crimpro-deleon2015

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r a B

s (Rules 110-127, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure) e l

Ch

b o R an

r a B

s e l over subject matter from jurisdiction over person of the A. Distinguish jurisdiction b accused o R  Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter - the power to hear and determine cases of the rbelong; general a anclass to which the proceedings in question B h - conferred by law (either by the Constitution or s statute and those necessarily implied to make the C express powers effective), parties cannot e choose, consent to, or agree as to what court or l tribunal should decide their disputes; important to determine the nature of the cause of action b and of the relief sought. o Rthe subject matter may be raised at any time even for the - lack of jurisdiction of a court over first time on appeal as the right ar anto question such jurisdiction is never Bwaived. h the Person of the Accused - the person  Jurisdiction over charged with the offense s must have C been brought into its forum for trial; an accused must first be placed in the ehis voluntary submission to the custody of the law forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon l b court; o - the person charged with the offense must have Rbeen brought in to its forum for trial; hisan accused must first be placed in the custody ofn the law forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon r a a voluntary submission to the court; B h - may be acquired either through compulsory process, such as warrant of arrest, or through his s C e voluntary appearance; l b -objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisitiono by a court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raisedR before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. r n a a  Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc. (G.R. No. 172505, October 1, 2014) B h s C - Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is vested by law. In criminal cases, the e imposable penalty of the crime charged in the information determines the court that l has b jurisdiction over the case. o R - that jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be conferred or waived by the parties. Even on appeal and even if the reviewing parties did not raise the issue ofn jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that the lower court had noa jurisdiction over the h case. C

I. GENERAL MATTERS

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


2

- trial court's lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the parties' silence on the matter. The failure of the parties to raise the matter of jurisdiction also cannot be construed as a waiver of the parties. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived by the parties.

r a B. Requisites forBexercise of criminal jurisdiction s is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of (juris e (1) the offense l diction over the subject matter), b must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction (jurisdiction Ro(2)overthetheoffense territory), - territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try r therein by the accused a an the offense allegedly committed B h (3) the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, s C forcibly by warrant of e arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court (jurisdiction l over the person of the accused). b  Exceptions: to o the Jurisdiction over the Territory (Extraterritorial ROffenses – Article 2, RPC) r or airship ncommit an offense while on a Philippineaship 1. Should a 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or B currency note of the Philippine Islands or h obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; s the introduction C 3. Should be liable for acts connectedewith into these islands of the l obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number; b 4. While being public officers o or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or R 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, r n defined in Title One a of Book Two of this Code. a B h s C. JurisdictionC of criminal courts e l b the punishment for it. - authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose o R 25, 2012)  Treñas vs. People (G. R. No. 195002, January r n a a - The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the B h action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for s jurisdiction to be acquiredC by courts in criminal cases, the offense e should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients shouldlhave taken place b within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. o R D. When injunction may be issued to restrain criminal prosecution r n a a (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hon. Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014) B h s C - as a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction, preliminary e l or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. However, the following exceptions to b the rule have been recognized: o R 1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; an h 2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or C to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; 3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; 4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;



3

5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

r a 7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; B 8) where s e it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; l 9)b where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and o when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to R 10) quash on that ground has been denied. r a an B h s C e II. PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES l b A. Criminal actions, Rohow instituted – Sec. 1, Rule 110 rinvestigation, the criminal action is n a  Institutiona – for offenses which require a preliminary Bfor preliminary investigation. instituted by filing the complaint with the proper officer h C es is filed in court.  Commencement – when the complaint or l information b o R is required (penalty at least 4 years, 2 months and 1  Where preliminary investigation r nproper officers (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 112) day) - complaint filed a awith B Proper officer–officersh authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation: s C e 1. provincial or city prosecutor l b 2. national and regional state prosecutor 3. Ombudsman – offenses that fall under the o jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan R to election officers 4. Chief Legal Officer of Comelec with respect N.B. MTC and MCTC Judges – no longern authorized to conduct preliminary investigation. r a a (A.M. No. 05-8-26, Oct. 3, 2005) Band 1 day h  “All other offenses” – those which are penalized lower than at least 4 yrs 2 mos s C without regard to the fine. e l b Where preliminary investigation is not required – complaint or information filed o with MTC or complaint with office of the prosecutor. R r n Complaint or information filed directly with MTC and MCTC – similar to complaint a a or information defined in Secs. 3 and 4 and must allege facts necessary to comply with B h sufficiency requirements in Sec. 6. s C e Complaint with the office of the prosecutor – similar to complaint filed for purposes of l b preliminary investigation. R1o(b), last  Effect of institution of the criminal action on the prescriptive period (Sec. par.) an h C The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the period of prescription of the offense 6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.



4

Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. vs. Hon. Judge Nelson F. Lidua Sr. (G.R. No. 169588, ctober 7, 2013)

r a B

- In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should be considered: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; 2) the time the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time the prescriptive period was interrupted.

s e - commencement of the prescription period, Art. 91 of RPC l b “Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is Ro prescription discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be r a an interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to B run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being h s convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not C imputable to him.”le b is filed with the Office of the Prosecutor who then files the - when the Complaint o Information Rin court, this already has the effect of tolling the prescription period. r July 3, 1992, En Banc (running of n in Zaldivia vs. Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 102342, - doctrine a a the prescriptive period shall be halted on theB date the case is actually filed in court and h not on any date before that), is applicable to ordinances and their prescription period. s C e l June 13, 2012) People vs. Pangilinan (G.R. No. 152662, b ounder the RPC and those covered by special laws with - No distinction between cases R respect to the interruption of the period of prescription. r n - the institution ofaproceedings for preliminary investigationaagainst the accused B h interrupts the period of prescription. s C e of the accused before the - commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution l b the prescriptive period for the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively interrupted offenses they had been charged under BP Blg. 22. o R People vs. Bautista (G.R. No. 168641,n April 27, 2007) r a a B Slight physical injuries - Manila h s C e period, not Filing of complaint with prosecutor’s office suspends running of prescriptive l approval of the investigating prosecutor’s recommendation for filing of information. b Ro r Rule of prescription for violation of special law a an B h Panaguiton, Jr. vs. DOJ, .G R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008 - BP 22 s C e l - Filing of complaint with prosecutor’s office interrupted the period of prescription. b DOJ and CA Ro - offense already prescribed under Act 3326 under which offenses prescribe anin 4 years h Form of complaint or information (WNA) – Sec. 2 C Section 2. The Complaint or information. - The complaint or information shall be

a) in writing, b) in the name of the People of the Philippines and www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


5

c) against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.

r a In all criminal prosecutions, the real offended party is the People of the Philippines for a Bagainst, and its vindication is in favor of, the people in a sovereign state. crime is an outrage s e However, l a crime is also an outrage against the offended or aggrieved party, the victim of theb crime. Thus, he is entitled to intervene in its prosecution in cases where the civil action impliedly instituted therein. o RisHence, which is filed with the or prosecutor for preliminary investigation is rasMTCcomplainant. a an usually incomplaint the name of the offended party B h s between complaint and information – Secs. 3 and 4  Definition and distinction C e l b o defined. — A complaint is a sworn written statement Section 3. Complaint R charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any r the enforcement of the law peacen or other public officer charged with a a officer, violated. (3) B h C Filed in court for the commencementeofs a criminal prosecution for a crime, usually cognizable by the MTC, subscribed l by peace officer or other public officer charged with b the enforcement of the law violated. OR o Filed by offended party inR private crimes or those which cannot be prosecuted de oficio. r n a “Sworn written statement” a - must be under oath. B h s C Section 4. Information defined. — An information is an accusation in writing e charging a person with an offense, subscribed by l the prosecutor and filed with the b court. (4a) o Charge sheet filed by the prosecutor in court. Unlike complaint, which must be under oath R and filed either in the MTC or with the prosecutor’s office, the information does not have to r n be under oath and is always filed in court. a a B h s C ede oficio B. Who may file criminal actions, crimes that cannot be prosecuted l b Criminal actions in general – Sec. 5, first par. (as amendedo by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002, effective May 1, 2002) R r n a a B h All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be s C e prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work l schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the b private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecutiono Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approvalR of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall n continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public a h prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. C  Prosecution of private crimes (adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, defamation imputing said crimes) – Sec. 5, 2nd to 5th pars. - correlate with Art. 344 and Art. 360, last par.,(RPC)



6

Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions x x x

r a B

The crimes of adultery and concubinage SHALL NOT BE PROSECUTED except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both alive, nor, in any case, if the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders (MAY BE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED).

s e l

Ch

b o R an

The offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness SHALL NOT BE PROSECUTED except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been EXPRESSLY PARDONED by any of them. If the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she can file the complaint, and she has no known parents, grandparents or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf.

r a B

s e l if a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of the The offended party, even b offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness independently of her o or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so. parents, grandparents, R Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents, r to file the action granted to nor guardian may file the same. Thearight grandparents, a parents, grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive B of all other persons and shall be h exercised successively in the order herein provided, except as stated in the preceding s C paragraph. e l b No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of the offenses mentioned above shall be broughto R except at the instance of and upon complaint filed by the offended party. rby the provisions The prosecution for violation a an of special laws shall be governed B h thereof. s C e Art. 344, Art. 360, last par., Revised Penal Code l b o Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, R abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and r n concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed a by the a B offended spouse. h s C eincluding both The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without l the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have b consented or pardoned the offenders. o R The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts n of lasciviousness, shall not r a a be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her B h parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been s C as the case may be. expressly pardoned by the above named persons, e l b In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage o or of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action R remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph n shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and a accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes. h C Art. 360, last par. No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of



7

and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965).

r a B

Nature of requirement in Sec. 5, Rule 110 and Art. 344

s e l prosecuted upon complaint of offended party: N.B. 1. Crimes b o and concubinage – can only be filed by offended spouse a. Adultery R r – exclusive and successive rule: offended abduction, acts of lasciviousness a an b Seduction, party, parents, grandparents, guardian B h C c. Criminal actions for es defamation which consist in the imputation of an offense mentioned above. l b as a private crime in view of RA 8353, Anti-Rape Law of 1997 2. Rape was excluded o (took effect on ROctober 22, 1997) reclassifying rape as a crime against persons and is now a “public n crime.” r a a 3.h Complaint required in Art. 344 has been imposed of consideration for the offended B theoutoutrage party and her family who might prefer to suffer rather than go Cthrough the scandal of a public trial (Peopleesvs. Tanada, 166 SCRAin silence 361 [1988]. l b 4. Compliance with Rule 110, Section 5 is jurisdictional and not merely a formal requirement (People vs. Sunpongco, G.R. No. 42665, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 222). Ro r n Who may file complaints committed against children under Sec.a 27, RA 7610 (Special a Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and DiscriminationB Act) h s a) Offended party; C e b) Parents or guardians; l c) Ascendant or collateral relative within the third degreeb of consanguinity; d) Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution o e) Officer or social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development; R f) Barangay chairman; or r n g) At least three (3) concerned responsiblea citizens where the violation occurred. a B h s C e Punzalan vs. Plata (G.R. No. 160316, September 2, 2013) - slight oral defamation, l b other light threats, attempted homicide, malicious mischief, and thefto R - the conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence r n of probable cause is a function that belongs to thea public prosecutor; prosecution of a crimes lies with the executive department h of the government whose principal B power and responsibility is to see that theC laws of the land are faithfully executed. s e - it a sound judicial policy to refrain from interfering in the conduct of preliminary l investigations and to leave the DOJ a wide latitude of discretion in the determination of b what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution of o the supposed offenders. The rule is based not only upon the respect for the R investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the executive department but upon practicality as well. an h People vs. Go (G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014) -C estafa thru falsification of commercial documents - a petition for certiorari which sought the dismissal of the criminal cases should not have been resolved by the CA, without the People, as represented by the



8

OSG, having first been impleaded. This stems from the recognition that the People is an indispensable party to the proceedings.

r a B

- While the failure to implead an indispensable party is not per se a ground for the dismissal of an action, considering that said party may still be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just, it remains essential – as it is jurisdictional – that any indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings before the court renders judgment. This is because the absence of such indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.

s e l

b o R rSeptember 24, 2014) – bigamy a an Villalon vs. Chan (G.R. No. 196508, B h s“People of the Philippines” as a party-respondent is not a C - failure to implead the e l fatal defect warranting the outright dismissal of her petition for certiorari and b prohibition before the CA because: (1) a petition for certiorari and prohibition under o against any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasiRule 65 is directed R judicial functions alleged to have acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave of discretion amounting to lack r or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) the a anfor abuse petition certiorari and prohibition filed by the is a special civil action B filedrespondent h separate and independent from the bigamy case against the petitioners. For these s need not be impleaded as a party in a C reasons, the “People of the Philippines” e petition for certiorari and prohibition. l b Worldwide Web Corp vs. People (G.R. No. 161106, January 13, 2014) Rowarrant - an application for a search is not a criminal action; conformity of the public prosecutor isn necessary to give the aggrieved r party personality to a a notsearch question an order quashing warrants. B h s C Francisco vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 177720, February 18, 2009) - Estafa e l under Art. 315, par. 2(a[2]. b o -A crime is an offense against the State, and hence is prosecuted in the name of R of the private offended party is not the People of the Philippines. The participation n essential to the prosecution of crimes, EXCEPT in cases that cannotrbe a a prosecuted de oficio (adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of B h of the civil action deemed instituted lasciviousness), or in the prosecution with s C the criminal action. A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the e l prosecutor need not be filed by the “offended party” but may be filed by any competent b person, unless the offense subject thereof cannot be prosecuted de oficio. o Uy vs. People (G.R. No. 174899, September 11, 2008) – Estafa R r n a a Claim – accused denied due process when he was convicted of estafa instead pf BP 22 B h violation because private complainant’s demand letter was for alleged violation of BP s C 22. e l Held – Criminal actions are under the direction and control of the prosecutor. b After going over the complaint, prosecutor found probable cause to charge accuse with o estafa, not violation of BP 22. R n Adaza vs.Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007- Estafa a h When accused has already been arrigned, DOJ mustC not give due course to appeal or petition for review and must dismiss the same. When accused unconditionally pleaded to the charge, she effectively waived the reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor as well as the right to appeal the result thereof to the DOJ secretary. Crespo vs. Mogul, Roberts vs.CA and Marcelo vs. CA not applicable



9

because accused therein had not yet been arraigned when the appeal or petition for review was filed with DOJ.

r a B

Crespo vs. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, 152 SCRA 462) Estafa

s e l

Issue: Whether the trial court, acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the Secretary ot Justice to whom a case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the arraignment and trial on the merits.

b o R -or Itbyis ainformation cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint be prosecuted under the direction and control of the raction depends a an fiscal. The institutionshall of a criminal upon the sound discretion of the h fiscal. He may or may not B file the complaint or information, follow or not follow that s party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is C presented by the offended e sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. l b  - The reason o for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to by private persons. It Rprevent malicious or unfounded prosecution cannotn be controlled by the complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power vested in r them by law, not only have the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons who, a a according to the evidence received from theB complainant, are shown to be guilty of a h crime committed within the jurisdiction of their They have equally the legal duty s theyoffice. C not to prosecute when after an investigation e become convinced that the evidence l adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. b o - Once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as R its dismissal or the n conviction or acquittal of the accused r rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the a a prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already B in Court he cannot impose h his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the s C e case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and l the fiscal should be addressed competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by b to the Court which has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if o this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed R after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the r records of the investigation. a an B of - In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary h s C of the fiscal may be disregarded by thee trial court, the Justice who reviewed the action l entertaining a Secretary of Justice should, as far as practicable, refrain from b petition for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the complaint or o information has already been filed in Court. The matter should be left entirely for R the determination of the Court. r a an B h C. Criminal actions, when enjoined s C e (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Hon. Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, June 25, 2014) l b - as a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction, Ro the preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution. However, following exceptions to the rule have been recognized: an h 1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection C to the constitutional rights of the accused; 2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; 3) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice; www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


10

4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;

r a 6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; B 7) where s e the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; l 8)b where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; o R 9) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and r 10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on a anthat B ground has been denied. s Ch e l b De Jesus vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 164166 & 164173-80, October 17, 2007) o R - settled rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through a preliminary or final injunction ar instances: anor a writ of prohibition, except in theBfollowing 1) To afford rights of the accused; s Ch adequate protection to the constitutional e of justice or to avoid oppression or l 2) When necessary for the orderly administration b multiplicity of actions; o R which is sub-judice; 3) When there is a prejudicial question anare without or in excess of authority; Bar 4) When the acts of the officer s 5) Where the prosecution Chis under an invalid law, ordinance oreregulation; l 6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; b 7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; Ro r n 8) Where it is a case of persecution rather a than prosecution; a B h 9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance; s C e 10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a l motion to quash on b that ground has been denied; o R 11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened r unlawful arrest of petitioners. a an B h s C e l D. Control of prosecution (Sec. 5, Rule 110) b o Who must prosecute criminal actions – all criminal actions commenced by complaint R or information shall be under the direction and control of the prosecutor. an h C  Matters within the control and supervision of the Prosecutor: 5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

1. what case to file; 2. whom to prosecute;



11

3. manner of prosecution; and

r a B

4. right to withdraw information before arraignment even without notice and hearing

s e l decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the - the b accused depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor. Courts will not o with the conduct of preliminary investigations, or reinvestigations, or in the R interfere determination of what constitutes sufficient probable cause for the filing of the information against r a an offender. an -corresponding the matter of whether toB prosecute or not is purely discretionary on his part, courts cannot compel a public prosecutor to file the corresponding information, s Ch upon a complaint, where finds the evidence before him insufficient to warrant e in hecourt; l the filing of an action prosecutor’s findings on the existence of probable b cause are not subject to review by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have ograve abuse of discretion. been made with R People r Leonardo - De Castro, J. nvs. Diu (G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013)aPonente: a B - robbery with homicide h s in determining whether, what, and whom C e - prosecutors have a wide range of discretion l on a smorgasbord of factors which are best to charge, the exercise of which depends b appreciated by prosecutors. o R Leviste vs. Alameda (G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010) r n a a - All criminal actions commenced by a complaint B or information shall be h prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. The private s C complainant in a criminal case is merely a witnesseand not a party to the case and cannot, by himself, ask for the reinvestigation of the l case after the information had been b filed in court, the proper party for that being the public prosecutor who has the control of o the private complainant is allowed to the prosecution of the case.Thus, in cases where R intervene by counsel in the criminal action, and is granted the authority to prosecute,the rcan n the conformity of the public prosecutor, private complainant, by counsel and with a a file a motion for reinvestigation. B h s C e l b  Matters within the control of the Court after the case is filed: Ro 1. suspension of arraignment; r a an 2. reinvestigation; B h s 3. prosecution by the fiscal; C e l 4. dismissal of the case; and b 5. downgrading of offense or dropping of accused even before plea Ro an h Limitations of control by the Court: C Hasegawa vs. Giron (G.R. No. 184536, August 14, 2013)

1. Prosecution is entitled to notice and hearing; 2. Prosecution's stand to maintain prosecution should be respected by the court ; and 3. court must make its own assessment of evidence in granting or dismissing www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


12

Department of Justice vs. Alaon (G.R. No. 189596, April 23, 2014)

r a B

- once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. - a motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.

s e l

Ch

b o R an

r a B E. Sufficiency of complaints or information (Sec. 6, Rule 110) e l A complaint orb information is sufficient if it states the o N a) name of theR accused; (Sec. 7) D b) designation ar8) an of the offense given by the statute;B(Sec. A c) acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; (Sec. 9) s Ch e N d) name of the offended party; (Sec. 12) l b o A e) approximate date of the commission of the offense (see Sec 11); and R r P f) place where the offense was a an committed. (Sec. 10) B h s C eall of them shall be included in When an offense is committed by more than one person, l b the complaint or information. o People vs. Bayabos (G.R. No. 171222, February R 18, 2015) r n - Section 14, Article III of the Constitution, recognizes the right of the accused to be a a B informed of the nature and cause hof the accusation against them. As asmanifestation of this constitutional right, theC Rules of Court requires that the information charging e persons with an offense be “sufficient.” One of the key components l ofthea “sufficient information” is the statement of the acts or omissions constituting offense b charged, subject of the complaint. The information must alsoo be crafted in a language ordinary and concise enough to enable persons of common understanding to know R the offense being charged against them. This approach nis intended to allow them to ar suitably prepare for their defense, as they are a presumed to have no independent B knowledge of the facts constituting the offense h they have purportedly committed. The s information need not be in the same kind of language used in the law relied upon C e l Enrile vs. Manalastas (G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014) - less serious physical b injuries o R - fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the averments in a complaint or n information is, therefore, whether the facts alleged therein,aif hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of the offense; To meet h the test of sufficiency, therefore, it is necessary to refer to the law defining the offense charged. C - complaints only needed to aver the ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the details of why and how the illegal acts allegedly amounted to undue injury or damage, for such matters, being evidentiary, were appropriate for the trial.



13

Rosaldes vs. People (G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014) - child abuse, violation of Republic Act No. 7610

r a B

- Court should no longer entertain the petitioner's challenge against the sufficiency of the information in form and substance. Her last chance to pose the challenge was prior to the time she pleaded to the information through a motion to quash on the ground that the information did not conform substantially to the prescribed form, or did not charge an offense. She did not do so, resulting in her waiver of the challenge.

s e l

b o R Name of the accused (Sec. 7, Rule 110) r an Su Zhi Shan @ Alvin ChingBSoavs. People (G.R. No. 169933, March 9, 2007)- drug h pushing/selling s C e - erroneous designation in Information of the name of the accused does not vitiate it lthetheperson if it is clearly proven that accused and brought to court is the person who b committed the crime; the information charging petitioner was prepared after he was arrested o and while he wasR in custody. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the person who was arrested and brought n to court is the same person chargedarin the information. a Bname as the accused in the area where - whether there lived another person with the same h s having the C buy-bust operation was conducted is immaterial, the identity of the therein accused as the e person who sold the marijuana to the poseur-buyers been established. l b People vs. Cagadas Jr. (G.R.o No. 88044, Jan 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 216) R - Where the accused Roberto Cultura was indicted in the information as “Jose” Cultura, his r killed the victim nproven that he was part of the groupathat father’s name, but it was clearly a and did not raise theh question of his identity at the arraignment and acquiesced to be Braise tried under that name, he is deemed to have waived the right to the question of his s C e identity for the first time on appeal. l b - For the accused is deemed to have acquiesced to the name by which he had been identified o in the information,and he is estopped, after the trial and his conviction under said name, to R raise the question of his identity on appeal. r n a a San Diego vs. Hernandez(24 SCRA 110 (1968)- Frustrated murder B h s - Where the accused has C been sued as John Doe in an information filed in due eknown, l form, and after due investigation by the fiscal his identity became his true name may be inserted without further need of preliminarybinvestigation where o of Quezon City and one had already been properly conducted pursuant to the charter R the nature of the crime is not changed. r a an B h s F. Designation of offense (Sec. 8, Rule 110) C e l b People vs. Feliciano, Jr. (G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014) - murder o R -An information is sufficient when the accused is fully apprised of the charge against n is whether it him to enable him to prepare his defense; test of sufficiency of Information a enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the h court to render judgment properly. (citing People v. Wilson Lab-eo, 424 Phil. 482 (2002) C - 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. Matrido vs. People (G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009) - Qualified theft www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


14

- Credit and collection manager of Empire East Land Holdings – failed to remit payments received from its clients.

r a B

Claim on appeal to CA from her conviction – despite her indictment for qualified theft, the prosecution was trying to prove estafa during trial, thus violating her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.

s e Held: Allegations the information determine the nature of the offense, not the l namein given b technical by public prosecutor. The recital of facts and circumstances in o the information sufficiently constituted the crime of qualified theft. R (G.R. No. 167088, March r20, 2009) - Violation of Sec. 3 (e), RA 3019, Anti anGuy vs.GraftPeople and Corrupt Practices Act a B h s of City Engineer’s Office, Barangay Chairman and - Accused are officers and employees C e Treasurer, Tacloban City, conspired with owner of Amago Construction in the construction of 3 l infrastructure projects which had material defects and were b overpriced. Ro r n - Convictedaby Sandiganbayan. a B the 3 informations failed to state the h Claim: SB failed to acquire jurisdiction over them because sbetween discharge of their official duties and C specific factual allegations to indicate connection e l commission of the offenses charged. b onot be described in detail – sufficient particularity to Held: Specific acts of accused need R make sure accused fully understands what he is being charged with. r n a a Flores vs. Layosa (G.R. No. 154714, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 337) - Falsification of B public records – NFA h s C e Falsified daily time record of security guard l b If the offense is stated in such a way that ao person of ordinary intelligence may Rcan decide the matter according to law, immediately know what is meant, and the court r n the inevitable conclusion is that the information is valid. It is not necessary to follow the a a language of the statute in the information. The information will be sufficient if it describes the B h crime defined by law. s C e l b G. Cause of the accusation (Sec. 9, Rule 110) Ro r Constitutional Basis - Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution a an B h Statutory Basis – Section 1(b), Rule 115 s C e l People vs. Umawid (G.R. No. 208719, June 9, 2014) b o - In criminal cases, where the life and liberty of the accused is at stake, R due process requires that the accused be informed of the nature and cause ofn the accusation against him. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless clearly a it isG.R. charged in the complaint or information. (citing Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, No. h 123144, October 15, 2003, 413 SCRA 385) C Consigna vs. People (G.R. No. 175750-51, April 2, 2014) - estafa as penalized under Art. 315 (2)(a) of the RPC



15

- the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.

s e l

r a B

- 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, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. (citing People v. Dimaano, 506 Phil. 630, 649-650 (2005)

Ch

b o R an

r a  Place of commission (Sec. B 10, Rule 110) s e U.S. vs. Cunanan (GR No.l L-8267, Dec. 27,1913, 26 Phil 376 bas a seaman. Abandoning steamship o Rof commission of the offense must be stated in the complaint or information The place rcharged or is necessary for its n when it is a material ingredient of the offense a a B was identification. The failure to show that the offense committed within the jurisdiction h of the trial court is a fatal defect, and the complaint or information may be quashed. s C e l People vs. Navarro, 63 SCRA 264 (1975) b Light threat, frustrated theft Ro r of the offense nplace of commission is an essential element Unless the particular a a charged, conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime B was committed not at h the place alleged in the information, provided the place ofsactual commission was within C the jurisdiction of the court e l b essential, such as trespass to N.B. There are crimes which make the place of commission o dwelling (Art. 280, RPC) and violation of domicile (Art. 129, RPC). In such cases, the R specific place must be alleged in the information. r n  Date of commission of the offense a a(Sec. 11, Rule 110) B h s People vs. Delfin (G.R. No. 201572,C July 9, 2014) - murder e l b - In crimes where the date of commission is not a material element, like murder, it o is not necessary to allege such date with absolute specificity or certainty in the R of properly informing an information. The Rules of Court merely requires, for the sake accused, that the date of commission be approximated.n r a a B h The foregoing rule, is not absolute. Variance in the date of commission of the s offense as alleged in the information and C as established in evidence becomes fatal e when such discrepancy is so great that it induces the perception that l the information and the evidence are no longer pertaining to one and the b same offense. In this event, the defective allegation in the information is noto deemed supplanted by the evidence nor can it be amended but must be struck down for being R violative of the right of the accused to be informed of the specific charge anagainst him. h C The proof shows that the carabao was lost on July 25, 1947 and not on June 18, 1952 as alleged in the information. The period of almost five years between 1947 and 1952 covers such a long stretch of time that one cannot help but be led to believe that another theft different from that committed by the Defendants in 1952 was also perpetrated by them in 1947. Under this impression the accused, who came to court prepared to face a www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


16

charge of theft of large cattle allegedly committed by them in 1952, were certainly caught by sudden surprise upon being confronted by evidence tending to prove a similar offense committed in 1947. The variance is certainly unfair to them, for it violates their constitutional right to be informed before the trial of the specific charge against them and deprives them of the opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, they cannot be convicted of an offense with which they are not charged.(People vs. Opemia, 98 Phil. 698 (1956) Reiterated in People v. Hon. Reyes,195 Phil. 94, 100-101 (1981)

s e l

r a B

b vs. Balinog (G.R. No. 194833, July 2, 2014) People o R - In statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the victim r of age at the time of the commission of the offense. a an was a minor below twelve years h Corpuz vs. People (G.R. No.B 180016, April 29, 2014) - Article 315(Estafa) paragraph 1, s (b) of the RPC C e l - aside from the b fact that the date of the commission thereof is not an essential element of the ocrime herein charged, the failure of the prosecution to specify the exact dateR does not render the Information ipso facto defective. rstates the statutory designation n is legally viable as long as it distinctly - an information a a B thereof. of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive h s July 10, 2013) - violation of Section 3C e Bacasmas vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 189343, l Corrupt practices of public officers, (e) ofb Republic Act No. 3019 o of the crime, not having been committed on one - date is not a material ingredient R day alone, but rather within a period of time; - it adequately describes the nature and cause of the r accusation against a an petitioners,namely the violation of the aforementioned law. The use of the three phrases h – “manifest partiality,” “evident bad faith” and “inexcusable B negligence” - in the same s thereby charged but only Information C does not mean that three distinct offenses were e implied that the offense charged may have been committed through any of the modes l provided by the law. b o People vs. Garcia , G.R. No. 159450, March 30, 2011 - Qualified theft R r n - accused teller of Prudential Bank, Angeles Main Branch; Date not a material a a ingredient of offense. B h s C e  Name of offended party – (Sec. 12, Rule 110) l Senador vs. People, G.R. No. 201620, March 6, 2013 – estafa b - variance between the allegations of the information and the o R evidence offered by the prosecution does not of itself entitle the accused to an acquittal, more so if the variance r n relates to the designation of the offended party, a a mere formal defect, which does not a B prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. h s C - if the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, such as the money e l unlawfully taken as in Lahoylahoy, an error in the designation of the offended party b is fatal and would result in the acquittal of the accused. o R - if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, such as a warrant, as in n of the Kepner, or a check, such as in Sayson and Ricarze, an error in thea designation offended party is immaterial h C or any other generic - the subject matter of the offense herein does not refer to money property. Instead, the information specified the subject of the offense as "various kinds of jewelry valued in the total amount of P705,685.00." The charge was thereafter sufficiently fleshed out and proved by the Trust Receipt Agreement signed by Senador and presented during trial, which enumerates these "various kinds of jewelry valued in the total amount of PhP 705,685 www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


17

-

it is the doctrine elucidated in Kepner, Sayson, and Ricarze that is applicable to the present case, not the ruling in Uba or Lahoylahoy. The error in the designation of the offended party in the information is immaterial and did not violate Senador’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.

r a B

s e l of the offense; exception (Sec. 13, Rule 110) H. Duplicity b o 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or information must charge Section R one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various r a anbut offenses. B h C  Duplicitous information -s single complaint or information that charges more than one e offense l b Correlate with - Section o 3, Rule 120 R Section 3. Judgment offenses are rWhen twofailsortomore n for two or more offenses. a—accused charged ina a single complaint or information but the object to it before B outas separately trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses are charged and proved, and h impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting the findings of fact s C e and law in each offense. l b General Rule: “one offense, one complaint" rule o R Exceptions: r n a a 1. compound crimes – h where the law prescribes a single punishment Bfor various offenses s C 2. complex crimes – (Art. 48) e l b 3. special complex crimes o R 4. continuous crimes or delito continuado r n a a 5. crimes susceptible of being committed in various modes B h s 6. crimes of which another offense C is an ingredient e l Soriano vs. People (G.R. NO. 159517-18, June 30, 2009) b oconfusing the accused - Rules prohibit the filing of a duplicitous information to avoid R in preparing his defense. r a an B h I. Amendment or substitution of complaint or information (Sec. 14, Rule 110) s C e l - correlate with Sec. 4, Rule 117 (Motion to Quash) b BEFORE PLEA - Amendments in form and substance: Ro General rule – must be made before the accused enters his plea n a h Exception: C if the amendment/s downgrade/s 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.

AFTER PLEA - ONLY formal amendment and with leave of court, and such amendment www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


18

will NOT prejudice the rights of the accused.

r a Mendez vs. People (G.R. No. 179962, June 11, 2014) - estafa B s is no precise definition of what constitutes a substantial amendment. - e there to jurisprudence, substantial matters in the complaint or information lAccording b consist of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. Under Section 14, however, the Ro prosecution is given the right to amend the information, regardless of the nature of the amendment, so long as ther amendment is sought before the accused enters his n a a plea, subject to the qualification B under the second paragraph of Section 14. h C - once the accused is arraigned es and enters his plea, however, Section 14 prohibits the prosecution from seekingla substantial amendment, particularly mentioning those that may prejudice the rights accused. One of these rights is the constitutional right of the bofofthethenature accused to be informed and cause of accusation against him, a right which is o given life during the arraignment of the accused of the charge of against him. The theory in law R is that since the against the accusation on the rarraignment, naccused officially begins to prepare hisadefense basis of the recitals in the information read to him during then the prosecution a B must establish its case on the basis of the same information. s Ch Leviste vs. Alameda (G.R. No. 182677,e August 3, 2010) l b - substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged o and determinative of the jurisdiction R of the court. r(1) new allegations n - The following have been held to be mere formal amendments: a a which relate only to the range of the penalty that the courtB might impose in the event h of conviction; (2) an amendment which does not chargesanother offense different or C e allegations which do not distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as l to cause surprise to the accused b and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; (4) an amendment which does o not adversely affect any substantial right of the accused; and (5) an amendment R that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the information and not r n to introduce new and material a facts, and merely states with additional precision a something which is already contained in the original information and which adds B nothing h essential for conviction for the crime charged. s C e l a defense under - test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment is whether b the information as it originally stood would be available after the amendment is made, and o to the information in whether any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable R the one form as in the other (DAEA) r n a a Formal Amendments B h s Mendez vs. People (G.R. No. 179962, June 11,C 2014) e l - amendments that do not charge another offense different from that chargedb in the original one; or do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so aso to cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or willR assume are n considered merely as formal amendments a h - the jurisprudential test on whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of C and evidence that the an information pertains to the availability of the same defense Substantial amendments can never be made after the accused has pleaded.

accused previously had under the original information. This test, however, must be read together with the characteristic thread of formal amendments, which is to maintain the nature of the crime or the essence of the offense charged.



19

- amendments sought by the prosecution pertain to (i) the alleged change in the date in the commission of the crime from 2001 to 2002; (ii) the addition of the phrase “doing business under the name and style of Mendez Medical Group;” (iii) the change and/or addition of the branches of petitioner’s operation; and (iv) the addition of the phrase “for income earned.” Court held that these are mere formal amendments, as the nature of the crime or the essence of the offense charged under the amended information remained consistent, thus petitioner could not have been surprised at all.

s e l

r a B

b Almeda v. Judge Villaluz, prosecution wanted to additionally allege recidivism and - citing o delinquency in the original information. In allowing the amendment, the Court Rhabitual observed that the amendment sought relate only to the range of the penalty that the court r Since they do not have the effect of charging an impose in the event of conviction. an might offense different from the one a charged (qualified theft of a motor vehicle) in the h information, nor do they tend toB correct any defect in the trial court’s jurisdiction over the s C subject-matter, the amendment sought is merely formal. e l - citing Teehankee,bJr. v. Madayag, the prosecution sought during trial to amend the information from ofrustrated to consummated murder since the victim died after the information for frustrated murder was filed. The accused refused to be arraigned under the R amendedn information without the conduct of a new preliminary r investigation. In sustaining the admission of the amended information, the Court reasoned that the additional a a allegation, that is, the supervening fact of the B death of the victim was merely supplied to h snorpenalty aid the trial court in determining the proper for the crime. Again, there is no Cchange e in the nature of offense charged; is there a change in the prosecution’s l theory that the accused committed a felonious act with intent to kill the victim; nor b does the amendment affect whatever defense the accused originally may have. o R Kummer vs. People (G.R.n No. 174461, September 11, 2013) r a a - A mere change h in the date of the commission of the crime, disparity of time B if thewould not prejudice is not great, isC more formal than substantial. Such an amendment s the rights of the accused since the proposed amendmente would not alter the nature of the l offense. b oare prejudiced by the amendment of a - The test as to when the rights of an accused R complaint or information is when a defense under the complaint or information, as it rany n after the amendment is made, when originally stood, would no longer be available a a evidence the accused might have would no longer be available after the amendment B is h made, and when any evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to the s C DAEA complaint or information, as amended. e l b Substantial amendments o R Leviste vs. Alameda (G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010) r n a a - whether the amendment of the Information from homicide to murder is considered a B substantial amendment. Amendment involvedh in the present case consists of s additional averments of the circumstances C of treachery, evident premeditation, and e cruelty, which qualify the offense charged from homicide to murder. It being a new l b and material element of the offense, petitioner should be given the chance to adduce evidence on the matter. Not being merely clarificatory, the amendment o essentially varies the prosecution's original theory of the case and certainly affects notR just the form but the weight of defense to be mustered by petitioner an h - factual milieus in Buhat v. CA (333 Phil. 562 (1996) and Pacoy v. Cajigal (G.R. No. 157472, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 338) wherein the amendment of the caption of C the Information from homicide to murder was not considered substantial because there was no real change in the recital of facts constituting the offense charged as alleged in the body of the Information, as the allegations of qualifying circumstances were already clearly embedded in the original Information. Buhat pointed out that the original Information for homicide already alleged the use of superior strength, while Pacoy states that the www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


20

averments in the amended Information for murder are exactly the same as those already alleged in the original Information for homicide. None of these peculiar circumstances obtains in the present case.

s e l

r a B

J. Venue of criminal actions

b o R General rule: an

Place where action is to be instituted (Sec. 15, Rule 110)

r a In the court of the municipality or territory B where the offense was committed or where any of its h essential ingredients occurred. s C eaircraft, or vehicle in the course of its trip: l Offense committed in a train, b o In the court of any municipality or territory where said train, aircraft, or vehicle passed during Rplace of departure and arrival. its trip, including the r a an on board a vessel in the course Offense committed of its voyage: B h s Ccourt of the first point of entry or of anyemunicipality In the or territory where the vessel passed during such voyage. l b Crime committed outside of Philippines o but punishable under Art. 2 of RPC: R Court where the criminal action nis first filed. (Sec.15, Rule 110). ar a Union Bank of the Philippines vs. People (G.R. No. 192565, February B28, 2012) h s C - the crime of perjury committed through the making of a falseeaffidavit under Article 183 of the l to his or her affidavit since it is RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and b swears at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. - When the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that Ro n where the testimony under oath is ar is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at thea place B given. If in lieu of or as supplementh to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is s neither criminal nor civil, a written C sworn statement is submitted, venue mayeeither be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath was takenl as the taking of the b oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases, o determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive R of the crime committed. r n a a Bonifacio vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati (GR. No. 184800, May 5, 2010) - libel B h s C that the place where the crime wase - Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential lthat b element of jurisdiction. This principle acquires even greater import in libel cases, given Article 360, as amended, specifically provides for the possible venues for the institution Ro of the criminal and civil aspects of such cases. n - In order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal a action for written h defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether, at C officer or a private the time the offense was committed, the offended party was a public individual and where he was actually residing at that time. Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first published should likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine qua non if the



21

circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first published is used as the basis of the venue of the action.

r a B

- the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited

s e l

to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The Amended Information in the present case opted to lay the venue by availing of the second.

b o R Foz, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No 167764, October 9, 2009) an Libel - information filed in RTCBIloiloarCity. Panay News – Foz, as columnist, portrayed Dr. Portigo as an incompetent doctor and an opportunist who enriched himself at the expense s appealed to CA, affirmed, petition for review with SC. of the people. Accused convicted, Ch e l Venue of libel - place (1) where publication was first printed and published or province b (2) where offended party actually resided at time of commission of the offense. o Information failed under Art. 360. Decision R to comply with venue requirements for libelwithout convictingn petitioners should be aside for lack of jurisdiction prejudice to its filing r with the a acourt of competent jurisdiction B EXAMPLES h Rigor vs. People (G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004) s C e - violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang l 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing b crimes. In such crimes, some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their o consummation occur in one municipality or territory and some in another, in which event, the R court of either has jurisdiction to try the cases, it being understood that the first court taking n the other. Hence, a person charged awithra transitory crime cognizance of the case excludes a may be validly tried h in any municipality or territory where B the offense was in part committed. s C e l b K. Intervention of the offended party in criminal Ro action (Sec. 16, Rule 110) r n a a - correlate with Sec. 12, Rule 110 (Name of the offended party) B h s Lee Pue Liong a.k.a. Paul Lee vs. C Chua Pue Chin Lee (G.R. No. 181658, August e 7, 2013 ) l perjury b - citing Garcia v. Court of Appeals (334 Phil. 621, 631-632 (1997), language of Rothatfromthetheoffended Section 12, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, it is reasonable to assume party r n in the commission of a crime, public or private, is the party to whom the offender is a a civilly liable, and therefore the private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is B h the offended party. s C e - Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party l b may also be a private individual whose person, right, house, liberty or property was actually or directly injured by the same punishable act or omission of the accused, o of.or R that corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the delictual acts complained Such party must be one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in the subject matter of the an action as will entitle him to recourse under the substantive law, to recourse if the evidence is sufficient or that he has the legal right to the demand and the accusedh will be protected by the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such interest must not be a mere C expectancy, subordinate or inconsequential. The interest of the party must be personal; and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party (citing Ramiscal, Jr. v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 487 Phil. 384 [2004])



22

- where the private prosecution has asserted its right to intervene in the proceedings, that right must be respected. The right reserved by the Rules to the offended party is that of intervening for the sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability born of the criminal act and not of demanding punishment of the accused. Such intervention, moreover, is always subject to the direction and control of the public prosecutor.

s e l

r a B

b o R ar126210, March 9, 2000, 327 SCRA 588 anPerez vs. Hagonoy Rural Bank, G.R.BNo. Bulacan s Ch Estafa- –InHagonoy, e a special civil action l for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it b is alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to o lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties R are then State and the private offended party or complainant. The complainant has an r interest in the civil aspect of the case so he maya file such special civil action questioning a the decision or action of the respondent courtB on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the h complainant should not bring the action in the the People of the Philippines. s of thenamesaidofcomplainant." C The action may be prosecuted in (the) ename l b - Thus, while it is only the Solicitor General that may bring or defend actions on behalf o R of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal r n proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, the private a a offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for B certiorari in his own h name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law. s C e l b o Who represents People in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court R r n Ong vs. Genio, G.R. No. 182336, December 23, 2009 a a B h Robbery – Makati City s C e RTC dismissed case for lack of probable cause pursuant to Rule 112, l Sec. 6 (a). Private complainant Elvira Ong filed petition for certiorari and mandamus with CA. b obefore the CA or SC on Held: Only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions R behalf of the People of the Philippines. However, party may appeal the r noffended a a civil aspect despite acquittal of accused. The complainant has an interest in the civil B aspect of the case. He may file certiorari petition qjestioning the decision of the trial h s court on jurisdictional grounds. The action may be prosecuted in the name of said C e complainant. l b o R III. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION an h A. Rule on implied institution of civil action with criminalC action  When private offended party may bring special civil action of certiorari in criminal proceedings

Civil liabilities that may arise from a criminal act - correlate with: Arts. 100-113, Revised Penal Code



23

Arts. 29, 32, 33, 34, 2176, 2180, 2184, Civil Code

r a - Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The acquittal of an accused B however, does not necessarily extinguish his civil liability. of the crime charged, s e Two kindslof acquittal recognized by our law and their concomitant effects on the civil bthe accused liability of o First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or R  omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person r n who has been found to bea not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and a can never be held liable B for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil h liability ex delicto iss out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be C instituted must be grounds other than the delict complained of. This is ebased onin Rule l the situation contemplated 111 of the Rules of Court.  Second is b an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the oIn this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been accused. R satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be n by preponderance of evidence only.ar proved a - The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against him on B theh civil aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it s (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable Cthe extinction of the civil liability where: e l is required; (b) the court declares that the doubt as only preponderance of evidence b liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based o the crime of which the accused is acquitted. R upon However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding ncriminal action that the act or omissionarfrom which the civil on the final judgment in the a liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or B h omission imputed to him. s C e l Ways of instituting civil actions in criminal cases b o General Rule: deemed instituted with criminal R action. r Exceptions: a an B h (1) waiver s C e l (2) reservation of right to institute separately, b (3) prior institution of civil action (Sec. 1.) Ro r a an B h Exception to these exceptions: s C e claims arising out of a dishonored check under BP22 where no reservationlto b file such civil action shall be allowed. Ro(Sec. 4, claims arising from an offense which is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249) an h C Co vs. Muñoz (G.R. No. 181986, December 4, 2013) Daluraya vs. Marla Oliva (G.R. No. 210148, December 8, 2014)

- procedural rules provide for two modes by which civil liability ex delicto may be enforced: (1) through a civil action that is deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal action; (2) through a civil action that is filed separately, either before the criminal action or after, upon reservation of the right to file it separately in the criminal action



24

 When to reserve – Sec. 1, 2nd par.

r a B

- No reservation required and civil action not suspended when act constituting a crime is at the same time a violation of Arts. 32, 33, 34 (independent civil actions) and 2176 (quasi-delicts) of Civil Code.

s e l

 Criminal actions for violation of BP 22, civil action is deemed included and that a reservation to file such separately is not allowed.

b o R No. r199067, November 11, 2013 ) a anNissan Gallery-Ortigas vs. Felipe (G.R. h - if the judgment is conviction ofBthe accused, then the necessary penalties and civil s or crime shall be imposed. On the contrary, if the C liabilities arising from the offense e judgment is of acquittal, then the imposition of the civil liability will depend on whether or not the l act or omission from which bit might arise exists. o - Felipe was acquitted the element of notice of dishonor was not sufficiently R because established. Nevertheless, the act or omission from which r her civil liability arose, which was the n making or a the issuing of the subject worthless check, a clearly existed. Her acquittal from the Bdoubt and it did not relieve her of the criminal charge of BP 22 was based on reasonable h corresponding civil liability. s C e l b B. When civil action may proceed Ro independently (Sec. 3, Rule 111) r 10, 2014), citing a an Standard Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Cuaresma (G.R. No. 200055, September B h Casupanan vs. Laroya, 436 Phil. 582 (2002) s C ethe criminal action can file an - There is no question that the offended party in l independent civil action for quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the present Rule b 111 expressly states that the "offended party" may obring such an action but the "offended party" may not recover damages twice for theR same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers arnot anto the offended party in the criminalBaction, to the accused. h a party involved therein filed a criminal s - as a result of a vehicular accident, case for C e reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property against the otherl party, who, in turn, filed a civil suit against the party instituting the criminal action, We held that the party filing b the separate civil action cannot be liable for forum shopping because the law (Arts. o 2176 & 2177 of the Civil Code), and the rules (Sec. 1, Rule 111) expressly allow the R filing of a separate civil action which can proceed n independently of the criminal r action. ; Either the private complainant or the accused can file a separate civil action a a B under these articles. There is nothing in the law or rules that state only the private h complainant in a criminal case may invoke these articles. s C e l b C. When separate civil action is suspended (Sec. 2, Rule 111) Ro n a - After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until FINAL JUDGMENT has been entered h C in the criminal action. (Deferment) - If the criminal action is filed after the separate civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be SUSPENDED in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until FINAL JUDGMENT is rendered in the criminal action. (Suspension) www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


25

- Before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be CONSOLIDATED with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly. (Consolidation) - During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. (Tolling of prescriptive period) - Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

s e l

Ch

b o R an

r a B

r a B

s e Romero vs. People, G.R. No. l 167546, July 17, 2009 b - acquittal of an accused of the crime charged will not necessarily extinguish o his civil liability, unless the court declares in a final judgment that the fact from R which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Courts can acquit an accused on r in the same case. It is not n doubt but still order payment of civiladamages reasonable a even necessary that a separate civil action be Binstituted. h s 172505, October 1, 2014) C Garcia vs. Ferro Chemicals, Inc. (G.R.eNo. l b if the state pursues an appeal on the criminal aspect of a decision of the trial court o complainant/s failed to reserve the right to institute a acquitting the accused and private R separate civil action, the civil liability ex delicto that is inherently attached to the offense r is impliedly is likewise appealed.n The appeal of the civil liability ex delicto a instituted with theapetition for certiorari assailing the acquittal of the accused. B h Private complainant cannot anymore pursue a separate appeal from that of the state C the doctrine of non-forum shopping. es without violating l reserved the right to institute b  the conclusion is different if private complainant o ex delicto before the Regional Trial the civil action for the recovery of civil liability R Court or institute a separate civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case in n of Court. In these situations, the filingaofran accordance with Rule 111 of the Rules a appeal as to the civil aspect of the case cannot be considered as forum B h shopping. s C e l b D. Effect of death of the accused or convict on civil action (Sec. 4, Rule 111) o R The accused’s death after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action r n shall extinguish the civil liability arising a from the crime. However, the a B independent civil action instituted or which is thereafter is instituted may be h continued against the legal representative of the accused after proper substitution s C e or against said estate, as the case may be. The accused’s heirs may be substituted l for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and b the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. Ro n Cabugao vs. People (G.R. No. 163879, July 30, 2014) a - the effect of death, pending appeal of his conviction of petitioner Dr. Ynzon with regard h to his criminal and pecuniary liabilities should be in accordance with People v. Bayotas, C G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239, wherein the Court laid down the rules in case the accused dies prior to final judgment: 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to



26

final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) x x x x x x x x x e) Quasi-delicts 3.Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This 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 as explained above. 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.

s e l

r a B

Ch

b o R an

b o R

s e l

r a B

an

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

r a Bextinguishes his criminal - death of the accused Dr. Ynzon pending appeal of his conviction h s liability. However, as the same is not based on C the recovery of civil liability subsists e delict but by contract and the reckless imprudence he was guilty of under Article 365 of l the Revised Penal Code. For this reason, a separate civil action may be enforced either b against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the o source of obligation upon which the same isR based and in accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 111. r n - upon the extinction of the criminala liability and the offended party desires to a recover damages from the same act or omission complained of, the party may file a separate civil B h action based on the other sources of obligation in accordance with Section 4, Rule 111 If s C e the same act or omission complained of arises from quasi-delict, as in this case, a l of the estate of separate civil action must be filed against the executor or administrator b the. Ro r *** Datu vs. People (G.R. No. 169718, December 13, 2010) TDC a a-n B In light of this supervening event (death of petitioner) h which occurred while petitioner’s appeal s C before this Court, we are constrainede of the judgment of his conviction was pending resolution by both law and jurisprudence to dismiss the present case for the appeal has been rendered l moot.1avvphi1 b o Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code instructs us that criminal liability is totallyR extinguished by the death of the offender, to wit: n a 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and ash to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender C occurs before final judgment. It is therefore evident from the foregoing discussion that venturing into the merits of petitioner’s appeal given the circumstance of his untimely demise has become superfluous because, even assuming this Court would proceed to affirm the lower court’s judgment of conviction, such a



27

ruling would be of no force and effect as the resultant criminal liability is totally extinguished by his death. Consequently, his civil liability arising from the crime, being civil liability ex delicto, is likewise extinguished by his death. Since his appeal was still pending before this Court, there was no final judgment of conviction upon which an award of civil indemnity could be based.

s e l

r a B

Accordingly, this Court holds that the death of petitioner extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act complained of, i.e., acts of lasciviousness. Thus, the assailed Court of Appeals’ Decision dated March 31, 2005, affirming petitioner’s conviction by the trial court, had become ineffectual.

b o R an

r a h Judgment in civil action not B a bar – Sec. 5 s C e in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is A final judgment rendered l NOT A BAR to abcriminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission subject of theo civil action. (4a) R r E. Prejudicialn a a question B h  Suspension of criminal action by reason of prejudicial question– Sec. 6, Rule 111. s C e A petition for suspension of the l criminal action based upon the pendency of a b prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or o the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court forR trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same r n criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. a a B h  Elements of prejudicial question – Sec. 7, Rule 111 s C esimilar or intimately related to (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue l the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and b (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may o proceed. R r n a a Sps. Gaditano vs. San Miguel Corporation (G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013) B h - A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a situation where a s civil action and C and there exists in the former an issuee which must be a criminal action are both pending l the issue preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever b raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The rationaleo R behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. r -material facts surrounding the civil case bear n no relation to the criminal a a investigation being conducted by the prosecutor. The prejudicial question in the B h civil case involves the dishonor of another check. SMC is not privy to the nature of s C to its dishonor and the eventuale the alleged materially altered check leading l garnishment of petitioners’ savings account. The source of the funds of petitioners’ b savings account is no longer SMC’s concern. The matter is between petitioners and o AsiaTrust Bank. On the other hand, the issue in the preliminary investigation is R whether petitioners issued a bad check to SMC for the payment of beer products. - If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues, or the issue in n one is intimately awould related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question likely exist, h provided that the other element or characteristic is satisfied. It must appear not only that C prosecution would be the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


28

does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.

r a - Annulment of marriage B is not a prejudicial question in criminal case for Parricide s e - There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both l and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively pending, b resolved before the criminal action may proceed because howsoever the issue o in the civil action is resolved would be determinative of the guilt or R raised innocence of the accused in the criminal case. r a an - relationship between the B offender and the victim is a key element in the crime of h parricide, which punishessany person "who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether C legitimate or illegitimate, of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse." The etheor anyoffender l relationship between and the victim distinguishes the crime of b parricide from murder or homicide. However, the issue in the annulment of o similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case for marriage is not R parricide. Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative ar an of the guilt or innocence of the Baccused. - The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the s Ch Family Code is whether petitioner ise psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.l The issue in parricide is whether the accused b killed the victim. In this case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, o the issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution which would have killed R but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of respondent as a consequence r of the alleged causes independent of petitioner’s will. At the time of the commission a an crime, petitioner and respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their B h marriage, in case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no effect Ccrime that was committed at the time ofethessubsistence of the marriage. on the alleged In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and is annulled, petitioner lofrespondent b could still be held criminally liable since at the time the commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent. Ro r n a a Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Jacinto (G.R. No. 154622, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 315) B h s - A prejudicial question generally action and a C exists in a situation where aancivil eissue criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the former l that must be preemptively resolved before the latter may proceed, because howsoever the b issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure o of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The elements of a R prejudicial question are provided under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of r n a a Criminal Procedure, as amended, as follows: (i) the previously instituted civil action B involves an issue similar or intimately related h to the issue raised in the subsequent s criminal action, and (ii) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the C e criminal action may proceed. l b - A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the o criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can R be rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closelyn connected. Not every defense raised in a civil action will raise a prejudicial a question to justify suspension of the criminal action. The defense must involve an issue similar or h intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal case Cand its resolution should determine whether or not the latter action may proceed. If the resolution of the issue Pimentel vs. Pimentel (G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010)

in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or if there is no necessity that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case, the civil case



29

does not involve a prejudicial question. Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.

r a B

De Zuzuarregui vs. Villarosa(G.R. No. 183788, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 377)

s e l

- For a prejudicial question in a civil case to suspend a criminal action, it must appear not only that said civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two (2) conflicting decisions.

b o R r a an - The determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the basis of a h prejudicial question rests on B whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the C civil case are so relatedswith the issues raised in the criminal case such that the e in the civil case would also determine the judgment in the resolution of the issues l criminal case. b Abunado vs. People o (G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 562) R - A prejudicial distinct and separate rit thaton ait factdetermines n question has been defined as onewithbased fromathe crime but so intimately connected a the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not B h only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the sin the resolution of the issue or issuescriminal C prosecution would be based but also that e raised l in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. b The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial o question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. R r was immaterial ndeclaration of the nullity of the first marriage The subsequent judicial a a because prior toh the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. B Moreover, petitioner’s of bigamy cases C assertion would only delay thetosprosecution considering that an accused could simply file a petitione declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a l prejudicial question in the criminal b case. o R F. Rule on filing fees in civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action r n a a B (Sec. 1 (b), 2nd par. , Rule 111 s Ch e l General Rule: No filing fees are required for amounts of actual damages b Exception: Ro r criminal actions for for violation of B.P. 22, in which then offended party shall pay in full a a the filing fees based on the face value of the check as the actual damages. B h s C damages, other damages), other thane Where the amount of damages (moral, exemplary actual damages, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees l b shall be paid by the offended party upon filing thereof in court. Ro In any other case, that is, when the amount of damages is not so alleged, the corresponding n filing fees need NOT be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment, a EXCEPT on an award for actual damages. h C



30

Simon vs. Chan (G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011) citing Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corporation, G.R. No. 163597, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 454, 459-461

r a B

- Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but because of the inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of B.P. 22, the Rules require the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the complaint. This rule was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried.

s e l

Ch

b o R an

b o R

an

s e l

r a B

IV. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

r a B

h Definition: Preliminary investigation is an s inquiry or proceeding to determine whether Cthere is sufficient ground to engenderea well-founded belief that a crime has been l guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. committed and the respondent is probably b (Sec. 1, 1 par., Rule 112) o R Ocampo vs. Abando (G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014) r n a a - A preliminary investigation is “not a casual affair.” It is conducted B to protect the innocent h from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial. While the right to have a sthan constitutional, it is a C preliminary investigation before trial is statutory rather e l in the administration of criminal substantive right and a component of due process b justice. o R - In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law entails r of the opportunity to be heard. It servesn to accord an opportunity for the presentation a a the respondent’s side with regard to the accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer B that a h shall decide whether the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief s Cthat it was the respondent who committed crime has been committed, and it. Otherwise, e the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint. l b o When required: R Preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or r a an information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, B two (2) months and (1) day without regard to theh fine.(Sec. 1, 2 par., Rule 112) s C e l b Exception: when a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant. (Sec. 6, Rule 112 as o amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC) R n Exceptions to the exception: (Instances when preliminary investigation may be asked by a the accused) h C 1. Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a PI, st

nd

but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC, as amended, in the presence of his counsel.



31

2. After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation.

r a Estrada vs. Bersamin (G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015) B sthe Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure where probable cause is needed to Four instances in e be established: l b In allo these instances, the evidence necessary to establish probable cause is based only on the likelihood, or probability, of guilt. R (1) In Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the officer, to determine whether there is r investigating a ansufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the Band should be held for trial. A preliminary investigation is respondent is probably guilty thereof, h required before the filing of a s complaint or information for an offense where the penalty C e years, prescribed by law is at leastl four two months and one day without regard to the fine; b (2) In Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine whether a warrant of arrest or o a commitment order, shall be issued and that there is R if the accused has already been arrested, a necessity ofn placing the respondent under immediate r custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice; a a B h (3) C In Section 5(b) of Rule 113: By a peace officer private person making a warrantless sandorhea has e arrest when an offense has just been committed, probable cause to believe based l on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed b it; and o R (4) In Section 4 of Rule 126: By the judge, to determine whether a search warrant shall be r to be determined ncause in connection with one specific offense issued, and only upon probable a a personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation B of the complainant and the h witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the places to be searched and the things C to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. e l b o R A. Nature of right r n a a  Estrada vs. Bersamin (G.R. Nos.h 212140-41, January 21, 2015) B s C e statutory - the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation are merely rights, not constitutional due process rights. An investigation b to l determine probable cause for the filing of an information does not initiate a criminal action so as to trigger into o operation Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution. It is the filing of a complaint or R information in court that initiates a criminal action. r n a a - Thus, a preliminary investigation can be taken away by legislation. The constitutional B h right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him does not apply in preliminary s C investigations; nor will the absence of a preliminary investigation be an infringement of e his right to confront the witnesses against him. A preliminary investigation maylbe b done away with entirely without infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial. Ro Enrile vs. Manalastas (G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014) an - preliminary investigation, the occasion for the submission ofh parties’ respective C theallegations, affidavits, counter-affidavits and evidence to buttress their separate is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare the information. It is not yet a trial on the merits, for its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. The scope of the investigation does not approximate that of a trial before the www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


32

court; hence, what is required is only that the evidence be sufficient to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime charged, not that all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused be removed.

r a ***Agdeppa vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 146376, April 23, 2014 citing Uy v. Office of the B Ombudsman (578 Phil. 635, 655 (2008) (Leonardo-De Castro, J.:) s e - A preliminary is held before an accused is placed on trial to secure the l againstinvestigation b innocent hasty, malicious, and oppressive prosecution; to protect him from an and public accusation of a crime, as well as from the trouble, expenses, and anxiety Roopen of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and trials. While the right is statutory than constitutional, it is a component of rjustice.rather a an expensive due process in administering criminal The right to have a preliminary investigation B for trial and before being exposed to the risk of conducted before being bound h snot a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. incarceration and penalty is C e To deny the accused’s claim to a preliminary investigation is to deprive him of the l full measure of his right to due process. b ocannot insist that a preliminary investigation be held when the complaint - A complainant R was dismissed because of palpable lack of r merit. It goes against the very nature n of outright and purpose preliminary investigation to still drag the respondent/accused through the a a B rigors of such an investigation so as to aid the complainant in substantiating an h accusation/charge that is evidently baseless from the very beginning. s C e l 18, 2012) Arroyo vs. DOJ (G.R. No. 199082, September b o - A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in the criminal justice system R which spells for an individual the difference between months if not years of r n agonizing trial and a possibly jail term, on the one hand, and peace of mind and a liberty, on the other hand. Thus, we have characterized the right to a preliminary B h investigation as one, forming part of s Cnot a mere formal or technical right but aesubstantive due process in criminal justice. l b - In a preliminary investigation, the Rules of Court guarantee the petitioners basic due oa copy of the complaint, the affidavits, process rights such as the right to be furnished R and other supporting documents, and the right to submit counter-affidavits, and other r supporting documents in her defense. n a a B h Budiongan, Jr. vs. Dela Cruz, Jr. (G.R. NO. 170288, September 22, 2006) s C e - The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, l but is merely a right conferred by statute. The absence of a preliminary investigationbdoes not impair the o It does not affect validity of the Information or otherwise render the same defective. the jurisdiction of the court over the case or constituteR a ground for quashing the r Information. If absence of a preliminary investigation n does not render the Information a a invalid nor affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case, then the denial of a motion for B reinvestigation cannot likewise invalidate the h Information or oust the court of its s C jurisdiction over the case. e l b Waiver of right to preliminary investigation. Ro Roallos vs. People (G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013) an h -the absence of a proper preliminary investigation must be timely C raised. The accused is deemed to have waived his right to a preliminary investigation by entering his plea and actively participating in the trial without raising the lack of a preliminary investigation. This is to allow the trial court to hold the case in abeyance and conduct its own investigation or require the prosecutor to hold a reinvestigation, which, necessarily “involves a reexamination and re-evaluation of the evidence already submitted by the complainant and



33

the accused, as well as the initial finding of probable cause which led to the filing of the Informations after the requisite preliminary investigation.”

r a B

B. Purposes of Preliminary Investigation

s e l

People vs. Yecyec (G.R. No. 183551, November 12, 2014) citing Ledesma v. Court of Appeals 344 Phil. 207, 226 (1997) - The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free respondent from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a more or less summary proceeding by a competent office designated by law for that purpose. Secondarily, such summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden of the unnecessary expense an effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous or groundless charges. Such investigation is not part of the trial. A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence is not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief than an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. By reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. Hence, no double jeopardy attaches.

Ch

b o R an

b o R

an

s e l

r a B

r a B

10, 2014) h vs. Generoso (G.R. No. 182601, November s CPestilos The purpose of a preliminary investigation determine whether a crime has been ecauseis toto believe l committed and whether there is probable that the accused is guilty of the b crime and should be held for trial. o R - probable cause - the existence of facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in non the facts within the knowledge aof r a reasonable mind, acting the prosecutor, that aguilty the person charged was of the crime for which he was prosecuted. B h s C e l  Two Kinds of Determination of Probable Cause: People vs. Andrade (G.R. No. b 187000, November 24, 2014) o The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary R investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is r n given a broad discretion to determinea whether probable cause exists and to charge a those whom he believes to haveh committed the crime as defined by law andB thus should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial sin court. C authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed e l the public Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by b prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trialo R court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. r nother hand, is one made The judicial determination of probable cause, on the a a by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the B h accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, s Ccustody in order not to frustrate the e there is necessity for placing the accused under ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be l b forced to issue the arrest warrant. o itself The difference is clear: The executive determination of probable cause concerns R with whether there is enough evidence to support an Information being filed. The judicial n a warrant of determination of probable cause, on the other hand, determines whether a arrest should be issued. h C Shu vs. Dee (G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014) -

It is well-settled that in order to arrive at a finding of probable cause, the elements of the crime charged should be present. In determining these elements for purposes of preliminary investigation, only facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty. Thus,



34

probable cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction.

r a C. Who may Conduct Determination of Existence of Probable Cause B sauthorized to conduct preliminary investigations: (Sec. 2, Rule 112, as Officers e l by A.M. No 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on October 3, 2005) amended b Ro(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants; r and Prosecutors; a an (b) National and Regional State B by law. h (c) Other officers as may be authorized s C e COMELEC (Election Officers in NCR, Provincial Election Supervisors, Regional lAssistant Election Attorneys, Regional Election Directors, Regional Election Directors b and lawyers of the Law Department. o R Ombudsman r n a a B PCGG h s(G.R. No. 115906, September 29, C e Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan l b 1994, 237 SCRA 242) o R - PCGG has the power to conduct preliminary investigation of cases for forfeiture of n not committed by the respondentaorrdefendant in close allegedly ill-gotten wealth a although association with former President Ferdinand E. Marcos. B h s C People vs. Borje (G.R. No. 170046, December 10, 2014) le - in crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,b the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation, or reinvestigation for that matter, is a function that o belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is empowered determine, in the R cause exists, and totocharge exercise of its discretion, whether probable the person r n believed to have committed the crime as defined by law. a a - courts do not interfere withh the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the B and presence or absence of probable cause believing that a crime has been committed s C e corresponding that the accused is probably guilty thereof necessitating the filing of the information with the appropriate courts. This rule is based not onlylon respect for the b investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the o Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. ; unless it is shown that the Ombudsman’s R finding of probable cause was done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment namounting to lack or excess of ar evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion a jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere with the same. B h s Ejercito vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014) C e l - Under COMELEC Resolution No. 9386, all lawyers in the COMELEC who are Election b Officers in the National Capital Region ("NCR"), Provincial Election Supervisors, oElection Regional Election Attorneys, Assistant Regional Election Directors, Regional R Directors and lawyers of the Law Department are authorized to conduct preliminary n laws which investigation of complaints involving election offenses under the election a may be filed directly with them, or which may be indorsed to them by the COMELEC. h C citing M.A. Jimenez Agdeppa vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 146376, April 23, 2014) Enterprises, Inc. vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 155307, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 381, 392-394.)

- determination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


35

upon the complaint of any person, any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. It has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not.

r a Shu vs. Dee (G.R. No. 182573, April 23, 2014) B of probable cause is essentially an executive function, lodged - The determination s in the e first place on the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation. Thel prosecutor’s ruling is reviewable by the Secretary who, as the final determinative b authority on the matter, has the power to reverse, modify or affirm the prosecutor’s o determination. R - It is well-settled that the findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to by the courts, save r only when he acts with grave abuse of discretion a an interference amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; when he grossly misapprehends facts; B h when he acts in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive s C duty or a virtual refusale to perform the duty enjoined by law; or when he acts outside the l contemplation of law. b Peña Vs. Martizano o No. Mtj-02-1451, May 30, 2003) R (A.M. - When the facts stated in the complaint plainly described an election offense, r had the exclusive power to only the on Elections (Comelec) a an Commission preliminarily investigate and to prosecute election offenses; Comelec, through its B to conduct h authorized legal officers, has the exclusive power preliminary investigations s (Sec. 265, Omnibus C of all election offenses and to prosecuteethem Election Code) l b Procedure (Sec. 3) o R a. Filing of the complaint accompanied by the affidavits and supporting documents r n a a b. Within 10 days from filing The investigating officer issues a subpoena B h s C officer dismisses the complaint e c. The investigating l d. Within 10 days from receipt - Respondent shallbsubmit a counter-affidavit and other supporting documents Ro r n e. Within 10 days from receipt of counter-affidavit OR from the expiration of the period of a a their submission B h s C f. Clarificatory Hearing (OPTIONAL) e l g. Resolution of the investigating prosecutor b Ro r n Estrada vs. Bersamin (G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015) a a - It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right to B h cross-examine the witnesses which the complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the s C Rules of Court expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right to e l submit a counter-affidavit, to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant b and, where the fiscal sets a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their o witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine R or cross-examine. n a D. Resolution of investigating prosecutor (Sec. 4, Rule 112) h  If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent C for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in the information -

that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused



36

was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

r a B

 If the investigating prosecutor finds no ground to continue with the inquiry he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.

s e l

Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall immediately inform the parties of such action.

Ch

b o R an

r a B

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.

b o R

s e l

Soriano vs. Marcelo (G.R. No. 160772, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 394) - Conducting a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining whether there exists probable cause to prosecute a person for the commission of a crime, including the determination of whether to conclude, reopen or dismiss the criminal complaint subject of the preliminary investigation, is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the provincial or city prosecutor. This is clear from the provision of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which specifically states that no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written authority of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

Ro rIPI No. 08-2755-P), n (A.M. No. P-08-2458 (Formerly OCA Plopinio vs. Liza Zabala-Cariño a a B March 22, 2010) h - A person shallC be considered formally charged: s e xxxx l In criminal proceedings - (a) upon the finding of the existence of probable cause by the b investigating prosecutor and the consequent filing of o an information in court with the required prior written authority or approval of R the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy; (b) upon the finding of the existence of r n probable cause by the public prosecutor or by the judge in cases not requiring a thea athe Rule on Summary Procedure; or (c)Bupon preliminary investigation nor covered by h finding of cause or ground to C hold the accused for trial pursuant to Section s 13 of the e Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. l b Manlavi vs. Gacott Jr. (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293, May 9, 1995) o R The provision that “no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an nor approval of the provincial ar investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority a or city prosecutor” applies to the conduct of the preliminary investigation which is within the B h control of the public prosecutor. It has no application in a case where the information is s C already filed before the proper court e l Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of theb complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the provincial or o city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputyR on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the n a information against the respondent, or direct another assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to h do so without conducting another preliminary investigation. C Guidelines for the documentation of a resolution by an investigating prosecutor, who after conducting preliminary investigation, finds no probable cause and recommends a dismissal of the criminal complaint: Abanadovs. Bayona [A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-2179-MTJ), July 30, 2012]



37

1. the investigating prosecutor prepares a resolution recommending the dismissal and containing the following: a. summary of the facts of the case; b. concise statement of the issues therein; and c. his findings and recommendations. 2. within five days from the date of his resolution, the investigating fiscal shall forward his resolution to the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor, as the case may be, for review; 3. if the resolution of the investigating prosecutor is reversed by the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor, the latter may file the information himself or direct another assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so; 4. the resolution of the investigating prosecutor shall be strictly confidential and may not be released to the parties, their counsels and/or any other unauthorized person until the same shall have been finally acted upon by the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor or his duly authorized assistant and approved for promulgation and release to the parties; and 5. that the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the complainant's affidavit, the sworn statements of the prosecution's witnesses, the respondent's counter-affidavit and the sworn statements of his witnesses and such other evidence, as far as practicable, shall be attached to the information

s e l

r a B

Ch

b o R an

b o R

s e l

r a B

r n a a CIRCULAR NO. 70 B RULE ON APPEAL h SUBJECT: 2000 National Prosecution Service (NPS) C  Scope - appeals from resolutionseofsthe Chief State Prosecutor, Regional State l Prosecutors in cases subject of preliminary Prosecutors and Provincial/City b investigation/ reinvestigation. (Sec. 1) o  Where to Appeal - Secretary of Justice R  Period to appeal - within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution, or of the nfor reconsideration/reinvestigation if onear denial of the motion has been filed within a fifteen (15) h days from receipt of the assailed resolution. Only one motion for B reconsideration sreview with the Office of the C shall be allowed. e  How appeal taken - by filing a verified petition for l copies thereof to the adverse Secretary, Department of Justice, and by furnishing b party and the Prosecution Office issuing the appealed resolution. Romay:  Action on the petition - Secretary of Justice r n Dismiss the petition outright a if he finds the same to be patently without a merit or B are too manifestly intended for h delay, or when the issues raised therein s unsubstantial to require Cconsideration. e l  If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, the b petition shall not be given due course if the accused had already been arraigned. o R Note: Any arraignment made after the filing n of the petition shall not bar the r Secretary of Justice from exercising his power a aof review. B h s C le  Effect of the appeal - Unless the Secretary of Justice directs otherwise, the b appeal shall not hold the filing of the corresponding information in court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the appealed resolution. Ro The appellant and the trial prosecutor shall see to it that, pending resolution of the an h appeal, the proceedings in court are held in abeyance. C

E. Review



Disposition of the appeal - The Secretary may reverse, affirm or modify the appealed resolution. He may, motu proprio or upon motion, dismiss the petition for review on any of the following grounds:  That the petition was filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 3 hereof; www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


38

That the procedure or any of the requirements herein provided has not been

r a That there is no showing of any reversible error; B s the appealed resolution is interlocutory in nature, except when it suspends That e l complied with;

b o R That the accused had already been arraigned when the appeal was taken; rprescribed; and That the offense has already a an B grounds exist to warrant a dismissal. h That other legal or factual s C e l - The aggrieved party may file a motion for  Motion for reconsideration b reconsideration within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the Ro rparty and the Prosecution Office n on appeal, furnishing the adverse resolution a aconcerned with copies thereof and submitting proof of such service. No second or Bentertained. h further motion for reconsideration shall be s C e l b When DOJ Secretary reverseso or modifies prosecutor’s resolution – Sec. 4, last par. R He shall direct the prosecutor n concerned either r investigation; a. to file the corresponding information without conducting another preliminary a a or B notice to the parties. h b. to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information with s C econducted by the officers of the Note: SAME rule shall apply in preliminary investigations l b Office of the Ombudsman. o R n a 8, 2010) citing Ledesma v. Court of Bar Verzano, Jr. vs. Paro (G.R. No. 171643, August Appeals (G.R. No. 113216, September s Ch5, 1997, 278 SCRA 656) e l - the justice secretary's power of review may still be availed of despite theb filing of an information in court; o R - where the secretary of justice exercises his power of review only after an Information has r n been filed, trial courts should defer or suspend arraignment and further proceedings until the a a appeal is resolved. B h s C e l b F. When Warrant of Arrest may Issue (Sec. 5, Rule 112) o R Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, n the judge shall a personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. h He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on recordC fails to establish probable cause. the proceedings based on the alleged existence of a prejudicial question;

If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order.



39

In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.

s e l

r a B

Hao vs. People (G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014)

Ch

b o R an

- Section 5(a) of Rule 112, grants the trial court three options upon the filing of the criminal complaint or information. He may: a) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish probable cause; b) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; or c) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt on the existence of probable cause.

r a B

s e Mendoza v. People (G.R.lNo. 197293, April 21, 2014) b o - the option to order the prosecutor to present additional evidence is not mandatory. R The court’s first option under the above is for it to “immediately dismiss the case if the r nrecord clearly fails to establish probableacause.” evidenceaon B h - “once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, whether as to Cdismissal or the conviction or the acquittalesof the accused, rests in the sound discretion of its l the court.” b Ro r n G. Cases NOT Requiring a a Preliminary Investigation (Sec. 8, Rule a 112) B by the Rule on h 1. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered s C e Summary Procedure (Sec. 8, Rule 112) l b If filed with the prosecutor (par. a) o R offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four (4) years, two (2) months and rThe n one (1) day, the procedure outlineda in section 3(a) of this Rule shall be observed. a prosecutor shall act on the complaint based on the affidavits and other B supporting h documents submitted by the complainant within ten (10) days from its filing. s C e l b If filed with the Municipal Trial Court, the procedure laido R down in Sec. 3(a), Rule 112 of the Rules shall be observed.(par. b) r n a a If the judge finds no sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial, he shall dismiss the B h complaint or information. s C e If the judge finds sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial, he shall issue a warrant of l b arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold the latter for trial. Ro n a Note: the judge is given the discretion to merely issue summonsh instead of a warrant of arrest if he does not find it necessary to place the accused under custody. C 2. If the complaint or information was filed after the accused was lawfully arrested without warrant. www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


40

3. If the offense is punishable by fine only.

r a H. Remedies of accused B if there was no preliminary investigation sthe complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a PI, e 1. Before l butb he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the RPC, as amended, in the presence of his counsel; (Sec.6, 2 par., Rule 112) o R Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. The r article shall be imposed upon the public officer provided in the next preceding a an penalties or employee who shall detainB any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver h such person to the propersjudicial authorities within the period of C eor offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; l 12 hours, for crimes b o 18 hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent,R and r n a a 36 hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their B h equivalent. s C e l b o arrested of the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC 2. The waiver by the person lawfully does not preclude him fromR applying for bail; r a an 3. After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, theh accused may, within five (5) days from the B s time he learns of its filing, C investigation. (Sec.6, 3 par., Rulee112) ask for a preliminary l b I. Inquest o R Definition: an informal and summary investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in r of nand detained without the benefit of a warrant criminal cases involving persons arrested a a arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether said persons should B h remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court. [Sec. 1, New Rules on s C No. 61 (September 21, 1993)] e Inquest, DOJ Department Circular l b o Note: Memorandum of Agreement between the DOJ and theROffice of the Ombudsman r Effective April 29, 2012. a an B Inquest of complaints for crimes cognizable byh the Sandiganbayan shall be conducted s C for crimes committed outside thee by the OMB; Provided, that inquest of such complaints National Capital Judicial Region may be conducted by the city/provincial prosecutors lof who are authorized to approve and file the Information before the respective Clerks b Court of RTC, pursuant to Ombudsman Adm. Order No. 11-94. Ro an h V. ARREST C nd

rd

Definition: (Sec. 1, Rule 113) Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 204589, November 19, 2014)



41

- Arrest is defined under Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court as the taking of a person into custody that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Under Section 2, of the same rule, an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.

s e l

r a B

b o R by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested; or r a an by that person’s voluntary submission B to the custody of the person making the arrest. h s force shall be used; person arrested shall not be subject to C e no violence or unnecessary l is necessary for his detention a greater restraint than b Pestilos vs. Generoso Ro (G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014) n is made by an actual restraint ofatherperson to be arrested, or by his - An arrest a submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. Thus, application of actual B h force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is C not required. It is enough that there beeans intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and the intent of the l other to submit, under the belief and impression b that submission is necessary. Ro r n a a B. Arrest Without Warrant, When Lawful (Sec. 5, Rule 113) B h s C  Par. (a) Sec. 5 - When in his presence, e the person to be arrested has l committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense (IN b FLAGRANTE DELICTO) Ro r n a a Elements: B h s C must execute an overt act indicatingethat he has just (1) the person to be arrested committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; l and b (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view oof the arresting officer. R Peope vs. Usman (G.R. No. 201100, February 4, 2015) r n a a B - a buy-bust operation is a legally effective andh proven procedure, sanctioned by law, s for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. Since accused-appellant was caught C e by the buy-bust team in flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also validly made. l The accused was caught in the act and had to be apprehended on the spot. b o R Valid Arrests: an People vs. Araza (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014) h -Araza was clearly apprehended in flagrante delicto as he was then committing a Cwarrantless crime (sniffing shabu) in the presence of PO1 Talacca; his arrest is valid A. Arrest, how made (Sec. 2, Rule 113)

pursuant to Section 5(a) of the above-quoted Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

People vs. Adriano (G.R. No. 208169, October 8, 2014) - A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


42

but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime."[ - Adriano was caught in the act of committing an offense, in flagrante delicto, when Adriano was caught selling illegal shabu through a buy-bust operation, within the plain view of the arresting officers.

s e l

r a B

b -appellant was apprehended after she exchanged the shabu in her possession for o marked money of the poseur-buyer. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, the R the police officers were not only authorized r but were even duty-bound to arrest her even a an without a warrant. B h s C e l(G.R. No. 200598, June 18, 2014) People vs. Tancinco b o without a warrant after information of his being armed and engaging -lawfully arrested R in a pot session with other persons was given to the police officers who then n and pursued the lead of the BarangayarIntelligence Network (BIN) informant. investigated a Incident to the lawful warrantless arrest of Tancinco B is a search on his person made by h the police officers which then yielded his illegal possession of shabu. s C e l b Zalameda vs. People (G.R. No. Ro183656, September 4, 2009) - a "tip" from a concerned at the n citizen that a "pot session" wasarin progress petitioner's house;athe police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant considering theh "time element" involved in the process (i.e.,B a pot session may not be C for an extended period of time and it was then 5:15 a.m.);s police immediately proceeded e door and saw the petitioner to the identified place and verified from a slightly opened l and Villaflor "sniffing smoke" or "sumisinghot ng shabu". b o - There was sufficient probable causeRfor the police officers to believe that the petitioner and Villaflor were then andn there committing a crime. As it turned out, the reven petitioner indeed possessed a prohibited drug and, together with Villaflor, was a a Bcontrary to using a prohibited drug and likewise h illegally possessed drug paraphernalia, s law. When an accused is C caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers are not e only authorized but are duty-bound to arrest him even without alwarrant b o R Invalid Arrests: r n a a Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 204589, November 19, h 2014) B s C - The evidence on record reveals that no overt physical act could be properly attributed e just to Sanchez as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the police operatives that he had l b committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Sanchez was merely o and seen by the police operatives leaving the residence of a known drug peddler, R boarding a tricycle that proceeded towards the direction of Kawit, Cavite. Such acts cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. an h C People vs. Marcelo (G.R. No. 181541, August 18, 2014)

People vs. Andaya (G.R. No. 183700 October 13, 2014) - confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated to be the poseur buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


43

signified to the members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had been consummated between the poseur buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not present the confidential informant/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the supposed transaction.

s e l

r a B

b o R r30, 2014) July a anPeople vs. Cogaed, (G.R. No. 200334, B Cogaed has not committed, was not committing, h - At the time of his apprehension, C or was about to commitsa crime. As in People v. Chua, for a warrantless arrest of in e flagrante delicto to l be affected, “two elements must concur: (1) the person to be b an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually arrested must execute committing, oro is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or the view of the arresting officer.”; Both elements were missing when Rwithin Cogaed was arrested. There were no overt acts within plain view of the police officers r n a a that suggested that Cogaed was in possession of drugs at that time. B h s C e l07, 2014) People vs. Edaño, (G.R. No. 188133, July b o - In the present case, there was R no overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise that could be properly attributed to the n appellant to rouse suspicion in the mind ofr PO3 Corbe that he (appellant) had just committed, was actually committing, or was attempting to commit a crime. a a In fact, PO3 Corbe testified that the appellant and the informant were with each B justandtalking h other when he approached them;there was no exchange of money drugs when he s C e approached the car. l b People vs. Villareal, (G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013) o R - NOT a case of an in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest; a previous arrest or rthe nsame offense, will not suffice to satisfy existing criminal record, even for the a a exacting requirements provided under Section 5, Rule 113 in order to justify B a lawful h warrantless arrest. s C e l b oarrest, no other overt -Absent any other circumstance upon which to anchor a lawful R act could be properly attributed to appellant as to rouse suspicion in the mind of r PO3 de Leon that he (appellant) had just committed, n was committing, or was about to a a commit a crime, for the acts per se of walking along the street and examining B h something in one’s hands cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. s C e l b  Par. (b) Sec. 5 - When an offense has just been committed and heo (officer or Rknowledge private person) has probable cause to believe based on personal of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested n has committed it a (HOT PURSUIT ) h C Elements:  Pestilos vs. Generoso (G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014) (1) an offense has just been committed; and



44

(2) the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

s e l

r a B

- following must be present for a valid warrantless arrest: 1) the crime should have been just committed; and 2) the arresting officer's exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of probable cause to be determined from the facts and circumstances within his personal knowledge. The requirement of the existence of probable cause objectifies the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest for purposes of compliance with the Constitutional mandate against unreasonable arrests.

b o R r means that there must be a large measure of a an - an offense has just been committed B the offense was committed and the time of the h IMMEDIACY between the time s lapse of time between the arrest and the commission C arrest. If there was an appreciable e of the crime, a warrant l of arrest must be secured. b - the arresting oofficer's determination of probable cause under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of theR Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on his personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person soughtrto be arrested has committed the n a a crime. These facts or circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw evidence, i.e., B supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable sgood cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be Ch e founded on probable cause, coupled with faith on the part of the peace officers l making the arrest. b o - personal knowledge ofR a crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited provision, does not require presence at the scene whiler a crime was being n thatactual committed; it is enough evidence of the recent commission of the crime is a a patent (as in this case) and the police officer has probable cause to believe based B h on personalC knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested s e has recently committed the crime l b - probable cause to justify warrantless o arrest ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to Rperson accused warrant a cautious man to believe that the is guilty of the offenser with n which he is charged, or an actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion, based on a a actual facts. B h s C - In determining the reasonableness of the warrantless arrests, it iseincumbent upon lrequirements set the courts to consider if the police officers have complied with the b under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically, o the (a) requirement of immediacy; the (b) police officer's personal knowledge of R facts or circumstances; and lastly, the (c) propriety of the determination of r probable cause that the person sought to be arrested a ancommitted the crime. B h The arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of s C his alleged mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) e l hour after the alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty. b Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners as o those responsible for his mauling and, notably, the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived almost R by the in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the petitioners were confronted n arresting officers, they did not deny their participation in the incident with Atty. Generoso, a although they narrated a different version of what transpired. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary h C and which they have With these facts and circumstances that the police officers gathered 87

personally observed less than one hour from the time that they have arrived at the scene of the crime until the time of the arrest of the petitioners, we deem it reasonable to conclude that the police officers had personal knowledge of facts or circumstances justifying the petitioners' warrantless arrests. These circumstances were well within the police officers' observation, perception and evaluation at the time of the arrest. These circumstances qualify as the police www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


45

officers' personal observation, which are within their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the warrantless arrests.

r a B

Notwithstanding the term "invited" in the Affidavit of Arrest, SP02 Javier could not but have the intention of arresting the petitioners following Atty. Generoso's account. SP02 Javier did not need to apply violent physical restraint when a simple directive to the petitioners to follow him to the police station would produce a similar effect. In other words, the application of actual force would only be an alternative if the petitioners had exhibited resistance.

s e l

Ch

b o R an

To be sure, after a crime had just been committed and the attending policemen have acquired personal knowledge of the incidents of the crime, including the alleged perpetrators, the arrest of the petitioners as the perpetrators pointed to by the victim, was not a mere random act but was in connection with a particular offense. Furthermore, SP02 Javier had informed the petitioners, at the time of their arrest, of the charges against them before taking them to Batasan Hills Police Station for investigation ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

s e l

r a B

b o - PersonalR knowledge of past criminal records is insufficient; to interpret “personal knowledge” referring to a person’s reputation or criminal citations would create rpast n asprecedent a dangerous and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police a a B onrequisites officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely knowledge of a person’s previous h criminal infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous laid out under Section 5. s C e l b o  Par. (c) Sec. 5 -R When a person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or r n temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being a a transferred from one confinement to another (ARREST OF ESCAPED B h PRISONER) s C e lof a crime (evasion of service of -Reason: escapee is in continuous commission b sentence) Ro r n a a In cases falling under in flagrante and hot pursuit exceptions, where to deliver person B h arrested – Sec. 5, last par. s C e “xxx persons arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered tolthe nearest police b 6, Rule 112.” station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section o escapes or is rescued – Sec. Fourth instance – when person previously lawfully arrested R r n 13 a a B h “ Arrest after escape or rescue - If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any s person may immediately pursue or retake him without C a warrant at any time and in any placee within the Philippines” l b o R C. Method of Arrest an a. By officer with a warrant h C Duty of arresting officer – Sec. 3 People vs. Villareal, G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013

to arrest the accused and deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay execution of warrant

 Execution of warrant – Sec. 4 www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


46

head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered shall cause the warrant to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt; and the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who issued the warrant within ten (10) days after the expiration of the period - In case of his failure to execute, he shall state the reasons therefor.

s e l

r a B

Method of arrest of officer by virtue of a warrant – Sec. 7 the officer shall inform the person to be arrested: (1) the cause his arrest; and (2) the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest

Ch

b o R Exceptions: an

r a  he flees; B  forcibly resists before the officer had an opportunity to inform him; and s of such information will imperil the arrest  when the giving e Note: the officer not have the warrant of arrest in his possession at the time lneed b of the arrest BUT must show the same after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires. o R r n a a B b. By officer without warrant - Sec. 8 h s C e The officer shall inform the person to lbe arrested of: b his authority o R the cause of the arrestn r a a B Exceptions: h s C e -If the person to be arrested: l b is engaged in the commission of the crime o R is pursued immediately after the commission r n a a escapes, flees or forcibly resists before the officer has the opportunity to inform B him h s C -Giving him such information will imperil the arrest e l b o R c. By private person – Sec. 9 r n a a B The private person shall inform the person to be arrested of: h s C e the intention to arrest him l b the cause of the arrest o R Exceptions: (same in Sec. 8) an h C Time of making arrest – Sec. 6

When arrest may be made – any day and at any time of the day or night Colorado vs. Agapito (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1658 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1014- MTJ], July 3, 2007) www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


47

Complainant faults respondent for having been arrested on a Friday, causing him to languish in jail for two days and two nights. Respondent cannot be held administratively liable for this particular matter; It is of no moment that the warrant of arrest was issued by respondent on a Friday, because it is clear from the foregoing that an arrest may be made on any day regardless of what day the warrant of arrest was issued. Nowhere in the Rules or in our jurisprudence can we find that a warrant of arrest issued on a Friday is prohibited.

s e l

r a B

b o RI. Requisites of a Valid Warrant of Arrest an Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution Bar s Ch “Section 2. The right ofe the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and l searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any effects against unreasonable b purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except ocause to be determined personally by the judge after examination upon probable R under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, r and the persons or things to n describing the place to be searched and a particularly a be seized.” B h s C e l b Requisites: o R (1) Issued upon probable cause; r a anby the judge; (2) Determined personally B h s C of the prosecutor’s report and supporting (3) After evaluation documents showing the e existence of probable cause; l b (4) Particularly describe the person to be arrested; and o R (5) In connection with the specific offense or crime r n a a Ocampo vs. Abando, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014, citing People v. B Grey, G.R. h No. 180109, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 523, 536. s C e - Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall bel determined by the b judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the o witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination R thereof; Judge’s personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not r n mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of a a arrest; It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutor’s report and B h supporting documents showing the existence of probable cause for the indictment or if, s C e on the basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to disregard the prosecutor's l resolution and require the submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid him in b determining its existence. Ro n a E. Determination of Probable Cause for Issuance of Warrant ofh Arrest C - correlate with Sec. 5, Rule 112 (Procedure in determining the existence of probable cause for issuance of Warrant of Arrest) Hao vs. People (G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014)



48

Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense was committed by the person sought to be arrested. This must be distinguished from the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause which is for the filing of the proper criminal information. Probable cause for warrant of arrest is determined to address the necessity of placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

s e l

r a B

b o of a motion for reconsideration, motion for reinvestigation, or petition for review R-isPendency not a cause for the quashal of a warrant of arrest previously issued because the r of a warrant of arrest may only take place upon the finding that no probable a an quashal cause exists. Moreover, judgesB should take note of the following: h 1 If there is a pending motion s for reconsideration or motion for reinvestigation of the C resolution of the e public prosecutor, the court may suspend the proceedings upon motion by b thelparties. However, the court should set the arraignment of the accused and direct the public prosecutor to submit the resolution disposing of the o motion on or before the period fixed by the court, which in no instance could be R more than the period fixed by the court counted from the granting of the motion to n arraignment, otherwise the courtawillr proceed with the arraignment as asuspend scheduled and without further delay. B h s C 2 If there is a pending petition forereview before the DOJ, the court may suspend l the proceedings upon motion by the parties. However, the court should set the b arraignment of the accused and direct the DOJ to submit the resolution disposing o of the petition on orR before the period fixed by the Rules which, in no instance, could be more than (60) days from the filing of the Petition Review before r asfor scheduled nsixty the DOJ, otherwise, the court will proceed with the arraignment and a a without further delay. B s Ch e F. Distinguish probable cause of fiscal from that of aljudge b o R Estrada vs. Bersamin (G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015) r n a a - Judicial determination of probable cause is considered separate from the determination B of h probable cause by the prosecutor in a preliminary investigation. s C e lwhich determines - Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry b probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation oor released. Even if the proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial R two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there should be r no confusion about the objectives. The determination of n probable cause for the warrant a a of arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper — whether or not B h there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense s C be subjected to the expense, rigorse charged and, therefore, whether or not he should l and embarrassment of trial — is the function of the Prosecutor. b - The determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purposeo different R ground from that which is to be made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable to n believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what a the prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a h warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i.e. whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in orderC not to frustrate the ends Aguinaldo vs. Ventus (G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015)

of justice. Thus, even if both should base their findings on one and the same proceeding or evidence, there should be no confusion as to their distinct objectives.



49

Hao vs. People (G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014)

r a B

- To be valid, these warrants must have been issued after compliance with the requirement that probable cause be personally determined by the judge. Notably at this stage, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused. In doing so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing; he only needs to personally review the prosecutor's initial determination and see if it is supported by substantial evidence.

s e l

b o since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely on the report RofSecond, the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of Obviously and understandably,r the contents of the prosecutor's report will support a an arrest. his own conclusion that there is reason to charge the accused of an offense and hold him for B independently. Hence, he must have supporting h trial. However, the judge must decide s C evidence, other than thee prosecutor's bare report, upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence (or nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an arrest l b of determining personally and independently the existence order. This responsibility o or nonexistence of probable cause is lodged in him by no less than the most basic RParenthetically, the prosecutor could ease the burden of the judge and law of the land. r latter not only the information speed up n the litigation process by forwarding to the and hisa bare resolution finding probable cause, a but also so much of the records and B to make his personal and separate the h evidence on hand as to enable His Honor s of arrest. C finding on whether to issue a warrant judicial e l - Lastly, it is not required that the b complete or entire records of the case during the o preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge. We do not intend R to unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to examine the complete records of every case all the time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of an accused. What is r n a a required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as B of witnesses or h the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements s transcripts of C stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his independent e judgment or, at the very least, upon which to verify l the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. The point is: hebcannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor's recommendation, as Respondent o Court did in this case. Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties R and functions, which in turn gives his report the presumption of accuracy, the Constitution n ar a determine probable cause in theBissuance we repeat, commands the judge to personally of warrants of arrest. This Court hash consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty if he relies merely on the certification C or the report of the investigating officer.es l b o VI. BAIL R Definition: bail is the security given for the release of n a person in custody of the law, r a furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee hisaappearance before any court as B h required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of s corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or Crecognizance. (Sec. 1, Rule 114) e l David vs. Agbay (G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015) b - distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Ro Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon then application for a bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes ah waiver of the defense C Custody of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


50

warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.

s e l

r a B

b o RSec. 13, Art. III, Constitution r an “All persons, except those chargedawith offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall,B before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be h released on recognizance s as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be C e of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail impaired even when thelprivilege shall not be required.” b o Leviste vs. Court R of Appeals G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010 r n Bail is a the answer of the criminal justice system toa a vexing question: what is to be done B proven, in the "dubious interval," often h with the accused, whose guilt has not yet been Cyears long, between arrest and final adjudication? es Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused'sl interest in pretrial liberty and society's interest in assuring the accused's presence bat trial. o B. When a matter of right; R exceptions (Sec. 4, Rule 114) r n Bail is a matter ofa right, when: a a. before or after conviction by the MTC or Bby a penalty lower than h b. before conviction by RTC of all offenses punishable s C reclusion perpetua e l Exceptions: b o 1. When the evidence of guilt is strong R in capital offenses or offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. r n a a B is a Exception to the exception:h when accused charged with a capital offense s minor, he is entitled to bail regardless of whether the evidence of guilt is strong. C e l 2. Bail in extradition proceedings b 3. Right to bail is not available in the military. Ro r 4. After judgment has become final. (Sec. 24) a an B h 5. After the accused has commenced to serve his sentence s C e l b C. When a matter of discretion (Sec. 5, Rule 114) Ro Bail is discretionary, when: an h a. Before conviction, in offenses punishable by death,C reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. A. Nature

b. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment



51

r a B

Note: Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

s e l

Ch

b o R an

 If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances: (Bail-Negating Circumstances) (a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; RECIDIVIST (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without a valid justification; ESCAPED (c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; PROBATION (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; FLIGHT RISK or (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal. CRIME RISK The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the adverse party in either case.

b o R

an

Ch

s e l

r a B

s e bl

r a B

Ro r of bail-negating - pursuant to the “tough n on bail pending appeal” policy, the presence conditions mandatesa the denial or revocation of bail pending a appeal such that those B circumstances are h deemed to be as grave as conviction by the trial court for an offense s C reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment punishable by death, bail is prohibited. e where - In the exercise of that discretion, the proper courts are to be guided by the l b appeal should be exercised fundamental principle that the allowance of bail pending o not with laxity but with grave caution and only for strong reasons, considering that the accused has been in fact convicted by theR trial court. r n a a Leviste vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010 B - Bail is either a matter of right or ofh discretion. s C offense charged is not punishable byedeath, reclusion It is a matter of right when the perpetua or life imprisonment. lof an offense not b On the other hand, upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court obecomes a matter of punishable death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail R discretion. n exceeding six (6) years ar Similarly, if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment a then bail is a matter of discretion, except when any of the enumerated B circumstances under paragraph 3 of Section 5,h Rule 114 is present, then bail shall s C be DENIED. e - In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, if none l b of the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, opending the appellate court has the discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for bail appeal may be denied even if the bail-negating circumstances in the third R paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. In other words, the appellate court's denial nof bail pending appeal where none of the said circumstances exists does not, by andaof itself, constitute h abuse of discretion. - In the second situation, the appellate court exercises a more C stringent discretion, that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so Qui vs. People (G.R. No. 196161, September 26, 2012)

determines, it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Conversely, if the appellate court grants bail pending appeal, grave abuse of discretion will thereby be committed.



52

- Given these two distinct scenarios, therefore, any application for bail pending appeal should be viewed from the perspective of two stages: (1) the determination of discretion stage, where the appellate court must determine whether any of the circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present; this will establish whether or not the appellate court will exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the application for bail pending appeal and (2) the exercise of discretion stage where, assuming the appellant's case falls within the first scenario allowing the exercise of sound discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant circumstances, other than those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including the demands of equity and justice; on the basis thereof, it may either allow or disallow bail. - if the appellant's case falls within the second scenario, the appellate court's stringent discretion requires that the exercise thereof be primarily focused on the determination of the proof of the presence of any of the circumstances that are prejudicial to the allowance of bail. This is so because the existence of any of those circumstances is by itself sufficient to deny or revoke bail. Nonetheless, 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.

s e l

r a B

Ch

b o R an

b o R

an

s e l

r a B

r a B

D. Hearing of application for bail in capital offenses

Gacad (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257, July 17, 2012) citing Gacal vs. Infante (A.M. No. h vs. ClapisOctober s 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 535) CRTJ-04-1845, e l - The respondent judge in that caseb was held guilty of gross ignorance of the law and the rules when he granted bail to the accused charged with murder without conducting a o hearing and despite the absence of a petition for bail from the accused. The Court R emphasized that bail cannot a capital or an r a offense, n be allowed to a person charged with without offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing upon a notice to the prosecution; otherwise, a violation of due process occurs. B h s C e for his failure to hear and - Judge Clapis had already been administratively sanctioned, consider the evidence of the prosecution in granting l bail to the accused. Therefore, we b now impose upon him the extreme administrative penalty of dismissal from the service. o R Gacal vs. Infante (A.M. No. RTJ- 04-1845 [FORMERLY A.M. NO. IPI NO. 03-1831-RTJ], r n a a October 5, 2011 ] B h Duties of a judge in case an application for bail is filed: s (1) In all cases whether bail isC a matter of right or discretion, notify the e prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, l b Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended); o (2) Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail R regardless or whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling anthe court to exercise its sound Bar discretion (Sections 7 and 8, id); and h (3) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of s the prosecution; C e (4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval l of the [bail bond], otherwise, petition should be denied. b o R Villanueva vs. Buaya (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2241-RTJ), November 22, 2010) an h - The Court has always stressed the indispensable nature of a bail hearing in petitions C for bail. Where bail is a matter of discretion, the grant or the denial of bail hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the judge to properly exercise this discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion lies not in the determination of whether or not a hearing should be www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


53

held, but in the appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the prosecution's evidence of guilt against the accused.

r a B

- whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is required in order for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. This Court has repeatedly held in past cases that even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bail of an accused, the court may still require the prosecution to answer questions in order to ascertain, not only the strength of the State's evidence, but also the adequacy of the amount of bail.

s e l

b o R an

r a B h  Burden of Proof in Bail application C esRTJ-10-2257, July 17, 2012, 676 SCRA 534) Gacad vs. Clapis, Jr. (A.M.lNo. b Section 8 of Rule 114 provides that “at the hearing of an application for bail filed by the person o who is in custody by death, reclusion R for the commission of an offense punishable perpetua n or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden showing that r that: (1) an ofapplication evidence of guilt is strong. x x x.” This rule presupposes for bail a a B was filed, and (2) the judge notified the prosecutor and conducted a bail hearing for the h prosecution to adduce evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. s C e l b E. Guidelines in fixing amount Roof bail (Sec. 9, Rule 114) r n The judge who issued thea warrant or granted the application shall fix a a reasonable amount of B h bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following factors: s C e a) Financial ability of the accused. l b b) Nature and circumstances of the offense. o R c) Penalty for the offense charged. r n a a d) Character and reputation of the accused. B h s C e e) Age and health of the accused. l b f) Weight of the evidence against the accused. o R g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial. r n a a h) Forfeiture of other bail. B h s Cwhen arrested. i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice e l b j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. Ro an Note: Excessive bail shall not be required. h C F. Bail when not required (Sec. 16, Rule 114)



54

1) Violation of an ordinance, a light felony, or a criminal offense punishable by a penalty not exceeding 6 months imprisonment, and/or a fine of P2,000 where the person is unable to post the required cash or bail bond. (S1 RA No. 6306).

r a 2) Criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except: B s failed to appear when required; when the accused e l b when the accused is a recidivist; a fugitive from justice; charged with physical injuries; has no oresidence (Sec. 10, 12, RSP) known R a person has been in custodyr for a period equal to or more than the possible a an3) When maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offense charged, he shall be released h immediately, without prejudice to B the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. If s the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be C the maximum penalty to which e released after 30 days ofl preventive imprisonment. (S16 R114). b 4) In cases not requiring preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary othe MTC Procedure where judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the R accused under custody, in arsummons instead of a warrant of an8(b), Rule 112). which case he mayBissue arrest. (Sec h vs. Pangilinan (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1709s [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1225-MTJ], Cervantes C e July 31, 2009) l bfor violation of municipal or city ordinances, and - bail is not generally required o for criminal offenses when penalty is not higher than arresto Rboth,theasprescribed mayor or fine of P2,000 or in the case for Slander against complainant which r n is covered by Art. 358 a aof the Revised Penal Code. B G. Increase or reduction Ch of bail (Sec. 20, Rule 114) es l Court may either increase or reduce the amount of bail b after the accused is admitted to bail o and upon good cause. R  Increased Bail: r a an - the accused may be committedh to custody if he does not give bail in the B increased s amount within a reasonable period. C e l b Ro H. Forfeiture and cancellation of bail (Secs. 21-22, Rule 114) r n a a Forfeiture: B h s Cthe court or these Rules, his bondsmene When the presence of the accused is required by shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. If l the b accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared or ordered forfeited Ro In the order of forfeiture of the bail, the bondsmen shall be given 30 daysn within which to a rendered produce their principal and to show cause why no judgment should be against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmenh must: C (a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production; and

(b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.



55

Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.

s e l

r a B

Cancellation:

b o R Note: The bail shall be be deemedr automatically canceled upon a) acquittal of the an accused, b) dismissal of the case,aor c) execution of the judgment of conviction. B h s C e l (G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010) Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro b o - Under Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant's R absence n merely renders his bondsman potentially on its bond (subject to rthe liable a a cancellation should the bondsman fail to produce accused within 30 days); the Bhe fail to surrender, will be tried in defendant retains his standing and, should h s Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the and could be convicted or acquitted. Cabsentia e bondsman to produce the accused underscores the fact that mere non-appearance does l not ipso facto convert the accused's status to that of a fugitive without standing. b Ro r preliminary n a I. Application not a bar toa objections in illegal arrest, lack of or irregular B h investigation (Sec. 26, Rule 114) s C e l An application for or admission to bail shall not bar theb accused from challenging or assailing the: o R validity of his arrest; or r n a a legality of the warrant issued; or B h s C regularity of the preliminary investigation; or e l b questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation o R Note: Provided that he raises them before entering his plea. r n a a Borlongan vs. Pena (G.R. No. 143591, May 5, 2010) B h s Cquestioning the legality of the arrest aftere - The principle that the accused is precluded from arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, l without previously invoking his objections thereto. b - Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is intendedo to modify R previous rulings that an application for bail or the admission to bail by the accused shall be n considered as a waiver of his right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest on the a legalities or irregularities thereon. The new rule has reverted to the ruling of this Court in h C it was designed People vs. Red. The new rule is curative in nature because precisely, Upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be canceled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death.

to supply defects and curb evils in procedural rules. Hence, the rules governing curative statutes are applicable. Curative statutes are by their essence retroactive in application. Besides, procedural rules as a general rule operate retroactively, even without express provisions to that effect, to cases pending at the time of their effectivity, in



56

other words to actions yet undetermined at the time of their effectivity. Before the appellate court rendered its decision on January 31, 2001, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure was already in effect. It behoved the appellate court to have applied the same in resolving the petitioner's petition for certiorari and her motion for partial reconsideration.

s e l

r a B

- When the court a quo entered a plea of not guilty for them, there was no valid waiver of their right to preclude them from raising the same with the Court of Appeals or SC. The posting of bail bond was a matter of imperative necessity to avert their incarceration; it should not be deemed as a waiver of their right to assail their arrest.

b o R an

r a J. Hold departure order & BureauB of Immigration watchlist h s C e l b oDeparture Order. – The Secretary of Justice may issue an HDO, Section 1. Hold R under any of the following instances: r in criminal cases falling within n a (a) a Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, h the jurisdiction of courts below the RegionalB (RTCs). s Trialtrial,Courts C If the case against the accused is epending the application under oath of an interested party must be supported by: l or information and (i) a certified true copy of the complaint b (ii) a Certification from the Clerk oof Court concerned that criminal case is still pending. R (b) Against the alien n presence is required either as a defendant, r respondent, awhose or witness in a civil or labor case pending litigation, oraany case before an B administrative h agency of the government. s The application supported by: C under oath of an interested party must ebeissued (i) a certified true copy of the subpoena or summons against the alien, & l (ii) a certified true copy complaint in civil, labor or administrative case where the b presence of the alien is required. o R The Secretary of Justice may likewise n issue an HDO against any person, either motu r proprio, or upon the request by the a a B Head of a Department of the Government; the h Head of a constitutional body or commission; the s C e Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the Judiciary; the l Senate President or the House Speaker for the Legislature, b when the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or o instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public R health. r a an B h s C of any HDO/WLO issued pursuant toe Section 4. HDO/WLO Validity. – The validity period l this Circular shall be reckoned from the date of its issuance. The HDO shall be valid for five (5) years unless sooner terminated. On the other hand, the WLO shall bebvalid o for sixty (60) days unless sooner terminated or extended, for a non-extendible R period of not more than sixty (60) days. an h C VII. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 41, JUNE 7, 2010)

A. Rights of Accused at the Trial (Sect. 1, Rule 115) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


57

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

r a (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the B proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, swaive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in however, e his l bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of b identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which o had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an R heaccused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be r until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, n present on all subsequent trial dates a the accused may be allowed to a defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to h the court that he can properlyB protect his rights without the assistance of counsel. s C e (d) To testify as al witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered b by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him. o R (e) To n be exempt from being compelled to be a witness r against himself. a a B against him at the trial. (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses h C Either party may utilize as part of itsesevidence the testimony of a witness who is ldiligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, deceased, out of or cannot with due b or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or o administrative, involving the same R parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. r n a a (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the B attendance of witnesses h and production C of other evidence in his behalf. es l (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. b (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in theo R manner prescribed by law. r a an B h a. To be presumed innocent s C e Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987Constitution: l b SEC. 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense o without due process of law. R (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the r contrary is proved, and x x x a an B h Macayan, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015) s C - Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due e process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused tolbe b "presumed innocent until the contrary is proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the o constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the R prosecution." Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted. an h People vs. Estibal (G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014) citing People v. Ganguso C (320 Phil. 324 (1995) (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

- An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof



58

beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.

s e l

r a B

b o (G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014) RAtienza -vs.ThePeople Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the rof innocence, contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to a an overcome such presumption failing which, the presumption of Baccused should be acquitted. h innocence prevails and the This, despite the fact that s C his innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength e of the evidence l of the prosecution and not on the weakness or even absence of defense. If b the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the o R other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction, r Courts should be guided by an the principle that it would be better to seta free ten men who might be probably B one innocent man for a crime he did h guilty of the crime charged than to convict s C not commit. e l b b. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation o R Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987Constitution: r n SEC. 14.. a a B of the nature and (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall x x x be be informed h s cause of the accusation against him C e l b Patula vs. People (G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012) o R of alleging the nature and cause of the - The importance of the proper manner rAn n accusation in the information should never be taken for granted by the State. a a accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the Bcharged h complaint or information. To convict him of an offense other than that s C would be violative of the Constitutional in the complaint or information right to e be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Indeed, the l accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless thebcrime is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him.o R - charging appellants with illegal possession when the information filed against them r n a a their charges the crime of importation does not violate constitutional right to be B h informed of the nature and cause of the accusation brought against them. The rule s Cthe offense charged in the complainte is that when there is a variance between or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense lbe as charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall b convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged. An ooffense charged necessarily includes that which is proved, when some of R the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the an complaint or information, constitute the latter. h - where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he C is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein c. To be present and defend in person OR by counsel www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


59

Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987Constitution:

r a B

SEC. 14. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused x x x shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel x x x

s e l

Right to counsel – Sec. 11, Art. III, Philippine Constitution

ob

Ch

R an

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

r a B

Tanenggee vs. People (G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013) citing Remolona v. Civil Service Commission [414 Phil. 590, 599 (2001]

s e l

- the right to counsel applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.

b o R

People vs. Lara (G.R. No. 199877, August 13, 2012)

an

r a B

- The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part of custodial investigation; because during a police lineup, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up

Ch

s e bl

Ro r The right to n the right to counsel under the Constitution. - accused is guaranteed a a counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due basically BprocessThewhich h means that a person must be heard before being condemned. due process s C requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it ise not a mere formality that may be l dispensed with or performed perfunctorily. b Libuit vs. People (G.R. No. 154363, September 14, 2005) Ro - The duty of the court to appointn a counsel de oficio for the accused whor has a a no counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one is mandatory B h only at the time of arraignment. No such duty exists where the accused has s C and then trial with a counsel of his proceeded to arraignment own choice. edefense l Worth noting, when the time for the presentation of evidence for the arrived, b and the defendant appeared by himself alone, the absence of his counsel was inexcusable. Ro r Gutang vs. People (G.R. No. 135406, July 11, 2000) a an B The right to counsel begins from the timeh a person is taken into custody and s placed under investigation for the C commission of a crime, i.e., when the e investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confession or l b admissions from the accused. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. o R n a d. To testify as a witness in his own behalf h C subject to cross-examination ; and Belleza vs. Macasa (A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009)

his silence will not prejudice him e. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


60

Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution

r a B

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

s e l

People vs. Fieldad (G.R. No. 196005, October 1, 2014)

taking of paraffin tests does not violate the right of the accused against b -selftheincrimination; His right against self incrimination is not violated by the taking o R oftestimonial the paraffin test of his hands. This constitutional right extends only to compulsion and r not when the body of the accused is proposed to a an be examined as in this case. B h s C e lNo. 200748, July 23, 2014) Dela Cruz vs. People (G.R. b - constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use oor moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused of physical R and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely r as the accused does not thereby n acts are not included in the prohibition a amechanical speak his guilt, hence the assistance andB guiding hand of counsel is not required. h s against him C f. To confront and cross-examine theewitnesses l b Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987Constitution o R (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused xxx shall enjoy the right x x x to r nface to face xxx” meet witnesses a a Estrada vs.h Bersamin G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21,B 2015 s C - A preliminary investigation is not a part of the trial a trial where an eandsuchit isasonlytheinright l accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, to confront b and cross-examine his accusers to establish his innocence.” Thus, the rights of a respondent in a preliminary investigation o R are limited to those granted by procedural law. r n a a Go vs. People (G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012) B h s - right of confrontation, C is held to apply specifically to criminal proceedings e to testandtheto l have a twofold purpose: (1) to afford the accused an opportunity b testimony of witnesses by cross-examination, and (2) to allow the judge to o observe the deportment of witnesses; the constitutional requirement “insures Rdeterring lying by the threat that the witness will give his testimony under oath, thus r n of perjury charge; it forces the witness to submit to cross-examination, a valuable a a instrument in exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth; and it enables the B h court to observe the demeanor of the witness and assess his credibility.” s C e - right of confrontation is intended “to secure the accused in the right tolbe b tried as far as facts provable by witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused oagainstan R opportunity of cross-examination,” it is properly viewed as a guarantee the use of unreliable testimony in criminal trials. an Victoriano vs. People (G.R. Nos. 171322-24, November 30, 2006) h C -the right to confront and cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses, the same is indeed a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


61

necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. In the instant case, petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses due to his failure to cooperate in preparing his defense.

s e l

r a B

g. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.

b o Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987Constitution: R SEC. 14. r n a a (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused xxx shall enjoy the right xxx have Bto secure h compulsory process the attendance of witnesses and the s C production of e evidence in his behalf xxx” l b See Rule 21 (Subpoena) Ro of Rules of Court r a an B h h. C To have speedy, impartial and public trial.s e l b o Section 14 (2) and Sec. 16, Article III of the 1987Constitution R SEC. 14. arthe right to have a anprosecutions, the accused xxx shallBenjoy (2) In all criminal speedy, h C impartial, and public trial xxx” es l b SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative Ro bodies. r a an B RA 8493 or “Speedy Trial Act of 1998”h s C e2014) Co vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products (G.R. No. 183994, June 30, l b - “speedy trial” is a relative term and necessarilyo a flexible concept. In determining whether the accused's right to speedy R trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings. The factors to n a delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) Bar balance are the following: (a) duration of the assertion of the right or failure to assert h it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay; mere mathematical reckoning of C the time involved would not suffice as the s e realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which, after all,ldo not exist in a vacuum, and that particular regard must be given to the facts and b circumstances peculiar to each case. While the Court recognizes the accused's o of right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration R justice, we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity nthe trialtoforfairlyan prosecute criminals. Unjustified postponements which prolong a unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial h C Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, et al. (A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, June 14, 2011)



62

- the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial, and that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Mere fear of possible undue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial.

s e l

r a B

b o R See Rule 122 of the Rules of Court r n a a B. Rights of persons under custodial B investigation h s C Sec.12 (1), Art. III of e the Constitution (Miranda Rights) l b SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have theo right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent R and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford rwith one. These rights cannot be nservices of counsel, he must be provided a athe waived except in writing and in the presence B of counsel. h s C e lCertain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Republic Act No. 7438 (An Act Defining b Under Custodial Investigation as o well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties Thereof) R Detainedfor orViolations Sec. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Under Custodial Investigation r n (a) Any person arrested a detained or under custodial investigation a shall at all times be assisted by counsel. h B s C (b) x x x inform the latter (person being investigated), e in a language known to and l understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and b to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times o be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial R investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent r n counsel by the investigating officer. a a B h (c) The custodial investigation C report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating s officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumb-marked if the e person arrested l or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately b explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel o provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to R such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and n void and of no effect whatsoever. r a a (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a personh arrested, detained or under custodial B investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel s C e or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, l elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district b school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such o extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. R n (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of 125 of the aArticle Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such h person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shallC be null and void and of no effect. i. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his



63

counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

s e l

r a B

NOTE: "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

b o R r 2, 2015) February a anDe Castro vs. People (G.R. No. 171672, B h - These cherished rights are peculiarly rights in the context of an official proceeding for s for crime. They exist and may be invoked when he C the investigation and prosecution e l faces a formal indictment and trial for a criminal offense; They arise at the very b inception of the criminal process – when a person is taken into custody to answer to o For what a person says or does during custodial investigation a criminal offense. R will eventually be used as evidence against him at the trial and, more often than r His trial becomes a parody if he not, will be the lynchpin of his eventual conviction. a anenjoy cannot from the start the right against self-incrimination and to counsel. This is the B h behind what we now call as the Miranda doctrine; We must, therefore, be careful snot say. It was never intended to hamper the C logic to note what the Miranda doctrine does e traditional law-enforcement functionlto investigate crime involving persons not under b restraint. - The accused in the caseo before us may not be said to be under custodial investigation. She wasR not even being investigated by any police or law r by her superiors enforcement officer. n She was under administrative investigation a a in purely voluntary manner. She was in a private firm and not restrained of her freedom in anyh manner. She was free to stay or go. ThereB was no evidence that she Cpressured to say anything. It was an act eof sconscience was forced or that compelled her to speak, a true mental and moral catharsis that religion l and psychology recognize to have salutary effects on the soul. In this setting,bthe invocation of the right to remain silent or to counsel is simply irrelevant. o R Luspo vs. People (G.R. No. 188487, October r n 22, 2014) a a - custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement B of his authorities after a person ish taken into custody or otherwise deprived s freedom of action in anyC significant manner. The rule on custodial investigation e begins to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general l inquiry into an unsolved crime and the interrogation is then aimed on b a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the o R police would then direct interrogatory questions that tend to elicit incriminating statements. r n People vs. Chavez (G.R. No. 207950, September 22, a a2014) B h - The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are to ensure that the police s C do not coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the “inherently e l compelling pressures” “generated by the custodial setting itself,” “which work to b undermine the individual’s will to resist,” and as much as possible to free courts from o the task of scrutinizing individual cases to try to determine, after the fact, whether R particular confessions were voluntary. Those purposes are implicated as much by n in-custody questioning of persons suspected of misdemeanors as they are by a questioning of persons suspected of felonies h - even those who voluntarily surrendered before a policeC officer must be apprised of their Miranda rights.

VIII. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA (Rule 116)



64

Kummer vs. People (G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013)

r a B

- Arraignment is indispensable in bringing the accused to court and in notifying him of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. The importance of arraignment is based on the constitutional right of the accused to be informed. Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed of the reason for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face, and the corresponding penalty that could be possibly meted against him. It is at this stage that the accused, for the first time, is given the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. It is only imperative that he is thus made fully aware of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life,depending on the nature of the imputed crime. - The need for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended information or complaint. This however, we hastily clarify, pertains only to substantial amendments and not to formal amendments xxx.

s e l

Ch

b o R an

r a B

s e Taglay vs. Daray (G.R. lNo. 164258, August 22, 2012) b -Arraignment is the oformal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right R of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The purpose of arraignment is, thus, to apprise theraccused of the possible loss of a of the crime imputed to him, or at an freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature B hvery least to inform him of why the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against s Cthe him. As an indispensable requirement of due process, an arraignment cannot be e Otherwise, absence of arraignment regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily. l b before the trial court. results in the nullity of the proceedings o R r Options of the accused before a an arraignment and plea B a. Bill of particulars – Sec. 9 h s C e him properly to plead The accused may, xxx move for a bill of particulars to l enable and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or b information and the details desired. o R b. Suspension of Arraignment – Sec. 11 r a an(See discussion below) B h s C (Sec. 1, Rule 116) A. Arraignment and Plea, how made e l b Arraignment: o R Sec. 1 (a), Rule 116 r n a a  shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of B h the complaint or information; s C e reading the same (complaint or information) in the language or dialect known to him; and l b o asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. R Note: The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those annamed in the complaint or information. h C Plea: Sec. 1 (b), Rule 116



65

the accused must be present at the arraignment and

r a Note: Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect B the validity of the proceedings. s e l b o offended party at the arraignment (Sec. 1[f], Rule 116) Private R The private offended party shall be required r to appear at the arraignment for purposes of a anplea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring his presence. B h In case of his failure to appear despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to C esoffense enter a plea of guilty to a l lesser which is necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of theb trial prosecutor alone. o R an plea of not guilty be entered Bar B. When should h s C 1. When the accused so pleaded. e l 2. When the accused refuses to plead. b 3. When the accused enters a conditional plea of guilty or one entered o subject to the provision Rthat a certain penalty be imposed upon him. r evidence or npleads guilty but presents exculpatory 4. When the accused a a introduces evidence of self-defense. B h s C 5. Where in admitting the act charged, he sets upematters of defense or lawful l justification. b 6. When the plea is indefinite or ambiguous. Ro anto a lesser offense (plea bargaining)Bar C. When may accused enter a plea of guilty Chwith the consent of the offendedesparty and the 1. At arraignment, the accused prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to la lesser offense b which is necessarily included in the offense charged. Ro 2. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the r n a a complaint or information is necessary. B h s C only when the prosecution does note 3. After prosecution rested its case, allowed have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged. l b Ro D. Accused pleads guilty to capital offense, what the court should do (Sec. an3, Rule 116) When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, court shall: h C must personally enter his plea.

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.



66

Note: accused may also present evidence on his behalf (People vs. Lopit, G.R. No. 177742, December 17, 2008)

r a B

People vs. Gambao (G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013)

s e l

Duties of the trial court when the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. The trial court is mandated:

b o R2. to require the prosecution to still prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree r a anof his culpability, and B h 3. to inquire whether or not the s accused wishes to present evidence in his behalf and allow C e him to do so if he desires. l b o R E. Searching n r a a inquiry B h People vs. Gambao (G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013) s C - searching inquiry determines whether e the plea of guilt was based on a free and l informed judgement. The inquiry bmust focus on the voluntariness of the plea and the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. o R r n a a Although there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge must Bguidelines h conduct a “searching inquiry,” we have held that the following should s C be observed: e l b 1. Ascertain from the accused himself o (a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; R counsel during the custodial and (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent r n preliminary investigations; and a a (c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the B h investigations. This is intended to rule out the possibility that the accused s Cplaced under a state of duress eithereby actual has been coerced or threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters l or simply b because of the judge’s intimidating robes. 2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether had conferred Roandhe consequences with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning r n of a plea of guilty. a a 3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, B h socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a s C and informed plea of guilty. trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free e 4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty l under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. For notb infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon o bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of aR lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the njudge to ensure that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions a because a plea of guilty carries with it not only the admission of authorship of h the crime proper but also of the aggravating circumstances attending it, that C increase punishment. 1. to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea of guilt,

5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of his fundamental right



67

to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a denial of his right to due process. 6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and understood by the latter. 7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.

r a B

s e l vs. Janjalani (G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011) People b searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the rules to Ro-satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress; r n mistaken impressions; or a a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and a consequences of their guilty plea. This requirement is stringent and mandatory. B h s C e F. Improvident Plea l b - a plea without o information as to all the circumstances affecting it; based upon a mistaken assumption orR misleading information or advice r a an B becomes final, the court may permit h anytime before the judgment of conviction At s and be substituted by a plea of not C an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn e l guilty. (Sec. 5, Rule 116) b Ro r n (G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013) People vs. Gambaoa a B h - As a general rule, convictions based on an improvidents plea of guilt are set aside and C the cases are remanded for further proceedings if e such plea is the sole basis of l judgement. If the trial court, however, relied on sufficient and credible evidence to b must be sustained, because convict the accused, as it did in this case, the conviction o then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea but on evidence proving the Rmanner by which the plea of guilty is made, commission of the offense charged. The r n whether improvidently or not, loses legal significance where the conviction can be based a a on independent evidence proving the commission of the crime by the accused. B h s C e G. Grounds for suspension of arraignment (Sec. 11, Rule 116) l b Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following o cases: R r n (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which a a effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead B h intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if s C e necessary, his confinement for such purpose. l b (b) There exists a prejudicial question. o R (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either n a the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of h suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing C office. Aguinaldo vs. Ventus (G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015) - while the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the deferment of the arraignment to a www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


68

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.

r a - it did not sanction an indefinite suspension of the proceedings in the trial court. Its B reliance on the reviewing authority, the Justice Secretary, to decide the appeal at the spossible time was anchored on the rule provided under Department soonest e Memorandum Order No. 12, dated 3 July 2000, which mandates that the period for the l b disposition of appeals or petitions for review shall be seventy- five (75) days. o R Hao vs. People (G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014) arhis arraignment suspended is not an unqualified an - the right of an accused toBhave right; while the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the s the deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60 days Ch arraignment, the Rules limit e reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. l b o IX. MOTION TO QUASH R nby which an accused, before enteringahisrplea, challenges the complaint or -the mode a information for insufficiency on its face in point B of law, or for defects apparent on its face. h (Enrile vs. Manalastas, G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014) s C e l b o Time to Move to Quash (Sec. 1, Rule 117) R - at any time before entering tor quash the complaint a an his plea, the accused may move or information B h s C e l b Form and Contents (Sec. 2, Rule 117) o R shall be in writing r n a signed by the accused or his counsel; a and B h s shall distinctly specify its factualC and legal grounds e l b Ro A. Grounds (Sec. 3, Rule 117) r n a a (a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense; B h s C the offense charged; (b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over e l (c) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; b (d) the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; Ro (e) the complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed an form; h (f) more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment C for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;



69

(h) the complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and

r a B

(i) the 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.

s e l

b o Torralba R vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 101421-22, February 10, 1994) preliminary investigation r in this case, however, does not warrant the quashal a anofThetheincomplete information, nor should it obliterate the proceedings already had. Neither is the court's B h jurisdiction nor validity of an information adversely affected by deficiencies in the preliminary s C investigation. Instead, the Sandiganbayan is to HOLD IN ABEYANCE any further proceedings e therein and to REMAND the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for the completion of the l preliminary investigation,b the outcome of which shall then be indorsed to Sandiganbayan for its appropriate action. o R r n a a B B. Distinguish from demurrer to evidence h s C e Motion to Quash (Rule 117) compared tol Demurrer to Evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119) b Ro r a an B h s C e l b o R r n a a B h s C e l b Ro r n a a  Amendment of complaint or information (Sec. 4, rule 117) B h s C e If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which l can be cured by amendment – court shall order that an amendment be made. b o If the motion to quash is based on the ground that the fact charged does not constitute R an offense – prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment an h Note: The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the C complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment Absence of preliminary investigation not a ground for motion to quash

MOTION TO QUASH

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Filed before the defendant enters his plea

Filed after the prosecution has rested its case

Does not go into the merits of the case but is anchored on matters not directly related to the question of guilt or innocence of the accused

Based upon the inadequacy of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the accusation

Governed by Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure

Governed by Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure

Does not require a prior leave of court

May be filed by the accused either with leave or without leave of court

People vs. Andrade (G.R. No. 187000, November 24, 2014)



70

- If the defect in the information is curable by amendment, the motion to quash shall be denied and the prosecution shall be ordered to file an amended information. Generally, the fact that the allegations in the information do not constitute an offense, or that the information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form, are defects curable by amendment. Corollary to this rule, the court should give the prosecution an opportunity to amend the information.

r a B

s e - the l RTC judge outrightly dismissed the cases without giving the prosecution an b opportunity to amend the defect in the Informations; even granting that the information in o question is defective, it appearing that the defects thereof can be cured by amendment, Rthe lower court should not have dismissed the case but should have ordered the r there is any doubt about the sufficiency of Fiscal to amend the information. When a an the complaint or information, the court should direct its amendment or that a new B h information be filed, and save the necessity of appealing the case on technical smight easily be amended. C grounds when the complaint e l People vs. Odtuhan b (G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013) otest in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an R - The fundamental Information is whether or not the facts alleged r therein, which are hypothetically a anwould admitted, establish the essential elements defined by law. B ofarethenot crime h Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information to be considered. To be Csure, a motion to quash should be based es on a defect in the information which is evident on its fact. Thus, if the defectl can be cured by amendment or if it is based on the ground that the facts charged do notb constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the court the opportunity to correcto the defect by amendment. If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order complaint or information be filed except when Ronthattheanother the information is quashed ground of extinction of criminal rliability or double a an jeopardy. B h s C e l C. Effects of sustaining the motion to quash (Sec. 5) b o R General Rule: Court may order that another complaint or information be filed r n a a Exceptions: if the Motion to Quash was based on the ff: B h s  criminal action or liability hasC been extinguished e l b  double jeopardy Ro r a an to bail If in custody, the accused shall not be discharged unless admitted B h s Exceptions: C e l when there is no order sustaining the motion is made b othe time when there is an order sustaining the motion, no new information is filed within R specified in the order or within such further time as the court may allow for good ancause h C Exception to the exceptions: if accused is also in custody for another charge.



71

D. EXCEPTION to the rule that sustaining the motion is not a bar to another

r a Motion to quash wasB based on the grounds: saction or liability has been extinguished (Sec. 3(g), Rule 117; that the criminal e l b that the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the o against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express Rcase(Sec. consent. 3 (i), Rule 117) r n a a B h s on the ground of prescription - Article 89 of the RPC C Note: if motion to quash is based e provides that the prescription l of crime has the effect of totally extinguishing the criminal b liability. Ro r n a a E. Double jeopardy (Sec. 7, Rule 117) B h s C Sec. 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitutione l b “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. o If the act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under R either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.” r a an B h s Kinds of Double C Jeopardy: (People v. Quijada, G.R. Nos.e115008-09, July 24, 1996, 259 l SCRA 191) b double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense o of the same act, provided that - one may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment R he is charged with different offenses, n or the offense charged in one case is not r included in, or does not include, the charged in the other case. a acrime B h s double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. C e applies, even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing tolthe fact that one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation of a statute. If b the two charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal o under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. R Incidentally, such conviction or acquittal is not indispensable to sustain the r n plea of double jeopardy of punishment for theasame offense. So long as a B jeopardy has been attached under one of the informations charging said offense, h the defense may be availed of in the other case involving the same offense, even if s C e there has been neither conviction nor acquittal in either case. l b Ro 17, Requisites of Double Jeopardy: (Quiambao vs. People, G.R. No. 185267, September 2014) an h (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; C prosecution (Sec. 6, Rule 117)

A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court;



72

(c) after arraignment;

r a (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise Bexpress consent. terminated without his s e (2) l the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and b Ro(3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. r a an B Note: h sof the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution C e However, the conviction l for an offense b which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any of the following instances: o R offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same (a) the graver r act or omission constituting the former charge; anfacts constituting (b) the the graver charge a became known or were discovered B h only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or s was made without the consent of the C(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense e l except as provided in section 1 (f) of Rule 116. prosecutor and of the offended party b In any of the foregoing cases,o where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part R the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver r offense. a an B h Bonsubre, Jr., vs. Yerro (G.R. No. 205952, February 11, 2015) s C e - a dismissal on the ground of the denial of thel accused’s right to a speedy trial b will have the effect of acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the accused o for the same offense. Thus, we have held that where after such dismissal the R prosecution moved for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal and the court ras n re-set the case for trial, the accused can successfully claim double jeopardy a a the said order was actually an acquittal, was final and cannot be reconsidered. B (citing h People vs. Judge Hernandez, 531 Phil. 289 (2006). s C e l Rimando vs. Sps. Aldaba (G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014) b o of BP 22 and under - while filing of the two sets of Information under the provisions R the provisions of the RPC, as amended, on estafa, may refer to identical acts n cannot be limited to one ar committed by the petitioner, the prosecution thereof a offense, because a single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses B h and where there is variance or differences between the elements of an offense is s one law and another law as in the caseC at bar there will be no double jeopardy e l because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in b the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. Hence, the mere filing o R of the two (2) sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy. n a People vs. Torres (G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014) h C court, he waives the - when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and

constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant. In other words, when appellant appealed the RTC’s judgment of conviction for murder, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition on www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


73

double jeopardy since it became the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment. Thus, appellant could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the RTC by finding him guilty of robbery with homicide as charged in the Information instead of murder.

r a B

s e Quiambao l vs. People (G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014) b void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the Ro-source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. No legal rights can emanate from a r xxx and cannot constitute a proper basis n resolution that is null and void. Therefore a a for a claim of double jeopardy. B h s 166995, January 13, 2014) C Villareal vs. Aliga (G.R. No. e lis not without exceptions, which are: (1) Where there has been - double jeopardy b deprivation of odue process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where there hasR been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. r n Braza vs. a Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 195032, Februarya 20, 2013) Bmore separate and distinct offenses; and h same criminal act may give rise to two or C that no double jeopardy attaches easslong as there is variance between the l The doctrine of double jeopardy is a revered elements of the two offenses charged. b constitutional safeguard against oexposing the accused from the risk of being prosecuted twice for the same offense,R and not a different one. r n - there is simply no double jeopardy when the subsequent information charges a a another and different or set of acts. h offense, although arising fromstheBsameis act Prosecution C for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden the prosecution for e the same offense. l b - there is no dispute that the two charges stemmed from the same transaction. A o comparison of the elements of violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 and those of R violation of Sec. 3(e) of the same law, however, will disclose that there is neither identity n nor exclusive inclusion between the two offenses. Although violation of Sec. 3(g) ofr R.A. a a No. 3019 and violation of Sec. 3(e) of the same law share a common element, B the h accused being a public officer, the latter is not inclusive of the former. The essential s in the C among or do not form part of those enumerated elements of each are not included e l should ideally other. For double jeopardy to exist, the elements of one offense b encompass or include those of the other. What the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two offenses. Ro r Bangayan vs. Bangayan (G.R. No. 172777, October 19, a an2011) B h - only instance when the accused can be barred from invoking his right against s C that the trial court acted withe double jeopardy is when it can be demonstrated grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, suchlas b where the prosecution was not allowed the opportunity to make its case against the accused or where the trial was a sham. For instance, there is no Rodouble jeopardy (1) where the trial court prematurely terminated the presentation of the prosecution's evidence and forthwith dismissed the information forn insufficiency of evidence; and (2) where the case was dismissed at a time when thea case was not ready h for trial and adjudication. C F. Provisional dismissal (Sec. 8, Rule 117)



74

Definition: a case is dismissed without prejudice to its being refiled or revived; dismissal without prejudice to the reinstatement thereof.

r a B

Requisites: Bonsubre, Jr., vs. Yerro (G.R. No. 205952, February 11, 2015)

s e l

a. The prosecution with the express conformity of the accused, or the accused, moves for a provisional dismissal (sin perjuicio) of his case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for its provisional dismissal;

b o b. The offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; R r motion and dismissing the case provisionally; the a anc.andThe court issues an Order granting B h s with a copy of the Order of provisional dismissal of the C d. The public prosecutor is served e case. l b When dismissal becomes o permanent: R one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived of rsix (6) years or a fine of any offensesn punishable by imprisonment not exceeding a a amount, or both B h two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived of s than six (6) years Coffenses punishable by imprisonment ofemore l b o (G.R. No. 183994, June 30, 2014) Co vs. New Prosperity Plastic RProducts r or of the hearing n - In this case, no notice of any motion for the provisional dismissal a a thereon which was days before said hserved on the private complainant atsleastBforthreeprovisional hearing; fact isC that it was only in open court that Co moved dismissal e “considering that, as per records, complainant had not shown any interest to pursue her l complaint.” b o party of a motion for provisional - Importance of a prior notice to the offended R dismissal: Such notice may be served on the offended party or the heirs of the victim rwho nis one, or through the public prosecutor through the private prosecutor, if there a a in turn must relay the notice to the offended party or the heirs of the victim Bto enable h them to confer with him before the hearing or appear in court during the hearing. s C e l on the motion, The proof of such service must be shown during the hearing b otherwise, the requirement of the new rule will become illusory. o R Such notice will enable the offended party or the heirs of the victim the opportunity to r seasonably and effectively comment on or object ton the motion on valid grounds, a a including: (a) the collusion between the prosecution and the accused for the provisional B h dismissal of a criminal case thereby depriving the State of its right to due process; (b) s attempts to make witnesses unavailable; or (c)C the provisional dismissal of the case with e the consequent release of the accused from detention would enable him to > threaten l and b kill the offended party or the other prosecution witnesses or >flee from Philippine jurisdiction, provide opportunity for the > destruction or loss of the prosecution’s Ronophysical and other evidence and > prejudice the rights of the offended party to recover the civil n liability of the accused by his concealment or furtive disposition of his property or the a consequent lifting of the writ of preliminary attachment against his property. h Cto Quash vs. Provisional Los Baños vs. Pedro (G.R. No. 173588, April 22, 2009) Motion Dismissal

- A first notable feature of Section 8, Rule 117 is that it does not exactly state what a provisional dismissal is. The modifier "provisional" directly suggests that the dismissals which Section 8 essentially refers to are those that are TEMPORARY in character www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


75

(i.e., to dismissals that are without prejudice to the re-filing of the case), and not the dismissals that are permanent (i.e., those that bar the re-filing of the case). Based on the law, rules, and jurisprudence, permanent dismissals are those barred by the principle of double jeopardy by the previous extinction of criminal liability, by the rule on speedy trial, and the dismissals after plea without the express consent of the accused. Section 8, by its own terms, cannot cover these dismissals because they are not provisional.

r a B

s e l A second feature is that Section 8 does not state the grounds that lead to a b provisional dismissal. This is in marked contrast with a motion to quash whose o are specified under Section 3. The delimitation of the grounds available in a Rgrounds motion to quash suggests that a motion to quash is a class in itself, with specific and r Rules of Court. A necessary consequence is that n characteristics under the a closely-defined where the grounds cited are those a listed under Section 3, then the appropriate remedy is to B h file a motion to quash, not any other remedy. Conversely, where a ground does not s a motion to quash is not a proper remedy. A motion for C appear under Section 3,e then provisional dismissall may then apply if the conditions required by Section 8 obtain. b Roclosely related to the second, focuses on the consequences of a A third feature, r thedismissal. meritorious to quash. This feature also answers question of whether the a aofnanmotion quashal information can be treated as a provisional Sections 4, 5, 6, andh 7 of Rule 117 unmistakably provide for theB consequences of a meritorious motion to Cquash. Section 4 speaks of an amendmentesof the complaint or information, if the motion to quash relates to a defect curable bylamendment. Section 5 dwells on the effect of sustaining the motion to quash - the b complaint or information may be re-filed, except for the instances mentioned under Section 6. The latter section, on the other hand, specifies the o limit of the re-filing that Section 5 allows - it cannot be done where the dismissal is based R on extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy. Section 7 definesr double jeopardy and n a a complements the ground provided under Section 3(i) and the exception stated in Section 6. B h s C e l Failure to Move to Quash or to Allege Any Ground Therefor (Sec. 9) b General Rule: o The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before R because he did not file a motion he pleads to the complaint or information, either n to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver r a a of any objections. B h Exceptions: MTQ is based on s C (a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense; e l (b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; b (c) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; o (d) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted ofR the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without an his express consent. Bar h s Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs.C Romars International Gases Corporation e l (G.R. No. 189669, February 16, 2015) b - In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, therefore, the trial court could only take cognizance of an issue that was not raised in the motion to quash if, (1) said o R issueorwas not available or existent when they filed the motion to quash the search warrant; (2) n the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter. a - Does the omnibus motion rule cover a motion to quash search warrants? h omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 8, Rule 15, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, C motion, otherwise, said demands that all available objections be included in a party's objections shall be deemed waived; and, the only grounds the court could take cognizance of, even if not pleaded in said motion are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) existence of another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and (c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations.



76

- omnibus motion rule is applicable to motions to quash search warrants; that “the motion to quash the search warrant which the accused may file shall be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing.

s e l

r a B

X. PRE-TRIAL

b o R to achieve an expeditious resolution of the case Objective: r anWhen : after arraignment and withinB30adays from the time the court acquires jurisdiction over h the person of the accused, the Court shall order a pretrial conference. s C e l period is provided by law (Sec. 1, 1 par. , Rule 118) Exception: unless a shorter b Ro r (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06National Power vs. Adiong [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060 a anJulyCorporation 2498- RTJ), 27, 2011] B h s conference itself. It is elementary and Respondent judge failed to conduct the pre-trial C e plain that the holding of such a pre-trial conference is mandatory and failure to do so is l inexcusable. When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the provisions of the b Rules of Court, not to know it o or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Such R ignorance of a basic rule in court procedure, as failing to conduct pre-trial, sadly amounts to gross ignorance and warrants a corresponding penalty. r a an B h s C e118) A. Matters to be considered during pre-trial (Sec. 1, Rule l b o a. Plea bargaining; R b. stipulation of facts; r n a a B c. marking for identification of evidenceh of the parties; s C e d. waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; l b e. modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful o defense; and R r n f. such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial ofa the criminal and civil aspects of the a case. B h s C e l b B. What the court should do when prosecution and offended party agree too the plea R offered by the accused an h Form C Court approval is required as to the matters referred in Sec. 1, Rule 118 Pre-trial in criminal cases is mandatory;

st

Must be in writing Signed by the accused www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


77

Signed by the counsel

Effect

s e l

r a B

Binding on the parties who made

b o R an

Become judicial admissions of the facts stipulated

Ch

C. Pre-trial agreement

s e l

r a B

Agreements or admissions made and entered during the pre-trial conference; court approval is required on matters referred to in Sec. 1.

b o Plea bargaining those which the law do not allow plea bargaining i.e. Sec. 23, RA R(except 9165 or Dangerous Drugs Act) r n a a Stipulation of facts B h sparties; C marking for identification of evidence of the e l b waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; o R modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful r defense; and a an B such matters as willh promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects s C of the case. e l b o R2014) People vs. Likiran (G.R. No. 201858, June 4, r n a a Stipulation of facts during pre-trial is allowed by Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of B or Criminal Procedure. Section 2 of h Rule 118, meanwhile, prescribes that all agreements s C the pre-trial conference shall be reduced admissions made or entered during in writing e and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the l b accused. In this case, while it appears that the pre-trial agreement was signed only o by the prosecution and defense counsel, the same may nevertheless be admitted given that the defense failed to object to its admission. R r a an B h s C118) D. Non-appearance during pre-trial (sec. 3, Rule e l b Court may sanction or penalize counsel for the accused if the following concur: o R (1) counsel does not appear at the pre-trial conference AND n a (2) counsel does not offer an acceptable excuse. h C Garayblas vs. Ong (G.R. Nos. 174507-30, August 3, 2011) - Pre-trial is meant to simplify, if not fully dispose of, the case at its early stage; during pretrial, attorneys must make a full disclosure of their positions as to what the real issues www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph


78

of the trial would be. They should not be allowed to embarrass or inconvenience the court or injure the opposing litigant by their careless preparation for a case; or by their failure to raise relevant issues at the outset of a trial.

s e l

r a B

E. Pre-trial order (Sec. 4, Rule 118)

b o R anPurpose:

Issued by the court after pre-trial conference reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidenced marked

Ch

oBind the parties

s e l

r a B

b o oControl the course of the action during trial R rinjustice Note: can ben a a modified by the court to prevent manifest B h s C e lSeptember 1, 2010) People vs. Villanueva (G.R. No. 181829, b oorder must be signed not only by him but his counsel as - to bind the accused the pre-trial R well. The purpose of this requirement is to further safeguard the rights of the r which his accused against improvident unauthorized agreements or admissions an intoorwithout counsel may have entered his knowledge, as hea may have waived his h presence at the pre-trial conference; eliminate any doubt B on the conformity of the s Cfacts agreed upon. In this case, records accused of the would show that the Pre-trial e Order was not signed by both appellant and his counsel. l b Ro r nmediation and judicial dispute resolution F. Referral of some cases for court annexed a a B (A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA) h s C Purpose eof the parties and l to put an end to pending litigation through a compromise agreement b thereby help solve the ever-passing problem of court docket congection o practical effect to the to empower the parties to resolve their own disputes and give R State Policy, viz: “to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the r freedom of the parties to make their own arrangement n a ato resolve disputes.” B h Three (3) Stages s C 1. Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) e The judge refers the parties to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) for mediationlby b trained and accredited mediators. o 2. Failing to secure a Settlement in the first stage, Second Attempt – JDR Stage R JDR Judge sequentially becomes a mediator conciliator-early neutral evaluator in a n continuing effort to secure a settlement a still failing this attempt, the mediator-judge must turn-over the case to another judge h who will try to settle the case. C and proceed to try and Note: The trial judge shall continue with the pre-trial proper oLimit the trial to matters not disposed of

decide the case. 3. Appeal referred to PMC- Appeals Court Mediation (PMC-ACM)



79

Cases covered by CAM and JDR

r a B

All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except those which by law may not be compromised (e.g.,

s e Cases covered l by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (P.D. No.b 508, as amended by R.A. No. 7160) Civil Roaspect of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg.22. r a anThe civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code B aspect of Estafa and Libel s cases where damages are sought. (A.M. No.0I-I0-5-SCCh Civil PHILJA, dated October 16, e 200I. AM. No. 04-2-04-SC, dated July 20, 2004 and effective l August 16, 2004). b Special proceedings Rofor the settlement of estates r n All habeas corpus decided by the first level courts in a the absence of the RTC judge, that are a brought up on appeal from the special jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Dec. 35 B h of Judiciary Reorgamization Act of 1980. s C e l b Cases may be referred to JDR even during the trial stage upon written motion of one or both of the parties indicating Rowillingness to discuss a possible compromise. r counsels, shall n a If full settlement isa reached, the parties, assisted by their respective draft the compromise agreement which shall be submittedB to the court for judgment h s upon compromise or other appropriate actions. C e  l If partial settlement is reached the parties shall,b assisted by their respective counsels, submit the terms thereof for the appropriate actions of the court. o R r n XI. TRIAL a a B h s Definition: examination before the Ccompetent tribunal according to the laws of the land, of facts put in issue in a case for the purpose of determining such issue. le b When: after a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have AT LEAST 15 DAYS to o prepare for trial. The trial shall commence WITHIN 30 DAYS from R receipt of the pre-trial order. (Sec. 1,Rule 119) r n a a B h s C e A. Instances when presence of accused is required by law l b Upon arraignment and in entering plea; Ro During the pre-trial conference, when required by the court; an h During the trial, when required by the court for purposes of identification; C Annulment of Marriage)

During the promulgation of the judgment, unless it is for a light offense in which case the accused may appear by counsel or representative.



80

B. Requisite before trial can be suspended on account of absence of witness

r a Bhas been guilty of no neglect; 2. party who applies s 3. witnesses e can be had at the time to which the trial is deferred and no similar evidence l could beb obtained; and o 4.R affidavit showing the existence of the above circumstances must be filed. r a an B h Factors in granting continuance s (Sec. 4, Rule 119) C e l to grant a continuance in the proceeding would likely make a Whether or not the failure b continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of justice; and o R Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel, unusual and complex, due to the n or the nature of the prosecution,aorrthat it is unreasonable to expect number of accused a adequate preparation within the periods of time established B therein. h s C e l Jr. (G.R. No. 201061, July 03, 2013) b Go-Bangayan vs. Benjamin Bangayan, Roof a motion for continuance or postponement is not a - It is well-settled that a grant r by her continued matter of right but is n addressed to the discretion of the trial court; a refusal to presenta her evidence, she was deemed to have waived her right to B the opportunities present them; h continued failure to present her evidence despite s given by theC trial court showed her lack of interest to proceed with the case. e l b o R C. Trial in absentia r n a aConstitution Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 B of the h " x x x after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence s accused provided that C he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is e unjustifiable." l b Requisites: (Bernardo vs. People, G.R. No. 166980, April 3, 2007) o  (1) the accused has already been arraigned, R  (2) he has been duly notified of the trial, and r a an above, present in the  (3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable, are, as reflected B h case. s C  Time limit within which the accused must be brought to trial e l b o R The arraignment of the accused shall be held within 30 days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (S1[g] R116). an h The trial shall commence within 30 days from receipt of the pre-trial order. (S1 R119) as C extended (Sec. 6, Rule 119). 1. the witness is material and appears to the court to be so;



81

D. Remedy when accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed period (Sec. 9,

r a The information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the ground of denial of B his right to speedy s trial. e Note: the l accused shall have the burden of proving the motion, BUT the prosecution b shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence to establish the exclusion/s of time under RoSec. 3 Rule 119. r a an B h Dismissal shall be subject to the rules on double jeopardy s C e Note: provided that the requisites l of double jeopardy under Sec. 7 Rule 117 are met, the b dismissal would amount to an acquittal. o R  The judge’s decision on whether there was a violation of the right to a speedy trial is of rcertiorari if made with grave abuse course subject to review by the special civil action for a an of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. B h s C e l Failure of the accused to move for b dismissal prior to trial shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section. Ro r a an h E. Requisites for discharge of accused to become a state witnessB(Sec. 17) s C e 1. Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission l of an offense; 2. The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution b before it rests its case; 3. The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of each o proposed state witness at a hearing in support of Rthe discharge; 4. The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and r n a a 5. The trial court is satisfied that: B is a) There is absolute necessity for h the testimony of the accused whose discharge s requested; C e of the offense b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution l committed, except the testimony of said accused; b c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated o in its material points d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and R e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of anyn r a a offense involving moral turpitude B h s C e l Jimenez, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014) b o - it is still the trial court that determines whether the prosecution’s preliminary assessment of the accused-witness’ qualifications to be a state witnessR satisfies the procedural norms. This relationship is in reality a symbiotic one as the n by the a trialitscourt, very nature of its role in the administration of justice, largely exercises prerogative h based on the prosecutor’s findings and evaluation. C Rule 119)

- in requiring a hearing in support of the discharge, the essential objective of the law is for the court to receive evidence for or against the discharge, which evidence shall serve as the court’s tangible and concrete basis – independently of the fiscal's or prosecution's persuasions – in granting or denying the motion for discharge. We



82

emphasize, in saying this, that actual hearing is not required provided that the parties have both presented their sides on the merits of the motion.

r a - Rules do not require absolute certainty in determining those conditions; the Judge has B to rely in a s large part upon the suggestions and the considerations presented by the e prosecuting officer; A trial judge cannot be expected or required to inform himself with l absolute certainty at the very outset of the trial as to everything which may be developed in b the course of the trial in regard to the guilty participation of the accused in the commission o of the crime charged in If that were practicable or possible, there would be Rlittle need for the formalitytheofcomplaint. a trial. In coming to his conclusions as to the necessity for rdischarge is requested, as to the availability or testimony of the accused whose a an the non-availability of other directB or corroborative evidence; as to which of the accused h is the ‘most guilty’ one; and the like, the judge must rely in a large part upon the s furnished C e suggestions and the information by the prosecuting officer. l b Pontejos v. Desierto (G.R. No. 148600, July 7, 2009, 592 SCRA 64) o - Sec. 17, Rule 119 is applicable only to cases already filed in court. The trial court is R given the power to discharge an accused as a state witness only because it has already r n acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused; power to choose who to discharge as a a state witness is an executive function. Essentially, not a judicial prerogative. The fact B itorisincluded h that an individual had not been previously charged s as a witness. in an information does not Cprevent the prosecution from utilizing saideperson l b Two modes by which a participant in the commission of a crime may become a state witness (Ampatuan, Jr. vs. De Lima,o G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013) R  rhis testimony will n a. the offense in which a a be used is a grave Sec. 17, Rule 119, Rules of Court Bfelony as defined under h the Revised s Penal Code or its equivalent C under special laws; The discharge by the trial court of one or e l b. there is absolute necessity for his more of several accused with their b testimony; consent so that they can be witnesses c.othere is no other direct evidence for the State is made upon motion by the R available for the proper prosecution of the Prosecution before resting its case. The r trial court shall require the Prosecution to n offense committed; a a d. his testimony can be substantially present evidence and the sworn B h corroborated on its material points; statements of the proposed witnesses at s C e. he does not appear toebe most guilty; a hearing in support of the discharge. and The trial court must ascertain if the lbeen convicted of b f. he has not at any time following conditions fixed by Section 17 omoral turpitude. any crime involving of Rule 119 are complied with, namely: R (a) there is absolute necessity for the discharged from an information r testimony of the accused whose An accused n a a or criminal complaint by the court in order that discharge is requested; (b) there is no B h be a State Witness pursuant to other direct evidence available for the he may s C 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of the Revisedbee proper prosecution of the offense Section committed, except the testimony of said Rules of Court may upon his petition l with accused; (c) the testimony of said admitted to the Program if he complies b in accused can be substantially the other requirements of this Act. Nothing o of an corroborated in its material points; (d) this Act shall prevent the discharge R used as a State said accused does not appear to be most accused, so that he can be n the Revised Rules guilty; and (e) said accused has not at Witness under Rule 119 ofa any time been convicted of any offense of Court. h involving moral turpitude. C People vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 185729-32, June 26, 2013)

Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 6981



s e l

r a B

b o R an

83

Other Modes to be state Witness

Ch

Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 6981

s e l

r a B

Sec. 17 of R.A. 6770, Power of the Ombudsman to grant immunity Immunity under P.D. No. 749

b o R

Immunity under E.O. No. 14-A

Immunity under Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or R.A. 9165

r a B

an

Immunity and Protection under the Human Security Act of 2007 or R.A 9372

Ch

s e F. Effects of discharge of accused as statelwitness b o R an Ch

1. evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial

r a B

Note: if the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence.

s e l b o

2. Discharge of the accused operates as an acquittal and bar for further prosecution for the same offense.

R

an

Exceptions:

Ch

r a B

1. Unless accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis of his discharge. 2. Failure to testify refers exclusively to defendant's will or fault.

Ro an

s e bl

3. Extrajudicial confession: when an accused who turns state's evidence on a promise of immunity but later retracts and fails to keep his part of the agreement, his confession of his participation in the commission of the crime is admissible as evidence against him.

h C

4. Once discharged even if one or all of the conditions required for his discharge did not really exist, that fact does not affect the legal consequences of the discharge and the admissibility of his testimony if otherwise admissible and credible.

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


r a B

84

s e G. Demurrer l to evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119) b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b o R r n a a B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro an h C  An objection by one of the parties in an action, 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. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.  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.

Note: The motion for leave of court to file a demurrer shall specifically state the grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case.

Effects:

If filed with leave of court and was denied by the court – accused may ADDUCE EVIDENCE in his defense If filed without leave of court and was denied by the court – accused WAIVES the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. If granted – accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its receipt.

Order denying the motion for leave of court to file a demurrer is not reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.

People vs. Go (G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014)

- Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused.” Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.



s e l

r a B

Ch

b o R an

85

- grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of such discretion. As to effect, the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused in double jeopardy. The order is reviewable only by certiorari if it was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” When grave abuse of discretion is present, an order granting a demurrer becomes null and void.

b o R

s e l

r a B

People vs. Uy (G.R. No. 158157, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 668) This Court finds that the trial court committed not only gross reversible error of judgment but also was actuated with grave abuse of discretion, exceeding the parameters of its jurisdiction, in holding that Panangin’s retracting of his confession shows that the execution thereof was involuntary and that in any event it was inadmissible as it was "a fruit of [a] poisonous tree."

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

The trial court blindly accepted the claim of the defense that the confession was not made voluntarily on the basis of an affidavit executed by Panangin on July 1, 2002 or more than 5 months after his sworn statement-confession was given and after the prosecution rested its case, which affidavit Panangin was not even called to identify and affirm at the witness stand, hence, hearsay.

Ro an

r a B

The decision of the trial court undoubtedly deprived the prosecution of due process as it was not given the opportunity to check the veracity of Panangin’s alleged retraction

Ch

s e l b o

 Reopening — At any time before finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order granting it.(Sec. 24)

R

XII. JUDGMENT

an

Ch

Definition (Sec. 1, Rule 120)

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

- is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. Sec. 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

h C

“No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based."

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


r a B

86

s e A. Requisites l of a judgment b Ro an

1. must be written in the official language;

Ch

r a B

2. personally and directly prepared by the judge; 3. signed by him; and

s e l

4. contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.

b o B. Contents ofR judgment (Sec. 2) an Ch

If it is of CONVICTION, the judgment shall state:

s e bl

r a B

(a) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused, and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission thereof, if there are any;

Ro an

(b) the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact;

Ch

(c) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and

s e l b o

r a B

(d) the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act to be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate action has been reserved or waived. If it is of ACQUITTAL, the judgment shall state:

R

an

r a B

(a) whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ch

s e bl

(b) the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist

Ro an

People vs. Lizada (G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003)

- purpose of the provision is to inform the parties and the person reading the decision on how it was reached by the court after consideration of the evidence of the parties and the relevant facts, of the opinion it has formed on the issues, and of the applicable laws. The parties must be assured from a reading of the decision of the trial court that they were accorded their rights to be heard by an impartial and responsible judge.

h C

b o

s e l

Judgment for two or more offenses (Sec. 3, Rule 120) General Rule: (Sec. 13, Rule110) Complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

87

single punishment for various offenses.

Ch

General Rule: (Sec. 3(f), Rule 117) The accused may move to quash the complaint or information xxx on the ground (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law. Exception:

s e l

r a B

 Defect is waived when the accused fails to move for quashal

b o R

Where the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may: 1. Convict him of as many offenses as there are charged and proved; Exception: if one of the offenses has been a necessary means for committing the other offense and where both have been the result of a single act

and

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

2. Impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense. Exception: maximum duration of the offense should be in accordance with the ”three-fold rule” on the penalty. the maximum duration of the principal penalty which the herein

Ro an

petitioner has to serve under his conviction in the 17 cases in question is threefold of 6 months and 1 day, or 18 months and 3 days, the maximum duration of his sentence cannot exceed threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him

Ch

s e l b o

r a B

 Variance Doctrine Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

R

an

Ch

r a B

Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitutes the latter. And 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.

Ro an

s e bl

Examples: 1. murder charged, homicide proved (conviction: homicide) 2. robbery charged, theft proved (conviction: theft) 3. homicide charged, murder proved (conviction: homicide) 3. theft charged, robbery proved (conviction: theft) 4. rape charged, acts of lasciviousness proved (conviction: acts of lasciviousness)

h C

People vs. Noque (G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010)

b o

s e l

The only issue raised by the appellant in this petition is that his conviction for the sale and possession of shabu, despite the fact that what was established and proven was the sale and possession of ephedrine, violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

88

of the accusations against him since the charges in the Informations are for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Ch

As correctly observed by CA, the offenses designated in the Informations are for violations of Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, which define and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and possession of regulated drugs. The allegations in the Informations for the unauthorized sale and possession of “shabu” or methamphetamine hydrochloride are immediately followed by the qualifying phrase “which is a regulated drug”. Thus, it is clear that the designations and allegations in the Informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. Ephedrine has been classified as a regulated drug by the Dangerous Drugs Board in Board Resolution No. 2, Series of 1988.

b o R

s e l

r a B

On March 17, 1988, pursuant to Section 20(8) of RA 6425, as amended, the Dangerous Drugs Board in its Board Regulation No. 2, S. 1988, classified as regulated drug all raw materials of ephedrine, as well as preparations containing the said drug. The chemical formula of ephedrine is C10 H15 NO, whereas that of methamphetamine is C10 H15 N. The only difference between ephedrine and methamphetamine is the presence of a single atom of oxygen in the former. The removal of the oxygen in ephedrine will produce methamphetamine. With ephedrine containing fifty percent (50%) of methamphetamine hydrochloride if the oxygen content in the former is removed, the nearly 680 grams of ephedrine seized from the appellant contains about 340 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

an

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

r a B

Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. Under these provisions, the 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. At any rate, a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. In other words, his right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.

Ch

s e l b o

R

an

Ch

People vs. Leonardo (G.R. No. 181036, July 6, 2010)

s e bl

r a B

Accused charged with 13 counts of rape of 12 year old girl in relation to RA 7610. Convicted of 6 counts of rape and 5 counts of acts of lasciviousness performed on a child. Touching breasts and vagina constitutes sexual abuse under Sec. 5 (b), Art. III of RA 7160, which was the offense proved, following the variance doctrine. People vs. Rellota (G.R. No. 18103, July 3, 2010)

Ro an

Accused sentenced to 2 counts of rape and 1 count of attempted rape of 12 year old girl. Supreme Court modified the judgment. 1 count is only for acts of lasciviousness as defined under Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 5, Art. III of RA 7160, following variance doctrine.

h C

b o

s e l

*** People vs. Cuaycong (G.R. No. 196051, October 2, 2013) - TDC

R n a

Accused convicted of 2 counts of statutory rape of 7 year old daughter of live-in patner. Supreme Court modified judgment because one count of rape by carnal knowledge not proved

h C


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

89

– only penile penetration of victim’s anus. First mode (rape by carnal knowledge) not necessarily included in second mode (rape thru sexual assault) and vice versa. Charge is rape by carnal knowledge so accused cannot be convicted of rape thru sexual assault without violating his right to be informed of nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Ch

r a B

Ricalde vs.People (G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015)

s e l

Accused convicted of rape thru sexual assault by inserting penis into anus of 10-year old boy under 2nd paragraph of Art. 266-A, Revised Penal Code, committed "[b ]y any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person."

b o R

an

r a B

There is no variance between the offense charged and the offense proved because the prosecuted proved beyond reasonable doubt all elelaments of rape thru sexual assault.

Ch

s e bl

Conviction affirmed but penalty modified from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum (imposed by RTC), to reclusion temporal in its medium period, which is the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is below 12 years old, under Sec. 5 (b), Art. III, RA 7160 (child prostitution and other sexual abuse).

Ro an

Teves vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 154182, December 17, 2004)

Ch

s e l b o

r a B

The pivotal issue in this petition is whether a public official charged with violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for unlawful intervention, in his official capacity, in the issuance of a license in favor of a business enterprise in which he has a pecuniary interest may be convicted, together with his spouse, of violation of that same provision premised on his mere possession of such interest.

R

an

r a B

The elements of the offense charged in this case, which is unlawful intervention in the issuance of a cockpit license in violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law, are

Ch

1. The accused is a public officer;

s e bl

2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction, whether or not prohibited by law; and

Ro an

3. He intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest.

h C

On the other hand, the essential ingredients of the offense proved, which is possession of prohibited interest in violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft Law, are as follows: 1. The accused is a public officer; 2. He has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction; and

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

90

3. He is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or any law.

Ch

It is clear that the essential ingredients of the offense proved constitute or form part of those constituting the offense charged. Put differently, the first and second elements of the offense charged, as alleged in the information, constitute the offense proved. Hence, the offense proved is necessarily included in the offense charged, or the offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved. The variance doctrine thus finds application to this case, thereby warranting the conviction of petitioner Edgar Teves for the offense proved.

b o R

s e l

r a B

C. Promulgation of judgment (Sec. 6, Rule 120)

an

r a B

is an official proclamation or announcement of the decision of the court

Ch

consists of reading the judgment in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered

s e bl

 Who may promulgate the judgment

Ro an

1. Judge of the court in which it was rendered

r a B

2. Clerk of the said court in the absence of the judge who rendered judgment

Ch

3. Executive Judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention – if accused is confined or detained and upon the request of the judge who rendered judgment.

s e l b o

Payumo vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 151911, July 25, 2011)

R

- Promulgation of the decision is an important part of the decision-making process. Promulgation signifies that on the date it was made, the judge or justices who signed the decision continued to support it which could be inferred from his silence or failure to withdraw his vote despite being able to do so. A decision or resolution of the court becomes such, only from the moment of its promulgation.

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

- A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and not before. It is an elementary doctrine that for a judgment to be binding, it must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who penned it; the judge who pens the decision is still an incumbent judge, that is, a judge of the same court, albeit now assigned to a different branch, at the time the decision is promulgated; a judge who died, resigned, retired, had been dismissed, promoted to a higher court or appointed to another office with inconsistent functions, would no longer be considered an incumbent member of the court and his decision written thereafter would be invalid. Indeed, one who is no longer a member of the court at the time the final decision or resolution is signed and promulgated cannot validly take part in that decision or resolution; when a judge or a member of the collegiate court, who had earlier signed or registered his vote, has vacated his office at the time of the promulgation of the decision or resolution, his vote is automatically withdrawn or cancelled.

h C

Ro an

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

91

Instances of promulgation of judgment in

Ch

r a B

absentia

Two instances when a Judgment may be Promulgated in absentia (Sec. 6, Rule 120

s e l

1 . when the judgment is for light offense, in which case, the accused's counsel or representative may stand for him; and

b o R

2. in cases where despite due notice to the accused or his bondsman or warden and counsel, the accused failed to appear at the promulgation of the decision.

an

r a B

Reyes vs. Mangino (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1575, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 27)

Ch

There are two instances when judgment may be promulgated even without the personal presence of the accused: (1) when the judgment is for a light offense, in which case, the counsel for the accused or a representative may stand for him; and (2) in cases where despite due notice to the accused or his bondsman or warden and counsel, the accused failed to appear at the promulgation of the decision. The evident purpose of this latter exception is to afford the offended party the opportunity to enforce the award of civil indemnity which could not otherwise be effected if the decision cannot be pronounced on account of the absence of the accused.

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

s e l b o

Requisites for promulgation in absentia 1.

recording the judgment in the criminal docket

r a B

R

2. serving a copy thereof on the accused at their last known address or through counsel.

an

r a B

Note: If the judgment is for conviction and the failure to appear was without justifiable cause, the accused shall lose the remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121) and an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122) and the court shall order his arrest.

Ch



s e bl

Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.

h C

Villena vs. People (G.R. No. 184091, January 31, 2011)

Ro an

Petitioners’ mere filing of notices of appeal through their new counsel, therein only explaining their absence during the promulgation of judgment, cannot be considered an act of surrender, despite the fact that said notices were filed within 15 days from September 28, 2007, the purported date when their new counsel personally secured a copy of the judgment of conviction from the RTC. The term “surrender” under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

Ch

b o R an

92

contemplates an act whereby a convicted accused physically and voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer the consequences of the verdict against him. The filing of notices of appeal cannot suffice as a physical and voluntary submission of petitioners to the RTC’s jurisdiction. It is only upon petitioners’ valid surrender, and only after proper motion, that they can avail of the remedy of appeal. Absent compliance with these requirements, their notices of appeal, the initiatory step to appeal from their conviction, were properly denied due course.

b o R

s e l

r a B

D. When does judgment become final (four instances – LSWP) (Sec. 7)

an

A judgment becomes final:

r a B

1. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal; or 2. When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served; or 3. When the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal; or 4. When the accused has applied for probation.

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

Modification of Judgment (Sec. 7) A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected.

Ch

s e l b o

 Villareal vs. People (G.R. No. 151258, December 01, 2014)

r a B

- Coupled with Section 7 of Rule 117 and Section 1 of Rule 122, it can be culled from the foregoing provisions that only the accused may appeal the criminal aspect of a criminal case, especially if the relief being sought is the correction or review of the judgment therein. This rule was instituted in order to give life to the constitutional edict against putting a person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. It is beyond contention that the accused would be exposed to double jeopardy if the state appeals the criminal judgment in order to reverse an acquittal or even to increase criminal liability. Thus, the accused’s waiver of the right to appeal – as when applying for probation – makes the criminal judgment immediately final and executory.

R

an

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

- It must be clarified, however, that the finality of judgment evinced in Section 7 of Rule 120 does not confer blanket invincibility on criminal judgments; that this rule is inapplicable to cases in which the state assails the very jurisdiction of the court that issued the criminal judgment; or where the court has appropriate jurisdiction, whether it acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In other words, the review is on the question of whether there has been a validly rendered decision, not on the question of the decision’s error or correctness.

h C

b o

s e l

People vs. Banig (G.R. No. 177137, August 23, 2012)

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

93

- A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable; a verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a reexamination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense.” True, the finality of acquittal rule is not one without exception as when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such a case, the judgment of acquittal may be questioned through the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Ch

b o R

s e l

r a B

De Vera vs. De Vera G.R. No. 172832, April 6, 2009)

-

an

r a B

in judgments of conviction, errors in the decision cannot be corrected unless the accused consents thereto; or he, himself, moves for reconsideration of, or appeals from, the decision; Significantly, the present Rules retained the phrase "upon motion of the accused." Obviously, the requisite consent of the accused is intended to protect him from having to defend himself anew from more serious offenses or penalties which the prosecution or the court may have overlooked.

Ch

s e bl

Ro rfinal, it shall be n  Section 8. Entry of a judgment. — After a judgment has become a entered in accordance with Rule 36. B h s C e l b XIII. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION o R r n a a B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b . Grounds for New Trial (Sec, 2, Rule 121) Ro an h C Entry of Judgment – Sec. 8

Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon (G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011)

- New trial is a remedy that seeks to "temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice; The grant or denial of a new trial is, generally speaking, addressed to the sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is shown.

New trial or reconsideration may be granted at any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final: oOn motion of the accused; or

oOn motion of the court but with the consent of the accused

A



s e l

r a B

b o R an

94

1. Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been committed during the trial;

Ch

2. 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.

s e l

r a B

Payumo vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 151911, July 25, 2011)

b o R

- mistakes of the attorney as to the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy, materiality or immateriality of a certain evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof are not proper grounds for a new trial.

an

r a B

Ceniza-Manantan vs. People (G.R. No. 156248, August 28, 2007)

Ch

- Error of the defense counsel in the conduct of the trial is neither an error of law nor an irregularity upon which a motion for new trial may be presented; foregoing rule admits of exceptions. Hence, in cases where (1) the counsel's mistake is so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and denied his day in court, or (2) the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the client's deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law, the client is not bound by his counsel's mistakes, and a new trial may be conducted.

s e bl

Ro B. Grounds for Reconsideration an (Sec. 3) Ch

s e l b o

r a B

a. Errors of law in the judgment, which require no further proceedings

b. Errors of fact in the judgment, which require no further proceedings Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor

R

an

Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court :

Ch

r a B

SEC. 5. Notice of hearing. – The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

s e bl

Section 2, Rule 37: SEC. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. – The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefore, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.

Section 4, Rule 121:

h C

Ro an

SEC. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. – The motion for a new trial or reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. x x x. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor.

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

ob

95

Posadas vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000, July 17, 2013)

Ch

R an

- Sec. 2 of Rule 37 and Sec. 4 of Rule 121 should be read in conjunction with Sec. 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.. Basic is the rule that every motion must be set for hearing by the movant except for those motions which the court may act upon without prejudice to the rights of the adverse party. The notice of hearing must be addressed to all parties and must specify the time and date of the hearing, with proof of service.

s e l

r a B

- under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, the requirement is

b o R

mandatory. Failure to comply with the requirement renders the motion defective. “As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading.”

an

r a B

C. Requisites before a new trial may be granted on ground of newly-discovered evidence

Ch

s e bl

Requisites for newly discovered evidence: (Tadeja vs. People, G.R. No. 145336, February 20, 2013)

Ro an

(a) evidence is discovered after trial;

r a B

(b) could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;

Ch

s e l b o

(c) is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted. Note: The most important requisite is that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with reasonable diligence; hence, the term “newly discovered.”

R

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

Ybiernas vs. Tanco-Gabaldon (G.R. No. 178925, June 1, 2011, citing Custodio v. Sandiganbayan 493 Phil. 194, 203-204 [2005])

- The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the [proffered] evidence is in fact a "newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence." The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered. It is to the latter that the requirement of due diligence has relevance. We have held that in order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered to justify new trial, what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it; what is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it.

h C

Ro an

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

ob

96

Rules do not give an exact definition of DUE DILIGENCE, and whether the movant has

Ch

R an

exercised due diligence depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. Nonetheless, it has been observed that the phrase is often equated with "reasonable promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant." In other words, the concept of due diligence has both a time component and a good faith component. The movant for a new trial must not only (a) act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of the motion; he must (b) act reasonably and in good faith as well. Due diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him.

s e l

r a B

b o D. Effects ofR granting a new trial or reconsideration r a an B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b o R r n a a B h s C e E. Application of Neypes doctrine in criminal cases l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro an h C  If granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial

oAll the proceedings and evidence not affected by the commission of such errors and irregularities shall stand, but those affected thereby shall be set aside and take anew. The court may in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional evidence. oIf the error or irregularity goes into the jurisdiction, entire proceeding

 If granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence

oThe evidence already taken shall stand, and the newly discovered and such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of justice, allow to be introduced, shall be taken and considered together with the evidence already in the record.

NOTE: In all cases, when the court grants a trial or reconsideration, the original judgment shall be set aside and a new judgment rendered accordingly.

the remedies of motion for reconsideration and motion for new trial may be availed of at any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final, which is within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of the judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 121)

In Neypes v. Court of Appeals, the Court allowed a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court to be counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. (fresh period rule)



s e l

r a B

b o R an XIV. APPEAL (Rule 122)

97

o Neypes ruling applicable to criminal cases (Yu vs. Samson-Tatad, G. R. No. 171979, February 9, 2011; Rodriguez vs. People, G.R. No. 192799, October 24, 2012) Correlate with Section 6 of Rule 122

Ch

s e l

r a B

An appeal confers upon the appellate court jurisdiction to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase (or reduce) the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. The appellate court may, and generally does, look into the entire records to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court. (Geroche vs. People, G.R. No. 179080, November 26, 2014)

b o R

an

Ch

r a B

The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a

s e bl

statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.

Ro an

Who may Appeal

r a B

Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy (Sec. 1, Rule 122)

Ch

s e l b o

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People (G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004) Both the accused and the prosecution may appeal a criminal case, but the government may do so only if the accused would not thereby be placed in double jeopardy. The prosecution cannot appeal on the ground that the accused should have been given a more severe penalty. The offended parties may also appeal the judgment with respect to their right to civil liability. If the accused has the right to appeal the judgment of conviction, the offended parties should have the same right to appeal as much of the judgment as is prejudicial to them.

R

an

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

r a B



The State cannot file a motion for reconsideration nor appeal from a judgment of acquittal based on the merits of the case due to double jeopardy.



A judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy, violating Section 21, Article III of the Constitution. To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. (People vs. Lejano, G.R. No. 176389, January 18, 2011)

h C

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

b o R an



Ch

r a B

The rule is 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 vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006; People vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 127444, September 13, 2000)

b o R

Exceptions:

98

s e l

r a B

 On occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But the grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. (People vs. Lejano, G.R. No. 176389, January 18, 2011)

Ch

an

s e bl

r a B

 A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. However, in such case, the People is burdened to establish that the court a quo acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. (People vs. Sandiganbayan(First Division), G.R. Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006)

Ch

Ro an

s e l b o

r a B

 A judgment or order of acquittal may be challenged in a petition for certiorari for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction due to a violation of due process, i.e., the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or that the trial was a sham. In such cases, double jeopardy will not attach. The petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. (Sanvicente vs. People, G.R. No. 132081, November 26, 2002; Philippine Savings Bank vs. Bermoy, G.R. No. 151912 September 26, 2005).

R

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

 A review of the sufficiency of evidence and of the propriety of acquittal lies outside the function of certiorari (People vs. Bans, G.R. No. 104147, December 8, 1994). Whether or not the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused cannot be resolved in a special civil action of certiorari (People vs. Court of Appeals (Eleventh Division), G.R. No. 144332, June 10, 2004). Certiorari will only lie to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.

h C

Ro an

 Purported errors of judgment or those involving misappreciation of evidence or errors of law cannot be raised and be reviewed in a Rule 65 petition. A writ of certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission of grave abuse of discretion, not those which call for the evaluation of evidence and factual findings. (Villareal vs. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014)

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

Ch

b o R an

r a B

99

 A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed instead of herein petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated (Villareal vs. Aliga, G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014)



s e l

r a B

Unfortunately, what petitioner People of the Philippines filed with the Court 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. For being the wrong remedy taken by petitioner People of the Philippines in this case, this petition is outrightly dismissible. The Court cannot reverse the assailed dismissal order of the trial court by appeal without violating private respondent’s right against double jeopardy.(People vs. Laguio, G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007)

b o R

an

CA.hEffect of an Appeal

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

Appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. Considering that what is at stake here is no less than the liberty of the accused, this Court has meticulously and thoroughly reviewed and examined the records of the case and finds that there is merit in the appeal. (People vs. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015).

Ch

s e l b o

r a B

Issues whether raised or not by the parties may be resolved by the appellate court. Hence, accused-appellants’ appeal conferred upon the appellate court full jurisdiction and rendered it competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. (People vs. Tibayan, G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015)

R

an

Ch

r a B

 Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order shall be stayed as to the appealing party. (Sec. 11[c], Rule 122). There is no motion for execution pending appeal of a judgment of conviction.

s e bl

Note: the execution of a judgment or final order of indirect contempt shall not be suspended by an appeal unless the person adjudged in contempt files a bond. (Sec. 11, Rule 71).

B. Where to appeal (Sec. 2, Rule 122)

h C

Ro an

to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) – in cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Trial Court (MTC), or Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC);

b o

s e l

to the Court of Appeals (CA) or to the Supreme Court (SC) – proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by the RTC

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b C. How appeal taken o R an

100

to the Supreme Court (SC) – in cases decided by the CA

Ch

r a B

(a) The appeal to the RTC or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be by notice of appeal filed with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy of the notice of appeal upon the adverse party.

b o R

s e l

(b) The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.

an

r a B

(c) The appeal in cases where the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by notice of appeal to the CA in accordance with S3(a) R122.

Ch

s e bl

(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the RTC imposed the death penalty. The CA shall automatically review the judgment.

Ro an

r a B

(e) Except where the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, an appeal to the SC shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Ch

s e l b o

Note: The above provisions contemplate of an appeal from a final decision or order Transmission of Records to RTC

Notice to Parties

R

an

(within 5 days from perfection of appeal)

Ch

s e bl

(by the Clerk of Court, upon receipt of the complete record, TSN and evidence) Submission of memoranda/briefs (within 15 days from receipt of Notice) DECISION

h C

Ro an

r a B

(after submission of such pleadings or upon the expiration of the period to file the same)

b o

s e l

Appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of a criminal case shall not constitute double jeopardy if: 1. dismissal made upon motion, or with express consent of accused

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

b o R an

r a B

101

2. dismissal not an acquittal or based upon consideration of evidence or merits of case 3. question to be passed upon by appellate court purely legal so that should dismissal be found incorrect, case would have to be REMANDED to court of origin for further proceedings, to determine guilt or innocence of accused

Ch



r a B

No double jeopardy –

s e l

1. where state is deprived of fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case

b o R

2. where dismissal of information or complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason

Ch

an



r a B

3. where there is lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard

Order granting motion to quash is final. Prosecution may appeal an order granting motion to quash, except:

s e bl

1. where ground for dismissal is that criminal action or liability has been extinguished.

Ro an

2. where ground is that accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged.

Ch

s e l b o

r a B

 Certiorari is appropriate remedy to assail an order granting bail (Pobre vs. CA, 463 SCRA 50).

 Appeal from MTC to RTC

R

an

r a B

Where MTC has jurisdiction over offense (3 & 6, Rule 122) – notice of

Ch

s e bl

appeal within 15 days from promulgation or from notice of final order appealed from.

 Appeal from RTC to CA

 Original jurisdiction of RTC

h C

Ro an

- Ordinary appeal (Sec. 3 (a), Rule 122) – notice of appeal within 15 days from promulgation or from notice of final order appealed from.

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

Ch

102



b o R

s e l

o

an

Ch

Ch 

Where RTC imposes reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or a lesser penalty for offenses committed on the same occasion, or arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed – NOTICE OF APPEAL to CA (Sec. 3 (c), Rule 122, as am. by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated October 15, 2004 pursuant to People vs. Mateo).

r a B

Intermediate review by CA of cases where penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment (People vs. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640).

s e bl

r a B

 Mandatory review by SC is only required for cases where the penalty imposed is death. [However, death penalty is prohibited by RA 9346, June 24, 2006]. Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a review of the trial court decision is conducted only when the accused files a notice of appeal. Neither the Decision in Mateo nor the abolition of the death penalty has changed this (People vs. Rocha, G.R. No. 173797, August 31, 2007)

Ro an

s e l b o

Appellate jurisdiction of RTC

r a B

R

- Petition for review under Rule 42 (Sec. 3 (b), Rule 122).

an

Ch

 Appeal from CA and SB to SC

s e bl

r a B

- Petition for review under Rule 45 (Sec. 3 (e), Rule 122; Sec. 7, PD 1616, as am. by RA 8249).

Exceptions: 

h C

Ro an

CA – where CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty for offenses committed on the same occasion or arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed

b o

s e l

R n a

 NOTICE OF APPEAL to SC (Sec. 13 (c), Rule 124, as am. by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC).

h C


r a B


s e l

b o R an

r a B 

103

SB – where SB imposes reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment

r a B

 Original jurisdiction

Ch

Reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or lesser penalty imposed, etc.  NOTICE OF APPEAL to SC

b o R 

an

Ch

s e l

Appellate jurisdiction

r a B

Where SB finds that death penalty, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment should be imposed, will render judgment but refrain from making entry of judgment and certify case and elevate entire record to SC for review (Section 7, PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249 and Rule X, Revised Internal Rules of Sandiganbayan, as reiterated in SC Resolution dated October 12, 2004).

Ro an

s e bl

 Fugitive from justice waives his right to appeal  

Ch

r a B

Accused escaped from detention and was tried in absentia (Moslares vs. CA, 291 SCRA 340).

s e l b o

Accused escaped during pendency of appeal

(People vs. Codilla, 224 SCRA 104).

R

an

Ch

Ramirez vs. People (G.R. No. 197832, October 2, 2013)

s e bl

r a B

- In exceptional cases, the Court has in fact relaxed the period for perfecting an appeal on grounds of substantial justice or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances and issues; the Court considered the one-day late filing of the prosecution’s notice of appeal as excusable given the diligent efforts exerted by the private prosecutor in following up its filing with the public prosecutor.

h C

Ro an

D. Effect of appeal by any of several accused (Sec. 11)

An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall NOT affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT insofar as the judgment of the apellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter;

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R  an

104

The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from;

r a B

Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party.

Ch

Benabaye vs. People (G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015)

s e l

- appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties. Considering that under Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as above-quoted, a favorable judgment, as in this case, shall benefit the co-accused who did not appeal or those who appealed from their judgments of conviction but for one reason or another, the conviction became final and executory, Benabaye's discharge for the crime of Estafa is likewise applicable to Tupag. Note that the dismissal of the Estafa charge against Tupag is similarly without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate criminal charge against him as may be warranted under the circumstances pertinent to him.

b o R

an

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

Villareal vs. People (G.R. No. 151258, December 1, 2014) - The execution of the decision is thus stayed insofar as the appealing party is concerned. The court of origin then loses jurisdiction over the entire case the moment the other party’s time to appeal has expired. Any residual jurisdiction of the court of origin shall cease – including the authority to order execution pending appeal – the moment the complete records of the case are transmitted to the appellate court. Consequently, it is the appellate court that shall have the authority to wield the power to hear, try, and decide the case before it, as well as to enforce its decisions and resolutions appurtenant thereto. That power and authority shall remain with the appellate court until it finally disposes of the case. Jurisdiction cannot be ousted by any subsequent event, even if the nature of the incident would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first place.

Ch

s e l b o

r a B

R

an

Ch

People vs. Olivo (G.R. No. 177768, July 27, 2009)

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

- present rule is that an appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Our pronouncements here with respect to the insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to convict appellants beyond reasonable doubt are definitely favorable and applicable to accused Joey Zafra. He should not therefore be treated as the odd man out and should benefit from the acquittal of his coaccused. In fact, under similar conditions and on the same ratiocination, Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court has justified the extension of our judgment of acquittal to the co-accused who failed to appeal from the judgment of the trial court which we subsequently reversed.

h C

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


r a B

s e E. Grounds l for dismissal of appeal b o

105

R an

(a) Appellant fails to file his brief within the prescribed time, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.

Ch

r a B

(b) Appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. (Sec. 8 Rule 124).

s e l

(c) Failure to file the notice of appeal within the prescribed period.

b o R

(d) Failure to pay the docket or other lawful fees.

an

r a B

(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by the Rules.

Ch

s e bl

(f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page references to the record. (g) Failure of the appellant to take the necessary steps for the correction or completion of the record within the time limited by the court in its order.

Ro an

r a B

(h) Failure of the appellant to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause.

Ch

s e l b o

(i) The fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable. Sec.1, Rule 50; Sec.18, Rule 124 (application of certain rules of civil procedure in criminal

R

cases)

Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Piccio (G.R. No. 193681, August 6, 2014)

an

r a B

- jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed as the real parties in interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in the SC. In view of the corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case.

Ch

h C

Ro an

s e bl

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

106

Diaz vs. People (G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013)

Ch

r a B

- The usage of the word may in Section 1(e) of Rule 50 indicates that the dismissal of the appeal upon failure to file the appellant’s brief is not mandatory, but discretionary. Verily, the failure to serve and file the required number of copies of the appellant’s brief within the time provided by the Rules of Court does not have the immediate effect of causing the outright dismissal of the appeal. This means that the discretion to dismiss the appeal on that basis is lodged in the CA, by virtue of which the CA may still allow the appeal to proceed despite the late filing of the appellant’s brief, when the circumstances so warrant its liberality. In deciding to dismiss the appeal, then, the CA is bound to exercise its sound discretion upon taking all the pertinent circumstances into due consideration.

b o R

s e l

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

Guidelines in confronting the issue of non-filing of the Appellant's Brief: Beatingo vs. Gasis (G.R. No. 179641, February 9, 2011) 1. The general rule is for the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal when no appellant's brief is filed within the reglementary period prescribed by the rules; 2. The power conferred upon the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal is discretionary and directory and not ministerial or mandatory; 3. The failure of an appellant to file his brief within the reglementary period does not have the effect of causing the automatic dismissal of the appeal; 4. In case of late filing, the appellate court has the power to still allow the appeal; however, for the proper exercise of the court's leniency[,] it is imperative that: (a) the circumstances obtaining warrant the court's liberality; (b) that strong considerations of equity justify an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice; (c) no material injury has been suffered by the appellee by the delay; (d) there is no contention that the appellee's cause was prejudiced; (e) at least there is no motion to dismiss filed. 5. In case of delay, the lapse must be for a reasonable period; and 6. Inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an adequate excuse as to call for the appellate court's indulgence except: 7. (a) where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (b) when application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (c) where the interests of justice so require.

Ch

Ro an

s e l b o

r a B

R

an

Ch

XV. SEARCH AND SEIZURE

h C

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

Search - examination of a person’s house or other buildings or premises or his person for the discovery of contraband or illicit or stolen property or some evidence of guilt to be used in the prosecution of a criminal action for some offense with which he is charged.

b o

s e l

Seizure - physical taking of the thing in custody

h C

R n a


r a B


r a B

s e A. Nature lof search warrant b Ro an

107

Search warrant defined – Sec. 1

Ch

r a B

“A search warrant 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 therein and bring it before the court.”

s e l

Worldwide vs. People (G.R. No. 161106, January 13, 2014)

b o R

A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity.

an

r a B

Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Mendoza (G.R. No. 170425, April 23, 2012), citing United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, 500 Phil. 342 [2005] - A search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal action or the commencement of a prosecution. The proceeding is not one against any person, but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of personal property. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of public necessity. It resembles in some respect with what is commonly known as John Doe proceedings. While an application for a search warrant is entitled like a criminal action, it does not make it such an action.

Ch

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

B. Distinguish from warrant of arrest

s e l b o

Warrant of Arrest:

r a B

Order directed to the peace officer to execute the warrant by taking the person into custody so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the crime. Requisites:

R

an

Ch

Hao vs. People, (G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014)

s e bl

r a B

A warrant of arrest should be issued if the judge after personal evaluation of the facts and circumstances is convinced that probable cause exists that an offense was committed.

Ro an

Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believethat an offense was committed by the person sought to be arrested. This must be distinguished from the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause which is for the filing of the proper criminal information. Probable cause for warrant of arrest is determined to address the necessity of placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

h C

b o

s e l

The judicial determination of probable cause is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in

h C

R n a


r a B


r a B

s e l

b o R an

108

order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant. Ocampo vs. Abando, (G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014)

Ch

r a B

Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested." Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof. In fact, the judge’s personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of arrest.

b o R

s e l

an

r a B

It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents showing the existence of probable cause for the indictment and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or if, on the basis of his evaluation, he finds no probable cause, to disregard the prosecutor's resolution and require the submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its existence.

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

Summary of requisites:

Ch

(1) Issued upon probable cause;

s e l b o

(2) Determined personally by the judge;

r a B

(3) After evaluation of the prosecutor’s report supporting documents showing the existence of probable cause;

R

an

(4) Particularly describe the person to be arrested; and

Ch

(5) In connection with the specific offense or crime

s e bl

r a B

 May be served on any day and at any time of the day or night  Does not become stale  Searching examination of witnesses is not enough  Judge is merely called upon to examine and evaluate the report of the prosecutor and the evidence submitted. Search Warrant:

h C

Ro an

Order in writing in the name of the Republic of the Philippines signed by the judge and directed to the peace officer to search personal property described therein and to bring it in court

b o

s e l

Requisites: (Secs. 4 and 5 Rule 126)

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

109

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Alvarez (G.R. No. 179408, March 05, 2014) (1) the existence of probable cause;

Ch

r a B

(2) the probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;

s e l

(3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce;

b o R

(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B



To be served only in daytime unless the affidavit alleges that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched.



Valid for 10 days only



Must personally conduct an examination of the complainant and the witnesses



Examination must be probing; not enough to merely adopt the Q & A of previous investigator.

Ch

Ro an

C. Application for search warrant, where filed

s e l b o

r a B

R

 Gen. Rule: Sec. 2 par.(a)

an

(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.

Ch

r a B

 Exceptions: Sec. 2 par (b); (b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. and last par. However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

h C

Ro an

s e bl

A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC (Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the Enforceability of Search Warrants) The following are authorized to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms:

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

110

- Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Manila and Quezon City

Ch

Applications for search warrants are filed by: Philippine National Police (PNP) National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF) Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF)

b o R

s e l

r a B

Sps. Marimla vs. People (G.R. No. 158467, October 16, 2009) Nothing in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits the heads of the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF and REACT-TF from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing the application for search warrant to their assistant heads. Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, an assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau may perform such duties as may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is not inconsistent with law.

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

Requisites for issuing search warrant –Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution and Secs. 4 & 5, Rule 126

Ro an

SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. - A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

Ch

s e l b o

r a B

Retired SPO4 Laud vs. People (G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014) - was intended to prevent the issuance of scattershot warrants, or those which are issued for more than one specific offense. - a search warrant that covers several counts of a certain specific offense does not violate the one-specific-offense rule; where several counts of the offense of copyright infringement and the search warrant uncovered several contraband items in the form of pirated video tapes is not to be confused with the number of offenses charged. The search warrant herein issued does not violate the onespecific-offense rule (Citing Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, 329 Phil. 875 [1996

R

an

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Alvarez (G.R. No. 179408, March 05, 2014) Requirements for the issuance of a search warrant: (1) the existence of probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

h C

s e l

b o

- Should any of these requisites be absent, the party aggrieved by the issuance and enforcement of the search warrant may file a MOTION TO QUASH the search warrant with the issuing court or with the court where the action is subsequently instituted.

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

111

People vs. Tuan (G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 226)

Ch

A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness

b o R

D. Probable cause

s e l

r a B

***Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. It requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched. (HPS Software and Communication Corporation vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLOT), G.R. No. 170217, December 10, 2012) - Ponente: J. LeonardoDe Castro

an

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

Disini, Jr. vs. The Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)

r a B

- Facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched; referring to “factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.

Ch

s e l b o

Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People (G.R. No. 188526, November 11, 2013)

R

an

r a B

- The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

HPS Software and Communication Corporation vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), G.R. No. 170217, December 10, 2012) citing Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,481 Phil. 550 (2004).

h C

- The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, “probable cause” is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.

b o

s e l

Tan vs. Tiong Gue (G.R. No. 174570, December 15, 2010)

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

112

- a search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection with only one specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of the applicant's personal knowledge and his or her witnesses; cannot utilize the evidence seized by virtue of the search warrants issued in connection with the case of Robbery in a separate case of Qualified Theft, even if both cases emanated from the same incident.

Ch

r a B

People vs. Mamaril (G.R. No. 171980, October 6, 2010)

s e l

- There is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the findings or opinion of the judge conducting the examination.

b o R

an

r a B

- A magistrate's determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid with great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination

Ch

s e bl

Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc. (G. R. No. 165122, November 23, 2007)

Ro an

- A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction. The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. However, the findings of the judge should not disregard the facts before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason.

Ch

s e l E. Personal examination by judge of the applicant andbwitnesses Ro an Ch

r a B

Examination of complainant by the judge – Sec. 5

r a B

SEC.5. Examination of complainant; record. - 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.

Ro an

s e bl

Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People (G.R. No. 188526, November 11, 2013) - A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a probable cause, meaning “the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.”

h C

s e l

b o

- when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data or information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present. Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

113

search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary. Yao, Sr. vs. People (G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007)

Ch

r a B

- The searching questions propounded to the applicant and the witnesses depend largely on the discretion of the judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule governing how a judge should conduct his investigation, it is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro forma. The judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application.

b o R

s e l

an

r a B

F. Particularity of place to be searched and things to be seized

Ch

s e bl

Retired SPO4 Laud vs. People (G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014) - description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.

Ch

Ro an

s e l b o

r a B

Del Castillo vs. People (G.R. No.185128, January 30, 2012, 664 SCRA 430) - the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness; Here, the Search Warrant specifically designates or describes the residence of the petitioner as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the items were seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 meters away from the residence of the petitioner.

R

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

- While it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing that the property is under appellant's control or possession. The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drugs. With the prosecution's failure to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner's control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

h C

Ro an

s e l

Ty v. De Jemil (G.R. No. 182147, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 671, 689) - The law does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrants is directed. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized.

b o

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

114

Yao, Sr. vs. People(G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007)

Ch

- There is nothing in the provisions of law concerning the issuance of a search warrant which directly or indirectly mandates that the applicant of the search warrant or his witnesses should state in their affidavits the fact that they used different names while conducting undercover investigations, or to divulge such fact during the preliminary examination.

b o R

s e l

r a B

G. Personal property to be seized Personal property to be seized – Sec. 3

an

r a B

Section 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property: (a) Subject of the offense; (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

Ch

Ro an

s e bl

Retired SPO4 Laud vs. People (G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014) - “Personal property” in the foregoing context actually refers to the thing’s mobility, and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated by a particular person. Article 416 of the Civil Code, which Laud himself cites,states that in general, all things which can be transported from place to place are deemed to be personal property. Considering that human remains can generally be transported from place to place, and considering further that they qualify under the phrase “subject of the offense” given that they prove the crime’s corpus delicti, it follows that they may be valid subjects of a search warrant under the above-cited criminal procedure provision. - the description points to no other than the things that bear a direct relation to the offense committed, i.e., of Murder. It is also perceived that the description is already specific as the circumstances would ordinarily allow given that the buried bodies would have naturally decomposed over time.

Ch

s e l b o

r a B

R

an

Ch

Worldwide vs. People (G.R. No. 161106, January 13, 2014)

s e bl

r a B

Search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute detail; warrant is valid when it enables the police officers to readily identify the properties to be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized; A search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the description of the things to be seized when the things described are limited to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.

h C

Ro an

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Alvarez (G.R. No. 179408, March 05, 2014)

b o

s e l

Does not require technical accuracy in the description of the property to be seized. Specificity is satisfied if the personal properties' description is as far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow it to be so described. The nature of the description

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

115

b o R an

should vary according to whether the identity of the property or its character is a matter of concern. One of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant is when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.

Ch

r a B H. Exceptions to search warrant requirement s e a) Search incidental to l lawful arrest b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b o R r n a a B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro an h C Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – 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.

People vs. Araza (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014) - The Constitution states that failure to secure a judicial warrant prior to the actual search and consequent seizure would render it unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding constitutional prohibition, however, admits of the following exceptions; having been lawfully arrested, the warrantless search that followed was undoubtedly incidental to a lawful arrest, which as mentioned, is an exception to the constitutional prohibition on warrantless search and seizure. Conversely, the shabu seized from Araza is admissible in evidence to prove his guilt of the offense charged. People vs. Calantiao (G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014)

- Purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach.

- It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the State’s police power to (1) protect law enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2) prevent evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the integrity of the evidence under the control and within the reach of the arrestee.

People vs. Nuevas (G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463)

- search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed as in this case where the search preceded the arrest. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if

Buy-bust operation

 People vs. Collado (G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013)



s e l

b o R an

r a B

116

- The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court; the subsequent search and seizure made by the police officers were likewise valid.

Ch

r a B

People vs. Araneta (G.R. No. 191064, October 20, 2010)

s e l

- search warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed because it was a buy-bust operation and the accused were caught in flagrante delicto in possession of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. It was definitely legal for the buybust team to arrest, and search, them on the spot because a buy-bust operation is a justifiable mode of apprehending drug pushers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.

b o R

n a  h C

Invalid Search

s e bl

r a B

Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)

- A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It bears emphasis that the law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful arrest. Therefore it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings; the process cannot be reversed; Here, the search preceded the arrest of Sanchez. There was no arrest prior to the conduct of the search.

Ch

Ro an

s e l b o

b) Consented search ((waiver of right)

r a B

Requisites: People vs. Nuevas (G.R. NO. 170233, February 22, 2007

R

(1) the right exists

an

r a B

(2) the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and

Ch

(3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.

c) Search of moving vehicle

Ro an

s e bl

People vs. Mariacos (G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010)

h C

Justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


r a B

117

s e d) Check lpoints; body checks in airport b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e e) Plain view situation l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b o R r n a a B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro an h C  Abenes vs. Court of Appeals (G. R. No. 156320, February 14, 2007) - not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed; as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive. (Citing People v. Escaño, 380 Phil. 719, 733-734 [2000]) - firearm was seized from the petitioner when in plain view, the policemen saw it tucked into his waist uncovered by his shirt. People vs. Vicenerao (G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004)

- Searches conducted in checkpoints are valid for as long as they are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists

Elements- Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)

(1) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

People v. Mariacos (G.R. No. 188611, June 21, 2010, 621 SCRA 327) (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and; (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

Applicable

Miclat, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 539)

- What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.



s e l

b o R an

r a B

118

People vs. Nuevas (G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463) - An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant; if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized; if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure

Ch

b o R

s e l

r a B

an

Ch

 Not applicable

s e bl

r a B

People vs. Calantiao (G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014) - Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in this case because the police officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag, which was in Calantiao’s possession; they deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident to Calantiao’s lawful arrest.

Ch

Ro an

s e l b o

r a B

Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009)

-"plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant's guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.

R

an

Ch

r a B

Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.

f) Stop and frisk situation or “Terry search” Invalid Search

h C

Ro an

s e bl

Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014) - no valid “stop-and-frisk” search; coming out from the house of a drug pusher and boarding a tricycle, without more, were innocuous movements, and by themselves alone could not give rise in the mind of an experienced and prudent police officer of any belief that he had shabu in his possession, or that he was probably committing a crime in the presence of the officer.

b o

s e l

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

b o R an

Ch

r a B

119

People vs. Cogaed, (G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014 - He was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling aboard a jeepney. There was nothing suspicious. moreover, criminal, about riding a jeepney or carrying a bag. The assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer

r a B

but by the jeepney driver;

b o R

s e l

Two-Fold Interest: 

the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection; and



safety and self-preservation

an

Ch

s e bl

r a B

Esquillo vs. People (G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010) - essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about him.

Ro an

r a B

- The search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially noticed in petitioner's 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.

Ch

R

an

g) Enforcement of customs laws

s e l b o

Ch

Tarriff and Customs Code authorizes customs officer to:

s e bl

r a B

a. Enter, pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse;

Ro an

b. Inspect/search/examine any vessel/aircraft and any trunk/ package/box/ envelope or any person on board c. Stop and examine any vehicle/boat/person suspected of holding/conveying any dutiable/prohibited articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.

h C

s e l

b o

Salvador vs. People (G.R. No. 146706, August 15, 2005)

R n a

- law enforcers who are tasked to effect the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are authorized to search and seize, without a search warrant, any article, cargo

h C


r a B


s e l

Ch

b o R an

r a B

120

or other movable property when there is reasonable cause to suspect that the said items have been introduced into the Philippines in violation of the tariff and customs law. They may likewise conduct a warrantless search of any vehicle or person suspected of holding or conveying the said articles.

r a B h) Remedies from unlawful search and seizure s e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b o R r n a a B h s C e l b Ro r a an B h s C e l b Ro an h C 1) Motion to quash search or to suppress evidence obtained by the unlawful search warrant; Where to file

General Rule: A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. Exception:

If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court.”

Basis of Motion to suppress evidence

Art. III, Sec. 3 (2), 1987 Constitution. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Note: If no motion to suppress evidence was filed, the aggrieved party may still object to the evidence so obtained when the same is offered, invoking Sec. 3(2), Article III of the Constitution. What may be raised in the Motion to Quash

a. Existence or non-existence of probable cause at the time of issuance of the Search Warrant b. Compliance with procedural and substantial requirements 1. Employ any means to prevent the search

An officer cannot insist on entering private premises without a search warrant. Thus, the person to be search may resist the search and employ any means necessary to prevent it, without incurring any liability.



s e l

r a B

b o R an

121

2. File criminal actions against the Officer

Article 129, Revised Penal Code (Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained)

Ch

r a B

3. Replevin, if the objects are illegally possessed

s e l

Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc. (G. R. No. 165122, November 23, 2007)

b o R

- Well-settled is the rule that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.

an

XVI. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

h A. Nature C

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

Those which are resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interest and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.

r a B

The requisites and procedure for availing of these provisional remedies shall be the same as those for civil actions.

Ch

s e l b o

Note: Provisional remedies under Rule 127 are proper only where the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto has not been expressly waived of the right to institute such civil action separately is not severed in those cases where reservation may be made.

B. Kinds of Provisional Remedies

R

an

Provisional remedies in civil actions – Rules 57 to 61 Attachment (Rule 57)

Ch

Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58) Receivership (Rule 59)

Delivery of Personal Property (Rule 60)

Support Pendente Lite (Rule 61)

h C

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

s e l

Provisional remedies in criminal cases (Rule 127)

b o

Attachment Rules on attachment in criminal cases – Sec. 2

h C

R n a


r a B


s e l

r a B

b o R an

122

Sec. 2. Attachment. When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action as provided in Rule 111, the offended party may have the property of the accused attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused in the following cases:

Ch

s e l

r a B

(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;

b o R

an

Ch

r a B

(c) When the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of his property, or is about to do so; and

s e bl

(d) When the accused resides outside the Philippines.

Ro an

Note: Less grounds than those under Rule 57, Sec. 1 [Sec. 2, a, b, c, d similar to Sec. 1, a, b, e, f]

Ch

s e l b o

r a B

R

an

Ch

h C

Ro an

s e bl

r a B

s e l

b o

h C

R n a


r a B

crimpro-deleon2015

Recommend Documents