CRIMINAL PROCEDURE jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of

Atty. George S.D. Aquino that jurisdiction.

Objections on jurisdiction – matter may be raised or considered motu proprio by

JURISDICTION the court or at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
Three kinds of jurisdiction necessary in criminal prosecutions: While the jurisdiction of a tribunal may be challenged at any time, sound public
1. Jurisdiction over subject matter; policy bars one from doing so after their having procured that jurisdiction,
2. Jurisdiction over territory; and speculating on the fortunes of litigation.
3. Jursidiction over the person accused.
Jurisdiction over territory
Jurisdiction over subject matter
Venue is jurisdictional and a court is bereft of jurisdiction to try an offense
Refers to the authority of the court to hear and determine a particular criminal committed outside its limited territory.
case. In simple terms, it is jurisdiction over the offense charged.
The Court has explained that the place where the crime was committed
Generally, jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determines not only the venue of the action but also the essential element of
determine a cause – it is a question of law. jurisdiction.
It is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules. Rules of procedure yield to Venue is jurisdictional, thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with
substantive law. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and any an offense allegedly committed outside of its limited territory.
judgment, order or resolution without it is void and cannot be given effect.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon
the court by the accused, express waiver or otherwise, since such jurisdiction is Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his (1) arrest, with or
conferred by the sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only without a warrant, and (2) his voluntary appearance or submission to the
by law in the manner and prescribed by form. jurisdiction of the court.
When the law confers jurisdiction, that conferment must be clear. It cannot be As a rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the
presumed. It must appear from the statute or will not be held to exist. jurisdiction of the court. Thus, by filing several motions before the RTC and
seeking dismissal of the criminal case, respondent voluntarily submitted to the
How acquired? The court must look into allegations of the written accusation for it jurisdiction of the court. (Jimenez v. Sorongon)
to know whether or not, it has jurisdiction over the offense charged therein.
The voluntary submission of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court is
It must be stated that jurisdiction is not determined by the penalty actually imposed accomplished by either pleading to the merits such as by filing a motion to quash
after trial but by the penalty imposable by law on the offense, absent any attendant or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, appearing for
circumstances. arraignment or entering trial.
It is a firmly settled doctrine that the subject matter jurisdiction of a court in criminal There is no submission to the jurisdiction of the court when the accused files a
matters is measure by the law in effect at the time of the commencement of the motion to quash the warrant because it is the very legality of the court process
criminal action and not the law in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. forcing the submission of the person of the accused.
Continuing jurisdiction – the jurisdiction fo the court is referred to as “continuing” in
view of the general principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that

HAM 1
Criminal jurisdiction of trial courts i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, sangunniang
panlalawigan members, provincial treasures, assessors,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT engineers, and other provincial heads;
1. ALL violations of municipal ordinances within their territorial jurisdiction; ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, sangunniang panlungsod
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses with imprisonment not members, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
exceeding six (6) years, except in cases falling within the exclusive and department heads;
original jurisdiction of the RTC or the Sandiganbayan. iii. Diplomatic service consul and higher;
3. Exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property iv. Army/air force colonel or naval captain in the military or
through criminal negligence. higher;
4. BP 22 cases v. Provincial directors and PSSUPT or higher;
5. Summary procedure vi. City and provincial prosecutors, their assistants, and
a. Traffic laws, rules, and regulations; officials and prosecutors in the Ombudsman; and
b. Rental law vii. Presidents, directors/trustees, or managers of GOCCs,
c. BP 22 state universities, and GFIs.
d. Municipal/city ordinances b. Members of Congress and officials with salary grade 27 or higher
e. Imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or fine not exceeding c. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
P1000, or both; Constitution;
f. Damage to property not exceeding P10,000. d. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional commissions without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT e. All other national and local officials classified as Salary grade “27”
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction of all criminal cases not within the exclusive and up.
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body, except those now falling under 3. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall committed by the public officials in relation their office
be exclusively taken cognizance by the latter; 4. Civil and criminal cases in connection with PCGG EOs
2. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and injunction within 5. PROVIDED, that the RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where
their regions; the information:
3. Appeals from the MTC in their regions; a. Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
4. Jurisdiction over certain laws: b. Alleges damage or bribery arising from the same or closely related
a. Criminal and civil aspects of written defamation; transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding one million pesos
b. Violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; P1,000,000
c. Intellectual property rights;
d. Money laundering, except those under the jurisdiction of the A member of the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines, though a
Sandiganbayan. student, is a “director or trustee” of state university and thus falls within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Serana v. Sandiganbayan)
SANDIGANBAYAN
1. Violation of the following laws: Salary Grade “27” has no application to the enumeration of public officials like the
a. RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Protices Act provincial governors etc. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction by virtue of their
b. RA 1379 (Civil Forfeitures) positions.
c. Bribery under the RPC
2. Where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following As a rule, to make an offense one committed in relation to the offense, “the relation
positions in government, at the time of the commission of the offense: has to be such that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist without the office.”
a. Officials of the executive department occupying regional director An offense may be said to have been committed in relation to the office is the
positions, otherwise classified as salary grade 27 and up, offense is “intimately connected” with the office of the offender and is perpetrated
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING:
HAM 2
while he was in the performance of his official functions, even if public office is not
an element of the offense charged.

It is important that the complaint or information must allege the intimate connection
between the offense chaged and the discharge of official duties because the factor
that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of facts in the complaint or
information.

Example:
• Mayor had someone murdered while using his position as head of the
local police force

HAM 3
 RULE 110 respondent was not terminated upon the City Prosecutor’s approval of the
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES investigating prosecutor’s recommendation that an information be filed with court.
The prescriptive period remains tolled from the time the complaint was filed with
Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. the Prosecutor’s Office until such time tat respondent is either convicted or
acquitted by the proper court.
Criminal actions are instituted by complaint to the:
Panaguiton v. DOJ
Filing with the OFFICE OF THE Filing with the MTC
PROSECUTOR “The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings” phrase in the Prescription
Law means that if a complaint has been filed with the Prosecutor’s Office for
1. For criminal cases in METRO For all other offenses
violation of Special Penal Laws like BP 22, then the prescription is interrupted, and
MANILA and OTHER
does not necessarily mean the filing in judicial proceedings.
CHARTERED CITIES,
unless otherwise provided;
Sections 5, 16. Who must prosecute criminal actions.
2. Cases requiring
PRELIMINARY
General rule: All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be
INVESTIGATION (4-2-1 rule)
prosecuted under the control and direction of the prosecutor.

Exception: Private prosecutors may take the lead if the public prosecutor has a
The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the period of heavy workload or there is a lack of public prosecutors, who will be authorized
prescription of the offense unless otherwise provided in special penal laws in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor,
subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized, the private prosecutor
RPC and SPECIAL PENAL LAWS MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence
of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
Filing of the complaint with the Filing of the complaint with the
Prosecutor tolls the period of Prosecutor does not interrupt, only Private prosecutor: Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in
prescription (People v. Bautista, the filing in court, interrupts the the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by
Panaguiton v. DOJ) prescriptive period (Jadewell v. counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
Lidua)
The public prosecutor may turn over the actual prosecution of the criminal case to
the private prosecutor but he may, at any time, take over the actual conduct of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law: filing of the complaint before the Punong trial.
Barangay shall interrupt the prescriptive period but in no case shall the interruption
exceed 60 days from the filing of the complaint Public vs. private crimes

Prescription is interrupted even when the court has no jurisdiction Public crimes are crimes wherein any competent person can file a complaint for
the prosecution of an offense.
As a rule, there is no direct filing of an information or complaint with the RTC
because its jurisdiction covers offenses which require preliminary investigation. Private crimes are crimes wherein the public prosecutor cannot prosecute the case
where there is no complainant.
People v. Bautista
For private crimes, the absence of a private complainant would render the case
It is a well-settled rule that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal’s office dismissible; for crimes against chastity – the only witness is the offended party.
suspends the running of the prescriptive period. The proceedings against
HAM 4
Compliance with Section 5, Rule 110 is jurisdictional and not a mere formal 2. Charging a person with an offense
requirement. 3. Subscribed by
a. The offended party;
If the offended party is of age, right to file the complaint is exclusive and b. Any peace officer; or
successive (minor -> parents -> grandparents -> guardian). c. Or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated.
List of private crimes:
1. Adultery and concubinage; What is an information?
2. Seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness; 1. Accusation in writing charging the person with an offense, subscribed by
3. Defamation which consist in the imputation of the above the prosecutor and filed with the court.

2 modes for the extinction of criminal liability in seduction, abduction, and acts of An information requires no oath as the prosecutor filing the information is acting
lasciviousness under his oath of office.
1. Pardon prior to the institution of the criminal action
2. Marriage What must be alleged?
1. Name of the accused;
Piñote v. Ayco 2. Designation of the offense given by statute;
3. Cause of the accusation/acts or omission complained of;
The Court rules that a violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of the 4. Name of the offended party;
Philippines as a whole and not merely to the person directly prejudiced, he being 5. Approximate date;
merely the complaining witness. It is on this account, held the Court, that the 6. Place where the offense was committed;
presence of a public prosecutor in trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect
vital State interests. The act of allowing the presentation of defense witnesses in Acts or omissions complained of as constitutive of the offense:
the absence of complainant public prosecutor or a designated private prosecutor is • Actual recital of the facts of how the elements of the crime are
a transgression of the Rules which could not be rectified by subsequently giving accomplished must be included
the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witness. • Conflict between the designation and the body of the accusation? The
body will govern.
People v. Piccio
Sufficiency of the information
The Solicitor General has the sole authority to represent the People in proceedings
before the Court of Appeals. Thus, an appeal to the CA without the conforme of An information is valid if it sufficiently alleges the manner by which the crime is
the OSG is thus invalid. committed.

People v. dela Cerna An information is fatally defective when it is clear that it does not really charge an
offense or when an essential element of the crime had not been alleged.
An affidavit of desistance wherein a complainant has decided to withdraw the
information by stating that she had forgiven the accused in a private crime will not Objections relating to the form of the complaint or information cannot be made for
hold water. Forgiveness should be done before the institution of the criminal action the first time on appeal. The accused-appellant should move before arraignment
and not prior to the institution of the criminal action. either for a bill of particulars, for instance, if he wants to know the exact date of the
commission of the alleged offense.
Secs. 2-4, 6-13. Complaint and Information.
Every information must state the qualifying and aggravating circumstance
What is a complaint? (Sec. 3) attending the commission of the crime. It should not only be an allegation by recital
1. A sworn written statement but also including the facts that would make it as such.
HAM 5
 People v. Bayabos
The test of sufficiency in the information is whether it enables a person of common
understanding to know the charge against him, and the court to render judgment The indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical injuries were
properly. inflicted on the victim. There is no allegation that the purported acts were
employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into an organization. Failure to
Duplicity of offenses – one act = one information aver this crucial ingredient would prevent the successful prosecution of the
Ex. Rifle – one information for every person criminal responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the
Grenade – one act of throwing caused multiple deaths = one information crime of hazing.

Name of the accused Lasoy v. Zeñarosa

How to fill the name of the accused: Where the information charged the accused of selling 42.410 grams of dried
1. Name and surname of the accused and any appellation he is known; marijuana instead of kilograms and the accused has been arraigned and pleaded
2. Fictitious name if he cannot be ascertained, and must be accompanied by guilty to the charge, the information can no longer be amended.
a statement that the accused’s name is unknown;
3. His true name shall be inserted in the complaint/information if will later be People v. Puig
known.
In an information for Qualfiied Theft against bank tellers, the allegation that such
Place of the commission of the offense employees acted with grave abuse of confidence, to the damage and prejudice to
the Bank, without particularly referring to it as the owner of the money
It is not necessary to allege the exact place where the crime was committed. deposits, is sufficient.

It is sufficient to allege that the place where the crime was committed is some Ricarze v. People
place within the jurisdiction of the court.
In crimes against property, if the name of the owner of the property is unknown, it
Date and commission of the information should be described with such particularity as to the offense charged. In this case,
changing the name of the offended party is irrelevant as the property was
It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date in the described with particularity. However, if the property is a general something like
offense was committed except when the date of commission is a material element money, the name of the offended party is necessary so as to particularly describe
to the offense. the property.

The Court notes that an information where the date was stated as “on or about the Senador v. People
nd
2 of January 1996” is sufficient to cover even the December 29, 1995.
In estafa, where the name of the offended party in the information was wrong, the
When the date is not of the essence of the offense, it need not be proven as remedy is amendment/correction and not dismissal of the case. Estafa is a crime
alleged. against property and if the thing was described with particularity, then the name of
the offended party is irrelevant.
However, in case wherein the alleged date was “on or about the year 1992,” it was
held that it covered 1991 and 1993 and was too broad as for the accused to Section 14. Amendment or substitution.
account for his whereabouts in the three-year period.
FORMAL AMENDMENTS
1. New allegations relating only to the range of the penalty
2. Amendment which does not charge another offense different or distinct
from the original one
HAM 6
 3. Allegations which do not alter the prosecution’s theory of the case Identity of offenses
4. Does not affect any substantial right of the accused 1. The evidence to support a conviction for ne offense would be sufficient to
5. Adds specifications to eliminate vagueness warrant a conviction for the other
2. Second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the offense
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS charged in the first information
1. Changes the nature of the crime alleged; 3. Second offense necessarily includes or included in the first offense
2. Exposes the accused to a charge which could call for a higher penalty; charged
3. Affects the essence of the offense;
4. Causes surprise or deprives the accused of an opportunity to meet the Examples:
new averment. • Physical injuries – included in murder
• Murder necessarily includes reckless imprudence
Amendment of the information • Acts of lasciviousness – included in rape
• Falsification of public documents includes private documents
BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT AFTER ARRAIGNMENT • Malversation of public funds – includes failure to render accounts
Formal and substantial WITHOUT ONLY formal amendments with People v. Casey
leave of court EXCEPT when the 1. Leave of court; and
amendment downgrades the nature 2. It does not prejudice the The additional allegations of conspiracy is only a formal amendment, petitioner’s
of the offense or excludes an rights of the accused participation as a principal not affected by the inclusion of others. The inclusion of
accused Ricardo Felix not affecting Casey’s case.

Fronda-Baggao v. People

The multiple informations of illegal recruitment can be amended into one

Subtantial amendment in old cases information of illegal recruitment in a large scale. The rules do not state that the
1. Robbery to robbery in an uninhabited place – exposed the accused to a amendment be only as regards to one information.
higher penalty
Pacoy v. Cajigal

The averments in the amended information for murder are exactly the same as
Amendment vs. substitution those already alleged in the original information for homicide, as there was not at
all any change in the act imputed to the accused. Thus, the Court found the
Amendment Substitution amendment made in the caption and preamble from homicide to murder.
1. May involve either formal or 1. Substantial change from the
substantial changes original charge Albert v. Sandiganbayan
2. Before arraignment – may be 2. With leave of court and
without leave of court original information is Changing the information from “gross neglect of duty” to “gross inexcusable
3. Formal amendment – no new dismissed negligence” has been dememed as only a formal amendment when it would only
PI 3. New PI affect the modality of how the crime was committed. When an offense has been
4. There is identity in the offenses 4. Presupposes a different alleged, all of the modalities are necessarily included, thus, inserting gross
offense which does not inexcusable negligence only cures the mistake as to the terms used in the
include or is not necessarily modalities of the offense.
included in the original charge

HAM 7
Mendez v. People printed and published Manila, then the RTC
of Manila
Adding/removing certain branches of one’s store in the tax evasion case where the c. If holding office in the
owner is only a single proprietor is only a formal amendment. province or some
other city, then the
Section 15. Venue. RTC of that province
or city.
In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. It cannot be
waived, and can be challenged anytime. 5. BP 22 cases

The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the Where any of its essential elements occurred:
action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. When the venue is chosen, • Drawn;
exclusionary rule shall apply (where one court with jurisdiction is chosen as • Issued;
against others that also has jurisdiction, the other shall have no more jurisdiction) • Delivered; or
• Dishonored
General rule
Macasaet v. People
Criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory: It was proven in this case that the offended party was residing in Marikina at the
• Where the offense was committed time of the commission of the offense. As the paper containing the libelous article
• Where any of its essential elements occurred was published in Manila, the offended party’s choice is between Marikina and
Manila only, and not Quezon City.
Special rules
Actual Residence: MARIKINA CITY
1. Offense committed in aircraft, train, or public or private vehicle in the Place first published: MANILA
course of its trip: Court to file: MARIKINA CITY or MANILA
• Departure
• Municipalities where the vehicle passed through Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati
• Arrival
Venue in the prosecution in online libelous articles cannot be determined by using
2. Offense committed in vessel: the place where the article was first accessed. Absent any imputations where the
• First port of entry publication was done, the only recourse to a private party in libel cases is to file it
• Where the vessel passed through in their place of actual residence.

3. Punishable under Article 2 of the RPC Rigor v. People

• Cognizable by the court where action is first filed
BP 22 cases are not limited to where the check was dishonored like in Tarlac as in
4. Libel cases this case. The check was drawn, issued, and delivered in San Juan. Ergo, both
Private Individuals Public Officers Tarlac and San Juan can have jurisdiction over the case and not only Tarlac.
a. Place where they are a. Place where libelous
actually residing article was first Drawn: SAN JUAN
b. Place where libelous printed and published Issued: SAN JUAN
article was first b. If holding office in Delivered: SAN JUAN
Dishonored: TARLAC
HAM 8
Court to file: SAN JUAN (Pasig RTC) or TARLAC

Union Bank v. People

If a perjured document (e.g. Certifiacte of Non-Forum Shopping in this case) was

subscribed and sworn in Makati but filed in a Pasay court, who has jurisdiction to
hear the perjury case? Answer: MAKATI COURT. Why? It was in Makati where the
essential ingredients for the crime of perjury was done, and hence, where the
crime was committed.

Place where perjury (and essential elements) committed: MAKATI CITY

Place where perjured document was filed: PASAY CITY
Court to file: MAKATI CITY

However, if the case involved verified petitions which contained falsehoods were
filed in court, it is an altogether different story. If the petition were subscribed and
sworn in Pasig but were submitted to courts in Makati and Tagaytay, where is the
proper venue? Answer: MAKATI and TAGAYTAY courts. Why? The falsehoods in
itself only became manifest and where the alleged untruthful statement found
relevance and materiality when the petitions were filed in court. (Ilusorio as cited in
Union Bank)

Place where falsehoods were made in verified petitions: PASIG CITY

Place where verified petitions were submitted: MAKATI CITY and TAGAYTAY
CITY
Court to file: MAKATI CITY and TAGAYTAY CITY (for each count)

Treñas v. People

When the crime charged is estafa, for a court to have jurisdiction as to venue one
of any of the essential elements should have occurred within its jurisdiction. In this
case, it cannot be proven that the elements of estafa were committed in Makati
(seems like in Iloilo), and dishonor of check is not an element of estafa and thus
cannot be used as basis for venue.

Place where estafa and its essential ingredients were committed: ILOILO
Place where check was dishonored: MAKATI CITY
Court to file (for estafa): ILOILO

HAM 9
 RULE 111 AFTER criminal action be instituted until final judgment has been entered
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION in the criminal action
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action, the same
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil action. 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
General rule: when a criminal action is filed, the civil action is deemed instituted adduced shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without
Exceptions prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by
1. When the offended party waives the civil action; the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional
2. When the offended party reserves the right to institute it separately, evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil action shall be tried and decided
before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and affording the jointly.
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation;
3. When the offended party institutes the civil action prior to the criminal During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of prescription of the
action. civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been
suspended shall be tolled.
Jurisprudence explains that the civil aspect of a criminal case is based on the
principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. The 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
The purpose of civil action is for the resolution, reparation, or indemnification of the finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act of omission from which
private offended party for damage or injury he sustained of the delictual or the civil liability may arise did not exist.
felonious act of the accused.
Section 3. Separate and independent civil actions
There are instances when no civil damage results from an offense such as:
espionage, violation of neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against May be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without reservation in
popular misrepresentation. In these examples, there are no private offended the criminal action.
parties.
Failure to make reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file
Filing fees – moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages a separate and independent civil action based on the Civil Code
No filing fee – actual damages, except filing fees
The right to bring civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and
BP 22 – actual damages equal to the amount of the check involved, where no regardless of the results of the latter, and the quantum of evidence required is
amount was alleged, the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien. preponderance of evidence.

There can be no reservation of the civil action in BP 22. A separate proceeding for Ex delicto vs. independent civil action
the recovery of civil liability in cases of violation of BP 22 is allowed when the civil
case is filed ahead of the criminal case. Ex Delicto Independent Civil Action
Act or omission of as a • Culpa contractual (31)
No counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim may be filed by the accused in felony • Arts. 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code
the criminal action. • Art. 2176 (culpa aquilana/quasi-delict)

Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended. Section 4. Death of the accused.

Civil action instituted Civil action is SUSPENDED in whatever state it Death of the accused prior to final judgment, as when he dies pending appeal of
BEFORE criminal action may be found. his conviction,extinguishes his criminal liability.
Civil action instituted The separate civil action arising therefrom cannot
HAM 10
If the accused dies after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal
action, the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime is extinguished.
Corpuz v. Siapno
Such rule, however, does not apply to independent civil actions.
The civil aspect of a criminal case need not be prosecuted separately insofar as
BEFORE case is filed or AFTER JUDGMENT of AFTER finality of there is a conviction. The civil liability should be awarded and not be deemed as a
before final judgment conviction but BEFORE judgment or conviction fine.
finality
The death of the accused The death of the Judgment can be Cruz v. CA
prior to final judgment appellant pending appeal enforced against the
terminates his criminal and prior to the finality of estate of the accused or Criminal case was tried in Manila but the subject property of the civil case was in
liability and only the civil the conviction his administrator or Bulacan. In the instant case, the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
liability directly arising extinguished his criminal executor. as the law has conferred upon the court the power to hear and decide cases
from and based solely on and civil liabilities arising involving estafa through falsification of a public document. When the court has
the offense committed from the delict or crime. jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and the
(civil liability ex delicto) crime committed was within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily
exercises jurisdiction over all issues the law requires the court to resolve.
Section 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar.
Lo Bun Tiong v. Balboa
A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving defendant from civil liability is
not a bar to criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission Even under the amended rules, a separate proceeding for the recovery of civil
subject of the civil action. liability in cases of violations of BP 22 is allowed when the civil case is filed ahead
of the criminal case. Since respondent instituted the civil action prior to the criminal
Lee v. Chua action, then the civil case may proceed independently of the criminal case, and
there is no forum shopping to speak of.
The offended party may also be a private individual whose person, right, house,
liberty, or property injured by the same punishable act or omission of the accused, Co v. Muñoz
or that corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the delictual acts
complained of. In this case, the allegedly perjurious statement is injurious to the Under Rule 120, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the
petitioner’s reputation insofar as her faithful performance and duties and civil liability might arise did not exist. Ergo, if a party wants to enforce the civil
responsibilities of a Board and Treasurer of CHL. action in light of a dismissal wherein the basis had been extinguished, the whole
dismissal should be appealed.
Cancio v. Isip
Casunapan v. Laroya
The Court held that the dismissal of the case of estafa on reasonable doubt does
not preclude the offended party from filing an independent civil action with the In criminal cases, the accused does not have the right to institute civil action ex
cause of action being culpa contractual. delicto independently of the criminal case. However, the accused can file a
separate and independent civil action based on the criminal act that had occurred.
Ferrer v. Sandiganbayan It is because, as per the Rules, using logic, the accused in a separate civil action
require him to file a counter-claim, then he coul institute a separate and civil action.
The court’s determination of the administrative liability for falsification of public
documents is in no way conclusive of his lack of criminal liability. The purpose of Section 6. Prejudicial question.
administrative proceedings is to protect public service while the purpose of criminal
prosecution is punishment of the crime. Rationale: to avoid two conflicting decisions
HAM 11
 jurisdiction, where the cause of action cannot be filed anywhere except in the
Elements of prejudicial question: HLURB.
1. Civil action preceded the filing of the criminal action;
2. Civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the Pimentel v. Pimentel
criminal action;
3. Resolution of the issue in the civil case determinative of the guilt or The annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question as regards to the criminal
innocence of the accused in the criminal action; case of parricide. The issue in parricide is whether or not the accused killed the
4. Jurisdiction to try the question must be lodged in another tribunal victim, and not any other.

There is no prejudicial question if the civil law and the criminal action, can, Argovan v. San Miguel Corporation
according to law, proceed independently of each other.
A separate case involving the accused wherein there was no relation as to the
nd
2 element: both civil and criminal cases must have similar issues or the issue in offended party does not take part of a prejudicial question.
one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other. The civil case must
involve the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based
rd
3 element: civil case is determinative of the guilt of the accused in the criminal
case. 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 in the civil
action will not determine criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal
action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity that the civil case be
determined first before taking up the criminal case, therefore, the civil case does
not involve a prejudicial question.

Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola

Civil action to declare construction agreement void is not determinative of the guilt
of the accused in a BP 22 case. If private respondent indeed issued checks which
were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds, it is this fact that is subject of
prosecution under BP 22.

First Producers v. Co

The criminal action cannot be suspended when based on a prejudicial question,

assuming there is, when the civil action was filed subsequent to the institution of
the criminal action.

San Miguel Properties v. Perez

There can be a prejudicial question when the offense in the criminal case is failure
to deliver title whereas the civil case that was instituted prior to the criminal was a
determination of whether or not the receiver of BF Homes had the authority to sell
such property. In this case too, a prejudicial question is not only limited to the civil
courts but also administrative agencies who have exclusive and original
HAM 12
 RULE 112 Instances when probable cause needs to be established:
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 1. INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR – whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof
Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined. 2. JUDGE – whether a warrant of arrest should be issued
3. JUDGE – whether a search warrant should be issued
A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there 4. PEACE OFFICER OR PRIVATE PERSON – whether an offense has just
is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on the
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances that the person to be
trial. arrested has committed it
Right to preliminary investigation Section 2. Who may conduct preliminary investigations.
• It is not a constitutional right but a statutory grant 1. Provincial and City prosecutors and their assistants;
• It is a personal right, which can be waived expressly or impliedly 2. National and Regional State Prosecutors
• It is a substantive right to withhold it would be to transgress due process 3. Other officers as may be authorized by law
a. COMELEC for Election offenses
Purpose of preliminary investigation b. PCGG for PCGG matters
c. Ombudsman for Sandiganbayan offenses
1. To secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive
prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a NOTE: Those who can conduct preliminary investigations IS DIFFERENT from
crime and from the trouble, expense, and anxiety of a public trial. those who have the authority to file the information in courts OR dismiss the case
2. To protect the State from having to conduct useless and expensive trials outright. Persons whose authority is necessary are:
1. Provincial or City Prosecutor
Offenses where penalty PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 2. Chief State Prosecutor
PRESCRIBED is at least 4 YEARS, 2 REQUIRED 3. The Ombudsman or his deputies
MONTHS, AND 1 DAY
All offenses BELOW PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Preliminary investigation vs. preliminary inquiry/examination
OPTIONAL, OR WHERE THE
PROSECUTOR BELIEVES THAT A PI Preliminary investigation Preliminary examination/inquiry
SHOULD BE CONDUCTED EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PROBABLE CAUSE PROBABLE CAUSE
Probable cause • Ascertains whether the offender • Determines probable cause
should be held or released for for the issuance of a
Probable cause pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to support a well- trial warrant of arrest or
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably • Function of the prosecutor dismissal of the case (for
guilty thereof. • The investigating prosecutor is RTC) or issuance of
tasked to determine whether summons (for MTC)
Probable cause does not refer to evidence which would justify a conviction. While there is sufficient ground to • The function of the judge
it refers to probability of guilt, it requires more than a bare suspicion. This means engender a well-founded belief • Primary task of presiding
that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more that a crime has been judge is to determine
likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the committed and the accused is existence o non-existence
suspect/respondent. probably guilty thereof of probable cause or the
• If investigating prosecutor finds arrest of the accused
HAM 13
 probable cause, he executes a 6. Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall
certification at the bottom of the determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold respondent for
information to that effect trial

Sections 3-6. Process of Preliminary Investigation. Resolution

1. In resolving, the prosecutor should state:
Investigating Prosecutor a. Certify under oath the he or an authorized officer has personally
1. File a complaint with the prosecutor examined the complaint and his witnesses
a. Contents of the complaint b. There is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
i. Address of the respondent committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof;
ii. Affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses c. The accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence
iii. Supporting documents to establish probable cause submitted against him, and was given the opportunity to give
b. Copies of the documents: controverting evidence
i. The number of respondents 2. Within five (5) days, the prosecutor shall forward the record to the persons
ii. PLUS two (2) copies for the official file listed below, who shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their
c. Affidavits should be sworn before: receipt
i. Any prosecutor; a. The City or Provincial Prosecutor;
ii. Any government official authorized to administer oath; and b. The Chief State Prosecutor;
in case of the unavailability of both c. The Ombudsman or his deputy for Sandiganbayan offenses
iii. Any notary public 3. The above-listed should act within ten (10) days from receipt and notify
2. Within ten (10) days after filing, the investigating officer shall: the parties of their action
a. Dismiss it if he finds no ground; or 4. Where the investigating prosecutor recommends the dismissal of the
b. Issue a subpoena to the respondents attaching with it the (1) complaint but his recommendation is disapproved by the chief of the
complaint, (2) supporting affidavits and documents prosecution office, the latter may:
c. The respondent has the right to examine the evidence submitted a. By himself file the information against the respondent
3. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena, the respondent should: b. Direct another assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to do so
a. Submit his and his witnesses’ counter-affidavits and other without conducting another preliminary investigation
supporting documents, which should also be subscribed before
officers, furnished to the complainant
b. The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in Warrant of Arrest
lieu of counter-affidavit 1. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the
4. If respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed does not submit judge shall personally evaluate the resolution fo the prosecutor and its
counter-affidavits, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint supporting evidence. He may:
based on the evidence presented by the complainant. a. Dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
5. The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to probable cause
be clarified. b. Issue a warrant of arrest or a commitment order if the accused is
a. Parties may be present during hearing but without the right to already in custody
cross-examine, parties however may submit questions to the c. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge
prosecutor may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within
b. Hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved within
counter-affidavit. thirty (30) days from the filing fo the complaint or information
c. Hearing shall be terminated within five (5) days

HAM 14
Direct filing with the MTC
1. Within ten (10) days after the filing he finds no probable cause after The inquest proceeding shall be deemed commenced from the time that the
personally evaluating the evidence or personally examining the witnesses, inquest prosecutor receives the complaint and referral documents from the law
he shall dismiss the same. enforcement authorities. Those documents include (a) affidavit of arrest, (b) the
2. He may, however, within ten (10) days from notice, to determine further investigation report, (c) the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, and
the existence of probable cause. If the judge still finds no probable cause (d) other supporting evidence gathered.
despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days from its
submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the same. Should it be found that the arrest was not made in accordance with the Rules of
3. If he finds probable cause he shall issue a warrant of arrest, a commitment Court, the inquest prosecutor shall not proceed with the inquest proceedings.
order if the accused is already detained, or summons if he finds no Instead he shall:
necessity to put the accused in detention. 1. Recommend the release of the detainee;
2. Prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the action he took
and forward the same together with the record of the case;
Inquest proceeding 3. If approved, the order of release shall be served on the officer having
1. If the accused is lawfully arrested without warrant, the prosecutor, instead custody of said detainee so the latter may be released;
of conducting a preliminary investigation, may conduct a inquest 4. The officer shall also serve upon the detainee a notice of preliminary
proceeding. The prosecutor shall determine: investigation if the evidence on hand warrants the conduct of a regular
a. Whether said persons remain under custody; and preliminary investigation.
b. Whether they should be charged in court.
2. Inquest proceeding must be terminated within the period prescribed under Santos-Concio v. DOJ
Article 125 of the RPC
a. 12 hours for LIGHT OFFENSES Investigation process: DILG -> DOJ Fact-Finding Committee -> NBI -> DOJ Panel
b. 18 hours for LESS GRAVE OFFENSES
c. 36 hours for GRAVE OFFENSES In this case, the Court held that the Fact-Finding Committee’s finding that no
preliminary investigation should be done is different from the preliminary
investigation that is done by the DOJ Panel. The report was only for the purposes
Questioning the absence of PI; effect on jurisdiction of putting the pieces of the ULTRA incident together and does not serve as a
preliminary investigation that was dismissed, though the two panels are both DOJ.
An accused who wants to question the regularity or absence of a PI must do so
before he enters his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable Unlike a complaint or information for instituting the criminal proceeding, a
but not later than the start of the trial. Failure to invoke the right before entering a complaint in a preliminary investigation need not be contained in a single
plea will amount to a waiver. document. Complaint-affidavit is only a component of the complaint. A complaint
for PI need not be filed by the offended party, unless the offense is one which
An application for or admission of the accused to bail does not bar him from raising cannot be prosecuted de officio.
such question.
Borlongan v. Peña
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction
over the case nor does it impair the validity of the information or otherwise, renders In cases not requiring preliminary investigation, the prosecutor is not mandated to
it defective, nor is it a ground for the quahsal of the information. require the submission of counter-affidavits. Probable cause may be determined
on the basis alone of the affidavits and supporting documents of the complaint,
Section 7. Inquest proceeding. without infringing on the constitutional rights of the petitioners.

The detained person should be present during the inquest proceedings unless The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his
reasons exist that would dispense with his presence like confinement in a hospital. witnesses. There is no provision of law or procedural rule which makes the
HAM 15
submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge can determine information may not be dismissed without its approval. The trial court has the
whether or not there exists probable cause to issue the warrant. option to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal, whether
before or after the arraignment of the accused, and whether after a reinvestigation
It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the complainant, or any of his or upon instructions of the secretary who reviewed the records of the investigation,
witnesses, shall allege facts within their personal knowledge. Probable cause provided that such grant or denial is made from its own assessment and
should be based on evidence that would engender a well-founded belief. However, evaluation of the merits of the motion.
it should at least be more than a mere suspicion.
Chan v. SOJ
Racho v. Miro
The findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for
The Court ruled that a clarificatory hearing is not required during preliminary certiorari under Rule 65. The remedy is available to the aggrieved party.
investigation. Rather than being mandatory, a clarificatory hearing is optional on
the part of the investigating officer as evidenced of the use of the term “may” in the Villaflor v. Vivar
Rules. This rule applies equally to a motion for reinvestigation.
The absence of a preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the
Tolentino v. Paqueo information or otherwise render it defective. Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of
the court or constitute a ground for quashing the information. The trial court,
A Regional State Prosecutor is not one of the officers who are allowed by the instead of dismissing the information should hold in abeyance the proceedings and
Rules who can authorize the filing or dismissing of a complaint by the investigating order the public prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.
prosecutor, they are only limited to: the Provincial or City Prosecutor, or the Chief
State Prosecutor. Moreover, the information filed is quahsable as one of the Even if the information is amended to charge serious physical injuries, instead of
grounds to approve a motion to quash is when the one who filed the information the earlier charge for slight physical injuries, the accused cannot demand a new
had no authority. Fiscal Paqueo had no authority to file such an information, and preliminary investigation relative to the serious physical injuries where he already
therefore the information should be quashed. had one in relation to the charge for slight physical injuries since the change made
is only a formal amendment. The offense was changed due to the time of infirmity
Crespo v. Mogul healing was for a more lengthy time.

The trial court is not bound by the decision of the Secretary of Justice, whose San Agustin v. People
executive function is to review the filing of complaints, to withdraw the information.
Even if trial will proceed notwithstanding the fact that the prosecutor’s motion to The inquest investigation conducted by the State Prosecutor is void because
withdraw the information was not granted, the duty of the prosecutor is to see that under Rule 112, an inquest investigation is proper only when the suspect is
justice is done and should do so, if he sees fit, the least the fiscal should do is lawfully arrested without a warrant. In this case, the arresting NBI officers had no
continue to appear for the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation personal knowledge that an offense was committed either for serious illegal
of evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his director and control. detention or arbitrary detention.

Baltazar v. People When no preliminary investigation was conducted, a motion to quash is not the
valid recourse. The trial court should suspend proceedings and order a preliminary
The preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely investigation considering that the inquest investigation conducted by the State
assists him in making the determination of probable cause for issuance of the Prosecutor is null and void.
warrant of arrest. The judge does not have to follow what the Prosecutor presents
to him. By itself, the Prosecutor’s certification of probable cause is ineffectual.

We likewise held that once a case has been filed with the court, it is that court, no
longer the prosecution, which has full control of the case, so much so that the
HAM 16
Ladlad v. Velasco

Beltran Petition

Beltran was “lawfully” arrested for inciting to sedition due to the arresting officer’s
personal knowledge that an offense was committed. In this case, the inquest
should only be for the inciting to sedition and not rebellion, where the arresting
officers had no personal knowledge and based it only on affidavits that did not
even state the name of Beltran as one who was committing rebellion, thus
negating the possibility of there being probable cause.

Ladlad and Maza Petition

Issues with PI:

• The respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of Tanigue
and Mendoza of the CIDG-PNP as complaints.
• Respondent prosecutors required them to “secure copies of the complaints
and its attachments.”
• Respondent prosecutors distributed copies of the affidavits not to the
Ladlad, Maza et al. but to the media.
Indeed, by peremptorily issuing the subpoenas to petitioners, tolerating the
complainant’s antics during the investigation, and distributing copies of a witness’
affidavit to members of the media knowing that petitioners have not had the
opportunity to examine the charges against them, respondent prosecutors not only
trivialized the investigation but also lent credence to petitioner’s claim that the
entire proceeding was a sham.

Respondent prosecutors also lacked impartiality when they said “We will just
declare probable cause, then it’s up to the court to decide.”

HAM 17
 RULE 114 probability of flight if
BAIL released on bail
o That there is undue risk
Bail as a matter of right • RTC: Before conviction of an that he will commit
offense not punishable by another crime during the
reclusion perpetua, death, or life pendency of the appeal.
imprisonment • BEFORE CONVICTION IN RTC:
• MTC: Before and conviction charged with an offense
Bail as a matter of discretion • AFTER CONVICTION IN THE punishable by reclusion perpetua,
RTC: and punished by the RTC of death, or life imprisonment AND
offenses not punishable by EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS
reclusion perpetua, death, or life STRONG
imprisonment. • ALL COURTS: after judgment of
• BEFORE CONVICTION IN THE conviction has become final
RTC: before conviction of • ALL COURTS: after accused has
offenses punishable by reclusion commenced to serve sentence
perpetua, death, or life
imprisonment. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
Bail is denied • CONVICTED BY THE RTC with furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court s
penalty imposed being reclusion required under certain specified conditions.
perpetua, death, or life
imprisonment, pending appeal Bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. The
• CONVICTED BY THE RTC, purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial.
PENDING APPEAL: bail-negating
Grant or denial of bail has no impact on the civil liability of the accused.
circumstances when penalty
imposed exceeds six (6) years:
o Recidivism, quasi- The bail may be furnished by the bail applicant himself or the bondsman.
recidivism, habitual
delinquency, or If bail is the security for the release of a person under custody, bail cannot be
commission of a crime availed of by someone outside the custody of law. A free man, therefore is not
aggravated by reiteracion entitled to bail. A fugitive may not apply for bail unless he gives himself up first so
o Previous escape from he may be placed under the custody of the law. The rationale behind this rule is to
legal confinement, discourage and prevent the practice where the accused could just send another in
evasion of sentence, his stead to post his bail, without recognizing the jurisdiction of the court by his
violation of conditions of personal appearance.
bail without a valid
Custody of the law is required before the court can act out on an application for
justification
o Commission of an bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the
offense while under defendant. The mere application for bail constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack
probation, parole, or of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. However, an accused, who is
conditional pardon confined in a hospital, may be deemed to be in the custody of the law if he clearly
o Circumstances of the communicates his submission to the court while confined in a hospital. In view of
case indicate a humanitarian considerations, the court may receive bail even without the physical
appearance of the accused.
HAM 18
 b. Identification of the accused by witnesses;
Bail may also be used to guarantee the appearance of a material witness. c. Promulgation;
3. The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and
Evidence of guilt is strong despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present
thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and
Does not mean that the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but 4. The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of
rather, shows evident guilt or presumption of guilt the final judgment.

“Strong” does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt. Section 3. Duration of the bail.

Sections 10, 11, 14, 15. Kinds of bail. The undertaking under the bail shall be effective upon approval, and unless
cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of
1. Corporate surety – bail is furnished by a corporation judgment of the RTC irrespective whether the case was originally filed in or
2. Property bond – a property bond is an undertaking constituted as lien on appealed to it.
the real property given as security for the amount of bail.
3. Cash deposit – the accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit No person under detention by legal processes shall be released or transferred
in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city, • Upon order of the court; or
municipal treasurer or the clerk of court where the case is pending. • When the defendant is admitted to bail
a. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to
the payment of fines and costs, while the excess, if any, shall be Section 5, 8, 18. When bail is a matter of discretion.
returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.
4. Recognizance – an obligation on record entered into before some court to When bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing must be conducted whether or not
do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being the prosecution refuses to present evidence and the prosecutor must be notified to
the appearance of the accused for trial. Release on recognizance may be require him to submit his recommendation. This notice of hearing applies in all
ordered by the court in the following instances: cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion.
a. Where the prescribed penalty does not exceed six (6) months
and P2000 fine; Even when there is petition for bail, in a case like the one before the trial court, a
b. Where the accused has been in custody for a period exceeding hearing should still be held. Also, the fact that the public prosecutor recommended
the minimum imposable penalty; bail for the accused did not warrant dispensing with the hearing.
c. Where the accused has filed for probation, pending finality of the
judgment, but no bail was filed or the accused in incapable of filing Hearing to determine probable cause is not the same as the hearing for bail.
one;
d. Youthful offender; and Duties of the trial judge in a bail hearing when bail is discretionary:
e. Summary procedure cases. 1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require
him to submit his recommendation;
Section 2.. Conditions of bail. 2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not
the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the
1. The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its
shall remain in force at all stages until promulgation at the judgment of the sound discretion;
Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in 3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the
or appealed to it; summary of the evidence of the prosecution;
2. The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by 4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the
the court at there rules and during: approval of the bail bond. Otherwise the petition should be denied.
a. Arraignment;
HAM 19
Evidence in bail hearing are automatically reproduced at the trial.
When bail as a matter of discretion is granted, it cannot be cancelled. (insert something about possibility of escape and all)
Section 16. When bail is not required
Section 21. Forfeiture of bail.
• When the law or the rules of court so provide
• When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than When the presence of the accused is required by the court of these Rules, his
the possible maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offense bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and
charged time. If the accused fails to appear in person as required, his ball shall be declared
o If the penalty is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of forfeited and the bondsmen shall be given thirty (30) days within which to produce
preventive imprisonment their principal and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered against
• If the charge is a violation of a local ordinance, light felony, or where the them for the amount of their bail.
imprisonment is not greater than 6 months and/or a fine of Php2,000, or
both. Within the said period, the bondsmen must:
1. Produce the body of the principal or give reason for his non-production;
Section 17. Where application for bail is filed. and
2. Explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first
1. General rule: where the case is pending. If the judge is absent: required to do so.
a. With any RTC or MTC judge in the same city/province/municipality Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the
2. If arrested in a place other than where the case is pending bondsmen, jointly and severally for the amount of bail. The court shall not reduce
a. Any RTC judge of that place; and if not available or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been
b. Any MTC judge in that place surrendered or is acquitted.
3. Any person in custody who has not yet been charged in court can file his
application for bail with any judge in the city/municipality/province where Aside from forfeiture, when the accused fails to appear in court despite notice, the
he is being held court may issue a bench warrant for his arrest.
4. When bail is a matter of discretion, application for bail may only be applied
in the court where the case is pending. Bail CANNOT BE CANCELLED when the judge feels that there is a risk that he
5. On appeal: accused may jump bail. His recourse would be to increase the amount of bail. If
a. In the trial court when the accused has filed a notice of appeal but the accused did indeed jump bail, he would forfeit the bail and issue a bench
the records of the case has not yet been transmitted to the warrant. He will however issue a new bail wherein the judge can increase the
appellate court; amount of bail in which the accused would have to post.
b. In the appellate court when appeal has been perfected
Section 22. Cancellation of bail.
When bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge who
accepted bail shall forward it, together with the order of release and other 1. Bail may be cancelled upon application of the bondsmen with due notice to
supporting papers, to the court where the case is pending, which may, for good the prosecutor:
reason, require a different one to be filed. a. Upon surrender of the accused; or
b. Proof of death of the accused.
Section 20. Increase or reduction of bail. 2. Bail is automatically cancelled:
a. Acquittal of the accused;
Even after the accused is admitted to bail, the amount of bail may either be b. Dismissal of the case; or
increased or reduced by the court upon good cause. c. Judgment of conviction is executed.

The increased amount must be given within a reasonable period if the accused The appropriate remedy against the trial court’s cancelling of the bail is by filing
wants to avoid being taken into custody. with the Court of Appeals a motion to review the said order in the same regular
HAM 20
appeal proceedings which the appellant himself initiated, such motion being an Andres v. Beltran
incident to his appeal. The filing of a separate petition via a special civil action for
certiorari before the appellate court is proscribed and contravenes the rule against The failure of the accused and of counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing is
multiplicity of suits and constitutes forum shopping. (Chua v. Court of Appeals) not a valid ground for cancellation of bail. Nowhere in the provisions of Rule 114
does such ground exist. Bail may only be cancelled according to the provisions of
Section 26. Effect of posing bail. Sec. 22, Rule 114. Bail may only be increased or decreased upon good cause
shown.
It shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or legality of
the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity of questioning the Leviste v. CA
absence of Pi of the charge against him.
When a case is on appeal, the appellate court has discretion whether to grant the
Filing a motion for lifting the hold departure order and for leave to go to another petition for bail. The absence of bail-negating circumstances in cases where the
country is a waiver of the right to assail the validity of the arrest warrant. penalty imposed exceeds six years does not mean that bail will automatically be
granted as a matter of right. The essence of ‘discretion’ would be diminished if
San Miguel v. Maceda such were the case. The rule, therefore, is when there is the presence of bail-
negating circumstances, bail shall be denied. In its absence, bail is discretionary
The existence of a high degree of probability that the defendant will abscond upon the court.
confers upon the court no greater discretion than to increase the bond to such
an amount as would reasonably tend to assure the presence of the defendant People v. Fitzgerald
when it is wanted, such amount to be subject, of course, to the other provision that
excessive bail shall not be required. Following then the above ratiocination, The health of the accused is not a valid basis for granting bail as a matter of
respondent judge’s only recourse is to fix a higher amount of bail and not cancel discretion when the penalty prescribed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or
the previously fixed bail. death. It is only upon a showing that the evidence of guilt is not strong can the
accused be released on bail. The accused can avail of medical services whilst in
Lavides v. CA detention. BUT

A condition wherein the accused is made to plea during arraignment before he can Enrile v. Sandiganbayan
validly post bail is an invalid condition. The respondent judge reasoned out that
arraignment should be done so that the court would easily have jurisdiction over Enrile is old, and sick. For humanitarian considerations, he should be released.
the person of the accused. However, this would run contrary to the rights of the Moreover, he is a veteran of many cases wherein he did not escape. He should be
accused to file for a motion to quash and other remedies pre-arraignment that granted bail. Fucking bullshit.
questions the validity of the information. In having to be arraigned before being
released from his detention, the accused would be constrained to choose between Esteban v. Alhambra
liberty or quashal, and cannot choose both. (This has been cured by Sec. 26, Rule
114 however.) We hold that the cash bail cannot be cancelled. Petitioner did not surrender the
accused, charged in the four criminal cases, to the trial court. The accused was
Moreover, the condition that when the accused, after posting bail, fails to appear in arrested and detained because he was charged in a subsequent criminal case.
one hearing will be deemed as a waiver of his right to appear in trial and trial will Moreover, the bail bond posted was in the form of cash deposit. As a cash deposit,
proceed in absentia is also invalid. There are instances where the accused must it cannot be cancelled “by the bondsman surrendering the accused to the court.”
appear in trial and his non-appearance would render such proceeding infirm. (See Cash deposits, even if posted by another person, are deemed to be the property of
section on Section 2) the accused. Cash deposits do not have bondsmen, and are only applicable to
corporate sureties. Thus, there can be no surrender of the accused by the
bondsman when the bail posted is a cash deposit, and therefore bail cannot be
cancelled.
HAM 21
 RULE 115 Plea of self-defense – If the accused admits to committing the crime, but pleads
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to prove such
defense by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige
In all criminal proceedings, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: of criminal aggression on his part.
1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable
doubt; Right to be informed
2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of The information must contain (Rule 110):
the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. 1. Name of the accused
4. To testify as a witness on his own behalf but subject to cross- 2. Name of the offended party, if any
examination on matters covered by direct examination; 3. Acts or omissions constituting the offense
5. To exempt from being a witness against himself; 4. Qualifying and aggravating circumstances, if any
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at trial; 5. Place of the commission of the crime
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of 6. Time of the commission of the crime
witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf;
8. To have a speedy, public, and impartial trial; and The information must be stated in ordinary and concise language, not necessarily
9. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. the language used in the statute, but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is being charged and the attendant
qualifying and aggravating circumstances present, so that the accused can
Right to be presumed innocent properly defend oneself and the court can pronounce judgment.

An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and this presumption prevails A person charged in the information with simple rape cannot be convicted of
over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. qualified rape though it may be proven in trial that the offense committed was
qualified. It would be a denial of his right to be informed.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt – the prosecution has the burden to prove (1) the
fact of the crime; and (2) that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. In BP 22 cases, the identity of the check is necessary to secure the conviction of
the accused. If the check that was alleged in the information was not that was
The determination of whether the prosecution has fulfilled such a heavy burden is presented in court, then the accused must be acquitted.
left to the trial court, which, in turn, must be satisfied with moral certainty that an
accused has indeed committed the crime on the basis of facts and circumstances When an ambiguity exists in the information, the court has no other recourse but to
to warrant a judgment of conviction. As such, the presumption of innocence is not resolve the ambiguity in favor of the accused.
meant to be forever – it ends when it is overcome in a final conviction.
When the counsel of the accused actively participated in the proceedings, that
The conviction of the accused must stand on the strength of the prosecution’s indicates that the accused was fully aware of the charges against him; otherwise,
evidence, not on the weakness of the defense which the accused must put up. his counsel would have objected and informed the court of the blunder. But the
failure to file a motion to quash the information cannot amount to a waiver of the
Equipoise rule – the application of the rule is triggered by a situation where the constitutional right to be informed.
court is faced with conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, and
where the evidence, facts, and circumstances are capable of two or more Right to counsel
interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and
one with his guilt. This situation cannot fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not Any person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall at all
sufficient to support a conviction. The court, then, will have to resort to the times be assisted by competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
equipoise rule. own choice.

HAM 22
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and While the right to counsel is sacred in criminal proceedings, there is no such right
the suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in in administrative proceedings. The right to counsel is not imperative in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 125. administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to
determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring
Counsel shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person in custody. public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of public
service.
In order to comply with the constitutional mandate, there should likewise be
meaningful communication to and understanding of the rights of the suspect, as Right to speedy trial
opposed to a routine, peremptory, and meaningless recital thereof.
The right to speedy trial is a right of the accused in a criminal case. It cannot be
Jurisprudence supports the view that a mere inquiry on the commission of a crime invoked by someone who is not an accused.
by law enforcement authorities does not automatically trigger the application of
right to counsel. The principle of “speedy trial” is a relative term and necessarily involves flexibility.

The moment a police officer tries to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain The right to speedy trial does not preclude justifiable postponements and delay
information from a suspect, the latter should, at this juncture, be assisted by when warranted by the situation. In the application of the constitutional guarantee
counsel, unless he waives this right in writing and in the presence of counsel. of the right, particular regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case.
A police line-up is not yet part of the custodial inquest since the accused at that
stage is not yet being investigated. In the line-up, the right to counsel does not yet The right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when the proceedings are
attach. However, when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified
an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or
custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the part having
person to elicit incriminating statements, then it said that custodial investigation his case tried.
has begun.
Test in determining whether there is a violation of the right to speedy trial
Right to counsel; choose counsel; competent and independent counsel
Factors to determine if the right to speedy trial has been violated:
There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio is appointed 1. Duration of the delay;
during the absence of the accused’s counsel de parte. The choice of counsel by 2. Reason for the delay;
the accused in a criminal proceeding is not a plenary one. If the chosen counsel 3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert; and
deliberately makes himself scarce, the court is not precluded from appointing a de 4. Prejudice caused by the delay.
oficio counsel, which it considers competent and independent, to enable the trial to
proceed until the counsel of choice enters his appearance. The Court adopted the “balancing test” in which the conduct of both the conduct
of the prosecution and the defendant are weight. The test necessarily compels the
The right to counsel may be waived but to insure that the waiver is voluntary and courts to approach speedy trial on an ad hoc basis where courts should assess
intelligent, the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of the counsel of the and identify certain facts which courts should assess in determining whether a
accused. particular defendant has been deprived of his right such as the length of the delay,
the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and the prejudice
An extrajudicial confession executed by a suspect assisted by a counsel who to the defendant.
failed to meet the exacting standards of an independent and competent counsel is
deemed an uncounseled confession and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. The two US Supreme Court approaches that were the bases for such balancing
test were:

HAM 23
 1. “Fixed-time period” which holds the view that the Constitution requires a Right against self-incrimination
criminal defendant to be offered a trial within a specified time period; and
2. “Demand-waiver rule” which provides that a defendant waives any The privilege is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from
consideration of his right to speedy trial for any period prior to which he extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him and to avoid a person
has not demanded trial. Under this rigid approach, a prior demand is a subject so such compulsion to perjure himself from his own protection. The
necessary condition to the consideration of the right to speedy trial. Government must establish the guilt of the accused by evidence independently
and freely secured. It cannot, by coercion, prove a charge against an accused by
Effect of the violation of the right to speedy trial his open mouth.

The trial court may dismiss a criminal case on a motion if the accused is not Scope of the right
brought to trial within the time prescribed and is deprived of his right to a speedy
trial. There is also a permanent dismissal of a criminal case where the ground for Jurisprudence holds that the privilege against self-incrimination protects a person
dismissal is a violation of the right of the accused to a speedy disposition or trial of only from testimonial compulsion or a compelled testimony of a communicative
the case against him. nature.

Where after such dismissal, the prosecution moved for the reconsideration of the The Court also explained that the right against self-incrimination is a prohibition on
order of dismissal and the court reset the case for trial, the accused can the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort communications from him, not
successfully claim double jeopardy since the order of dismissal was actually an an exclusion of his body as evidence, when it may be material.
acquittal, which is final and cannot be reconsidered.
Force re-enactments are also incriminatory, as per the case of People v. Olvis, as
In the motion to dismiss on speedy trial, the accused shall have the burden proving it is considered as evidence communicatory in nature.
the motion but the prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the
evidence to establish the exclusion of time. Having to make the accused write for comparison to the prosecution’s evidence is
also a violation of this right, as writing is “not a purely mechanical act, because it
Time limits (A.M. No. 12-11-2 SC) requires the application of intelligence and attention.”

Act Time Reckoning period In the case of Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was made to sign the
Raffle of the case and Within 3 days Filing of the information envelopes seized from him. The Court considered this act as non-incriminatory as
assignment to a particular the accused was only made to authenticate said envelopes as the one seized from
sala his and did not produce new evidence.
Arraignment Within 10 days Raffle and assignment
Pre-trial Within 30 days Arraignment Claim of privilege
(Within 10 days if under
preventive detention) The right against self-incrimination is not self-executing or automatically
Start of trial Not later than 30 days Pre-trial operational. It must be claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf of the witness, the
Termination of trial Within 180 days Start of trial protection does not come into play.
(Within 60 days if trial by
judicial affidavits) To waive such privilege, the waiver must be certain and unequivocal, and
intelligently, understandably, and willingly made, such waiver following only where
Waiver of the right to speedy trial liberty of choice has been fully accorded.

The right to speedy trial may be waived.

HAM 24
Right to testify as a witness Where the prosecution has justifiable reason for the delay (in this case, misplaced
documents), the case should not be dismissed for reason of violation of the
The accused has the right to testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to accused’s right to speedy trial. Such right is not based on a mere mathematical
cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. computation but on the totality of circumstances as mentioned earlier.

If the accused does not want to testify in his behalf and chooses to remain silent, People v. Baloloy
his silence “shall not in any manner prejudice him.”
The accused in admitting the crime of rape to the Barangay Captain was not yet
Right to compulsory process under custodial investigation and such admission can be admitted as evidence. He
was arrested thereafter.
The accused may move for the court for the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum or a subpoena duces tecum pursuant to the provisions of Rule 21 of When the accused was brought to the court, his verbal admission to the
the Rules of Court. commission of the offense cannot be used as evidence against him as he was
already considered under custodial investigation However, such admission can be
corroborated by the witnesses via testimonial evidence who heard the exchange
Perez v. People and be admitted as evidence.

Right to counsel People v. Teves

Perez was contending that his admission to the offense of malversation of public The accused being ordered to board his jeepney and re-enact the scene being
funds was uncounseled and should therefore be removed as evidence. The Court described by the witness was self-incriminatory. The act was pointedly suggestive
held that his admission was made before the Provincial Treasurer of Bohol in an and communicative in nature. This method of identification is as tainted as an
administrative investigation, where the right to counsel does not apply. Moreover, uncounseled confession and thus, falls within the same ambit of the
his admission was voluntary and he gave an explanation where the funds went. constitutionally entrenched protection. Moreover, the witness did not even
positively identify the accused as the one she saw the night the accused’s wife
Right to speedy trial was murdered.

Perez’ right to speedy trial was likewise not violated as his many years of trial did People v. Musa
not fall squarely with the balancing test as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Perez did not assert his right as he did not file a motion that would connote that he The accused was positively identified by the witness who was aboard the same
was asserting such right. Perez, according to the court, slept on his right. jeepney where the crime was committed. The accused was identified by the
witness through an out-of-court identification where photos are shown to the
Cruel and unusual punishment witness and was made to identify the suspect. Such circumstances, however, must
be met. The witness must meet the following:
Imprisonment for malversation of public funds is not cruel and unusual 1. Opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the offense;
punishment. Perez’ reimbursement of the funds does not in any way absolve him 2. Degree of attention that the witness had;
of liability. He should still be punished with imprisonment and absent any strong 3. Accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
argument that would compel such statute punishing malversation with 4. Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness during the identification;
imprisonment be raised, then it could not be considered as abhorrent to the 5. Length between the time of the crime and identification; and
Constitution. 6. Lack of suggestiveness in the identification process.
Where all are met, out-of-court identification can be considered as evidence.
Benares v. Lim

HAM 25
Aquino v. Paiste

Even if custodial investigation has set in, it is deemed abandoned when the
complainant and the respondent forges an amicable settlement. Thus, any
admissions made in the amicable settlement can be admitted as evidence even
though they were unassisted by counsel. In this case, even if it was an admission
under custodial investigation, it would still be admitted as there was the presence
of counsel.

People v. Serzo

The right to counsel is an absolute. However, the right to hire a counsel is only
limited, it is only preferred – “preferably of his own choice.” The accused cannot
reason out that having differing counsels as being violative of his right to counsel.
The accused cannot hold the court hostage as to whom he wants to hire as
counsel de parte. As long as he has competent and independent counsel, even if
differing counsels de oficio, it is all right.

Dela Cruz v. People

The act of extracting urine from the accused for purposes of drug testing is not
violative of the right against self-incrimination. It is allowed if it is material to the
principal cause of the arrest. In this case, however, the principal cause of the
arrest was for extortion committed by the accused. It is not in anyway related to
drugs, though the cause for the extortion is drugs. Thus, the accused cannot be
prosecuted for use of illegal drugs when the urine that was extracted from said
accused to determine said use was not material to the principal cause of arrest,
which is again, extortion.

HAM 26
 RULE 116 It must be:
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA 1. Made in open court by the judge or clerk furnishing the accused with a
copy of the information
Arraignment is the formal mode and manor of implementing the constitutional right 2. Reading the information in a language known to the accused
of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against 3. Asking the accused whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
him. Its purpose is to apprise the accused why he is being prosecuted by the
State. As such it is an indispensable requirement of due process and thus, cannot The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his
be regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily. plea. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but failure to do so shall
not affect the validity of the proceeding.
The absence of arraignment results in the nullity of the proceedings before the trial
court. There can be no trial in absentia without arraignment. Arraignment shall be held thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided by
Before arraignment a special law or by the Rules.

Before arraignment and plea, the accused may avail of any of the following: Arraignment can also be made even if the case was already submitted for
1. Bill of particulars – a more comprehensive accusatory document decision. (Very risky tbh) (People v. Pangilinan)
2. Suspension of arraignment (Section 11)– upon motion, the proper party
may ask for the suspension of arraignment in the following cases: The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for the
a. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental following purposes: (a) plea bargaining, (b) determination of civil liability, and (c)
condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand other matters requiring his presence.
the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto.
b. There exists a prejudicial question; In case the offended party fails to appear despite due notice, the court may allow
c. There is a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily
before the SOJ or the OP, and shall not exceed 60 days from the included in the offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor.
filing of the petition. When the accused has been arraigned, the
SOJ can no longer entertain any petitions for review. Plea of not guilty
3. Motion to quash; and
4. Challenge the validity of arrest or legality of warrant Aside from the actual plea of not guilty, the plea of not guilty shall be entered if the
accused:
Arraignment under amended information 1. Refuses to enter a plea;
2. Makes a conditional plea; or
Where the accused has been already arraigned and subsequently, the information 3. Pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence in which case the guilty
was substantially amended, an arraignment on the amended information is plea shall be deemed withdrawn
mandatory because the accused has the constitutional right to be informed of the
accusation against him. When the amendment is only formal, there is no need for The accused, by entering a plea of not guilty, submits himself to the jurisdiction of
another PI and another arraignment. the trial court, thereby curing any defect in the arrest. Such waiver does not carry
with it the right to question the admissibility of evidence procured on the occasion
Section 1. How made. of or incidental to lawful arrest.

The accused must be arraigned in the court where the information was filed or The Court also held that while the accused requested for a lesser penalty, such
assigned for trial. cannot be considered a conditional plea. It is still a plea of guilty with the added
ingredient of appealing to emotion.

HAM 27
An accused may not foist a conditional plea of guilty on the court by admitting his 1. To conduct a searching inquiry to (a) ascertain the voluntariness of the
guilty provided that a certain penalty will be meted unto him. A plea of guilty with a plea, and (b) to ascertain whether or not the accused has full
proviso that a certain penalty be imposed is equivalent to a plea of not guilty and comprehension of the consequences of his plea;
would, therefore, require a full-blown trial. 2. To require the prosecution to prove the following: (a) the guilty of the
accused, and (b) the precise degree of his culpability
A formal plea of not guilty should properly be entered if an accused admits the 3. To ask the accused if he wishes to present evidence in his behalf and
truth of some or all the allegations in the information, but interposes excuses or be allowed to do so, if he desires.
additional facts which, if duly established, would exempt or relieve him in whoe or
in part of criminal responsibility. In capital offenses, one cannot just lean on the presumption that the accused has
understood his plea. A mere warning that the accused faces the supreme penalty
Plea of guilty of death is insufficient.

A plea of guilty is a judicial confession of guilty – an admission of all the material Section 5. Plea of guilty to a non-capital offense.
facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances alleged.
When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may receive
The evidence may disprove the existence of aggravating circumstances despite evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be imposed.
the plea of guilty because a plea of guilty does not dispense with the presentation
of evidence. In this instance, the provision in which a searching inquiry shall be made into the
voluntariness of the plea of the accused is not applicable.
When the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may receive
evidence to determine the penalty. Section 6. Duty of the court during arraignment.

Section 2. Plea bargaining. Before arraignment, the court shall:

1. Inform the accused of his right to counsel;
At the arraignment, the accused may plead guilty to a lesser offense. The court 2. Ask the accused if he desires to acquire counsel; and
shall allow the plea provided the following requisites occur: 3. Assign a counsel de oficio to defend him unless:
1. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged; a. The accused shall defend himself; or
2. The plea must be with the consent of the prosecutor and the offended b. The accused has already employed counsel.
party. Exception: Sec. 1(f), Rule 116.
The duty is mandatory and the only instance when the court can arraign without
The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the benefit of counsel is if the accused waives such right and the court, finding the
the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound accused capable, allows him to represent himself in person. The insistence of the
discretion of the trial court. accused to be arraigned without representation is no reason for the judge to
accede readily to his wishes.
Pleading guilty to a lower offense may be made at arraignment, after arraignment
as long as it is before trial. Sections 7-8. Counsel de oficio.

Section 3. Plea of guilty to a capital offense. The court shall appoint as counsel de oficio members of the bar in good standing
who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, it is not proper for the court to accused. In localities where members of the bar are not available, the court may
immediately render judgment on the basis of the guilty plea. Instead, the court is appoint any person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and
mandated to perform the following acts: ability, to defend the accused.

HAM 28
The counsel de oficio shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the accused was committed in the first arraignment was thereafter cured when the accused
as to his plea before proceeding with the arraignment. pled guilty to rape the second time he was arraigned as the first decision
sentencing him to 10 years was set aside.
Section 9. Bill of particulars.
People v. Ulit
The accused may, before arraignment move for a bill of particulars to enable him
to properly plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects When the accused changed his plea of not guilty to guilty, the trial court should
of the complaint or information and desired. conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of his plea and full
comprehension of the consequences attendant such plea. (Case: rape; Sentence:
Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of death) In this case, the trial court failed to make a searching inquiry. If the plea
the prosecution. was the only basis for the conviction and sentence of death, then the conviction
must be set aside. However, if the guilt of the accused was proven through other
Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties, evidence received independently of the plea, then the conviction can stand.
the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order the
prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of Daan v. Sandiganbayan
any written statement given by the complainant and other witnesses in any
investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or other investigating While the Sandiganabayan discretion whether to accept the plea bargain or not,
officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, the standards set forth in the Estrada case as regards plea bargaining should also
photographs, objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which constitute be applied in this case, which involved a higher amount of money. (Doctrine: the
or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case and which are in trial court has discretion to accept plea bargain, just make sure that the discretion
the possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law isn’t arbitrary)
investigating agencies

Section 11. Suspension of arraignment.

Arraignment may be suspended upon the following grounds:

1. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition
which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against
him and to plead intelligently thereto.
2. There exists a prejudicial question;
3. There is a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor before
the SOJ or the OP, and hsall not exceed 60 days from the filing of the
petition. When the accused has been arraigned, the SOJ can no longer
entertain any petitions for review.

People v. Magat

Magat pled guilty to the crime of rape and sentenced to ten (10) years for each
count of rape after a plea bargain where said Magat pled guilty so long as there be
imposed a lesser penalty. The Court held that such plea was void ab initio as a
plea bargain can only be availed of if the accused shall plea to a lower offense
necessarily included in the offense charged, and not to the same offense with the
condition that the penalty be lower. Nonetheless, whatever procedural infirmity
HAM 29
 RULE 117 Motion to quash vs. demurrer to evidence
MOTION TO QUASH
A motion to quash a complaint or information is filed before the accused enters his
plea. A demurrer to evidence in a criminal case is filed after the prosecution rests
Section 1. Time to move to quash. its case.

Quashal should be done at any time before the accused enters his plea (ergo, A motion to quash does not require prior leave of court, while a demurrer to
before arraignment). evidence may be filed with or without leave of court.

Nature of a motion to quash Section 3. Grounds for motion to quash.

Characteristics of a motion to quash: 1. Facts charged do not constitute an offense

1. It is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of the criminal 2. The court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged (subject matter)
complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in 3. The court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused
point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the 4. The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so
information 5. The information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
2. It is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information 6. More than one offense is charged
3. Matters extrinsic of the information are not to be considered (with 7. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
exceptions of course). If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may 8. Contains averments that would constitute legal excuse or justification
order that another complaint or information be filed except when the 9. Double jeopardy
information is quashed on the ground of extinction of criminal liability or
double jeopardy. Rules in a motion to quash

A motion to quash is an omnibus motion since the rule impliedly requires that all 1. The Motion to Quash must be made before arraignment or the grounds
the objections available at the time the motion is filed should be invoked. The rule for the motion shall be deemed waived EXCEPT the following grounds:
instructs that the failure to assert any ground of a motion to quash before a plea to a. Facts charged do not constitute an offense
the complaint or information shall be deemed a waiver of any objections. b. Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
c. The criminal action or liability has been extinguished
A motion to quash is generally not allowed in a summary procedure except on d. Double jeopardy
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with 2. The granting of a motion to quash shall not be a bar to the refilling of an
the barangay conciliation proceedings mentioned in the Rules on Summary information for the same offense EXCEPT:
Procedure. a. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
b. Double jeopardy
Section 2. Form and content of the motion to quash. 3. The court is precluded motu propio from dismissing the case using the
grounds in a motion to quash EXCEPT:
The motion to quash shall be in (1) writing, (2) signed by the accused or his a. Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
counsel, and shall (3) distinctly specify the factual and legal grounds. The court 4. The Motion to Quash is an omnibus motion. The rule instructs that failure
shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of to assert any ground of a motion to quash before a plea to the complaint
jurisdiction over the offense charged (subject matter). or information shall be deemed a waiver of any objections.
5. The court in a Motion to Quash cannot receive evidence aliunde
EXCEPT:
a. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
b. Double jeopardy

HAM 30
Grounds make the amendment, or (b) despite the amendment, the information still suffers
from the same defect, the court shall grant the motion to quash.
The court shall only consider the grounds as stated in the motion to quash.
Section 5-6. Effect of sustaining a motion to quash and bar to subsequent
An affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, prosecution.
once it has been instituted in court.
An order sustaining a motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the
The absence of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest is not a same offense. However, another complaint or information may not be filed when
ground for the quashal of the information but is a ground for the dismissal of the the ground relied upon is either (a) double jeopardy, or (b) extinction of criminal
case. liability.

As a rule, matters of defense are not grounds for a motion to quash. Thus, if the If the order to file another complaint or information is made, the accused, who may
accused files a motion to quash the information for homicide because he only be in custody, shall not be released, except if he is admitted to bail.
acted in self-defense, and such fact is not alleged in the information, then the court
should proceed with a full-blown trial. Section 7. Double jeopardy.

The absence of a preliminary investigation or inability to participate in the The right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution for a crime of which he
preliminary investigation is not a proper ground for a motion to quash but for a has been previously convicted or acquitted. For example, if an accused has been
petition for reinvestigation. acquitted of frustrated homicide, he can no longer be accused of the same offense
or of an offense necessarily included in frustrated homicide like attempted
Facts alleged do not constitute an offense homicide.

When the ground relied upon is that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense, There is no double jeopardy when it comes to administrative cases.
the test is that when the averments in the information, if hypothetically admitted,
would establish the essential elements of the offense as defined by the law without Requisites for double jeopardy:
considering the matters aliunde. 1. Upon a valid indictment;
2. Before a competent court;
Remedy for a denial of motion to quash 3. When a valid plea has been entered;
4. After arraignment; and
Being an interlocutory order, the only remedy available to the accused is a Rule 65 5. When the defendant has been acquitted or convicted, or the case was
petition for certiorari where the court, in denying the motion, acted with grave dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. accused

Section 4. Amendment of the information. The same criminal act may give rise to two or more separate and distinct offenses.
No double jeopardy attaches as long as there is variance between the elements of
The existence of a valid ground for sustaining a motion to quash will not the two offenses.
necessarily result in the dismissal of the information. If the motion to quash is
based on the alleged defect of the information, and the defect can be cured, the Double jeopardy is not applicable during preliminary investigation. Preliminary
court shall order than an amendment be made. investigation is executive in character. It does not contemplate a judicial function. It
does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy. PI is not a trial.
If the motion is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, the court shall give the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect by For double jeopardy to be invoked, there must be a valid complaint or information
amendment. However, if despite such opportunity, the prosecution (a) fails to or formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. The
sufficiency of the complaint or information or the formal charge is dependent on
HAM 31
whether the same could sustain a conviction. If it could not sustain a conviction Acquittal, however, may be reviewed where (a) there has been a deprivation of
desired, then the charge is not a valid one and would preclude double jeopardy. due process and when there is a finding of a mistrial; or (b) there has been a grave
abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.
An information, when required to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be
filed by another. It must be exhibited or presented by the prosecuting attorney or The State may assail the acquittal by a special civil action for certiorari under Rule
someone authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. 64, when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its discretion,
resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. This is because
There can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in a court that judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion or without due process of law is
has no jurisdiction. void, does not exist in legal contemplation, and thus cannot be the source of an
acquittal.
The application of the rule against double jeopardy requires that the accused has
pleaded to the charge. Hence, if before arraignment, the prosecutor withdrew an Appeal by the accused
information charging theft and later on filed another information for theft or robbery
against the same accused, double jeopardy cannot be invoked. When the accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives his
right to the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole
There is no double jeopardy in the reinstatement of a criminal case dismissed case open to review by the appellate court.
before arraignment and upon his express motion.
Civil aspect
For the accused to invoke double jeopardy, it must be shown that, in the prior
charge, he had been either convicted or acquitted. He may also show that the A reading of jurisprudence discloses the rule that the acquittal of the accused does
case against him had been dismissed or terminated without his express consent. not affect the right of the offended party to appeal the civil aspect of the case. The
public prosecutor cannot appeal the civil aspect of the decision. The acquittal ends
Jurisprudence holds that the consent that would preclude another prosecution in his work and the case is terminated as far as he is concerned.
order to be deemed an express one should be “positive, direct, unequivocal, and
requiring non inference or implication to supply it meaning.” There is consent when Quasi-offenses
the accused not only consented but also asked for its provisional dismissal.
A conviction or acquittal of a quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the
The following are dismissals equal to acquittals EVEN WHEN it is procured with same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts. The law penalizes the
the consent of the accused: negligent or careless act and not the result thereof. The gravity of consequence is
1. Dismissal due to violation of right to speedy trial only taken into account to determine the penalty and it does not qualify the
2. Demurrer to evidence substance of the offense.
3. Discharge as a state witness
Thus, when the accused has been charged with reckless imprudence resulting to
Discharge of a state witness – double jeopardy unless the accused fails or refuses damage to property, he cannot thereafter be charged with reckless imprudence
to testify against this co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement resulting to homicide emanating from the same act after his acquittal/conviction of
constituting the basis of the offense charged. the first charge. The doctrine, emphasized by the court in Ivler v. San Pedro, is
that quasi-offenses are offenses in themselves and not merely a means to commit
Finality-of-acquittal doctrine other crimes.

As a rule, an acquittal rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction after trial on No double jeopardy
the merits is immediately final and cannot be appealed because of double
jeopardy. The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an
offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or
information under any of the following circumstances:
HAM 32
 1. The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the proceedings on the motion to quash when the ground is that the facts alleged do
same act or omission constituting the former charge (e.g. less serious not constitute an offense.
physical injuries to serious physical injuries);
2. The facts constituting the graver charge became known or discovered only People v. Romualdez
after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or
3. The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made of the prosecutor and of If the allegations in the information is sufficient enough to hold a conviction, such
the offended party. information should be sustained. In this case, the allegation of “undue injury” as an
element of violating RA 3019, consisting of the extent of the injury and how it was
Not the same offenses, examples of: causes, is complete. Beyond this allegation are matters that are already in excess
of what a proper Information requires.
• SPL and RPC offenses
o Theft of electricity under RPC and PD 401 Perez v. Sandiganbayan
o Estafa under RPC and illegal recruitment
o Estafa under RPC and BP 22 While the Special Prosecutor can conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute
o Direct bribery under RPC and RA 3019 cases in the Sandiganabayan, the Special Prosecutor cannot file Informations in
the Sandiganbayan absent any resolution from the Ombudsman or from Deputy
Section 8. Provisional dismissal. Ombudsmen. All that is delegated to the Special Prosecutor was the discretional
authority to review and modify the Deputy Ombudsmen-authorized information.
1. A case shall not provisionally dismissed except with the express consent Thus, the motion to quash should be granted in this case on the ground that the
of the accused and with notice to the offended party Information was not filed by the authorized officer.
2. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years, or both, shall become permanent ONE YEAR People v. Laggui
after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. For more
than six (6) years, it shall become permanent TWO YEARS after issuance Though the Court held that the accused Eli Soriano did possibly commit the
of the order. offense and should be brought to trial, the dismissal by the court of the case
against Soriano without his express consent, and after entering a plea and
The provisional dismissal of the case does not operate as an acquittal since its meeting all the requirements of double jeopardy, double jeopardy has attached
dismissal was made with the express consent of the accused, thus, there is no and cannot be prosecuted for the same offense again.
double jeopardy. Thus, within the periods stated, the prosecution has to revive the
case if it desires to prevent the provisional dismissal becoming permanent and the People v. Honrales
revival of the case being time-barred.
The accused was first charged with parricide in the RTC. However, the resolution
Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground thereof. of the Prosecutor was overturned and found that that the accused should be
charged with reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, an MTC case. Pending
See above. appeal of the resolution, the accused was charged in the MTC for the said offense,
and subsequently pled guilty and was convicted. The RTC, in the meanwhile,
Antone v. Beronilla dismissed the case before the CA found that the offense charged should really be
parricide. The dilemma before the Court was that would the accused be in double
The granting of a motion to quash anchored on the ground that the facts charged jeopardy if the case for parricide was remanded to the RTC notwithstanding his
do not constitute an offense is not a bar to another prosecution or the same conviction in the MTC. The Court held that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the
offense. Moreover, matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash. In case of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, applying the doctrine of
this case, the accused presented evidence that his marriage was already null so exclusionary jurisdiction, where a case is filed in one court, it retains jurisdiction
as to exculpate himself from the charge of bigamy. Such is immaterial to over the case to the exclusion of all other courts. Thus, there is no double
jeopardy.
HAM 33
Villaon v. Chan A motion to withdraw information differs from a motion to dismiss. While both put
an end to an action filed in court, their legal effect varies. The order granting
The RTC dismissal of the bigamy case against the accused does not become final withdrawal of the information attains finality after fifteen (15) days from receipt
even if it was not assailed by the complainant in its appeal. By appealing, the case thereof, without prejudice to the re-filing of the information upon reinvestigation. On
is thrown wide open before the appellate court and is not limited to the issued the other hand, the order granting a motion to dismiss becomes final fifteen (15)
raised by the complainant. Thus, no double jeopardy can attach if the case is days after receipt thereof, with prejudice to the re-filing of the same case once
remanded to the RTC to try said case. such order achieves finality.

People v. De Grano Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products

The accused De Grano was convicted of Murder by the RTC for the killing of No notice of the motion for provisional dismissal was served on the private
Mendoza. During the promulgation, however, De Grano was absent, with complainant, thus there can no provisional dismissal. Thus, the case can be
Estanislao being the only one present. Estanislao filed for a motion for revived without a time-bar.
reconsideration, so did De Grano and the other absentees. In its resolution, the
RTC sustained Estanislao’s conviction but acquitted De Grano. On appeal, De Los Baños v. Pedro
Grano argued that his acquittal could not be appealed as it has already attained
finality and would be placed under double jeoaprdy. The Court held that De Provisional dismissals under Section 8 is not intended to lead to double jeopardy
Grano’s acquittal was void ab initio as the RTC abused its discretion in giving due as provided under Section 7, but nevertheless creates a bar to further prosecution
course to De Grano’s MR though he was absent from his sentencing. Being under the special terms of Section 8. Thus, once provisional dismissals become
absent from one’s sentencing renders one unable to avail of post-conviction permanent after the time prescribed under the Rules, no prosecution can
remedies, an MR being one of that. Thus, De Grano’s acquittal was rendered by a thereafter be made.
court that was not competent (no jurisdiction) to do so, and no first jeopardy has
therefore attached.

Suero v. People

No jeopardy arises from Suero’s acquittal in the Sandiganbayan for violation of RA

3019 as opposed to his pending case of falsification of public documents under the
RPC. The two, other than being SPL vs. RPC, differs widely as regards to its
elements, the only thing being common is that the offender is a public officer.

People v. Torres

Torres was charged with robbery with homicide but was convicted only of simple
homicide. On appeal, the CA found that the accused Torres did indeed commit
robbery with homicide. On appeal to the SC, Torres argues that double jeopardy
has attached in his conviction for simple homicide and therefore cannot be
anymore convicted of robbery with homicide. The Court held that in appeals, the
accused waives his constitutional safeguards against double jeopardy and throws
the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, and could thus modify
the conviction.

Torres v. Aguinaldo
HAM 34
 RULE 118 During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask the questions on issues
PRE-TRIAL raised therein and all questions must be directed to him to avoid hostilities
between the parties.
Section 1. Pre-trial mandatory in all criminal cases. Section 2. Pre-trial agreements.
A pre-trial is a proceeding conducted before the trial of the case for the purpose of All agreements and admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference
considering the following: shall be:
1. Plea bargaining 1. Reduced in writing; and
2. Stipulation of facts 2. Signed by the accused and counsel.
3. Marking for identification of evidence of the parties If this is not followed, such admissions cannot be used against the accused.
4. Waiver of objections to the admissibility of evidence
5. Modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but Section 4. Pre-trial order.
interposes a lawful defense; and
6. Such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and Within ten (10) days after the termination of pre-trial, the trial judge shall issue a
civil aspects of the case Pre-trial Order setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial conference, the
facts stipulated, the admissions made, the evidence marked, the number of
Under existing rules, no evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered witnesses to be presented and the schedule of the trial.
during the trial other than those identified and marked during pre-trial except when
allowed by the court for good cause shown. The Pre-trial Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of
and control the course of the action during the trial, unless modified by the court to
Pre-trial is mandatory in the MTC, RTC, and the Sandiganbayan, and should be prevent manifest injustice.
held 30 days after arraignment or within 10 days if the accused is preventively
detained, and if trial is by judicial affidavits, said judicial affidavits must be Pre-trial in civil vs. in criminal
submitted 20 days after arraignment.
CIVIL CRIMINAL
If the counsel for the accused or the prosecutor fails to appear for pre-trial, the
Motion ex-parte Required NOT REQUIRED
court may impose sanctions or penalties. (Sec. 3, Rule 118)
Date After all pleadings have THIRTY (30) DAYS
been filed AFTER ARRAIGNMENT
Duty of the judge
Purpose Possibility of an amicable DOES NOT CONSIDER
Before the pre-trial conference, the judge must study the allegations in the settlement THE PROPRIETY OF
information, the statements in the affidavits of witnesses, and other documents RENDERING A
which form part of the record of preliminary investigation. JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
When plea bargaining is agreed upon, the court shall: (a) issue an order to that Sanction Any party who does not Counsel of the accused
effect, (b) proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case, and (c) appear or the prosecutor
render and promulgate judgment of conviction including the civil liability or Pre-trial briefs Yes NO
damages duly established.
Judicial dispute resolution
When plea bargaining fails, the minutes of the preliminary conference as part of
the pre-trial proceedings; confirm the markings of exhibit et al. Cases subject to mediation for JDR
1. All civil cases, except those which by law may not be compromised
2. Cases cognizable by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law
3. Civil aspect of BP 22
HAM 35
 4. Quasi-offenses
5. Civil aspect of estafa and libel
6. Civil aspect of theft

Bayas v. Sandiganbayan

Bayas contends that the pre-trial agreement he made with the prosecution should
be withdrawn after his new counsel urged him to do so. The Court held that the
accused cannot unilaterally withdraw the pre-trial agreement unless for good
cause shown. Absent any fraud or vitiated consent, the pre-trial agreement is
binding upon the parties. The reason that the accused changed counsels and that
his previous counsel counseled him badly is not good enough cause for
withdrawal.

Another argument foisted by the accused Bayas is that since the pre-trial
agreement was not yet approved by the trial court, such an agreement is not
binding between the parties. The Court held here that the approval of the trial court
is not necessary so as to bind the parties. The trial court only approves such
agreements merely to emphasize the power of supervision by the trial court over
the parties and to enable it to control the flow of the proceedings. Once the
stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by both parties and their counsels,
they become binding upon the parties and become judicial admissions of the fact
or facts stipulated.

HAM 36
 RULE 119 whereabouts cannot be determined by due diligence, unavailable when his
TRIAL whereabouts are known but presence cannot be obtained by due
diligence)
9. Mental incompetence or physical inability of the accused to stand trial
Section 1. When trial shall commence. 10. Accused is joined for trial with a co-accused over whom the court has not
acquired jurisdiction
After entering a plea of not guilty, the accused shall have at least fifteen (15) days 11. Continuance granted by any court
to prepare for trial.
Section 4. Postponement or continuance.
Trial shall commence thirty (30) days from the receipt of the pre-trial order.
A continuance may, among others, be granted if continuing the proceeding is
Speedy trial rule: trial shall commence thirty (30) days from the termination of the impossible or would result in a miscarriage of justice.
pre-trial conference.
Factors to determine continuance:
If the accused is not brought to trial in accordance with the time limit set by Sec. 6 1. Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance would likely make a
of Rule 119, the information may be dismissed upon motion of the accused. continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of
justice
The accused shall have the burden for proving the ground for his motion. The 2. Whether or not the case, taken as a whole, is so novel, unusual, and
prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence to establish complex, due to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution,
that the delay belongs to the exclusion of time mentioned in Sec. 3 of Rule 119. or that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within periods of
time established therein.
The motion for dismissal must be made PRIOR to trial.
Prohibited grounds for continuance:
Section 2. Continuous trial until terminated. 1. Congestion of the court’s calendar
2. Lack of diligent preparation
Trial once commenced shall continue day to day as far as practicable until 3. Failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the prosecutor
terminated. It may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause.
Section 11. Order of trial.
In no case shall the entire trial exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first
day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court. 1. PROSECUTION: present its evidence to prove the charge and prove the
civil liability
Section 3. Exclusions. 2. DEFENSE: present his evidence to prove his defense and damages he
sustained, if any
The following must be excluded from the computation of time within which trial 3. PROSECUTION: rebuttal evidence, or additional evidence related to the
must commence: main issue if the court allows
4. DEFENSE: sur-rebuttal, or additional evidence related to the main issue if
1. Examination of the physical and mental condition of the accused the court allows
2. With respect to other criminal charges against the accused 5. CASE SUBMITTED FOR DECISION
3. Resulting from extraordinary remedies against interlocutory orders
4. Resulting from pre-trial proceedings not exceeding thirty (30) days The order of trial may be modified when the accused admits the act or omission
5. Orders of inhibition or proceedings related to the change of venue of cases charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense.
6. Prejudicial question
7. Any proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement Section 12, 13, 15. Examination of defense, prosecution witnesses.
8. Absence or unavailability of an essential witness (an essential witness is
considered absent when his whereabouts are unknown or his
HAM 37
DEFENSE Section 14. Securing the appearance of a material witness.

A defense witness may apply for the conditional examination of witnesses in his Either party may, upon motion, secure an order from the court for a material
behalf. The motion shall state: witness to post bail for such sum as may be deemed proper, if the court is satisfied
1. Name and residence of witness upon either (a) proof, or (b) oath that a material testify will not testify when
2. Substance of testimony required.
3. That the witness:
a. is too sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for believing If the witness refuses to post bail, the court shall commit him to prison until he
that he will not be able to attend trial; complies or is legally discharged after his testimony is taken.
b. resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of
trial; or Section 16. Trial of several accused.
c. other similar circumstances exist that would make him unavailable
for trial. When two or more accused are jointly charged for an offense, they shall be tried
jointly, unless the court, in its discretion, and upon motion of the prosecutor orders
If the court is satisfied that the examination of a witness for the accused is a separate trial for one or more of the accused.
necessary, an order shall be made directing that the witness be examined at a
specific date, time, place and that a copy of the order be served on the prosecutor Section 17. Discharge of accused to be a state witness.
at least three (3) days before the scheduled examination. The examination shall
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the prosecutor provided he was duly One or more of the accused tried jointly with the others may, however, be
notified of the hearing. A written record of the testimony shall be taken. discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state. For this
purpose, the prosecutor shall comply with the following:
The examination shall be taken before a: 1. File a motion for the discharge of the accused
1. Judge; or if not practicable 2. File the motion before the prosecution rests its case
2. A member of the Bar in good standing so designated by the judge in the
order; or The court, upon receipt of the motion, shall require the prosecution to present
3. An inferior court if ordered so by a superior court. evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness. The court shall
conduct a hearing in support of the discharge.
*Note: depositions of defense witnesses under Sec. 4, Rule 24 MAY be allowed by
the trial court in its discretion. The evidence adduced in the support of the discharge shall automatically form part
of the trial, but if the court denies the motion, the accused’s sworn statement shall
PROSECUTION be inadmissible as evidence.

For prosecution witnesses, when it satisfactorily appears that the witness is (a) too Requisites for discharge of accused to be a state witness
sick or infirm to appear at trial, or (b) has to leave the Philippines with no definite
date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined in the court where 1. Two or more are jointly charged with the commission of an offense;
the case is pending. 2. The motion for discharged is filed by the prosecutor before it rests its case
3. The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement
Such examination, in the presence of the accused or in his absence provided he of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge
was duly notified, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination 4. The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and
during trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice 5. The trial court is satisfied that:
shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or a. There is absolute necessity of the testimony of the accused;
the accused b. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of the
said accused;
HAM 38
 c. The testimony of the accused can be substantially corroborated on Formal offer of evidence
its material points;
d. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and The formal offer of evidence allows the parties to object to the presentation of an
e. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense evidence which may not be admissible for the purpose for which it is offered.
involving moral turpitude.
Documents which may have been identified and marked as exhibits during pre-trial
*Not the most guilty does not mean the least guilty or trial but which were not formally offered in evidence cannot, in any manner, be
treated as evidence.
Section 18. Discharge an acquittal.
Section 23. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.
The discharge of an accused to be a state witness operates as an acquittal and
shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, except if the accused A demurrer to evidence is actually a motion to dismiss that is filed by the accused
fails or refuses to testify. after the prosecution has rested its case.

Section 19. Mistake in the offense charged. The party filing the demurrer in effect challenges the sufficiency of the
prosecution’s evidence.
If the accused was charged with the wrong offense, the court shall order the filing
of a new information and dismiss the original case. However, the accused shall not The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of evidence raised in a demurrer is
be discharged if there appears good cause for his continued detention. merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to
sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. There is sufficient evidence,
Section 24. Re-opening of the proceedings. for example, if the specific acts constituting rape, as alleged in the information,
was proven even if the victim’s minority was not. A demurrer to evidence for failure
At any time before the finality of judgment, the judge may, motu propio or upon to prove the minority of the victim is not proper.
motion, with hearing in either case, re-open the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage
of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS from To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove:
the order granting it. 1. The commission of the offense
2. The precise degree of the participation therein by the accused.
Trial in absentia
The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the
The accused can only be tried in absentia if: trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of
1. The accused has been arraigned; grave abuse of discretion.
2. The accused has been duly notified of the trial or hearings; and
3. The absence of the accused or his failure to appear is unjustified. The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the
demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.
Instances where accused is required to be present:
1. Arraignment; Demurrer to evidence by the court
2. Trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and
3. Promulgation, except when it is for a light offense, then the accused may The court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the action without waiting for a
be appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the demurrer from the accused also on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence. The
proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived. rule, however, requires that the court shall do so only after giving the prosecution
the opportunity to be heard.

HAM 39
Leave of court The court, after granting the demurrer, can still proceed to trial if the grant of
demurrer cites reasonable doubt, as the accused can still be liable for the civil
The demurrer to evidence may be filed with or without leave of court. liability as against the offended party, as opposed to an acquittal based on the fact
that no crime was committed, then there be no civil liability.
The motion for leave of court shall be filed within non-extendible period of five (5)
days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose the motion JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after receipt.
Submission: Not later than FIVE (5) DAYS before pre-trial or preliminary
The motion for leave of court shall contain the grounds for the demurrer. conference, the judicial affidavits of witnesses shall submitted and shall take place
of witnesses’ direct testimonies. (In criminal actions: submission by the
If GRANTED, the demurrer shall be filed within ten (10) days after notice of the prosecution)
grant of the motion.
The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witnesses on his
If DENIED, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. judicial affidavit. The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to strike
out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on the ground of inadmissibility.
No leave of court
Application of judicial affidavits
If the demurrer filed without leave of court is GRANTED, then the accused is
acquitted. • Where the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
• Where the accused agrees, irrespective of the penalty;
If the demurrer filed without leave of court is DENIED, the accused waives the right • With respect to the civil action, whatever the penalties involved;
to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the
evidence of the prosecution.
OPTIONAL USE OF JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS (Accused agrees to it)
Motion to dismiss vs. demurrer RTC
6 YRS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss, not grounded on insufficiency of evidence, then it is not a MANDATORY USE OF JUDICIAL AFFIDAVITS
demurrer. MTC

To determine whether the motion is a motion to dismiss or a demurrer to evidence,

the following must be considered: The prosecution shall submit the JAs not later than five (5) days before the start of
1. Allegations in it must be made in good faith; pre-trial conference.
2. The stage of the proceeding at which it is filed; and
3. The primary objective of the party filing it. If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the JAs of the
prosecution, the accused shall have the option to submit his as well as that of his
Granting of demurrer an acquittal witnesses’ JAs ten (10) days after the receipt of the prosecution’s JAs. These
affidavits shall serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when
The granting of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal, and first jeopardy they appear before the court to testify.
shall attach.
Contents (Sec. 3, JAR)
Though it is an acquittal, it can still be reviewed through a Rule 65 petition for
certiorari if the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or • Name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of witness;
excess of jurisdiction. • Name and address of the lawyer who conducted the examination

HAM 40
 • Statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully SUMMARY PROCEDURE
conscious that he does so under oath under pain of penalty of law
• The information Affidavits are included in the filing of the information. The defense can submit
• Signature of the witness counter-affidavits in the court where the trial by summary procedure is being held.
• Jurat

Sworn attestation of the lawyer (Sec. 4, JAR) Visbal v. Vanilla

• He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked Judge Vanilla ordered the archiving of the case as the accused was absent during
and the corresponding answers that the witness gave; and trial and when the prosecution was able, ready, and willing to testify. On the same
• Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the day that the accused was absent, Judge Vanilla archived the case and ordered it
witness regarding the latter’s answers. be revived upon the arrest of the accused. The Court held that this was in violation
of Administrative Circular 7-A-92 wherein cases could only be archived if the
A false attestation shall subject the lawyer mentioned to disciplinary action, accused remains at large six (6) months after the issuance of a warrant. In this
including disbarment. case, the case was archived the same day as the issuance of the bench warrant.

CONTINUOUS TRIAL RULE Note: AC 7-A-92 also provides more grounds where cases can be archived by the
court motu propio or upon motion:
Sec. 11. Form of testimony 1. Accused is suffering from an unsound mental condition;
2. Prejudicial question;
(a) For FIRST LEVEL COURTS (MTC, MeTC, MTCC, MCTC) 3. Interlocutory order under review by a higher court; or
4. Accused jumps bail before arraignment and could not be arrested by his
In all criminal cases including those covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, bondsman.
the testimonies of witnesses shall consist of the duly subscribed written statements
given to law enforcement or peace officers or the affidavits or counter-affidavits Cabrador v. People
submitted before the investigating prosecutor, and if such are not available,
testimonies in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to additional direct and cross- The trial court ruled that accused Cabrador’s Motion to Dismiss was in fact a
examination questions. Demurrer to Evidence that was filed without leave of court. Said court denied the
motion and set the case for decision as it considered the motion as a demurrer.
Ergo, what can be used as testimony? The Court held that Cabrador’s motion to dismiss was based on his right to speedy
• The records of the case; or if not available or the prosecution does not trial and not on the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, the latter mentioned
want to use it for his evidence only in passing in the accused’s motion. Moreover, the motion was filed the same
day as the prosecution formally offered its evidence, thus, the prosecution has not
• Judicial affidavits.
yet rested as the defense is still given the opportunity to object to said
prosecution’s evidence.
(b) For SECOND LEVEL COURTS (RTC), SANDIGANBAYAN and COURT OF
TAX APPEALS
Salazar v. People and JY Brothers
• Oral testimonies of technical experts (important people) may be dispensed
Salazar was charged with estafa and eventually was acquitted by the court
with and their statements before law enforcement or the prosecutor, of
granting her demurrer to evidence. However, anent with such grant, the trial court
record, can be used as testimonies without the need for consent of the
found her civilly liable and ordered her to pay damages. Salazar argues that she
accused. If not available, use judicial affidavits.
should be given the opportunity to present her side as regards her civil liability to
• When the culpability of the accused is being testified upon by an alleged the offended party. The Court held that should the trial court grant the demurrer
eyewitness, oral testimony shall be used. and find her only civilly liable and not criminal, trial should still proceed for the
HAM 41
purposes of determining said civil liability, if any. Accused’s right to due process is • Absolute necessity of Montero’s testimony – Montero was the only one
violated if she be sentenced to pay damages but did not have a chance to defend willing to testify against his co-accused, thus there was an absolute
herself as to the civil liability. necessity for his testimony.
• Testimony can be substantially corroborated in material points – The Court
Cabarles v. Maceda found that Montero’s testimony can be corroborated in material points.
The inconsistencies that Jimenez point out are, according to the Court,
Though a case may be re-opened even before judgment is rendered by the trial best settled in trial
court. However, the trial court should first conduct a hearing before the case may • Montero is not the most guilty – Jimenez contends that a principal by
be re-opened. In this case, Judge Maceda did not conduct a hearing and thus the inducement, of which he is accused, should have lesser guilt, than that of
proceedings done after it were considered by the Court as null and remanded the a principal by direct participation, of which Montero was accused of being,
case back to the trial court for proper action. being the one who “killed” Ruby Rose. The Court held that while the being
a principal by inducement does not necessarily mean that he is the most
Go v. People guilty or vice versa, Montero does indeed not appear the most guilty. From
the evidence submitted in the hearing for discharge, it appears that
The prosecution contends that the complainant, an old Laotian man, be allowed to Montero did not have any direct participation in the killing of Ruby Rose,
be conditionally examined by the Philippine Embassy in Laos as he was sick and and only participated in the crime by throwing the steel box onto the sea.
old and infirm. The Court, however, denied the petition of the prosecution, and said Thus, the discharge of Montero was procedurally sound and the trial court did not
that only the trial court where the case is pending is the only possible venue where gravely abuse its discretion.
conditional examination of the prosecution’s witnesses can be conducted. This is
as opposed to witnesses for the defense which can be conditionally examined by
another judge or a member of the Bar.

Ampatuan v. de Lima

Ampatuan contends that the witness Dalagdag should be indicted for murder as he
has already confessed his participation in two sworn affidavits, thus mandamus
lies on the DOJ to file an Information against him. The Court held that the
prosecution of crimes is an executive function and that the discretion to file an
Information is left to the discretion of the public prosecutor. Moreover, the DOJ
intends to use Dalagdag as a state witness. Ampatuan contends that Dalagdag
first be indicted THEN discharged by the trial court so as to operate as a state
witness. The Court held that there are two modes of becoming a state witness: (a)
discharge of an accused to be state witness, and (b) the witness’ admission into
the Witness Protection Program. Dalagdag need not be an accused and
discharged thereafter so as to make him a state witness. As Dalagdag was not yet
an accused, his being a state witness and admission into the WPP is upon the
discretion of the DOJ.

Jimenez v. People

Jimenez argues that Montero did not meet the conditions of being a state witness.
The Court said he did.

HAM 42
 RULE 120 Failure to object to the duplicity of offenses amounts to a waiver and cannot be
JUDGMENT raised for the first time on appeal.

Section 4-5. Variance doctrine.

Section 1. Judgment; definition and form.
OFFENSE CHARGED OFFENSE PROVED CONVICT OF WHAT
A judgment is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of
Let A be offense charged B, then A includes B B, the OFFENSE
the offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil
PROVED
liability, if any.
Let A be offense charged B, then B includes A A, the OFFENSE
CHARGED
Formal requisites of judgment:
1. Written in the official language
2. Personally and directly prepared and signed by the judge
An offense charged necessarily includes offense proved when some of the
3. It must contain clearly and distinctly a statement of:
essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or
a. Facts
information constitute the latter.
b. Law upon which it is based

For a valid judgment, the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter, Ex:
territory, and the person of the accused. Charged: MURDER
Proved: HOMICIDE
Section 2. Contents of the judgment. Convict: HOMICIDE

An offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the

If the accused is convicted, the judgment must contain:
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the
1. Legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the
latter
accused
2. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances which attended the commission
Ex:
of the offense
3. Participation of the accused whether as (a) principal, (b) accomplice, or (c) Charged: ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
accessory Proved: RAPE
4. Penalty imposed upon the accused Convict: ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
5. Civil liability or damages, if not reserved or waived
Section 6. Promulgation of judgment.
If the accused is acquitted, the judgment must contain:
1. If the prosecution (a) absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused, or Judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and judge
where it is rendered. If only for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in
(b) merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
the presence of accused’s counsel or representative. The judgment may be
2. Determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did
promulgated by the clerk of court if the judge is absent or outside the province or
not exist
city.
Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses.
If the accused is confined in another province or city, judgment may be
If the accused fails to object before trial for the violation of Sec. 13 of Rule 110, the promulgated by the Executive Judge of RTC of the court having jurisdiction over
accused is deemed to have waived the defect and the court may convict him for as the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which rendered
many offenses as charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each judgment.
offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.

HAM 43
If the accused fails to appear during promulgation, the promulgation shall not be arise did not exist. The trial court also acquitted her for the estafa case, but was
suspended, instead, (a) the judgment shall be recorded in the docket and (b) be found to be civilly liable and order to pay P500,000 the amount of the checks.
served upon the last known address of the accused or his counsel. Rimando contends that because there was no basis for her civil liability in the BP
22 case, the estafa case should have no basis either. The Court held that BP 22
If the judgment is for conviction, and the failure to appear is without justifiable and estafa are two distinct cases and while one may have no basis for the civil
cause, the accused shall lose all remedies available to him in the Rules of Court liability (BP 22), the other can have a basis for the civil liability (Estafa).
and the court shall order his arrest (if out on bail).
Sevilla v. People
However, if the accused surrenders to the court within fifteen (15) days, he can file
for leave of court to avail of post-conviction remedies. If granted, he shall be Sevilla was charged with violation of Art. 171(4) of the RPC or falsification of public
granted fifteen (15) days after notice to avail of such remedies. documents. The Sandiganbayan convicted him of said offense charged through
reckless imprudence and sentenced him to the sentence prescribed in Article 365
If for acquittal, tapos ang kwento. or for quasi-offenses. Sevilla argues that his right to be informed of the cause and
nature of the accusation against him was violated as he was convicted of an
Section 7. Modification of judgment. offense that was not in the Information. The Court held that quasi-offenses, being
culpable offenses, are necessarily included in willful offenses. In another note, the
A judgment of conviction may be modified or set aside, upon motion of the Sandiganbayan used the wrong terminology as reckless imprudence is not a
accused, before the judgment becomes final or before appeal is perfected. modality of committing the wilfull offense but a separate offense altogether. Thus,
the Sevilla should be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of
A judgment becomes final if: public documents and not falsification of public documents through reckless
1. After the lapse of period for perfecting an appeal imprudence.
2. When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served
3. When the accused waives in writing his right to appeal
4. The accused has applied for probation.

No appeal can be taken if the accused has applied for probation, except as to the
sentence imposed.

People v. De Grano

De Grano was absent during the promulgation of his murder case, while
Estanislao was present. Both (to make things simpler) filed a motion for
reconsideration for the overturn of said judgment. De Grano was acquitted while
Estanislao was still convicted. The Court held that De Grano’s acquittal via a
motion for reconsideration was void as the trial court gravely abused its discretion
when it took cognizance of De Grano’s MR whereas the consequence of his
absence during promulgation was that he cannot avail of post-conviction remedies.
Estanislao, on the other hand, could avail of post-conviction remedies as he was
present.

Rimando v. Aldaba

Rimando was charged with both estafa and BP 22. The trial court acquitted her in
the BP 22 case and found that the act or omission from which the civil liability may
HAM 44
 RULE 113 The head of the law enforcement agency shall cause the warrant to be executed
ARREST within ten (10) days after receipt. After the expiration of the period, the officer to
whom it was assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who issued
the warrant.
Section 1-2. Definition; how made.
Section 6. Time of making arrest.
An arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to
answer for the commission of an offense. Day N Nite – Kid Cudi
An arrest is made by the actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his Section 7-9. Method of arrest.
submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. No violence or
unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The person arrested shall
not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. OFFICER WITH WARRANT: When making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the
officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and of the
Requisites for issuance of warrant of arrest fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest, except when he flees or forcibly
resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of
A warrant of arrest shall issue only upon a finding of probable cause to be such information will imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant in his
determined personally by the judge. possession at the time of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so
requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.
Probable cause – such facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT: When making an arrest without a warrant, the
person sought to be arrested; as long as evidence shows a prima facie case officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the
against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant of arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is
arrest pursued immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees or forcibly resists
before the officer has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such
Personal examination – the judge may opt to personally evaluate the report and information will imperil the arrest.
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may disregard the
prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of PRIVATE PERSON: When making an arrest, a private person shall inform the
witnesses person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and cause of the arrest, unless
the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued
Conducting such examination is only one of its options aside from making a immediately after its commission, or has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before
personal evaluation of the evidence or requiring the submission of additional the person making the arrest has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving
evidence of such information will imperil the arrest.

Section 3. Duty of arresting officer. Section 10. Officer may summon assistance.

It shall be the duty of the arresting officer executing the warrant to arrest the
An officer making a lawful arrest may orally summon as many persons as he
accused and deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without unneccesary
deems necessary to assist him in effecting the arrest. Every person so summoned
delay.
by an officer shall assist him in effecting the arrest when he can render such
assistance without detriment to himself.
Section 4. Execution of warrant.

When a warrant of arrest is issued by a judge, the warrant is delivered to the Section 11-12. Right of officer to break into and out of building or enclosure.
proper law enforcement agency for execution.

HAM 45
An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or without a The rule requires that the accused (a) perform some overt act that would indicate
warrant as provided in section 5, may break into any building or enclosure where the has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense,
the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused and (b) is committing said overt act in the presence or within the view of the
admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose. arresting officer.

Whenever an officer has entered the building or enclosure in accordance with the In this type of warrantless arrest, the person making the arrest himself witnesses
preceding section, he may break out therefrom when necessary to liberate the crime and, hence, has personal knowledge of the commission of the offense.
himself.
Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not always be attributed to
one’s consciousness of guilt.
Section 13. Arrest after escape or rescue.
In People v. Molina, the Court unequivocally ruled that “as applied in in flagrante
If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately delicto arrests, it is settles that ‘reliable information’ alone, absent any overt act
pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the
Philippines. arresting officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify
an in flagrante delicto arrest.”
Section 14. Right of attorney or relative to visit person arrested.
Section 5(b) – Hot pursuit
If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately
pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the This exception does not require the arresting officer or person to personally
Philippines. witness the commission of the offense. The tenor of the rule emphasizes the
immediacy of the arrest reckoned from the commission of the crime. In People v.
Rights of the person arrested del Rosario, the Court held that an arrest one day after the commission of the
• Right to be assisted by counsel at all times crime does not fall under the hot pursuit exception, as immediacy is lacking.
• Right to remain silent
Personal knowledge – “In the hot pursuit exception, the person making the arrest
• Right to be informed of such rights
knows for a fact that a crime has been committed” (People v. Villareal) even
• Right to be visited by immediate members of his family, or by counsel, or
though the arresting officer has not seen the crime being committed.
by any NGO (RA 7438)
Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an
Section 5. Lawful warrantless arrest.
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Instances when a valid warrantless arrest may be made:
Effect of an illegal arrest on the jurisdiction of the court
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
The legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of
2. When an offense has just be committed, and he has probable cause to
the accused. The illegality of the arrest, cannot, in itself, be the basis for acquittal.
believe, based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and
Also, even if the warrantless arrest of an accused is later proven to be invalid,
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
such fact is not a sufficient cause to set aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
Posting bail shall not affect the right of the accused from challenging the legality of
his arrest, provided the he raises the objections prior to entering his plea
Section 5(a) - In flagrante delicto
voluntarily.
HAM 46
AAA v. Carbonell dead person lying in the street and that eyewitnesses pointed to Jayson, who was
running away, as the person who killed the dead person lying on the street.
When complainant AAA failed to take the witness stand when required by the trial Moreover, the search incidental to lawful arrest conducted upon him was lawful as
court so as to determine probable cause to arrest the accused, the trial court the arrest was lawful. His gun is admissible as evidence.
dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. The Court held that the trial court
gravely abused its discretion as the complainant or any person is not required to People v. Edaño
take the witness stand in his personal determination of probable cause. The duty
of trial judge is only to personally examine the records of the case and determine When the accused was arrested while merely talking to a police informant, and
probable cause from thereon. The trial judge failed to examine the records, and there was no overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise that could properly be
thus the case was reinstated and remanded for trial. attributed to the said accused to arouse suspicion, there can be no lawful
warrantless arrest. The arresting officer also admitted that he had no personal
People v. Alunday knowledge on whether there was a prohibited drug and gun inside the vehicle of
the accused when he approached it.
Alunday was arrested in his mountain kubo while tending to his plants. According
to the police, they received reports since May that Alunday had a marijuana farm Pestillos v. Generoso
in front of his house. After surveillance, the reports were confirmed on August 1
and the Mountain Province police immediately sent a team to arrest him. On the Generoso was mauled by the many accused. When Generoso called the police
morning of August 2, the police saw Alunday tending to his garden and station for help, officers arrived within one (1) hour from such call. They saw
immediately arrested him. Generoso in a bloodied state and Generoso pointed out to Pestillos et al. as those
who mauled him. Pestillos et al. admitted the offense but narrated a different story.
Alunday contends that he cannot be lawfully arrested without a warrant as there In this case, the Court held that the requisites of personal knowledge of the
was no immediacy as regards the hot pursuit exception in lawful warrantless arresting officers, so as to effect a lawful warrantless arrest, was met. Their
arrests, the report coming in May and the arrest happening August. The Court held immediate response to the scene and seeing Geneoroso in a bloodied state and
that while the report did in fact come in May, it was only confirmed on August 1 him pointing to Pestillos et al. as the malefactors constitute personal knowledge.
and he was arrested immediately the day after, thus establishing immediacy.
Moreover, even if his arrest did not lie under the hot pursuit exception, he still is
lawfully arrested by virtue of the in flagrante delicto exception as he was
committing a crime in front of the officers when said officers arrived, that is,
tending to his marijuana plants.

People v. del Rosario

Del Rosario was arrested without for being the getaway driver of Dodong Bisaya
who killed someone. His arrest was made the day after the commission of the
crime. The Court held that his arrest was unlawful as there was no immediacy as
to the date of the commission and the officers did not have personal knowledge of
that Del Rosario committed the offense as they only knew him to be the driver of
the getaway vehicle. He was also acquitted.

People v. Jayson

Jayson’s arrest was a lawful warrantless arrest as it met the condition that the
officers have personal knowledge that Del Rosario was the one who committed the
crime. Such personal knowledge were gained through the fact that there was a
HAM 47
 RULE 126 3. Personal property used or intended to be used as a means of committing
SEARCH AND SEIZURES an offense.

Section 1. Search warrant defined. The rule is, only the properties described in the warrant may be seized by
authorities.
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for Section 4. Requisites for the issuance of a search warrant.
personal property described therein and bring it before the court.
1. Must be upon probable cause;
A search warrant is not a criminal action nor does it represent a commencement of 2. Probable cause determined personally by the judge;
a criminal prosecution even if is entitled like a criminal action. It is not a proceeding 3. Such determination be made after examining, under oath or affirmation,
against a person but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of the the complainant and the witnesses he may so produce;
personal property (Worldwide Web v. People). 4. The warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the
person or things to be searched.
An application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. Hence, any aggrieved
party may question an order quashing the same without need for conformity of the The absence of the requisites for a search warrant will cause its downright
public prosecutor (Worldwide Web Corporation v. People). nullification.

The rule against unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend to acts The failure to attach to the records the depositions of the complainant and his
committed by private individuals. witnesses and/or the transcript of the examination is not fatal to the warrant.

In the absence of a search warrant, the search and seizure become unreasonable. Probable cause is not moral certainty. There is no exact test for the determination
of probable cause in the issuance of search warrants. It is a matter wholly
Section 2. Where to apply for search warrant dependent on the finding of trial judges in the process of exercising their judicial
function.
Generally, an application for a search warrant shall be filed with before any court
within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be
seized
Exceptions:
1. Any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the Any designation or description that points out the place to the exclusion of all
place of the crime is known. others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional
2. Any court within the judicial region where the warrant is to be executed. requirement. No discretion is left to the officer making the search as to the place to
3. If for heinous crimes, before the Executive and Vice Executive RTC be searched.
Judges of Manila and Quezon City, filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOCTF,
REACT-TF, and personally endorsed by the head of said agencies. The 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
An application for a search warrant is heard ex parte. distinguish it from other places in the community.

Section 3. Property subject of a search warrant. In a John Doe warrant, the warrant must be sufficient to clearly indicate on whom it
is to be served, by stating his occupation, his personal appearance and
1. Personal property subject of the offense; peculiarities, the place of his residence or any other circumstance by which he can
2. Personal property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the be identified.
offense;

HAM 48
A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute Section 12. Delivery of property to court.-
detail. The warrant is valid when it enables the police officers to readily identify the
property to be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to
be seized. (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who
issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified
Section 5. How examination is conducted. under oath.

1. Examination personally conducted by the judge;

(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge
2. Examination must be in the form of searching questions and answers;
shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the
3. Complainant and witnesses shall be examined on those facts personal
person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no
known to them;
return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain
4. Statements must be in and writing under oath;
whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained with and shall
5. Statements and affidavits shall be attached to the record.
require that the property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to
it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search.

The officer can break into the door or window provided the following requisites are (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the
met: custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the
1. He gives notice of his purpose and authority; date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
2. He is refused admittance;
3. Purpose of the breaking is to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any Section 13. Search incidental to lawful arrest.
person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
Section 8, 11. Manner of making the search; receipt. which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense
without a search warrant.
The search shall be made in the presence of the lawful occupant of the place
searched or any member of the lawful occupant’s family. In their absence, the Valid warrantless searches:
search shall be made in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion in the same locality.
1. Search incidental to lawful arrest
2. Evidence in plain view
The officer seizing the property must give a detailed receipt for the same to the
3. Search of a moving vehicle
lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were
4. Customs searches
made. If the lawful occupant or any member of his family, the receipt will be left in
5. Stop and frisk
the place where he found the seized property.
6. Emergency and exigent circumstances
7. Consented warrantless search
Section 9. Time of execution of warrant.

A search warrant is generally served in the day time, unless there be a direction in Purpose of allowing a warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest is (a) to protect
the warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. the arresting officer who might be harmed by the person being arrested by using a
deadly weapon, and (b) to prevent the latter from destroying evidence withi reach.
Section 10. Validity of the search warrant.
Those that can be seized incidental to lawful arrest are limited only to: (a)
A search warrant is valid ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. dangerous weapons, (b) anything that might have been used in the commission of
a crime, and (c) anything which constitute proof in the commission of an offense.
HAM 49
A search incidental to lawful arrest is only allowed when the things are within the Issue #2: W/N a search warrant quashed can be appealed.
area of immediate control of the suspect.
The quashal of a search warrant in the court where it was applied for serves as a
Not in immediate control – when hands are ties and the thing seized was in a final order. Being a final order, it can thus be appealed. In this case, said warrant
cabinet was quashed in the court where it was applied for and thus can be appealed.

In cases, however, of search warrants quashed after the institution of a criminal

In immediate control – gun in front of the suspect
action, said quashal cannot be appealed as it partakes of an interlocutory order. It
can be raised, however, during appeal after judgment is rendered in the criminal
Section 14. Where to file a motion to quash search warrant. action.

A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby However, this can be cured by Rule 65 magic.
may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been
instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and Issue #3: W/N there was probable cause to issue the search warrant
resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court failed
to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequent filed in another court, the The Court ruled that there was probable cause and said that the determination of
motion shall be resolved by the latter court. probable cause by the examining judge is to be accorded great respect and shall
not be disturbed. Worldwide Web contends that there was no crime committed but
Any objection concerning the issuance or service of a warrant or a procedure in the applications of the search warrant contain that there was an allegation that the
the acquisition by the court over the person of the accused must be made before things seized were used by Worldwide Web so as to commit theft against PLDT by
he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. means of toll bypass operations.

Who may assail validity of search warrant Issue #4: W/N the search warrants were general warrants

A search warrant’s validity can only be assailed by the party whose rights have The Court held that the issued search warrants were not general warrants. The
been impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is search warrant need not exactly detail each and every description of the things to
purely personal and cannot be availed of by a third party. In case of juridical be seized so as to be a valid search warrant. A search warrant fulfills the
persons, the officers can assail the validity. 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
Effect of an illegal search and seizure which the warrant is being issued.

Any evidence obtained in that was the result of an illegal search and seizure shall PLDT was able to establish the connection of the things seized and the crime
be inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. committed and thus the warrant was upheld by the Court.

Worldwide Web Corporation v. People People v. Cogaed

Issue #1: W/N the conformity of the public prosecutor is necessary to appeal the When Cogaed and friend was arrested inside the jeepney, they were not doing any
quashal of a seach warrant overt act that can be connoted as being an overt act so as to effect the
commission of a crime. They were just sitting there. The arrest was therefore
A search warrant is not a criminal action. It is a special criminal proceeding and invalidated by the court and the seizures incidental to the arrest were declared as
does not fill within the purview of a criminal action as those instituted as mentioned inadmissible as evidence. Moreover, it cannot be a hot pursuit arrest as the police
in Rule 110. Thus, the conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary to officers did not have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that a
appeal the quashal of search warrants. crime has just been committed. They did not know whom to arrest beforehand until
the jeepney driver pointed to Cogaed and friend as those carrying marijuana. It
HAM 50
cannot also be stop and frisk as there needs to be a genuine reason for the police
officer to stop and frisk Cogaed.

There was not a single suspicious circumstance in this case, and there was no
approximation of probable cause requirement for warrantless arrest.

Lastly, silence as to effect the warrantless search does not mean consent.

Luz v. People

Luz was stopped for not wearing helmet. Thereafter, he was invited inside the
police station so as to issue a traffic citation. The officer then had an inkling that
Luz might be up to no good, and when said officer directed Luz to empty his
pockets, which Luz did, lo and behold there are illegal drugs. Luz was prosecuted
for violation of 9165 and was convicted. The Court in this case there was no lawful
warrantless arrest. When Luz was invited into the police station, there was no
intention to arrest Luz.

The Court, by using logic, said that in cases where the accused is prosecuted
where the penalty is a fine, then no warrant of arrest shall issue. Therefore, in the
corollary, there can be no arrest when a person is accosted in a traffic stop and the
penalty is a traffic citation. This does not mean, however, that there can be no
arrest during a traffic stop. If the situation prescribes, then there may be. But in this
case, there was no probable cause to arrest Luz.

Even if assuming that Luz was “arrested,” said arrest was not lawful as he was not
read his rights before or after he was invited into the station. If he was arrested the
first time then there be no need to arrest Luz a second time around after the
discovery of the drugs. There being no valid arrest, the search incidental to arrest
is unlawful and thus the evidence seized is inadmissible. Luz is free.

People v. Calantiao

The marijuana that was seized from Calantiao was inside a black bag and under
his immediate control. Calantiao was lawfully arrested without warrant and thus the
seizure made of his belongings under his control that can be used as evidence is
thus warranted.

HAM 51
 RULE 121-125
POST-CONVICTION REMEDIES Neypes rule

15 days from notice of denial of motion can be a fresh reglementary period for
Remedies before a conviction becomes final: appeal.
1. Modification of judgment
2. Reopening of the proceedings
3. Motion for new trial
4. Motion for reconsideration APPEALS
5. Appeal from the judgment
Appeals are statutory rights. As a consequence, the right to appeal may be
Modification of judgment exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. While
the right is statutory, once it is granted by law, its suppression would be a violation
See Rule 120. of due process.

Reopening of proceedings Any party may appeal a criminal case, even the prosecution so long as the
accused would not be placed in double jeopardy.
See Rule 119.
In criminal cases, an appeal throws the case wide open for review and the
Motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration reviewing tribunal can correct errors or even reverse the trial court’s decision on
grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.
The accused may file a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration of
judgment adverse to him. The court may also grant new trial or reconsider its If accused appeals the sentence, he has waived his right against double jeopardy.
judgment motu propio.
Change in theory for the first time on appeal is frowned upon.
The motion can be filed any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final.
Once it becomes final, motions shall no longer be entertained. The finding of facts by the trial court deserves great weight and shall not be
disturbed by reviewing courts absent any grave abuse of discretion.
Grounds for new trial:
1. Errors of law committed during trial Period of appeal is fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of judgment or from
2. Irregularities prejudicial to the substantial to the rights of the accused have notice of the final order appealed from.
been committed
3. New and material evidence has been discovered Interlocutory orders are UNAPPEALABLE. However, they may be challenged via a
a. Must be discovered after trial Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari ONLY after the denial of a motion for reconsideration
b. It could not have been previously discovered of the interlocutory order denying whatever motion.
c. It is new and material evidence
d. If introduced it would probably change the judgment Interlocutory order vs. final order – Interlocutory: there is still something to be done
tomorrow:: Final: tapos na ang boxing.
Grounds for reconsideration:
1. Errors in law in the judgment SEE ANNEX FOR APPELLATE FLOWCHART
2. Errors in fact in the judgment

A hearing shall be conducted when the motion for new trial calls for a resolution of
a question of fact. The court may hear evidence on the motion by affidavits or
otherwise.
HAM 52
 MTC Original jurisdiction
RTC Original jurisdiction

Questions of
Questions of

LAW ONLY FACT or MIXED

Questions of

Ordinary appeal/
LAW, FACT, and
Rule 45 petition Ordinary appeal/
Notice of appeal
MIXED for review on Notice of appeal
certiorari

RTC Appellate jurisdiction

RTC
MTC Court of Appeals
Questions of
APPEALS
APPEALS Rule 42 petition
for review
LAW, FACT, and
(General rule)
MIXED
Questions of

LAW
Court of Appeals Rule 45 petition
for review on
Rule 45 petition certiorari
Questions of

for review on
LAW
certiorari

SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT

 RTC Original jurisdiction RTC Original jurisdiction

Questions of

LAW, FACT or

MIXED Automatic
Ordinary appeal/ review
Notice of appeal

RTC
RTC
APPEALS
Court of Appeals APPEALS Court of Appeals
(Where penalty
(Where penalty
imposed is reclusion If penalty

downgraded
Questions of
imposed is DEATH)
perpetua or life)
(not RP or Life)
LAW, FACT or

Questions of
MIXED
LAW ONLY Automatic
Ordinary appeal/
review
Rule 45 petition Notice of appeal
for review on
certiorari

SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT

 MTC Original jurisdiction
Sandiganbayan

Questions of
Reclusion
Special civil action
LAW ONLY perpetua, or life Rule 65
Rule 45 petition petition for
Ordinary appeal/
for review on CERTIORARI
Notice of appeal
certiorari

RTC Original jurisdiction

MTC
SANDIGANBAYAN REMEDY FOR
Questions of
Questions of

APPEALS INTERLOCUTORY LAW FACT, and MIXED

ORDERS Rule 45 petition
Ordinary appeal/
Note: RTC gains ORIGINAL for review
Notice of appeal
JURSIDICTION due to it having original
jurisdiction over the special civil
action on certiorari from the MTC Court of Appeals
Note 2: ALL interlocutory orders are
Questions of

unappealable. ONLY available remedy is

Rule 65 petition for certiorari LAW
Rule 45 petition
for review on
certiorari
SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT
 RTC Original jurisdiction
Sandiganbayan

Special civil
action on
CERTIORARI
Rule 65 petition
for certiorari
RTC SANDIGANBAYAN
REMEDY FOR Court of Appeals REMEDIES FOR
INTERLOCUTORY INTERLOCUTORY
ORDERS ORDERS
Rule 45 petition
Questions of

for review on
LAW ONLY
certiorari

SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT

 City/Provincial/State Prosecutor

Appeal

Secretary of Justice/DOJ
REMEDY FOR
If imposable

RESOLUTIONS If imposable

penalty is RP
penalty is NOT

OF or Life RP or Life
PROSECUTORS Appeal
NO APPEALS
Office of the
President Rule 65 petition
for
certiorari
Rule 43 ONLY REMEDY
Appeal

Court of Appeals