Criminal Procedure
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Procedure
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Diosdado M. Peralta
I. JURISDICTION - IN GENERAL
A. Introduction
2. Elements of jurisdiction
1
People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 40527, June 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 600; Conde v. Mamento, Jr., G. R.
No. 71989, July 7, 1986, 142 SCRA 504.
2
Guevarra v. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989, 169 SCRA 476; People v. Lagon,
G.R. No. 45815, May 18, 1990, 185 SCRA 446-447.
3
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1980], El Pueblo de Filipinas v. San Juan, 69 Phil. 347 (1940).
4
Id., El Pueblo de Filipinas v. San Juan.
5
Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523 (1911); U.S. v. Jayme, 24 Phil. 90 (1913);
Uy v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 119000, July 28, 1997, 276 SCRA 374-375.
J-1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The question of jurisdiction of the court over the case filed before it
is to be resolved on the basis of the law or statute providing for or defining
its jurisdiction.8
6
Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484 (1941); Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G R. No. 123340, August 29, 2002,
388 SCRA 79.
7
Velunta v. Chief, Philippine Constabulary, G. R. No. 71855, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 147;
Orosa Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. Nos. 76826-32, January 28, 1991, 193 SCRA 397.
8
People v. Mariano, supra note 1.
9
De la Cruz v. Moya, G. R. No. 65192, April 27, 1988, 160 SCRA 838; Silva, et al. v. NLRC, et al.,
G.R. No. 110226, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 176. In De la Cruz v. Moya, the proceedings in the
criminal case before the trial court (Court of First Instance (CFI)), where petitioner was being
prosecuted for the crime of homicide, were declared null and void, without prejudice to the filing of
another action in the proper forum, i.e., the court-martials, as the military tribunals created under
General Order No. 8 exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed by military
personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines while in the performance of their official duties.
10
People v. Chupeco, G.R. No. 19568, March 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 640; Sumawang v. De
Guzman, G.R. No. 150106, September 8, 2004, 437 SCRA 622, 627. In People v. Chupeco, after
the case was partly tried, the prosecution and defense counsels entered into an agreement to
have the information amended (i.e., charge against the accused be only for ―removal of properties
mortgaged‖ under Art. 319 of the Revised Penal Code, but eliminating the portion referring to
―pledging already pledged property‖); however, the information remained unamended and the
accused was tried on the charge of ―having pledged property which had been previously pledged
or mortgaged.‖ The original terms of the charge averred the crime of re-pledging an already
encumbered property without the creditor’s consent, and one of the essential ingredients of the
offense (i.e., the execution of the first mortgage) having been alleged to have taken place in
Manila, the CFI of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the offense under the Sec. 9, Rule 110 of the
RULES OF COURT.
J-2
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A criminal case should be instituted and tried in the place where the
offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients took place.11
2.2. Exceptions:
11
People v. Mercado, 65 Phil. 665 (1938); Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, supra note 5;
Fukuzume v. People, G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 580.
12
CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5 par. (4).
13
Rep. Act. No. 9372 [2007], Sec. 58.
14
People v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 118013-4, October 11, 1995, 249 SCRA 212; Olivarez v. Court
of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 165 SCRA 477.
15
Buaya v. Polo, G. R. No. 75079, January 26, 1989, 169 SCRA 471; Mobilia Products, Inc. v.
Umezawa, G. R. Nos. 149357 and 149403, March 4, 2005, 452 SCRA 761-762. In Buaya v.
Polo, the information charged petitioner with estafa committed ―during the period 1980 to June
15, 1982 inclusive in the City of Manila, Philippines‖ and, therefore, the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila has jurisdiction. Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense
which may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements of the crime took
place. One of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party. The
respondent had its principal place of business and office in Manila. The failure of the petitioner to
remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly caused damage and prejudice to the
respondent in Manila.
J-3
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
16
Republic v. Sunga, G. R. No. 38634, June 20, 1988, 162 SCRA 191, citing Crespo v. Mogul, G.
R. No. 53373, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 462; Alva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157331, April
12, 2006, 487 SCRA 169.
17
Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 377, 387-388.
J-4
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years,
(1) irrespective of the amount of the fine, and (2) regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising
from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature,
value, or amount thereof.20
18
Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994], amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
19
Id., Sec. 2 amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 32.
20
Id.
21
Id.
J-5
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
4. Where the imposable penalty is destierro,22 the case falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, considering that in the
hierarchy of penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code,
destierro follows arresto mayor which involves imprisonment
1. Regular cases
1.2. All other offenses where the imposable penalty prescribed by law
is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the fine,
regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including
the civil liability arising from such offense or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof.24
2. Special cases
2.3. Violations of the Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293)
regardless of the imposable penalty.
Family courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over criminal cases:
2. Against minors charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Rep.
Act No. 9165);
5. Involving domestic violence against women and children under Rep. Act
No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004);
28
Pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 23 and in the interest of speedy and efficient
administration of justice, certain Regional Trial Court branches are designated to exclusively try
and decide criminal cases committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions, as set forth in
Administrative Order (Adm. Order) No. 51-96, dated May 3, 1996, (Superseding Adm. Order No.
173-94, dated September 28, 1994 (Re: Special Courts for Kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous
Drugs, Carnapping, and Other Heinous Crimes under Rep. Act No. 7659) and Adm. Order No.
104-96, dated October 21, 1996 (Re: Designation of Special Courts for Kidnapping, Robbery,
Dangerous Drugs Cases and Other Heinous Crimes; Intellectual Property Rights Violations and
Jurisdiction in Libel Cases).
29
Rep. Act No. 8369 [1997]: The RTC may take cognizance of the cases enumerated in areas
where there are no designated Family Courts.
30
Rep. Act No. 9344 [2006], entitled ―An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and
Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council under the Department of
Justice, Appropriating Funds therefor and for Other Purposes.‖ Sec. 1 thereof provides that the
law shall cover the different stages involving children at risk and children in conflict with the law
from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration.
J-7
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
and
2. Violations of Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all
officers of higher rank;
31
Rep. Act No. 3019 [1960], as amended.
J-8
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
32
Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997], Sec. 4.
33
Rep. Act No. 9160 [2001], as amended by Rep. Act No. 9194 [2003].
34
Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-56384, March 22, 1984, 128 SCRA 324. As mayor, the
accused Lecaroz ordered policemen to take over the gasoline station of the complainant. It was
held that the police would not have obeyed his orders were he not the mayor.
J-9
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
35
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 301 SCRA 298; Soller, et
al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 144261-62, May 9, 2001, 357 SCRA 685-686.
J-10
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. Complaint or Information
1.1. Requisites
1.2. Definitions
36
RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 2.
37
Id., Sec. 3.
38
Id., Sec. 4.
39
RULES OF COURT, Rule 112, Sec. 1, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, effective October 3,
2005.
J-11
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
40
Id., Sec. 3.
41
Id.
J-12
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The offended party, even if a minor, has the right to initiate the
prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents, or guardian,
unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so. Where the offended
party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents,
or guardian may file the same. The right to file the action granted to
parents, grandparents, or guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons
and shall be exercised successively in the order herein provided, except
as stated in the preceding paragraph.
Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the
criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by
counsel in the prosecution of the offense.43
1. Control by Prosecution
42
Id., Rule 110, Sec. 5, as amended by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, effective May 1, 2002.
43
Id., Sec. 16.
44
People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 26222, July 21, 1967, 20 SCRA 748; Potot v. People, et al., G.R.
No. 143547, June 26, 2002, 383 SCRA 457-459.
45
People v. Devaras, G.R. Nos. 100938-9, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 482; Pontejos v.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 158613-14, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 96-98.
46
People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 103964, August 1, 1996, 260 SCRA 256; People v. Saldaña, et
al., G.R. No. 148518, April 15, 2004, 427 SCRA 787.
47
Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114046, October 24, 1994, 237 SCRA 685.
J-13
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2.2. Reinvestigation.49
2.4. Dismissal.51
3.6. To reject or grant a motion to dismiss, the court must make its own
independent assessment of evidence.58
58
Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112387, October 13, 1994, 237 SCRA 575; Roberts v.
Court of Appeals, supra note 53; Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, supra note 56; Perez v. Hagonoy
Rural Bank, supra note 57; Jalandoni v. Secretary of Justice, G. R. Nos. 115239-40, March 2,
2000, 327 SCRA 122; Nicart, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan et al., G.R. No. 147272, July 14, 2006, 495
SCRA 82-83.
59
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, supra note 56; Solar Team Entertainment v. How, supra note 53;
Ark Travel Express v. Presiding Judge of the RTC of Makati, et al., G.R. No. 137010, August 29,
2003, 410 SCRA 158.
60
RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 7.
61
Id., Sec. 8.
62
Id., Sec. 9.
63
Id., Sec. 12.
64
Id., Sec. 11.
65
Id., Sec. 10,
66
Id., Sec. 6.
67
Id., Sec. 9.
J-15
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
68
Rep. Act No. 9346, entitled ―An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines,‖ was approved on June 24, 2006.
J-16
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
69
People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 120093, November 6, 1997, 281 SCRA 463; People v. Canonigo,
G.R. No. 133649, August 4, 2000, 337 SCRA 318-319; People v. Banihit, G.R. No. 132045,
August 25, 2000, 339 SCRA 95-96.
70
People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998, 296 SCRA 17; People v. Bolatete,
G.R. No. 127570, February 13, 1999, 303 SCRA 709; People v. De la Cuesta, G.R. No. 126134,
March 2, 1999, 304 SCRA 83; People v. Ambray, G.R. No. 127177, February 25, 1999, 303
SCRA 697; People v. Quiachon, G. R. No. 170236, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 717.
71
People v. Cantos, G.R. No. 129298, April 14, 1999, 305 SCRA 876; People v. Barcena, G.R.
No. 168737, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 556.
72
People v. Manggasin, G.R. Nos. 130599-60, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 228; People v. Barcena,
supra note 71.
73
People v. Maglente, G.R. Nos. 1124559-66, April 30, 1999, 306 SCRA 546.
74
People v. Manggasin, supra note 72; People v. Valindo, G.R. No. 140027, March 18, 2002, 379
SCRA 393-394.
J-17
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The rule on duplicity of offenses does not apply where the law
prescribes a single penalty for various offenses, such as a complex crime
under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, or special complex crime,
such as robbery with homicide or with rape, or rape with homicide, or
rebellion complexed with murder, robbery and kidnapping.
75
RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 13.
76
Sanchez v. Demetriou, G.R. Nos. 111771-77, November 9, 1993, 227 SCRA 627.
77
Id.
78
Ilagan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119617, December 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 575.
J-18
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. Examples
The original Information charged petitioner with performing a single
criminal act - that of approving the application for legalization of aliens
qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The 32 Amended
Informations reproduced verbatim the allegations of the original
Information, except that instead of the word ―aliens‖ in the original
Information, each amended information stated the name of the individual
whose stay was legalized.
c. The theft of two roosters in the same place and on the same
occasion.82
84
People v. Dichupa, 113 Phil. 306 (1961).
85
People v. Cid, 66 Phil 354 (1938).
86
People v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 415522, September 29, 1976, 73 SCRA 77.
87
Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 41054, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 308.
88
Id.
89
People v. Hubilo, G.R. No. 101741, March 23, 1993, 220 SCRA 389; People v. Cogonan, G.R.
No. 94548, October 4, 1996, 262 SCRA 693.
90
People v. Ducay, G.R. No. 86939, August 2, 1993, 225 SCRA 1.
J-20
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rep. Act No. 8294 amended Pres. Decree No. 1866, which
abandoned previous rulings that qualified use of firearms and murder as
separate offenses. Under the present rule, the unauthorized use of
licensed or unlicensed firearm is simply an aggravating circumstance in
the commission of homicide or murder and no longer a separate offense,
effectively modifying People v. Quijada and its progeny.96
Thus, it has been held that the principle of absorption does not
apply to illegal possession of firearms in connection with the crime of
subversion, but simply describes the mode or manner by which the
violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 was committed so
as to qualify the penalty of death.97 The charge should, therefore, be
amended to simple Illegal Possession of Firearm, and was accordingly
deemed amended by the Supreme Court.98 It should, however, be noted
that under existing laws (Rep. Act No. 8249), if Homicide or Murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of unlicensed
firearm shall be considered merely as an aggravating circumstance and
cannot be the subject of a separate prosecution.99
128148, February 16, 2004; Palaganas v. People, G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006.
96
G.R. Nos. 115008-09, July 24, 1996, 259 SCRA 191; People v. Molina, G.R. Nos. 115835-36,
July 22, 1998, 292 SCRA 742.
97
Rep. Act No. 1700 [1057] was repealed by Rep. Act No. 7636 [1992].
98
People v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 100210, April 1, 1998, 288 SCRA 542.
99
People v. Molina, supra note 96.
100
People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, March 11, 1999, 304 SCRA 611.
101
Reodica v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125066, July 8, 1998, 292 SCRA 87, citing Lontok v.
Gorgonio, Jr., G.R. No. 37396, April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 632.
J-22
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
H. Amendment or Substitution
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made
in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original Complaint
or Information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense, in
accordance with Section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused should not be
placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for
their appearance at the trial.103
102
Rep. Act No. 7691, Sec. 32 (2).
103
RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 14.
J-23
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior
to the criminal action.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the
filing fees therefor shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding
such damages.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the
check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed.
Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated,
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall
pay the filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts
are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded
J-24
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute
a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has
not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section
2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
Acquittal in a criminal action bars the civil action arising therefrom where
the judgment of acquittal holds that the accused did not commit the criminal
acts imputed to him.106
The civil liability that is deemed extinguished is the civil liability based on
crime, and not the civil liability based on sources of obligation other than the
criminal offense, although arising from the same act or omission. Article 29 of
the Civil Code expressly provides that when the accused in a criminal
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his/her guilt has not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of
evidence.
104
G.R. No. 104392, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 674.
105
G.R. No. 119771, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 568.
106
Western Institute of Technology v. Salas, G.R. No. 113032, August 21, 1997, 278 SCRA 216;
Quinto v. Andres, et al., G.R. No. 155791, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 519.
J-25
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The civil liability, therefore, under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the
Civil Code or those where the source of civil obligation is not based on the
criminal offense is not affected by the result of the criminal action.
The only civil liability that may thus be imposed in a criminal action is
that arising from and consequent to the criminal liability of the accused on the
principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.108 This
includes restitution, reparation of damages caused, and indemnification of
consequential damages.109 Complementary thereto are the subsidiary civil
liability of innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors of establishments, 110
employers, teachers, persons and corporations engaged in any kind of
industry, for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, and employees in the discharge of their duties.111
A separate civil action for damages lies against the offender in a criminal
act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted,
provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both
scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of
the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. 113
107
Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. 24803, May 26, 1977, 77 SCRA 98.
108
REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 100.
109
Id., Art. 104.
110
Id., Art. 102.
111
Id., Art. 103.
112
Note: CIVIL CODE, Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the
act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
CIVIL CODE, Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provision of this Chapter.
113
Elcano v. Hill, supra note 107; Jarantilla v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 80194, March 21, 1989,
J-26
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
But while every person criminally liable is also civilly liable, the converse
is not true. Extinction of the penal does not carry with it extinction of the civil
action, unless there is a declaration in the final judgment that the fact from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist.114
171 SCRA 429; Ace Haulers Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127934, August 23, 2000,
338 SCRA 572-582; Safeguard Security Agency, Inc., et al. v. Tangco, et al., G.R. No. 165732,
December 14, 2006, 511 SCRA 78-82.
114
RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 2, par. 4.
115
Id., Sec. 5.
116
Id., Secs. 6 and 7.
J-27
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
V. MOTION TO QUASH
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of
the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(f) That more than one offense is charged, except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.
(ii)
117
RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, Sec. 3.
118
G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 129-130.
J-28
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Resolution, dated August 30, 2005, was issued by the Supreme Court En
Banc in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct
of Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts,120
xxxx
xxxx
119
Los Baños, etc. v. Pedro, G.R.No.173588, April 22, 2009, 586 SCRA 303.
120
Conquila v. Bernardo, A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737, February 9, 2011; Garcia v. Miro, G.R. No.
167409, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 127; Garay v. Bernardo, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1703, June 17,
2008 554 SCRA 492.
J-29
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Checklist I
3.1. If within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint
or information, the judge finds no probable cause after
personally evaluating the evidence, or after personally
examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his
witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers
dismiss the complaint or information.
(The witness is duly sworn to and gives his/her name and other personal
circumstances)
Q - Are you the same complainant in this complaint for simple theft?
A-
Q - Describe the ring allegedly stolen from you.
A-
Q - When and how did you learn that your ring was stolen?
A-
Q - When and how did you come to know the accused?
A-
Q - Where does the accused reside?
A-
Q - Do you know the accused’s present whereabouts?
A-
Q - Is the accused related to you by blood or marriage?
A-
Q- Did you have any kind of dealing with the accused before the date in
question? If so, what?
A-
Q- Do you know of any reason why the accused would take your ring without
your consent?
A-
Q- Do you owe the accused anything?
A-
Q - When and how did you acquire the ring?
A-
Q -What is the approximate value of the ring?
A-
Q- Did you actually witness the taking of your ring?
J-31
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A-
Q- State the name or names of the person or persons, if any, who know the
alleged theft.
A-
Q- Do you wish to state anything else?
Checklist II
1. If the arrest warrant was properly released and a report has been
properly submitted, but the accused could not be apprehended for
a considerable length of time, issue alias arrest warrant and order
the archiving of the case.
1.1 If the report is submitted that the accused was arrested but
did not post bail forthwith, issue corresponding commitment
order and have it served on the warden or head of the jail or
place of detention, together with the corresponding notice to
produce the accused before the court for arraignment on the
date and time fixed by the court.
J-32
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
6. If the plea is not guilty, set case for pre-trial and trial.
Checklist I
121
Rep Act No. 9372 [2007], Sec. 18.
122
Rep. Act No. 9165, Sec. 90.
123
Id., Sec. 21.
J-34
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Checklist II
124
RULES OF COURT, Rule 116, Sec. 1 (e).
125
Id., Rule 116, Sec. 1 (g); SC Circular No. 38-98.
J-35
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
7. If the accused fails to comply with the Order of the court for the
annotation of the lien and for the registration of the annotation,
cancel the property bond.
127
Rep. Act No. 9344 [2006], Sec. 20.
128
Id., Sec. 36.
J-38
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
5. Indispensable requirements
Note: The Court may not grant bail simply for the refusal of
the prosecutor to adduce evidence in opposition to the
application for bail, but may ask the prosecution such
questions as would ascertain the strength of the State’s
evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount of the bail. 132
186 SCRA 620; Morado v. Tayao, A.M. No. 93-8-1204 RTC, February 7, 1994, 229 SCRA, 723;
Corpus v. Maglalang, G.R. No. 78162, April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 41; Almeron v. Sandido, A.M.
No. MTJ-97-1142, November 6, 1997, 281 SCRA 415; Jamora v. Bersales, A.M. No. MTJ-04-
1529, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 29-31.
132
Libarios v. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991, 199 SCRA 48 cited in Borinaga v.
Tamin, A.M. No. RTJ-93-936, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 206; Aurillo v. Francisco, A.M.
RTJ-93-1097, August 12, 1994, 235 SCRA 283; Aguirre v. Belmonte, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1052,
October 27, 1994, 237 SCRA 778; Santos v. Otilida, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1217, June 16, 1995, 245
SCRA 56; De los Santos-Reyes v. Montesa, A.M. No. RTJ-93-983, August 7, 1995, 247 SCRA
85; Tabao v. Espina, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1347, June 14, 1996, 257 SCRA 298; Docena-Caspe v.
Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1767, March 28, 2003; Zuño v. Cabebe, supra note 130.
133
RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Sec. 18.
134
Id., Secs. 7 and 8.
135
Baylon v. Sison, A.M. No. 92-7-360-0, April 6, 1995, 243 SCRA 284; Docena-Caspe v. Bugtas,
supra note 132; Zuño v. Cabebe, supra note 130; Mabutas v. Perello, A.M. Nos. RTJ-03-1817 and
RTJ-04-1820, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 387.
J-40
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
136
RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Sec. 19.
137
Basco v. Rapatalo, supra note 129, reiterated in People v. Cabral, G.R. No. 131909, February
18, 1999, 303 SCRA 361; Ocenar v. Mabutin, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1582, February 28, 2005, 452
SCRA 377.
138
Feliciano v. Pasicolan, G.R. No. 14567, July 31, 1967, 2 SCRA 888; Mendoza v. CFI of
Quezon, G.R. Nos. 35612-14, June 27, 1973, 51 SCRA 369; Paderanga v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 115407, August 28, 1995, 247 SCRA 741; Aguirre v. Belmonte, supra note 132; De los
Santos-Reyes v. Montesa, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-983, August 7, 1995, 247 SCRA 85; Espiritu v.
Javellanos, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1139, October 16, 1997; Tabao v. Acting President Barataman, A.M.
MTJ-01-1384, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 396.
139
Dinapol v. Baldado, A.M. No. RTJ-92-898, August 5, 1993, 225 SCRA 110; Borinaga v. Tamin,
supra note 131; Aguirre v. Belmonte, supra note 132; Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114350, January 16, 1997, 266 SCRA 281.
140
RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Sec. 18; Chin v. Gustilo, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1243, August 11, 1995,
August 11, 1996, 247 SCRA 175; Panganiban v. Cupin-Tesorero, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1454, August
27, 2002, 388 SCRA 44.
141
RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Sec. 18, Borinaga v. Tamin, supra note 131; Go v. Court of
Appeals, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 397; People v. Dacudao, supra note 130; People v. Casingal,
G. R. No. 87163, March 29, 1995, 243 SCRA 37; Lardizabal v. Reyes, A.M. No. MTJ-94-877,
December 5, 1994, 238 SCRA 640; Santos v. Otilida, supra note 131; Grageda v. Tresvalles, A.M.
No. MTJ No. 04-1526, February 2, 2004, 421 SCRA 507-508.
J-41
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
7. Do not grant bail on appeal after the accused has been convicted
of a non-bailable offense144 or from a non-bailable offense to a
bailable offense. This should be addressed to the appellate court.145
8. Do not grant bail when the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial
Court exceeds six (6) years where any of the circumstances
mentioned in Section 5, Rule 114 is present.146
9. Do not grant bail after the judgment has become final, unless the
accused has applied for probation before commencing to serve
sentence, the penalty and the offense being within the purview of
the probation law.147
10. Do not grant bail after the accused had commenced to serve
sentence.148
142
People v. Dacudao, supra note 130; Borinaga v. Tamin, supra note 131; Guillermo v. Reyes,
A.M. No. RTJ-93-1088, January 18, 1995, 240 SCRA 154; Mamolo, Sr. v. Narisma, A.M. No.
MTJ-96-1072, January 31, 1996, 252 SCRA 613; People v. Calo, G. R. No. 88531, June 18,
1990, 186 SCRA 620; People v. Antona, et al., G.R. No. 137681, January 31, 2002, 375 SCRA
464.
143
Borinaga v. Tamin, supra note 131; Libarios v. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991,
199 SCRA 48; Aguirre v. Belmonte, supra note 132; Baylon v. Sison, supra note 135; Tucay v.
Domagas, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1286, March 2, 1995, 242 SCRA 110; Paderanga v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 115407, August 28, 1995, 247 SCRA 741.
144
Adm. Circular No. 2-92; People v. Divina, G.R. Nos. 93808-09, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 209;
People v. Fuertes, G.R. No. 90643, June 25, 1993, 223 SCRA 619; People v. Nitcha, G.R. No.
113517, January 19, 1995, 240 SCRA 283; Obosa v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 114350,
January 16, 1997, 266 SCRA 281; Yap, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G. R. No. 141529, June 6,
2001, 358 SCRA 564.
145
RULES OF COURT, Rule 114, Sec. 5.
146
Id.
147
Id., Sec. 24.
148
Id.
J-42
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Checklist I
offended party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow
the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of
the trial prosecutor alone.150 Unless the civil action has been
reserved, waived or otherwise instituted ahead, reset the case for
the reception of evidence to determine the civil liability and the
imposable penalty.
150
SC Circular No. 1-89.
151
SC Circular No. 38-98, Sec. 4.
J-44
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
152
G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 293.
J-45
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Checklist II
Pre-Trial
Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. — In all criminal cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal
Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, after arraignment and
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided
for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-
trial conference to consider the following:
3. Arraign the accused within ten (10) days from the date of the
raffle.
4. Hold the pre-trial of case within ten (10) days after arraignment,
unless a shorter period is provided by law.154
153
RULES OF COURT, Rule 118, Sec. 1; SC Circular No. 38-98, Secs. 2 and 3.
154
Id., Rule 116, Sec. 1 (e).
J-46
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. Forthwith set the pre-trial conference within thirty (30) days from
the date of arraignment.
2. Issue an order:
J-47
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3. In mediatable cases, the judge shall refer the parties and their
counsel to the PMC unit if available, for purposes of mediation.
155
No person charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 shall be allowed to avail himself of
the provision on plea-bargaining regardless of the imposable penalty (Rep. Act No. 9165, Sec.
23).
J-48
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Where the State and the Defense agree during the pre-trial
conference to adopt in the criminal case their respective evidence
in the civil case and reduce the agreement into writing, the accused
cannot subsequently disavow the contents of the agreement.157
156
In People v. Hermanes, G.R. No. 139416, March 12, 2002, 379 SCRA 177-178, it was ruled
that a manifestation filed in behalf of the accused by his counsel, whereby the counsel mentioned
that the accused had a remorse of conscience and would admit the crime charged, pleading for
the mercy and compassion of the trial court, could not be used against the accused as his
admission since the manifestation was signed only by the counsel. While it was held in People v.
Balisoro (307 SCRA 48 [1999]) that an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted
by the party making such admission and that the same is conclusive as to him, it is also hornbook
doctrine that the authority of an attorney to bind his client as to any admission of facts made by
him is limited to matters of judicial procedure. An admission which operates as a waiver,
surrender, or obstruction of the client’s cause is beyond the scope of the attorney’s implied
authority (People v. Maceda, 73 SCRA 679 [1942]).
157
In Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109595, April 27, 2000, 331 SCRA 1, it was
during pre-trial conference when the parties agreed to adopt their respective evidence in the civil
case to the criminal case. The Supreme Court allowed this, citing Section 2 (e) of Rule 118 of the
Rules of Court which provides that during pre-trial conference, the parties shall consider ―such
other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial.‖ The parties, in compliance with Section
4 of Rule 118, reduced to writing such agreement. Petitioner is bound by the pre-trial agreement,
and she cannot now belatedly disavow its contents.
J-49
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. The accused and his/her counsel shall manifest that they agree
to enter into plea bargaining on any of the forms above-described.
If the prosecution and offended party agree to the plea offered by
the accused, issue an order making on record the plea bargaining
arrived at and duly implemented.
preliminary investigation;
3.8. the disclosure of defenses of alibi, insanity, self-defense,
exercise of public authority and justifying or exempting
circumstances; and
3.9. such other matters that would limit the facts in issue.
5. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and adhere to the
flow chart determined by the court which shall contain the time
frames for the different stages of the proceedings up to the
promulgation of decision, and use the time frame for each stage in
setting the trial dates.
9. Fix the trial dates for the parties’ presentation of their respective
evidence, inclusive of evidence-in-chief and rebutting evidence, and
cause the parties and their respective counsel to affix their
signatures in the minutes to signify their availability on the
scheduled dates.
J-51
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
10. Also require the parties to submit to the branch clerk, before
leaving the court premises, the names and addresses of witnesses
that need to be summoned by subpoena, so that the necessary
subpoena may be issued on time. Counsel or their representatives
may be allowed to serve the subpoenas to insure service thereof
and the submission of the returns on time.
158
G.R. No. 148000, February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 378.
J-52
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Issue a Pre-trial Order within ten (10) days after the termination of
the pre-trial setting forth:
159
The Supreme Court held in Bayas v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 143689-91, November 12,
2002, 391 SCRA 415) that once validly entered into, stipulations will not be set aside unless for
good cause. They should be enforced especially when they are not false, unreasonable or
against good morals and sound public policy. When made before the court, they are conclusive.
And the party who validly made them can be relieved therefrom only upon a showing of collusion,
duress, fraud, misrepresentation as to facts, and undue influence; or upon a showing of sufficient
cause on such terms as will serve justice in a particular case. Moreover, the power to relieve a
party from a stipulation validly made lies in the court’s sound discretion which, unless exercised
with grave abuse, will not be disturbed on appeal.
160
Id..
161
Citing Herrera, REMEDIAL LAW, Volume IV, 2001 ed., pp. 667-668, citing People v. Donato, 198
SCRA 130, 154 (1991); People v. Hernandez, 260 SCRA 25 (1996).
162
Bellosillo, EFFECTIVE PRE-TRIAL TECHNIQUE, 1990, p. 622; 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
Rule 18, Sec. 7; RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 118, Sec. 4.
J-53
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Checklist III
1. When applicable
2. When to apply
163
RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 17.
164
People v. Baesa, 104 Phil. 136 (1958); Yu v. Velasco, et al., G.R. No. 142848, June 30, 2006,
494 SCRA 101.
165
RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 17.
166
Flores v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 63677, August 12, 1983, 124 SCRA 409.
167
RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 17 (a).
168
Flores v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 166; People v. Verceles, et al., G.R. No. 130650,
September 10, 2002, 388 SCRA 515.
J-54
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
177
Id.
178
RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 17 (e).
179
Moore v. State, 67 So. 789.
180
54 CJS 935.
181
Id.
182
People v. Jamero, G. R. No. 19852, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 206.
183
In re Abesamis, 102 Phil. 1182 (1958); Moreno v. Araneta, A.C. No. 1109, April 27, 2005, 457
SCRA 329.
184
In re Basa 41 Phil. 275 (1920).
185
In re Isada 60 Phil. 915 (1934); Laguitan v. Tinio, A.C. No. 3049, December 4, 1989, 179
SCRA 837.
186
Chiong v. Republic, 103 Phil. 1114 (1958).
J-56
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
187
RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 17.
188
Id.
189
Id., Sec. 18.
190
Id.
191
People v. Mendiola, 82 Phil. 740 (1949).
192
People v. Beberino, G. R. No. 23092, October 29, 1977, 79 SCRA 694.
193
People v. Jamero, supra note 182; Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 60613, April 20,
1985, 135 SCRA 732; Ramos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 58876, November 27, 1990, 191
SCRA 671; People v. Larrañaga, et al., G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 530.
J-57
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2.1. Examples
194
Mendiola v. Macadaeg, G.R, No. 16874, February 27, 1961, 1 SCRA 593; Benitez v.
Concepcion, 112 Phil. 105 (1961); Abunado, et al. v. People, G. R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004,
426 SCRA 562.
195
People v. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357 (1954); Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. v. Lichauco, et al., G. R.
No. 134887, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 588.
196
Zapanta v. Montesa, G.R. No. 14534, February 28, 1962, 4 SCRA 510.
197
Ras v. Rasul, G.R. Nos. 50441-42, September 18, 1990, 100 SCRA 125.
J-58
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Note that the present Rule does not specify who may file the
motion or petition for suspension of the criminal proceedings on
the ground of pendency of a prejudicial question, and, therefore,
any party – the prosecutor, the accused, or the private
prosecutor – may file the petition.198
3. Note that the death of the accused after arraignment and during
the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability
arising from the delict.
198
Fortich-Celdran v. Celdran, G.R. No. 22677, February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 502.
199
RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 6.
200
REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 89 (1).
201
RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 4.
J-59
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
7. Amend the title of the case to show its civil aspect by including
the name of the offended party as plaintiff and the legal
representative or heir of the accused substituted as defendant.202
202
Torrijos v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 40336, October 24, 1975, 67 SCRA 394.
J-60
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A. Trial203
1. Unless the docket of the court requires otherwise, not more than four
(4) cases shall be scheduled for trial daily.
2. The Presiding Judge shall make arrangements with the prosecutor and
the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) so that a relief prosecutor and a
PAO attorney are always available in case the regular prosecutor or
the PAO attorney is absent.
5. The judge shall conduct trial with utmost dispatch, with judicious
exercise of the court’s power to control trial proceedings to avoid delay.
6. The judge must take notes of the material and relevant testimonies of
witnesses to facilitate his decision-making.
7. The trial shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from initial hearing.
Appropriate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed on the judge and
the lawyers for failure to comply with this requirement due to causes
attributable to them.
All trial judges must strictly comply with Circular No. 38-98, entitled
―Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 8493 (An Act to Ensure a
Speedy Trial of All Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court,
203
Strict Observance of Session Hours of Trial Court Effective Management of Cases to Ensure
their Speedy Disposition, Administrative Circular No.3-99 dated January 15, 1999, V-B.
204
In accordance with Administrative Circular No. 4 dated September 22, 1988.
J-61
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other
Purposes)‖205
2. In criminal cases, the judge will do well to announce in open court at the
termination of the trial the date of the promulgation of the decision, which
should be set within ninety (90) days from the submission of the case for
decision
C. Pertinent Rules
After the plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at
least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. The trial shall commence within
thirty (30) days from receipt of the pre-trial order.206
2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements
The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense
counsel, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term
trial calendar at the earliest possible time as to ensure speedy trial. In no
case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days
from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme
Court.207
205
Issued by the Honorable Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa on September 15, 1998.
206
SC Circular 38-98, Sec. 6.
207
SC Circular 38-98, Sec. 8.
J-62
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding
section shall not apply where special laws or circulars of the Supreme
Court provide for a shorter period of trial.
3. Exclusions
208
SC Circular 38-98, Sec. 9.
J-63
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
209
Id., Sec. 10.
210
Id., Sec. 11.
211
Id., Sec. 7.
J-64
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
7.1. Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for
trial, or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of
the prisoner requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right
to demand trial.
7.2. Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall
promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand
trial, if at anytime thereafter the prisoner informs the custodian that he
demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent
promptly to the public attorney.
7.3. Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall promptly
seek to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.
7.4. When the custodian of the prisoner receives from the public
attorney a properly supported request for the availability of the prisoner
for purposes of trial, the prisoner shall be made available
accordingly.212
8. Sanctions
In any case in which private counsel for the accused, the public
attorney, or the prosecutor:
8.1. Knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that
a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial;
8.2. Files a motion solely for delay which he knows is totally frivolous
and without merit;
212
Id., Sec. 12.
J-65
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within the time limit
If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by
Section 1(g), Rule 116 and Section 1, as extended by Section 6 of this
Rule, the Information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on the
ground of denial of his right to speedy trial. The accused shall have the
burden of proving the motion, but the prosecution shall have the burden of
going forward with the evidence to establish the exclusion of time under
Section 3 of this Rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on
double jeopardy.
10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to provision on speedy trial in the
Constitution
213
Id., Sec. 13.
214
Id., Sec. 14.
215
Id., Sec. 15.
216
RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 11.
J-66
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1.2. the motion shall state: (1) the name and residence of the witness;
(2) the substance of his/her testimony; and (3) that the witness is so
sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for believing that he
will not be able to attend the trial, or resides more than 100
kilometers from the place of trial and has no means to attend the
same, or that, apart from the foregoing, other circumstances exist
that would make him unavailable or prevent him from attending the
trial; and
1.3. the motion shall be supported by affidavit of the accused and such
other evidence as the court may require.
2. If the motion does not comply with the notice requirement, issue an
Order requiring compliance by movant with the notice requirement, with
the warning that the motion shall be disallowed if not complied with.
3. If the motion complied with the notice requirement, hear the motion at
the time set therein.
217
The same pertains to the Modes of Discovery in criminal cases wherein it is stated that the
witness of the prosecution may be examined only in the court where the case is pending while a
defense witness may be examined in any other court or before a notary public (RULES OF COURT,
Rule 119, Secs. 12 and 13)
218
RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 12.
J-67
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1.1. The motion does not comply with the notice requirement, issue an
Order requiring compliance by movant with the notice requirement,
with warning that the motion shall be disallowed if not complied with.
1.2. The motion complied with the notice requirement, hear the motion
at the time set therefor.
219
Id., Sec. 13.
220
Id., Sec. 12.
J-68
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3.1. the witness be examined before the court at a specified time, such
examination to be conducted in the same manner as an
examination at the trial;
3.2. a copy of the Order be served on the accused within a given time
prior to that fixed for the examination;
3.3. the accused shall attend the said examination and his/her failure
or refusal to do so, despite due notice, shall be deemed a waiver;
and
4. At the same time set therefor, hold the hearing for the examination of
the witness, the same to be conducted in the same manner as an
examination at the trial, in the presence of the accused or notwithstanding
his/her absence, if it appears that he was duly notified of the hearing.
1. Set the motion for hearing on the date suggested by the movant or fixed
by the court, with notice to the parties, their counsel, the prosecutor and
the person having charge of the accused or his/her relatives.
2. If the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental
condition which effectively renders him unable to fully comprehend or
stand trial:
221
Vda de Manguera v. Risos, G.R. No. 152643, August 28, 2008, 563 SCRA 499.
J-69
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2.2. On the basis of the report that the accused has fully recovered and
can stand trial, order his/her immediate discharge and set the case for
the continuation of the proceedings.222
G. Demurrer to Evidence
2. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving
the prosecution the opportunity to be heard, or (2) upon demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.223
Checklist
222
RULES OF COURT, Rule 101.
223
Id., Rule 119, Sec. 23.
224
Aquino v. Sison, G.R. No. 86025, November 28, 1989, 179 SCRA 648; Godoy v. Court of
Appeals, G. R. No. 80814, August 30, 1988, 165 SCRA 148.
J-70
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
6. The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer
or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by
certiorari before judgment.
8. Reopening
225
People v. The City Court of Silay, G. R. No. 43790, December 9, 1976, 74 SCRA 247; Barcena
v. Gingoyon, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1794, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 72.
226
RULES OF COURT, Rule 119, Sec. 24.
J-71
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
VIII. JUDGMENT
A. Definition
Judgment means the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty
or is not guilty of the offense charged, and the imposition of the proper
penalty and civil liability provided for by law on the accused.227
Checklist
3. If it is of conviction, state:
231
RULES OF COURT, Rule 120, Sec. 3; People v. Basoy, G.R. No. 68578, July 7, 1986, 142 SCRA
476; People v. Alcid, G.R. No. 66387-88, February 28, 1985, 135 SCRA 280; People v. Tira, et al.,
G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134.
232
RULES OF COURT, Rule 120, Sec. 4.
233
Id., Sec. 5.
234
People v. Morallano, G.R. No. 105004, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 84; Philippine Rabbit Bus
Lines v. Mangawang, et al., G.R. No. 160355, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 684.
235
People v. Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995, 249 SCRA 54; People v.
Quilaton, G.R. No. 69666, January 23, 1992, 205 SCRA 279; Safeguard Security Agency, Inc., et
al. v. Tangco, et al., supra note 113.
236
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 96469, October 21, 1992, 215 SCRA 22; People v. Cordero,
G.R. No. 108919, October 11, 1996, 263 SCRA 122; Lambert, et al. v. Heirs of Castillon, et al.,
G.R. No. 160709, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 285.
J-73
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The court should, however, specify how much is the indemnity for death
and how much is for moral damages and not lump the whole amount. 237 Civil
indemnity is separate from moral damages.238
237
People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 116122, September 6, 1996, 261 SCRA 493; People v. Ylanan,
G.R. No. 131812, August 22, 2002, 387 SCRA 590.
238
People v. Mangila, G.R. Nos. 130203-4, February 15, 2000, 325 SCRA 586; People v. Suarez,
et al., G.R. Nos. 153573-76, April 15, 2005; People v. Mangitngit, G.R. No. 171270, September
20, 2006, 502 SCRA 560.
239
People v. Marabillas, G.R. No. 127494, February 18, 1999, 303 SCRA 352; People v.
Mostrales, G.R. No. 125397, August 28, 1998, 294 SCRA 701; People v. Ilao, G.R. No. 129529,
September 20, 1998, 296 SCRA 658.
240
People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998, 293 SCRA 411; People v. Malapo, G.R. No.
123115, August 25, 1998, 294 SCRA 579; People v. Lozano, G.R. No. 125080, September 25,
1998, 296 SCRA 403; People v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 676.
241
People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998, 292 SCRA 186; People v. Prades, supra note
239; People v. Malapo, supra note 239; People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998,
296 SCRA 17; People v. Ballester, G.R. No. 152279, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 379.
242
People v. Cordero, G.R. No. 108919, October 11, 1996, 263 SCRA 122; People v. Cayabyab,
G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 387; People v. Morallano, supra note 233;
Sumalpong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123404, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 764; Manaban
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150723, July 11, 2006, 494 SCRA 525; Safeguard Security Agency,
Inc., et al. v. Tangco, et al., supra note 113.
243
G.Q. Garments, Inc. v. Miranda, et al., G.R. No. 161722, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 757-758.
244
People v. Manggasin, G.R. Nos. 130599-600, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 228; People v.
Manalo, G.R. No. 173054, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 677.
J-74
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
C. Promulgation of Judgment
1. What to do
1.1. Direct the clerk of court/branch clerk of court to give notice to the
accused personally or through his/her bondsman if bonded, or through
the warden if detained, or through the custodian if out on
recognizance.
1.2. Direct the clerk of court/branch clerk of court to read the judgment
to the accused and counsel de parte or de oficio.
1.4. When the judge is absent or outside of the province or city, direct
the clerk of court/branch clerk of court to promulgate the judgment.
245
Padilla v. Court of Appeals, No. 39999, May 31, 1994, 129 SCRA 558; People v. Jalandoni,
G.R. No. 57555, August 28, 1984, 131 SCRA 454; Nuguid v. Nicdao, G.R. No. 150785,
September 15, 2006; Leyson, et al. v. Lawa, et al., G. R. No. 150756, October 11, 2006, 504
SCRA 174-175.
246
De Guzman v. Alvia, 96 Phil. 558 (1955); People v. Pantig, 97 Phil. 748 (1955); Nuguid v.
Nicdao, supra note 245.
247
Castro v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. 12174, April 26, 1962, 4 SCRA 1093;
Republic v. Bello, G. R. No. 34906, January 27, 1983, 120 SCRA 203; Nuguid v. Nicdao, supra
note 245.
J-75
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and
resolved by the appellate court.
1.8. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to
appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies
available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order
his/her arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment,
however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of
court to avail of these remedies. He/She shall state the reasons for
his/her absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that
his/her absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail
of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
D. Modification of Judgment248
1.2. Before the judgment has become final or appeal has been
perfected. Except when the death penalty is imposed, a judgment for
conviction becomes final (a) after the lapse of the period for perfecting
an appeal, or (b) when the sentence has been partially or totally
satisfied, or (c) the accused has expressly waived in writing his/her
right to appeal, or (d) the accused has applied for probation.249
248
RULES OF COURT, Rule 120, Sec. 7.
249
Ramos v. Gonong, G.R. No. 42010, August 31, 1976, 72 SCRA 559; Lasoy, et al. v. Zenarosa,
et al., G.R. No. 129472, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 360.
J-76
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
E. Entry of Judgment250
1. After the judgment has become final, have it entered in the book of
entries of judgments.251
2. If no appeal or motion for new trial is filed within the time provided in the
rules, direct the clerk of court/branch clerk of court to enter the judgment
and prepare a certificate that such judgment has become final and
executory.
250
RULES OF COURT, Rule 36, Sec. 2.
251
The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment and shall be signed by the
Clerk of Court.
J-77
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. New and material evidence has been discovered which the accused
could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the
trial and, which if introduced and admitted, would probably change the
judgment;
252
RULES OF COURT, Rule 121, Sec. 2.
253
People v. Bocar, 97 Phil, 398 (1955); People v. Curiano, G.R. Nos. 15256-57, October 31,
1963, 9 SCRA 323; People v. Lavapie, et al., G.R. No. 130209, March 14, 2001, 354 SCRA 351.
254
Callangan v. People, G.R. No. 153414, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 269; Reyes v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 111682, February 6, 1997, 267 SCRA 523; De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 103276, April 11, 1996, 256 SCRA 171.
255
People v. Nuelan, G.R. No. 123075, October 8, 2001, 366 SCRA 705; People v. Nadera, G.R.
Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000, 324 SCRA 490.
256
Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 38581, March 31, 1976, 70 SCRA 257; Abrajano v. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120787, October 13, 2000, 343 SCRA 68.
257
RULES OF COURT, Rule 121, Sec. 3.
J-78
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
258
Id., Sec. 4.
259
In criminal cases, the lack of affidavits of merit in a motion for new trial is not a fatal defect and
can be cured by the testimony presented at the new trial. Paredes v. Borja, G.R. No. L-15559,
November 29, 1961, 3 SCRA 495.
J-79
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
X. PROBATION
Checklist I
Filing of Application
to Referral thereof to Probation Officer
1.2. The application be filed within the period for perfecting an appeal,
that is, within 15 days from the promulgation or notice of the judgment
appealed from; otherwise, the application shall not be entertained or
granted;262
Checklist II
Checklist III
Incidents During Probation
270
Id., Secs. 10 and 14.
271
Id., Sec. 10 (k).
272
Id., Sec. 11.
273
Id., Sec. 12, par. 1.
J-82
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
274 nd
Id., Sec. 12, 2 par.
275 st
Id., Sec. 13, 1 par.
276 nd
Id., Sec. 18, 2 par.
J-83
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
281
Pres. Decree No. 968, Sec. 16.
282
Bala v. Martinez, supra note 278.
J-85
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
XI. APPEAL283
Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other
appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45.
283
See also RULES OF COURT, Rule 122, Secs. 1-3.
284
G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
J-86
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A search warrant was quashed because the applicant had been guilty of
forum shopping as the applicant sought the search warrant from a Manila
Regional Trial Court after denial by the courts of Pampanga.286
A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal
property:
285
RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Sec. 2.
286
Washington Distillers v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118151, August 22, 1996, 260 SCRA 821.
287
Savage v. Taypin, G.R. No. 134217, May 11, 2000, 331 SCRA 697.
288
RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Sec. 3.
J-87
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3. Examination of Complaint
2. Insufficiency of Affidavits
th
supra note 292; 20 Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76649-51,
August 19, 1988, 164 SCRA 655; Silva v. Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, G.R. No.
81756, October 21, 1991, 203 SCRA 140; People v. Salanguit, G.R. Nos. 133254-55, April 19,
2001, 356 SCRA 695-696.
295
Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, supra note 294; People v. Tee, G. R. No. 140546-47,
January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 419.
296
Mata v. Bayona, G.R. No. 50720, March 26, 1984, 128 SCRA 388.
297
Quintero v. National Bureau of Investigation, supra note 292; Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff,
supra note 292; People v. Mascariñas, G.R. No. 144034, May 28, 2002, 382 SCRA 349.
J-89
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3. Illustrative case298
The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the
personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the
purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of
the existence of probable cause.
298
Id., Prudente v. Dayrit.
J-90
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
It has likewise been observed that the offenses allegedly took place
from 1961 to 1964, and the application for search warrant was made on
October 27, 1965. The time of the application is so far remote in time as to
make the probable cause of doubtful veracity and the warrant vitally
defective. Thus, Mr. Joseph Varon, an eminent authority on Searches,
Seizures and Immunities, has this to say on this point:
(1) x x x
(3) There is no rigid rule for determining whether the stated time of
observation of the offense is too remote from the time when the
affidavit is made or the search warrant issued but, generally
speaking, a lapse of time of less than three weeks will be held not
to invalidate the search warrant, while a lapse of four weeks will
be held to be so.
The Supreme Court observed that had the respondent judge been
more cautious in issuing the questioned search warrants he would have
wondered and, therefore, asked the affiant why the said incident was
reported only on May 31, 1972 when he allegedly witnessed it on May 29,
1972.300
299
Asian Surety and Insurance Co. v. Herrera, G.R. No. 25232, December 20, 1973, 54 SCRA
312.
300
Quintero v. NBI, supra note 292.
J-91
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
. Indeed, the same were issued upon applications stating that the
natural and juridical persons therein named had committed a "violation of
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code)
and Revised Penal Code." In other words, no specific offense had been
alleged in said applications. The averments thereof with respect to the
offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for
the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of
probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent
proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular
acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our
criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do
not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be a
legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a "violation of
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code)
and Revised Penal Code," — as alleged in the aforementioned
applications — without reference to any determinate provision of said laws
or codes.301
301
Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. 9550, June 19, 1967, 20 SCRA 383.
302
Nolasco v. Paño, G.R. No. 69803, October 8, 1985, 139 SCRA 132; Quintero v. NBI, supra
note 292; Silva v. Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, supra note 293.
303
People v. Rubio, 57 Phil. 384 (1932); Al-Ghoul, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
126859, September 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 372; People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20,
2003, 395 SCRA 419.
304
People v. Rubio, supra note 303.
J-92
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records
pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the
seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned
corporations, whatever their nature, thus, openly contravening the explicit
command of our Bill of Rights — that the things to be seized be
particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its major objective:
the elimination of general warrants.307
305
Roan v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 71410 November 25, 1986,145 SCRA 697; Corro v. Lising, G.R.
No. 69899 July 15, 1985, 137 SCRA 541; Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, supra note 292; Alvarez v.
Court of First Instance of Tayabas, supra note 293.
306
Id.
307
Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-23372. June 14, 1967, 126 Phil. 738
308
People v. Rubio, supra note 301; Al-Ghoul, et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., supra note 301.
J-93
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
3) When the things described are limited to those which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.310
309
Id., Dissent of J. Abad Santos.
310
RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Sec. 2.
311
Uy and Unifish Packing Corporation v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, et al., G.R. No. 129651,
October 20, 2000, 344 SCRA 36.
312
Bache v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 32409, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 823; Columbia Pictures v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 111267, September 20, 1996, 262 SCRA 219.
313
Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, supra note 292.
314
People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126379, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 400; Garaygay v.
People, G.R. No. 135503, July 6, 2000, 335 SCRA 272.
J-94
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
315
People v. Court of Appeals, supra note 314; People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 129035, August 22,
2002, 387 SCRA 575-576.
J-95
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
B. Attachment
(b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for money or property
embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to the use of the
accused who is a public officer, officer of a corporation, attorney,
factor, broker, agent or clerk, in the course of his employment as
such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful
violation of duty;
316
RULES OF COURT, Rule 127, Sec. 1.
317
Id., Sec. 2.
J-96
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2.1. If the Court finds the existence of probable cause, the Court shall
cause the issuance of Warrant of Arrest and Hold-Departure Order
against the accused, the first thru the Chairman only, the second by
Division – that is, three (3) Justices signing the order;
2.2. In some cases, the Court directs the Office of the Clerk of Court to
schedule a hearing on the Information notifying only the prosecution
(Anent said hearing, the Court may call the attention of the prosecution
and to direct it to file a necessary pleading why the case should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, why the Information should not be
quashed, why the accused should not be granted bail if the Office of
the Ombudsman recommends no bail, but the offense as seen by the
Court is bailable);
4. Posting of Bail
5.2.1. The court will require certain conditions in the event said
motion is granted, such as posting of additional travel cash bond,
J-97
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
6. Pre-trial
6.3. Pre-Trial Order reciting the actions and/or proceedings taken and
the alteration of presentation of evidence, if warranted.
7. Trial
8. Judgment (Decision)
J-98
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
2. Stages in Appeals
a. Transmittal of the entire record, exhibits, stenographic notes, etc. by the
court a quo to the Dockets and Records Section;
b. Case shall be entered into the Sandiganbayan Docket and raffled off to
the proper Division.
c. The Court, after ascertaining the completeness of all the evidence, oral
and documentary, attached to the record, shall require the appellant to file
with the Court, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of said notice, seven
(7) copies of his/her legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief,
with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.319
d. Within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the appellant’s brief, the
appellee shall file with the court seven (7) copies of his/her brief with the
Court, which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies
thereof upon the appellant.320
d.1. Extension of Time for filing briefs will not be allowed, except for
good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension is filed
before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.321
d.2. Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the appellee’s brief, the
appellant may file a reply brief answering points in the appellee’s brief
not covered in his/her main brief.322
318
Rep. Act No. 8249, Sec. 4.
319
RULES OF COURT, Rule 44, Sec. 7.
320
Id., Sec. 8.
321
Id., Sec. 5.
322
Id., Sec. 9.
J-99