF. No. What tainted the legality are the following:
Thus the petition for habeas corpus petition is academic. 1. 15-20 meters
2. 5’7 to 5-9 feet bamboo slats
Salibo argued that these purport the name of Malang, for the 3. One and half to two inches apart gaps.
arrest warrant was not under his name.
Given these factors, the officers admitted that they cannot see
Issue: Whether the filing of INF and the subsequent issuance the contents of the “papelitos” the officers admitted negative.
of arrest warrant cures the warrantless arrest? – No. Thus, SC ruled that there was no valid arrest.
The Ilagan is not applicable. In the dissenting opinion of Justice NOTE: Especially in buy-busts resulting in inquest, whom only
Teehankee: the allegation of the complainant is taken into account, it is very
important to get assistance from a lawyer from a law student
The majority decision holds that the filing of the information without to ask for PI and ask for a motion for reinvestigation.
preliminary investigation falls within the exceptions of Rule 112, sec. 7
and Rule 113, sec. 5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Again, Here the fence was 5’7 to 5’9 and the gaps was 1.5 – 2 inches,
this is erroneous premise. The fiscal misinvoked and misapplied the
the officers cannot actually what is going on? So definitely the
cited rules. The petitioners are not persons "lawfully arrested without a
warrant." The fiscal could not rely on the stale and inoperative PDA of
arrest here was not valid under the flagrante delicto exception.
January 25, 1985. Otherwise, the rules would be rendered nugatory, if
all that was needed was to get a PDA and then serve it at one's whim PERALTA v. PEOPLE (2017)
and caprice when the very issuance of the PDA is premised on its Issue is whether the warrantless arrest valid? – yes. In
imperative urgency and necessity as declared by the President himself. warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113,
The majority decision then relies on Rule 113, Sec. 5 which authorizes two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be
arrests without warrant by a citizen or by a police officer who witnessed
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
the arrestee in flagrante delicto, viz. in the act of committing the
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
offense. Quite obviously, the arrest was not a citizen's arrest nor were
they caught in flagrante delicto violating the law. a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer.
In this case that Datukan Malan Salibo is not the same person
with Butukan S. Malang. Salibo presented documents that he On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its
was not here during the massacre – clearances and ID showing application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact
that he did not use the alias Butukan S. Malang. None of the just been committed and the arresting officer had personal
three exceptions were present. The filing of an INF cannot knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed
cure and invalid warrantless arrest and Salibo does not fall it.
under the circumstances.
In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact
NOTE: Atty. Risonar merely went to Camp Catitipan to check of the commission of an offense is essential. Under Section 5
on his any arrest papers issued against him. When he appeared (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
there, he was arrested. The illegal arrest was cured by the INF. officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Section 5 (b) of the
But now in this case, the SC – that the Ilagan ruling was wrong, same, he knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed.
this is by Justice Leonen. If you’re arrest is illegal no filing of INF
against you will make it legal. The fact that he was not even the In this case, records show that upon the police officers' arrival
guy does not matter. The fact he was arrested without a warrant at Pantal District, Dagupan City, they saw Peralta carrying a
but not him, and none of the exceptions apply then his arrest pistol, in plain view of everyone. This prompted the police
is illegal and invalid. officers to confront Peralta regarding the pistol, and when the
latter was unable to produce a license for such pistol and/or a
SINDAC v. PEOPLE (2016) permit to carry the same, the former proceeded to arrest him
A previous surveillance was made on Sindac’s alleged drug and seize the pistol from him.
trade for a month, he was caught selling shabu, RTC convicted
and that there was valid in flagrante delicto. – The SC held that Clearly, the police officer conducted a valid in flagrante delicto
arrest was not valid. Sindac’s talking was not considered as warrantless arrest on Peralta, thus, making the consequent
ongoing criminal activity – this is not an overt act. search incidental thereto valid as well. At this point, it is well to

emphasize that the offense of illegal possession of firearms is When Arrest is Accompanied by Search
malum prohibitum punished by special law and, in order that Where the accused fails to challenge the legality of the arrest
one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is before entering into trial, is he also precluded from questioning
sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to the legality of the search?
possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same,
even if such possession was made in good faith and without No. The waiver by the accused of his right to question the
criminal intent. By carrying an unlicensed firearm you are legality of his arrest does not necessarily carry with it his waiver
committing a crime in flagrante delicto. of the right to question the admissibility of any evidence
procured by the police or the occasion of or incidental to his
NOTE: Remember the exceptions and requisites especially illegal arrest or thereafter. The plea and actual participation of
under Rule 113, Section 5(a) the accused in the trial would not cure the illegality of the
admissible evidence (People v. Pua, 415 SCRA 540, 2003).
ARREST WHEN CRIME HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED
Freshly Committed Rule or Hot Pursuit Arrest PEOPLE v. MANAGO (2012)
INF for RA 9165, PO3 Din was getting his haircut, a shootout
Offense Has Just Been Committed commenced the suspects were able to flee, identifying Manago
Arresting has probable cause, based on personal knowledge as one of the suspects. The next day, they set up checkpoint
that the person to be arrested committed it. This is the third where they apprehended Manago using the “hot pursuit” arrest
kind of probable cause. and was able to find shabu.
1. PC for PI by the investigating prosecutor. The police officer here is saying it was under hot pursuit
2. PC for issuance of warrant of arrest by judge. operation. Was there a valid warrantless arrest? – NO.
3. PC for determination based on personal knowledge
for warrantless arrest under hot pursuit [Section 5(b)] In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), it is
essential that the
Requisite of Probable Cause 1. element of personal knowledge must be coupled with
Definition of probable cause. It means the actual belief or 2. the element of immediacy.
reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting Otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items
officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrest is probable yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered
guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts. inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the
1987 Constitution.
Witness provided the identity of culprit. In People v.
Gerente, it was shown that under the circumstances of the case, Personal knowledge and Immediacy
since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent The phrase covers facts or, in the alternative, circumstances.
death of the victim and of facts indicating that accused had According to the Black's Law Dictionary, "circumstances are
killed him, they could lawfully arrest accused without a warrant. attendant or accompanying facts, events or conditions."
If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain such, Circumstances may pertain to events or actions within the
he would have fled the law. actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of the
police officer at the scene of the crime.
Witness Pinpointed to the Culprit. The arrest was held valid if
it was based on their personal knowledge culled from the victim Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone
herself who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based
of the arrest. The arrest of Vinalon in this case done on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of
immediately after the incident was valid for it was made by the the crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause
arresting officers the victims pointed to him. Accordingly, the that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime.
search and seizure are valid as incidental to a lawful arrest. However, the determination of probable cause and the
gathering of facts or circumstances should be made
Waiver of Illegality of Arrest immediately after the commission of the crime in order to
The accused appears to be illegally arrested without a warrant comply with the element of immediacy.
more than a month after the crime was committed and the
kidnap victim was released. However, they only raise the In other words, the clincher in the element of "personal
illegality of their arrest on appeal before the Supreme Court. knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element
The failure to raise the illegality of the arrest before the trial of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should
court results to a waiver any of the irregularities relating to be gathered. This required time element acts as a safeguard to
their warrantless arrest when they failed to file a motion to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or
quash the Information on the ground, or to object any perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame.
irregularity in their arrest before they were arraigned. They are This guarantees that the police officers would have no time to
now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. base their probable cause finding on facts or circumstances
(People v. Ejandra, 429 SCRA 364, 2004). obtained after an exhaustive investigation.

The foregoing circumstances show that while the element of Now there are other exceptions under Section 13, Rule 113:
personal knowledge under Section 5 (b) above was present - 1. Escapes or is rescued after the arrest.
given that PO3 Din actually saw the March 15, 2007 robbery 2. Rule 114, Section 23 – when the crime is bailable, now
incident and even engaged the armed robbers in a shootout - there are times when he has to appear in court and
the required element of immediacy was not met. the bondsman has to produce him, and if he does not
appear he can be arrested without warrant.
This is because, at the time the police officers effected the 3. Rule 114, Section 23 – when an accused under bail
warrantless arrest upon Manago's person, investigation and attempt to depart from the Philippines when his case
verification proceedings were already conducted, which is still pending.
consequently yielded sufficient information on the suspects of
the March 15, 2007 robbery incident. So what to do if you are a private person and happen to arrest
a person under in flagrante delicto? You bring that person to
NOTE: Justice Perlas-Bernabe provided us two requirements the nearest police station or jail, then he will undergo inquest
are (1) element of personal knowledge; and (2) element of proceeding so as not to violate Article 125 of the RPC.
immediacy. Here there was time to investigate. Here in the old
cases, it referred to how long, how many hours so they differ Section 6. Time of Making Arrest. – An arrest may be
with respect to “immediacy.” made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
SINDAC v. PEOPLE (2016) Commentaries

Advancing to a warrantless arrest based only on such It can be in the wee hours of the morning or during the office,
information, absent circumstances that would lead to the there is no prohibition as to time.
arresting officer's "personal knowledge" as described in case
law, unfortunately, skews from the exacting requirements of Section 7. Method of Arrest by Officer by Virtue of
Section 5, Rule 113. Warrant. – When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant,
the office shall inform the person to be arrested of the
It is settled that "reliable information" alone - even if it was a cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant has been
issued for his arrest, except when he flees or forcibly resists
product of well-executed surveillance operations - is not
before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or
sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. when giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at
To interpret "personal knowledge" as referring to a person's the time of arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrest so
reputation or past criminal citations would create a dangerous requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as
precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of practicable.
police officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on
knowledge of a person's previous criminal infractions, How Arrest is Effected by Virtue of a Valid Warrant
rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites.
General Rule: The officer must inform the person to be
It is further required that the accused performs some overt act arrested of the:
that would indicate that he has committed, is actually 1. Cause of the arrest;
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, which, as 2. Fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest.
already discussed, is missing in the instant case.
Exceptions: The failure of the arresting officer to inform
NOTE: Another case by Perlas-Bernabe but with different him of the above is excusable when:
discussion – personal knowledge and circumstances). The act 1. Person to be arrested flees;
of giving can be anything under the sun – from the distance 2. Person to be arrested forcibly resists before the officer
given. It could not be definitely identified. has opportunity to so inform him, or
3. Giving of such information will imperil the arrest
ESCAPEES
Possession by Arresting Officer of
There are two kinds of escapees covered under Section 5(c): Warrant at the Time of the Arrest
1. Convicts in a penal establishment or place confined 1. The officer need not have the warrant in his
with final judgment; possession at the time of the arrest;
2. Temporarily detained because these detainees are still 2. After the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the
undergoing trial. warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.
But when it comes from escaping, they can be arrested Showing a Copy of the Warrant
immediately even without a warrant – anybody can arrest. It A police officer may arrest a person at the time when he does
does not have to in flagrante or freshly committed – it is no not have a copy of the warrant in his possession but if the
longer necessary. What is the best way of escaping? In transit person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him
or when detainees to go to court. If they do that – arrest. as soon as practicable (Mallari v. CA, 256 SCRA 456).

Commentaries Exceptions: The private person’s failure to apprise the
Section 7 does not require that the warrant be in the possession arrestee of the above is justified when:
of the officer, the important thing is that there is a warrant, he 1. Person to be arrested flees;
should only inform the cause and there is a warrant, it does 2. Person to be arrested forcibly resists before the office
not make the arrest invalid. The arrest includes the Miranda has opportunity to inform him of the cause of his
rights. What are the exceptions? arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued
for his arrest;
Section 8. Method of Arrest by Officer Without Warrant. 3. Giving of such information will imperil the arrest;
– When making an arrest without a warrant, the officer 4. Person to be arrested ins then engaged in the
shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and commission of an offense;
the cause of the arrest, unless the latter is either engaged
5. Person to be arrested is pursued immediately after the
in the commission of an offense, is pursued immediately
after its commission, has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists commission of an offense; or
before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or 6. Person to be arrested is pursued immediately after
when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. escape.
How Arrest is Effected by an Officer Without a Warrant Section 10. Officer May Summon Assistance. – An officer
making a lawful arrest may orally summon as many person
as he deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest.
General Rule: The officer must inform the person to be
Every person so summoned by an officer shall assist him
arrest of: in effecting the arrest when he can render such assistance
1. His arresting authority; and without detriment to himself.
2. The cause of his arrest
Assistance while Arrest is Being Made
NOTE: This usually happens in buy bust this must be said to the
arrested person, but there are exceptions. You do not have to Right to Officer Making a Lawful Arrest
recite such when they are there already smoking marijuana. He may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary
This must be done by the arresting officer. to assist him in effecting the arrest.
Exceptions: The officer’s failure to apprise the arrestee of Obligation of the Persons Summoned
the above is justified when: Assist the arresting officer in effecting arrest, provided he can
1. Person to be arrested flees; render such assistance without detriment to himself.
2. Person to be arrested forcibly resists before the office
has opportunity to inform him of the cause of his NOTE: The officer must exercise proper discretion on selecting
arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued the persons to be summoned. He must not choose to have the
for his arrest; children in the streets or women who are physically fit for the
3. Giving of such information will imperil the arrest; assistance.
4. Person to be arrested ins then engaged in the
commission of an offense; If you are going to arrest goons you cannot ask somebody as
5. Person to be arrested is pursued immediately after the large as Hannah to help, what can she done, he must at least
commission of an offense; or ask assistance from competent persons.
6. Person arrested is pursued immediately after escape.
(People v. Mahinay). Section 11. Right of Officer to Break into Building or
Enclosure. – An officer, in order to make an arrest either by
Section 9. Method of Arrest by Private Person. – When virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in
making an arrest, a private person shall inform the person Section 5, may break into any building or enclosure where
to be arrest of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be,
the arrest, unless the latter is engaged in he commission of if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his
an offense, pursued immediately after its commission, or authority and purpose.
has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the person
making the arrest has the opportunity to inform him, or
Requisites for Breaking INTO a Building or
when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
Enclosure When Invoking Arrest
1. The person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed
How Arrest is Effected by a Private Person
to be inside said building or enclosure;
2. The arresting officer has announced his authority and
General Rule: The private person must inform the person to
purpose; and
be arrest of:
3. The arresting officer is refused admittance.
1. Intention to arrest him, and
2. The cause of his arrest
NOTE: If he is inside his house, is this allowed? Yes, but there
are requisites. Knock the door, ring the doorbell but nobody
Note: The exceptions under these are the same.
answers – therefore he can break into the building.

Section 12. Right to Break out from Building or Now there are instances when accused are detained, they rot
Enclosure. – Whenever an officer has entered the building their for days, weeks, months and even years because they have
or enclosure in accordance with the preceding section, he no means of communication. Public phones are problematic so
may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate
it is very pitiful for these people. Now we have mobile phones.
himself.
Under this Section 14, this person has the right to be visited by
Right to Break OUT from a Building; Requisites any person member of the Philippine Bar – this is the right to
1. An officer has entered the building or enclosure in be visited by a lawyer. He may confer privately with such person
accordance with Section 11. with any place. This is a constitutional right, the right to counsel.
2. It is necessary to liberate himself. He can also be visited by a relative, subject to reasonable
regulations.
Commentary
What if the arresting officers gets inside the house but he is Sometimes it is difficult for the friends, that is why if you want
locked inside, the arresting officer can break out from the to visit your friend who is in the jail, you must become a lawyer.
enclosure and liberate himself therefrom. Meaning when he Because lawyers are deemed, when visiting the jail, they are
entered the building in accordance with Section 11 he has to there to help whoever is inside.
liberate himself, if it is locked he can break the window or go
through the backdoor. IN RE: ALEJANO v. CABUAY (2005)
May the detaining officer require that the lawyer may visit only
Section 13. Arrest after Escape or Rescue. – If a person business hours? – Yes.
lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may
immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at
any time and in any place within the Philippines. While counsel may not visit detainees any time they want, the
fact that the detainees still have face-to-face meetings with
their lawyers on a daily basis clearly shows that there is no
Effects When a Person Lawfully Arrested
impairment of detainee’s right to counsel. Lawyers could visit
Escapes or is Rescued
their clients between 8AM to 5PM with a lunch break at 12PM.
1. Any person may immediately pursue or retake him;
2. No warrant is required for his purpose, and
Clearly, visiting his hours pass the standard of reasonableness.
3. This may be carried out at any time and in any place
The last paragraph of Section 4(b) of RA 7438 provides the
within the Philippines
standard to make regulations in detention centers allowable:
“such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure the
NOTE: This is another instance when warrantless arrest can be
detainee’s safety and prevent his escape.”
conducted by an officer. Note that when he is arrested, he is
delivered to the police station or the jail.
In the present case, the visiting hours accorded to the lawyers
of the detainees are reasonably connected to the legislation to
Section 14. Right of Attorney or Relative to Visit Person
Arrested. – Any member of the Philippine Bar shall, at the the legitimate purpose of securing the safety and preventing
request of the person arrested or of another acting in his the escape of all detainees.
behalf, have the right to visit and confer privately with
such person in the jail or any other place of custody at any
hour of the day or night. Subject to reasonable regulations,
a relative of the person arrested can also exercise the same
right.
Who Has the Right to Visit the Person Accused
A. Any Member of the Philippine Bar

1. At the request of the person arrested or of another
acting in his behalf;
2. May confer privately with such person:
a. In the jail or any other place of custody;
b. At any hour of the day or night
B. A relative of the person arrested, subject to reasonable

regulations.
Visiting Hours
The detaining officer can require that counsel be only allowed
during business hours and this does not impair the right to
counsel. This pass the standard of reasonableness.

Exception for compelling reason before any court in Judicial
RULE 126 Region where the crime is commission, if known, or where the
SEARCH AND SEIZURE warrant shall be enforced.
Section 1. Search Warrant Defined. – A search warrant is Perhaps the crime is in Davao, but the search is in Digos, so for
an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the compelling reason, the RTC Davao can issue a SW for a search
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace in Digos. But ordinarily RTC Davao is limited to Davao.
office, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court.
This general rule and exception applies if there is no criminal
case yet for that crime, if there is already, there is only one
Definition and Elements of a Search Warrant (SW)
place; where the crime is actually pending.
1. It is an Order in writing;
2. Issued in the name of the People of the Philippines; Where an Application for Search Warrant May be Filed
3. Signed by a judge; and
4. Directed to a peace officer commanding him to:
General Rule
a. Search for a personal property described
Before any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime
therein, and
was committed.
b. Bring it before the Court.
[OPSD-SB]
Exception
For Compelling reasons stated in application before:
Non-Judicial Search Warrants
1. Any court within the judicial region where the crime
May the Secretary of Labor issue search warrants in cases of
was committed if the place of the commission of the
illegal recruitment as provided under Article 38 of Labor Code?
crime is known;
2. Any court within the judicial region where the warrant
No. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may not issue
shall be enforced.
search or arrest warrants. To that extent, Article 38(c), is
unconstitutional and no force and effect (Salazar v. Achacoso).
Qualification – if the criminal action has already been filed:
The application shall only be made in the court where the
Exception: Under the Tariff and Customs Code, the Customs
criminal action is pending.
Commissioner or his authorized representative can issue a
search warrant. There are times when the courts are closed thus
1. Place of Application
the Commissioner is allowed but only for violation of the
Tariff and Customs Code.
People v. Chiu
424 SCRA 72 | February 27, 2004 | Callejo, Sr.
Difference from Arrest Warrant
An arrest warrant can only be issued if the INF is already been
Facts: The police applied for a Search Warrant (SW) from the
filed meaning there is already a case, the accused to be
Executive Judge of the RTC Pasay for the search of a residence
arrested. But for SW, even if there is no case, who can be
in Quezon City. In the course of his deposition, the applicant
searched? – anyone. It allows peace officer to search anyone
told the judge that the shabu might be moved to another place,
named in the warrant need not be accused. Despite that the
or that subject of the search warrant might get wind of the
application is still done before the court.
application if it is before Quezon.
Section 2. Court Where Application for Search Warrant Issue: Is there compelling reason for the issuance of the search
Shall be Filed. – An application for search warrant shall be
warrant by the Executive Judge of Pasay City? – YES.
filed with the following:
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
crime was committed. Held: Determination of existence of compelling considerations
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, of urgency, and the subject, time and place necessitating and
any court within the judicial region where the justifying of an application for a search warrant with a court
crime was committed if the place of the other than the court having territorial jurisdiction over the place
commission of the crime is known, or any court
to be searched and things to be seized or where the materials
within the judicial region where the warrant shall
be enforced. are found is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court
where the application is filed.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the
application shall only be made in the court where the The policed file application for SW in RTC Pasay instead of RTC
criminal action is pending. Quezon because of the possibility that shabu would be
removed by accused from Quezon. The RTC Pasay Judge did
NOTE: There is a big difference from territorial jurisdiction from not err in taking cognizance of and granting the application for
judicial region. RTC Davao can issue SW in a crime in Davao. a search warrant.
Now, Judicial Region 11 RTC Davao; Digos; Bansalan – larger.

2. Court with Power to Issue Search warrants involving these following special criminal cases
1. Heinous crimes,
Kenneth Roy v. Taypan 2. Illegal gambling,
331 SCRA 697 | May 11, 2000 | Bellosillo, J. 3. Illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well
4. As violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Issue: Does RTC Cebu Br. 12 have the authority to issue the SW Act of 2002,
considering that it was not designated as a special court for 5. The Intellectual Property Code,
Intellectual Property Rights? 6. The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001,
7. The Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and
Held: Yes. A search warrant is merely a process issued by the 8. Other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by
court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction and not a Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.
criminal action which it may entertain pursuant to its original
jurisdiction. The authority to issue search warrant is inherent in This Section shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of
all courts and may be effected outside their TJ. the Rules of Court.
RE: REQUEST OF POLICE DIRECTOR (2009) SPOUSES MARIMLA v. PEOPLE (2009)

Two letters were sent to SC both involving the application or Executive Judge granted application and issued a SW, on Feb.
procedural requirement for application of SW should be 20, 2002 an INF for RA 6425 – they filed for a Motion to Quash
endorsed by the head of the PNP, NBI, Anti-Crime Task Force for the issuance of SW was defective for it was not signed by
to be filed. the Director but signed by the Deputy Director and that Rule
126, Section 2 that shall be applied and not AM 99-10-09-SC.
First letter – requested the court that he be allowed to delegate
the endorsement of search warrant to the director of the In the AM; it granted the Exec Judge and the Vice Exec authority
directorate due to numerous demands of his office and it to act on the application of PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF, REACT-TF with
cannot be expeditious on the required endorsements of RTC of Manila and Quezon City for heinous crimes etc.
application for search warrant. – SC granted.
Q. Whether the SW is defective was not personally endorsed by
Second letter – requesting the clarification regarding the NBI Head- No.
construction of the duration or effectivity of the resolution
wherein due to an incident applied by a director for There is nothing in the AM which prohibits from delegating the
investigation was denied by the executive regional judge of authority of endorsing the application for SW to their assistant
RTC Manila because according to him, because the authority to heads.
delegate is inoperative, for it was only applicable to the
incumbency of previous chief. Q. WON the SW was issued in violation of AM and Rule 126,
Section 2 - No.
Now, in this letter, he is asking the court to issue a resolution
granting a continuing authority to delegate the application The AM provides for guidelines that it shall only continue until
of search warrant of the Director of DIDM in behalf of the further orders from the court and there was reiterated in AM
Chief of PNP. OCAT recommend amendment of guideline. 03-8-02-SC stating that the guidelines in the issuance of SW in
special criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City
The very specific under Section 12, Chapter V of Executive SHALL BE EXCEPTION TO SECTION 2. The crime here
Judge Guidelines that the heads of PNP, NBI, ACTAF of AFP involved the old dangerous drugs act.
personally endorse applications of SW to be filed before the 1. Applied for by head of agency or duly authorized
RTCs of Manila and Quezon deters suggested amendment to representative of the agencies mentioned;
delete the word personally. It is now amended to – respective 2. It must involve the particular crimes mentioned.
duly authorize officials.
Another Exception under Intellectual Property Code:
Why is it an Exception to Section 2?
At present, Sec. 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, entitled AM 10-3-10 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Special Commercial Courts in the NCR with Authority to
Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties, Issue Writs of Search and Seizure Enforceable Nationwide
dictates that – to issue Search Warrant to be Implemented Special Commercial in:
Nationwide but there only certain entities can apply:  Quezon City
1. PNP  Manila
2. NBI  Makati, and
3. ACTAF of PNP  Pasig
Shall have authority to act on application for the issue of writs
These are the officers that can apply for a search warrant to the of search and seizure in civil action for violations of IP Code,
RTCs in Quezon and Manila. which writs shall be enforceable nationwide.

Accordingly, the Executive Judges under AM 03-8-02-SC are What Kind of Personal Property may be Seized
relieved from issuing SW for IP Code violation. 1. Property Subject of the offense;
 So these judges are now not allowed to issued search 2. Property Stolen or Embezzled and other proceeds, or
warrants involving IP Code Violation. Fruits of the offense; or
 It has now to be the Judges of the of Special 3. Property Used or Intended to be used as the means
Commercial Courts of the four mentioned courts only. of committing an offense. [S-SEF-UI]
TOMAS v. CIDG (2016) Laud v. People

RA 8293 – PNP-CIDG; presented four application for issuance November 19, 2014 | Per Curiam
of search warrants for RTC Manila – approved by Chief of CIDG,
the issuance of warrants. Tomas moved to quash the search On July 10, 2009, the PNP through PSUPT Fajardo applied with
warrant for it was in violation of AM 03-8-02-SC. RTC Manila for SW three cage in Laud Compound in Ma-a,
where the alleged victims of summarily executed by DDS may
He claimed that warrant should be personally endorsed by the be found. It was applied for in Manila. In support, Abasola was
heads of the said agencies. The four applications were presented in the RTC, where he said he saw the killing and he
approved by CIDG Chief when it should have been by PNP was part of the group.
Chief.
Vice Executive Judge Peralta found PC for SW and was enforced
Issue: Whether application for SW is defective. – NO. by PNP CIDG. With the SW, CIDG found the Laud Compound
and found and dig up human remains.
CA held that they were defective thus there was a quashal which
was final and executory – immutability of judgments. In this Issue: WON human remains be subject of seizure.
case, the SC ruled is just a caveat, although the CA decision has
attained finality; it should not be followed. According to Laud, human remains are not personal property,
he argues this cannot be subject of seizure. But according to
SC nothing in the AM prohibits the heads of the PNP, NBI and SC, personal property under Rule 126, Section 3 actually refers
ACTAF to delegate their ministerial duty to endorse, an to the mobility of the things – not to the capability to be
assistant head can perform such duties such be specified. The appropriated.
subordinates can be assigned with additional duties as long as
not unlawful. Those can be transported from place to place, considering
human bodies can be moved face to face, they are considered
The search warrants should not have been quashed they subject offense they prove the crime’s corpus delicti thus they
already found PC and whatever defects were minor and are valid objects of SW under Rule 126, Section 3.
technical and should have ordered correction, absence of
endorsement is only for administrative liability and in no way 1. Return of Property Seized
renders SW useless.
People v. Estrada
Grounds for Motion to Quash 334 SCRA 260 | June 26, 2000 | Ynares-Santiago, J.
1. The place searched or the property seized are not
those specified and described in the warrant; Issue: Considering that the drugs were found genuine, though
2. There is no probable cause. illegally imported, and were seized under a void warrant for
failure to particularly describe the place, must they be returned
Commentary to their owner?
The applications were made on Oct. 24, 2007; the crime is a No. Even if the drugs seized were genuine and even if they
violation of RA 8293 or the IP Code, here the executive judge contain proper chemicals or ingredients for their production, if
of Manila and Quezon City were still allowed to issue search the seller has no permit from the proper government agency,
warrants for crimes of IP Code, they cannot be returned. The party seeking the issuance of a
warrant has the burden to convince the judge that probable
But since the rules on IP Cases rules on 2011, hence, from that cause exists and to procure the necessary evidence to show that
point onward all application for search warrants on IP Code the party against whom warrant was directed is not authorized
should be made before Special Commercial Court Judges by BFAD.
Section 3. Personal Property to be Seized. – A search Section 4. Requisites for Issuing Search Warrant. – A
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause
personal property: in connection with one specific offense to be determined
(a) Subject of the offense; personally by the judge after examination under oath or
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
of the offense; or produce, and particularly describing the place to be
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of searched and the things to be seized which may be
committing an offense. anywhere in the Philippines.

Requisites for Issuing a Search Warrant People v. Estrada 296 SCRA 383 (1998)
1. There must be an Application in writing under oath; Mere allegation of the application as to the non-existence of a
Applicant can be anyone, anywhere n TJ. No need for head license is not sufficient to establish probable cause. A
of agency, anyone, any crime and anywhere within the TJ. certification to that effect from DOH (unlicensed drugs case).
2. There must be Probable cause;
3. It can only be issued in connection with One specific People v. Salanguit 356 SCRA 683 (2001)
offense; The fact that there was no PC for seizure of drug paraphernalia
a. To be determined by the Judge; does not mean that the whole search warrant is void. It would
b. After Examination under oath or affirmation be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which was issued on
of the complainant and the witnesses he may probable cause and particularly describing the things to be
produce; - PERSONAL EXAMINATION seized is to be invalidated as a whole just because the judge
4. It must Particularly describe; erred in authorizing a search for other items not supported.
a. The Place to be searched which may be
anywhere in the Philippines, and SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE
b. The Objects to be seized.
People v. CA
NOTE: This is the fourth kind of probable cause encountered to 291 SCRA 400 | June 25, 1998 | Narvasa, J.
be determined by the judge.
Facts: Upon application by police, judge issued an SW ordering
There must be a specific offense connected to the application. the search of the Apartment 1207 but police instead served
Thus, there must be personal examination of complainant and warrant not there but at Apartment 1, which resulted to the
witnesses. This is different from PC of a search warrant. arrest of the accused and seizure of guns and explosives The
police claimed that it was Apartment 1 they had in mind. Is the
Probable Cause In Issuance of Search Warrants search considered valid?
People v. Aruta Held: No. What is material is the place stated in the warrant
288 SCRA 626 | April 3, 1998 | Romero J. itself, not what applicants had in mind. It cannot be left to the
discretion of the police officers conducting the search.
It generally signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to PICOP v. Asuncion 307 SCRA 253 (1999) | 55 hectares compound
warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is Upon application the judge ordered search “located at PICOP
guilty of the offense with which he is charged. Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur” this was not
deemed sufficient because it simply authorizes a search of the
It refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances which aforementioned premises but did not specify – it described a
could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe whole compound which that compound is made up of 200
than an offense has been committed and that the articles offices and buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airship, etc.
sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by law is in the place to be searched. People v. Estrada 263 S 383 (1998) | 5,000 sqm compound
The SW is not valid. The place to be searched had not been
There must be substantial evidence that the items sought are described with particularity considering that the size of place it
in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal technically is considered as a general warrant. This is not
activity, and that items will be found in the place to be searched. allowed for it would transgress the requirement of particularity
of the place to be searched.
Requisites in the Determination of Probable Cause
In the case of Pendon v. CA, 191 S 429, November 16, 1990, it Minor Defect in Description
is required that: If the officer with the warrant can with reasonable effort and
1. The judge must examine the witnesses (and the identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places
complainant) personally; in the co9mmunity. In this case, it was not shown that a street
2. The examination must be under oath (or affirmation); named Hernan Cortes is in Cebu for it is only in Mandaue thus
3. The examination must be reduced to writing in the not void (Uy v. BIR, 344 SCRA 36, 2000).
form of searching questions and answers.
Defect in the Name of the Owner of the Place
Illustrations of Probable Cause for Search Warrants The warrant need not name the person who occupies the
named premises. Where the warrant is issued for the search of
PICOP v. Asuncion 307 SCRA 253 (1999) a specifically described place only and not for the search of a
The absence of license but was not shown in evidence during person, the failure to name the owner or the occupant of such
the time of application for search warrant, the applicant must property in the warrant does not invalidate the warrant, it is not
show a justifiable reason therefor during examination. a fatal defect (Uy v. BIR, 334 SCRA 36, 2000).

Mistake in the Name of the Person No. In seizing the said items then, the police officers were
Mistakes in the name of the person do not invalidate the exercising their own discretion and determining for themselves
warrant provided that the place to be search is properly and which items are proceeds or means. This absolutely
particularly described (People v. Del Norte, 426 SCRA 383). impermissible. The constitutional requirement that the articles
seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the
DESCRIPTION OF THE OBJECTS things to be seized to such particularly described.
Violation of Intellectual Property Law This is to leave the officers of the law with no discretion to what
The search warrant here is invalid because the articles and articles they would seize. A search warrant is not a sweeping
appliances enumerated in the SW are generally connected with authority empowering a raiding party to have fishing
a legitimate business and not necessarily involving piracy or expedition.
with infringement – too general (Columbia Pictures v. Flores).
NOTE: Plain view doctrine in this case was also held to be
How Specific is Specific inapplicable because the typewriters, checks, checkbooks, dry
In the case of Microsoft v. Maxicorp, Inc. 438 SCRA 224, what seals, stamp pads are not contraband or sufficient evidence of
is only required that a search warrant be specific as far as the offense itself.
circumstances will ordinarily allow.
ONE OFFENSE RULE
The description of the property be seized need not be
technically precise. The articles to be seized were not only General Warrants, Not Allowed
sufficiently identified physically, they were also specifically These are void and unconstitutional because it does not specify
identified by stating their relation to the offense charged, a the place to be searched, the things to be seized, and the
search warrant need not be void as a whole. offense involved in the application.
The Law does not require that the things to be seized must be Scatter-Shot Warrant, Not Allowed
described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for In the case of Vallejo v. CA 427 SCRA 658 (2004), a warrant for
doubt on the part of the searching authorities. Otherwise, it will three offenses is not allowed is not void.
be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain warrant as
they would not know exactly (Kho v. Makalintal, 1999). A warrant must be issued upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense. In People v. Simbahon (2003) even
Once described, the articles need not to be so invariant as to two offenses still invalid search warrant.
require absolute concordance between those seized and those
described in the warrant. Substantial similarity of those articles Related Offenses in One Search Warrant, Allowed
described as a class or species would suffice (Al-Ghoul v. CA). If the crime involves related offenses such as possession and
selling of dangerous drugs under Section 5 and Section 15
Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act under RA 9165.
In the case of People v. Tee 395 SCRA 419 (2003) the
description “an undetermined amount of marijuana must be Several Counts of the Same Offense
held to satisfy the requirement of the constitution as to the Considering that there are as many offenses of infringement as
particularity of the description. The description therein is: there are rights protected in the various movie titles involved,
does the warrant violate the rule that a search warrant must be
1. As specific as the circumstances allow; issued only in connection with one specific offense?
2. Expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law- by which
the peace officers may be guided in making the search No. The search warrant indicates that it was issued for violation
and seizure; Section 56 of PD 49 only. The specification therein merely refer
3. Limits the things to be seized to those which bear to the titles belonging to Columbia.
direct relation to the offense for which it is issued.
That there were several counts of the offense of copyright
Said warrant imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects infringement and the search warrant uncovered several
to be seized by the officers serving warrant, thereby preventing contraband is not to be confused with the number of offenses
exploratory searches. charged (Columbia Pictures v. CA, 261 SCRA 144, 1996).
Seizure of Objects Not Described in the Warrant Section 5. Examination of Complainant; Record. – The
judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally
People v. Go 411 SCRA 81 (2003) examine in the form of searching questions and answers,
in writing and under oath, the complainant and the
In execution of a search warrant for the seizure of Dangerous
witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to
Drugs, may the police also seize the money as well as a car them and attach to the record their sworn statements,
which though not described in the warrant, they believe to be together with the affidavits submitted.
proceeds of the crime or means of committing of offense.

Duty of Judge Before Issuing Warrant COAC-COLA v. GOMEZ (2008)
Has the application of search warrant was sufficient effectively
1. He must personally examine: charged an office for unfair competition. It is required that an
(a) Complainant; and underlying offense must exist. – No offense charged.
(b) Witnesses he may produce
The act charged – alleged hoarding of empty Coke Bottles –
2. The examination must be: does not constitute an offense under section 168.3 of the IP
(a) In the form of searching questions and answers; Code. It is not an act within RA 8293.
(b) In writing;
(c) Under oath; and Pepsi does not pass off its goods as it off as Coca-Cola; what it
(d) On facts personally known to them alleges it outside RA 8293. When there is an application to a
search warrant – it is not enough that it was sworn and
3. The following must be attached to the record: particularly – it should have probable cause – facts and
(a) The sworn statements of the complainants and his circumstances which would lead a prudent man to believe that
witnesses; there was a crime committed. If the judge cannot find the
(b) The affidavits they submitted. offense – if there is no crime – then there is no probable cause.
Searching Questions, Explained Here clearly, the Pepsi warehouse is to be searched, but what is
The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely the crime charged – unfair competition? It should have been
routinary or pro-form, if the claimed probable cause is to be theft, the crime invoked was incorrect – it was not a crime under
established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash unfair competition – therefore there is no PC.
of the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry
on the intent and justification of the application for a search TAN v. SY TIONG GUE (2010)
warrant (Pendon v. CA, 191 SCRA 429, 1990). Two cases – robbery and qualified theft. No probable cause was
found for SW for robbery; the items seized by virtue of search
Records of Deposition warrants based on the same incidents to be used as evidence.
The depositions of the witnesses herein were not attached to Whether the items seized by virtue of search warrant in robbery
the SW, but the purpose of the Rules of Court in requiring the be used in qualified theft? – No.
depositions to be taken is to satisfy the examining magistrate
of the existence of PC. The determination by the judge is It is clear that there needs to be probable in connection with
already of great deference (People v. Tee). one specific offenses. The SW is for that particular crime, you
cannot search something that is related to another crime even
People v. Mamaril though the crimes are not related.
420 SCRA 622 | January 22, 2004 | Azcuna, J.
CHU v. JUDGE TAMIN (2003)
Facts: During trial for possession of marijuana which was seized CENRO Officer Cruz applied for SW with Judge Tamin against
by virtue of an SW, the clerk of the issuing RTC testified that the Chu for violation of PD 705 for possessing forest products.
available records do not include the transcript of the searching Tamin issued warrant for seizure of mangrove lumber, this
questions and answers made by the judge in connection with allowed CENRO to seize such.
the application. Was the warrant validly issued? – No.
Judge Tamin had already issued the SW against him for the 5th
Rule: The law requires that the judge must, before issuing the time and that there were no transcriptions of the examinations.
warrant PERSONALLY EXAMINE IN THE FORM OF SEARCHING
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, in writing and under oath, the Tamin denied and contended that he personally examined,
complainant and witnesses he may produce, he may produce printed transcript and he said that the reason was not in the
on facts personally known to the m and attach to the record records for the legal researcher failed to make a copy.
their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.
Issue: WON Judge Tamin was able to determine PC. – NO.
Since the clerk of court could not produce the sworn
statements showing that the judge examined them in the form Tamin either did not conduct required searching and if he did
of searching questions, the search warrant is tainted with not put it in writing, failed to examine, failed to secure affidavit.
illegality by the failure of the judge to conform with the with SW is only justified upon finding of PC. The examination must
the essential requisites of the taking the depositions in writing be reduced into writing.
and attaching them to the record.
NOTE: You ask searching question, the questions and the
No presumption of regularity can be invoked in aid of the answers are to be taken by the stenographer and transcribed.
process when an officer undertakes to justify it. There must be proof that searching questions were indeed
asked in order to determine probable cause.

SONY MUSIC v. ESPANOL (2005) Commentary: Taken note the requirement that two of the
VRB charged Uy, Chung, Lim and an officer of SLC with PD 1987, presenting the original item and fake items produced by the
the four were engaged in replication of videograms without entity, you need not produce the original. There is no need, the
license from VRB. rules do not require to present the original and show that such
were fake – it is enough to allege that they are fake. The
Sony filed for copyright infringement under RA 8293 against judge can already determine.
the same. Agent Lavin stated before Judge Espanol that an  The questions should not be merely pro-forma, this is
unnamed person gave tip as to the presence of pirated CD. No not how searching questions should be made.
probable cause.
QUELNAN v. PEOPLE (2007)
Absent of the personal knowledge of witnesses and complaint Team of policemen was formed to implement of SW and
because its issuance is deemed arbitrary. The issuance of the proceeded to City land Condo and went to the Security Office
search warrant in question, they relied based on the and went to Unit 615. When they knocked, they saw Quelnan,
information given by unnamed persons and meaning that they then presented SW, then implemented and found drugs
persons who gave the information, no one testified seeing the paraphernalia, tubings, and that there was a receipt of the
pirated discs in Laguna. properties seized.
Tips from unnamed persons are allowed if they are verified, the Quelnan questions for there was improper enforcement, and
records shows such is not the case before us. despite the knowledge that Quelnan was not the subject of
such for the person alleged in the SW is Kim. Is this correct?
Commentary: In determining PC, the judge must elicit PC from
complainant and witnesses from the personal evidence; not No. Nothing in the rules requires that the person occupying the
merely hearsay, this cannot be tantamount to probable cause. premises must be required in the SW. Citing the case of Uy v.
The probable cause must be with personal knowledge. BIR if it was issued for the place, failure to name the owner or
occupant of property does not invalidate warrant. Where the
MANLY SPORTSWEAR v. DADODETTE name of the owner is incorrectly inserted in the warrant does
The crime alleged in violation of Infringement of Trademark. not render the warrant defective.
Dadodette moved to annul the issuance contending that the
issuance for element of PC was not compliance. The SC said no SW reveals that they were ordered to make immediate search
there must be probable cause to be determined by the judge. to seize and take possession of offense and bring person to be
The RTC found that the probable cause. Hence, the goods were dealt with. There was a valid warrantless arrest here for he
not originally made by Manly. was caught in flagrante delicto; and even if he was not named,
it is not material. It is the place of the search is required, in
There is no probable cause, they found that the goods that the warrant of arrest it is the name. Here it is enough, and
were possessed. You have to be the offended party if you are whoever is there one can search.
to be complainant, so how can there be a search warrant. If you
are the complainant, you apply for the search warrant. Since it COMERCIANTE v. PEOPLE (2015)
was one’s own personal rights as an individual or corporation, Spotted Adan and Calag at 5meters standing and showing
then it must be that it must be an offended party and a crime improper movements with one handing plastic sachets to the
was committed against it and that there was PC. other. PO3 Calag introduced himself. There was probable
cause, for when he saw them, he was aboard a motorcycle
PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER CHOI (2005) running at 30KPH in the SC, Comerciante contended that he did
There was a test buy for fake Marlboro cigarettes for violation not affect a valid warrantless arrest and that the seized items
of RA 8293 for the alleged and possession for fake Marlboro should be inadmissible. WON valid warrantless search. – NO.
cigarettes The judges issued the search warrant – Choi assailed
such, stating that PC was not established. Whether the SW was The Supreme Court finds it highly implausible that PO3 Calag,
valid – it was valid. even assuming that he has perfect vision, would be able to
identify with reasonable accuracy especially from a distance of
One of the requisites that the examination must be reduced, around 10 meters, and while aboard a motorcycle cruising at a
the searching questions propounded to the applicant and the speed of 30 kilometers per hour miniscule amounts of white
witnesses depend largely on the discretion of the judge. The crystalline substance inside two (2) very small plastic sachets
judge must make his own inquiry, the question should be not held by Comerciante.
be merely repetitious. Aside from testimony Sealey, the witness,
they positively determined Choi possessed such fake cigarettes. The Court also notes that no other overt act could be properly
attributed to Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of
The questions were sufficiently probing, not at all superficial PO3 Calag that the former had just committed, was committing,
and perfunctory, it constituted adequate bases. In applying of or was about to commit a crime. Verily, the acts of standing
20th Century Fox Corporation ruling was not allowed. around with a companion and handing over something to the
latter cannot in any way be considered criminal acts.

In fact, even if Comerciante and his companion were showing Section 6. Issuance and Form of Search Warrants. – If the
"improper and unpleasant movements" as put by PO3 Calag, judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the
the same would not have been sufficient in order to effect a application is based or that there is probable cause to
believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which
lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the
must be substantially in the form prescribed by these
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Rules.
That his reasonable suspicion bolstered by (a) the fact that he

Issuance and Form
had seen his fellow officers arrest persons in possession of
1. When the judge shall issue the search warrant:
shabu; and (b) his trainings and seminars on illegal drugs when
a. When he is satisfied of the existence of such
he was still assigned in the province are insufficient to create a
facts upon which the application is based, or
conclusion that what he purportedly saw in Comerciante was
b. When he is satisfied that there is probable
indeed shabu.
cause to believe that they exist.
Stop and Frisk Rule
2. Form of the search warrant:
Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry
It must be substantially in the form prescribed by
searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law
these Rules.
enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the
commission of offenses.
Section 7. Right to Break Door or Window to Effect
Search. – The officer, if refused admittance to the place of
However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the directed search after giving notice of his purpose and
privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the authority, may break open any outer or inner door or
Constitution. window of a house or anything therein to execute the
warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present him when unlawfully detained therein.
where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be
undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Right to Break Door or Window
Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing
with criminals and criminal behavior. A. Requisites for An Officer to Break Open any Outer in
Inner Door or Window of a House
Hence, they should have the ability to discern - based on facts 1. The officer gives notice of his purpose and authority;
that they themselves observe - whether an individual is acting 2. Refused admittance to the place of directed search.
in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that
the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must B. Authorized Acts Upon Breaking In
observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. 1. The officer may execute the warrant, or
2. He may liberate:
In this case, the Court reiterates that Comerciante's acts of a. Himself, or
standing around with a companion and handing over b. Any person lawfully aiding him when
something to the latter do not constitute criminal acts. These unlawfully detained therein.
circumstances are not enough to create a reasonable inference
of criminal activity which would constitute a "genuine reason" When to Break Door or Window; No Knock Entry
for PO3 Calag to conduct a "stop and frisk" search on the In case of People v. Huang Zhen Hua 439 SCRA 350 (2004),
former. In this light, the "stop and frisk" search made on the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and
Comerciante should be deemed unlawful. announcing their presence under the particular circumstances
would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the
In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor a valid effective investigation of crime. What constitutes breaking is
"stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante. the lifting of latch, turning a door knob, unlocking a chain or
hasp, removing a prop or pushing open a closed door of
As such, the shabu purportedly seized from him is rendered entrance to a house and even a closed screen door.
inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the
poisonous tree. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus As to how long an officer implementing a search warrant must
delicti of the crime charged, Comerciante must necessarily be wait before breaking open any door cannot be distilled into a
acquitted and exonerated from all criminal liability. constitutional stopwatch. – “No knock entry”
Commentary Section 8. Search of House, Room, or Premises to be Made

There is another kind of probable to cause to actually make a in Presence of Two Witnesses. – No search of a house,
warrantless search based on the stop and frisk doctrine. This room, or any other premises shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of
case squarely falls under Section 13 of the Rule 126 on the his family or in the absence of the latter, two (2) witnesses
Criminal Procedure. of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality.

Presumption of a Valid Search Warrant PANUNCIO v. PEOPLE (2009)
We follow Section 8 prescribing presence of certain individuals. There was a raid with search warrant, Panuncio signed a
The issue revolves factual – take note of the requirement. A certification of orderly searched, an information was filed.
searching party cannot search when the premises are empty. Petitioner denied that she was the source of the falsified
documents. She alleged that Manlite, which she used to co-own
Who Must be Present During a Speech with her late husband, already stopped operating in April 1992
1. The lawful occupant of the house, room or premises and her business was operating under the name Rosario
2. Any member of his family, or Panuncio.
3. In their absence – two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality. She alleged that she was not at home when the raid took place,
and when she returned home, the police authorities had
Presence of Occupants already emptied her shelves and she was just forced to sign the
While the accused and the occupants were present during the search warrant, inventory receipt, and the certificate of orderly
search, they were not allowed to actually witness the search of search. She further alleged that she was charged with
the premises. They should be the ones that should have falsification because she refused the police authorities demand
accompanied the policemen while the search was being done for money. There was still valid search.
and not the barangay tanods in their stead. Such a procedure,
whereby the witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from Panuncio herself signed the certificate of orderly search when
actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises, she arrived at her residence, assuming that she was not there,
violates both the spirit and the letter of the law (People v. Del the search was still conducted with two witnesses – Brgy.
Castillo, 439 SCRA 601, 2004). Chairman and her employee Velasco. Thus, in conclusion,
there was a valid search – and these were admissible.
PEOPLE v. TIRA (2005)
Application for search warrant issued by Judge Dayap; on NOTE: One cannot use an excuse that one was not there, if that
March 9 a team implemented the SW and found Ernesto Tira person actually signed a Certification of Orderly Search.
and presented the SW and Ernesto showed them inside the While not in the rules, but the officers bring this with them. This
house. Inside such they found a newly awakened Amadeo, they is the proof to show the judge that the search was done in the
found shabu, drug paraphernalia and money. presence of the lawful occupant or two witnesses.
Tira contended the room search was made in their absence and Section 9. Time of Making Search. – The warrant must
that the room was leased to boarders. Was the search in direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit
compliance? asserts that the property is one the person or in the place
ordered to be searched, in which a case direction may be
inserted that it be served anytime of the day or night.
No evidence was adduced that there were boarders. Thus, Tiras
here were the lawful occupants.
Time of Making Search
GENERAL RULE: The warrant must direct that it be served in the
Then, Amadeo Tira was present when the policemen searched
the inner room of the house. The articles and substances were day time.
found under the bed on which the appellant Amadeo Tira
slept. Everything was done in accordance with the rules. EXCEPTION:It may be served at any time of the day or night – if
the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in
SONY v. BRIGHT FUTURE (2007) the place ordered to be searched.
Sony filed eight SW for copyright and trademark infringement;
NOTE: Unlike an arrest warrant which can be served anytime,
a raid was conducted on the premises of Bright Future
here there should be an assertion.
Technologies, Inc. on April 1, 2005, that there were no witnesses
that they were already inside. However, Sony alleged that the
searching team waited for barangay officials, and were Section 10. Validity of the Search Warrant. – A search
warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date.
accompanied by the security. There was violation of Section
Thereafter, it shall be void.
8 on two-witness rule.
Validity of Search Warrant

A security guard may not be considered a lawful occupants or
1. Search warrant shall be valid for 10 days from its date
a member of the occupants thus there was only one, and that
2. Thereafter, it shall be void.
there was no regularity.
Multiple Service of Warrant

NOTE: Security guard do not live in the premises, they are not
May a service of warrant be served twice during its lifetime?
occupants and they are there to watch the premises. They
Yes. It could be served anytime within the said period, and if its
should have waited for the barangay officials. The fact that the
object or purpose cannot be accomplished in one day, the
searching party made the search invalid.
same may be continued (Mustang Lumbar v. CA, 1986).

Difference from arrest warrant. It has a lifetime of 10 days, The referred case shows that it is not the person searched, this
outside the period, it shall be useless. If the police uses an is tantamount to a violation of one’s rights. After the true
expired warrant, however, a warrant within 10 days can be inventory and verified under oath.
served as many times as necessary. For example, Day 1 – they
can go back for Day 2 until 10 days allowed. After such Section 12 shall be applied, if it was shown that the
search warrant applied for and implemented was properly and
Section 11. Receipt for the Property Seized. – The officer correctly inventoried and receipt.
seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed
receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises Section 12. Delivery of Property and Inventory Thereof to
in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in Court; Return and Proceeding Thereon. –
the absence of such occupant must, in the presence of at (a) The office must forthwith deliver the property
least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion seized to the judge who issued the warrant,
residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in together with a true inventory thereof duly
which he found the seized property. verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant,
Obligation of Officer Seizing Property under a Warrant the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has
1. He must give a detailed receipt for property seized; been made, and if none, shall summon the person
to whom the warrant was issued and require him
2. The receipt:
to explain why no return was made. If the return
a. Must be given to the lawful occupant of the has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether
premises in whose presence the search and Section 11 of this Rule has been complied with
seizure were made, or and shall require that the property seized be
b. In the absence of such occupant, must be left delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that
in the place in which the seized property is subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and
found, in the presence of at least 2 witnesses
kept by the custodian of the log book on search
of sufficient age and discretion in the same warrants who shall enter therein the date of the
locality. return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
Commentary A violation of this section shall constitute a contempt of

It is the seizing officer who must inventory in the receipt, what court.
happens is that the one who signed is the one who has been
searched – which is problematic. The one who takes the articles Duties after Issuance of Warrant
is the one who should sign for it.
A. After Seizure: The officer must forthwith deliver to the judge
Witness to the Receipt who issued the warrant:
Where the occupants of the place to be searched were not 1. The property seized;
actually present during the search, may a member of the 2. Together with a true inventory thereof duly verified
searching party sign the receipt? under oath.
No. The procedure is irregular for failure to comply with Section B. Duty of the Judge After Issuance of Search Warrant
11 of Rule 126. The receipt should be given who witnessed. Ten (10) days after the issuance of the search warrant, he shall
ascertain if the return has been made:
The receipt issued by the seizing party in the case at bar showed 1. If no return has been made – the judge shall summon
that it was signed by a witness who was a policeman form the person to whom the warrant was issued and
Manila Police who accompanied NBI in the conduct of search require him to explain why
(Quintero v. NBI, 162 SCRA 469, 1988). 2. If the return has been made – the judge shall
a. Ascertain whether a receipt has been issued
Signing of the Receipt for the items seized (Section 11)
After the house where accused stayed was searched by virtue b. Require that the property seized be delivered
of a warrant, the police asked her to sign an inventory of the to him, and
article seized which included a quantity of shabu. c. See to it that the property seized, together
with a true inventory duly verified under
Considering that the accused was not assisted by counsel, is the oath, be delivered to him.
receipt admissible in evidence? – No.
C. Duty of Custodian of the Log Book on Search Warrants
The accused was the victim of a clever ruse to make him sign 1. He shall file and keep the return of the search warrant
an alleged receipt which in effect is an extra-judicial confession 2. He shall enter in the log book
of the offense (People v. Del Castillo, 2004). a. The date of the return,
b. The result, and
c. Other actions of the judge

D. Consequence of Violation of Section 12 Commentary
It shall constitute contempt of court. This is the first exemption to the rule of requirement of warrant
in searches. Here before a search can be considered be valid,
Custody of Issuing Court there must be a valid arrest.
After the police officers seized shabu by virtue of search
warrant, they delivered it to the PNP Crime Laboratory for The arrest must be valid arrest or valid warrantless arrest. If the
examination instead of the court issuing SW. Is it proper? arrest is valid, then the search may be made, the right is
given to the arresting officers to search, but what should be
No. Mere tolerance by trial courts of such a practice does not subject of search? – Dangerous weapons or anything that used
make it right. There must be approval by the court issuing SW in commission or proof of the offense.
for the retention of the property seized by the police officers,  Person of the arrested;
and only then will their custody be considered custody of the  Room within immediate control – depends how the Court
court. determines.
 Search must be contemporaneous and simultaneous
Absent such approval, the police offices have no authority to with the arrest; the arrest must be made first – and then
retain possession of the marijuana and more so to deliver to the search.
another agency (People v. Del Castillo, 2004).
Scope of the Search
The duty of the searching officers to deliver the items seized to In the case of Espano v. CA 288 SCRA 558 (1998), the scope of
him to the court which issued the warrant is mandatory in the search incident to a valid arrest is for the seizure of
character. dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof
of the commission of an offense.
This is evident by the use in the rule of the word “must” and
before the Customs can have retention there must be approval It may extend beyond the person of the one arrest to include
by court (Tenorio v. CA, 2003). Section 12 is a mandatory the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.
provision.
Search after Buy-Bust Operation
Section 13. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest. – A person For a search incident to lawful arrest to be valid, the search must
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the
or anything which may have been used or constitute proof time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the
in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or
surrounding under his immediately his control.
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
1. What may be done to a person lawfully arrested: Searched of Parked Vehicle After Arrest
a. He may be searched without a warrant The car was not part of the description of the place to be
2. What he may be searched for: searched mentioned in the warrant and that the search of the
a. Dangerous weapons, or car was not incidental to lawful arrest (People v. Ti Won Chua).
b. Anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an Other Exceptions
offense.
1. CONSENTED SEARCH – if the person allows search,
Valid Warrantless Searches then this is a valid search
In the case of People v. Gonzales, 365 SCRA 17, the following a. Person must possess such rights; the right to
are the instances where there can be warrantless searches: waive or consent;
1. Warrantless searches incidental to a lawful arrest; b. Person must know of the existence of such
2. Seizure of evidence in plain view; right – that a valid warrant
3. Search of a moving vehicle; c. Person intended to relinquish right
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search; Consent must be express, the burden of proof rests on the
6. Stop and frisk; and prosecution, only the person whose rights are invaded can give
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances. consent to a search – allowed also by express delegation. This
is illustrated in the Veroy v. Layague, where she consented, so
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest that police went there and the searching party went in.
The law requires hat there first be a lawful arrest before a search
can be made – the process cannot be reversed. If arrest is  If the consent was given for an object then it must
valid, the officer may searched the arrestee and the area within be limited to such
which the latter may reach for a weapon or destroy evidence In the case, the rebels are not to be found in the drawers.
or might furnish him means of escaping or committing violence
to such (Macalat v. CA 283 SCRA 159, 1997).

Silence in Consented Search: Silence means consent if outside EPIE v. JUDGE-ULAT MARREDO (2007)
residence, but not consent if inside the residence. In this case, the officers obtained information that a jeepney
vehicle with a certain plate loaded with Benguet pine lumbers.
2. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE They established checkpoint and flagged it down, but it did not
a. Prior justification for intrusion – they must be stop and forced to them chase, upon lifting the loaded
there justifiably in the first place. vegetables, they found pine lumbers. The police officers
b. Illegality must be apparent; arrested Epie et al for they had no license to transport the
lumber. Was the warrantless search and seizure? YES.
3. STOP AND FRISK SEARCH: only requires one
probable cause – this person was acting suspiciously. This fall under a search of a moving vehicle – there must be a
This is also known as Terry Search. This is based on the probable cause. When a vehicle sped away after noticing a
decision in Terry v. Ohio. checkpoint and even after having been flagged down to
dissuade them from inspection, there exists PC to justify a
Steps to be Taken reasonable belief on part of law enforcers.
 Office observes unusual conduct
 In light of experience, that a criminal activity is afoot COMMENTARY: This is a search of moving vehicle, the most
 That the person is armed and dangerous abused term is probable cause, and here for this exception, the
 The police must introduce himself as such probable cause is the fact that the persons involved in the
vehicle acted suspiciously. But, because they were acting
Later on, the SC stated that one cannot conduct stop and frisk suspiciously they had to be chased down.
in many people in broad daylight, it must be with appropriate
circumstances (late at night; deserted road). REVALDO v. PEOPLE (2009)
Revaldo was charged with violation of Forest Code, when police
The police officer can conduct carefully limited outer search officers went into the premises of Revaldo who was allegedly in
of his clothing to find for any weapon or object to protect possession of lumber without the necessary documents, and
himself and the people around. they found such, but Revaldo was not able to present one. They
took and seized such for evidentiary purposes. They were not
4. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES armed with a SW. Revaldo contended its inadmissibility.
a. General Visual Search – checkpoints
b. Extensive Search – body search by ordering Whether or not the search and seizure incident to lawful arrest
passengers to alight, opening the was proper. – Yes.
compartment, opening the trunk and bags.
Revaldo was validly arrest pursuant to Forestry Code, the
Principles under Cases lumber were in plain view which are objects falling in plain view
 Subject to general searches only of the officer which is in right of the position of that view can
 Extensive search is only allowed only when there is seizure; requisites
probable cause – there is reasonable belief that the 1. Prior justification for an intrusion
motorist is an offender because of a specific report 2. Discovery of the evidence in plain view in
when that person is described particularly, or the inadvertent
person about to be searched is acting suspiciously. 3. Apparent illegality.
 Consent – if there is an extensive search, and you do
not say anything, silence or failure to object except in When he was asked to present documents, he was not able to
coercive and intimidating circumstances. present there was probable cause to confiscate the lumber,
therefore there was no necessity for an SW.
Note the application of this violations can only be invoked
against the State. For private institutions is not applicable. Commentary: Normally, the objects that need of license are in
plain view, the police has the right to ask, do you have a license?
5. SEARCH IN ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTOMS LAW If none, Then this is already a probable. This involved the
mere report is sufficient to establish probable cause, exception of the plain view the illegality is apparent, so if there
persons, vehicles, stores etc. but not dwelling houses. is no license for something that requires such it makes the
Dwelling houses cannot be searched by customs illegality apparent.
houses only dutiable.
PEOPLE v. MARIACOS (2010)
6. AIRPORT SECURITY They set up a checkpoint, but it did not yield any suspect or
marijuana, he conducted a surveillance operation. He received
7. JAIL SECURITY info from secret agent from intelligence network that a
marijuana was in a jeepney to leave for Poblacion. P02 Palayoc
8. EXIGENCY positioned on top of the jeepney. While in motion, he noticed
a backpack, and he picked such and found bricks of marijuana.

At that time, he has no idea, when it reached the Poblacion, it Held: No, whenever a search warrant has been issued by one
was now carried by two women and found Belen Mariacos. One Court or Branch and a criminal prosecution is initiated in
of them got away. Belen was brought to the police station. The another, as a result of the service of search warrant case should
search preceded the arrest. be consolidated with the criminal case for orderly procedure.
There must be a prior valid arrest. If the search substantially Motion to Quash and Preliminary Investigation
contemporaneous arrest, it can precede at the outset. The
probable cause was based on the information – that the search Solid Triangle v. Sheriff of RTC
was valid, the arrest on the search was valid. 370 SCRA 491 | November 23, 2001 | Kapunan J.
 Search of a moving vehicle exception.
 It is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search Question: May the court issuing the search warrant quash the
is conducted on moving vehicles since they can be same on the on the ground of lack of PC despite the pendency
moved out quickly. of a PI before the PROS office involving the possession of object
 The search here was valid for it carried the contraband. which were seized by the SW?
Commentary: Note this is a second division ruling – this is not Held: YES. The proceedings for the issuance/quashal of SW
a ruling, if such is allowed we are adding another exception before a court and the PI before the prosecutor are entirely
– the search cannot precede the arrest – here it was stated different from each other (Crespo v. Mogul). The court does not
that the search was in a moving vehicle – allowed. oblige the investigation PROS not to file INF for the ruling of a
court is only for the quashal of warrant.
But to say that search first but arrest after is made, what do we
mean by contemporaneous? Here it was made before – but the It may be true that as a result of the quashal of the warrant, the
search was made under a basis the information. private complainant is deprived of vital evidence to establish
his case, but such is the inevitable consequence. But it does not
Section 14. Motion to Quash a Search Warrant or to render the PI academic.
Suppress Evidence; Where to File. – A motion to quash
and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be Waiver of Illegality of Search
filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action
Objects to the legality of the search to the admissibility of the
has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and
resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. evidence obtained thereby are deemed waived when NO
However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a OBJECTION TO THE LEGALITY of the SW is raised during the
criminal case was subsequently filed in another court, the trial of the case nor to the admissibility of the evidence
motion shall be resolved by the latter court. obtained (Demaisip v. People 193 S 373, 1991).
Motion to Quash a Warrant or Suppress Evidence

1. If a criminal action has already been instituted; GARAGAY v. PEOPLE (2000)
It may be filed and acted upon only by the court where Executive Judge of RTC Manila authorized SW for search of
the action has been instituted. Garaygay’s house in Lapu-Lapu city and they were able to
2. If no criminal action has been instituted; seized firearms, explosives prohibited under PD 1866.
The motion may be filed in and resolved by the court  Can the Executive Judge Manila issue SW for Lapu-
that issued the search warrant. Lapu? (AM)
3. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion
and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another Garaygay filed a motion to quash not in the RTC Manila but on
court: RTC of Lapu-Lapu. Is the RTC Lapu-Lapu authorized to resolve
Motion shall be resolved by latter court. the motion to quash an SW issued of RTC Manila?
Venue of Motion to Quash YES. The motion to quash may be filed in either courts (under
the old ruling), Rule 126 however provides a different rule. Here
Ong v. CA even under the new rule, it was proper to file in RTC Lapu-Lapu.
370 SCRA 48 | November 21, 2001 | Quisumbing J.
Commentary: Normally SW precedes the filing of the case it
Facts: The RTC Ilocos Branch 17 issued SW for seizure of could be a different court for SW and different of filing case,
firearms belonging to Ong. Following the confiscation of but once an information is filed it is the only court that can rule
unlicensed firearms, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Ong on the motion to quash. Note motion to quash – QUASH.
with violation PD 1866 which was raffled to Branch 15.
Meanwhile Ong filed a motion to recall SW before Branch 17. MANLY v. DADODETTE (2005)
SW was issued against Dadodette on allegation that it harbored
Issue: May Branch 17, recall warrant it previously issued and goods the copyright of which belonged to Manly Sportswear
order the return of the seized items? the search warrant was issued by RTC Manila. It was filed in the
same RTC that issued a same court.

Yes. The power to issue is vested with the judges in the exercise  But it has been used and seized, what is the point of
of their judicial function. Therefore, the power to quash rests MTQ? So you file a motion to suppress evidence.
with the court which issued them, he is not precluded to issue
a motion to quash.
The issuance of quashal – what he is acting upon is the

probable cause but not the entire pre-judging of the issue,
therefore in quashing the SW there is no final determination.
 There was no INF filed.
Comments: If RTC Br. 15 issued SW it is RTC Br. 15, the court

that issued the warrant. Especially, if there is already a warrant,
for example it was filed to Br. 10. Can RTC Br. 15 resolve the
motion to quash – NO. It is the RTC Br. 10 because we are
talking about the branch not the court.
SKECHERS v. INTERPACIFIC (2006)

It sued over trademark S design, and engaged investigation
with NBI and Zetetic and went to warehouses to survey and
found that Inter Pacific had similar trademark. They filed to
apply for SW, after the Br. 24 found PC to issue search warrant
this was used seized from the warehouse several boxes.
Inter Pacific filed a Motion to Quash on Br. 24 statin that there

is no confusing similarity. The trial granted the quashal. It has
the authority.
SEC v. MENDOZA (2012)

NBI applied with RTC of Makati city and was grated for the
seizure of documents and articles of Pastrana and Aband in
Makati. Acting on such the certain documents were seized, the
SEC filed a criminal complaint with DOJ, Pastrana and Abad
were not in the list.
Two petitions (Mendoza) in Muntinlupa the ground under Rule

126, Section 1 they are now praying seized documents should
not be used against them (this petition for Prohibition, it is
actually a petition to suppress to evidence).
A motion filed by Pastrana in Makati for a Motion to Quash

the ground. WON to MTQ the search warrant in the proper
court, where should they file the MTQ?
 Mendoza et al filed it in Muntinlupa and they said that

the search warrant did not target the residence.
 The rule is clear there was no need to be the party to
file for MTQ
Comments: Mendoza et al were not included in the list of

people to be searched, can somebody not included in the list
can file a MTQ or to suppress evidence? Yes. In SW it is the
place is that should be focused not that people, and if they are
the ones who are there.
Difference between MTQ and Motion to Suppress Evidence?

 A MTQ is targeted on the warrant, this is normally filed
if warrant is not yet served so it cannot be used to
search.

C. Grounds for attachment
RULE 127 1. When the accused is about to abscond from the
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES Philippines;
IN CRIMINAL CASES 2. When the criminal action is based on a claim for
money or property embezzled or fraudulently
Section 1. Availability of Provisional Remedies. – The misapplied or converted to the use of the accused
provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are who is a public officer, officer of a corporation,
applicable, may be availed of in connection with the civil attorney, factor, broker, agent or clerk, in the course
action deemed instituted with the criminal action. of his employment as such, or by any other person in
a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
Availability of Provisional Remedies 3. When the accused has concealed, removed, or
1. When provisional remedies in civil actions MAY be disposed of his property, or is about do so; and
availed of in a criminal case: 4. When the accused resides outside the Philippines.
a. When they are applicable to the criminal
case, and
b. When they are in connection with the civil

action deemed instituted with the criminal
action.
2. When provisional remedies in civil actions CANNOT

be availed in a criminal case:
a. When the offended party has waived civil
liability arising out of the offense charged, or
b. When the offended party has reserved his

right to file a separate action arising out of
the offense charged.
Section 2. Attachment. – When the civil action is properly

instituted in the criminal action as provided in Rule 111,
the offended party may have the property of the accused
attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment
that may be recovered from the accused in the following
cases:
(a) When the accused is about to abscond from the
Philippines;
(b) When the 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, officer of a
corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent or
clerk, in the course of his employment as such,
or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or
for a willful violation of duty;
(c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or
disposed of his property, or is about to do so; and
(d) When the accused resides outside the
Philippines.
Attachment
A. When attachment may be availed of by the offended

party: When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal
action.
B. Purpose of attachment
To hold the property of the accused as security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the
accused.

certain amount, and then the surety will just
RULE 114 guarantee and issue a bond, not the money but a
BAIL bond.
Section 1. Bail Defined. – Bail is the security given for the 2. Property bond; property is put up by the accused if
release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him such conditions are violated it shall be sold at a public
or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any auction, the amount shall be forfeited in favor of the
court as required under the conditions hereinafter
government.
specified, Bail may be given in the form of corporate
surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
3. Cash deposit; the most popular form of bail bond.
Definition
4. Recognizance; this is not property, money nor surety
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody
but this is just a persons released in his own custody
of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman.
or custody of a responsible person – this is not
allowed anymore.
Normally if you are not in custody of the law, there is no point
in posting bail. This is bail – in exchange for one’s freedom. He
Who will decide what to post?
gives security so he can be temporarily released.
It is the accused, the court cannot order what form of bond to
be made, like property bond. Recognizance is not allowed as a
Who Furnishes the Bail?
general rule, only in certain cases.
1. The person in custody whose release is sought; or
2. A bondsman
Bail Prior to Arrest
Q. May an accused who has not been arrested be granted bail?
There is a case where Mr. X lent his property to Mr. Y who was
charged criminally and wanted to post bail, so he borrowed the
NO. The right to bail can only be availed of by a
title of Mr. X as bail bond. Mr. X is the bondsman. Mr. Y has
person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived of
absconded and then the bail bond was forfeited and later on
his liberty and it would be premature not to say incongruous, to
Mr. X found that the property was already in the name of
file a petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to
another person and he filed an action to quite title.
be curtailed (Docena-Caspe v. Bugtas, 2003).
What is the Purpose of Bail?
Meaning of “In Custody of the Court”
To guarantee said person’s appearance before any court.
Q. When is a person deemed to be in custody for the purpose
Because normally person on bail is undergoing trial, so most of
of bail application? Arrested or deprived of liberty.
the time, a person undergoing trial does not have to appear
only on certain stages (plea, identification and promulgation)
When either of the following happens:
but the rest of the time there is no need.
(a) He is arrested by virtue of a lawful arrest; or
 But when he is required he has to appear thus the bail
(b) He has voluntarily submitted himself to jurisdiction of
serves as a penalty.
the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.
 It is combine administration to criminal justice
convenience to keep him from imprisoned while trial.
Tabao v. Judge Barataman: The father cannot file for bail for
 It is not only to give him provisional liberty, but also
the accused was still not under the jurisdiction of the court via
to declog the jail – to work and provide for families.
arrest or voluntarily surrender.
Not everyone has the right to bail, this is a constitutional right
Principle of Constructive Custody
but given only to persons who are not charged with RP when
the evidence is strong (under the Constitution), so below that
Santiago v. Vasquez
even RT and below, bail is a matter of right. Right given by the
217 SCRA 633 | January 27, 1993 | Regalado, J.
constitution.
 What if not RP but evidence of guilt is strong? What if
Facts: Accused was charged before the SB without having been
accused is military person (Comendador v. De Villa). It
arrested and without actually physically surrendering to the
does not apply under military under Court Martial.
court, she posted bail stating that “she be considered as having
 Right to bail springs from the presumption of
placed herself under the jurisdiction” of the court as she was
innocence, after the trial he can be given acquittal.
then in hospital. When later on the SB issued a Hold Departure
Order against her, she claimed that said court had no
Different Types of Bail
jurisdiction to do so.
1. Corporate surety; - this is issued by a bonding
company and they will issued a surety bond. So
Issue: Did the court validly acquire jurisdiction over accused?
example is bail is P500K, the accused need not to put
up P500K, the accused will just pay surety company a

Held: It has been held that where after the filing of the Held: NO. Trial proceeded without the accused calling the
complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the accused attention of the trial court of his unresolved petition. It was only
is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily on appeal that he raised the issue.
submitted himself to the court or was duly arrest, the court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Thus, for failure to raise the issue at the earliest opportune
time, accused is deemed to have waived the right to bail. In
In this case, accused is deemed to have voluntarily submitted addition, when the issue has been rendered academic by the
herself to the jurisdiction of the court upon the filing of her conviction of the accused.
motion wherein she express sought leave that “she be
considered as having placed herself under the jurisdiction of the When an accused is charged with an offense punishable by
Sandiganbayan for purposes of the required trial and other reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or death, and the
proceedings.” Accused cannot now be heard to claim otherwise evidence of guilt is strong, bail must be denied.
for, by her own representations, she is effectively estopped
from asserting the contrary after she had recognized the Bail for Military Men
jurisdiction of the court. Q. Are military men charged before court martial for violation
of the Articles of War entitled to bail?
Q. May person charged with capital offense who is undergoing
confinement in a hospital be admitted to bail even before he is NO. Bail has traditionally not been recognized and is
arrested or voluntarily surrenders? not available in the military, as an exception to the general rule
embodied in the Bill of Rights. The justification for this
It may be conceded that accused had indeed filed his exception is that the unique structure of the military should be
motion for admission to bail before he was actually and enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional
physically under arrest. He may however, at that point in the coverage on the right to bail.
factual ambience thereof, be considered as being constructively
and legally under custody. Through his lawyers he voluntarily Aside from this structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that
submitted himself. This may squarely fall as house arrest or mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of the
confined to quarters (Paderanga v. CA). democratic system are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by
the government for discharge of duties and responsibilities and
Waiver of Right to Bail are paid out of revenues collected from the people
Even though cases are bailable maybe because of waiver via (Comendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80, August 2, 1991).
failure to pay the bond or waiver.
Bail in Extradition
A. Express Waiver Q. In extradition proceedings, is the prospective extraditee
The right to bail can be waived. Rights guaranteed to one entitled to post bail while the extradition proceedings are
accused of a crime fall naturally into 2 classes: pending?
a. Those in which the state, as well as the accused; is
interested; and NO. Extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature
b. Those which are personal to the accused, which are in and by using the term “before conviction”, it is apparent that
the nature of personal privileges. the right to bail does not apply in extradition proceedings
because extradition courts do not render judgments of
Those of the first class cannot be waived; those of the second conviction or acquittal (Government v. Purganan, 2002).
may be. Bail is a right which is personal to the accused and
whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, etc. US GOVERNMENT v. PURGANAN (2002)
This involved Mark Jimenez, he was wanted in the US for certain
B. Implied Waiver crimes like money laundering and related to stocks and he
came to the Philippines, while he was here, US filed an
People v. Manes extradition case against him.
303 SCRA 231 | February 17, 1999
At that time he was free but he was arrested. Now when an
Facts: Accused was charged with murder. He applied for bail extradition case is filed, our government can arrest that person
but the judge set the case for trial without acting on such. He and detain him and an extradition proceedings. Is he entitled to
was convicted and on appeal he contended that the judge bail while pending?
committed a serious error of law when he tried the case without
resolving the application for bail. NO. He is not entitled to bail.
Issue: Is the contention of the accused correct? NOTE: But now we have the case of Hong Kong Government v.
Olalia.

HONG KONG GOVERNMENT v. OLALIA (2007) Section 2. Conditions of the Bail; Requirements. – All
The extraditee may be granted bail, it overturned the prior case kinds of ail are subject to the following conditions:
of the Purganan. We have an extradition treaty with the British (a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval,
and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all
Colony of Hong Kong now Hong Kong was effect on 1997. Juan
stages of the case until promulgation of the
Antonio Munoz was looking for him, they issued a request for judgment of the Regional Trail Court, irrespective
provision arrest. of whether the case was originally filed or
appealed in it;
RTC Manila issued order for his arrest and they filed an (b) The accused shall appear before the proper court
extradition case against him. Judge Ricardo based on US v. whenever required by the court of these Rules;
(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial
Purganan, but he inhibited but was later on granted.
without justification and despite due notice shall
be deemed waiver of his right to be present
Bail can be given to an extraditee. The extradition law is silent thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in
as to bail and signing UNDHR. During the case of Purganan that absentia; and
bail is only available to criminal proceedings. (d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the
court for execution of the final judgment.
It also based its decision under the provisions of the
The original papers shall state the full name and address
constitution. of the accused, the amount of the undertaking and the
conditions required by this section. Photographs
The right of bail is given based on the presumption of the (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months
innocence of the accused, the right shall be given whenever it showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused
is available. must be attached to the bail.
In addition, it based on UN Declaration of Human Rights which Conditions of the Bail

is covered by the Article 2, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
the Philippines authorities are under obligation to give Effectivity
remedies to safeguard the right to liberty. 1. The undertaking shall be effective upon approval;
2. It shall remain in force at all stages of the case until
Upon a closer at PD 1069 or the Extradition Law – extradition promulgation of the judgment of the RTC irrespective
is the removal of an accused from the Philippines placing him whether the case was:
at the disposal of foreign authorities. a. Original filed in the RTC
b. Appealed to the RTC
Extradition is not a criminal proceedings, but administrative 3. It shall lose its effectivity if cancelled, whether or not
in character it is sui generis and exclusive to treaty judgment has been rendered by the RTC.
obligations.
Obligation of Accused Out on Bail
These are the following considerations before bail can be He shall appear before the court whenever required by the
granted to a extraditee. court or these Rules; the bondsman shall surrender the accused
(1) It deprives the liberty of the extraditee; to the court for execution of the final judgment.
(2) The means employed to attain the purpose of  The bondsman has the obligation to produce accused
extradition which is the machinery of criminal law. when the execution of judgment is rendered.
He remained incarcerated until 2001 and he was detained for Effect of Failure of the Accused to Appear at the Trial
two years by any standard such deprivation of liberty is serious, without Justification and Despite Due Notice
bail may be granted to a possible extraditee: 1. It shall be deemed as a wavier of his right to be
1. That he is not a flight risk or a danger to the present thereat; and trial proceed in absentia.
community; and 2. For execution of the final judgment.
2. That there is humanitarian reasons.
Contents
Comments: This case overturn US v. Purganan, because bail is
allowed in criminal cases, but in extradition proceedings, so if The original papers shall state:
bail can be granted in criminal cases (which is higher) why not 1. The full name and address of the accused;
the administrative proceedings like extradition proceedings. 2. The amount of the undertaking, and
3. The conditions required by Section 2.
This is an en banc case of 2007 penned by Justice Sandoval
Gutierrez. It is shown that an en banc ruling can overturn an What must be attached to the bail:
earlier decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, extradition cases Photographs of the accused:
now allows the filing of bail. Thus it clearly overturns the case 1. Passport size;
of US v. Purganan prohibiting bail in extradition proceedings by 2. Taken within the last six months; and
virtue of constitution and international law. 3. Showing his face, left and right profiles.

Effect of Conviction NO. There is no need to wait for arraignment, upon
Q. While the conviction is on appeal, may the accused be the arrest or deprivation of liberty he can already file for bail,
allowed to enjoy provisional liberty under the bail bonds they arraignment is not a precondition of granting bail. To condition
posted during trial? the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to
place him in a position where he has to choose between:
Under Section 5, Rule 114, court has the discretion
whether or not to allow accused to continue on provisional 1. Filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on
liberty under the same bail bond posted during trial. The bail bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved,
bond that the accused previously posted can only be used his arraignment cannot be held;
during the 15-day period and not during the entire period of
the appeal. 2. Foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he
can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released
This is consistent with Section 2(a) which provides that the bail on bail.
shall be effective upon approval and remain in force at all
stages of the case, unless sooner cancelled, until the Two scenarios would seriously undermine the constitutional
promulgation of the RTC, irrespective of whether the case was right of the accused not be put in trial except upon valid
originally filed or appealed to it. complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime
and his right to bail.
This amendment is a departure from the old rules which
provide that bail shall be effective and remain in force at all Q. If the person is under bail, can he travel?
stages of the case until its full determination, and thus even
during the period of appeal. Moreover, under the present rule, It depends. He has to get the permission of the court,
for accused to continue his provisional liberty, consent of the so this was in the case of Manotok v. CA who was the husband
bondsman is necessary (Magguddatu v. CA, 2000). in Aimee Marcos, in Silverio v. CA.
Presence of Accused When it comes to Hold Departure Order only the RTC can
Q. In what instances may be an accused not be allowed to waive issue an HDO, the MTC has no right to issue an HDO, so there
his presence in court? is a possibility those under bail under HDO cases can travel.
In certain stages of the proceedings, an accused on bail or tried Under the constitution we also have the right to travel.
in absentia may be required to appear, to wit:
1. At arraignment and plea, whether innocence or of Section 3. No Release or Transfer Except on Court Order
guilt; or Bail. – No person under detention by legal process shall
2. During trial whenever necessary for identification be released or transferred except upon order of the court
or when he is admitted to bail.
purposes, and
3. Promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light
offense, in which case the accused may appear by A Person Under Detention by Legal Process
counsel or representative. Not Released or Transferred, Exceptions
1. Upon order of the court; or
At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and 2. When he is admitted to bail.
it cannot be waived (Lavides v. CA, 2000).
Is this really being followed?
Presence during Trial No, let’s say the person is arrested and brought to Sta. Ana jail
Q. May the court order the forfeiture of the bail bond of the after spending some time there he is transferred to Maa City
accused upon his failure to appear for trial where his presence Jail it is not always with a court order. What about going the
is not specifically required by the Rules of Court? court to attend hearing – there is no need for a court order for
it is not considered as a court transfer.
NO. The accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever so required by the Rules of Court. A bail bond may ORBE v. DIGANDANG (2009)
be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the This is en banc and per curiam. On February 14 PDEA-ARMM
accused is specifically required by the court or the Rules of arrested Indag for alleged violation of RA 9165. They were
Court and despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him released from custody of the Provincial Warden on the basis of
before the court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in the Custody Receipt by Marcus Digandang.
person as so required (Marcos v. Ruiz, 1992).
Complainant alleges that the release was illegal for the offense
Arraignment as Condition for Bail were non-bailable offense. Digandang however alleged they
Q. May the court set as a condition that the bail bond of the needed medical attention and that the warden temporarily
accused will only be approved after he is arraigned? released custody of them for humanitarian reasons. Was this
proper?

NO. The accused were charged with a non-bailable offense, Governor claims good faith in taking custody as Provincial Jailer
that they were released from detention on the basis merely of basing on Article 1731 of the Administrative Code of 1917.
the Custody Receipt singed by Digandang. This is not which is However, nowhere in said provision that gives the provincial
contemplated under Section 3. It was the process server who governor has the power to take custody of detention prisoner,
signed, it should be the judge who should sign the release. at best he is only given administration of the jail, procurement
of food and clothing.
AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2009)
Governor Ambil and Provincial Warden Apelado were charged Before he can in case of insufficient number of jail. This
with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. They released the provision is also superseded by the Section 3, Rule 114 of Rules
criminally charged Adalim and transferred to the residence of of Criminal Procedure. Under separation of powers, only the
Governor for a period of 85 days and such act was without any court can release or transfer or the person. The governor has
court order. He only posted bail months after stay. Whether a no authority to transfer even if the detainee is a mayor of the
provincial governor has authority to take custody of the government.
prisoner. NO.
AVAILABILITY OF BAIL (RULE 114, SECTIONS 4, 5 and 7)

Bail bond is effective until conviction by the RTC, nobody can take that away unless cancelled for valid reasons, it is a matter of right.
AS A MATTER OF RIGHT (Sec. 4) AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION (Sec. 5) SHALL BE DENIED (Sec. 7)
BEFORE Conviction by the MTC AFTER Conviction by the RTC on an BEFORE Conviction by RTC for offense
offense not punishable by DRL punishable by DRL and the evidence of
 RT and Below guilt is strong.
AFTER Conviction by the MTC pending  6 years 1 day to 20 years AFTER Conviction by the RTC pending
appeal  But not six years and below. appeal for an offense punishable by DRL.
 If after final judgment, no longer  No need to prove evidence of
because he is already guilty. Provided that the accused (if guilt is strong – already convict.
BEFORE Conviction by the RTC and the imprisonment punishable exceeds 6 years AFTER Conviction by the RTC of an
imposable penalty is not death, reclusion but not more than 20 years): offense not punishable by DRL provided
perpetua, or life imprisonment [DRL] 1. NOT recidivist, quasi-recidivist, that the accused (if imprisonment
 RT and Below habitual delinquent, under punishable exceeds 6 years but no more
BEFORE Conviction by the RTC for reiteration; than 20 years or RT and Below);
offense punishable by DRL but evidence 2. NOT escapee, has evaded 1. Is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
of guilt is not strong. sentence, or has violated bail habitual delinquent, under
 There must be a hearing, to conditions without justification; reiteration
determine whether the evidence 3. NOT commit the offense under 2. Is an escapee, has evaded
of guilt is strong. probation, parole or conditional sentence, or has violated bail
AFTER Conviction by the RTC for offenses pardon conditions without justification;
not punishable by DRL and six years and 4. NO probability of flight 3. Has committed the offense
below. 5. NO undue risk he will commit under probation, parole or
another crime while on bail. conditional pardon;
NOTE: Effectivity of bail ends upon 4. There is probability of flight
judgment of the RTC If any of these exists – the bail must be 5. Undue risk that he will commit
automatically denied, if none of these are another crime while on bail.
present, the court can grant or deny.
Remember: After conviction of RTC regardless (Administrative Circular 12-94)

of original action – the bail is no longer
effective. That is why after conviction of RTC
NOTE: If any of these are shown during
bail must be applied again – he should file
upon appeal. trial by the prosecutor then bail should
be denied.
 RTC if not transmitted to CA/SB
 Once transmitted – CA/SB
 If decision RTC changes the nature
of offense from non-bailable to
bailable then CA/SB not to the RTC.
 The accused may be continued
under the same bail with consent of
the bondsman.

Section 4. Bail, a Matter of Right; Exception. – All persons Section 5. Bail, When Discretionary. – Upon conviction
in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, by the Regional Trail Court of an offense not punishable by
with sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction admission to bail is discretionary. The application for bail
by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trail Court, may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted
Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial the original record to the appellate court. However, if the
Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed
perpetua, or life imprisonment. the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the
application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by
the appellate court.
WHEN BAIL IS A MATTER OF RIGHT
Should the court grant the application, the accused may
1. BEFORE conviction by the MTC; be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the
pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the
2. AFTER conviction by the MTC pending appeal; consent of the bondsman.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment

3. BEFORE conviction by the RTC and the imposable
exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or
penalty for the offense is not: his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the
a. Death; prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or
b. Reclusion perpetua, or other circumstances:
c. Life imprisonment; (a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or
habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstances of reiteration.
4. BEFORE conviction by the RTC
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal
a. For an offense punishable by: confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
i. Death conditions of his bail without valid justification;
ii. Reclusion perpetua, or (c) That he committed the offense while under
iii. Life imprisonment probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
b. But the evidence of guilt is not strong. (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit
Amendment of Law another crime during the pendency of the
appeal.
Al-Ghoul v. CA
299 SCRA 149 | November 24, 1998 The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of
any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court
after notice to the adverse party in either case.
Facts: Accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms
and explosives. The imposable penalty for the offense was from
RT to RP and his application for bail was denied on the ground WHEN BAIL IS DISCRETIONARY
that the evidence of guilt was strong.
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
Later PD 1866 was amended by RA 8294 which lowered the punishable by:
penalty for the offense to PM to RT. a. Death,
b. Reclusion perpetua, or
Issue: Should accused now be entitled to bail? c. Life imprisonment
Held: YES. Under Administrative Circular 12-94, bail is a matter 2. Provided it is shown that:
of right before conviction by the RTC of an offense not a. The accused
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. i. Is NOT a recidivist;
ii. Is NOT a quasi-recidivist;
Q. What if the RTC erroneous grants bail? iii. Is NOT a habitual delinquent; or
The CA motu proprio can review and reverse the decision or iv. Has NOT committed the crime
the offended party can file an appeal to the CA, questioning the aggravated by the circumstance of
grant by the RTC of the bail of the person, then the CA can be reiteration.
reverse the issue. Notice must be given.
b. The accused has NOT:
Q. What if the RTC erroneous denies bail? i. Escaped from legal confinement;
Then the accused must appeal the decision of the RTC to the ii. Evaded sentence, or
CA in order for the CA to review the validity of the grant of bail iii. Violated the conditions of his bail
in such a manner that it will allow the reversal thereof. without valid justification.

c. The accused did NOT commit the offense Since Obosa was convicted of two counts of homicide, his bail
while under: application is subject to the sound discretion of the court.
i. Probation;
ii. Parole; or SAN MIGUEL v. JUDGE MACEDA (2007)
iii. Conditional pardon San Miguel was arrested with violation of RA 6425 punishable
by PC he jumped bail. Judge issued bench warrant and fix the
d. The circumstances of the accused’s case bail bond to P120K cancelling his P60K bail. State prosecutor
does NOT indicate the probability of flight if filed motion to cancel for there was risk of evasion of trial.
released on bail; or  Judge argued that an information for murder was filed
3 days earlier before the filing of the cancellation by
e. There is NO undue risk that the accused may the prosecutor.
commit another crime during the pendency
of the appeal. Bail is a matter of right in this case. Eduardo was charged
Effect when Bail is Discretionary and was charged of RA 6425 which was punishable by PC this was
Accused Files a Notice of Appeal a matter of right.
1. The application for bail may be filed and acted upon What about the murder information? The court held that no, he
by the RTC: was still entitled to bail but no longer as a matter of right
a. If the original record has not yet been instead it is discretionary and calls for a judicial determination
transmitted to the appellate court. that the evidence of guilt is not strong.
2. The application for bail can only be filed and resolved Comment: Remember this case when the applicable law was
by the appellate court: RA 6425 wherein bail was still allowed in drug cases but under
a. If the decision of the RTC convicting the RA 9165 they are now non-bailable. Since penalty here is PC, it
accused changed the nature if the offense does not matter, the five circumstances, it does not matter,
from non-bailable to bailable. when it is a matter of right, it is a matter of right, it is punishable
only be PC which is 6 months to 6 years.
3. If the proper court grants the application for bail:
a. The accused may be allowed to continue on CHUA v. CA AND CHIOK (2007)
provisional liberty during the pendency of Chua filed complaint against Chiok before RTC. RTC set the
the appeal under the same bail; promulgation but Chiok failed to appear. RTC convicted him of
b. However, this must be with the consent of estafa and sentencing him for 12Y to 20Y. Prosecutor filed for
the bondsman. cancellation of bail for he might flee or commit another crime.
 A Record Check Routing Form issued by BIR showing
4. When it is the RTC which resolves the application for that he has Alien Cert. of Registration and Immigrant
bail: Residence Cert. and admitted that he used aliases.
a. The appellate court may review the  RTC issued an omnibus order cancelling his bail and
resolution of the RTC: giving him 5 days to appear, otherwise he would be
i. Motu proprio arrest. RTC issued warrant of arrest pending appeal to
ii. On motion of any party. the CA for the bail reconsideration.
b. Notice must be given to the adverse party.  The warrant was returned unserved because he could
not be found in his address.
Where Penalty Exceeds Six Years  Argued that offense was non-capital offense.
Obosa v. CA Chiok has no right to be freed on bail. There is automatic

Obosa was charged with 2 counts of murder, a capital offense. denial of bail and presence of one of the 5 circumstances
He applied for bail but the judge proceeded with the trial above is a ground for cancellation of his bail.
without acting on his application. After trial, Obosa was  He failed to appear during promulgation which is
convicted only of 2 counts of homicide, a non-capital offense. required.
On appeal, is he entitled to bail as a matter of right?  Warrant was returned unserved because he could not
be found at his given address.
NO. Obosa filed for bail after the effectivity of the  Indications of probability of flight (ACR and aliases).
Administrative Circular No. 12-94. Under such, if the court
imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years but Can the CA review the Order Cancelling Bail? YES. The CA
not more than 20 years then bail is a matter of discretion can motu proprio or upon petition after notice to the adverse
except when any of the circumstance under Section 5(3) of the party in either case – the appropriate remedy was to file regular
Circular is present in which case bail has to be denied. appeal proceedings to the CA.

The special civil action he filed was unnecessary for it comes of guilt was strong. When it is discretionary, it applies to Section
with the review – he must file a regular appeal proceeding 5 where the court has the option has to grant or deny. Once
with the CA which includes the review of RTC cancellation of court determines the evidence of guilt is strong, bail should be
bail. denied.
What was the basis of the denial of the bail? He was
convicted by the RTC of a crime punishable by 12Y which is What happened here, there was a Demurrer to Evidence which
between 6Y and 20Y and therefore bail is a matter of discretion is a motion to dismiss on the ground that the prosecution
but it was proven that he was a flight risk. In this circumstances, evidence is insufficient. The demurrer was filed, the original INF
the bail here must be denied. charged Plaza with murder – so evidence was presented.
 The demurrer was denied – but the judge continued
PEOPLE v. SB AND ESTRADA (2007) the trial not for murder but now for homicide which is
He was charged with crime of plunder (RP); he filed an now bailable.
application for bail, after bail hearing it was granted. Was the  If it was based on murder, then hearing shall be made.
grant of bail valid? – YES.
The SC stated here that there is no need for hearing for there is
Even if the capital offense charged is bailable owing to the already determination that it was only for homicide, for it is
weakness of the evidence of guilt, the right to bail may already a matter of right.
justifiably denied if the probability of escape is great.
 The grant of bail is not acquittal. LEVISTE v. CA (2010)
 The SB is still in the process of determining of the facts Leviste was initially charged for murder but was convicted by
and merits – but in this stage the evidence was not RTC Makati of homicide appealed his conviction and filed an
found to be strong. application for admission to bail citing his advanced age and
health condition. Leviste questioned the denial of CA stating
Comment: If the penalty for the crime is RP, the bail is not that none of the 5 circumstances are present.
automatically denied – there should be a hearing to determine
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. Does the absence of any of the circumstances warrant the
automatic grant of bail? NO.
OCA v. JUDGE LORENZO (2008)
They found smoking and manufacturing shabu, despite strong Two Scenarios
objection from prosecution, the accused were granted bail. Was 1. Absence of any circumstances – bail is a matter of
the grant of bail proper? sound judicial discretion then the appellate has the
 Filipino committed sniffing of shabu (RA 6425, S8) it discretion to grant or deny bail.
was proper to grant bail was bailable. 2. If there is one of any circumstances – contemplates
 As to the Chinese committed manufacturing and the existence of at least one of the said circumstances
possession of shabu which is life imprisonment, bail is – a more stringent discretion, to carefully ascertain
a matter of right still when the evidence of guilt is not whether any of the enumerated circumstances.
strong.
It cannot be said that the CA error in denying bail, for it has the
There should have been a bail hearing, he preterminated bail sound discretion to either grant or deny the same. If none of
hearing and the prosecution was not given the opportunity to the circumstances are present and punishable of 6Y-20Y, the
prove that the evidence of guilt is strong. bail is matter of discretion after conviction by RTC.
 The judge should not grant bail right away if the
prosecution is not given opportunity or else the state  It is no longer a matter of right, a matter of discretion
will be denied of due process. and if any of the circumstances are present, it shall be
denied. This is a matter of proof.
PEOPLE v. PLAZA (2009)  But still it is still under the discretion of the court
Plaza was charged with Murder, Judge Buyser’s Order stated under Section 5.
that the evidence was for homicide. Jugde Tan (upon transfer)
agreed that the evidence was only for Homicide. The brother What then is remedy of Leviste then? He must appeal the
argued that there was no hearing. possible grave abuse of discretion of CA, for CA can review the
RTC discretion, more so the SC can review the discretion of the
He was entitled to bail as a matter of right. This was before CA.
conviction of RTC and homicide was RT. A summary hearing
is not required because the evidence has already been But here Leviste insisted that it was a matter of right, no it was
presented. Summary hearing is brief and speedy method to not. He should have asked for the CA to question whether it
determine the weight of evidence for the grant of bail. was wrong in denying the bail.
Comment: SC used here when bail is discretionary in a sense  SC stated the theory of the lawyer of Leviste reduced
that the court has the right to determine whether the evidence the CA as a fact-finding body.

DIPATUAN v. JUDGE MANGOTARA Section 6. Capital Offense Defined. – A capital offense
Criminal case for murder against Dipatuan, the judge died, it which, under the law existing at the time of its commission
was transferred to different judges, on December 2007, Judge and of the application for admission to bail, may be
punished with death.
Mangotara found them both guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Sentencing them both of RP, increasing bail bond. Whether or
not it was to increase bail instead to cancel it. Capital Offense
 It is clear in Section 5, Rule 114 wherein when bail is It is an offense which may be punished by death:
discretionary, 1. At the time of tis commission; and
2. At the time of the application for admission to bail.
Commentary: A situation after conviction in the RTC, what
happens to his bail bond, because evidence was not found to Is there still capital offense in the Philippines?
be strong when he applied? Let’s say there is, then bail can be Yes. Certainly we have offenses that are punishable by death,
granted, what happened after RTC conviction? The bail loses its murder, it must be responsive to the question. There are still
effectivity. There is already strong guilt. He should not have capital OFFENSES even though imposition of the penalty of
increased the amount of bail. death is suspended.
When you analyze, you have to make sure the stage of the Evidence of Mitigating Circumstance
proceedings, when is bail being applied for. Q. In determining whether the offense is capital, may the court
take consideration the presence of mitigating and aggravating
QUI v. PEOPLE (2012) circumstances?
Qui was charged under RA 7610. OSG argued that Qui is a flight
risk and propensity to evade the law for he failed to attend NO. An offense is capital if it may be punished by
hearings in the RTC. The CA denied her application on the basis death under both the law prevailing at time of its commission
of bail. Whether or not Qui can be granted bail? and that prevailing at the time of application for bail, even if
after conviction less than death penalty is imposed.
Bail negating conditions – tough on bail pending appeal, Qui
indeed did not attend the hearings in the RTC and transferred The criterion to determine whether the offense charged is
residence without informing her bondsman. capital is the PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW regardless of the
attendant circumstances.
PEOPLE v. PIAD (2016)
Four people were charged with violation RA 9165. All of them Rationale of provision lies in the difficulty and impracticability
were judged to be guilty by the RTC and that conviction was of determining the nature of the offense on the basis of the
affirmed by CA. In the SC, the BOC informed SC that Mr. Davis penalty actually imposable. Otherwise, the test will require
was not kept in any facility. Mr. Davis appeared in court consideration not only of evidence showing commission of the
nonetheless no warrant arrest or commit order against him. crime but also evidence of the circumstances. Thus, there has
to be not only a complete trial, but the trial court must also
The OSG should have immediately cancelled the bail bond. So, render a decision in the case. This defeats the purpose of bail,
Whether Davis is entitled to bail? The court ruled that it is a which is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty pending
matter of right that before conviction – the crime was only trial (People v. IAC, 1987).
punishable by reclusion temporal.
Evidence of Minority (Bravo v. Borja, Jr., 1985)
The moment he violated the conditions of his bail, his bail is Q. Where the accused who is charged with a capital offense is
already cancelled. The bail should be denied the moment the a minor, is he entitled to bail as a matter of right even if the
person fails to comply with the conditions. evidence of guilt is strong?
 The RTC should have immediately order the arrest of
Mr. Davis, there was no record of him being kept in YES. Where it has been established without objection
the detention facility. that accused is a minor, it follows that if convicted he would be
given “the penalty lower than that prescribed by law,” which
Comment: When a person out on bail, violates the condition effectively rules out death penalty.
of his bail bond, where will you find the conditions – Section 2.
Then, the bail bond under Section 5, that violation of conditions The Constitution withholds the guaranty of bail from one who
will cause the cancellation of his bail bond. Even though it is a is accused of a capital offense where the evidence of guilt is
matter of right, Section 5 applies when bail is discretionary. strong. The obvious reason is that one who faces a probable
 The bail filed before RTC is cancelled if any of these death sentence has a particularly strong temptation to flee.
circumstances.
This reason does not hold where the accused has been
But when he violate conditions of bail even though matter of established without objection to be a minor who by law cannot
right, it shall be cancelled. Even though bail is a right, it is a be sentenced to death (Bravo v. Borja, Jr., 1985).
waivable right by violating the conditions.

NOTE: It is clearly obvious that he will be given the penalty next certiorari anytime considering that the Rules provide that no
lower and if there is no objection then it shall be appreciated. person charged with a capital offense shall be admitted to bail
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution?
Section 7. Capital Offense or an Offense Punishable by
Reclusion Perpetua or Life Imprisonment. – No person NO, it is true that Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by Court provide that an accused charged with a capital offense is
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, shall be not entitled to bail at any time during trail when the evidence
admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. of guilt is strong.
It does not mean however that since the accused is not entitled
WHEN BAIL SHALL BE DENIED
to bail at any stage of the trial, a grant thereof can be
questioned any time and without the regard to the period of
1. BEFORE conviction by the RTC:
filing provided by the Rules.
a. Of an offense punishable by:
i. Death
An order of granting bail is interlocutory and when it is issued
ii. Reclusion perpetua; or
with grave abuse of discretion a special civil action is can be
iii. Life imprisonment
considered as an appropriate remedy. However Rule 65,
b. The evidence of guilt is strong.
Section 4 prescribes a period of 60 days to file a special civil
action for certiorari (Pobre v. CA, 2005).
2. AFTER conviction by the RTC, pending appeal, of an
Bail while Conviction is on Appeal
offense punishable by:
a. Death
Padilla v. CA
b. Reclusion perpetua
260 SCRA 155 | July 31, 1996
c. Life imprisonment
Accused was convicted by RTC of violation of PD 1866 and
3. AFTER conviction by the RTC of an offense with an
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 17 years and 4
imposable penalty of imprisonment of more than 6
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal to 21 years of reclusion
years but not exceeding 20 years, and it is shown
perpetua. He appealed to the CA, but judgment was rendered
that:
affirming his conviction. Is accused entitled to bail pending
a. The accused:
review of his conviction by the Supreme Court?
i. Is a recidivist;
ii. Is a quasi-recidivist;
NO. If an accused who is charged with a crime
iii. Is a habitual delinquent;
punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court
iv. Has committed crime aggravated
and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter
by the circumstances of reiteration.
of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part
of the court.
b. The accused has:
i. Escaped from legal confinement;
In this case, the accused was convicted of a crime punishable
ii. Evaded sentence, or
by reclusion perpetua. Therefore, the Court finds accused not
iii. Violated the conditions of his bail
entitled to bail as his conviction clearly imports that the
without valid justification;
evidence of guilt is strong.
c. The accused committed the offense while

Indeed, the extensive trial before the RTC and the appeal before
under:
the CA are more than sufficient in accomplishing the purpose
i. Probation
for which a summary hearing for bail application is designed.
ii. Parole, or
iii. Conditional pardon
PEOPLE v. RICHARD HU (2005)
Can Richard Hu apply for bail as a matter of right? - NO
d. The circumstances of the accused’s case
indicates the probability of flight if released
Section 7 Rule 114 provides that no person charged with a
on bail; or
capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when evidence of
e. There is undue risk that the accused may
guilt is strong regardless of the stage of the criminal
commit another crime during the pendency
prosecution.
of the appeal.
RTC judge shall evaluate within 10 days from filing of complaint

Challenging of Order Granting Bail
or information, the resolution of the prosecutor and the
Q. Where the court erroneously allows an accused charged with
supporting evidence, if there is probable cause, he shall issue a
a capital offense to post bail, may its order be challenged by
warrant of arrest or commitment order.

If the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, This should refer to prescribed not imposable penalty. The
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the judge should not complex crime RT to RP. The imposable penalty. The SB
grant bail for his provisional release regardless of whether or intended the prescribed penalty the word used is punishable
not the prosecutor recommends bail under the Circular. which carries the same meaning prescribed.
If the accused has been brought under custody of the court, he Comment: Remember under Criminal Law, in special complex
may file a petition for bail for his provisional liberty. If, after the crimes which are named and numbered with their own
requisite hearing, the court finds that the evidence of the penalties. In this case, the one with the higher penalty will apply.
accused is strong; the petition shall be denied, and accused will However, this is the prescribed penalty which is applied
remain under the custody of the court. before conviction.
 But after conviction, and the penalty imposed is RP;
However, if the evidence of the guilt of the accused is not what is then the basis the RP after conviction, here
strong, the petition shall be granted and the accused the evidence of guilt is already strong.
discharged upon approval of the bail bond, in such amount  Before conviction – prescribed penalty
fixed by the court takin into consideration the guidelines set  After conviction – penalty imposed
forth in Section 9, Rule 114.  In this case, no conviction yet.
 This is an EN BANC case, this can be doctrine.
In this case: Respondent was charged with qualified theft of
P762K and in People v. Canales, the Court ruled that the ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2015)
penalty for qualified theft under Article 40 of the RPC taking Enrile was charged with plunder in the SB involving the PDAF,
into account the value of the property stolen is reclusion the filed a motion to Fix Bail. Enrile has three arguments:
perpetua with the accessory penalty of death, with no 1. The prosecution not established guilt is strong;
possibility of pardon before the lapse of forty years. 2. Penalty RT (by virtue of mitigating circumstances)
3. Not a flight risk and his age and physical condition
Since the imposable penalty for the felony charged is reclusion must be seriously considered.
perpetua, the respondent was not entitled to bail as a matter of
right. Hence, the RTC was correct in rejecting the recommended SB: Only after prosecution shall have presented evidence and
amount of bail of P40K and ordering the issuance of warrants the court made determination only when court is duty bound
for the arrest of Richard Hu. to fix the amount of bail. SB stated it was premature, he did not
file for application.
VALERIO v. CA
Milagros claims that she is entitled to bail because evidence of  The contention of mitigating circumstances are not
guilt against her is strong. The SC ruled that no. The SC said covered.
that the trial court ignored the glaring fact that the killer  The age and condition are considered, but he did not
confessed the crime and implicated Milagros as mastermind, file the proper motion.
making her a possible principal by inducement.
He is entitled to bail. For purposes for admission of bail, the
Comment: This is an illustration when bail should be denied, determination of evidence of guilt being strong, there must be
there was a plea of guilty by the killer and implicating that she a hearing for bail (there was none).
was a principal by inducement.
 The court is guided by the principle by the purpose
Unfortunately, since this is a influential person, Jun Valerio, of bail, which is to guarantee the appearance of the
when it reached the Supreme Court it took account of the accused at the trial or whenever required by court.
circumstances. Clearly, the evidence of guilt was strong.
 The Court is mindful in the national commitment
PEOPLE v. VALDEZ (2011) under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Luzviminda was former mayor and was alleged to the altered Two Requisites:
and falsified cash slips amounting to P279K. OMB 1. Detainee will not be flight risk;
recommended no bail, the charge constituting the complex 2. There exists, special humanitarian and compelling
crime was the penalty of RP. Was the complex crime a non- circumstances.
bailable offense?
Two Requisites are Present
No. When committed through falsification of official/public  He immediately for surrendered
documents, the RPC does intend to classify malversation as a  This showed utter respect for the legal processes of
capital offense, otherwise It should have been included under the country
RA 7659 which gives the list of capital offense.  Solid reputation in both his public and his private life
 Fragile health conditions.
“Punishable”

Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the 1. Upon motion of either party;
crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits 2. Unless the witness to be called is:
of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly a. Dead
shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. b. Outside the Philippines, or
Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life c. Otherwise unable to testify
would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration
during the trial. Commentary: The accused is in upper hand here, the burden
of proof in the prosecution. This is a summary hearing, a
Comment: Here, the court did not really strictly based in the hearing is more like an informal conversation, it is not a full
rule. Decisions of the court are collegial. blown trial. A hearing to determine whether to determine if
guilt is strong is MANDATORY.
PEOPLE v. SOBREPENA (2016)
Sobrepena was charged for Estafa and Large Scale Illegal Even if the prosecutor recommended bail, the prosecutor must
Recruitment. Is he entitled for bail? NO. The court’s grant or still prove or try to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong
refusal of bail, what contain a summary of evidence of the which is quite contrary.
prosecution on the basis of judgment whether such evidence is  What is discretionary is only when the determination
strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
 The bail hearing is mandatory – always.
The findings and assessment of the trial during the bail hearing
were only a preliminary appraisal of the strength of the BASCO v. JUDGE RAPATALO (1997)
evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether they In the light of the applicable rules on bail and the
are entitled to be released on bail during pendency. jurisprudential principles just enunciated, this Court reiterates
the duties of the trial judge in case an application for bail is
Comment: Here there was a summary hearing to determine filed:
whether or not the evidence guilt of strong. There was no (1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application
conviction yet, in a summary hearing there is no need to prove for bail or require him to submit his recommendation
guilt. When the CA ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court as
of discretion, the People went to the SC, and SC went back to amended);
the RTC ruling to deny bail. (2) Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless
of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
Section 8. Burden of proof in bail application. – At the evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong
hearing of an application for bail filed by a person who is for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its
in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by sound discretion (Sections 7 and 8, supra);
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is
prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of
guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail strong based on the summary of evidence of the
hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at prosecution (Baylon v. Sison, supra);
the trial but, upon motion of either party, the court may (4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
recall any witness for additional examination unless the accused upon the approval of the bailbond. (Section
latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable 19, supra). Otherwise, petition should be denied.
to testify.
GACAL v. INFANTE (2011)
PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENT IN Judge Infante relying solely on the recommendation of bail
THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL granted such. Atty. Gacal was private prosecutor filed MR to
cancel bail bond and filed for inhibition of Infante for his failure
1. An application for bail is filed by a person who is in custody to resolve for he was too dependent on the public prosecutor’s
for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion comment considering that the resolution was under discretion
perpetua, or life imprisonment; was no necessary.
 Judge argued that no need for hearing, for there was
2. There must be a hearing to determine as to whether or not no hearing.
the evidence of guilt is strong;
Is hearing before grant of bail necessary? YES.
3. The burden is one the prosecution to prove that the evidence It is mandatory before grant of bail whether bail is matter of
of guilt is strong. right or a matter of discretion, especially if it involves a capital
offense, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
4. The evidence being presented during bail hearing shall be
considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but The case involved here murder with a penalty of RP, therefore
murder is considered a capital offense by reason of penalty
5. The court may recall any witness for additional examination imposed by law. The hearing here is indispensable.

Is bail hearing dispensable when accused did not file for Section 9. Amount of Bail; Guidelines. –The judge who
application? NO issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a
reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not
limited to, the following factors:
Even where there is no petition for bail. This hearing is separate
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
and distinct from the initial hearing to determine the existence (b) Nature and circumstance of the offense;
of probable cause. The prosecution must be given the chance. (c) Penalty for the offense charged;
 The recommendation is not material in deciding (d) Character and reputation of the accused;
whether the mandatory hearing is to be conducted or (e) Age and health of the accused;
not. The recommendation is not binding. (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
Comment: Sometimes the prosecution goes beyond its (i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from
authority, it only files information after PI. The prosecution justice when arrested; and
recommended for bail despite the fact it was murder (RP) thus, (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on
there is should be a hearing. bail.
 Whether matter of right or discretion there must be a
Excessive bail shall not be required.
hearing.
 If only a matter of right what happens only is the fixing
the amount where the accused can ask for a lower GUIDELINES IN THE AMOUNT OF BAIL
amount.
 If matter of discretion, if he does not apply then it is TANOG v. JUDGE BALINDONG (2015)
considered waived. Sidic filed motion to fix bail; the bail bond was fixed P30K, the
evidence guilt was no strong, RTC ordered City Warden to
GACAD v. JUDGE CLAPIS (2012) release accused. The prosecution objected. Was the bail
Judge Clapis was charged with gross ignorance of law. It was amount the reasonable amount of the bail? NO.
alleged that judge set hearing for a petition for pail, accused
here filed a petition for bail only on April 8, 2010. The hearing t is settled that the amount of bail should be reasonable at all
was on March 29, 2010. Judge Clapis calendared a continuous times. In implementing this mandate, regard should be taken
hearing for bail from April 12-14, 2010. of the prisoner's pecuniary circumstances. We point out that
what is reasonable bail to a man of wealth may be unreasonable
On May 18, 2010, Clapis granted petition of bail. He is liable to a poor man charged with a like offense. Thus, the right to
for conducting bail hearings without a petition for bail filed bail should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that
for the accused without affording the prosecution an is relatively excessive. The amount should be high enough to
opportunity to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. assure the presence of the defendant when required, but no
higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
1. An application for bail filed
2. Judge notified prosecution and conducted bail Comment: There is no fixed amount. In fixing the amount of
hearing bail, the judge is given the discretion to set an amount which
he or she perceives as appropriate under given circumstances
It was only on April 8 when accused filed application but on in relation to the factors enumerated under Section 9 of Rule
March 29 there was already hearing. During the April 12 114. As quoted above, Judge Balindong enumerated the
hearing Gacad appeared herself for the private counsel filed a reasons (i.e., accused's incarceration for more than 4 years; his
motion to withdraw. However, the hearing proceeded with reputation as a former councilor; his financial ability; and the
accused alone. It was only the last day on April 14 she was weak evidence against him) why he set the amount of bail at
represented by a private prosecutor. P30,000.00.
 Clearly the prosecution was not given the opportunity BALANAY v. JUDGE WHITE (2016)
to prove the evidence of guilt of strong. A complaint against judge for gross ignorance of the law, for
he granted furloughs despite murder being non-bailable.
 While there may be a hearing, there was no inquiry, Adamas was a public official. Judge White granted motion of
due process requires that the prosecution must be Adamas. Judge White also explained that she granted Adamas
given the opportunity to present within a reasonable six furloughs based on affidavits of desistance.
period all the evidence it may desire to produce
before the court should resolve the Motion for Bail. Bail hearing is necessary. A hearing for a petition for bail is
required in order for the court consider the guidelines set forth
Commentary: En banc case, per curiam, there was a setting of in fixing the amount of bail.
a hearing right away even before the application and then
during the hearing, the prosecution was not able to present. Comment: In other words, six furloughs were not allowed.
If you look at Section 3, one furlough – allowed, upon order of
the court. What is the procedure? The PAO lawyer will apply to

the court for an order for the temporary release for the accused Procedure
to attend burial for a few hours – not in the rules but is being Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bail bond:
done. But here, Adamas was a municipal councilor, who was 1. The accused shall cause the annotation of the lien:
detained for murder – he wanted to attend session. He should a. On the certificate of title on file;
ask for bail. Furloughs are not allowed. i. If the land is registered with the
 This is a circumvention of bail grant. Registry of Deeds, or
 Six furloughs is definitely not allowed. ii. If unregistered – in the Registration
Book on the space provided therefor,
Section 10. Corporate Surety. – Any domestic or foreign in the Registry of Deed for the province
corporation, licensed as a surety in accordance with law or city where the land lies.
and currently authorized to act as such, may provide bail b. On the corresponding tax declaration in the
by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer
office of the provincial, city or municipal
of the corporation duly authorized by its board of
directors. assessor concerned.
2. The accused shall submit to the court his compliance

Requisites for Providing a Bail Bond in the
and his failure to do so shall be sufficient cause for:
Form of a Corporate Security
a. The cancellation of his property bond, and
1. It must be provided by a domestic or foreign
b. His rearrest and detention.
corporation which is:
a. Licensed as a surety, and
Section 12. Qualifications of Sureties in Property Bond. –
b. Authorized to act as a surety.
The qualifications of sureties in a property bond shall be
as follows:
2. It must be:
a. Jointly subscribed by; (a) Each must be a resident owner of real estate
i. The accused, and within the Philippines;
ii. An officer of the corporation (b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate
must be worth at least the amount of
b. Authorized by its board of directors
undertaking;
(c) If there are two or more sureties, each may justify
Commentary: Not just any corporation, there are requisites to in an amount less than that expressed in the
be followed. The accused must sign the bond so as the undertaking but the aggregate of the justified
authorized officer as well as the BOD. sums must be equivalent to the whole amount of
the bail demanded.
Section 11. Property Bond, How Posted. – A property In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount
bond is an undertaking constituted as a lien on the real specified in his own undertaking over and above all just
property given as security for the amount of the bail. debts, obligations and properties exempt from execution.
Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bond, the
accused shall cause the annotation of the lien on the
certificate of title on file with the Registry of Deeds if the Sureties of Property Bond
land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration
Book on the space provided therefore, in the Registry of Qualification: Must be a resident owner of real estate within
Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on
the Philippines. It must be in the Philippines, it cannot be
the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the
provincial, city and municipal assessor concerned. personal property it must be a real property, it must be real
estate or a lot as long as it is considered as real property.
Within the same period, the accused shall submit to the Personal property are not considered as a property bond under
court his compliance and his failure to do so shall be bail for such.
sufficient cause for the cancellation of the property bond
and his re-arrest and detention.
Value of the Property of Surety
1. If there is only one surety – his real estate must be
Property Bond, Definition worth at least the amount of the undertaking
It is an undertaking constituted as a lien on the real property 2. If there are two or more sureties – each may justify an
given as security for the amount of the bail. The accused need amount less than that expressed in the undertaking
not be the owner of the property that will be offered as the but the aggregate of the justified sums must be
property bond. equivalent to the whole amount of the bail demanded
The owner of the property is the property bondsmen – it can Every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own
be a corporation or a natural person who is the registered undertaking over and above all:
owner of the property. Even unregistered property can be 1. Just debts
considered as subject for a property. Note that the accused 2. Obligations; and
must compliance – that he will cause the annotation of the 3. Properties exempt from execution
lien on title of property or tax declaration.

Section 13. Justification of sureties. – Every surety shall NOTE: In truth and in fact, this is being deposited in the clerk
justify by affidavit taken before the judge that he possesses of courts, thus the scandal in the loss cash bonds.
the qualification prescribed in the preceding section. He
shall describe the property given as security, stating the
How much shall be deposited
nature of his title, its encumbrances, the number and
amount of other bails entered into by him and still 1. The amount of bail fixed by the court; or
undischarged, and his other liabilities. The court may 2. The amount recommended by the prosecutor who
examine the sureties upon oath concerning their investigated or filed the case.
sufficiency in such manner as it may deem proper. No bail
shall be approved unless the surety is qualified. When Accused Shall be Discharged from Custody
Upon Submission Of:
Justification of Sureties 1. A proper certificate of deposit, and
2. A written undertaking showing compliance with the
1. Obligations of a surety: requirement of Section 2 (conditions of bail)
1. He must justify by affidavit taken before the judge that What Happens to the Money Deposited
he possess the qualifications prescribed in Section 12. 1. It shall be considered as bail;
2. He must describe the property given as security 2. It shall be applied to the payment of fine and costs
stating; 3. The excess, if any, shall be returned;
a. The nature of his title; a. To the accused, whether convicted or
b. The encumbrances acquitted, or
c. The number and amount of other bails b. To whoever made the deposit.
entered into by him and still undischarged;
and In Victory Liner v. Bellosillo 425 SCRA 79 (2004), the court
d. His other liabilities ruled that the judge compelling the conversion of surety bond
to cash bond, in a way requiring the latter, is wrong because
2. This court may examine the sureties upon oath concerning the option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily
their sufficiency in such a manner as it may deem proper. belongs to the accused.
3. No bail shall be approved unless the surety is qualified. Q. May a judge be held administratively liable for personally
accepting the cash bond of an accused?
Commentary: He must submit an affidavit to show he is
qualified and disclose how many bails to be entered by him, YES. Rules specify person with whom a cash bail bond
because some people make this as a business. may be deposited, namely (1) collector of internal revenue or
(2) the provincial, city, or municipal treasurer. A judge is not
Section 14. Deposit of Cash as Bail. – The accused or any authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail nor should
person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the such cash be kept in his office (Lachica v. Tormis, 2005).
nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, or
municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court,
 It is the right of the accused to decide what kind of
or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or
filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of bail bond to apply person.
deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance
with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused Section 15. Recognizance. – Whenever allowed by law or
shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited these Rules, the court may release a person in custody on
shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of his own recognizance or that of a responsible person.
fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to
the accused or to whoever made the deposit.
RECOGNIZANCE
Cash Bond as Bail What is recognizance?

An obligation of record, entered into before some court or
Who may Deposit the Cash Bond: magistrate duly authorized to take it, with the condition to do
1. The accused; or some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases
2. Any person acting in his behalf being the appearance of the accused for trial.
Commentary: Most of the time it is not the accused who will When may person in custody be released on recognizance:
deposit their cash bond, it is their counsel. The accused cannot 1. Whenever allowed by law, or
do this personally most of the time. 2. Whenever allowed by these rules
Where the cash bond may be deposited: In whose recognizance may a person be released:
1. The nearest collector of internal revenue, or (BIR) 1. On his own, or
2. Provincial, city or municipal treasurer 2. On that of a responsible person.

When may a person be released on recognizance? ATTY. CABRERA v. ZERNA (2002)
The release on recognizance of any person under detention Cabrera filed for misconduct, alleging that Zerna was wrong for
may be ordered only by a court and only in the following cases: granting recognizance of Wahab and Saro without giving the
(a) When the offense charged is for violation of an prosecution the opportunity to oppose. And that it was wrong
ordinance, a light felony, or a criminal offense, the to grant such without recommendation of DSWD and merely
imposable penalty for which does not exceed 6 relied on the birth certificates of the two.
months imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, under the
circumstances provided in RA 6036; It was not proper. The objective of recognizance is
(b) Where a person has been in custody for a period equal sparing accused from imprisonment but secure his appearance
to or more than the minimum of the imposable at the trial of a pending criminal case. There is a requirement of
principal penalty, without application of ISL or any hearing and he must be notified. Zerna did not give
modifying circumstance, in which case the court, in its opportunity to be heard.
discretion may allow his release on his own
recognizance (Rule 114, Section 16); The basis here was that under Section 191 of PD 603
for bail recognizance because they were minors which requires
(c) Where the accused has applied for probation, the recommendation of DSWD or agencies authorized by court
pending resolution of the case but no bail was filed or before releasing under recognizance. So, before release:
the accused is incapable of filing one; and (Rule 114, 1. Proper recommendation from the DSWD or
Section 24) – here the he must be released under the 2. Other agencies authorized by the Court.
recognizance of a responsible person not on his own.
This is indispensable, otherwise the youthful offender will be
(d) In case of a youthful offender held for physical and confined in a separate confinement in the provincial or city jail.
mental examination, trial, or appeal, if he is unable to Clearly, Zerna did not obtain recommendation of DSWD.
furnish bail and under circumstances envisaged in PD
603 as amended (Espiritu v. Jovellanos, 1997). Commentary: When bail is applied, there must be a hearing,
recognizance is still a kind of bail. During hearing, cite the law
(e) RA 7610, Section 25, rights of children under armed for basis of recognizance, and requirements of the law must be
conflict either as combatant, courier or spy under (d) complied with – here the recommendation is required under
release on recognizance under DWSD or responsible Sec. 191 of PD 603.
member of community. If under examination, trial, or
appeal, to the DSWD or to the local rehab center, or Section 16. Bail, When not Required; Reduced Bail or
with recommendation of DSWD to the parents or Recognizance. – No bail shall be required when the law or
responsible persons provided that they will furnish his these Rules so provide.
presence whenever so required.
When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or
more than the possible maximum imprisonment
TABAO v. JUDGE BARATAMAN (2002) prescribed for the offense charged, he shall be released
Rasmia Tabao was the private complainant for abandonment immediately, without prejudice to the continuation of the
of minor, Judge Barataman granting bail on recognizance trial or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty
under RA 6036. Tabao avers that Judge Barataman committed to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he
shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive
grave abuse of discretion granting such. Was this valid?
imprisonment.
NO. The granting was a clear violation of RA 6036, the A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the
law allows release of recognizance if he is unable to post the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the
required cash or bail bond. The accused here is CPA, but the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate
law did not distinguish. But even if he was not able to pay the Sentence Law or any modifying circumstance, shall be
released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at
cash or bail bond, the sworn statement was signed by the father
the discretion of the court.
not the accused itself, here it was not the accused which is a
violation under the rules. The custodian cannot assume this
requirement. It was erroneous for it was the father filed. The When Bail is Not Required
accused here was at large, it is basic principle that bail cannot 1. When provided by law, or
be granted cannot be granted before custody has been 2. When provided by these Rules
acquired thus it has been premature.
NOTE: There are laws that do not require imprisonment like
Comment: Someone else can post the bail bond, the accused when it only imposes fine.
need not personally appear and post the bail bond. But it is
required that the accused is in the custody of the law. In this When a person in custody shall be released
case, he was at large, the father merely went on his behalf. Even 1. When he has been in custody for a period (without
if the crime is under RA 6036 it is not that easy to file for bail prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the
for recognizance. Section 1 requires that he is unable to afford. proceedings on appeal):

a. Equal to possible maximum imprisonment Section 17. Bail, Where Filed. – (a) Bail in the amount
prescribed for the offense charged, or fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending,
b. More than the possible maximum or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof,
with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge,
imprisonment prescribed for the offense
municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the
charged. province, city or municipality. If the accused is arrested in
a province, city, or municipality other than where the case
NOTE: That even if the person is released for reaching the is pending, bail may also be filed with any regional trial
maximum period of imposable penalty, the trial must still court of said place, of if no judge thereof is available, with
continue to determine whether or not the accused is guilty of any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or
municipal circuit trial judge therein.
the crime charged. Thus, even if there is release for he has
reached the maximum period. There is still a requirement to (b) Where the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the
continue the proceedings in the court for it is important to accused seeks to be released on recognizance, the
determine the guilt of the accused. application may only be filed in the court where the case is
pending, whether on preliminary investigation, trial, or
2. If the maximum penalty to which he may be sentenced appeal [AM 05-8-26, August 30, 2005].
to is destierro:
(c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court
He shall be released after 30 days from may apply for bail with any court in the province, city, or
preventive imprisonment municipality where he is held.
3. If he has been in custody for a period equal to or more

Where Petition for Bail is Filed
than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed
for the offense charged, (without application of the
General Rule: With the court where the case is pending
Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance):
Exceptions: The petition may be filed
1. With any RTC or MTC judge in the province, city, or
He shall be released on a reduced bail or on
municipality – when the judge where the case is
his own recognizance, at the discretion of the
pending is absent or unavailable
court
2. With the RTC of the place where the accused is
arrested – if arrested in a place other than were the
When the accused is exempt putting up bail
case is pending.
1. RA 6036: When the offense has an imposable penalty
3. With the MTC of the place where the accused is
of 6 months or less under the conditions mentioned
arrested – of RTC judge of the place where he is
therein;
arrested is not available.
2. Rule 114, Section 16: When a case is filed under the
Summary Rules, a mere notice is sufficient, a warrant
Q. What if arrested in Kidapawan but committed crime in Davao
of arrest is not required;
and a case is already filed?
3. Rule 112, Section 9(b): If the judge is satisfied that
there is no necessity for placing the accused under
Section 17 provides it may also be filed to the RTC,
custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant
the mother can go to the Judge Carpio or to the RTC Kidapawan
of arrest
or any RTC judge. Suppose it was an MTC crime, still she has
4. In summary rules, the accused need not be arrested
to go to the RTC in Kidapawan.
so there is no need to arrest, thus there is no bail to
 Only when there is no RTC judge available and only
be considered.
MTC judges are left – this is the only time the mother
can go to the MTC judge in Kidapawan.
Q. May a judge be held administratively liable for ordering the
arrest of accused and requiring bail in a case for malicious
When bail can ONLY be granted in court where the case is
mischief which carries a penalty or arresto mayor? pending (whether or trial or on appeal)
1. When the grant is a matter of discretion, and
YES. RA 6036 provides that bail is not generally 2. When accused seeks to be released on recognizance
required for violation of municipal or city ordinances or for
criminal offenses when the prescribed penalty is not higher When the person in custody is NOT yet charged in court
than arresto mayor and/or a fine of P2000 or both.
The petition may be filed with any court in the province, city or
municipality where he is held (this applies to inquest).
In a charge of simple malicious mischief which is covered by the
 Any court: this applies to inquest proceedings where
Rule on Summary Procedure, bail is no longer necessary, unless a person is arrested without warrant, and he does not
accused fails to appear whenever required (Martinez v. want to spend a night in jail, so where can he apply?
Paguio, 2002). Again any court, so if he was arrested in Kidapawan,
but committed in Davao, it is to get out of detention
right away.

PURITA LIM v. JUDGE DUMLAO (2005) file her bail bond in RTC San Fernando Pampanga where her
Lim here filed two criminal cases against Medina. Lim charged case in pending, in her absence, other RTC of Pampanga or San
Dumlao with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Fernando City.
Authority for the release of Medina on bail. There was
allegation for the judge frequently approves bail bonds for She voluntarily applied for place in RTC Bulacan, it
cases filed in other cases outside his territorial jurisdiction. could have been allowed if she was arrested there. But she
cannot go there if she was not arrested there. It is not allowed,
Judge Dumlao erred in approving the bail and issuing only when she is arrested.
the order. He is expected to know that certain requirements is
required to be complied. The petition for bail is filed generally Judge Bartolome also failed to require submission of the
to the court where case is pending. supporting documents needed in the application for a bond
without the certificate od detention and warrant of arrest. So
It is not disputed that the criminal cases was filed pending for even if she had authority there is still violation of Section 19.
RTC Santiago and warrant of arrest of the presiding judge of
the court, the order of release of bail should have been issued RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER (2010)
by the court, or in her absence any other. On the day Dumlao There was an anonymous letter sent then CJ Davide from a
ordered release of Medina – RTC judges were present. concerned citizen requested for an investigation against Judge
Tamang, judge MeTC in Pateros and Acting Presiding Judge of
Comment: It must be filed because of the involve of the MeTC Manila. There was fake bonds. The OCA found out that
prosecutor, the circumstances must be checked the records 34 of the accused were attained, 7 in San Juan, 6 in San Juan
shall be considered. and 1 is in accused. She was MeTC Judge of Pateros and Acting
MeTC of San Juan, all of these cases were pending in RTC Pasig.
SAVELLA v. JUDGE INES (2007)
Criminal complaint was filed by Savella against Ibaez, a warrant Judge Tamang was allowing fake bonds from a surety that was
of arrest was not immediately served for Ibaez was in USA. Later blacklisted by the SC. Can she approve bail bonds outside her
on Ibaez was not found in Ilocos Sur. Judge Ines was the territorial jurisdiction.
presiding judge of MTC Ilocos Sur, ordered provisional release.
Savella (MTC Vigan) stated the MTC Sinait did not forward the Judge Tamang argued that the 3 voluntary surrenders that they
bail bond papers and avers that Ines was highly irregular in can file in San Juan. And those in Taguig for she was the Pairing
giving undue favor and illegal accommodated. She claims that Judge in MeTC of Taguig.
she forgot to transmit the bail bond papers to MTCC Vigan to
forward. Judge Ines failed to property apply bail rules. Court said as a judge in San Juan she was correct for such,
however she did not substantiate her explanation why she
1. There is violation of Section 17. The case against Ibaez approved the bail application of the accused in Pasig Accused
was filed before MTC Vigan president by Judge Ante. and had issued the corresponding release orders after office
No showing of his unavailability – then it should be in hours. Court found it anomalous and worked until 9PM, it was
MTC Vigan or in absence thereof, any Regional Trial shown that there are RTC Judges in Pasig.
Judge of the province.
a. Case was pending in MTC Vigan, what if Comment: Here she was a judge in three courts, where she was
Judge Ante is not around, where can he file? able to grant bail bonds, but in Pasig, where cases are pending,
b. The application for bail was filed in MTC she was not able substantially prove the case.
Sinait which was still wrong court.
c. It should have been any court in Vigan. PANTILO v. JUDGE CANOY (2003)
Pantilo, brother of homicide victim, when inquired in CPO, the
2. Even if Ines correctly granted she failed to transmit the details surrounding the release of Melgazo and that no
order of release and other supporting papers to the information has been filed and no written Order release was
court. Judge Ines failed to transmit the records to the issued only verbal. Judge Canoy invokes the right of accused to
bail immediately after she received the same. bail and that a constructive bail given that only the papers
were needed to formalize it. Can a judge verbally grant bail
JUDGE SIMBULAN v. JUDGE BARTOLOME (2009) without the application?
Simbulan accused Judge Bartolome of MTC Sta Maria Bulacan
for the case was originally filed in her court in RTC San Fernando NO. Section 17. Melgazo did not file any application
Pampanga. RTC received an order that the accused surrendered or petition for the grant of bail with the Surigao RTC despite
in MTC Sta Maria and she posted her bail bond there and it was absence of written application, Judge Canoy verbally granted
approved there. It was found later by Deputy Court bail to Melgazo. There is no such species of bail of
Administrator that the accused was never arrested. constructive bail. There must be an application for bail. The
judge cannot just arbitrarily grant bail – worse a verbal bail, they
No compliance of Section 17 and 19. The accused did not even deposit amount of bail in the CIR or the treasurer.
Mercado was not arrested thus the proper procedure was to The clerk was made to accept.

There was no even signing of the written undertaking, it is Therefore, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion,
either the accused nor even the bondsman. reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the
1. No application prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his
2. No certificate of deposit recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail, the
3. No written undertaking judge is required to take in to account a number of factors (Ruiz
4. No written release order, it is not allowed for verbal v. Beldia, 2005).
release, there is no constructive bail.
TOREVILLAS v. JUDGE NAVIDAD (2009)
TORMIS v. JUDGE PAREDES (2015) Provincial Prosecutor brought attention to CJ Davide the
Judge Paredes (RTC Cebu), Tormis alleged that he received a actions of Judge Navidad in handling of the bail he handled. In
bail bond in a case for he accepted a bail bond of P6000 for the Criminal Cases it was alleged that the accused were charged of
release of Guioguio which was pending in MTCC Cebu City. capital offense and Judge Navidad granted bail without
Judge Paredes admitted that he personally accepted that cash hearing, There were also other criminal cases involving murder
bail bond on a Sunday. He claimed that his act was in but also released accused even if it involved murder even
accordance with Section 14, Chapter 5 of AM 03-8-02-SC. without the requisite hearing.
Judge Paredes was justified for the approval, as YES. There was violation, the court must give notice
well as the receipt of the cash bail bond as it was in of hearing or recommendation of the matter, this task was
accordance with Section 14, Chapter 4 of AM 03-8-62 which ignored by the judge. The grant or denial of bail hinges on the
allowed the executive judges to act on petitions for bail and determination of strength of guilt, and in order for the judge to
other urgent matters on Saturdays, or Sundays. exercise this correctly, there must be a hearing, and even if
there is no petition for bail, hearing must be done. Judge
Judge Paredes acted in accordance with the AM, that should Navidad was clearly in violation of the rule.
the accused deposit cash bail, the executive judge shall
acknowledge receipt of the cash bail bond in writing and issue Section 19. Release on Bail. – The accused must be
a temporary receipt therefore. Judge Paredes was merely discharged upon approval of the bail by the judge with
exercising incidental to his function as Executive Judge for he whom it was filed in accordance with Section 17 of this
Rule.
was the only available judge – the Executive Judge of Cebu.
When bail is filed with a court other than where the case is
Comment: There is nothing in Rule 114 that gives accused the pending, the judge who accepted the bail shall forward it,
right to apply for bail for holidays and Sundays. The thing to do together with the order of release and other supporting
is to look for the Executive Judge as provided under the AM 03- papers, to the court where the case is pending, which may,
8-02, Section 14, Chapter 5. for good reason, require a different one to be filed.
Now it is possible for those who arrested to apply for bail so Procedure for Release on Bail
they can be released immediately, it must be made before the 1. The accused can only be discharged upon approval of
executive judge of the case where the case is pending. the bail by the judge with whom the petition was filed.
2. When the motion for bail is filed with a court other
Section 18. Notice of Application to Prosecutor. – In the than where the case is pending:
application for bail under Section 8 of this Rule, the court a. The judge who accepted the bail shall
must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the forward it, to the court where the case is
prosecutor or require him to submit his recommendation. pending.
b. He must include the order of release and
What the Court must do when it receives an application for other supporting papers, and
bail under Section 8 c. The court where the case is pending may, for
1. It must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the good reason, required a different bail to be
prosecutor, or filed.
2. It must require the prosecutor to submit his
recommendation Section 20. Increase or Reduction of Bail. – After the
accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good
Notice Where Bail is a Matter of Right cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When
The prosecutor should be notified of the application. A hearing increased, the accused may be committed to custody if he
does not give bail in the increased amount within a
on an application for bail is mandatory. Bail should be fixed
reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal
according to the circumstances of each case. charge, who is released without bail upon filing of the
complaint or information, may, at any subsequent stage of
The amount fixed should be sufficient to ensure the presence the proceedings and whenever a strong showing of guilt
the accused at the trial yet reasonable enough to comply with appears to the court, be required to give bail in the amount
the constitutional provision that bail should not be excessive. fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody.

Increase or Reduction of Bail If the accused fails to appear in person as required:
1. His bail shall be declared forfeited, and
A. After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon 2. The bondsmen are given 30 days within which:
good cause, either increase or reduce its amount; a. To produce their principal, and
b. To show cause why no judgment should be
B. When increased the accused may be committed to custody rendered against them for the amount of
if he does not give bail in the increased amount or within a their bail.
reasonable period;
NOTE: Even if “forfeited” the bail is still there but subject to the
C. An accused held to answer a criminal charge who is released 30 day period given by the rules to perform obligation.
without bail upon filing of the complaint or information, may:
1. At any subsequent stage of the proceedings, and Within the 30 day period, the bondsmen must:
whenever a strong showing of guilt appears to the 1. Produce the body of their principal or give the reason
court, for his non-production; and
2. Be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu 2. Explain why the accused did not appear before the
thereof, committed to custody. court when first required to do so.
CONQUILLA v. BERNARDO (2011) Effect of failure of bondsmen to comply with the above
Conquilla charged Judge Bernardo with usurpation of authority, requisites:
grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. Judge 1. A judgement shall be rendered against the bondsmen,
Bernardo conduct PI and recommended bail. Judge issued jointly and severally for the amount of bail; and
order reducing P12K to P6K. Conquilla filed complaint alleging 2. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the
that under AM 05-08-26-SC, first level judges no longer have liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused:
authority to conduct PI, and that he committed conducting PI a. Has been surrendered; or
and issuing Warrant of Arrest. b. Is acquitted.
Not correct. Judges are allowed to grant bail, increase Q. What are the two occasions upon which the trial court may
or decrease bail but assumes that the judge has jurisdiction rule adversely against the bondsman in cases when the accused
over the case. In this case, Judge Bernardo conducted the PI fails to appear in court?
without authority and issued warrant.
(1) The non-appearance by accused is cause for the
COMMENT: This was adjudged when judges were stripped off judge to summarily declare his bond as forfeited; and (2) the
of authority to conduct; no jurisdiction over the case. bondsman, after the summary forfeiture of the bond, are given
30 days within which to produce the principal and to show
Section 21. Forfeiture of Bail. – When the presence of the cause why a judgment should not be rendered against them for
accused is required by the court or these Rules, his the amount of the bond.
bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the
court on a given date and time. If the accused fails to It is only after this 30-day period, during which the bondsman
appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared
is afforded the opportunity to be heard by the court, that the
forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within
which to produce their principal and to show why no trial court may rendered a judgement on the bond against the
judgment should be rendered against them for the amount bondsman. Judgment against the bondsman cannot be
of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen must: entered unless such judgment is preceded by the order of
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the forfeiture and an opportunity given to the bondsman to
reason for his non-production; and produce the accused or to adduce satisfactory reason for their
(b) explain why the accused did not appear before
inability to do so (Reliance Surety v. Amante, 2005).
the court when first required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be Failure of counsel to Appear for Trial
rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for Q. May the judge order the forfeiture of bail and the detention
the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or of accused for the failure of his counsel to appear during trial?
otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless
the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.
NO. Nowhere in Rule 114 does such a ground exist.
Under Section 2, the presence of counsel is not a condition of
FORFEITURE OF BAIL the bail, neither is it a reason for increase or forfeiture of such
(Andres v. Beltran, 2001).
When the presence of the accused is required by the court
or these Rules Appeal of Judgment Against Bond
His bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before Q. Is the judgment against the bondsman on the bond subject
the court on a given date and time. to appeal?

The judgment against bondsmen on bond may be construed CANCELLATION OF BAIL
as a final order, hence subject to appeal. Indeed, from a
judgment on the bond, a writ of execution may immediately Two Ways of Cancellation
issue, and need not be effected through a separate action. An 1. By application
appeal from a judgment on the bond is allowed in the Rules. 2. Automatic cancellation
TALAG v. JUDGE REYES Requisites of Cancellation of Bail

Information of Estafa against Talag in RTC Manila, Judge Reyes 1. An application for cancellation must be filed by the
issued a warrant of arrest, Judge Reyes set the case for bondsmen
arraignment, the order never reached him for it was sent to his 2. Due notice must be given to the prosecutor, and
old address despite giving notice of change of address. 3. The bail may be cancelled upon:
Arraignment was reset, now the notice was still sent to the a. Surrender of the accused ,or
wrong address – thus he was not able to appear thus bail was b. Proof of his death
confiscated in view of the failure to appear. Judge Reyes stated
that Produce Orders were given, but bondsmen failed despite When Bail Shall Be Deemed Automatically Cancelled
the extension. 1. Upon acquittal of the accused
2. Upon dismissal of the case, or
The confiscation was proper. The produce orders 3. Upon execution of the judgment of conviction.
were sent to his bondsman, whom failed to produce him, his
bondsman should have produce him failure resulted to the Effect of cancellation: It shall be without prejudice to any
forfeiture of the bail. The bail bond was correctly cancelled. liability on the bail. The bail shall be returned.
Comment: Forfeited – is a technical term, an announcement Arrest for Another Crime

that the bond is forfeited but nothing is yet done, after the
bondsmen given 30 days and failed, and that is the time bond Esteban v. Alhambra
will be confiscated. (Note the use of words). 437 SCRA 560 (2004)
MENDOZA v. ALARMA (2008) Anita put up a bail bond of P80,000 for accused in 4 criminal
Sps. Alarma were owners of land for property bond for Mayo cases. While out on bail, accused committed another crime, was
charged with illegal possession of firearms, Mayo failed to arrested and detained so that Anita filed a motion to cancel the
appear, the confiscation was made. A writ of execution was cash bond she posted. The judge denied motion on theory that
made without a judgment against the bondsmen being the accused was not surrendered by Anita but was arrested for
rendered and the land was eventually sold in public auction. another crime, and that the cash bond is to be applied as
WON writ of execution may issue based on the order of payment for fine and consist.
forfeiture. NO.
Q. Is the court correct in refusing to cancel cash bond?
An order of forfeiture is interlocutory and merely requires
bondmen to show judgment. While judgment on the bond is YES. Rule 114, Section 22 contemplates of a situation
made after failure within 30 days. “Order of Forfeiture” where, among others, the surety or bondsman surrenders the
 The proper procedure was for judge to render accused. Anita did not surrender the accused, charged in 4
judgment, but this was not followed, there was no criminal cases, to the trial court. The accused was arrested and
judgment of the bond, thus the writ of execution detained because he was charged in a subsequent criminal
is null and void. case. In addition, the bail bond was a cash deposit which under
Section 14, shall be applied to the payment of fine and costs
Comment: Under Rule 39, there can be no execution if there is and the excess be returned.
no judgment, what happened here is a shortcut, there was an
execution without a judgment on the bond, if not followed Escape of Accused to a Foreign Country
everything after that will become a nullity. Q. May an explanation given by a bondsman within a
reasonable period that a principal left the country
Section 22. Cancellation of Bail. – Upon application of surreptitiously and was denied in a foreign jurisdiction for the
the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail commission of a different offense in said jurisdiction be
may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof considered as substantial compliance of the duty imposed
of his death. upon the bondsman sufficient to exonerate from liability?
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon
acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution NO. To justify exemption, the accused must be
of the judgment of conviction. surrendered to the court and his non-appearance when first
required must be explained. It could have taken steps to have
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice prevented the departure. As the jailer or custodian of the
to any liability on the bail. accused its obligation to produce the body of the accused

whenever so required, failure to do so is a violation of the ARREST OF ACCUSED OUT ON BAIL
condition of the bond (People v. Caparas, 1988).
Who may execute the arrest for the purpose of
Act of God, of Government or of Law surrendering the accused:
In Phil. Phoenix v. Sandiganbayan (1987), the surety, upon 1. The bondsmen, or
application to the trial court may also be relieved from the non- 2. Upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy
appearance of the bond where its performances rendered of the undertaking, the bondsmen may cause him to
impossible by the (1) act of God, the (2) act of the obligee be arrested by
(Government) or (3) the act of law. a. Police officer, or
b. Any other person of suitable age and
BONGCAC v. SB (2009) discretion
Bongcac filed petitions in the SB which decision become final
and executory on April 2, 2002. SB issued resolution dismissing When accused released on bail may be re-arrested without
both petitioner and moved for execution and ordered the necessity of a warrant:
cancellation of the cash bond. If he attempts to depart from the Philippines without
permission of the court where the case is pending.
The cancellation was proper. One of the grounds for
automatic cancellation is the execution of judgment of Comment: Like in Mendoza v. Alarma, what happened was
conviction, it was ministerial on the part of SB for the that Alarma without their knowledge and consent of
cancellation of the cash bond. bondsmen, they did not know that it was their responsibility to
secure, they may execute the arrest.
PEOPLE v. CAWALING (2009)
Wilfredo Cawaling was charged with murder, RTC convicted Any person out on bail, must ask permission from the court
him of homicide, CA charged murder. Cawaling jumped bail, where the case is pending, otherwise he can be arrested
what involved here was a property bond, Cruz filed a without a warrant.
manifestation and withdraw a property bond and in lieu thereof
a cash bond. Can it be cancelled? Right to Travel
1. Prohibition by Sandiganbayan
NO. The cancellation of bail is upon application of Q. May a person who is out on bail be prohibited by
bondsmen, it is only cancelled only upon surrender or death or the court from leaving the country?
those grounds of automatic cancellation. Due to his flight, the
bond cannot be cancelled, unless he is surrendered to the Court YES. A court has the power to prohibit a person
or proof of his death. Cawaling here fled, thus the judgment of admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary
conviction cannot be cancelled. consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.
Comment: What is the effect of the accused jumping his bail The condition stated under Rule 114 required that the accused
bond? The bondsman obviously cannot produce him. The bond be available at all times is a valid restriction of the right to travel
cannot be cancelled because he jumped him, so she cannot (Santiago v. Vasquez, 1993).
replace the property bond with the cash bond. The effect of
Cawaling jumping bail or violation of conditions of bail, the bail 2. Prohibition by MTC
will be there until he is arrested, and after he is arrested then Q. May a MTC judge issued a hold departure in
that is the time the bail bond can be cancelled. criminal cases pending before it?
 Judgment against the bond, it will not help the
People in finding the accused. NO. Circular No. 39-97 provides that hold departure
 Have the accused arrested, detain him, and then orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive
the bond can be cancelled. jurisdiction of the RTCs (Mondejar v. Buban, 2001).
In this case, the property bondsmen, she cannot cancel it yet.
This forfeiture of the bond and judgment against the bond, is NOTE: But if he attempts to depart, no court is prohibited from
the punishment for the bondsmen but not punishment for the issuing a warrant to arrest him.
accused.
Section 24. No Bail After Final Judgment; Exception. – No
Section 23. Arrest of Accused Out On Bail. – For the bail shall be allowed after a judgment of conviction has
purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may become final. If before such finality, the accused applies
arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under
certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested his bail. When no bail was filed or the accused is incapable
by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and of filing one, the court may allow his release on
discretion. An accused released on bail may be re-arrested recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of
without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart the community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the
from the Philippines without permission of the court accused has commenced to serve sentence.
where the case is pending.

BAIL AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION 7. Strive to eliminate conditions inimical to the detainees
A. After Final Judgment of Conviction C. In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme
1. General Rule: Bail is NOT allowed Court, the MTC judges shall:
2. Exceptions: If before such finality, the accused 1. Conduct monthly personal inspection of the municipal
applies for probation: jails in their respective municipalities, and
a. He may be allowed temporary liberty under 2. Submit a report to the executive judge of the RTC
his bail ,or having jurisdiction therein.
b. The court may allow his release on
recognizance to the custody of a responsible D. A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the
member of the community: executive judges to the Court Administrator which shall state:
i. When no bail was filed, or 1. The total number of detainees,
ii. When the accused is incapable of 2. The names of those held for more than 30 days,
filing one 3. The duration of detention,
4. The crime charged,
B. After the Accused Has Commenced to Serve Sentence 5. The status of the case,
Bail is not allowed. 6. The cause for detention, and
7. Other pertinent information.
Section 25. Court Supervision of Detainees. – The court
shall exercise supervision over all persons in custody for Section 26. Bail not a Bar to Objections on Illegal Arrest,
the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention. The Lack of or Irregular Preliminary Investigation. – An
executive judges of the Regional Trial Courts shall conduct application for or admission to bail shall not bar the
monthly personal inspections of provincial, city, and accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the
municipal jails and the prisoners within their respective legality of the warrant issued therefore, or from assailing
jurisdictions. They shall ascertain the number of the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary
detainees, inquire on their proper accommodation and investigation of the charge against him, provided that he
health and examine the condition of the jail facilities. They raises them before entering his plea. The court shall
shall order the segregation of sexes and of minors from resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than
adults, ensure the observance of the right of detainees to the start of the trial of the case.
confer privately with counsel, and strive to eliminate
conditions inimical to the detainees.
EFFECT ON ILLEGAL ARREST
In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme
Court, the municipal trial judges or municipal circuit trial A. Effect of Application or Admission to Bail – It shall not
judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of the bar the accused from:
municipal jails in their respective municipalities and 1. Challenging:
submit a report to the executive judge of the Regional Trial
a. The validity of his arrest, or
Court having jurisdiction therein.
b. The legality of the warrant issued therefor;
A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by or
the executive judges to the Court Administrator which 2. Assailing the regularity of or questioning the absence
shall state the total number of detainees, the names of of a PI of the charged against him (provided he raises
those held for more than thirty (30) days, the duration of them before he enters his plea).
detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the
cause for detention, and other pertinent information.
B. Requisite for accused to be entitled to the above:
He must raise them before entering his plea.
COURT SUPERVISION OF DETAINEES
C. When the court shall resolve the matter or whether or
not to grant bail:
A. The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in
As early as practicable but not later than the start of
custody for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention;
the trial of the case.
B. The executive judges of the RTCs shall:

Comment: Up to what point can he question illegality of arrest
1. Conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial,
or warrant up to the point of arraignment, now even if he
city, and municipal jails and the prisoners within their
applies for bail, he can still question such illegality.
respective jurisdictions,
2. Ascertain the number of detainees,
Admission to Bail Before Arraignment
3. Inquire on their proper accommodations and health,
Q. Whether or not the accused should first be arraigned before
4. Examine the condition of the jail facilities,
hearings on his petition for bail may be conducted?
5. Order the segregation of sexes and of minors from
adults,
NO. The arraignment of an accused is not prerequisite
6. Ensure observance of the right of detainees to confer
to the conduct of hearing on his petition for bail.
privately with counsel, and

A person is allowed to file petitioner for bail as soon as he is
deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary
surrender (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 2003).
Effect of Bail on Right to Preliminary Investigation

Q. Is the filing of a bail bond a waiver of the right to a
preliminary investigation?
NO. An application for or admission to bail shall not

bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or
the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the
regularity or questioning the absence of a PI of the charge
against him provided that he raises such before entering his
plea (Yusop v. Sandiganbayan, 2001).
Effect of Bail on Question of Legality of Arrest

In Okabe v. Gutierrez (2004), the posting of bail bond by the
accused for her personal liberty did not waive her right to
question the court’s finding of probable cause for her arrest.
Petition for Bail and Motion to Quash

Q. May an accused file a motion to quash during the pendency
of his petition for bail?
YES. No inconsistency exists between an application

of an accused for bail and is filing of a motion to quash. These
two reliefs have objectives which are not necessarily antithetical
to each other (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, 2003).\
CONQUILLA v. BERNARDO (2011)

Pena field Complaint for submitted falsified documents. Arrest
warrants were issued against, upon the issuance of the warrant
of arrest, Borlongan et al. immediately posted bail. They
questioned the validity, the trial court ruled that the posting of
bail is waiver. Is this correct? Can they still question validity of
warrant of arrest?
YES. An application for or admission to bail shall not

bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or
the legally of the warrant issued.
Was there a waiver due to arraignment?

The principle that the accused is precluded only applies when
the accused voluntarily enters his plea and participates during
trial. It was shown that their bonds contained a stipulation that
they were not waiving their right, it was the court who entered
the plea for them.

favorable bail for all was denied – he was in jail for eight years
RULE 115 until he was acquitted. There was no rape.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
What is the point of being presumed innocent if you are
Section 1. Rights of Accused At Trial. – In all criminal incarcerated but you are not allowed outside?
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following
rights: It is always the prosecution that presents evidence first, the
accused only has to rebut presented. In relation to right to
Rights of the Accused presumed innocent which is Demurrer to Evidence due to
It talks about the right of the accused at the trial, in insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution.
Constitutional Law, this particular rule focuses on the right of  However this presumption is merely a presumption,
the accused at the trial. once there is proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
the presumption is destroyed, thus a judgment of
Elements of Due Process finding the accused guilty.
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial
authority to hear and determine the matter before it; Cannot be waived unless he pleads guilty, which will kill the
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person presumption.
of the defendant or property which is the subject of
the proceeding; Prima Facie Presumption of Guilt
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be In Hizon v. CA, PD 704 provided that the discovery of
heard; and explosives or obnoxious substance in any fishing boat shall
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. constitute a presumption that the owner or operator was
(Aguirre v. People, 2001). fishing with the use of explosive or poisonous substance. Is this
a violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence?
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. No. The legislature has the power to provide that
proof of certain facts can constitute a prima facie evidence of
1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE guilt provided that there is a rational connection between the
This is a right given to all accused. So, in other words, the fact proved and the fact presumed.
prosecution has the burden of proven the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. These defense lawyers, all they have PD 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts proved
to do is create a doubt in order to have their clients acquitted. and is not constitutionally impermissible. However, statutory
presumption can only be prima facie it can be rebutted.
In drugs cases, the defense lawyers will just find a way to chain
of custody which is required under RA 9165, once there is a Equipoise Rule
small break or cut in the chain of possession there is a doubt. This rule is applied when the evidence by the prosecution and
There was this, Order, from an informant telling PDEA that X the accused are of equal weight, under this rule, the party
will buy shabu at a time in place. PDEA were supposed to act as having the burden of proof loses. This means that the evidence
poseur-buyers, when there is a buy bust operation, there is an does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and does not provide
Order. What happened was, they kept on testifying that the buy a sufficient ground for conviction (Dado v. People, 2002).
bust took place around 10:30 – 11:30 PM. All of their
testimonies now in the morning. (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
In the Order, the time was 1300H, it was changed to 1000H to
make it 10 in the morning, thus the Order was made after the 2. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF
conduct of buy bust or “to follow” which was not the proper NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION
order thus a break, even though it was not connected to the That is why we have Rule 110 for an information to be sufficient
guilt or accused, but due to this failure to follow to the in form and substance for it will inform the accused. Under Rule
procedure, the accused was acquitted. 116, Section 1 the information will be read to him in a language
he understands thus this right will not be violated, so that if
This presumption of innocence is powerful as an accused in there is nobody in the court room who can read the information
court, it is not easy to convict, but accused however are for him? What happens?
detained, that is why we have bail but for those who cannot
afford and offenses are not bailable they have suffer in prison. One has to find someone to interpret for the accused. When we
took Rule 112, we did not encounter a provision that the
Like in the case of Custodio, who was charged for rape by a information be given to the accused, because this is not yet the
married lady, who hitched with him. And so, he was charged time, the proper time is during the arraignment, but lawyers
and the lawyer was Dean Inigo and it was so hard to find a already get the information from the court, which there is
nothing wrong with that.

Can this right to be informed be waived? NO. This cannot be Effect when absence of the accused without justifiable
waived, the information must be read to him. Why public cause at the trial of which he had notice:
interest is involved in this right so that no person shall be It shall be considered as a waiver of his right to be
deprived of his life or liberty. present thereat.
Jurisprudential Doctrines Effect when an accused under custody escapes:

In People v. Atienza (2000), an accused charged with rape He shall be deemed to have waived his right to be
through one mode of commission may convicted of the crime present in all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is
if the evidence shows another mode of commission provided regained.
that the accused did not object to such evidence.
B. Right to Counsel During Trial
In People v. Ortega (2000), an accused cannot be convicted of
homicide through drowning in an information that charges Right of the Accused: To be defended by counsel at every
murder by means of stabbing. stage of the proceeding from arraignment to promulgation of
judgment.
In People v. Lucas (1994), the failure to object to the time of
commission even if it appears that the crime was not Waiver of said right: The accused, upon motion, may be
committed in the precise time or place alleged can lead to a allowed to defend in person when it sufficiently appears to the
possible conviction. court that he can properly protect his rights without the
assistance of counsel.
In People v. Antido (1997), when the information charges an
accused with one count of rape, he cannot be convicted with Right of the Accused to be Present at the Trial
two counts even if he failed to object to the testimony. This particular right has many parts:
1. To be present at his trial, he also has the right
In People v. Legaspi (1995) when the accused is charged with not to be there for there are only times he
two separate information, one for double murder and one for required (1) arraignment (2) identification and
carnapping an accused cannot be convicted with special (3) promulgation.
complex crime of robbery with double homicide 2. To defend in person but he also has the right
to counsel from arraignment until
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at promulgation Arraignment is a very important
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to stage, the right of counsel in the arraignment
promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, is mandatory. He cannot just plea without the
however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the
advice of the lawyer.
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is
specifically ordered by the court for purposes of 3. To defend by counsel at every proceeding.
identification. The absence of the accused without  This right is waivable.
justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be  The accused can represent himself if he is capable.
considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat.
When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be Right to be Present
deemed to have waived his right to be present on all
Although it is a right, it is waivable and therefore he does not
subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained.
Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend have to attend every trial date. There are three:
himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court 1. Arraignment
that he can properly protect his rights without the 2. When required by the court for purposes for
assistance of counsel. identification
3. Promulgation of judgment
2. RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Now, this talks about two situation where the accused does not
A. Right of the Accused to be Present at his Trial attend that trial, when required to do so;
Rights of the accused to be present at every stage of the 1. Absence without justifiable cause is a waiver to be
proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment: present thereat, mere presence. He is either detained
or out on bail, perhaps he was not informed or he was
General Rule: The accused may waive his right to be present sick. If required like arraignment, he cannot waive
at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail right to be present, because arraignment required to
be personally enter his plea. If it for identification, he
Exceptions: The accused has to appear: cannot waive that, what about promulgation.
1. When is presence is specifically ordered by the court
for purposes of identification; What is actually waived is being absent on a particular date. If
2. During arraignment; and he is absent on this particular date. Whatever such required it
3. During promulgation of judgment. must be moved. There is no negative consequence on the
accused.

2. He is detained and escapes, or he is out on bail and Effect of Failure to Appear in One Trial Date
he disappears, he shall be deemed to have waived his In Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan (2005), an accused on bail
presence in subsequent dates until custody over him who fails to appear for a particular trial date does not
is regained. He can no longer participate on the next necessarily amount to a waiver of appearance for the
trial. subsequent trial dates. It is only when an accused under
custody has been notified of the date and escapes or jumps bail
What does this mean? When he goes, custody over him will be who shall be deemed to have waived right to subsequent trials
regained, but meanwhile the lawyer cannot participate unlike dates until custody is regained.
(1) the lawyer can still participate on his behalf. In this instance,
the lawyer cannot present on his behalf, and a judgment can The Right to Counsel During Trial
be rendered against him. This is related in trial in absentia. This is different from custodial investigation. Both times, CI and
Trial the accused has the right to counsel, is this right waivable?
Trial in Absentia YES in both instances.
Applies to both, that the trial will go on without him if he is not  In CI, he can waive this right of counsel in presence of
there, the elements are: counsel;
1. Court acquired jurisdiction over person of accused;  In trial, the only requirement is that the waiver is clear,
2. He has already been arraigned intelligent and competent.
3. Notified of the trial
4. Non-appearance of the accused is unjustified It means that the accused does not desire a lawyer as the
accused wants to defend for himself.
In other words, this provision applies when the accused is
already arraigned and he is absent, he waives his right to be What about the offended party? Can the offended argue that
present thereat, despite being notified. he must be prosecute? No, he can ask the public prosecutor to
include the civil liability. It is only the accused who can waive
Due Notification his right of counsel.
How can the prosecution establish that he is notified? How can
one say his appearance is unjustified. Non-appearance of Counsel
In People v. Diaz (1999), the accused was denied due process
People v. Abgulos when the successive non-appearance of his counsel was
If one is fugitive he is deemed to waived notice because of construed as a waiver of his right to present evidence.
escape, it is this escape results to the failure to appear. If he
escapes or jumps bail, duly notified rule is no longer important. In People v. Larranaga (2004), the judge did not violate the
The notification process is deemed waived, his escape is non- right of the accused to counsel where a counsel de oficio was
appearance is unjustified. Even if his absence, the trial will appointed during the absence of counsel de parte of accused.
continue. Once established, that he has escaped, he is no longer
allowed to present evidence. Q. Where an accused who is represented by counsel de parte
appear for trial without his lawyer, is it incumbent upon the trial
Trial in absentia really refers to the second instance. For the first judge to appoint a counsel de oficio for him?
instance, the lawyer can participate, but in the second instance
the lawyer cannot even participate. NO. In Sayson v. People (1988), the duty of the court
to appoint a counsel de oficio when the accused has no counsel
In Gimenez v. Nazareno, the court need not wait that the of choice is mandatory only at the time of arraignment. This is
accused decides to appear in court, to allow this delay would no longer so where the accused has proceeded with
be to violate constitutional rule in trial in absentia. arraignment and the trial with a counsel of his choice but when
 By his failure to appear, he virtually waives his rights the time for the presentation of evidence for the defense he
to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, appears by himself alone and absence of counsel was
the right to present evidence on his behalf, so an inexcusable. At most, appointment of a counsel de oficio during
escape can be considered as an waiver. trial is now discretionary with the trial court.
Q. If accused is convicted in trial in absentia, what happens to NOTE: In People v. Liwanag (2001), the right to counsel does
the presumption of innocence and of due process? not include the guarantee of the right to an intelligent counsel.
The requirement for the counsel is not to be intelligent but to
No violation. He is still presumed innocent, the be effective.
prosecution still has to prove, but due to his waiver he cannot
disprove. Defending One’ Self
In People v. Sesbreno (1999), accused here acted his own
Due process is the giving of opportunity to be heard, he was counsel for he himself is a prominent and competent member
given opportunity, there was trial for him, but he threw away all of the bar, even if there were others available, thus he is
those rights by escaping or jumping bail. estopped in claiming such violation of right to counsel.

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to  People v. Delmendo (1998); his silence can be taken
cross-examination on matters covered by direct against when the crime is serious, and his testimony
examination. His silence shall not in any manner might help him but would show that the testimony
prejudice him.
would be inimical to himself. (Exception)
4. RIGHT TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF (e) To be exempted from being compelled to be a witness
against himself.
Right Guaranteed: The accused has the right to testify as a
witness in his own behalf. 5. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Condition for the Exercise of Such Right: In Villaflor v. Summers (1920), The constitutional guaranty,
He can be cross-examined on matters covered by that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
direct examination (deemed as a waiver of his right against self- witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition against
incrimination). compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. On a proper
showing and under an order of the trial court, an ocular
Effect of Silence on Part of the Accused: inspection of the body of the accused is permissible.
It shall not in any matter prejudice him.
Not only to testimonial consumption but includes production
Comments: This is subject to cross-examination on matters of documents and things that will incriminate him. He is not
covered by direct examination. Now, so if I am the accused and required or forced to speak against himself. It does not include
I want to be my own witness, normally I will be presented by the mechanical acts.
my lawyer as the witness during presentation of evidence by  Handwriting or signature – this is not mechanical.
the defense. If I want to be placed in the witness stand, I open
myself to cross-examine to the prosecutor. This is waivable. How do you waive this right?
He has the right to refuse to be put in the witness stand this is  By taking the witness stand and freely answering
against self-incrimination. question propounded and not objecting.
Two Kinds of Cross-Examination Rationale: On the ground of public policy, because if he

1. Rule 115, Section 1(d) required to testify, he is tempted to commit perjury, he would
Meaning, the prosecution can only cross be forced to lie and humanity to prevent duress.
examine as to matters stated in the direct
examination. Jurisprudential Doctrines
In People v. Rondero (1999), the taking of hair strands did not
So example in estafa, “what is your violate such right for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial
relationship to complainant?” “She is my compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired
employer” “What happened?” “She asked me from him under duress.
to deposit money to the bank and husband
took the money from me”. In People v. Yatar (2004), it was ruled that the testing of the
sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim which was
So if I am cross-examined only going to the identified to be that of the gene type of the accused did not
bank, taking of the money of the husband. violate the right against self-incrimination.
This is with limited cross-examination, this is
the American Rule. To be clear, the prohibition is not against all compulsion, a
person may be compelled fingerprinting, photographing,
2. Rule 132, Section 6 paraffin, blood an DNA tests as long as there is no testimonial
Cross-examine as to any matter stated in the compulsion involved.
direct or connected therewith, with a broader
scope it includes fullness and freedom to It was also noted in this case that the accused submitted himself
explore. for blood sampling that was conducted in open court in the
presence of counsel.
Can this be done to an accused as witness
against himself? NO. This only applies to the In People v. Besonia (2004), the admission of accused was not
witnesses who are not the accused. This is violative of such right because there is nothing in the records
the English Rule which is broader. that would indicate that the accused was forced, intimidated or
compelled by the trial court or by anybody to admit crimes. At
What if he does not want to testify on his own behalf? What if any rate, his plea of guilty and confession or admissions during
he does not want to answer? His silence will not prejudice the search inquiry cannot be the sole basis for his conviction in
him, it cannot be taken against him. (General Rule) this case.

(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against “Either party may utilize testimony of … ”
him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its Let’s say, there is this criminal case against the accused and it
evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out is estafa. Now, the witness is dead. So, what happens to this
of or can not with due diligence be found in the
right to confront the witness?
Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify,
given in another case or proceeding, judicial or  What if before criminal case, there was a civil case for
administrative, involving the same parties and subject collection by victim against accused and was able to
matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross- present evidence and present Witness X, where he was
examine him. cross-examined. And then, the prosecution filed an
INF for estafa against accused, the collection case is
6. RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION suspended, in the meantime, Witness X died, so can
the prosecution use the testimony of Witness X in the
Right guaranteed: The accused has the right to confront and criminal case?
cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
YES. It involves same parties and subject matter, and the
Addition benefit granted Sec. 1(f) accused was given the opportunity to cross-examine. It need
Either party may use as evidence testimony of a witness who is not be done in the criminal case, whether civil or
not present during trial, provided: administrative case as long as same parties and same cause. It
1. Said witness is: is only if the witness is dead, or cannot with due diligence be
a. Deceased, found in the Philippines, unavailable to testify.
b. Out of or can not with due diligence be  General Rule: Witness must testify.
found in the Philippines;
c. Unavailable; or The right to confront and cross-examine does not include the
d. Otherwise unable to testify; and right to know their names and addresses in advance. The case
2. Said testimony was given by the witness in another of the prosecution might be in danger, the confrontation right
case or proceeding: given is during the trial.
a. Judicial or administrative; and
b. Involving the same parties or subject matter; Jurisprudential Doctrines
and In People v. Santos (1985), the court ruled that the right was
3. The adverse party had the opportunity to cross- violated when the RTC convicted accused of murder based
examine said witness. mainly on an affidavit which affiant did not testify during trial.
Purpose of Right to Confrontation In People v. Narca (1997), where the death of witness prevents
1. Secure opportunity of cross-examination; and the cross-examination, to strike out what has obtained in the
2. Allow the judge to observe the deportment and direct examination, when the accused himself moved for the
appearance of witness while testifying. deferment of the cross-examination is not permissible. What
(People v. Ortiz-Miyake, 1997). the right grants is the opportunity and not actual cross
examination thus losing such opportunity when he sought for
Right to Confrontation Includes Cross-Examination the deferment he has only himself to blame.
This happens when there is a witness presented by the
prosecution. For example, Witness X, witness of the crime, In People v. Digno, Jr. (1995), when a witness for the
asking questions, Witness X has testified the narration. This prosecution has not be cross-examined for her testimony, it
right contains of the lawyer the accused to cross-examine should be the counsel who should move and has the burden of
against him. ensuring her cross-examination for some other time.
In relation to Section 1(c) on Right to be Present In People v. Nadera (2000), the decision of the counsel not to
Let us say Witness X is being presented, and then he is actually cross-examine the victim due to manifest lack of enthusiasm
supposed to identify the accused, but accused is not around for his client’s cause amounts to a violation of the right to
despite he was arraigned but he did not appear. So, the confrontation of the accused.
prosecution presented a video, and the witness pointed at the
accused in the video. The lawyer of the accused was in court, Testimony in Preliminary Investigation
can he cross-examine the witness? Yes, he can. Q. May the testimony of a witness taken during PI be used in
 He just waives his presence during that day, the lawyer evidence against the accused where said witness died before
is not deprived. he could testify at the trial?
Another situation, Here we have the witness, on the day of the YES. The testimonies given by witnesses during PI can
trial, the City Jail reported that accused escape. Can his lawyer be admitted as evidence when such testimony was taken by
still cross-examine? No. This right to cross-examine is question and answer in the presence of defendant or his
waivable, by escaping and jumping bail he waives his right. attorney and there was opportunity for cross-examine the
witness who is now dead (De Leon v. People, 1992).

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the In Re: Request TV/Radio Coverage of Plunder Case (June 29,
attendance of witness and production of other evidence in 2001), the request of the KBP to allow live media coverage of
his behalf. the trial of Former President Estrada was denied on the ground
that the rights of the accused is preferred over the free press
7. COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE WITNESSES AND because a television coverage can impair the performance of
EVIDENCE FOR HIS BEHALF (SUBPOENA) the judge and can destroy case of accused in the eyes of public.
Right to Compulsory Process In the Reconsideration (September 13, 2001), the court still
The accused has the right to compulsory process, meaning that denied the request for coverage but emphasized that the audio
the witness he wants to present can be forced to attend by visual recording be preserved but it will not be for live
means of subpoena. He can also compel people to bring broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later will they
evidence to help him in his trial. be available for public showing after SB promulgate decision.
 Now there is a 100km limit to compel witnesses to
attend, if the witness resides more than, he cannot C. Public Trial
forced to attend trial – this does not apply to criminal Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be
cases, even if the witness is in Baguio, he can be committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant. It
compelled because of this right. suffices to be considered public trial as long as the door of the
court are open for the public to come in. These rights belong
Requisites (People v. Chua, 2001). to the accused and can be waived.
(a) That the evidence is really material;
(b) That he is not guilty of neglect in previously obtaining Exceptions:
the production of such evidence; 1. Trial of cases involving child abuse;
(c) That the evidence will be available at the time desired; 2. Trial of cases involving rape
(d) That no similar evidence could be obtained.
(i) To be exempted from being compelled to be a witness
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. against himself.
8. SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL 9. RIGHT TO APPEAL

This is a definite constitutional right. The judge must be The right to appeal is not a constitutional right, this is a
impartial. It must be public, it is better so that everyone will see statutory right and the party who seeks to avail of it must
what is going on. faithfully comply with the rules (People v. de la Concha, 2002).
A. Speedy Trial The right to appeal is only the first appeal. The first appeal is
The right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when the a notice of appeal you are notifying the court that you are
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and appealing its decision. A second appeal is now a petition for
oppressive delays or when unjustified postponements of the review. In first appeal, the court has no choice.
trial are asked for and secured.
Factors Considered in Yulo v. People 452 SCRA 705, 2005

1. The length of the delay;
2. The reasons for such delay;
3. The assertion or failure to assert such right by the
accused;
4. The prejudice caused by the delay.
B. Impartial Trial
In People v. Sanchez (1999), the intensive publicity of a trial
does not violate the right to a fair trial. Intensive publicity is not
per se prejudicial for it does not prove that the publicity so
permeated to the mind of judge impaired his impartiality. There
must be actual prejudice and proof is required.
In Estrada v. Desierto (2001), even though there was pre-trial

publicity and hate campaign was present, the mere fact that the
proceeding was given a day to day coverage does not prove
that the publicity so permeated the mind of the tribunal and its
impartiality, the test of actual prejudice cannot be replaced
with the rule of res ipsa loquitur. Thus, the media coverage does
not necessary violate the right to impartial trial.

Commentary: It must be the particular branch and must be
RULE 116 made in the open court. The court will ask him if he has no
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA lawyer, then the plea is not yet given or declared.
Arraignment Is the arraignment waivable?

Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing Arraignment is mandatory, but in People v. Cabale (1990), if
the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the the case goes directly to trial without any objection and the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. Its purpose is counsel and court overlooked. But note the use of the word
to apprise the accused why he is being prosecuted by the State. must so nowadays arraignment is clearly mandatory.
As such, it is an indispensable require of due process and thus,
cannot be regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily What is the effect of arraignment on irregular PI?
(Taglay v. Daray, 678 SCRA 640, August 22, 2012). According in Go v. CA, the right to PI is waived if the accused
fails invoke the objection upon entering his plea, unless there
Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned is actively and consistently demanding for PI even before the
so that he may be informed of the reason for his indictment, arraignment in court his acts and his counsel acts are
the specific charges he is bound to face and the corresponding inconsistent to a waiver – this is a continuing objection thus it
penalty that could be possibly meted against him. can be raised (Larranaga v. CA).
It is at this stage that the accused for the first time, is given the Waiver of Reading Information
opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. IT Q. May counsel for the accused waive the reading of the
is only imperative that he is, thus, made fully aware of the information during the arraignment and manifest that accused
possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the is pleading not guilty to the charge?
nature of the imputed crime (Kummer v. People, 2013).
No. In Marcos v. Ruiz 213 SCRA 177 (1992), the
Section 1. Arraignment and Plea; How Made. – counsel alone cannot waive the reading of the information, it is
(a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the accused himself that must be made to confirm the
the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. manifestation to make the plea.
The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge
or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the
complaint or information, reading the same in the The accused of course can ask the court “please do not read
language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether the information”, for the purpose is to inform him, if he already
he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at read it and manifests and writes it under oath that he knows of
the trial witnesses other than those named in the the crime he is charged with, there is no need, but it must be
complaint or information. the accused.
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH A NOTE: He shall be given a copy of the information upon such
ARRAIGNMENT; PROCEDURE instance. Technically, only time he will receive INF.
A. The accused must be arraigned before the court where: (b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and
1. The information is filed, or must personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea
2. Assigned for trial must be made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect
the validity of the proceedings.
B. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the
judge or clerk by: SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH B
1. Furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint PRESENCE OF ACCUSED AT ARRAIGNMENT
or information;
2. Reading the same in the language or dialect known to A. The accused must:
him; and 1. Be present at the arraignment; and
3. Asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. 2. Must personally enter his plea
C. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than B. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record
those named in the complaint or information. But failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the
proceedings.
Language Known to Accused
In People v. Alicando (1995), the information for rape was in Comment: After an accused learns of the crime charged
English, the record of arraignment does not reveal that the against him, he can consult with a lawyer and then the lawyer
information against him was in the language or dialect known will ask him, so there will be a discussed, and then they will
to him. Here, the arraignment was held invalid, it cannot be decide what plea to enter “guilty” or “not guilty”. Both
presumed that the arraignment was regularly conducted. arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure will
not invalidate proceedings.

Duties of Judge when Accused Does not have Counsel Example: When accused present a video that he was forced to
1. To inform the accused that he has the right to have stab the victim, this is no longer a guilty plea.
his own counsel before being arraigned;
2. After giving such information, to ask accused whether When you enter a plea of guilty, you do not present evidence
he desires the aid of counsel; to prove innocence, because there is admission of the
3. If he so desires to procure the services of counsel, the commission of the crime.
court must grant him reasonable time to do so; and
4. If he so desires to have counsel but is unable to (e) When the accused is under preventive detention, his
employ one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the
to defend him. judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) days
from the filing of the information or complaint. The
accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from the
NOTE: The judge will have to postpone, arraignment will be date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall
postponed to give time accused to find private counsel. be held within ten (10) days after arraignment..
Exception: Only when the accused states that he waives his

SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH E
right to counsel at arraignment and a showing that he is
When Accused is Under Preventive Detention
capable to defend himself.
1. His case shall be raffled
2. Within 3 days from the filing of the information or
(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a complaint;
conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for
a. The records of his case shall be transmitted
him.
to the judge to whom the case was raffled
3. Within 10 days from the date of the raffle:
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH C
a. He shall be arraigned
When Plea of Not Guilty Shall be Entered for Accused
4. Within 10 days after arraignment:
1. When the accused refuses to plead; or
a. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be
2. When the accused makes a conditional plea.
held.
Refusal to Plea or Conditional Plea – Not guilty.

Comment: If accused is in preventive detention for his crime
This is done when accused is in silence of keeps quiet, the court
is either non-bailable or did not avail of bail.
will enter for him. The plea must be guilty or not guilty period,
if is guilty but, this is conditional. It is better to state not guilty.
What is a Raffle?
Here in Davao, we have the Hall of Justice, each branch has its
What is Deemed Admitted in a Plea of Guilty?
own room, court room. There is a main Clerk of Court for the
People v. Egido, when an unqualified plea of guilty is
RTC and MTC this is where the cases go. When information is
mitigating circumstance, it is an admission of the material facts
filed, in the Main Clerk of Court, they will have a raffle to which
alleged in information including the aggravating circumstances
branch the case will go. The accused cannot choose a court for
cited in the information. When he admits plea of guilty, the
it is random.
prosecution needs not to prove his guilt anymore, all the
material allegations are deemed admitted.
Q. Does it refer calendar days or working days?
It does not say. It is just to ensure that the detainee
What are deemed Not Admitted?
will have the right to speedy trial.
 Those not alleged in the information;
 Conclusions of fact (therefore, there is bad faith)
(f) The private offended party shall be required to appear
 Jurisdiction of the court at the arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining,
 Sufficiency of the complaint or information determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring
He can still question compliance of Rule 110 his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to
appear despite due notice, the court may allow the
(d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is
exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn necessarily included in the offense charged with the
and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH D SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH F

Effects when Accused Presents Exculpatory Evidence THE PRIVATE OFFENDED PARTY
1. His plea shall be deemed withdrawn, and
2. A plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. A. The private offended party shall be required to appear
at the arraignment for purposes of:
Despite a Plea of Guilty 1. Plea bargaining;
The effect is that the plea shall be deemed withdrawn, these 2. Determination of the civil liability; and
are evidence that will extinguish criminal liability. 3. Other matters requiring his presence.

B. Effect of failure of offended party to appear despite due accused until the petition for review with the SOJ is resolved.
notice: The delay here is justified because the importance is based on
1. The court may allow the accused to enter a plea of the exhaustion of administrative liabilities, an immediate
guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included arraignment would have then proscribed right of accused to
in the offense charged, and appeal the resolution of the prosecutor to the SOJ.
2. Only the conformity of the trial prosecutor is required.
NOTE: This was decided before December 2000, but now NO,
Plea Bargaining the court is not obligated to suspend the proceedings or
You plead guilty to a lower offense, it means plead of guilty, arraignment.
there is no longer a trial, the only thing here is how much the
accused pay to civil liability. During the arraignment, the PEOPLE v. PANGILINAN
accused can ask for civil liability. Even though there was two years of the belated arraignment
but the counsel actively participated. There is already trial even
Before, the accused can plead to a different non-related without arraignment, but counsel participated, it is in a way, the
offense. Now, the plea of guilt that is necessarily included like lawyer has entered a plea of not guilty. The non-arraignment is
homicide and murder. not fatal but there is already trial. As long as the purpose of the
arraignment has been fulfilled. Even if it was done belatedly, it
(g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or was just a formal defect.
Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall be held
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires OBLES v. BUEMIO
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of the
There was a motion to dismiss the information on the ground
pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill or particulars
or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment of violation of right to speedy. His warrant was withdrawn.
shall be excluded in computing the period. There was a third reschedule. There 253 days delay between the
arraignment and the final schedule of the pre-trial. This case
SECTION 1 PARAGRAPH G cited Rule 116, Section 1(g). There is SC Circular No. 38-98:
TIME OF ARRAIGNMENT requiring the arraignment and pre-trial within 30 days from
acquiring jurisdiction of accused.
A. When arraignment shall be held:
1. General rule: Within 30 days from the date the court Speedy trial is the relative terms and necessarily involves a
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused degree of flexibility. Such right to speedy trial is violated when
2. Exception: Unless shorter period is provided by: there is oppressive. Because Olbes did not oppose to the
a. Special law, or reschedules, and it was beyond the control of the court. The
b. Supreme Court Circular court does not find a violation to the speedy trial, did not
deliberately delayed.
B. The following shall be excluded in the computing the
30 day period: KUMMER v. PEOPLE
1. The time of pendency In an amended information or complaint, the need for
a. Of a motion to quash, or arraignment is equally imperative. However, this pertains only
b. For a bill of particulars; or to substantial amendments but not formal amendments. The
2. Other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment change of date of commission is merely formal. If there is an
amendment after arraignment but only formal. If only formal,
NOTE: This is for the accused who is NOT in detention for there is no need for a new arraignment.
under (e) there is 13 days but if he is on bail, (g) applies.
Section 2. Plea of Guilty to a Lesser Offense. – At
Time of Arraignment (Possible Oversight by Court) arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the
offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial
In People v. Cabale 185 SCRA 140 (1990), here the accused court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
was tried without first being arraigned and that it was included in the offense charged. After arraignment but
discovered after case was submitted for decision, thus he was before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty
arraigned before judgment, he was convicted. to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not
guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is
Here, the court held that the arraignment is valid because the necessary.
error was deemed non-prejudicial and has been cured. The
interest of accused has not suffered and that the counsel PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
entered into trial without objecting that his client had not yet
been arraigned. A. Requisites
1. Such plea may be made by the accused:
Indefinite Suspension of Arraignment a. During arraignment, or
In Solar Team v. How 338 SCRA 511, the court ruled that the b. After arraignment but before trial;
trial court may indefinitely suspend the arraignment of the

2. The lesser offense must be necessarily included in It Must be Before Trial
the offense charged; The plea of guilt must be before trial. In People v. Villarama
it was allowed by court before prosecution rests, but this is a
3. It must be made with the consent of: 1992 case. But now, it is clear IT MUST BE BEFORE TRIAL.
a. Offended party; and
b. Public prosecutor Section 3. Plea of Guilty to Capital Offense; Reception of
Evidence. – When the accused pleads guilty to a capital
B. It is not necessary to amend the complaint or information offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into
when the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense. the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution
to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The
Plea Bargaining, Defined accused may present evidence in his behalf.
Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the
accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory
PLEA OF GUILTY TO CAPITAL OFFENSE; EFFECTS
disposition of the case subject to court approval.
A. The court shall:
It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser
1. Conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count
and full comprehension of the consequences of his
indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the
plea; and
grave charge. Ordinarily, plea-bargaining is made during the
2. Require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the
pre-trial stage of the criminal proceedings. However, the law
precise degree of culpability.
still permits the accused sufficient opportunity to change his
plea thereafter (People v. Villarama, 210 SCRA 246, 1992).
B. The accused may present evidence in his behalf.
It normally starts during arraignment. It can still proceed

NOTE: Here, there will still be trial to determine the guilt.
however after arraignment before trial. This is one way of
terminating a case. It must be done before trial. There are still
Content of Searching Inquiry
instances where there can be plea bargaining.
In People v. Tonyacao 433 SCRA 513 (2004), the court ruled
that the mere warning that accused faces penalty of death is
Consent of the Prosecutor
insufficient. The court provided herein the guidelines:
In People v. Villarama, even in “victimless crimes” like the
violation under Dangerous Drugs Act, there is still a need to
(1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought
secure consent of the prosecutor for it is to be reminded that
into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance
the State is also an offended party in a criminal offense.
of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary
investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained
Meaning of “Lesser Offense”
and interrogated during the investigations.
While the rules allow that the accused can plead guilty to a
“lesser offense regardless whether or not it is necessarily
(2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether
included in the crime charged” it is important to note however,
he had conferred with, and completely explained to, the
that if the fact of death was there, logic and plain common
accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.
sense would not allow a plea from homicide to attempted
(3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the
homicide as a consequence of plea bargaining agreement, this
accused, such as his age, socio-economic status, and
is not allowed (Amatan v. Aujero, 1995).
educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy
index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.
Plea Bargaining to a Lesser Penalty; Not Allowed
Q. May accused plead guilty to an offense but ask for a penalty (4) Inform the accused of the exact length of imprisonment or
lower that what is imposed by law for the crime to which he
nature of the penalty under the law and the certainty that he
pleaded guilty? will serve such sentence.
NO. People v. Magat 332 SCRA 517, En Banc (2000) (5) Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is
provides that the only instance when plea bargaining is allowed
charged and to fully explain to him the elements of the crime
under the rules is when an accused pleads guilty to a lesser
which the basis of his indictment is.
offense under Rule116, Section 2. What happened here is not
correct, because by pleading guilty to the offense charged, the
(6) All questions posed to the accused should be in a language
accused should be sentenced to the penalty to which he
known and understood by the latter.
pleaded thereto.
(7) The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in
NOTE: In People v. Patrolla, Jr. 254 SCRA 467 (1996), the plea
pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be required to
of guilty by one accused that he alone committed the crime
narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or furnish its missing
does not operate to acquit the co-accused.
details.

Effect on Aggravating Circumstance Plea of Guilty to Non-Capital Offenses
In People v. Latupan (2001), a plea of guilty to murder does Effect: The court may receive evidence from the parties
not mean that the accused admits to the aggravating Purpose: To determine the penalty imposed
circumstances for these must be proven with equal certainty.  Necessarily includes civil liability.
 This is a conflicting ruling, but note here what
involves here is a capital offense. Acquittal Despite Plea of Guilty
In People v. Mendoza (1994), where an accused pleads guilty,
In People v. Albert, an improvident plea where the court must it does not mean he is automatically convicted. Additional
proceed with more care, for the execution of such sentence is evidence independent of the plea may be considered to
irrevocable. This is to avoid improvident plea of guilty, wherein convince the judge that it was intelligently made.
the accused will waive his life and liberty without fully knowing
the consequences of his plea. What is an Improvident Plea?
It is usually a plea that is involuntarily made and without
Searching Inquiry must focus on the voluntariness of the plea consent. A plea is usually considered improvident when there
and the circumstances to such plea of guilty. was failure to conduct searching inquiry, failure of prosecution
to present evidence or no rational basis between the testimony
PEOPLE v. GUMIMBA (2007) and of the guilt.
He was charged with rape with homicide, he pleaded not guilty
during arraignment but changed his earlier plea to plea of Plea of Guilty in Non-Capital Offense
guilty, which RTC allowed but an inquiry was conducted. There is usually no trial but a hearing for civil liability and for
the imposition of judgment. Can he still withdraw this? As long
During an inquiry there was a question and answers whether he as the judgment of conviction has not become final (Sec. 5).
voluntarily plead guilty and was he aware of consequences. He
contends that his plea was an improvident plea of guilty. Section 5. Withdrawal of Improvident Plea of Guilty. – At
any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final,
In this case, his plea was improvident. There are three the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be
withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
conditions to obviate and improvident plea of guilty:
1. Conduct a searching inquiry;
2. Require the prosecution to present evidence; Withdrawal of an Improvident Plea of Guilty
3. Ask the accused if he would want to present his own 1. When it can be done: at any time before the
evidence. judgment of conviction becomes final.
2. Effect when withdrawal is made: The guilty plea
There is no hard and fast rule in determining an improvident shall be substituted by a plea of not guilty.
plea of guilty. Each case must be measured according to its own
merit. When to Raise Improvident Plea
1. Raising Issue on Appeal
The court did not observe strictly the compliance because a
mere warning that accused faces the penalty of death is People v. Salamillo
insufficient. Such procedure falls short of the exacting 404 SCRA 211 | June 23, 2003
guidelines in the conduct of a search inquiry.
Accused here was charged with robbery with homicide. He
He was not ascertained how he was brought into the custody pleaded guilty, but during trial he testified that he did so
of the law. The court also did not elicit information about the because a policeman threatened to kill him if he pleaded
personality profile of Gumimba. not guilty. On review after he was sentenced to death, he
raised the issue that his plea was improvidently made.
His plea was not the sole basis of judgment however. The
convictions based of improvident plea are set aside only if such Issue: Should he be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty?
plea is the sole basis of judgment.
NO. The provision states that there should be a
It is very important for the prosecution to still present evidence categorical declaration from the accused that he withdraws
to prove the guilt of the accused because the plea of the his plea of guilty and substituting it with a plea of not guilty. In
accused must not be the sole basis of the conviction or non- this case, there is nothing in the records to show that accused
conviction of the accused. Prosecution still has to prove. filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, or that he,
manifested unequivocally that he was withdrawing his plea. His
Section 4. Plea of Guilty to Non-capital Offense; testimony during trial is not a categorical declaration.
Reception of Evidence, Discretionary. – When the accused
pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may 2. Raising Issue After Finality of Judgment
receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty In Palo v. Militante (1990), when the accused applied for
to be imposed. probation that judgment in criminal cases becomes final, thus,

the judgment having become final, the judge is not vested with Q. Where the accused appears for trial without counsel and his
any discretion to allow the alleged improvident plea of guilty motion for postponement is denied, is the court required to
to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. appoint a counsel de oficio for him?
Section 6. Duty of the Court to Inform Accused of his NO. The duty of the court to appoint is mandatory
Right to Counsel. – Before arraignment, the court shall only at the time of arraignment. This is no longer where accused
inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he proceeded with arraignment and trial with a counsel of his
desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to
choice but when the time for presentation of the evidence for
defend himself in person or has employed counsel of his
choice, the court must assign a counsel de officio to defend the defense has arrived, he appears by himself alone and the
him. absence of his counsel was inexcusable (Sayson v. People).
Right of Accused to Counsel Section 8. Time for Counsel de Oficio to Prepare for
Arraignment. – Whenever a counsel de oficio is appointed
1. The accused has a right to be assisted by counsel
by the court to defend the accused at the arraignment, he
during his trial shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the
2. Before arraignment, the court shall: accused as to his plea before proceeding with the
a. Inform him of his right, and arraignment.
b. Ask him if he desired t have one
3. The court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend Postponement of Arraignment
the accused, unless In Arquero v. Mendoza 315 SCRA 503 (1999), the court did not
a. He is allowed to defend himself in person grant the postponement when the accused appeared with new
b. He has employed counsel of his choice counsel on the ground that his services has just been hired.
Duties of the Court BEFORE Arraignment Usually, when the Court assigns de counsel de oficio for the
1. To inform the accused that he has the right to have accused at the arraignment, he shall be given at least one hour
his own counsel before being arraigned; to consult with the accused as to his plea before proceeding
2. After giving such information, to ask accused whether with the arraignment. There is no reason why the counsel in this
he desires the aid of counsel; case could not have been required to confer to prepare.
3. If he so desires to procure the services of counsel, the
court must grant him reasonable time to do so; and Section 9. Bill of Particulars – The accused may, before
4. If he so desires to have counsel but is unable to arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him
employ one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall
to defend him. specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information
and the details desired.
(People v. Agbayani, 1998, En Banc).
Section 7. Appointment of Counsel de Oficio. – The court, Bill of Particulars

considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of 1. When accused can move for a bill of particulars:
the questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de before arraignment
officio such members of the bar in good standing who, by 2. Purpose for moving for a bill of particulars: to
reason of their experience and ability, can competently enable the accused properly to plead and prepare for
defend the accused. But in localities where such members
trial
of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person, resident of the province and of good repute for 3. What to motion shall specify
probity and ability, to defend the accused. a. The alleged defects of the complaint or
information, and
Appointment of Counsel De Oficio b. The details desired.
1. What the court must consider before appointing a
counsel de oficio for the accused: What is a Bill of Particulars?
a. The gravity of the offense, and It is a written statement or specification of the particulars of the
b. The difficulty of the questions that may arise demand for which an action at law is brought, or of a
2. Whom can the court appoint as counsel de oficio defendant’s set-off against demand, (including dates, sums,
a. Such members of the bar in good standing, and items in detail,) furnished by one of the parties to the other,
who by reason of their experience and ability, either voluntarily or in compliance with a judge’s order for that
can competently defend the accused purpose (Black’s Law Dictionary). This is normally filed by the
b. In localities where such members of the bar accused when the allegations in the information are too vague,
are not available – any person, resident of the too general and not specific enough, and this must be done for
province of and of good repute for probity the accused to properly prepare for his trial.
and ability, to defend the accused.
This is normally filed by the accused when he finds that the
Applicability during Trial allegations in the information are vague, not specific enough or
not detailed enough. It is to enable preparation for trial.

One of the modes of discovery. The filing is to enable accused b. Any designated documents, papers, books,
to prepare, this is an avenue given to a party to find out more accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
about him. This is normally done before arraignment. tangible things.
2. Not otherwise privileged;
WEBB v. DE LEON (2007) 3. Which constitute or contain evidence material to any
Webb filed violation of right to discovery procedure of PI for matter involved in the case; and
suppressing sworn statements and evidence. Are modes of 4. Which are in the possession or under the control of
discovery like right to move bill of particulars and production a. The prosecution;
or inspection of material evidence in possession of the b. The police; or
prosecution, may be availed during PI? YES. c. Other law investigating agencies.
What was used was the 1985 Rules, under Section 10 and 11, COMMENT: Anything that is in the hands of the prosecutor,
the failure to provide by the rules does not negate its use the accused has the right to inspect it. When the accused wants
during PI. They very reason because in this stage, for the liberty to view these evidences, his remedy is to file under Section 10/
of accused is at stake. The risk of to the Liberty of Webb cannot
be understated which was non-bailable, which needs to prove Section 11. Suspension of Arraignment. – Upon motion
the strength of evidence. There was also exculpatory character by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended
of documents: in the following cases:
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound

Comment: Why deprive the accused of such right? This is really mental condition which effectively renders him unable to
part of the due process that the accused is entitled to, and if he fully understand the charge against him and to plead
wants to check documents and things, even still under PI, why intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his
not? The failure to provide discovery proceedings for PI by rule mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for
does not negate its issue in PI if liberty if at stake, this is penned such purpose;
by Justice Puno. In cases like this, they involve a long PI stage
(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and
thus discovery proceedings were allowed, the court here had
acquitted Webb. (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor
is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office
Section 10. Production or Inspection of Material of the President; provided, that the period of suspension
Evidence in Possession of Prosecution. – Upon motion of shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of
the accused showing good cause and with notice to the the petition with the reviewing office.
parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise,
suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT
produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing of any written statement given by the
complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of A. Requisites for Suspension
the offense conducted by the prosecution or other 1. The proper party must file a motion for suspension
investigating officers, as well as any designated 2. The proper ground must be present
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,
object, or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which B. Grounds For Suspension
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter
1. The accused appears to be suffering from an
involved in the case and which are in the possession or
under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law UNSOUND MENTAL CONDITION which effectively
investigating agencies. renders him unable to fully understand the charge
against him and to plead intelligently thereto.
Production and Inspection of Material Evidence Effect: The court shall order his mental
A. Requisites examination, if necessary, his confinement
1. The accused must file a motion showing good cause; for such purpose.
2. There must be notice to the parties
2. There exists a PREJUDICIAL QUESTION; and
B. Purpose of production: to prevent surprise, suppression
or alteration. 3. A PETITION FOR REVIEW of the resolution of the
prosecutor is pending at either the Department of
C. How the court shall resolve the motion Justice or the Office of the President.
It may order the prosecution: However: the period of suspension shall not
1. To produce and permit the inspection and copying exceed 60 days from the filing of the petition
or photographing of: with the reviewing office.
a. Any written statement given by complainant
and other witnesses in any investigation of Pendency of Appeal with DOJ
the offense conducted by the prosecution or Q. Can the trial court order proceedings to continue despite the
other investigating officers, pendency of an appeal with the DOJ?

YES. Under Section 6, Rule 112, the judge shall issue
the arrest warrant if he finds PC after personally evaluating the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
It bears stressing that the court is not bound to adopt the

resolution of the SOJ since the court is mandated to
independently evaluate or asses the merits of the case, and may
either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the SOJ.
Reliance alone on resolution would be an abdication of the trial
court’s duty and jurisdiction to determine prima facie case.
Evidently, when the RTC judge issued the order, it was merely
performing his mandated duty to personally determine the
existence of PC and thus arrive at a resolution of the motion to
dismiss. Having found probable cause, the RTC acted well
within its authority in denying such motion to dismiss.
DINO v. OLIVARES (2009)

Two resolutions were filed find Olivares accountable for vote
buying Olivares filed appeal to COMELEC, Olivares filed MTQ
for being duplicitous. Before judge can act to the MTQ, the ACP
filed an opposition to the MTQ,, and motion to admit amended
INF. Judge Madrona issued order denying the MTQ and
admitted the amended INF. Olivares failed to appear before
RTC, thus ordering arrest for the confiscated bail bond.
 Did judge acted properly when he failed to defer the

arraignment? – NO
Section 11(c), there is no indefinite suspension of arraignment,

but only for 60 days, he filed appeal in COMELEC in Oct. 7; made
rescheduled from Oct 11 to Dec. 13; the MTQ reset it to Feb. 1;
the total is more than 5 months. The judge cannot wait for the
appeal only for 60 days.
 Similar to the case of Sps. Trinidad v. Ang

Motion to Quash, a Hypothetical Admission of Facts
RULE 117 In Milo v. Salanga 152 SCRA 113 (1987), factual allegations can
MOTION TO QUASH only be raised as a defense at the trial. In resolving a motion to
quash, courts cannot considered facts contrary to those alleged
Motion to Quash in the information which do not appear on the face of the
It is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a information.
criminal complaint or information filed against him for
insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are This is because a motion to quash is a hypothetical admission
apparent in the face of the information. of the facts alleged in the information. Matters of defense
 Motion to Dismiss refers to the case, but when it cannot be proved during a hearing for a motion to quash,
comes to the information, it is a Motion to Quash. except when Rules allows, prescription or double jeopardy.
Section 1. Time to Move to Quash. – At any time before Comment: Obviously, there are no oral motions, it may be
entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the signed by the accused or the lawyer, what is important is that it
complaint or information. states he factual and legal grounds.
Comment: Technically, the accused is deemed to know about Section 3. Grounds. – The accused may move to quash the
INF is during arraignment, so it can be seen that this is complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
problematic, what if the accused did not know? There must be
a period so accused can file MTQ. (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
When No Motion is Filed NOTE: If I will file a MTQ; I shall include the grounds that are
Q. May the judge quash an information without any motion applicable to the case of the client. This is called Omnibus
from the accused? Motion Rule (Rule 9, Section 1), you should include all the
ground available; otherwise they cannot be considered in the
NO. It is clear from the rules that the right to file a future. So all of the other grounds are waivable, except when
motion to quash belongs only to the accused. There is nothing there is lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to motu proprio
initiate motion to quash (People v. Nitafan, 1999). Basis of Determination Whether Facts Constitute Offense
Q. What is the test to determine whether or not the information
Motion to Quash After Arraignment; Special Instances charges an offense?
Q. May an accused file a motion to quash after arraignment?
The fundamental test of the viability of the motion to
YES. Under Rule 117, Section 9, motion to quash is not quash on the ground that the facts averred in the information
improper even after arraignment if the same is grounded on do not amount to an offense is whether the facts alleged
the failure to charge an offense and lack of jurisdiction of the would establish the essential elements of the crime as
offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and defined by law. In this examination, matters aliunde are not
double jeopardy (Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, 2000). considered (Mendoza-Ong v. People, 2003).
Section 2. Forms and Contents. – The motion to quash Hypothetical Admission

shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his counsel In Lopez v. Sandiganbayan, when an information is filed,
and shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. whether or not what stated therein is true, it does not matter
The court shall consider no ground other than those stated what is important at this stage is that the information must be
in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense
complete, determination of such falsity is during trial. Thus,
charged.
look at the allegation if the facts charged do not constitute an
offense then MTQ can be filed.
Forms and Contents of a Motion to Quash
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
Form: the offense charged;
1. It must be in writing; and
2. It must be signed by the accused or his counsel.
Basis for Determining Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the
Contents:
allegations of the complaint. In resolving such motion, the
1. General Rule: The motion shall distinctly specify
facts contained in the complaint should be taken as they are.
its factual and legal grounds and the court will
not consider any ground not stated in the motion.
This involves both jurisdiction over subject matter and the
2. Exception: The only ground that the court may
territorial jurisdiction and out of all the grounds, this is one
consider motu proprio even if not raised in the
which is not waivable and this is the heaviest ground out of
motion is lack of jurisdiction over offense
the following.
charged.

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or
the person of the accused; acquitted of the offense charged or the case against him
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent;
Basis for Determining Jurisdiction (Waivable)
Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court by virtue
of voluntary submission or arrest. To prevent waiver of this Pendency of Two Cases
defense, the accused must raise the lack of jurisdiction Q. While two informations for same offense are still pending
seasonably by motion for the purpose of objecting to the against the accused, may he file a motion to quash invoking
jurisdiction of the court, otherwise he shall be deemed to have double jeopardy?
submitted himself or his persons to the jurisdiction.
No. The mere filing of two informations charging the
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no same offense does not yet afford the accused in those cases
authority to do so; the occasion to complain that he is being placed in double
jeopardy twice for the same offense for the simple reason that
the primary basis for the defense has already been convicted or
Effect of Lack of Authority (Waivable)
acquitted in the first case or that the same has been terminated
The trial court cannot acquire jurisdiction when the officer is
without his consent. Thus, clearly there has been no double
without authority to file the information. But if the accused
jeopardy present to warrant a motion to quash.
pleas this may be construed as a waiver of all formal objections.
GROUNDS FOR A MOTION TO QUASH

(e) That it does not conform substantially to the
prescribed form; (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged;
NOTE: This is also waivable, like failure to have the certification
(c) The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
or the signature according to Rule 110. This is waivable.
person of the accused;
(d) The office who filed the information had no authority to
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a
single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by do so;
law; (e) The complaint or information does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) More than one offense is charged except when a single
Duplicitous Information
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;
The accused, if he fails to object prior to arraignment to such,
(g) The criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
may be found guilty of any or all of the crimes alleged therein
(h) The complaint or information contains averments,
and duly proven during trial. This is waivable.
which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
justification; and
Note the exception under Rule 120, that a failure to object
(i) Double jeopardy.
would allow possible conviction of every offense alleged in the
information despite being duplicitous.
Exclusivity of Grounds Enumerated
The following are not considered grounds for motion to quash:
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished;  Absence of PI (Villaflor v. Vivar, 2001).
 Lack of PC to charge accused (PP v. SB, 2004).

Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code
1. Death of the convict
 Failure to furnish accused with a copy of the resolution
2. Service of sentence
of prosecutor finding probable cause (Vasquez v.
3. Amnesty
Hobilla-Alinio, 1997).
4. Absolute pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
SASOT v. PEOPLE
6. Prescription of the penalty
NBI conducted an investigation by NBA for possible violation
7. Marriage by the offended woman under Article 344
for unfair competition against Sasot. Before arraignment, a
MTQ was filed that the facts do not charge offense, and lack of
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would
constitute a legal excuse or justification; and jurisdiction of Section 3(A) and (B). Was the denial of MTQ
proper? YES. The arguments focused on the alleged defect filed
and capacity of NBA to sue (NBA being a foreign corporation),
NOTE: For example, when in the information, the prosecutor
they are not grounds to MTQ.
charges the accused with homicide saying that X stabbed Y
because Y tried to stab, in which the information itself provides
Comments: There are specific grounds, capacity to sue has
for the legal justification. Or if it alleges that X was insane, then
nothing to do in an information.
a motion to quash may be filed.

TOLENTINO v. JUDEG PAQUEO (2009) Section 4. Amendment of Complaint or Information. – If
INF for violation of RA 8282 involving failure to remit the the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the
premiums of premiums. Tecklo filed MTQ stating that the State complaint or information which can be cured by
amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be
Prosecutor who filed the INF has no authority to commence
made.
such INF. RTC quashed the INF citing Section 3(d) was used.
If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not
RTC held that the INF was filed by Tolentino without approval constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the
of City Prosecutor of Naga City. Was the quashal proper? court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment.
The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to
make the amendment, or the complaint or information
YES. Section 3(d) of Rule 117; Section 3, par. 3 of Rule 112. In
still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment.
order for the officer to be authorized, the information must be
filed with the prior written authority of the provincial, city, etc.
Amendment of Complaint or Information
1. If the motion to quash is based on:
The State Prosecutor does not approve information, he is not
a. An alleged defect of the CMP or INF which
included in the list of officers empowered to file information.
can be cured by amendment:
The non-compliance was a ground to quash the information.
i. Court shall not quash the CMP/INF
outright;
SALIBO v. WARDEN (2009)
ii. It shall order than an amendment
Salibo was suspected to be Malang, who was one 197 accused
be made.
of the Ampatuan Massacre. Salibo went to the police station,
and stated during the massacre he was in Saudi Arabia, he
b. The ground that the facts charged do not
presented the evidence of identification, however, the police
constitute an offense:
officers apprehended Salibo and tore page two of his passport
i. That court shall not quash the CMP
and he was detained for three days. He was transferred to
or INF outright;
Quezon Jail Annex.
ii. It shall give the prosecution an
opportunity to correct the defect by
He filed for a petition for habeas corpus, this was granted, he
amendment.
was released, but this was reversed by the CA saying that the
arrest was valid, and that the proper way is the file MTQ. What
2. The court shall grant the motion to quash the
is the proper remedy?
complaint of information if:
a. Prosecution fails to make the amendment, or
Not motion to quash. He was not validly arrest with
b. The CMP/INF still suffers from the same
the warrant and none of the grounds for the filing MTQ was
defect despite the amendment.
present and this list is exclusive, habeas corpus must be filed.
Requirement of Preliminary Investigation

TORRES v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2016)
Q. When an information is amended, is accused entitled to
COA audited discovered overpricing of medicine at the HPN,
another preliminary investigation?
thus OMB made investigation. Torres was not informed of the
new PI. Eight new informations were filed, he only knew when
Before the plea is taken, the information may be
there was an HDO against him.
amended in substance or form, without leave of court; but if
amended in substance, the accused is entitled to another PI,
Torres field a MTQ based on Section 3(d), that OMB has not
unless amended charge is related to or is included in the
authority to file information. He argued that the PI and fact-
original charge.
finding lasted 18 years – based on the violation of right to
speedy trial.
Thus the rule is: A substantial amendment in an information
entitles an accused to another PI.
MTQ was proper. Basis was violation of the right of
speedy disposition of case, for it involves the fact-finding
However, if the amended information contains a charge related
investigations. The basis for both investigations was the COA
to or is included in the original information, a new PI is not
report and 8 years passed until PI was order and 16 years before
required (Matalam v. Sandiganbayan, 2005).
the OMB found PC.
Comment: So what does a judge do? What happens when a

The office of the ombudsman failed to submit any justifiable
MTQ is filed? It depends on the ground. Clearly, the information
reason.
should not be quash outright for the rules afford the
prosecution an opportunity to correct the information by filing
Comment: Atty. Suarez does not understand why the court
and amended information.
allowed the grant on the ground of “speedy disposition.”
 Section 3(a), (d), (e), (f) are curable by amendment.
 Note however the difference under Section 5.

Section 5. Effect of Sustaining the Motion to Quash. – If Effects when Order to File Another Complaint or
the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that Information is Made by the Court
another complaint or information be filed except as General Rule: This shall not be a bar to another prosecution
provided in section 6 of this rule. If the order is made, the
for the same offense.
accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless
admitted to bail. If no order is made or if having been
made, no new information is filed within the time Exceptions: This shall be a bar to another prosecution for the
specified in the order or within such further time as the same offense if the motion was based on the grounds that:
court may allow for good cause, the accused, if in custody, 1. The criminal liability of the accused has been
shall be discharged unless he is also in custody of another extinguished under Section 3(g); and
charge.
2. Double jeopardy under Section 3(i).
Effects When a Motion to Quash is Sustained GONZALES v. SALVADOR (2006)

General Rule: The court may order that another complaint or Filed MTQ on lack of jurisdiction there being no allegation that
information be filed – referring to a new information. Gonzales resides in Makati or published in Makati. RTC Makati
granted MTQ. Gonzales filed a motion to order the public
Exception: An order sustaining the motion to quash is a bar to prosecutor to amend the information. Dale opposed the
the filing of another complaint or information if the motion was motion contending the order became final after 15 days,
based on the grounds that: stating that RTC did not have power to recall. Was the order to
1. Criminal liablity has been extinguished [Section 3(g)]; file another INF may be filed after quashal.
2. The accused will be placed in double jeopardy 3(i).
NO. Amendment of information under Sec. 4 if the
Effects on the Accused Who is in Custody court finds curable defect by amendment. In Section 5, the
1. If the court issues the order to file a new complaint or order to file another information must be contained in the
information: same order. Gonzales never asked propriety of amendment.
a. And a new information is timely filed – he The order quashing the information was final. Section 5
shall not be discharged unless admitted to presuppose that the previous order to file another information
bail; was given by the court “if having been made”. The order must
b. But no new information is filed within the include such order to file a new information.
time specified – he shall be discharged
unless he is in custody for another charge. Comment: There was a MTQ, and it was granted. Now, it was
2. If the court does not order that a new information is granted on May 29, 2002. This is under Sec. 5, and it says that
filed – he shall be discharged unless he is in custody if the order granting the motion, the court orders the
for another charge. prosecution to file a new information, then the prosecutor must
file. But here there was no order.
Q. What if a motion to quash is denied?
From a denial of a motion to quash, the appropriate remedy is The private offended party asked the court to issue an order to
for accused to go trial on the merits, and if an averse deicison amend the information, is this correct? NO. This is because,
is rendered, appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. this information was already quashed in May 29, 2002 and this
is tantamount to dismissal of the case and becomes final and
Comment: What involves here is that if the MTQ is granted and executory after 15 days. The motion was filed 26 days after, in
the information is quashed, except is based on (g) or (i), there other ways, you cannot amend an information when the case is
can be a filing of a new information and it will not bar such. already dismissed. What information can you amend?
Q. What happens during the period when the MTQ is granted, You can still file a new information, as long as there is no double
and the court requires information to be filed, what happens to jeopardy. Remember a MTQ is filed before arraignment, and
the accused provided that before the prosecution files a new the amendment before arraignment can be formal or
information, there is basically no charge at all? substantial, it can be made before arraignment.
He shall not be released. This is when if the court If you are the prosecutor, you can file an amended information
orders the prosecution to file new information. But if the court if there is MTQ this is to counter the quashal. There is no need
does not order and/or the prosecution does not file a new to wait for an order to amend the information if you are the
information then the accused shall be released. prosecutor. You can do so before arraignment.
Section 6. Order Sustaining the Motion to Quash Not a The problem is if the prosecutor does not do anything, when
Bar to Another Prosecution, Exception. – An order MTQ was filed, the only defect of the INF for it did not state
sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to another
the residence of the offended party, it could have been
prosecution for the same offense unless the motion was
based on the grounds specified in section 3 (g) and (i) of repaired, and the MTQ was granted and it became final. The
this Rule. only thing left is to file for a new information.

DABALOS v. RTC (2013) the motion to quash is not a bar unless the exceptions. This
Dabalos was charged with RA 9292. Dabalos alleged that at the case used Section 3(a), they are yet to prove that the liability
time of the incident he was no longer in a dating relationship was extinguished. Another information can be filed no longer
hence RA 9262 was inapplicable. Whether information alleging an amended information.
a fact contrary to admission. It should not be quashed.
PEOPLE v. BAYABOS (2015)
The information sufficiency alleged the necessary elements, Information was filed against Castillo charging him of RA 3019.
there was period of two days given to the prosecutor to amend He filed supplemental MTQ on the ground of 3(a) stating that
the information to reflect the cessation of dating relationship. the undue injury must not only be mentioned, it must be
specified. SB granted such. Outright quashal was improper.
In the present case, RTC was correct in directing the
amendment of the information and in denying the motion to If it is based on the ground that the facts do not constitute an
quash the same. offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court opportunity
to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be
Comment: If the dating relationship is removed then the crime granted if the prosecution fails to make amendment or the
would different but then again, a substantial amendment information still suffers from the same defect despite the
changing the crime to reflect the true facts or instances is amendment.
allowed. The SC allowed such, amendment can be done.
Thus, when an MTQ is filed challenging validity and sufficiency
PEOPLE v. BAYABOS (2015) of INF, and the defect may be cured by amendment, court must
Balidoy was midshipman for PMMA, he was required to deny the motion to quash and order the prosecution to file an
undergo the indoctrination, he was “hazed” and he died. The amendment Information.
Deputy OMB filed crime against Bayabos et al. for hazing.
In this the courts are mandated NOT to automatically quash
An MTQ was filed that the information did not contain all the the information; rather it should grant the prosecution the
essential elements of the offense because of no allegation that opportunity to cure the defect through an amendment. Even
such indoctrination was a prerequisite to admission to PMMA. assuming information was defected, SB should have ordered
its amendment and not its quashal.
Before Bayabos et al were arraigned, the SB quashed the INF
and dismissed case against them, that the INF did not charge DIO v. PEOPLE (2016)
an offense and that it was mere conclusions of the law. A complaint was filed against Dio. She filed a MTQ under 3(a),
the quashal here was deemed improper because there was a
Q. Was quashal proper? failure to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to
amend is an arbitrary exercise of power. If it can be cured by
YES. The facts did not constitute an offense. The amendment, the court must deny the MTQ and order the
reference to the technical term of hazing, the information is a prosecution to file an amended information.
mere conclusion.
Generally, a defect of 3(a) is one that may be corrected by
Q. Was is the remedy? amendment and the courts are mandated not to automatically
quash information, it should grant the prosecution the cure the
The prosecution was given an opportunity to correct defect an amendment.
the defect by amendment however, he still argued that there
was no defect in the amendment. Section 7. Former Conviction or Acquittal; Double
Jeopardy. – When an accused has been convicted or
Thus, he failed to make an amendment of the complaint of acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of
information. Thus, it follows that the motion to quash shall be
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or
granted, meaning that the MTQ is sustained. information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused
Q. If MTQ is sustained, what is the next remedy? had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of
Section 5, if MTQ is sustained, the court may order a the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to
new INF may be filed. However, the prosecution did not file a another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any
attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for
new information after MTQ grant, and still insisted the there
any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
was still defect. included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information.
Q. Since MTQ is final and order quashing was final, does this
bar the prosecution filing information? However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar
to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the former complaint or
It does not bar. Even though there was order
information under any of the following instances:
quashing the information. Under Section 6, an order sustaining

(a) the graver offense developed due to Three Exceptions under Rule 117(2)
supervening facts arising from the same act or 1. Supervening fact doctrine – Melo doctrine.
omission constituting the former charge; 2. Newly discovered fact
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge
3. When plea of guilty to lesser offense is without
became known or were discovered only after a
plea was entered in the former complaint or consent of prosecutor and offended party
information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY
made without the consent of the prosecutor FIRST JEOPARDY MUST FIRST JEOPARDY MUST
and of the offended party except as provided in
HAVE ATTACHED PRIOR HAVE BEEN VALIDLY
section 1(f) of Rule 116.
TO THE SECOND TERMINATED
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies When first jeopardy When first jeopardy
or serves in whole or in part the judgment, he shall be attached? terminated?
credited with the same in the event of conviction for the 1. When there is a valid 1. When accused is
graver offense. complaint of information. acquitted; or
DOUBLE JEOPARDY 2. The complaint or 2. When accused is

information was filed in a convicted; or
A. REQUISITES TO PLACE THE competent court.
ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY
3. The accused has been 3. When the case is
1. The accused was charged upon a valid complaint or arraigned and has pleaded. otherwise dismissed
information; without the express consent
2. He was tried in a court of competent jurisdiction; of the accused
3. He has been arraigned and has pleaded to the charge
made against him;
SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR
4. He has been convicted or acquitted, or the case
THE SAME OFFENSE OR FOR THE SAME ACT
against him dismissed or otherwise terminated
When second jeopardy for When second jeopardy for
without his express consent;
the same offense? the same act?
5. He is prosecuted anew for:
a. The offense charged; or 1. When two offenses are 1. First charge is for an act
b. Any attempt to commit the same, or any identical. punished by a law and an
frustration thereof; ordinance, and the second
c. Any offense which: 2. When the second is an charge under either is for
i. Necessarily includes the offense attempt to commit the first. the same act.
charged in the former complaint or
information, or 3. When the second is a
ii. Is necessarily included in the frustration of the first.
offense charged in the former
complaint or information. 4. When the first
necessarily incudes the
B. When the conviction of accused shall not be a bar to second.
another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the former complaint or 5. When the first is
information: necessarily included in the
second.
1. The graver offense developed due to supervening
facts arising from the same act or omission Supervening Fact (Melo Doctrine)
constituting the former charge; M stabbed K, frustrated homicide, he was guilty then convicted.
2. The facts constituting the grave charge became After two days, K died, the prosecutor amended the INF for
known or were discovered only after plea was homicide. There is no double jeopardy.
entered in the former complaint or information; or
3. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made The graver offense of homicide developed through the
without the consent of: supervening fact.
a. The prosecutor; and
b. The offended party, except when Newly Discovered Fact
i. The offended party fails to appear M shot K, K was confined, M was charged with FH, he arraigned
despite due notice; or but he did not know that K died that night, he was convicted,
ii. There is no offended party. Prosecutor wants to amend to INF, there is no double jeopardy.

Plea Bargain to a Lower Offense Without Consent Under the rules, pleading guilty to a lesser offense or condition
If prosecutor files anew, there is no jeopardy if the consent of subject to a proviso, a conditional plea is equivalent to a plea
the prosecutor and the offended party, unless the private of not guilty. Thus, the judgment of the court based on a void
prosecutor and offended party did not attend arraignment. plea-bargaining is also void ab initio, so that double jeopardy
here will not lie.
Two kinds of Double Jeopardy
1. Same offense In People v. Dela Torre (2002), an appeal for sole purpose for
2. Same act involving a law and an ordinance increasing penalty will violate right against double jeopardy.
VALID TERMINATION OF FIRST JEOPARDY However in People v. Rondero (1999), when the accused
1. Acquittal – absolves the accused immediately, it is a himself appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives
rule that when an accused is acquitted, such judgment his right against double jeopardy and throws the whole case
is final and executory. open for review of the appellate court, which is then called to
GR: Acquittal cannot be appealed; render judgment as the law and justice dictate.
XPN: Reopening of the case is allowed when:
(1) State was denied due process Appeal of Civil Liability
(2) Judgment with grave abuse of When an accused humps bail, he is deemed to have abandoned
discretion amounting to lack or his appeal, the judgment against him has become final and
excess of jurisdiction. executory, if his employer appeals, the aim is to have the
accused employee absolved of the criminal responsibility and
2. Conviction – This involves the determination that judgment reviewed as a whole (Phil. Rabbit v. People, 2004).
there is guilt of the accused.
NOTE: 15 days before finality A. Previous Acquittal
In Argel v. Pascua (2001), it is an elementary rule that a
3. Dismissed or Otherwise Terminated without the decision once final is no longer susceptible to amendment or
Express Consent of the Accused alteration except to correct errors which are clerical in nature.
GR: Double jeopardy applies when such In criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately
dismissal or termination was without the final upon its promulgation.
consent of the accused.
However, in Vincoy v. CA (2004), a dismissal of a case during
XPN: There is grave abuse of discretion in the PI does not constitute double jeopardy since a PI is not part
dismissing the case. of the trial and not the full display of evidence and it is just to
engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been
XPNTO THE XPN: The following: committed and accused is probably guilty to hold for trial.
(1) Violation right to speedy trial
(2) Grant of demurrer to evidence In People v. Velasco (2000), the doctrine of double jeopardy
(3) Discharged as state witness may not be invoked after trial and may apply only when the
Court finds that the criminal trial was a sham because the
Jurisprudential Doctrines prosecution was denied due process.
In Cudia v. CA (1998), for jeopardy to attach there must be a
valid complaint or information, here the information was filed Acquittal Due to Legal Error
by Angeles City prosecutor outside jurisdiction. Thus, dismissal In People v. Laggui (1989), although the deicison of the court
of the case did not amount to a double jeopardy. is erroneous, that decision may not be annulled or set aside
because it amount to a judgment of acquittal. It became final
In Binay v. Sandiganbayan (1999), the first jeopardy here and executory upon its promulgation.
never attached because at the time RTC was not a competent
court of jurisdiction, there can be no double jeopardy where The State may not appeal its decision for it would place the
the accused entered a plea in a court that had no jurisdiction. accused twice in jeopardy of punishment for the offense in
violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
In People v. Nitafan (1999), even if there are three cases which
are pending, there is still no double jeopardy when the first This is reaffirmed in People v. CA (2004), when the Court stated
jeopardy has not yet been validly terminated. that in the absence of a finding of mistrial, like when the trial
was a sham, a judgment of acquittal is final and is
Void Plea Bargaining Resulting to a Void Conviction unappealable in the ground of double jeopardy, whether it
In People v. Magat (2000), the revival of the cases here was not happens at the trial court level or at the CA.
considered as a violation of the protection against double
jeopardy. It was shown here the while the accused pleaded Exception to the Acquittal Rule
guilty to the rape charges he bargained for a lesser penalty. In Merciales v. CA (2002), double jeopardy did not lie in this
case because the prosecutor was guilty of nonfeasance when

it failed to protect the interest of the State for he had not While both crimes required that (1) offended party is a virgin;
presented sufficient evidence and failed to present an available and (2) that she must be over 12 and under 18. Consented
witness this also included the nonfeasance of the judge when abduction requires that (1) the taking away must be with her
he allowed the prosecutor to bungle the case. consent after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and (2)
the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd
B. Previous Dismissal designs. While in qualified seduction (1) crime be committed by
In Sta. Rita v. CA (1995) where an accused files a motion to abuse of authority, confidence or relationship; (2) offender has
dismiss with the express consent of accused the protection sexual intercourse with a woman.
against double jeopardy does not apply.
Exception to the Same Offense Test
Two Instances Where Double Jeopardy Will Attach Even if In People v. Degamo (2003), the amendment of an information
Case was Dismissed with Express Consent to charge a more serious offense is permissible and does not
constitute double jeopardy even where accused was already
1. Where ground of dismissal is insufficiency of the arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge, where basis of
evidence of prosecution (via Demurrer to Evidence) the more serious charge did not exist, but comes as a
2. Criminal proceedings have been unreasonably subsequent event (psychosis was involved).
prolonged in violation of the right to speedy trial.
Same Act (Statute and Ordinance)
In Tupaz v. Ulep (1999), when the court dismissed the case In People v. Relova (1987), it was shown that Ordinance No. 1,
without asking the consent of accused the dismissal of the s. 1974 of Batangas and Theft of Electricity under the RPC
case at the instance of the prosecutor is final, thus double involved the same act – taking of electric current. It is because
jeopardy applies. the ordinance seeks to punish unauthorized installed of electric
wiring which was essentially to steal electric currents.
In Gorion v. RTC (1992), the erroneous dismissal issued
capriciously and arbitrarily deprive the State of a fair BENARES v. LIM (2009)
opportunity to present and prove its case, due process here Benares was charged with estafa, the PROS was given 15 days
was violated such order is null and void. An invalid order of to formally offer evidence but it failed to do so. The case was
dismissal cannot be used as basis for double jeopardy. dismissed for failure to prosecute the case. There was a motion
to reconsider order of dismissal claiming difficulty to secure the
SAME OFFENSE SAME ACT documents. Benares opposed invoking double jeopardy. No
It can either be: Must necessarily involve a double jeopardy as result of dismissal. The dismissal in this
1. Same provision of statute and an ordinance case was due to the failure to prosecute. The delay here was
law; not vexatious or oppressive, it follows that the right to speedy
2. Different trial was not violated.
provisions of the
same law; SUMMERVILLE v. EUGENIO (2007)
3. Different Whether the re-filing or reinstatement of the information
statements constitutes double jeopardy. No. The October 24, 2001 order
As to the point of inquiry Look at the acts in space granting the withdrawal of the information produces no
look at the elements of the and time if committed on effect. Then, the accused was not acquitted, nor there was a
two offenses the same day or place. valid and legal dismissal or termination of the case.
TAN v. PEOPLE (2009)

Same Offense Test
In People v. Saley (1998), estafa and illegal recruitment are Three informations were filed against Tan, he moved dismiss
different offenses with distinct elements, where latter is a crime the case alleging failure to prosecute. He alleged that his
mala prohibita where criminal intent is not necessary for speedy trial was violated and that People failed to prosecute
conviction while former is a crime mala in se where criminal for an unreasonable length of time without any justification.
intent is necessary for conviction. The motion to dismiss was granted on violation of speedy trial.
The order was elevated to the CA by People via certiorari.
As the acts giving rise to the two sets of offenses are common,
if it involves two different offenses there is no violation of Q. Did the certiorari violate the right against double jeopardy?
double jeopardy.
NO. As a general rule, the dismissal of a criminal case
In Perez v. CA (1988), there is also no double jeopardy between resulting of acquittal made with express consent or upon his
consented abduction and qualified seduction. Although they own motion, will not place accused in double jeopardy. This
may have arisen with the same set of facts they are not identical rule, however has two exception:
offenses as would make applicable the rule no double jeopardy. 1. Insufficiency of evidence;
2. Denial of the right to speedy trial

The dismissal was based on speedy trial, but here double Q. Whether the reinstatement or revival of the case had put
jeopardy did not attach because dismissal was issued with Quiambao under double jeopardy.
grave abuse of discretion and was reversed by CA.
NO. MTC no longer had the authority to dismiss
Thus, where dismissal on ground of speedy trial was allegedly because jurisdiction had already been acquired by SC. There is
capricious, certiorari lies from such order and does not no double jeopardy because the MTC, which ordered the
involve double jeopardy as the petition challenges not the dismissed of the criminal case, is not a court of competent
correctness but validity of the order of dismissal; such grave jurisdiction. Since MTC had no jurisdiction to issue Order of
abuse discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, which prevents Dismissal and Order Revival, there can be no double jeopardy.
double jeopardy from attaching.
Since the MTC did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of
PEOPLE v. NAZARENO the case pending this Court's review of the RTC Order, its order
Three contracts between PNP and Beltra Industries, for the of dismissal was a total nullity and did not produce any legal
purchase and delivery of Caliber .45 pistols spawned the filing effect. Thus, the dismissal neither terminated the action on the
of the criminal charge against Dir. Gen. Nazareno et al. COA merits, nor amounted to an acquittal.
found that the PNP procurement appeared to have been
overpriced thus INF was filed by SB. ASISTIO v. PEOPLE (2015)
Asistio was charged with violation of Sec. 46 of Cooperative
The SB acquitted Nazareno et al after trial, it concluded that Code of the Philippines (RA 6938) involving cooperative officers
AFP prices did not offer sufficient basis to establish overpricing acquiring personal interest in conflict with their duty by
in the purchase of firearms by PNP. A judgment of acquittal is defrauding the Cooperative which she was a Chairperson. Upon
final and is no longer reviewable. It is also immediately arraignment she entered a plea of not guilty.
executory and the State may not seek its review without placing
the accused in double jeopardy. She moved to dismiss the case by way of Demurrer to Evidence.
She argued among others that RTC Manila Br. 40 does not have
Further prosecution via an appeal from a judgment of acquittal jurisdiction as the crime charged does not carry with it a
is likewise barred because the government has already been sanction for which she can be held criminally liable.
afforded a complete opportunity to prove the criminal
defendants culpability; after failing to persuade the court to On October 14, 2008, RTC dismissed the case for lack of
enter a final judgment of conviction, the underlying reasons jurisdiction for the crime charged is only punishable by
supporting the constitutional ban on multiple trials applies and imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and a fine of not less than
becomes compelling. P1,000.
IN THIS CASE: The petition itself states that it was formally filed OSG argues that RTC has jurisdiction over the case stating that
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and seeks to reverse and Sec. 124 of RA 6938 applies which provides for a penalty of
set aside the decision of the Sandiganbayan. imprisonment for 5 years to 10 years and fine not less than
P5,000. On August 31, 2011, CA reversed and remanded the
Thus, the petitions clear and unequivocal intention to seek a case to RTC for further proceedings. Court settled that violation
review on the merits of the Sandiganbayan judgment of is punishable by imprisonment of 5 years to ten years and fine
acquittal puts it on a direct collision course with the of P5,000 or both.
constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
Asistio posits three main arguments:
CEREZO v. PEOPLE (2011)
Cerezo filed a complaint for libel, and information was filed, the 1. That the order of remand to the RTC for further
OP-QC reversed earlier finding; recommended withdrawal of proceedings ignored the rule that dismissal on the
information, the RTC ordered dismissal of cases. SOJ reversed charge on Demurrer to Evidence amounts to an
resolution and ordered refiling. Respondents were not acquittal and the dismissal is not appealable and
acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or
termination of the case. 2. That the remand would subject her to double
jeopardy.
PEOPLE v. QUIAMBAO (2014)
STRADEC filed before OP a criminal complaint for violation for 3. Her grant of demurrer and acquittal in a criminal case
BP 68 against Quiambao. After PI, Quiambao, they were filed of falsification bars this case for Section 46 of RA 6938
charged under two INF. RTC granted petition holding that there is actually and necessarily included in the case for
was no probable cause to hold them for trial and directed MTC falsification of private documents.
to dismiss for want of probable cause. The other criminal case,
MTC dismissed, MTC issued an Order dated recalling the Order Issue 1:
of Dismissal and reinstating the criminal information Was the dismissal of the case by Demurrer of Evidence
by RTC resulted to acquittal, thus final and unappealable?

Held: CHIOK v. PEOPLE (2015)
No. A Demurrer to Evidence challenges the sufficiency of the Chiok was charged with estafa. CA dismissed the appeal for he
evidence raised whether it is competent to sustain the was found to have jumped bail when order of arrest was
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. returned unserved.
It is true that the general rule is when there is a grant of a In 2007, CA acquitted Chiok, failure of the prosecution to prove
Demurrer to Evidence it operates as an acquittal, thus making his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Chua filed a motion for
it final and unappealable. reconsideration, it was denied MR.
In this case however, it must be noted that the RTC granted the Q. Whether or not the appeal from the judgment will place the
demurrer and dismissed not for insufficiency of evidence, but accused in double jeopardy.
for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Finality of Acquittal Rule
The RTC did not decide the case on its merits nor resolve issue A judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately,
of guilt or innocence based on evidence proferred by the executory upon its promulgation. Because the innocence of the
prosecution. This being the case, RTC Order of Dismissal does accused has been confirmed by a final judgment the
not operate as an acquittal, hence may still be subject of an Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial would be
appeal. unfair.
Issue 2: Exceptions:
Was the remand of the case to RTC violated her right against 1. Finding of mistrial;
double jeopardy due to its earlier dismissal on the ground of 2. Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower
lack of jurisdiction? court in acquitting the accused.
Held: IN THIS CASE: The exceptions do not apply, Chua present a report
No. The dismissal was with her consent for she moved for the submitted by Judge Panganiban showing irregularities in the
dismissal of the case through a demurrer. It has been ordered BP 22 case against Chiok. Here, the basis of the acquittal is not
with express consent thus double jeopardy did not attach. In on the credibility of physical evidence but of the testimony of
short, the dismissal was granted upon her express consent. Chua herself. Here, the State was not deprived of due process.
Issue 3: Section 8. Provisional Dismissal. – A case shall not be

Is the offense under Sec. 46 of RA 6938 necessarily includes or provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of
is necessarily included in falsification of private document the accused and with notice to the offended party.
under Article 172 of RPC?
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
Held: amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year
No. The falsification case involved falsifying financial reports in after issuance of the order without the case having been
relation to sales profits while the RA 6938 violation involves revived. With respect to offenses punishable by
Jocelyn willfully acquiring personal interest or equity adverse to imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional
it, in violation of her duty and confidence reposed upon her by dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after
issuance of the order without the case having been
entering into a contract with Coca-Cola in her own personal
revived.
capacity knowing that profits should have accrued to the
Cooperative.
PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL
In short, there is nothing common or similar between the
A. Requisites for a Case to be Provisionally Dismissed
essential elements of the two offenses. In addition, Sec. 46
4. It must have the express consent of the accused; and
violation is a crime malum prohibitum and falsification of
5. Notice must be given to the offended party;
private documents is a crime mala prohibita.
B. Effect of granting provision dismissal – the case may be

Since the Informations filed were for separate and distinct
revived, provided the revival is made within the following
offenses double jeopardy does not apply, even if it involves a
periods:
single act but if it involves two or more entirely distinct and
1. MTC Cases – 1 year from provisional dismissal; involving
unrelated provisions of law the prosecution of one is not an
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years or fine any amount
obstacle to the prosecution of the other.
2. RTC Cases – 2 years from provisional dismissal; involving
offenses more than 6 years.
Thus, the acquittal and grant of demurrer in relation to the
falsification case is not a bar to the prosecution of this case
C. Effect of failure to revive within stated period
involving Sec. 46 of Corporation Code.
The dismissal becomes permanent.

Provisional Dismissal There would be no need for PI, however if original witnesses
It must be with the express consent of the accused. The ground have recanted or died a new PI must be conducted, this is also
can be anything as long as there is express consent. A required when:
provisional dismissal becomes permanent if it is not revived.  Other persons are charged in the new criminal
complaint
In Condrada v. Bugtas (2003), the reinstatement of the case  Original charge has been upgraded from accessory to
did not place accused in double jeopardy because it is clear principal (People v. Lacson, 2003).
from the records that the dismissal ordered by the trial court
was a temporary dismissal and not permanent. NOTE: There is never double jeopardy in provisional
dismissal because it is always with express consent of
Requirements to Invoke Bar to Oppose Revival accused.
1. The prosecution with the express conformity of the
accused moves for a provisional dismissal of the case; Time-Bar Rule
or bot the prosecution and the accused moved; It is a special procedural limitation, which upon the lapse of
2. The offended party is notified of the motion for a such operates to extinguish the right of the State to prosecute
provisional dismissal of the case; the accused. The dismissal then becomes ipso facto permanent.
3. The court issues an order granting the motion and However, the State may revive a criminal case provided that
dismissing the case provisionally; and there is a justifiable necessity for the delay (People v. Lacson).
4. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the
order of the provisional dismissal. PEOPLE v. PANFILO LACSON (2003)
In March 29, 1999 there a provisional dismissal of cases but
These requirements are conditions sine qua non to the on June 06, 2001, there was revival of the case the span was 2
application of the time-bar. years and 2 months and 6 days.
The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the Section 8 was purposely crafted and included as a new
timeline unless served with a copy of the order of dismissal provision to reinforce the constitutional right of the accused to
(People v. Lacson, 2003). a speedy disposition of the case.
Express Consent (People v. Lacson, 2003) If the time-bar fixed in Section 8 were to be applied
It is given either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, retroactively, this would mean that the State would be barred
unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to from reviving the case for failure to comply with the said time-
supply its meaning. bar, which was yet to be approved by the Court three years after
the provisional dismissal of the criminal case. In fine, to so hold
Where the accused writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a would imply that the State was presumed to foresee and
provisional dismissal of the case stating, “No objection” or “With anticipate that three years after 1997, the Court would approve
my conformity”. The writing amounts to express consent of the and amend the RRCP. The State would thus be sanctioned for
accused. Mere silence is not express. its failure to comply with a rule yet to be approved by the Court.
Motion to Withdraw Information from Motion to Dismiss LOS BAÑOS v. PEDRO (2009)
Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss Pedro was charged with a violation of Article 22; Section 261(q),
Both motions put an end to an action filed court. in relation to Sec. 264 of BP 881 or the OEC for carrying a loaded
Attains finality after 15 days Becomes final after 15 days firearm without authorization from COMELEC. There was a
from receipt thereof, from receipt thereof, with checkpoint in Boac. Provincial prosecutor filed an INF with RTC.
without prejudice to the re- prejudice to the re-filing of
filing of the information the same case on such Pedro filed a MTQ arguing that the INF contains averments
upon reinvestigation. order achieves finality, which if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification
which is after the lapse of 1 and/or that the facts charged do not constitute offense. RTC
year (MTC) or 2 years (RTC) quashed INF and ordered the police and prosecutors to return
depending on the the seized articles to Pedro.
imposable penalty.
Not time barred, thus not Time barred. Representing the checkpoint team and with conformity of the
covered by Sec. 8, Rule 117. public prosecutor, Los Banos moved to reopen case saying
that COMELEC Certification was falsification and prosecution
Torres Jr v. Torres-Aguinaldo 451 SCRA 579 (2005)
was deprived of due process.
Revival of Dismissed Case
RTC re-opened the case for further proceedings. Filed a motion
It can be revived within the time-bar either by the State by:
to reconsideration arguing that the dismissal had become
 Refiling or
permanent citing Section 8, Rule 117.
 By the filing of new information

In his MR, Pedro manifested the exact date and time of the ATTY. BONSUBRE, JR v. YERRO (2015)
Marinduque provincial prosecutor’s receipt of the quashal Atty. Bonsubre, Jr. filed a complaint for estafa against Yerro.
order to be 2:35PM. December 10, 2001, and argued that based Prosecution manifested that there was on-going settlement, a
on this date, the provisional dismissal of the case became compromise agreement was reached but the prosecution failed
permanent on December 10, 2002. to furnish the RTC a copy of such agreement. In Sept. 18, 2001,
Order dismissing case in view of accused right to speedy trial.
Held: Section 8, Rule 117 does not apply in this case. An
examination of the whole Rule tells us that a dismissal based Contention of Bonsubre stated that there was no violation of
on a MTQ and a Provisional Dismissal are far different from the accused right to speedy trial as both parties mutually
one another as concepts, in features, and legal consequences. agreed to provisionally dismiss the case until full settlement
of the obligation of compromise agreement.
While the provision on provisional dismissal is found in Rule
117, it does not follow that MTQ results in provisional There is no provisional dismissal of the case. None of the
dismissal to which Section 8, Rule 117. requisites were met, while it may appear that Yarras consented
to provisional dismissal of the case, the prosecution neither
A motion to quash is the mode by which an accused assails, present the same for the court’s approval nor filed the
before entering his plea, the validity of the criminal complaint required motion to that effect such that no order was in fact
or the criminal information filed against him for insufficiency on issued granting the provisional dismissal of the case. Hence, the
its face in point of law, or for defect apparent on the face of the assertion that the Yarras are estopped from invoking their right
Information. to speedy trial is without basis.
The motion, as a rule, hypothetically admits the truth of the SALDARIEGA v. PANGANIBAN (2015)
facts spelled out in the complaint or information. Two informations were filed against Saldariega for violation of
RA 9165. Judge issued order provisionally dismissing the
Motion to Quash Provisional Dismissal express consent of Saldariega. PO2 Villas field a motion to
It is filed by the accused to A case may be provisionally reopen the case. Judge granted reopening and set the cases for
question the efficacy of the dismissed at the instance of continuation.
complaint or information either the prosecution or
filed against him or her. the accused, or both, She argued that the provisional dismissal of the criminal cases
subject to the conditions is considered an acquittal. PO2 Villas has no personality to file
enumerated under Sec. 8. motion t reopen. OSG argued that Saldariega died not object.
Sec. 2 of Rule 117, provides Section 2, Rule 117, does
for the forma and content not apply to a provisional Q. Whether or not provisional dismissal is akin to acquittal? NO.
of a MTQ. dismissal.
Assails the validity of the May be grounded on When a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with
criminal complaint or reasons other than the the expressed consent of the accused, the case may be
criminal information for defects found in the revived by State within the periods. Saldariega did not oppose.
defects or defenses information.
apparent on the face of the Q. Is there violation of double jeopardy? NO.
information.
Allowed before the Allowed even when trial The provisional dismissal of the case does not operate
arraignment (Sec. 1) proper of the case is as an acquittal since its dismissal was made with the express
already underway provided consent of the accused thus there is no double jeopardy.
that the required consents
are present. Q. Does PO2 Villas have personality to file? YES.
Moreover, in the case at bar, it must be noted that the

Thus, we conclude that Section 8, Rule 117 does not apply in
accused is charged with a public crime, hence, it is a victim-less
this case, the case was remanded back to the RTC for the
crime. Unlike in private crimes where the participation of the
arraignment and trial of Pedro.
private offended party is generally required for the recovery of
civil liability, in the instant case, there is no particular private
Although the second paragraph of Section 8 states that the
offended party who can actually file the motion to revive.
order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after the
issuance thereof, without the case having been revived, such
Hence, in some instances, as in this case, it is the arresting
provision should be construed to mean that the dismissal shall
officer, PO2 Villas, who filed the motion to revive the case out
become permanent one year after service of the order of
of his sense of duty as a police officer and compelled by his
dismissal on the public prosecutor, as the public prosecutor
sense of obligation considering that he knew his absence was
cannot be expected to comply with the timeliness requirement
the cause why the complaint was provisionally dismissed.
unless he is served with a copy of the order of dismissal.

Section 9. Failure to Move to Quash or to Allege Any Q. Is it proper for Asilan to assail the sufficiency of the INF on
Ground Therefor. – The failure of the accused to assert any the ground that there was failure to specifically allege therein
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
how treachery was carried on? NO.
complaint or information, either because he did not file a
motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said
motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except It is now too late for Asilan to assail the sufficiency of
those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), the INF on the ground that there was failure to specifically
(b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.
allege there how treachery was carried out.
Effect of Failure to File Motion to Quash or Allege Ground

In this case, Asilan not only failed to question the sufficiency of
General Rule: It shall be deemed as a waiver on part of accused
the INF at any time during the pendency of the case in RTC.
He also allowed the prosecution to present evidence proving
Exceptions: There is no deemed waiver when the ground is:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter; (3a) the elements of treachery, thus deemed to have waived.
2. Information does not charge any offense; (3b)
3. Criminal liability is already exintguished; (3g) PEOPLE v. ANDRADE (2014)
4. Double jeopardy; (3i) A random drug test was conducted National Bilibid Prison
wherein urine samples were collected and subjected to drug
In Uy v. CA (1997), it appeared that court had no jurisdiction testing and out of 38, 21 urine samples tested positive. All
but it was only after 5 years after she was convicted that accused pleaded not guilty.
accused raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction. This was not a
waiver because question of jurisdiction of a court may be In 2006, accused filed consolidated Motion to Dismiss on the
raised at any stage of the proceedings, thus, accused is not ground that facts alleged in the Information do not constitute
estopped questioning jurisdiction even on appeal. a violation of Sec. 15 of RA 9165, further contending that they
were never arrested for such drug.
When must a Motion to Quash be filed?
It must be filed after arraignment, there can be no more quashal RTC granted motion to dismiss finding no probable cause for
it is already motion to dismiss. For the information, it is only the offense charged in the Information. CA affirmed. The
motion to quash but only to the point of arraignment. complaint asserts that the CA erred because they were already
 It is always in the best interest of the client for the arraigned. Accused averred that CA is correct.
accused to get the information.
Q. Can a motion to quash may be filed even after the accused
PEOPLE v. LAMBERTO RAFON (2007) have entered their plea? – YES
It is too late in the day for appellant to raise this issue. He
should have made his objection before he was arraigned. The ground was Section 3(a), while under ordinary
Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, circumstances, such motion may no longer be allowed after
arraignment because of their failure to raise any ground,
to wit: The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
however, since ground asserted is one of the exceptions
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
under Section 9, the timeliness, of the filing is immaterial.
information, either because he did not file a motion to quash
or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a
FANTASTICO v. MALICSE (2015)
waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds A case for Attempted Murder was filed against accused, they all
provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of pleaded not guilty. Trial court found Fantastico and Villanueva
this Rule. guilty for the attempted murder. Can they assert that the
information filed against them was defective for failure to state
As was held in Bugayong, appellant herein cannot be said to all the elements of attempted murder? – NO.
have been deprived of his right to be informed. He did not
timely object to the alleged defects in the Informations and he In any case, it is now too late for Fantastico and of
actively participated in the trial, defending himself and Villanueva to assail the insufficiency of the information on the
confronting the witnesses against him. Hence, there was no ground that the elements of the crime are lacking, they are
denial of due process. already convicted and past arraignment.
PEOPLE v. CASTANAS (2016)

PEOPLE v. ASILAN (2012)
Castanas was charged with rape. He was convicted through
Asilan was charged with Direct Assault with Murder for killing
final judgment by RTC and affirmed by the CA. Castanas alleged
PO1 Adovas, RTC convicted him. CA affirmed. Asilan argued
that the INF against him did not clearly state the element of the
that his constitutional right to be informed was violated for
crime as it did not state the gravamen of the crime of rape, that
when he was convicted of Murder, for the circumstance of is sexual intercourse or sexual assault through insertion of any
treachery was not alleged in the INF against him. instrument or object.

Q. Whether or not Castanas should not be convicted of the
crime of Statutory rape, since it was not clearly charged in the
information?
GENERAL RULE: An accused cannot be convicted of an offense

that is not clearly charged in the information.
EXCEPTION: The right to assail the sufficiency of the information

or the admission of the evidence may be waived by accused.
Jurisprudence provides that he should have raised this issue

prior to his arraignment by filing a motion to quash. Failing to
do so, he is deemed to have waived any objection. So if accused
fails to object to its sufficiency during trial and the deficiency
was cured by competent evidence presented therein.
 Exceptions under Sec. 9 can still be raised during trial.
If there was any missing allegation of carnal knowledge,

Castanas had been adequately informed of the nature and the
cause of the accusation against him by the initial complaint
filed against him together with the supporting documents.
Castanas has belatedly first raised this issue on

IN THE CASE:
appeal. He failed to raise this issue before the trial court. Here,
Castanas neither interposed objection to the presentation of
the evidence of carnal knowledge.
In fact, he actively participated during trial and was able to

present his defense evidence. Therefore, Castanas should still
be convicted.

Crim Pro (Suarez Discussion)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Pro (Suarez Discussion)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elements of Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

If evidence during trial shows that the offense was committed

3.A.1. JURISDICTION OF MTC AND RTC RTC IN SPECIAL JURISDICTION

1. MTC BP 129, Sec. 32, RA 7691 Family Courts, RA 8369, Section 5

RA 8249, Section 4 [Sandiganbayan Law] Special Commercial Court

WHEN OTHER REGULAR COURTS SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Subject to the rules promulgated by the

In cases where none of the accused are

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER SPECIAL ACTIONS

JOINT TRIAL INVOLVING PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

Excepted from the foregoing provisions, during

Construed thus, the effects of Section 7 may be summarized as follows:

The ramifications of Section 7 of R.A. No. 8249 may be stated as follows:

MARILYN GEDUSPAN (2005) Issue: Whether SB has jurisdiction – Yes.

INOCENTES v. PEOPLE (2016)

WHEN IS AN OFFENSE CONSIDERED COMMITTED IN

3.A.1. APPELLATE JURISDICITON OF COURTS

What do you mean by prosecute? Crimes the Cannot be Prosecuted De Oficio

The act of filing is can be done by the messenger. The

Section 6. Sufficiency of Complaint or Information . – A CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE (2011)

If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake Rules on Substitution

Yes. The crimes of estafa and violation of BP 22 are different

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees Actual Damages

b. If the amount are not so alleged but any of Yakult v. CA

C. Consolidation of Civil and Criminal Actions SAMSON CHING v. CA (2007)

It can, therefore, be concluded that if the judgment is

Commentaries No. The intent is to make the Manchester Doctrine, requiring

Q. What are the consequences of the amendments under the

Exception Instances Without Prejudicial Question

Suspension by Reason of Prejudicial Question

Caterpillar v. Samson Commentary: Here we have an intra-corporate dispute to

MAGESTRADO v. PEOPLE (2007) SPOUSES JOSE v. SPOUSES SUAREZ (2008)

Therefore, it is clear that the second element required for the

DE ZUZUARREGUI v. VILLAROZA (2010)

On the other hand, Criminal Case Nos. 343812 to 343814

The criminal cases arose out of the claim of Peter, Catherine,

Commentary: If you are faced with a question, and you are

VICENTE LADLAD v. VELASCO (2007) SORIANO v. PEOPLE (2010)

ARROYO v. DOJ (2013) No Right to Ask for Copies of Counter-affidavits

B. The Secretary of Justice may reverse or modify the 3. Review of Resolution

2. Authority to Dismiss Discretion of the Courts to Dismiss

Reliance by Judge on Clerk

3. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the

No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making

Arrest Warrant by CID

The constitutional provisions does not segregate arrest warrant

SINDAC v. PEOPLE (2016) Commentaries

Who Has the Right to Visit the Person Accused

A. Any Member of the Philippine Bar

B. A relative of the person arrested, subject to reasonable

RE: REQUEST OF POLICE DIRECTOR (2009) SPOUSES MARIMLA v. PEOPLE (2009)

TOMAS v. CIDG (2016) Laud v. People

That his reasonable suspicion bolstered by (a) the fact that he

Commentary Section 8. Search of House, Room, or Premises to be Made

Validity of Search Warrant

Multiple Service of Warrant

Commentary A violation of this section shall constitute a contempt of

Motion to Quash a Warrant or Suppress Evidence

The issuance of quashal – what he is acting upon is the

Comments: If RTC Br. 15 issued SW it is RTC Br. 15, the court

SKECHERS v. INTERPACIFIC (2006)

Inter Pacific filed a Motion to Quash on Br. 24 statin that there

SEC v. MENDOZA (2012)

Two petitions (Mendoza) in Muntinlupa the ground under Rule