CrimPro2016 - Prof. Esguerra

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

GENERAL MATTERS CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and CRIMINAL LAW,

distinguished
DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear and try a
particular offense and impose the punishment for it
(People v. Mariano, GR. No. L-40527, 30 June 1976).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL LAW
Remedial Substantive
It provides how the act is It declares what acts are

to be punished punishable
It provides for the method It defines crimes, treats of

by which a person accused their nature and provides
of a crime is arrested, tried for their punishment.
or punished.
DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION
Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear

and try a particular offense and impose the
punishment for it (People v. Mariano, GR. No.
L-40527, 30 June 1976).
BASIC OVERVIEW
1. Commission of Crime
2. Investigation and Evidence Gathering
3. Search and Seizure
4. Filing of Complaint
5. Preliminary Investigation/ Inquest (Appeal to Sec. of
Justice)
6. Filing of Information
7. Arrest
8. Bail
9. Arraignment and Plea
10. Pre-Trial
11. Trial
12. Promulgation of Judgment
13. New Trial or Reconsideration
14. Appeal
15. Execution of Judgment
JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER
FROM and
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED
JURISDICTION OVER JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
Conferred by law at the time Acquired by: (a) arrest of the
of the institution of the action. person; or (b) voluntary
Determined by the extent of submission of the person (e.g.
the penalty which the law by filing bail, or motions).
imposes based on the facts in
the complaint/information.
N.B.: Absence of jurisdiction over the N.B.: Failure to timely object may be
subject matter may be raised at any deemed a waiver.
stage. The right to make such
objection is never waived.
REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE OF
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
The following requisites must be present before a court can
validly exercise its power to hear and try a case:
1. the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter;

2. the court must have jurisdiction over the territory where
the offense was committed (this refers to venue or the
place where the case is to be tried); and
3. the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE OF
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
NB: Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in
criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the
criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that
has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason
for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial
courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a
trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes
committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Second,
laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the
necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the
municipality of province where witnesses and other
facilities for his defense are available. (Union Bank of the
Philippines v. People, G.R. No. 192565, 28 February 2012).
REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSITORY
OR CONTINUING OFFENSES
For transitory or continuing offenses, the courts of the territories
where the essential ingredients of the crime took place have
concurrent jurisdiction.
First court to take cognizance will exclude the others (People v.

Gorospe, 1988).
Illustration: Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory or

continuing crimes. A suit on a bounced check can be filed in any
of the places where any of the elements of the offense occurred,
that is, where the check was drawn, issued, delivered or
dishonored. (Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, 17 November 2004)
Jurisdiction of MTC, MeTC,
MCTC
Violations of city/municipal ordinances;
Crimes punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6
years, regardless of the fine or other accessory penalties
and civil liability;
Offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence (Sec. 32, BP 129);.
Jurisdiction of MTC, MeTC,
MCTC
Violations of traffic laws/rules/regulations, of rental laws,
and cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months
or a fine not exceeding P1000, except that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence
and the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.
Special jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for
writ of habeas corpus or application for bail in the
province or city where the RTC judge is absent;
Cases involving BP 22Bouncing Checks Law;
In election offenses, cases involving failure to register or
failure to vote.
Jurisdiction of RTC
Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body (Sec. 20, BP 129);
All criminal cases where the penalty is higher than 6
years, including government-related cases wherein the
accused is not one of those falling under the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan;
Cases where one or more of accused is 18 years old but not
less than 15 years old, or where one or more of the victims
is a minor, at the time of the commission of the offense
(R.A. No. 9344);
Jurisdiction of RTC
Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous
Drugs Act, as amended;
Violations of the Child Abuse Act (R.A. No. 7610);
Actions for written defamation/libel (Art. 360 of the
Revised Penal Code [RPC], as amended by R.A. No.
4363);
Cases of domestic violence against women and
children (R. A. No. 8369, Family Courts Act); and
Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
MTCs in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over
the following cases (see PD 1606, R.A. No. 7975, and R.A. No.
8249):
I. Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices), RA

1379 (Unlawfully Acquired Property), and the Revised Penal
Code (Book II, Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2), where one of
the accused is an official occupying the following positions
(permanent or interim) at the time of the commission of the
offense;
II. Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complexed
with other crimes, committed by the abovementioned public
officials and employees mentioned in relation to their office;
III.Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection
with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade
'27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6758;
Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as
Grade '27' and up under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989;
Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions,
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
and
All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27'
and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
1. Officials with Salary Grade '27' and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(R.A. No. 6758), specifically:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the

Sangguniang Panlalawigan and provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads;
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of
consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all
officers of higher rank;
e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while
occupying the position of provincial director and those
holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher;
f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and
officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman
and special prosecutor; and
g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or -controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.
Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices), RA 1379 (Unlawfully Acquired Property),
and the Revised Penal Code (Book II, Title VII,
Chapter II, Section 2), where one of the accused is an
official occupying the following positions
(permanent or interim) at the time of the commission
of the offense:
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade
'27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6758);
2. Classified as Grade '27' and up under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989;
3. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution;
4. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions,
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27'
and higher under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989.
N.B.: The officials enumerated in Section (4) (A) (i) of
R.A. No. 8249, i.e. city treasurers, assessors, etc., are
subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
regardless of salary grade (Inding v. Sandiganbayan,
434 SCRA 388). Thus, if the accused does not belong
to the national and local officials enumerated, in order
for the Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction over the
offense, the same must be committed by officials
classified as Grade 27 and higher, aside from other
officials, expressly covered.
N.B.: The officials enumerated in Section (4) (A) (i) of
R.A. No. 8249, i.e. city treasurers, assessors, etc., are
subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
regardless of salary grade (Inding v. Sandiganbayan,
434 SCRA 388). Thus, if the accused does not belong
to the national and local officials enumerated, in order
for the Sandiganbayan to acquire jurisdiction over the
offense, the same must be committed by officials
classified as Grade 27 and higher, aside from other
officials, expressly covered.
As explained by the Court in Inding (supra):
Clearly, therefore, Congress intended these officials

regardless of their salary grades, to be specifically
included within the Sandiganbayan's original
jurisdiction, for had it been otherwise, then there
would have been no need for such enumeration.
"This conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that

some of the officials enumerated in "a" to "g" are not
classified as SG 27 or higher under the x x x Position
Titles and Salary Grades of the Department of Budget
and Management x x x."
People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 169004, 15 September 2010
A member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of a city was
charged for allegedly criminally failing to liquidate certain
cash advances he made in violation of the Auditing Code of
the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction

over said official as his salary grade is below SG 27.
Held: Yes. Those that are classified as SG 26 and below may

still fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
provided that they hold the positions thus enumerated in
said law.
Serana v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008
An information for estafa was filed with the Sandiganbayan
against a former student regent of the University of the Philippines
(UP). Said former student regent moved to quash the information,
contending that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over
the offense charged nor over her person in her capacity as UP
student regent. She contends that estafa falls under Crimes Against
Property and not on the chapter on Crimes Committed by Public
Officers, only over which, she argues, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction. Furthermore, she argues that it was not the
government that was duped, but Pres. Estrada, because the money
came from the Office of the President and not from government
funds. As to jurisdiction over her person, she contends that as a UP
student regent, she is not a public officer since she merely
represents her peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their
positions in an ex officio capacity.
G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008
Estafa is one of those felonies within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, subject to the twin requirements that: (a) the
offense is committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in Section 4(A) of PD No. 1606, as amended; and
(b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.
It is well-established that compensation is not an essential

element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the
public office. Delegation of sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the
public makes one a public officer.
G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008
A UP Student Regent is a Public Officer. A public office is the
right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by
which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with
some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to
be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual
so invested is a public officer.
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of Regents.

The Sandiganbayan, also has jurisdiction over the other officers
enumerated in PD No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People the
Supreme Court held that while the first part of
Sec. 4(a) covers only officials with Salary grade 27 and higher
but who are by express provisions of law placed under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by
express provisions of law. Sec. 4(a)(1)(g) of PD No. 1606
explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over
Presidents, directors and trustees, or manager of government-
owned or controlled corporations, state universities, or
educational foundations. Petitioner falls under this category.
The Board of Regents performs functions similar to those of a
board of trustee of a non-stock corporation. By express
mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as
contemplated by PD No. 1606.
Venue
Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can

neither be waived nor subjected to stipulation.
General Rule: Criminal action shall be

instituted in the courts of the municipality or
territory where the offense was committed or
any of its essential ingredients occurred.
Venue
EXCEPTIONS:
Where an offense is committed on a railroad train, in an

aircraft or in any other public or private vehicle in the course
of its trip the criminal action may be instituted and tried in
the court of any municipality or territory where such train,
aircraft or other vehicle passed during such trip, including
the place of departure and arrival;
Venue
EXCEPTIONS:
Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the

course of its voyage the criminal action may be instituted
and tried in the proper court of the first port of entry or of
any municipality or territory through which the vessel
passed during such voyage subject to the generally accepted
principles of international law (Rule 110, Sec. 15);
Felonies under Article 2 of the RPC shall be cognizable by

the proper court where the criminal action was first filed.
Venue
Piracy the venue of piracy, unlike all other

crimes, has no territorial limits. It may be tried
anywhere.
Libel please see the discussion on the venue for

filing of libel cases
Venue
In cases filed under B.P. 22 the criminal action
shall be filed in the place where the check was
dishonored or issued. In case of crossed-check,
in the place of depositary or collecting bank;
In exceptional circumstances to ensure a fair

trial and impartial inquiry, the Supreme Court
shall have the power to order a change of venue
or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice
(1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 5[4]).
Venue for filing of libel cases:
If the offended party is a private individual
Under Article 360 of the RPC, as amended

by R.A. No. 4363, the venue for libel cases is
either:
o where the complainant actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense; or
o where the alleged defamatory article was printed
and first published.
If the private complainant opts for the second, the
Information (formal indictment) must specifically state
where the libelous article was printed and first
published.
If the libelous article appears on a website, there is no
way of finding out the location of its printing and first
publication. It is not enough for the complainant to lay
the venue where the article was accessed, as this will
open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all
other locations where the website is also accessed or
capable of being accessed, and spawn the very ills the
amendment sought to prevent.
Thus, in cases where the libelous article appears on a

website, the private complainant has the option to file
the case in his/her place of residence, which will not
necessitate finding out exactly where the libelous
matter was printed and first published.
BONIFACIO, ET AL. v. RTC OF MAKATI, BR. 129
G.R. 184800, 5 May 2010
An Information for 13 counts of libel was filed before

the RTC of Makati against accused, for providing a public
forum in the internet, which contained defamatory remarks
against the Yuchengco family. The information failed to
state the particular place within the RTCs jurisdiction
where the subject article was printed and first published, or
that the offended parties resided in Makati at the time the
alleged defamatory material was printed and first
published. Instead, the information alleged where the
offended party first accessed the internet-published
material. The issue now is whether the RTC has acquired
jurisdiction over the case.
G.R. 184800, 5 May 2010
The RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over the case. Venue
is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where
the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the
action but constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. The
venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private
individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: (a)
where the complainant actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense; or (b) where the alleged defamatory
article was printed and first published. The [Amended]
Information in this case opted to lay the venue by availing of
the second. Thus, it stated that the offending article was first
published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati
City. In other words, it considered the phrase to be equivalent
to the requisite allegation of printing and first publication.
G.R. 184800, 5 May 2010
If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and
first published are used by the offended party as basis for the
venue in the criminal action, the Information must allege with
particularity where the defamatory article was printed and
first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the
address of their editorial or business offices in the case of
newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This
precondition becomes necessary in order to forestall any
inclination to harass. For the Court to hold that the Amended
Information sufficiently vested jurisdiction in the courts of
Makati simply because the defamatory article was accessed
therein would open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed
in all other locations where the Pep Coalition website is
likewise accessed or capable of being accessed.
If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in
Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the
criminal action may be filed in the RTC of Manila.
If the offended party is a public officer whose office

is outside Manila, the action may be filed in the RTC of
the province or city where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense.
WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO
RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
General Rule: Prosecution of criminal cases may NOT be enjoined.
Exceptions:
To afford protection to the accuseds constitutional rights;
When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to
avoid multiplicity of actions;
When theres a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO
RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
Exceptions:
When the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation;
When there is double jeopardy;
When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
In case of persecution rather than prosecution
When the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust or
vengeance;
When there is no prima facie case against the accused and a
MTQ on that ground has been denied; or
Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court
to prevent threatened unlawful arrest.
B. SEARCH AND SEIZURE
NATURE OF SEARCH WARRANT
A search warrant (SW) is an order in writing; issued

in the name of the People of the Philippines; signed
by a judge; and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property
described in the warrant and bring it before the court.
(Rule 126, Sec. 1)
A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process

akin to a writ of discovery. (Malaloan v. CA, 1994)
SEARCH WARRANT WARRANT OF ARREST
Order in writing in the name of the Order directed to the peace officer to
Republic of the Philippines; signed by a execute the warrant by taking the person
judge; and directed to a peace officer, stated therein into custody that he may
commanding him to search for personal be bound to answer for the commission
property described in the warrant and of the offense.
bring it before the court. (Rule 126, Sec.
1)
Probable cause to search requires facts In order to determine probable cause to

to show that particular things connected arrest, the judge (not the prosecutor)
with crime are found in a specific must have sufficient facts in his hands
location. that would tend to show that a crime has
been committed and that a particular
person committed it.
The rules on searches and seizures The rules on arrest are concerned with
cover a wider spectrum of matters on the seizure of a person. A search may
the search of both persons and places follow an arrest but the search must be
and the seizure of things found therein. incident to a lawful arrest.
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT,
WHERE FILED
1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
crime was committed. (Rule 126, Sec.2)
2. For compelling reasons stated in the application:
If the place of the commission of the crime is known, any court
within the judicial region where the crime was committed.
Any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
enforced.
3. However, if the criminal action has already been
filed, the application shall only be made in the
court where the criminal action is pending.
Exception: Malaloan v. CA (1994), subject to Rule 126, Sec. 1
if a case has not yet been filed, it may be filed in a court with a
territorial jurisdiction other than that where the illegal articles
sought to seized are located.
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT,
WHERE FILED
4. In intellectual property rights cases (see A.M. No. 10-3-
10-SC, 18 October 2011):
The issuance of these writs shall be governed by the rules prescribed
in Re: Proposed Rule on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement
of Intellectual Property Rights (A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, which took effect
on February 15, 2002).
(A) Special Commercial Courts in Quezon City, Manila, Makati, and

Pasig shall have authority to act on applications for the issuance of
writs of search and seizure in civil actions for violations of the
Intellectual Property Code, which writs shall be enforceable
nationwide.
(B) Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, the Special

Commercial Courts in the judicial regions where the violation of
intellectual property rights occurred shall have concurrent
jurisdiction to issue writs of search and seizure.
REQUISITES FOR ISSUING
SEARCH WARRANT
A SW shall not issue except:
1. upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense;
2. to be determined personally by the judge;
3. after examination under oath or affirmation of
complainant and the witness he may produce;
4. particularly describing the place to be
searched and the things to be seized. (Rule
126, Sec. 4)
SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANT
Period of validity 10 days from its date.
Thereafter, it shall be void. (Rule 126, Sec. 10)
Right to break door or window to effect search.

The officer, if refused admittance to the place of
directed search after giving notice of his purpose and
authority, may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything
therein to execute the warrant, or to liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained therein. (Rule 126, Sec. 7)
Search of house, room, or premise, to be made
in presence of two witnesses.
No search of a house, room, or any other
premises shall be made except in the presence of
the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his
family or in the absence of the letter, two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality. (Rule 126, Sec. 8)
Time of making search
General rule: DAY TIME.
Exception: when the affidavit asserts that the property
is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched,
in which case a direction may be inserted that it be
served at any time of the day or night. (Rule 126, Sec. 9)
A SW violates the above rule if the time of the search is
left blank, thus enabling the officers to conduct the
search in the evening of the appointed search. (Asian
Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312 cited in People v. CA, G.R.
No. 117412, 8 December 2000)
PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause for a search warrant requires such facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and the objects
sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be
searched (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 [1984]).
The judge determining probable cause must do so only

after personally examining under oath the complainant and
his witnesses. The oath required must refer to "the truth of
the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or
his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the
committing magistrate, not the individual making the
affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the
existence of probable cause." (Id.)
Comparisons
Probable cause in preliminary investigation is the existence
of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in
a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge
of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he was prosecuted. (Buchanan v. Vda. De
Esteban, 1915).
Probable cause in warrantless arrests: Rule 113.5(b)

requires that the person making the arrest has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the arrestee is responsible for an offense
which has just been committed. Probable cause must be
based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime
has been or is about to be committed. (People. v. Aruta, 1998).
PERSONAL EXAMINATION BY JUDGE
OF THE APPLICANT AND WITNESSES
Determined by judge himself
The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching questions
and answers, in writing and under oath, the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce on
facts personally known to them and attach to the
record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted (Rule 126, Sec. 5).
Searching questions and answers
Such questions as have the tendency to show the
commission of a crime and perpetrator thereof. (Luna
v. Plaza, 1968)
PARTICULARITY OF PLACE TO BE
SEARCHED AND THINGS TO BE SEIZED
Warrant issued must particularly describe the place
to be searched and the persons to be seized.
Description of place to be searched is sufficient if the

officer with the SW can, with reasonable efforts,
ascertain and identify the place intended. (People v.
Veloso, 1925)
An apparent typographical error will not necessarily

invalidate the SW, as long as the application contains
the correct address. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 1984)
Search Warrant must be for only one specific offense.
General Rule: The offense alleged must be specific to

enable the judge to find the existence of probable cause.
Definite provisions of the allegedly violated laws must be
referred to.
Exception: In People v. Marcos (1990), the SW was declared

valid despite lack of mention of specific offense because
the application stated that the owner of the grocery store
against whom warrant was directed, had in his possession
unadulterated stocks in violation of the provisions Art. 188
and 189, RPC, which are closely allied articles as the
punishable acts defined in one of them can be considered
as including or is necessarily included in the other.
Test of Particularity
The executing officers prior knowledge as to the
place intended in the SW is relevant.
This would seem especially true where the
executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit
the SW had issued, and when he knows that the
judge who issued the SW intended the building
described in the affidavit.
It has also been said that the executing officer
must look to the affidavit in the official court file to
resolve an ambiguity in the SW as to the place to
be searched. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 1984)
PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE
SEIZED
What may be seized (Rule126, Sec. 3)
Personal property subject of the offense.

Personal property stolen/embezzled and other
proceeds/fruits of the offense.
Personal property used or intended to be used
as the means of committing an offense.
EXCEPTIONS TO SEARCH WARRANT
REQUIREMENT
Instances when warrantless searches are allowed
1. As incident of lawful arrest (Rule 126, Sec. 13)
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous

weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute
proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
A motorist flagged down by a policeman for not wearing a

helmet is not deemed arrested since he was only given a traffic
citation and the penalty for the ordinance is only a fine. Hence
the subsequent search of the motorcyclist was illegal and the
items seized were inadmissible in evidence. (Luz v. People, G.R.
No. 197788, 29 February 2012)
REQUIREMENT
2. Plain view doctrine.
Requisites:
a) A valid prior intrusion, i.e., based on a valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;
b) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have a right
to be where they are;
c) Evidence must be immediately apparently illegal (e.g. drug
paraphernalia);
d) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.

(Miclat v. People, G.R. No. 176077, 31 August 2011)
Objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer, who has a right to be in
the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be
presented as evidence. (Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889, 10 January 2011)
REQUIREMENT
3. Search of moving vehicle.
Police may conduct searches of moving vehicles without
warrant because it is impracticable to secure prior judicial
search warrant since the vehicle can be quickly moved
out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant may
be sought.
These searches are generally limited to visual inspection,

and the vehicles or their occupants cannot be subjected to
body searches EXCEPT when there is probable cause to
believe that the occupant is a law offender or the vehicles
contents are instruments or proceeds of some criminal
offense.
REQUIREMENT
4. Searches conducted in checkpoints.
They are valid as long as they are warranted by the exigencies
of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to
motorists.
Here, the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants
subjected to body search (inspection of the vehicle is limited to
visual search).
5. Consented warrantless searches.

When a person voluntarily submits to a search or consents to
have it made of his person/premises. (People v. Malasugui,
1936)
REQUIREMENT
6. Customs searches.
For the enforcement of customs duties and tariff laws, the
Collector of Customs is authorized to effect search and seizure
without search warrant, except in search of a dwelling/house.
(General Travel Services v. David, 1966)
7. Stop and Frisk.

It is a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapon.
(Malacat v. CA, 1997)
Probable cause is not required. But a genuine reason must exist, in
light of the police officers experience and surrounding condition
to warrant a belief that a person has weapons concealed.
ESQUILLO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 182010, 25 August 2010
The trial court found petitioner guilty of illegal possession of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. On appeal, petitioner assails the
application of stop-and-frisk in convicting him of said offense. However,
the Supreme Court rejected petitioners contention. To determine the
validity of stop-and-frisk, essential is the existence of a genuine reason, in
light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct
has weapons or contraband concealed about him. Such a stop-and-frisk
practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police
officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal
behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of
safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to
assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a
deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
police officer.
ESQUILLO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 182010, 25 August 2010
From these standards, the Court finds that the questioned
act of the police officers constituted a valid stop-and-
frisk operation. The search/seizure of the suspected shabu
initially noticed in petitioners possession - later
voluntarily exhibited to the police operative - was
undertaken after she was interrogated on what she placed
inside a cigarette case, and after PO1 Cruzin introduced
himself to petitioner as a police officer. And, at the time of
her arrest, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious behavior
and, in fact, attempted to flee after the police officer had
identified himself.
REQUIREMENT
8. In flagrante delicto.
When a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or
hears the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to
the scene, he may effect an arrest without a warrant, as the
offense is deemed committed in his presence or within his view.
9. Hot Pursuit.
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person when an offense has just been committed, and he
has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it (Rule 113, Sec. 5). In this case, the person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission
of an offense (Rule 126, sec. 13).
REQUIREMENT
10. Prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another (Rule 113, Sec. 5). In this case, the person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in
the commission of an offense (Rule 126, sec. 13).
Remedies from unlawful search and seizure
Employ any means to prevent search.
Without a SW, the officer cannot insist on entering a citizens
premises. If he does so, he becomes an ordinary intruder.
The person to be searched may resist the search and employ
any means necessary to prevent it, without incurring any
criminal liability. (People v. Chan Fook, 1921)
File a criminal action against officer.

A public officer/employee who procures a SW without
search just cause is criminally liable under Art. 129, RPC
(search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the
service of those legally obtained).
Remedies from unlawful search and seizure
File a motion to quash the illegal SW.
This remedy is employed if search is not yet conducted.
File a motion to return seized things.

This is the remedy used if the search was already
conducted and goods where seized as a consequence
thereof.
File a motion to suppress evidence.

This is anchored on the inadmissibility of seized items.
C. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
CRIMINAL ACTIONS, HOW INSTITUTED
Commenced by the filing of the complaint/information. (Rule 110,
Sec.1)
NOTE: This tolls the running of the prescriptive period of the offense.
WHO MAY FILE CRIMES THAT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED

DE OFFICIO
All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of
the public prosecutor. (Rule 110, Sec.5)
In cases of public prosecutors heavy work schedule or in the event of
lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized
to prosecute the case.
Cases Which Cannot Be Prosecuted De Officio
Adultery/concubinage
Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
Defamation which consists of the imputation of any of the
foregoing offenses
Offended parties who can file a complaint

In adultery and concubinage the offended spouse. Both
guilty parties should be included if both are still alive.
In oral defamation only by the offended party.
CONTROL OF PROSECUTION
a. Prior to filing of a case:
The public prosecutor has the discretion whether or not
to file a criminal action.
b. After a case is filed in court:

It is the prosecutors duty, regardless of his personal
conviction or opinion, to proceed with the presentation of
the evidence to enable the court to arrive at its own
judgment as to the accuseds guilt; in this situation, the
public prosecutor has no discretion to dismiss the action
without the courts approval.
CONTROL OF PROSECUTION
b. After a case is filed in court:
While the Secretary of Justice has the authority to review
the acts of his subordinates in criminal cases, the court
always has the discretion to try a motion to dismiss
which the prosecution may file after the Secretary of
Justice reverses an appealed decision. (Roberts v CA, G.R.
No. 113930)
The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice since it is mandated to independently
asses the merits of the case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE
C. GO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 201644, 24 September 2014
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the criminal cases, ruling that
the Go and Dela Rosas right to speedy trial was violated as they
were compelled to wait for five (5) years without the prosecution
completing its presentation of evidence due to its neglect. In their
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, respondents failed
to implead the People of the Philippines as a party thereto.
The petition for certiorari was obviously defective. As provided in

Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all
criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the
public prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the respondents herein to
implead the People of the Philippines as respondent in the case
before the Court of Appeals to enable the Solicitor General to
comment on the petition.
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION
A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a
person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party,
any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated. (Rule 110, Sec.3)
An information is an accusation in writing charging a
person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and
filed with the court. (Rule, 110, Sec.4)
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states:
the name of the accused;
the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and
the place where the offense was committed.
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all
of them shall be included in the complaint or information.
(Rule 110, Sec.6)
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the

elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive
thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not
an essential element of it. Thus, in a prosecution for rape,
the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the
occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission. The
failure to specify the exact date or time when it was
committed does not ipso facto make the information
defective on its face. (People v. Dion, G.R. No. 181035, 4 July
2011)
LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 180016, 29 April 2014
The gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of the RPC is the appropriation
or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of
the owner and that the time of occurrence is not a material
ingredient of the crime, hence, the exclusion of the period and
the wrong date of the occurrence of the crime, as reflected in the
Information, do not make the latter fatally defective. Therefore,
Corpuzs argument that the Information filed against him is
formally defective because the Information does not contain the
period when the pieces of jewelry were supposed to be returned
and that the date when the crime occurred was different from
the one testified to by private complainant Tangcoy is untenable.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DANILO
FELICIANO, JR. ET AL.
G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014
The inclusion of the phrase "wearing masks and/or other
forms of disguise" in the information does not violate the
constitutional rights of appellants Feliciano. Every
aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the
information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance,
even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such. It
was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the
aggravating circumstance of "wearing masks and/or other
forms of disguise" in the information in order for all the
evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the
trial court.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 183652, 25 February 2015
As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one
offense, otherwise, the same is defective. The rationale behind this rule
prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the accused
the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to
sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the
accused two or more charges which might confuse him in his defense.
Non-compliance with this rule is a ground for quashing the duplicitous
complaint or information under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure and the accused may raise the same in a motion to quash before
he enters his plea, otherwise, the defect is deemed waived. The accused
herein, however, cannot avail of this defense simply because they did not
file a motion to quash questioning the validity of the Information during
their arraignment. Thus, they are deemed to have waived their right to
question the same. Also, where the allegations of the acts imputed to the
accused are merely different counts specifying the acts of perpetration of
the same crime, as in the instant case, there is no duplicity to speak of.
DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE
The acts and omissions constituting the offense must be
alleged.
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be

specified.(Rule 110, Sec. 8)
In case of conflict between the designation of the crime and

the recital of facts constituting the offense, the latter prevails.
Minority: As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape,

the concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship
to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven
beyond reasonable doubt. (People v. Albalate, Jr. G.R. No.
174480, December 18, 2009)
DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE
A mere statement or a conclusion of law is insufficient to convict an
accused. (People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, 14 November 2011)
Thus, an information charging sexual abuse, stating that accused
with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person of the
offended party is insufficient as it does not contain the essential facts
constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of law. (People
v. Pangilinan, supra.).
There is no substitution of the information where the amendment
of the information consists of the allegation of a different mode by
which a certain crime is committed, i.e. when an information
charging an accused with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was
modified to change the specification as to the mode of commission
thereof. (Saludaga v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 184537, 23 April
2010)
SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 184537, 23 April 2010
An Information charging petitioners Saludaga and
SPO2 Genio for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
by causing undue injury to the government was dismissed
for failure of the prosecution to allege and prove the
amount of actual damages caused the government, an
essential element of the crime charged. The Office of the
Special prosecutor re-filed the information, charging the
petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, by
giving unwarranted benefit to a private person, to the
prejudice of the government. The issue is whether or not
there was a substitution of the information that should
have warranted the conduct of a preliminary investigation.
SALUDAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 184537, 23 April 2010
There is no substituted information here. The Information dated
August 17, 2007 charged the same offense, that is, violation of Section 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019. Only the mode of commission was modified. While
jurisprudence, the most recent being Talaga, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, provides
that there are two (2) acts or modes of committing the offense, thus: a) by
causing any undue injury to any party, including the government; or b) by
giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference,
it does not mean that each act or mode constitutes a distinct offense. An
accused may be charged under either mode or under both should both
modes concur.
Petitioners reliance on the Teehankee v. Madayag, ruling that, in

substitution of information another preliminary investigation is entailed
and that the accused has to plead anew to the new information is not
applicable to the present case because, as already stated, there is no
substitution of information there being no change in the nature of the
offense charged.
SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 17575051, 2 April 2014
Moleta filed a case against Consigna, the Municipal
Treasurer of General Luna, Surigao del Norte, for violation of
AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices and Estafa before the
Sandiganbayan. Cosigna argued that the Sandiganbayan has
no jurisdiction because the crime as charged did not specify
the provision of law allegedly violated, i.e., the specific type of
Estafa. On that issue, the Supreme Court ruled that what is
controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation
of the offense charge or the particular law or part thereof
allegedly violated but the description of the crime charged and
the particular facts therein recited.
CANCERAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 206442, 1 JULY 2015
In the subject information, the designation of the prosecutor
of the offense, which was Frustrated Theft, may be just his
conclusion. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the charge was
qualified by the additional allegation, but, nevertheless, did
not produce it by reason of some cause independent of
accuseds will, that is, they were discovered by the employees
of Ororama Mega Center who prevented them from further
carrying away said 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream, x
x x. This averment, which could also be deemed by some as a
mere conclusion, rendered the charge nebulous. There being
an uncertainty, the Supreme Court resolved the doubt in favor
of the accused, Canceran, and held that he was not properly
informed that the charge against him was consummated theft.
DUNGO, ET AL. v. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 209464, 1 JULY 2015
The Amended Information reads:
That on or about 2:30 in the early morning of 14 January 2006,

at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Province of
Laguna and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, during a planned initiation rite and
being then officers and members of Alpha Phi Omega
fraternity and present thereat, in conspiracy with more or less
twenty other members and officers, whose identity is not yet
known, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault and use personal violence upon one
MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte thereof and
as condition for his admission to the fraternity, thereby
subjecting him to physical harm, resulting to his death, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim.
G.R. NO. 209464, 1 JULY 2015
Petitioners claim that the amended information avers a
criminal charge of hazing by actual participation, but the only
offense proved during the trial was hazing by inducement.
Their contention must fail. It is evident that the Information
need not use the exact language of the statute in alleging the
acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The
test is whether it enables a person of common understanding to
know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment
properly. The planned initiation rite as stated in the
information included the act of inducing Villanueva to attend it.
In ordinary parlance, a planned event can be understood to
have different phases. Likewise, the hazing activity had
different stages and the perpetrators had different roles therein,
not solely inflicting physical injury to the neophyte.
G.R. NO. 209464, 1 JULY 2015
One of the roles of the petitioners in the hazing activity was to
induce Villanueva to be present. Dungo and Sibal not only
induced Villanueva to be present at the resort, but they actually
brought him there. They fulfilled their roles in the planned
hazing rite which eventually led to the death of Villanueva. The
hazing would not have been accomplished were it not for the
acts of the petitioners that induced the victim to be present.
Secrecy and silence are common characterizations of the
dynamics of hazing. To require the prosecutor to indicate every
step of the planned initiation rite in the information at the
inception of the criminal case, when details of the clandestine
hazing are almost nil, would be an arduous task, if not
downright impossible. The law does not require the impossible
(lex non cognit ad impossibilia).
G.R. NO. 209464, 1 JULY 2015
The proper approach would be to require the
prosecution to state every element of the crime of hazing,
the offenders, and the accompanying circumstances in the
planned initiation activity, which has been satisfied in the
present case. Accordingly, the amended information
sufficiently informed the petitioners that they were being
criminally charged for their roles in the planned initiation
rite.
CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
Allegations required to safeguard the right to be informed
Allegations must be in ordinary or concise language,
sufficient to enable person of common understanding to
know what offense is being charged.
This must be done both for the offense charged and the
circumstances involved in its commission. (Rule 110, Sec. 9)
The prosecutors characterization of the crime is immaterial
and purposeless. The facts stated in the body of the
complaint/information determine the crime of which the
accused stands charged and for which he must be tried.
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged.
Aggravating circumstances must be specified in the
information, otherwise they are not to be considered even if
proven during the trial. (Rule 110, Sec. 8)
DUPLICITY OF THE OFFENSE
General Rule:
The information must charge only one offense.
Exception:
When the law prescribes a single punishment for various
offenses.
Remedy of accused when the information charges more than
one offense: file a Motion to Quash.
Section 3, Rule 120 states that "[w]hen two or more offenses are
charged in a single complaint or information but the accused
fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict the
appellant of as many as are charged and proved, and impose
on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the
findings of fact and law in each offense."
AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
Amendments in form and substance before plea
General Rule:
It must be made before the accused enters his plea.
Exception:
If the amendment downgrades the nature of the offense charged in, or
excludes any accused from, the complaint/information, it can be made
only upon motion of the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party
and with leave of court.
Substantial amendments after plea are proscribed. Unlike formal
amendments, substantial amendments cannot be introduced after
plea. (Leviste v. Almeda, 2010)
Formal amendments may be made after plea and during trial; but it
should not cause prejudice to the rights of the accused.
Amendment v. Substitution
Amendment
formal or substantial changes;
can be effected without leave of court;
if only as to form, no need for another PI and plea;
the amended information refers to the same offense
charged in the original information or to an offense
included in the original charge;
accused can invoke double jeopardy.
Amendment v. Substitution
Substitution
involves a substantial change from the original charge;
must be with leave of court;
another preliminary investigation is entailed and the
accused has to plead anew to the new information; and
requires or presupposes that the new information
involves a different offense which does not include or is
not necessarily included in the original charge, hence
the accused cannot claim double jeopardy.
DR. JOEL C. MENDEZ v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 179962, 11 June 2014
Dr. Joel Mendez was charged with tax evasion. However,
the prosecutor filed an amended complaint which changed the
date of the commission of the offense. The court ruled that
amendments that do not charge another offense different from
that charged in the original one; or do not alter the
prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the
accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume
are considered merely as formal amendments. The test on
whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of an
information pertains to the availability of the same defense and
evidence that the accused previously had under the original
information.
VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Venue - the place where action is to be instituted.
Venue of criminal actions shall be:

in the court of the municipality or territory
where offense was committed; or
where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
How venue or jurisdiction is determined

Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional, being an essential
element jurisdiction. (Macasaet v. People, 2005)
For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases
the offense should have been committed or any one of its
essential ingredients took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court. (Uy v. CA, 1997)
When crime is continuing
A person charged with transitory crime maybe validly
tried in any municipality or province where the offense
was in part committed. (People v. Gorospe, 1984)
Libel cases
If a private individual, action may also be filed in the
province where he actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense. If a public officer, action may
be filed in the court of the province or city where he held
office at the time of the commission of the offense. (Art
360, RPC)
Offense committed on railroad
Action may be instituted and filed in the court of the first port
of entry or any municipality or territory where said train,
aircraft or vehicle passed thru, including place of departure or
arrival. (Rule 110, Sec.15[b])
Offense committed on a vessel

Action may be instituted and filed in the court of the first port
of entry or any municipality or territory where the vessel
passed during such voyage, subject to generally accepted
principles of international law. (Rule 110, Sec. 15[c])
Offense committed outside the Philippines

Cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first
filed. (Rule 110, Sec.15[d])
INTERVENTION OF OFFENDED
PARTY
General Rule:
An offended party has the right to intervene in the
prosecution of a crime. (Rule 110, Sec. 16)
Exceptions:
Where, from the nature of the crime and the law defining
and punishing it, no civil liability arises in favor of a
private offended party.
Where, from the nature of the offense, the private
offended party is entitled to civil indemnity arising
therefrom but he waived the same or has expressly
reserved his right to institute a separate civil action or he
has already instituted such action.
Offended party has already instituted action.
LEONARDO A. VILLALON, et al. v.
AMELIA CHAN
G.R. No. 196508, 24 September 2014
Sec. 16 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure expressly allows an offended party to intervene
by counsel in the prosecution of the offense for the recovery
of civil liability where the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense charged is instituted
with the criminal action. The civil action shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action, except when the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action.
LEONARDO A. VILLALON, et al. v.
AMELIA CHAN
G.R. No. 196508, 24 September 2014
In this case, the Court of Appeals found no such waiver
from or reservation made by Chan. The fact that Chan, who
was already based abroad, had secured the services of an
attorney in the Philippines reveals her willingness and
interest to participate in the prosecution of the bigamy case
and to recover civil liability from the petitioners. Thus, the
trial court should have allowed, and should not have
disqualified, Atty. Atencia from intervening in the bigamy
case as Chan, being the offended party, is afforded by law
the right to participate through counsel in the prosecution of
the offense with respect to the civil aspect of the case
D. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL
ACTION
RULE ON IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ACTION WITH
CRIMINAL ACTION
General Rule:
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery
of damages is deemed instituted with the criminal action. (Rule 111,
Sec. 1)
Exception:
If the offended party:
waives a civil action;
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action; or
reserves the right to institute it separately.
Exceptions to the exception:

Claims arising out of a dishonored check under BP 22 where no
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Claims arising from an offense which is cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan. (Sec. 4, PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249)
WHEN CIVIL ACTION MAY PROCEED
INDEPENDENTLY
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action
shall be made:
before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence, and
under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.
Procedure for making the reservation

Filing a manifestation in the criminal case that the offended party is
reserving his right to file a separate civil action.
Filing the separate civil action and informing the court trying the
criminal case that the offended party has filed a separate civil action.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or 3rd party complaint may be filed by
the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action. (Rule 111, Sec. 1)
WHEN SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION IS
SUSPENDED
The civil action which should be suspended after
the institution of the criminal action is that arising
from delict or crime.
Civil actions mentioned in Rule 111, Sec.3, under
Arts. 32-34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are
exempted from the rule that after a criminal action
has been commenced, the civil action which has
been reserved cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.
EFFECT OF THE DEATH OF ACCUSED OR
CONVICT ON CIVIL ACTION (RULE 111, SEC.4)
General Rule:
If death is before arraignment, the case is dismissed without prejudice to the
filing of civil action against estate of the deceased.
If death is after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action, it
extinguishes the civil liability of the accused.
Exceptions:
If civil liability is predicated on other sources of obligations, as with
independent civil actions, recovery may still be made against the estate of the
deceased or legal representative after proper substitution.
If death is while appeal is pending it extinguishes criminal liability and civil
liability based thereon.
Effect of judgment on civil case on the criminal action

A final 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 subject of the civil action. (Rule 111, Sec.5)
EFFECT OF THE DEATH OF ACCUSED OR
CONVICT ON CIVIL ACTION (RULE 111, SEC.4)
Effect of judgment on civil case on the criminal action

A final 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 subject of the civil action. (Rule 111, Sec.5)
DR. ANTONIO P. CABUGAO AND DR. CLENIO
YNZON v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 163879, 30 July 2014
It is clear that the death of the accused Dr. Ynzon pending
appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability.
However, the recovery of civil liability subsists as the same is
not based on delict but by contract and the reckless imprudence
he was guilty of under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
For this reason, a separate civil action may be enforced either
against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused,
depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is
based, and in accordance with Section 4, Rule 111 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure.
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case
the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal.
The prejudicial question must be determinative of

the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try
and resolve the question must be lodged in another
court or tribunal.
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
Requisites of a Prejudicial Question
Previously initiated civil action involves issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action;
The resolution of such issue determines WON the criminal
action may proceed.
Effect of prejudicial question

Gen Rule: Where both a civil and a criminal case arising
from the same facts are filed in court, the criminal case takes
precedence.
Exception: If there exists a prejudicial question which
should be resolved first before an action could be taken in
the criminal case.
PEOPLE V. ARAMBULO
G.R. No. 186597, 17 June 2015
In their motion to suspend proceedings, respondents asserted that the
resolution of the two (2) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cases
in their favor would necessarily result in their acquittal in the criminal case
for estafa. The first case, SEC Case No. 05-97-5659, is an action for
accounting of all corporate funds and assets, annulment of sale, injunction,
receivership and damages. The second case, SEC Case No. 03-99-6259,
involves the issue on whether the group of Rodrigo and Buban are the
lawful representatives of the corporation and whether they are duly
authorized to make a demand for remittance.
The following requisites must be present for a civil action to be

considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the
criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil case: (1) the civil
case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or issues
raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said question must be
lodged in another tribunal.
PEOPLE V. ARAMBULO
G.R. No. 186597, 17 June 2015
SEC Case No. 05-97-5659, which is an action for accounting of all
corporate funds and assets, annulment of sale, injunction, receivership and
damages, does not present a prejudicial question to the criminal case for
estafa. Even if said case will be decided against respondents, they will not
be adjudged free from criminal liability. It also does not automatically
follow that an accounting of corporate funds and properties and
annulment of fictitious sale of corporate assets would result in the
conviction of respondents in the estafa case.
With respect to SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, a prejudicial question exists.

The Complaint in SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 prays for the nullification of
the election of Anaped directors and officers, including Buban. Essentially,
the issue is the authority of the aforesaid officers to act for and behalf of
the corporation. If it is ruled in the SEC case that the present Anaped
directors and officers were not validly elected, then respondent Victoria
may have every right to refuse remittance of rental to Buban. Hence, the
essential element of misappropriation in estafa may be absent in this case.
RULE ON FILING FEES IN CIVIL ACTION
DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH THE
CRIMINAL ACTION
General Rule: Actual damages claimed or recovered by
the offended party are not included in the computation of
the filing fees. (Rule 111, Sec. 1)
Exception: In criminal actions for violation of BP22, the

amount of the check involved shall be considered as the
actual damages for which no separate civil action is
allowed.
RULE ON FILING FEES IN CIVIL ACTION
DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH THE CRIMINAL
ACTION
INDEMNITY
Civil
indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of
the commission of the crime by the offender. (People v.
Corpuz, G.R. No. 175836, 30 January 2009).
The rule is that the acquittal of an accused of the crime
charged will not necessarily extinguish his civil liability,

unless the court declares in a final judgment that the fact
from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
Courts can acquit an accused on reasonable doubt but still
order payment of civil damages in the same case. It is not
even necessary that a separate civil action be instituted.
E. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
NATURE OF RIGHT
Preliminary investigation (PI) an inquiry or proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
trial. (Rule 112, Sec.1)
The right to PI is a statutory right in those instances where it is

required, and to withhold it would violate the constitutional
right to due process (People v Oandasa, 1968); it is not a formal
or technical right but a substantial right.
It is a personal right which the accused may waive expressly or

impliedly.
PURPOSES OF PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
To determine whether or not a crime has been
committed and whether or not there is probable
cause to believe the accused is guilty;
To protect the accused from inconvenience,
expense and burden of defending himself in a
formal trial;
To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious
and oppressive prosecution.
RODOLFO M. AGDEPPA v.
HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 146376, 23 April 2014
Agdeppas assertion that he had been denied due process is
misplaced, bearing in mind that the rights to be informed of the
charges, to file a comment to the complaint, and to participate in
the preliminary investigation, belong to Junia. Clearly, the right to
preliminary investigation is a component of the right of the
respondent/accused to substantive due process. A complainant
cannot insist that a preliminary investigation be held when the
complaint was dismissed outright because of palpable lack of
merit. It goes against the very nature and purpose of preliminary
investigation to still drag the respondent/accused through the
rigors of such an investigation so as to aid the complainant in
substantiating an accusation/charge that is evidently baseless from
the very beginning.
PEOPLE v. OMILIG
G.R. No. 206296, 12 August 2015
Accused executed his extrajudicial confession during the
preliminary investigation. Is this extrajudicial confession
admissible in evidence?
Custodial Interrogation/Investigation is the questioning

initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant way. On the other hand, Preliminary
Investigation is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine
whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed, and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for
trial. A person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot
be considered as being under custodial investigation.
PEOPLE v. OMILIG
G.R. No. 206296, 12 August 2015
The import of the distinction between custodial
interrogation and preliminary investigation relates to the
inherently coercive nature of a custodial interrogation which is
conducted by the police authorities. Due to the interrogatory
procedures employed by police authorities, which are
conducive to physical and psychological coercion, the law
affords arrested persons constitutional rights to guarantee the
voluntariness of their confessions and admissions, and to act as
deterrent from coercion by police authorities. These safeguards
are found in Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution and
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438. Sans proper safeguards, custodial
investigation is a fertile means to obtain confessions and
admissions in duress.
PEOPLE v. OMILIG
G.R. No. 206296, 12 August 2015
In this case, accuseds extrajudicial confession is admissible
in evidence because it was obtained obtained during a
preliminary investigation. And even if accuseds extrajudicial
confession was obtained under custodial investigation, it is
admissible. To be admissible, a confession must comply with
the following requirements: it must be (a) voluntary; (b) made
with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; (c)
express; and (d) in writing. In the case at bar, the prosecution
did not present proof of the absence of any of these
requirements.
WHO MAY CONDUCT DETERMINATION
OF EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
Provincial/city prosecutors and their assistants, national
and regional state prosecutors, and other officers as
may be authorized by law. (Rule 112, Sec.2)
COMELEC may conduct investigation re: election
offenses. (Omnibus Election Code)
Ombudsman is authorized to conduct PI re: criminal
cases involving public officers and employees.
(Ombudsman Act)
ANLUD METAL RECYCLING
CORPORATION v. ANG
G.R. No. 182157, 17 August 2015
Petitioner explains that there are two determinations of
probable cause: the first is for the purpose of filing a criminal
information in the court, and the second is for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. Petitioner submits that since the first kind is
executive in nature, then the Regional Trial Court had
absolutely no jurisdiction to determine the existence of
probable cause to hold respondent as an accused in the crime
of estafa. Hence, for petitioner, the Regional Trial Court
grievously erred when it gave due course to the Omnibus
Motion of respondent, which questioned the determination of
probable cause by the prosecutor. Respondent counters this
argument by alleging that the Regional Trial Court may resolve
issues brought before it pursuant to the power of the court to
administer justice.
ANLUD METAL RECYCLING CORPORATION v. ANG
G.R. No. 182157, 17 August 2015
Petitioners interpretation of the rules on the determination of probable

cause is inaccurate. Although courts must respect the executive determination
of probable cause, the trial courts may still independently determine probable
cause. They are not irrevocably bound to the determination of probable cause
by the prosecutor and the Department of Justice. The trial court actually has the
following options upon the filing of a criminal information: (a) immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
cause; (b) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and (c) order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice in case
of doubt as to the existence of probable cause. These options are provided in
Rule 112, Section 6 (a) of the Rules of Court. Indeed, the Regional Trial Court is
allowed to dismiss the charge of estafa against Ang notwithstanding the
executive determination of probable cause by the prosecutor. If we were to
construe otherwise, we would be contradicting the basic principle that once an
information is filed in Regional Trial Court, any disposition of the case rests
already in the sound discretion of the court.
Procedure of PI
Filing of Complaint (Rule 112, Sec. 3[a]);
Action of the investigating prosecutor (Rule
112, Sec. 3[b]);
Respondents counter-affidavit (Rule 112, Sec.
3[c]);
Hearing (Rule 112, Sec. 3[e]).
RESOLUTION OF INVESTIGATING
PROSECUTOR
If there is no finding of probable cause, the
investigating prosecutor dismisses the case.
If there is probable cause, he prepares the
information and resolution.
Note: The investigating prosecutor cannot file
information without prior approval of superior.
REVIEW
Within 5 days from resolution, the investigating
prosecutor officer will forward the case to the
prosecutor or Ombudsman.
Within 10 days from receipt, the prosecutor or
Ombudsman will act on the case, who must
authorize/approve the filing of the information by
the investigating prosecutor.
REVIEW
In case of dismissal by the investigating prosecutor,
the prosecutor or Ombudsman, if he disagrees, may
file the information himself or any deputy or order
any prosecutor to do so without conducting a new PI.
The Secretary of Justice may direct the filing of
information or dismissal of the complaint. If an
information is already filed in court, he may direct the
prosecutor to move for the dismissal of the
information with notice to the parties.
Procedure of Appeal to the Secretary of Justice
from a Resolution on Preliminary
Investigation
Filing of a verified Petition for Review within 15
days from receipt of resolution, or of the denial of the
motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation.
Outright dismissal by the Sec. of Justice if the
petition is patently without merit or manifestly
intended for delay.
Verified comment to the petition by the adverse
party within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15)
days from receipt of a copy of the petition
Procedure of Appeal to the Secretary of
Justice from a Resolution on Preliminary
Investigation
Reinvestigation if the Secretary of Justice finds it necessary
to reinvestigate the case.
Disposition/Decision of Appeal. The Sec. of Justice may
reverse, affirm or modify the appealed resolution. (only one
MR of the Decision is allowed)
It is settled that, when confronted with a motion to
withdraw an Information (on the ground of lack of
probable cause to hold the accused for trial based on a
resolution of the DOJ Secretary), the trial court has the duty
to make an independent assessment of the merits of the
motion and should not merely rely on the findings of the
Secretary. (Harold Tamargo v. Romulo Awingan, et al., G.R.
No. 177727, 19 January 2010)
HAROLD TAMARGO v. ROMULO
AWINGAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010
Informations for murder were filed against
respondents. The DOJ, on review, directed the
withdrawal of the Informations, and declared that the
extrajudicial confession of Columna was inadmissible
against respondents and that, even if it was
admissible, it was not corroborated by other evidence.
The trial prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the
Informations. The issue now is whether or not Judge
Daguna erred in denying the said motion.
AWINGAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010
It is settled that, when confronted with a motion to withdraw
an Information (on the ground of lack of probable cause to hold
the accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary),
the trial court has the duty to make an independent assessment
of the merits of the motion. It may either agree or disagree with
the recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone on the
resolution of the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial
courts duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.
The court must itself be convinced that there is indeed no
sufficient evidence against the accused. Here, Judge Daguna
seriously erred by limiting her evaluation and assessment only
to evidence that supported probable cause while completely
disregarding contradicting evidence.
AWINGAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010
The validity and merits of a partys defense or

accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies
and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper
than at the preliminary investigation. (Lee, et al. v. KBC
Bank N.V. G.R. No. 164673, 15 January 2010)
LEE, ET AL. v. KBC BANK N.V.
G.R. No. 164673, 15 January 2010
As to the issue of probable cause for estafa, petitioners
claim that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the
admissibility of the facsimile message is a matter best
ventilated in a full-blown trial.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals.

The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is
evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be
passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. In fine, the
validity and merits of a partys defense or accusation, as well
as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better
ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary
investigation.
WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST MAY ISSUE
PC for Prosecutor: WON there is reasonable ground to believe
that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be
held for trial for which the information is to be filed.
PC for Judge: WON there is reasonable ground to believe that
an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested, and warrant of arrest should be issued so that the
accused may be held in custody in order not to frustrate the
ends of justice.
If the judge finds PC, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a
commitment order if accused is already arrested.
The judge need not personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses in the determination of PC, but he must
personally evaluate the prosecutors report supporting
evidence, and on that basis, dismiss the case, issue warrant of
arrest, or require further affidavits.
PDIC v. HON. CASIMIRO
G.R. No. 206866, 2 Sept 2015
It was error on the part of the Ombudsman to simply
discredit Gomezs affidavit as inadmissible in evidence for
being hearsay. It is noteworthy to point out that owing to the
initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the technical
rules of evidence should not be applied in the course of its
proceedings. In the recent case of Estrada v. Ombudsman, the
Court declared that hearsay evidence is admissible in
determining probable cause in preliminary investigations
because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does
not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. Citing
a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, it
was held that probable cause can be established with hearsay
evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the
hearsay.
CASES NOT REQUIRING A PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
If the complaint is filed directly with the prosecutor
involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of
less than 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, the procedure
outlined in Rule 112, Sec. 3(a) shall be observed. The
prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the
affidavits and other supporting documents submitted
by the complainant within 10 days from filing.
REMEDIES OF ACCUSED IF THERE WAS
NO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Effect of denial of right to PI:
While PI is a statutory and substantive right and a
component part of due process, its absence :
(1) does not impair the validity of the information or
otherwise render it defective;
(2) neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court;
(3) nor constitute a ground for quashing the information.
REMEDIES OF ACCUSED IF THERE WAS
NO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Before the information or complaint is filed, the person
arrested may ask for a P.I., but he must sign a waiver of the
provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC in the presence of his
counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail.
The investigation must be terminated within 15 days from
its inception.
After the filing of the complaint/information in court
without a P.I., the accused may within 5 days from the time
he learns of its filing, ask for a P.I.
In practice, when an Information is filed and the accused
did not undergo P.I., the following motions may also be
filed in court:
Motion for Reinvestigation.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.
INQUEST
Definition of inquest
Inquest is a summary inquiry conducted by the
prosecutor for the purpose of determining
whether the warrantless arrest of a person is
based on probable cause.
General Rule:
PI is required to be conducted before a
complaint/information is filed for an offense
where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4
years, 2 months and 1 day, without regard to the
fine. (Rule 112, Sec. 1)
INQUEST
Exception:
When a person is lawfully arrested without a
warrant involving an offense that requires a PI, a
complaint/information may be filed without
conducting the PI if the necessary inquest is
conducted.
After the filing of the complaint or information in
court without a PI, the accused may, within 5 days
from the time he learns of its filling, ask for a PI with
the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as
provided in Rule 112. (Rule112, Sec. 6)
F. Arrest
ARREST, HOW MADE
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
(Rule 113, Sec.1)
Constitutional requirements of arrest
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses that he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized. (Art. 3, Sec. 2,
Constitution)
An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to
be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the
person making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in
making an arrest. Person arrested shall not be subject
to a greater restraint than necessary. (Rule 113, Sec. 2)
Time to make arrest: Arrest may be made on any day
and at any time of the day or night. (Rule 113, Sec. 6)
ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN
LAWFUL.
In Flagrante Delicto Literally, caught in the act
of committing a crime. When the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing or
is attempting to commit an offense in the presence
of the peace officer or private person who arrested
him. (Rule 113, Sec. 5a)
When a police officer sees the offense, although at
a distance, or hears the disturbances created
thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may
effect an arrest without a warrant, as the offense is
deemed committed in his presence or within his
view. (People v. Ng Yik Bun, G.R. No. 180452, 10
January 2011)
ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN
LAWFUL.
When an arrest is made during an entrapment or a
buy-bust operation, it is not required that a
warrant be secured in line with the provisions of
Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court
allowing warrantless arrests by a peace officer or a
private person when, in his presence, the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense. (People v.
Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010)
PEOPLE V. SEMBRANO
G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010
Accused was arrested after the police conducted a buy-bust
operation and was eventually convicted for violation of Section
5 of R.A. No. 9165. On the issue of the legality of the arrest of
the accused, the Supreme Court noted that accused was
arrested during an entrapment operation where he was caught
in flagrante delicto selling shabu. When an arrest is made
during an entrapment operation, it is not required that a
warrant be secured in line with the provisions of Rule 113,
Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court allowing warrantless
arrests by a peace officer or a private person when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
PEOPLE V. SEMBRANO
G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010
Furthermore, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and
effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out
with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-
bust operation, such as the one involving accused, deserves
judicial sanction. Consequently, the warrantless arrest and
warrantless search and seizure conducted on the person of
accused were allowed under the circumstances. The search,
incident to accuseds lawful arrest, needed no warrant to
sustain its validity. Thus, there is no doubt that the sachets of
shabu recovered during the legitimate buy-bust operation, are
admissible and were properly admitted in evidence against
him.
PEOPLE V. SEMBRANO
G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior
surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the
buy-bust operation and the warrantless arrest of the
accused caught in flagrante delicto. (People v. Manlangit,
G.R. No. 189806, 12 January 2011)
Entrapment v. Instigation
Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to
commit an offense originated from the inducer and
not the accused who had no intention to commit the
crime and would not have committed it were it not
for the initiatives by the inducer. In entrapment, the
criminal intent or design to commit the offense
charged originates in the mind of the accused.
Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused,
while entrapment does not bar prosecution and
conviction.
HOT PURSUIT ARREST
When an offense has just been committed and the officer
or private person has probable cause to believe, based on
personal knowledge of acts or circumstances, that the
person to be arrested has committed it (Rule 113, Sec. 5b)
ARREST OF ESCAPED PRISONER When the person to
be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped: (Rule 113, sec. 5c)
From a penal establishment or place where he is:
Serving final judgment;
Temporarily confined while his case is pending;
While being transferred from one confinement to another;
Escapee may be immediately pursued or re-arrested
without warrant at any time and in any place within the
Philippines. (Rule 113, Sec. 13)
Effect of Failure to Object to Warrantless Arrests
Any objection to the procedure followed in the
matter of the acquisition by a court of jurisdiction
over the person of the accused must be opportunely
raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived.
METHOD OF ARREST
A. By officer with warrant
Duties of the arresting officer:
Execution of warrant (Rule 113, Sec.4);
The head office to whom the warrant of arrest was
delivered shall cause the warrant to be executed within
10 days from its receipt;
To make a report to the judge who issued the warrant
within 10 days after expiration of the period to execute;
In case of his failure to execute, he shall state the reasons
therefore;
To arrest the accused and deliver him to the nearest
police station or jail without unnecessary delay. (Rule
113, Sec. 3)
B. By officer without warrant
Duties of arresting officer without warrant:
The officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his
authority and the cause of the arrest. (Rule 113, Sec. 8)
Exceptions:
The person to be arrested is engaged in the commission of the
offense;
He is pursued immediately after its commission;
He escapes, flees or forcibly resists before the officer has the
opportunity to so inform him;
Giving such information will imperil the arrest.
The private person shall inform the person to be arrested of
the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest. (Rule
113, Sec. 9)
Exceptions: same as those for the arrest by an officer.
C. By private person
Duties of private person effecting an arrest:
The private person must deliver the arrested
person to the nearest police station or jail, and
he shall be proceeded against in accordance
with Rule 112, Sec. 7.
Otherwise, the private person may be held
liable for illegal detention.
REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT OF
ARREST
It must be issued upon probable cause which

must be determined personally by a judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce. (Art. 3, Sec. 2, Constitution)
Instances When Judge Issues Warrant of
Arrest
Upon the filing of the information by the
public prosecutor and after personal
evaluation by the judge of the prosecutors
resolution and supporting evidence. (Rule
112, Sec. 6a)
Upon application of a peace officer and after
personal examination by the judge of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce.
(Rule 112, Sec. 6b)
DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE
CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF
WARRANT OF ARREST
Probable cause is the existence of such facts
and circumstances that would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent person to
believe that an offense has been committed by
the person sought to be arrested.
DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE
CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF
WARRANT OF ARREST
The probable cause test is an objective one,
for in order that there be probable cause, the
facts and circumstances must be such as
would warrant a belief by a reasonable
prudent man that the accused is guilty of the
crime which has been committed. (People v.
Allado, 1994)
DISTINGUISH PROBABLE CAUSE OF
PROSECUTOR FROM THAT OF A JUDGE
The law requires personal determination on the
part of the judge. The judge may rely on the
report of the investigating prosecutor provided
he also evaluates the documentary evidence in
support thereof. Hence, the fiscals finding of
probable cause is not conclusive upon the judge
as to his determination of whether or not there is
indeed probable cause. (AAA v. Carbonell, 2007)
DISTINGUISH PROBABLE CAUSE OF
PROSECUTOR FROM THAT OF A JUDGE
PC of Prosecutor: WON there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused is guilty of
the offense charged and should be held for
trial for which information is to be filed
PC of Judge: WON there is reasonable
ground to believe that an offense has been
committed by the person sought to be
arrested, and warrant of arrest should be
issued so that the accused may be held in
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
justice.
G. BAIL
NATURE
Bail is the security given for the release of a
person in custody of the law, furnished by him or
a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before
any court as required under conditions
hereinafter specified. (Rule 114, Sec. 1)
Bail is a constitutional and statutory right.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELCHOR
D. BRITA
G.R. No. 191260, 24 November 2014
Brita asserts that the grant of bail bolsters his
claim that the evidence of the prosecution is not
strong enough to prove his guilt. The Court is not
convinced. "A grant of bail does not prevent the
trial court, as the trier of facts, from making a
final assessment of the evidence after full trial on
the merits." It is not an uncommon occurrence
that an accused person granted bail is convicted
in due course.
WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT;
EXCEPTIONS
When bail is a matter of right (Rule 114, Sec. 4)
Before or after conviction by MTC;
Before conviction by RTC of all offenses
punishable by penalty lower than reclusion
perpetua.
When right to bail not available.
(1) When evidence of guilt is strong in capital
offenses or offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.
Except: When the accused charged with a capital
offense is a minor, he is entitled to bail
regardless of whether the evidence of guilt is
strong.
Capital Offense: An offense which under the law
existing at the time of commission and of the
application for admission to bail is punishable
by death. (Rule 114, Sec. 6)
The capital nature of the offense is determined by the
penalty prescribed by law and not the one actually
imposed.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment
exceeding 6 years, the accused shall be denied bail or his
bail shall be cancelled upon showing by the prosecution of
the following:
Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, or habitual delinquency or
commission of a crime aggravated by reiteration.
Previously escaped legal confinement, evaded sentence or
violated bail condition w/o justification
Commission of an offense while under probation, parole or
conditional pardon
Probability of flight
Undue risk that he may commit another crime during
pendency of appeal
(2) Right to bail is not available in the military.
(Comendador v De Villa, 1991)
(3) After a judgment of conviction has become

final.
If he applied for probation before finality, he
may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail
(Rule 114, Sec. 24).
(4) After the accused has commenced to serve

his sentence. (Rule 114, Sec. 24)
WHEN BAIL IS A MATTER OF
DISCRETION
(a) Before conviction, in offenses punishable by

death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015
Enrile claims that before judgment of conviction, an

accused is entitled to bail as matter of right; that it is
the duty and burden of the Prosecution to show
clearly and conclusively that Enrile comes under the
exception
and cannot be excluded from enjoying the right to
bail; that the Prosecution has failed to establish that
Enrile, if convicted of plunder, is punishable by
reclusion perpetua considering the presence of two
mitigating circumstances his age and his voluntary
surrender; that the Prosecution has not come
forward with proof showing that his guilt for the
crime of plunder is strong; and that he should not be
considered a flight risk taking into account that he is
already over the age of 90, his medical condition,
and his social standing.
It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to

prevent the accused from committing additional
crimes, but is to guarantee the appearance of the
accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the
trial court. Admission to bail in offenses punished by
death, or life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua is
subject to judicial discretion. For purposes of
admission to bail, the determination of whether or
not evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases
involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable
with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies
within the discretion of the trial court. But such
discretion may be exercised only after the hearing
called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused
for the purpose of whether or not he should be
granted provisional liberty.
Enriles poor health justifies his admission to bail.

Enrile has averred in his Motion to Fix Bail the
presence of two mitigating circumstances that
should be appreciated in his favor, namely: that he
was already over 70 years at the time of the alleged
commission of the offense, and that he voluntarily
surrendered.
In granting Enriles petition for certiorari, the

Court is guided by the earlier mentioned principal
purpose of bail, which is to guarantee the
appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever
so required by the court. The Court is further
mindful of the Philippines responsibility in the
international community arising from the national
commitment under the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to uphold the fundamental human
rights as well as value the worth and dignity of
every person. Enriles social and political standing
and his having immediately surrendered to the
authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that
the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is
highly unlikely. His personal disposition from the onset
of his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has
demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes of
this country. At an earlier time many years ago when he
had been charged with rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder, he already evinced a similar
personal disposition of respect for the legal processes, and
was granted bail during the pendency of his trial because
he was not seen as a flight risk. With his solid reputation
in both his public and his private lives, his long years of
public service, and historys judgment of him being at
stake, he should be granted bail. The currently fragile
state of Enriles health presents another compelling
justification for his admission to bail, but which the
Sandiganbayan did not recognize.
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless
of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of
the merits of the charge, provided his continued
incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or
to endanger his life. Indeed, denying Enrile bail despite
imperiling his health and life would not serve the true
objective of preventive incarceration during the trial. It is
relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to Enrile
will then enable him to have his medical condition be
properly addressed and better attended to by competent
physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only
aid in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more
importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the
trial. On the other hand, to mark time in order to wait for the
trial to finish before a meaningful consideration of the
application for bail can be had is to defeat the objective of
bail, which is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty
pending the trial.
(b) Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment.
Conviction refers to conviction by the trial court,

which has not become final, as the accused still
has the right to appeal. After conviction by the
trial court, the accused convicted of a capital
offense is no longer entitled to bail, and can only
be released when the conviction is reversed by
appellate court. (Art. 3, Sec. 13, Constitution)
LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010
Accused was convicted of the lesser crime of

homicide and sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of more than six (6)
years. He appealed his conviction to the Court
of Appeals. Pending appeal, he filed an urgent
application for admission to bail pending
appeal, citing his advanced age and health
condition, and claiming the absence of any risk
or possibility of flight on his part, which was
denied by the Court of Appeals.
In dismissing petitioners petition, the Supreme Court
held that the discretionary nature of the grant of bail
pending appeal does not mean that bail should
automatically be granted absent any of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. The third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two
scenarios where the penalty imposed on the accused
applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six years.
The first scenario deals with the circumstances
enumerated in the said paragraph not present. The
second scenario contemplates the existence of at least
one of the said circumstances. In the first situation, bail
is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that,
if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the
appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail.
An application for bail pending appeal may be denied
even if the bail-negating circumstances in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. On theother
hand, in the second situation, the appellate court
exercises a more stringent discretion, that is, to carefully
ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances
in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no other option
except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Thus, a
finding that none of the said circumstances is present
will not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such
finding will simply authorize the court to use the less
stringent sound discretion approach.
HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR BAIL IN
CAPITAL OFFENSES
Capital offense is an offense which, under the law

existing at the time of its commission and of the
application for admission to bail may be
punished with death. The capital nature of an
offense is determined by the penalty prescribed
by law, and not by the penalty that may be
imposed after trial and on the basis of the
evidence adduced and the presence of
aggravating or mitigating circumstance. (Rule
114, Sec. 6)
Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment is not bailable when
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
the criminal prosecution (Rule 114, Sec. 7)
Duty of judge to conduct hearing

Where the prosecution agrees with the accuseds
application for bail or foregoes the introduction of
evidence, the court must nonetheless set the
application for hearing.
It is mandatory for the judge to conduct a hearing
and ask searching and clarificatory questions for the
purpose of determining the existence of strong
evidence against the accused; and the order, after
such hearing, should make a finding that the
evidence against the accused is strong.
Prosecution has burden of proof
At the hearing of an application for bail filed by a
person in custody for the commission of an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of
showing that evidence of guilt is strong. (Rule 114,
Sec. 8)
EVIDENCE OF GUILT in the Constitution and the
Rules refers to finding of innocence or culpability,
regardless of the modifying circumstances.
GUIDELINES IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF BAIL. (RULE 114, SEC.9)
DOJ Department Circular No. 89, as amended,
otherwise known as the 2000 Bail Bond Guide
provides standards and criteria for
recommendation of amount of bail to be granted,
if possible, and the rules for the computation of
bail.
Guidelines in fixing the amount of bail. (Rule 114,
Sec.9)
Financial ability of the accused

Nature and circumstances of the offense
Penalty for the offense charged
Character and reputation of the accused
Age and health of the accused
Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
Forfeiture of other bail
Fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when
arrested
Pendency of other cases where the accused is on
bail.
BAIL, WHEN NOT REQUIRED
When a person has been in custody for a period
equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he
may be sentenced, he shall be released
immediately, without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or proceedings on
appeal.
If the maximum penalty is destierro, he shall be

released after 30 days of preventive
imprisonment.
Note: No bail shall be required in prosecution of
offenses covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure,
except:
When a warrant of arrest was issued for failure

of the accused to appear when so required
When the accused is:
A recidivist
A fugitive from justice
Charged with physical injuries
Has no known residence (Secs. 10 and 12, Rules
on Summary Procedure)
INCREASE OR REDUCTION OF BAIL
The court may either increase or reduce the amount of
bail:
After the accused is admitted to bail;
Upon good cause.
INCREASED bail: Accused may be committed to
custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount
within a reasonable period of time. (Rule 114, Sec. 20)
REDUCED bail: Person in custody for period equal to
or more than minimum of principal penalty prescribed
for the offense charged may be released on a reduced
bond. (Rule 114, Sec. 16)
FORFEITURE AND CANCELLATION OF
BAIL
Forfeiture of bail (Rule 114, Sec. 21)
If the accused fails to appear in person as required by the
court, bondsmen are given 30 days within which to:
Produce the body of principal or give reason for the non-
production. Bondsmen may:
Arrest the accused;
Cause him to be arrested by a police officer or any other
person of suitable age or discretion upon written authority
endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking;
Explain why the accused failed to appear.
If the bondsmen fail to do these, judgment is rendered against
them, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail.
Bondsmens liability cannot mitigated or reduced, unless the
accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.
FORFEITURE AND CANCELLATION OF
BAIL
Cancellation of bail (Rule 114, Sec. 22)
Upon application of the bondsmen with due notice
to the prosecutor, bail may be cancelled upon:
(a) surrender of the accused has been surrendered of the
accused; or
(b) proof of his death.
Upon acquittal of the accused;
Upon the dismissal of the case; or
Upon execution of judgment of conviction.
APPLICATION NOT A BAR TO OBJECTIONS IN ILLEGAL ARREST,
LACK OF OR IRREGULAR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Bail is no longer a waiver of objections (Rule 114, Sec. 26;

Yusop v Sandiganbayan, 2001), provided that the proper
objections are timely raised (i.e., before accused enters a
plea). An application or an admission to bail shall NOT
bar the accused from challenging or questioning the:
Validity of his arrest
Legality of the arrest warrant
Regularity of PI
Absence of PI
The court shall resolve the objections as early as
practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the
case.
HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER & BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION WATCHLIST
Bondsmen can prevent accused from leaving country by
arresting him or asking for him to be re-arrested by a
police officer upon written authority. (Rule 114, Sec. 23)
The accused may be prohibited from the leaving country
during the pendency of his case (People v. Uy Tuising,
1935; Manotoc v. CA 1986). If the accused released on bail
attempts to depart from the Philippines without the
permission of the court where his cases is pending, he
may be re-arrested without warrant. (Rule 113, Sec. 23)
Hold-Departure Orders: This may be issued only by the
RTCs in criminal cases within their exclusive
jurisdiction. (SC Circular No. 39-97, 19 June 1997)
DOJ Cir. No. 41-10 (25 May 2010)
Sec. 1. Hold Departure Order. - The Secretary of

Justice may issue an HDO, under any of the
following instances:
(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in

criminal cases falling within the jurisdiction of
courts below the RTCs.
(b) Against the alien whose presence is required

either as a defendant, respondent, or witness in a
civil or labor case pending litigation, or any case
before an administrative agency of the government.
DOJ Cir. No. 41-10 (25 May 2010)
(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue an

HDO against any person, either motu proprio, or upon
the request by the Head of a Department of the
Government; the head of a constitutional body or
commission; the Chief Justice of the SC for the
Judiciary; the Senate President or the House Speaker
for the Legislature, when the adverse party is the
Government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities, or in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health.
DOJ Cir. No. 41-10 (25 May 2010)
Sec. 2. Watchlist Order. - The Secretary of Justice may

issue a WLO, under any of the following instances:
(a) Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in

criminal cases pending trial before the Regional Trial
Court.
(b) Against the respondent, irrespective of nationality,

in criminal cases pending P.I., petition for review, or
MR before the DOJ or any of its provincial or city
prosecution offices.
DOJ Cir. No. 41-10 (25 May 2010)
(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue a WLO
against any person, either motu proprio, or upon the request
of any government agency, including commissions, task
forces or similar entities created by the Office of the
President, pursuant to the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
of 2003" (R.A. No. 9208) and/or in connection with any
investigation being conducted by it, or in the interest of
national security, public safety or public health
It must be noted that, to avoid the indiscriminate issuance

of HDOs resulting in inconvenience and prejudice to the
parties affected thereby the Supreme Court issued SC
Circular No. 39-97 providing that HDOs shall be issued
only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Courts.
H. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED AT THE TRIAL
(1) To be presumed innocent;
(2) To be informed of the nature and cause of

accusation;
(3) To be present and defend in person OR by

counsel;
(4) Right to be present at every stage of the
proceedings:
This right may be waived when:

Accused is absent without just cause at the trial;
Accused under custody escapes.
However, presence is mandatory:

For purposes of identification;
At arraignment; (Rule 116, Sec. 1b)
At the promulgation of judgment;
Exception: If the conviction is for a light offense.
(Rule 120, Sec. 6)
Requisites of Trial in absentia: (Parada v. Veneracion,
1997)
Prior arraignment;
Proper notice of the trial;
Failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Effects: waiver of right to be present, right to present
evidence and right to cross-examine witnesses. (Gimenez
v. Nazareno, 1998)
(5) Right to counsel;

The general rule is that a client is bound by the
counsels acts, including even mistakes in the realm of
procedural technique, except, when the reckless or
gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of
due process of law.
(6) Right to defend in person;

(7) To testify as witness in his behalf;
(8) Right against self-incrimination;
DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 200748, 23 July 2014
A police officer arrested for extortion was compelled
to undergo a drug test by submitting his urine sample.
He was found positive for drugs and thereafter
convicted for use of dangerous drugs (Sec. 15, Art II
R.A. 9165). The Court held that the urine sample is
inadmissible for being violative of the accuseds right
against self-incrimination. Cases where non-testimonial
compulsion has been allowed reveal that the pieces of
evidence obtained were all material to the principal
cause of the arrest.
(9) Right to confrontation;
(10) Right to compulsory process;
(11) Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
Remedies against denial of right:

Motion to dismiss
Dismissal subject to rules on double jeopardy
Petition for Mandamus (Vide Abadia v CA, 1994)
(12) Right to appeal.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION (SEC. 2, R.A. No. 7438)
(1) To be assisted by counsel at all times.
Waiver of the right to counsel must be made with the
assistance of counsel. (Art. 3, Sec. 12(1), Constitution)
To be assisted specifically in the following instances:
Signing of the written custodial report;
Signing of the written extra-judicial confession
o In the absence of counsel and upon valid waiver, it may
be made in the presence of any of his parents, elder
brothers and sisters, spouse, the municipal mayor, the
municipal judge, district school supervisor, or
priest/minister of gospel as chosen by him.
Signing of the waiver of the provisions of Art. 125, RPC.
(2) To be informed, in a language known to and
understood by him, of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel,
preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation.
If he cannot afford to have his own counsel, he must be
provided with a competent and independent counsel by
the investigating officer.
Assisting counsel may be any lawyer, except those:
Directly affected by the case;
Charged with conducting preliminary investigation;
Charged with the prosecution of crimes (Sec. 3, RA 7438)
(3) To be allowed visits by or conference with:
Any member of his immediate family (Immediate
family includes his or her spouse, fianc or fiance,
parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or
grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and
guardian or ward), or
Any medical doctor or
Priest or religious minister
Chosen by him or by any member of his immediate
family or by his counsel, or by
Any national NGO duly accredited by the Commission
on Human Rights or by any International NGO duly
accredited by the Office of the President.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
The Supreme Court held that a judgment
acquitting the accused is final and immediately
executory upon its promulgation, and that
accordingly, the State may not seek its review
without placing the accused in double jeopardy.
(People v. Balunsat, G.R. No. 176743, 28 July 2010)
PEOPLE V. BALUNSAT
G.R. No. 176743, 28 July 2010
Accused was convicted by the RTC of two (2) counts of rape

and one (1) count of attempted rape. Upon appeal, the CA
modified the judgment by (a) acquitting him of rape on the
ground of reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 762-T and (b)
downgrading the attempted rape to consummated acts of
lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 781-T.
The Supreme Court held that a judgment acquitting the

accused is final and immediately executory upon its
promulgation, and that accordingly, the State may not seek its
review without placing the accused in double jeopardy. Such
acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double
jeopardy whether it happens at the trial court or on appeal at the
CA.
PEOPLE V. BALUNSAT
G.R. No. 176743, 28 July 2010
In Criminal Case No. 781-T, the CA modified the guilty

verdict of the RTC from attempted rape to acts of
lasciviousness. The Supreme Court affirmed the CAs
modification, and held that it can no longer review the
downgrading of the crime by the appellate court without
violating the right against double jeopardy, which proscribes
an appeal from a judgment of acquittal or for the purpose of
increasing the penalty imposed upon the accused. In effect,
the CA already acquitted accused of the charge of attempted
rape, convicting him only for acts of lasciviousness, a crime
with a less severe penalty. Hence, the High Court limited
itself to determining whether there is enough evidence to
support accuseds conviction for acts of lasciviousness.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE COMPUTATION OF TIME
IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY
TRIAL
Under Rule 119, Section 3, the only delays that may be

excluded from the time limit within which trial must
commence are those resulting from proceedings
concerning the accused. The time involved in the
proceedings in a petition for transfer of venue can only be
excluded from said time limit if it was the accused who
instituted the same. Hence, in this case, the time during
which the petition for transfer of venue filed by the private
complainant is pending, cannot be excluded from the time
limit of 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order imposed
in Section 1, Rule 119. (Mari v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 187728, 12
September 2011)
I. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA, HOW MADE
Arraignment is the stage where the accused is

formally informed of the charged against him by
reading before him the information/complaint and
asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.
(Rule 116, Sec. 1a)
It is the stage where the issues are joined and

without which the proceedings cannot advance
further or, if held, will otherwise be void. (Borja v.
Mendoza, 1977)
How arraignment made
the complaint or information is furnished the accused in

open court;
it is read to him in a language or dialect known to him;
the accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or not
guilty; and
the accused enters his plea.
A. In general:
The accused must be arraigned before the court where the

complaint or information was filled or assigned for trial.
The accused must be present at the arraignment and must
personally enter his plea.
NO ARRAIGNMENT IN ABSENTIA (Nolasco v. Enrile,
1985) The presence of the accused is not only a personal
right but also a public duty, irrespective of the gravity of
the offense and the rank of the court.
B. If the accused is under preventive suspension:
The case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the

judge to whom the case was raffled within 3 days from the
filling of the information complaint.
The accused shall be arraigned within 10 days from the
date of the raffle.
WHEN SHOULD PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BE
ENTERED
Plea of NOT GUILTY to be entered for the accused

when either: (Rule 116, Sec. 1c)
Refuses to plead;
Makes a qualified plea of guilty;
Plea of guilty, but accused presents exculpatory
evidence.
WHEN MAY ACCUSED ENTER A PLEA OF GUILT
TO A LESSER OFFENSE (RULE 116, SEC. 2).
At the arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the

offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial
court to plea guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
included in the offense charged.
After arraignment but before the trial, the accused may

still be allowed to plea guilty to said lesser offense after
withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary.
ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO CAPITAL
OFFENSE, WHAT THE COURT SHOULD DO
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the

court shall conduct a searching inquiry into 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 accused
may present evidence in his behalf. (Rule 116, Se. 3)
SEARCHING INQUIRY
It is the process by which the Court conducts a hearing or

asks searching and clarificatory questions from the accused
The court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the

guilt and the precise degree of his culpability, and the
accused may present evidence in his behalf; such
procedure is mandatory. Failure to observe the duties in
this regard on the part of the trial judge amounts to grave
abuse of discretion. (People v. Devico,1997)
SEARCHING INQUIRY
It is the process by which the Court conducts a hearing or

asks searching and clarificatory questions from the accused
The court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the

guilt and the precise degree of his culpability, and the
accused may present evidence in his behalf; such
procedure is mandatory. Failure to observe the duties in
this regard on the part of the trial judge amounts to grave
abuse of discretion. (People v. Devico,1997)
The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry applies in

cases of re-arraignment.
The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not
be deemed satisfied in cases in which it was the defense
counsel who explained the consequences of a "guilty" plea to
the accused. (People v. Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, 10 January
2011)
IMPROVIDENT PLEA
It is a plea without proper information as to all circumstances

affecting it; based upon a mistaken assumption or misleading
information/advice. (Blacks Law Dictionary)
General Rule: Improvident plea should not be accepted. If
accepted, it should not be held to be sufficient to sustain a
conviction. (People v. De Ocampo Gonzaga, 1984). Case is
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
Exception: If the accused appears guilty beyond
reasonable doubt from the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and defense. (People v. Documento, G.R. No.
188706, March 17, 2010).
To emphasize: Convictions based on an improvident

plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole
basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient
and credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the
judgment must be sustained, because then it is predicated
not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but also on
evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.
(People v. Documento, id.)
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF
ARRAIGNMENT
Unsound mental condition of the accused at the

time of the arraignment;
Prejudicial question exists;
Pending petition for review of the resolution of the
prosecutor with the DOJ or Office of the President.
(Rule 116, Sec.11)
Accused should file motion to suspend and secure a
ruling on his petition for review within 60 days from
the filing of his petition for review.
N.B.: The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No.
15, Series of 2001, sanction the immediate filing of an
Information in the proper court upon a finding of
probable cause, even during the pendency of a motion for
reconsideration. Therefore, if the filing of a motion for
reconsideration of the resolution finding probable cause
cannot bar the filing of the corresponding information,
then neither can it bar the arraignment of the accused,
which, in the normal course of criminal procedure,
logically follows the filing of the information. (Gen.
Ramiscal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172476-99, 15
September 2010)
GEN. RAMISCAL V. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 172476-99, 15 September 2010
The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan twelve

(12) Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and
twelve (12) Informations for falsification of public documents
against petitioner and several other co-accused. Petitioner
questioned the finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman
and is pending second motion for reconsideration. In the
meantime, in the Sandiganbayan, petitioner moved to set
aside his arraignment pending resolution of his second
motion for reconsideration.
The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman,
as amended by Administrative Order No. 15, sanction the
immediate filing of an Information in the proper court upon a
finding of probable cause, even during the pendency of a
motion for reconsideration. Therefore, if the filing of a motion
for reconsideration of the resolution finding probable cause
cannot bar the filing of the corresponding information, then
neither can it bar the arraignment of the accused, which, in
the normal course of criminal procedure, logically follows the
filing of the information.
FELILIBETH AGUINALDO and BENJAMIN PEREZ
v. REYNALDO P. VENTUS and JOJO B. JOSON
G.R. No. 176033, 11 March 2015
Arraignment was suspended pending the resolution of the

Motion for Reconsideration before the DOJ. However, the
lapse of almost 1 year and 7 months warranted the
application of the limitation of the period for suspending
arraignment. While the pendency of a petition for review is a
ground for suspension of the arraignment, the Rules limit the
deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60 days reckoned
from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It
follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the
trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the
motion to defer arraignment.
J. MOTION TO QUASH
GROUNDS (RULE 117, SEC.1)
The following grounds for a motion to quash are
EXCLUSIVE (Galzote v. Briones and People, G.R. No. 164682,
14 September 2011):
1. Facts charged do not constitute an offense.
2. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged.
3. Court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
person accused.
4. Officer who filed the information had no authority to
do so.
5. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed
form.
6. More than one offense is charged. Exception:
When a single punishment for various offenses is
prescribed by law.
7. Criminal action or liability has been
extinguished.
8. Averments which, if true, would constitute a
legal excuse or jurisdiction.
9. Accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent (Double
Jeopardy Rule)
Matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to
quash. (Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, 8 December
2010)
ANTONE v. BERONILLA
G.R. No. 183824, 8 December 2010
The trial court quashed the Information on the

ground that the elements of Bigamy were rendered
incomplete after respondent presented documents to
prove a fact, which the court believed would negate the
allegation in the Information that there was a first valid
marriage. The evidence presented showed that
respondent later obtained a judicial declaration of
nullity of the first union following the celebration of a
subsequent marriage.
The trial court erred when it sustained respondents
motion to quash on the basis of a fact contrary to those
alleged in the Information. A motion to quash an
Information is the mode by which an accused assails
the validity of a criminal complaint or Information filed
against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law,
or for defects which are apparent in the face of the
Information. This motion is a hypothetical admission
of the facts alleged in the Information, for which
reason, the court cannot consider allegations contrary to
those appearing on the face of the Information.
In this case, the documents showing that: (1) the court
has decreed that the marriage of petitioner and
respondent is null and void from the beginning; and (2)
such judgment has already become final and executory,
and duly registered with the Municipal Civil Registrar
of Naval, Biliran are pieces of evidence that seek to
establish a fact contrary to that alleged in the
Information that a first valid marriage was subsisting
at the time the respondent contracted a subsequent
marriage. This should not have been considered at all
because matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion
to quash.
Fundamental test: The fundamental test in determining
the sufficiency of the material averments of an
information is whether the facts alleged therein, which
are hypothetically admitted, would establish the
essentials elements of the crime defined by law.
Evidence aliunde, or matters extrinsic of the
Information, are not to be considered. People v. Dumlao,
G.R. No. 168918, 2 March 2009.
DISTINGUISH FROM DEMURRER TO
EVIDENCE
Motion to Quash:
Filed before accused enters plea
Does not go into the merits of the case
Demurrer to Evidence:
Filed after the prosecution has rested its case
Based upon the inadequacy of evidence
adduced by the prosecution
EFFECTS OF SUSTAINING THE
MOTION TO QUASH
Court order sustaining motion
General Rule: The court may order that another

complaint or information be filed (Rule 117, Sec. 5)
Exception: If the MTQ was based on the following:

Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
Double Jeopardy
PEOPLE v. AQUILINO ANDRADE, et al.
G.R. No. 187000, 24 November 2014
It is clearly provided by the Rules of Criminal

Procedure that if the motion to quash is based on an
alleged defect in the information which can be cured by
amendment, the court shall order the amendment to be
made. In the present case, the RTC judge outrightly
dismissed the cases without giving the prosecution an
opportunity to amend the defect in the Informations.
Thus, the RTC and the CA, by not giving the State the
opportunity to present its evidence in court or to amend
the Informations, have effectively curtailed the State's
right to due process.
Court order sustaining motion
General Rule: If in custody, the accused shall not be
discharged, unless admitted to bail. The order must
state either release of accused or cancellation of his
bond.
Exception: If no order is made or if having been made,

no new information is filed within the time specified in
the order or within such further time as the court may
allow for good cause.
Exception to the exception: If the accused is in custody

for another charge. (Rule 117, Sec. 5)
As a rule, when a motion to quash in a criminal
case is denied, petitioners remedy is not certiorari,
but to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating
the special defenses invoked in his motion to
quash. In the event that an adverse decision is
rendered after trial on the merits, an appeal
therefrom is the next appropriate legal step.
Remedies of the prosecution
General Rule: To amend the information in order to

correct the defects if the trial court makes the order, and
thereafter prosecute on the basis of the amended
information (Rule 117, Sec. 4)
Exception: Prosecution is precluded where the ground

for the quashal would bar another prosecution for the
same offense.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT
SUSTAINING THE MOTION IS NOT A
BAR TO ANOTHER PROSECUTION
Sustaining the MTQ will not be a bar to another

prosecution for the same offense (Rule 117, Sec.
6), except:
If the ground for the quashal is either:
The criminal action or liability has been
extinguished. (Rule 117, Sec.3[g])
The accused has been previously convicted, or in
jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the
offense charged. (Rule 117, Sec.3[i])
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Rule on Double Jeopardy
When a person is charged with an offense and the
case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or
in any other manner without the express consent of
the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with
the same or identical offense. (Rule 117, Sec. 3i)
Kinds of Double Jeopardy (Art. 3, Sec. 21, Constitution)
No person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the
SAME OFFENSE.
When an act punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall be a bar to
another prosecution for the SAME ACT.
Requisites for 1st Jeopardy to Attach
A valid complaint or information - sufficient in form
and substance to sustain a conviction;
The court had jurisdiction;
A valid arraignment;
A valid plea; and
Conviction, acquittal of the accused OR dismissal of
the case, without accuseds express consent
Previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence

Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries bars a second
prosecution for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property.
JASON IVLER v. JUDGE MODESTO-SAN
PEDRO
G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010
Petitioner assails the RTCs Orders affirming sub-

silencio a lower courts ruling finding inapplicable the
double jeopardy clause to bar a second prosecution for
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property, considering accuseds previous
conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight
Physical Injuries arising from the same incident.
The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner would be
placed in double jeopardy in this case. Reason and
precedent both coincide in that once convicted or
acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the
accused may not be prosecuted again for that same
act.
The essence of the quasi offense of criminal
negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code
lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act
that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a
felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless
act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the
consequence is only taken into account to determine the
penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense.
As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result
should affect one person or several persons, the offense
(criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and
cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL
Definition: A case is dismissed without prejudice to

its being refilled or revived.
General Rule: Cases are provisionally dismissed

where there has already been arraignment and
accused consented to provisional dismissal, with
notice to the offended party.
Exception: If dismissal was due to a demurrer to

evidence.
When dismissal becomes permanent:
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of
any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1)
year after issuance of the order without the case
having been revived. With respect to offenses
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6)
years, their provisional dismissal shall become
permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order
without the case having been revived (Rule 117, Sec.
8).
How to revive a case
Refiling of the information.
Filing of a new information for the same offense or
one necessarily included in the original offense
charged.
Periods of reinstatement or revival

Within 1 year for offenses punishable by
imprisonment of not more than 6 years.
Within 2 years for offenses punishable by
imprisonment exceeding 6 years.
Requisite procedure (Rule 117, Sec.8):
Motion can be made:
By the prosecution, with the express conformity
of the accused
By the accused
By both
Requisites for Provisional Dismissal:

Consent of the prosecutor;
Consent of the accused; and
Notice to the offended party
N.B.: It bears emphasizing that an oral order
has no juridical existence until and unless it
had been reduced into writing and
promulgated, i.e. delivered by the judge to
the clerk of court for filing, release to the
parties and implementation. Thus, a
provisional dismissal, which was declared in
open court, but was never reduced into
writing, has no juridical existence. (People v.
Salak, G.R. No. 181249, 14 March 2011)
K. PRE-TRIAL
PRE-TRIAL ORDER
When issued
The Pre-Trial Order is issued by the court after the pre-

trial conference.
Judgment of acquittal based on pre-trial despite disputed

documents and issues of fact amounts to grave error and
renders the judgment void (People v. Santiago, 1989).
Contents
Action taken;
Facts stipulated; and
Evidence marked.
Effects
It binds the parties, limits the trial to matters
not disposed of, and controls the course of
action during trial, unless modified by the
court to prevent manifest injustice (Rule 118,
Sec. 4).
REFERRAL OF SOME CASES FOR COURT
ANNEXED MEDIATION AND JUDICIAL
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
AM No. 03-1-09-SC
After arraignment, the court shall set the pre-

trial conference within 30 days from the date
of arraignment.
In mediatable cases, the judge shall refer the
parties and their counsel to the Philippine
Mediation Center unit for purposes of
mediation if available.
L. TRIAL
INSTANCES WHEN PRESENCE OF ACCUSED IS
REQUIRED BY LAW
Presence is mandatory:
For purposes of identification;
At arraignment; (Rule 116, Sec. 1[b])
At the promulgation of judgment;
Exception: If the conviction is for a light offense.
(Rule 120, Sec. 6)
Examination of prosecution witness (Rule 119,
Sec. 15)
When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for
the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at
the trial as directed by the court, or has to leave
the Philippines with no definite date of returning,
he may forthwith be conditionally examined
before the court where the case is pending. Such
examination, in the presence of the accused, or in
his absence after reasonable notice to attend the
examination has been served on him, shall be
conducted in the same manner as an examination
at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to
attend the examination after notice shall be
considered a waiver. The statement taken may be
admitted in behalf of or against the accused.
REQUISITE BEFORE TRIAL CAN BE
SUSPENDED ON ACCOUNT OF ABSENCE
OF WITNESS
Absence or unavailability of an essential witness
Absent means that his whereabouts are unknown

or cannot be determined by due diligence.
Unavailable means that his whereabouts are

known but presence for the trial cannot be obtained
by due diligence.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
Requisites:
Accused has been arraigned;
He was duly notified of trial; and
His failure to appear is unjustified.
Purpose: To speed up disposition of cases.
General Rule: The right to be present at ones trial

may be waived.
Exceptions: At certain stages: (Lavides v. CA, G.R.
No. 129670, 2000)
Arraignment and plea;

Promulgation of sentence, unless for light offense
During trial whenever necessary for ID purposes
Exception to the exception: If the accused
unqualifiedly admits in open court after
arraignment that he is the person named as the
defendant in the case on trial.
REMEDY WHEN ACCUSED IS NOT BROUGHT
TO TRIAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED
PERIOD
Effect of delay (Rule 119, Sec.9)
On motion of the accused, the information may be
dismissed on the ground of his right to speedy trial.
This must be raised before trial otherwise it is
considered a waiver of the right to dismiss under this
section.
It is subject to the rules on double jeopardy such that if
it is with prejudice, it cannot be revived anymore.
The accused has the burden of proving the ground of
denial of right to speedy trial, while the prosecution
has the burden of going forward with the evidence to
establish the exclusion of time under Rule 119, Sec. 3.
REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED
TO BECOME A STATE WITNESS
General Rule: It is the duty of the prosecutor to

include all the accused in the complaint or information.
Exception: The prosecutor may ask the court to

discharge one of them after complying with the
conditions prescribed by law. (Rules 119, Sec. 17)
This applies only when the information has already

been filed in court.
REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED
TO BECOME A STATE WITNESS
Requisites: (Rule 119, Sec. 17)
When two or more persons are jointly charged with

the commission of an offense, upon motion of the
prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct
one or more of the accused to be discharged with their
consent so that they may be witnesses for the state
when, after requiring the prosecution to present
evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed
state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge,
the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) The is no other direct evidence available for the

proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially

corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;

and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of

any offense involving moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall
automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies
the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness,
his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
General Rule: The order of discharge shall: (Rule 119,

Sec. 18)
Amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused;
Bar future prosecutions for the same offense.
Exception: if the accused fails or refuses to testify against

his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement
constituting the basis for his discharge.
Any error in asking for and in granting discharge
cannot deprive the discharged of the acquittal and the
constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy.
(People v. Verceles, 2002)
Subsequent amendment of the information does not

affect discharge. (People v. Taruc, 1962)
WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM (R.A. No.
6981)
Admission in to the Program (Section 3)
Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or

information on the commission of a crime and has
testified or is testifying or about to testify before any
judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any
investigating authority, may be admitted into the
Program, provided that:
(A) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a

grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code,
or its equivalent under special laws;
(B) his testimony can be substantially corroborated in
its material points;
(C) he or any member of his family within the second

civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to
threats to his life or bodily injury or there is a
likelihood that he will be killed, forced, intimidated,
harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying,
or to testify falsely, or evasively, because or on account
of his testimony; and
(D) he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he

would be testifying against the other law enforcement
officers. In such a case, only the immediate members
of his family may avail themselves of the protection
provided for under this law.
If the Department of Justice, after examination of said
applicant and other relevant facts, is convinced that the
requirements of this law and its implementing rules
and regulations have been complied with, it shall
admit said applicant to the Program, require said
witness to execute a sworn statement detailing his
knowledge or information on the commission of the
crime, and thereafter issue the proper certification. For
purposes of this law, any such person admitted to the
Program shall be known as the Witness.
Witnesses in legislative investigations
(Section 4)
In case of legislative investigations in aid of

legislation, a witness, with his express consent, may
be admitted into the Program upon the
recommendation of the legislative committee where
his testimony is needed when in its judgment there
is pressing necessity therefor: Provided, That such
recommendation is approved by the President of
the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be.
Memorandum of Agreement With the Person to
be Protected (Section 5)
Before a person is provided protection under this law,

he shall first execute a memorandum of agreement
which shall set forth his responsibilities including:
a) to testify before and provide information to all

appropriate law enforcement officials concerning all
appropriate proceedings in connection with or arising from
the activities involved in the offense charged;
b) to avoid the commission of the crime;

c) to take all necessary precautions to avoid detection by
others of the facts concerning the protection provided him
under this law;
d) to comply with legal obligations and civil judgments

against him;
e) to cooperate with respect to all reasonable requests of

officers and employees of the Government who are
providing protection under this law; and
f) to regularly inform the appropriate program official of

his current activities and address.
Breach of Memorandum of Agreement
(Section 6)
Substantial breach of the memorandum of

agreement shall be a ground for the
termination of the protection provided under
this law: Provided, however, that before
terminating such protection, the Secretary of
Justice shall send notice to the person
involved of the termination of the protection
provided under this law, stating therein the
reason for such termination.
Confidentiality of Proceedings (Section 7)
All proceedings involving application for admission

into the Program and the action taken thereon shall
be confidential in nature. No information or
documents given or submitted in support thereof
shall be released except upon written order of the
Department of Justice or the proper court.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of said
proceedings shall upon conviction be punished
with imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but
not more than six (6) years and deprivation of the
right to hold a public office or employment for a
period of five (5) years.
Rights and Benefits (Section 8)
The witness shall have the following rights and

benefits:
(a) To have a secure housing facility until he has

testified or until the threat, intimidation or harassment
disappears or is reduced to a manageable or tolerable
level. When the circumstances warrant, the Witness
shall be entitled to relocation and/or change of
personal identity at the expense of the Program. This
right may be extended to any member of the family of
the Witness within the second civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
(b) The Department of Justice shall, whenever
practicable, assist the Witness in obtaining a means of
livelihood. The Witness relocated pursuant to this law
shall be entitled to a financial assistance from the
Program for his support and that of his family in such
amount and for such duration as the Department of
Justice shall determine.
(c) In no case shall the Witness be removed from or
demoted in work because or on account of his
absences due to his attendance before any judicial or
quasi-judicial body or investigating authority,
including legislative investigations in aid of
legislation, in going thereto and in coming therefrom.
Any Witness who failed to report for work because
of witness duty shall be paid his equivalent salaries
or wages corresponding to the number of days of
absence occasioned by the Program. For purposes
of this law, any fraction of a day shall constitute a
full day salary or wage. This provision shall be
applicable to both government and private
employees.
(d) To be provided with reasonable travelling

expenses and subsistence allowance by the Program
in such amount as the Department of Justice may
determine for his attendance in the court, body or
authority where his testimony is required, as well as
conferences and interviews with prosecutors or
investigating officers.
(e) To be provided with free medical treatment,
hospitalization and medicines for any injury or illness
incurred or suffered by him because of witness duty in any
private or public hospital, clinic, or at any such institution
at the expense of the Program.
(f) If a Witness is killed, because of his participation in the
Program, his heirs shall be entitled to a burial benefit of not
less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) from the
Program exclusive of any other similar benefits he may be
entitled to under other existing laws.
(g) In case of death or permanent incapacity, his minor or
dependent children shall be entitled to free education, from
primary to college level in any state, or private school,
college or university as may be determined by the
Department of Justice, as long as they shall have qualified
thereto
State Witness (Section 10)
Any person who has participated in the commission of a

crime and desires to be a witness for the State, can apply
and, if qualified as determined in this law and by the
Department of Justice, shall be admitted into the Program
whenever the following circumstances are present:
(a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a

grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code
or its equivalent under special laws;
(b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

(c) there is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed;
(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on

its material points;
(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and
(f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime

involving moral turpitude
An accused discharged from an information or
criminal complaint by the court in order that he
may be a State Witness pursuant to Section 9 and
10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may
upon his petition be admitted to the Program if
he complies with the other requirements of this
law. Nothing in this law shall prevent the
discharge of an accused, so that he can be used as
a State Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Court.
Sworn Statement of a State Witness (Section 11)
Before any person is admitted into the Program pursuant to
the next preceding Section he shall execute a sworn statement
describing in detail the manner in which the offense was
committed and his participation therein. If after said
examination of said person, his sworn statement and other
relevant facts, the Department of Justice is satisfied that the
requirements of this law and its implementing rules are
complied with, it may admit such person into the Program
and issue the corresponding certification.
If his application for admission is denied, said sworn

statement and any other testimony given in support of said
application shall not be admissible in evidence, except for
impeachment purposes.
Effect of Admission of a State Witness into
the Program (Section 12)
The certification of admission into the Program by the
Department shall be given full faith and credit by the
provincial or city prosecutor who is required not to include
the Witness in the criminal complaint or information and if
included therein, to petition the court for his discharge in
order that he can utilized as a State Witness. The Court
shall order the discharge and exclusion of the said
accused from the information.
Admission into the Program shall entitle such State

Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution for the
offense or offenses in which his testimony will be given
or used and all the rights and benefits provided under
Section 8 hereof.
Failure or Refusal of the Witness to Testify
(Section 13)
Any Witness registered in the Program who fails or
refuses to testify or to continue to testify without just
cause when lawfully obliged to do so, shall be prosecuted
for contempt. If he testifies falsely or evasively, he shall be
liable to prosecution for perjury. If a State Witness fails or
refuses to testify, or testifies falsely or evasively, or
violates any condition accompanying such immunity
without just cause, as determined in a hearing by the
proper court, his immunity shall be removed and he shall
be subject to contempt or criminal prosecution. Moreover,
the enjoyment of all rights and benefits under this law
shall be deemed terminated.
The Witness may, however, purge himself of the
contumacious acts by testifying at any appropriate stage
of the proceedings.
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. No.
12-8-8-SC)
The Judicial Affidavit Rule is applicable to all

criminal actions:
where the maximum of the imposable penalty does
not exceed six years;
where the accused agrees to the use of judicial
affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or
with respect to the civil aspect of the actions,
whatever the penalties involved are (Judicial
Affidavit Rule, Section 9).
The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of
its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-
trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused. The
complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the
affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he
may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on.
No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object
evidence shall be admitted at the trial (Judicial
Affidavit Rule, Section 9).
If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after
receipt of the judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he
shall have the option to submit his judicial affidavit as
well as those of his witnesses to the court within ten
days from receipt of such affidavits and serve a copy of
each on the public and private prosecutor, including
his documentary and object evidence previously
marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on. These affidavits
shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his
witnesses when they appear before the court to testify
(Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 9).
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Definition: Objection by one of the parties to the effect

that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to
make out a case or sustain the issue. (Gutib v. CA,
1999)
How initiated (Rule 119, Sec. 23)

After the prosecution rests its case, the court may
dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard OR (2) upon
demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or
without leave of court.
Motion for leave to file demurrer (Rule 119, Sec.
23)
It must specifically state its grounds.
It must be filed within a non-extendible period of 5
days after the prosecution rests. Prosecution may
then oppose within a non-extendible period of 5 days
from its receipt.
Effects of granting the demurrer to evidence

The court may dismiss the action on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence. (Rule 119, Sec. 23)
Sufficient evidence for frustrating a demurrer is
evidence that proves: (Gutib v. CA, 1999)
Commission;
Precise degree of participation.
The prosecution cannot appeal from a ruling granting

the demurrer to evidence of the accused as it is
equivalent to an acquittal, unless the prosecution can
sufficiently prove that the courts action is attended
with grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the
constitutional right of the accused against double
jeopardy will be violated. (People v. Sandiganbayan and
Basco, et al., G.R. No. 164577, 5 July 2010)
People v. Sandiganbayan and Basco, et al.
G.R. No. 164577, 5 July 2010
In a charge for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.

3019, accused filed their respective motions for leave to
file their demurrer to evidence after the prosecution
rested its case. The motions were granted. The
Sandiganbayan then granted the demurrers to evidence
and dismissed the case. A Rule 45 Petition was filed by
the People of the Philippines, represented by the
Ombudsman, assailing the Sandiganbayans ruling.
The prosecution cannot appeal from a ruling
granting the demurrer to evidence of the accused
as it is sufficiently prove that the courts action is
attended with grave abuse of discretion.
Otherwise, the constitutional right of the accused
against double jeopardy will be violated.
Procedurally, the prosecution resorted to a wrong
remedy. It is settled that the appellate court may review
dismissal orders of trial courts granting an accuseds
demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 based on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being
considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy.
Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside
by an appellate court in an original special civil action via
certiorari, the right of the accused against double
jeopardy is not violated. Unfortunately, what the
prosecution filed with the Court in the present case is an
appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 raising a pure question of law, which is different
from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Effect of denial of motion for leave to file
demurrer
Order denying the motion for leave or order denying

the demurrer itself is not reviewable by appeal or by
certiorari before judgment. (Rule 119, Sec. 23)
It is interlocutory, but it may be assigned as error and

reviewed in the appeal that may be taken from the
decision on the merits (Cruz v. People, 1999)
The accused has the right to present evidence after

demurrer is denied (Rule 119, Sec. 23)
If Demurrer was filed with leave of court:
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with
leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his
defense.
If Demurrer was filed without leave of court:

When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave
of court, the accused waives the right to present
evidence and submits the case for judgment on the
basis of the evidence for the prosecution
Even if the demurrer is granted, the trial court may
hold the accused civilly liable and he can no longer
adduce evidence on the civil aspect because of his
waiver. (Alferez v. People, 31 January 2011)
REVERSE TRIAL
A reverse trial is one where the accused presents
evidence ahead of the prosecution and the latter is to
present evidence by way of rebuttal to the formers
evidence.
This kind of trial may take place when the accused
made known to the trial court, on arraignment, that he
is to adduce affirmative defense of a justifying or
exempting circumstance and thus impliedly admitting
the acts/s imputed to him.
The trial court may then require the accused to present
evidence first, proving the requisites of the justifying
or exempting circumstance he is invoking, and the
prosecution to present rebuttal evidence controverting
it.
M. JUDGMENT
REQUISITES OF A JUDGMENT
Written in official language.

Personally and directly prepared by the judge.
Signed by the judge.
Contains clearly and distinctly a statement of facts proved and
the law upon which judgment is based.
Judge who penned the decision need not be the one who heard
the case.
The fact alone that the judge who heard the evidence was not
the one who rendered the judgment but merely relied on the
record of the case does not render his judgment erroneous or
irregular.
CONTENTS OF JUDGMENT
Conviction
The judgment of conviction shall state:

The legal qualification of the offense and the attendant
aggravating, mitigating circumstances.
Participation of the accused (principal, accomplice or
accessory)
That penalty should not be imposed in the alternative.
The civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful
act, if any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability
is by a separate civil action, or is waived or reserved.
Judgment for 2 or more offenses
General Rule: Complaint/information must
charge only one offense.
Exception: Cases in which existing laws
prescribe a single punishment for various
offenses.
General Rule: Duplicitous information is

subject to a motion to quash.
Exception: Defect is waived when accused
fails to move for quashal.
Thus, where the accused fails to object to 2 or more
offenses charged in a single information/complaint
before trial (Rule 120, Sec.3), the court may:
(a) Convict him of as many offenses as are charged and

proved; and
Exception: One of the offenses has been a necessary
means for committing the other offense and where both
have been result of a single act.
(b) Impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out
separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.
Exception: maximum duration of offense: Follow the
three-fold rule on the service of penalty (Revised Penal
Code, Art. 70).
Judgment in case of variance between
allegation and proof
General Rule: The defendant can be convicted only

of the crime with which he is charged.
Rationale: He has the right to be informed of the

nature of the offense with which he is charged before
he is put on trial.
However, minor variance between the information

and the evidence:
Does not alter the nature of the offense;
Does not determine or qualify the crime or penalty;
Cannot be ground for acquittal.
Exception: The accused can be convicted of an offense only
when it is both charged and proven.
- He can be convicted of an offense proved provided it is
included in the charge, or of an offense charged which is
included in that which is proved. (Rule 120, Sec.4)
The mere fact that the evidence presented would indicate
that a lesser offense outside the courts jurisdiction was
committed does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction
which had vested in it under the allegations in the
information.
Exception to the exception: Where there are facts that
supervened after the filing of the information which change
the nature of the offense.
When an offense includes or is included in
another (Rule 120, Sec. 5)
The offense charged necessarily includes the

offense proved when some of the essential
elements/ingredients of the former, as alleged
in the complaint/information, constitute the
latter.
An offense charged is necessarily included in
the offense proved when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form
part of those constituting the latter.
Effects:
The accused shall be convicted of: (Rule 120, Sec. 4)
The offense proved which is included in the
offense charged; or
The offense charged which is included in the
offense proved
The right to be informed of the charges has not been
violated because where an accused is charged with a
specific crime, he is duly informed also of lesser
crimes/offenses included therein. (People v. Villamar,
1998)
Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence
fails to support the charge as to one of the
component offenses, the accused can be convicted of
the one which is proven.
State liability for unjust conviction
Under R.A. No. 7309, victims of unjust
imprisonment or detention may file a claim for
compensation with the DOJ Board of Claims.
Who may file claims for compensation:

(a) any person who was unjustly accused,
convicted and imprisoned but subsequently
released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal;
(b) any person who was unjustly detained and
released without being charged;
(c) any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by
the authorities as defined in the Revised Penal Code
under a final judgment of the court; and
(d) any person who is a victim of violent crimes.
For purposes of this law, violent crimes shall include
rape and shall likewise refer to offenses committed
with malice which resulted in death or serious
physical and/or psychological injuries, permanent
incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion, serious
trauma, or committed with torture, cruelly or
barbarity.
CONTENTS OF JUDGMENT
Acquittal
Definition: A finding of not guilty based on the merits, either:
The evidence does not show that his guilt is beyond
reasonable doubt; or
A dismissal of the case after the prosecution has rested its
case and upon motion of the accused on the ground that the
evidence fails to show beyond doubt that accused is guilty.
REASONABLE DOUBT- Doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such
investigation, to let the mind rest upon the certainty of guilt.
Rationale: It is always better to err in acquitting than in
punishing. (People v. Lizada, G.R. No. 97226, 1993)
The Judgment of acquittal shall state whether:
The evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove
the guilt of the accused, or
It merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
However, on this second statement, this does not extinguish
the civil liability of the accused arising from his acts, since
civil liability arose not from a crime but from the damage
caused by such acts.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it

the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT;
INSTANCES OF PROMULGATION OF
JUDGMENT IN ABSENTIA
Promulgation: An official proclamation or announcement of
judgment or order.
Two things are essential and necessary for the valid
promulgation of a court decision:
There must be a judge or judges legally appointed or elected
and actually acting either de jure or de facto, and
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT;
INSTANCES OF PROMULGATION OF
JUDGMENT IN ABSENTIA
The said judgment must be duly signed and promulgated
during the incumbency of the judge who signed it. (Miguel
v. MTC,1986)
The judgment or sentence does not become a judgment or
sentence in law until it:
Is read and announced to the defendant; or
Has become a part of the record of the court. (US v. CFI of Manila, 24
Phil 321)
Where there is no promulgation of judgment, no right to
appeal accrues.
Notice for Promulgation
Clerk of Court gives notice to accused personally or
through bondsman or warden and counsel.
If the accused jumps bail or escapes from prison and
was tried in absentia, notice will be served at his last
known address. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)
Sin perjucio judgment: Judgment without a statement

of facts. (Dizon v. Lopez, 1997)
Promulgation where the judge is absent

The judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of
court when the judge is absent or outside the province
or city. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)
Presence of accused required in promulgation;
exception
General rule: Presence of the accused is mandatory.
Exception: convictions for light offenses.
Presence of accused required in promulgation;

exception
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the
accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he
shall lose the remedies available in the Rules against
the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.
Judgment becomes final in 4 instances:
After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal;
When the sentence has been partially / totally satisfied or
served; or
The accused has expressly waived in writing his right to
appeal,
When the accused applies for probation, and thereby
waives right to appeal
COLINARES v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 182748, 13 December 2011
It is true that under the probation law the accused who appeals
"from the judgment of conviction" is disqualified from availing
himself of the benefits of probation. But, as it happens, two
judgments of conviction have been meted out to herein accused:
one, a conviction for frustrated homicide by the regional trial
court, now set aside; and, two, a conviction for attempted
homicide by the Supreme Court. x x x The Courts finding that
accused was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of
attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time
imposes on him a probationable penalty. Had the trial court done
him right from the start, it would have found him guilty of the
correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years
and four months maximum. This would have afforded accused
the right to apply for probation.
COLINARES v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 182748, 13 December 2011
Since the Court found accused guilty only of the

lesser crime of attempted homicide and held that the
maximum of the penalty imposed on him should be
lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of
prision correccional, as maximum, it would be but fair to
allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand
of the case to the trial court.
WHEN DOES JUDGMENT BECOME FINAL
When judgment of acquittal becomes final
It is immediately final and executory.
The State may not seek its review without placing the
accused in double jeopardy.
N.B.: The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment
was not the one who had the occasion to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied
on the records of the case does not render the judgment
erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is
sufficient to support its conclusion. (People v. Paling, G.R.
No. 185390, 16 March 2011)
N. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL. (RULE 121, SEC. 2)
(1) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused have been committed
during the trial;
General Rule: Error of the defense counsel in the conduct of the
trial is neither an error of law nor an irregularity.
Exception: Acquittal would in all probability have allowed the
introduction of certain testimony which was not submitted at
the trial under improper or injudicious advice of incompetent
counsel.
Irregularities must be with much seriousness as to affect
prejudicially the substantial rights of the accused.
GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL. (RULE 121, SEC. 2)
(2) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the
accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and
produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
probably change the judgment.
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 121, SEC. 3)

Errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further
proceedings.
Rationale: To afford the trial court the opportunity to correct its
own mistakes and to avoid unnecessary appeals.
EFFECTS OF GRANTING A NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

(RULE 121, SEC. 6)
In all cases:
The original judgment is set aside or vacated; and
A new judgment is rendered accordingly.
Specific effects when granted upon different
grounds:
A. Errors of law or irregularities committed during the
trial
All proceedings and evidence affected shall be set
aside and taken anew.
If error or irregularity goes into the jurisdiction, entire
proceeding is void and must be set aside.
Further, the Court may allow introduction of
additional or other evidence in the interest of justice.
Specific effects when granted upon different
grounds
B. Newly-discovered evidence
Evidence already adduced shall stand and the newly-
discovered and such other evidence shall be taken and
considered together with the evidence already on
record.
All proceedings and evidence affected shall be set
aside and taken anew.
Further, the Court may allow introduction of
additional or other evidence in the interest of justice.
APPLICATION OF NEYPES DOCTRINE
IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Neypes v. CA, 2005:
(SEE YU v. TATAD)
Fresh Period of Appeal after denial of Motion for New
Trial or Motion for Reconsideration
Henceforth, the fresh period rule shall also apply
to Rule 40 governing appeals from the MTCs to the
RTCs; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the RTCs
to the CA; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies to the CA and Rule 45 governing appeals by
certiorari to the Supreme Court.
APPLICATION OF NEYPES DOCTRINE
IN CRIMINAL CASES.
The raison dtre for the "fresh period rule" is to
standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules
and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-
day appeal period should be counted. Litigants today
need not concern themselves with counting the
balance of the 15-day period to appeal since the 15-
day period is now counted from receipt of the order
denying a motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration or any final order or resolution. (Yu v.
Samson-Tatad, GR No. 170979, 9 February 2011)
JUDITH YU V. SAMSON-TATAD
GR No. 170979, 9 February 2011
An information for estafa against petitioner was filed with
the Regional Trial Court which convicted the petitioner as
charged. Fourteen days later, petitioner filed a motion for
new trial, alleging that she discovered new and material
evidence that would exculpate her of the crime for which she
was convicted. The respondent judge denied the petitioner's
motion for new trial for lack of merit.
The petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Regional
Trial Court, alleging that she had a fresh period of 15 days
from the receipt of the denial of her motion for new trial,
within which to file a notice of appeal. The prosecution filed
a motion to dismiss the appeal for being belatedly filed and a
Motion for execution of the decision.
JUDITH YU V. SAMSON-TATAD
GR No. 170979, 9 February 2011
To standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules and
do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period
should be counted, the fresh period rule applies to appeals in
criminal cases. Were we to strictly interpret the fresh period
rule in Neypes and make it applicable only to the period to
appeal in civil cases, we shall effectively foster and encourage an
absurd situation where a litigant in a civil case will have a better
right to appeal than an accused in a criminal case a situation
that gives undue favor to civil litigants and unjustly
discriminates against the accused-appellants. It suggests a
double standard of treatment when we favor a situation where
property interests are at stake, as against a situation where
liberty stands to be prejudiced. We must emphatically reject this
double and unequal standard for being contrary to reason.
O. APPEAL
EFFECT OF AN APPEAL
An appeal in a criminal proceeding in throws the
whole case open for review and it becomes the
duty of the appellate court to correct an error as
may be found in the appealed judgment, whether
or not it is made the subject of assignment of
errors. (People v. Calayca, 1999)
WHERE TO APPEAL
To the RTC from the MTC/MeTC/MCTC
To the Sandiganbayan from the RTC or
MTC/MeTC/MCTC if accused is government-official
or employee and act is duty-related (i.e. filed under
EO 1, 2, 4 and 14-A)
To the CA from the RTC (if it involves questions of
questions of fact and of law)
WHERE TO APPEAL
To the SC from the RTC
If it involves questions of law only
If it involves constitutionality or validity of any treaty /
ordinance / Executive Order / regulation or the
jurisdiction of the inferior court
In criminal cases involving offense for which penalty
imposed is death or life imprisonment
Other offenses, which, arose out of the same occurrence
or which may have been committed by the accused on
the same occasion, as that giving rise to the more serious
offense
WHERE TO APPEAL
To the SC from the CA or the Sandiganbayan
Improper designation
The designation of the wrong court does not
necessarily affect the validity of the notice of appeal.
However, the designation of the proper court
should be made within the 15-day period to appeal.
Otherwise, Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court
would apply. (Torres v. People, 2011)
HOW APPEAL TAKEN (RULE 122,
SEC. 9)
Transmission of record to RTC
Within 5 days from the perfection of the appeal, the clerk
of court shall transmit the original record to the
appropriate RTC.
Notifications of parties
Upon receipt of the complete record, Transcript of
Stenographic Notes (TSN) and evidence of the case, the
RTC clerk of the court shall notify the parties of such fact.
HOW APPEAL TAKEN (RULE 122,
SEC. 9)
Submission of memoranda/briefs
Within 15 days from the receipt of notice, the parties
may submit memoranda/briefs, or may be required by
the RTC to do so.
Decision
After the submission of such memoranda/briefs or upon
the expiration of the period to file the same, the RTC
shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of
the case and of such memoranda/briefs as may have
been filed.
WHEN APPEAL TO BE TAKEN (RULE
122, SEC. 6)
Within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment
or from notice of the final order appealed from.
Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts
must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are
absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless
delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial
business. Strict compliance with such rules is
mandatory and imperative. Only strong considerations
of equity will lead us to allow an exception to the
procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice.
(Villamor v. People; and Vios v. People, 2011)
EFFECT OF APPEAL BY ANY OF
SEVERAL ACCUSED
General Rule: An appeal taken by one or more of
several accused shall not affect those who did not
appeal.
As to the appealing party, the execution of judgment
appealed from is stayed upon the perfection of the appeal.
As to the co-accused who did not appeal, the judgment of
the trial court insofar as it relates to him becomes final
and the appellate court has no power to interfere with it.
(Salvatierra v. CA, 1996)
EFFECT OF APPEAL BY ANY OF SEVERAL
ACCUSED
Exception: Insofar as the judgment of the appellate
court is favorable and applicable to those who did
not appeal or who withdrew his appeal. (People v.
Escano)
The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect
shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or
order appealed from.
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL OF
APPEAL
When appeal by the people will not lie:
The People/State cannot appeal when it will put the
accused in double jeopardy.
The prosecution cannot appeal from a judgment of
acquittal.
Rationale: A verdict of this nature is immediately

final and to try it again on the merits, even in an
appellate court, places the accused in double
jeopardy. (Central Bank v. CA, 1989)
QUESTIONING AN ACQUITTAL
THROUGH A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
A Rule 65 Petition for certiorari is the remedy to
question a verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court
or at the appellate level. By way of exception, a
judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be
assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court upon a clear showing by the petitioner
that the lower court committed not merely reversible
errors of judgment but grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial
of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment
void. (People v. Asis, G.R. No. 173089, 25 August 2010)
PEOPLE v. ASIS
G.R. No. 173089, 25 August 2010
Accused Abordo was acquitted by the trial court for two
(2) counts of murder. The prosecution filed a Rule 65
Petition with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. A
Rule 45 Petition was thereafter filed with the Supreme
Court to contest the Court of Appeals Decision.
The Supreme Court held that a Rule 65 Petition for
certiorari, not appeal, is the remedy to question a verdict of
acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level.
The Philippine judicial system adheres to the finality-of-
acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final
and unappealable.
PEOPLE v. ASIS
G.R. No. 173089, 25 August 2010
By way of exception, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal
case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court upon a clear showing by the petitioner that
the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not
merely reversible errors of judgment but grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial
of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. In
this petition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claims
that Abordos acquittal in Criminal Case No. N-2213 was
improper. Since appeal could not be taken without violating
Abordos constitutionally guaranteed right against double
jeopardy, the OSG was correct in pursuing its cause via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the appellate court.
REPRESENTATION DURING APPEAL
N.B.: If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial
court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal
therefrom on the criminal aspect may be
undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor
General. Only the Solicitor General may
represent the People of the Philippines on appeal.
The private offended party or complainant may
not take such appeal.
P. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL
CASES
NATURE
The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as they are
applicable, may be availed of in connection with the civil
action deemed instituted with the criminal action. (Rule 127,
Sec. 1)
KINDS OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
1. 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. (Rule

127, Sec. 1)
KINDS OF PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
2. Preliminary Injunction
3. Receivership
4. Delivery of Personal Property
5. Support Pendente Lite

CrimPro2016 - Prof. Esguerra

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

CrimPro2016 - Prof. Esguerra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and CRIMINAL LAW,

DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

It provides how the act is It declares what acts are

It provides for the method It defines crimes, treats of

Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear

1. the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter;

First court to take cognizance will exclude the others (People v.

Illustration: Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory or

I. Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices), RA

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the

Clearly, therefore, Congress intended these officials

"This conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction

Held: Yes. Those that are classified as SG 26 and below may

It is well-established that compensation is not an essential

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of Regents.

Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can

General Rule: Criminal action shall be

Where an offense is committed on a railroad train, in an

Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the

Felonies under Article 2 of the RPC shall be cognizable by

Piracy the venue of piracy, unlike all other

Libel please see the discussion on the venue for

In exceptional circumstances to ensure a fair

Under Article 360 of the RPC, as amended

Thus, in cases where the libelous article appears on a

An Information for 13 counts of libel was filed before

If the offended party is a public officer whose office

A search warrant (SW) is an order in writing; issued

A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process

Probable cause to search requires facts In order to determine probable cause to

(A) Special Commercial Courts in Quezon City, Manila, Makati, and

(B) Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, the Special

Right to break door or window to effect search.

The judge determining probable cause must do so only

Probable cause in warrantless arrests: Rule 113.5(b)

Description of place to be searched is sufficient if the

An apparent typographical error will not necessarily

General Rule: The offense alleged must be specific to

Exception: In People v. Marcos (1990), the SW was declared

What may be seized (Rule126, Sec. 3)

Personal property subject of the offense.

A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous

A motorist flagged down by a policeman for not wearing a

An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.

These searches are generally limited to visual inspection,

5. Consented warrantless searches.

7. Stop and Frisk.

File a criminal action against officer.

File a motion to return seized things.

File a motion to suppress evidence.

WHO MAY FILE CRIMES THAT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED

Offended parties who can file a complaint

b. After a case is filed in court:

The petition for certiorari was obviously defective. As provided in

An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the

Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be

In case of conflict between the designation of the crime and

Minority: As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape,

Petitioners reliance on the Teehankee v. Madayag, ruling that, in

That on or about 2:30 in the early morning of 14 January 2006,

Venue of criminal actions shall be: